Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1880-07-21
RADICAL RREToRICAL GUSH,


RADICAL RHETORICAL GUSH
The idea most prominent In General
Garfeld's lettor Of acceptance is the
duty OF the central authority towards
citizens of the Republic, on oftho States
composing the Republic, Abiding "a
his remarks under this boad, and
heartily commencing his Vows, one
of his most earnest and able champions
declares that it is the duty of the Gen,
eral Government "to protect all citi
zens IN all their rights" And the same
organ finds its best reason for support,
ing General Garfield In tho fact that
holds and declares this opinion as to
the obligations resting on the central
power.
If this gushy rhetoric means any.
thing at all, II means that whenever
and wherever any right of a citizen Is
invaded, he must look for redress, not
to the local authorities, not to the officers
OF his town, city county or State, but
TO the officials of the United States.
Reduced to plain English, this absurd
and nonsensical proposition is what
Gen. Garfeld's anti-Statos rights dis
sertation amounts to- Strip his decla.
ration OF their rhetorical drapery and
put them before the people naked, and
neither Gen. Garfield nor any other
leader of his party would own or de-
iend them.
When Gen. Garfield, or Eugene Hale,
or any other ardent Radical, his eyes
In fine frenzy rolling, his arms plow-
ing great burrows through the circum-
ambient air, roars out to rural audi.
ence, al have no respect for any gov
ernment that will not protect every
citizen in all his rights, in every part
of its domain" the orator thus ex-
claiming is playing the part Of q very
small and contemplate demagogue.
Gen, Garfield knows, as does every
other intelligent citizen, that the cen.
tral authority, the National Govern
ment, is supreme in all the power dele.
gated to il by the States when the
Constitution was formed, and in all
power thus delegated by the amend.
ments, But Gen. Garfield and every
other sensible man knows that the pro.
lection of citizens ii their rights was
mainly left to the States, and that for
this purpose all the mechanism of local
government exists.
If Gen. Garfeld's neighbor were to
be afflicted by raid on his hen.roost
or his sheep-pasture, General Garfield
would not advise the sufferer to 90 to
the Federal officers for redress of his
wrong--ior recovery of the property
or arrest of the thieves. Gen. Garfield
would forget all his rhetorical flap.
doodle, and, coming down to common
sense, would direct the victim to a
Justice OF the Peace and a Constable,
the creatures of State law.
If a murder, or a dozen murders,
were to occur in Gen. Garfelds neigh.
borhood, he would not think Of calling
on the Federal authority to arrest, try
or punish the murderers. He knows
that the protection of citizens in their
rights, the rights of person and prop
erty, and the protection of society at
large, is left with the States, is the
duty of local government.
When the Democratic theory OF
States rights is fairly stated 1t is ap-
proved by the masses OF all parties.
When the Republican theory of Fed
cral duty it denuded of rhetorical orna.
it becomes supremely alb
surd. No Democrat proposes any as.
sault on the supremacy of the Nation
in the sphere of duty belonging to the
National authority.
But all Democrats, and almost every.
body else, hold that the right of local
self-government, by State constith.
tions, State Legislatures and the ap.
pliances which they create, is worth
preserving and must be preserved.