New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-11-11
NEW PUBLICATIONS.


THE THEORY OF OUR NATIoNAL Is tbe NhifSd
shown by the Action of the COY eTnnen T. IL mn 500
States since 1861. BY JOHN e. HUNp ii"1
Boston: Little, Brown Co. It'll
Tba late President Garfield always a caroiu,
observer of the currents of political discusSioi anu
oo,ion nrodicted several years ago that Wneh 'n1
Gnonn;ol ouestions growing out OF the oep' an"
currency created during the war "ero u''' 80. 40
.ba peonle would turn to questions coh'0
structure mowers and proper 1uhetIonSoi
,na,t analogous 10 those which Occup'e" 'n0 "
tion of their ancestors during tue VMo vi 'n
decades following the adoption OF inc CONSTITUTION
He could hardly have foreseen' however 'ha' az
this early day the old issue of States Rights Wnch
roonle have reason to believe settled, if any
thing was settled, by the war, would he revived
and restatcd as a necessary basic principle OF orr
governmental system, in ponderOus octave vol
nme. Yet this as we understand the purpose OF
Mr. Hurd's essays is what he is aiming at lie al
mts that there was theory of our National exist
ence which could justify the action OF the Govern
ment in resisting secession as rebellion but insisls
that the historical fact was that sovereignty ieSteu
only with the "political peoples ORGANIZED DIS
States. TIE Constitution. he argues, stu derives
its authority from the States, and not from the
Nation as a whole: indeed, he goes to the extreme
length of saying that it is moral ana physlcal I'M
possibility for the Nation, as mass OF millions OF
people TO exercise sovereign power. The theory OF
National sovereignty. he asserts, can only bc de-
Tended on the ground that revolutionary change
in the structure of the Government has taken place
since 1861; and this he says, is apparent from the
fact that no enc has explained how States capac-
itv TO secede or TO carry on for that end is
less cognizable than before. The following extract
will give the reader an idea of the line OF argument
followed in many chapters CT the book:
A doctrine of State Sovereignty from when tho
capacity of q State TO secede was logcalIy ueuuCIe
rs n political right independent OF law or written
Consf tuIiOn had been asserted from the earliest
period of our political existence by large ii,IWoti
of persons eminent for learning plVe Moot f ,r'o
puhc services They derived that lOctilho rom "
view OF history preceding the adoption Oh inc
Constitution, which bad been generauy accGplc1 ~
all parts of the country until q time W'nih tIl0
memory of persons still IN active lie. ara the uoc-
trjne itself was one which was also III harmony
with statements of elementary PoHtIcal priheipts,
which, If false. as they have herein beeh hei4 10
be have from the period of the Revolution OF i''o
TO the present moment had almost universal cur
rcncy with the various political schools KNOWN III
But. since 1861, a new history has been put on
record, which requires some theory OF our NatIoHL
existence or of the location of sovereignty, to be
found which shall not only be consistent dchlai OF
all theories supporting right OF SECESSION ntI
which shall be in harmony with inc !oll..lCatt
action of the Government, as RECORDED III tndf
history; even if such theory leads TO the Gchlal vi
all the elementary principles hitherto accepted.
Ii has been the object of this essay 70 SHOW thaI
one of two conclusions only as to orr National eN-
;stence OF The location of sovereignty. he re-
conciled with this now history, namely, either
That of the supremacy, IN union, OF Inc states
voluntarily remaining united including the doctrine
of possible Stateapsel, OF which states IN union l'ie
government organized under the Constitution Is
That of the supremacy of number of persons
composing National" Government, TO whom the
States are subordinate, and on whom they con
stantly depcnd for the continued exercise OF the
powers reserved to them, expressed III the IAN
guage of the Constitution. .--,...-
.I,op, of ,ar.A gt
the suppoSition of a successful usurpat0n, or OF
revolution is not material 10 the validity OF the
above alternative; because. IN any event. inc 20,
ltical occurrences of the last twenty years are 10
he accepted on some theOry-on the theory o.
usurpation or revolution II none other can lie
found. .
But if we are to Judge from that utter failure of all
the overwhelming argument produced before
1S61.-a failure which the wager OF nattie
proved, if it proved nothing else,-it is doubtful
whether the mass OF citizens Will be abe 10 stuuy
out, each for himself, any similar que ton OF Po
litcal duty, if such should hereafter arse as De
tween persons composing National Government |
claiming sovereignty IN the name OF the people as a
mass. and the States-the organized pOiiIIca4 poo
pies OF the States. as sovereign IN union.
The individual natural person known either as |
citizen as subject must decide the question Tor
himself and take on himself personally the respon
sbty for his decision That is to say, there IS no
one but the supreme power-holder VINO can deciue
for the individual citizen or subject who that SUI
preme power-hoder is. 1t is always, IN the last
resort question of force as distinguished IRON a
question of law; il is a question OF the place OF that
force which Is the source OF Iaw,-the sovereign |
power of law-giving: and the question the lhol- |
vidual asks OF himself and OF everybody else ~ |
Who is the person, who are the persons who Will
compel my obedience!
Some time in the future. author apprehends. |
the question of political allegiance will come up
agan; but not as a sectional ono as before, Ill |
which solid mass of States will be opposed by !
another equally solid mass, and in which the people
viii be divided IN opinion mainly as they are Ill
vided by geographical or climatic distinctions.
Those who support Central or National Govern
ment claiming to represent the ultimate soveT-
eighty and those who support the States as polti-
cal organizations sovereign in their union, will, he
predicts be divided the constituent members of
States cities. towns, cOmmunes families, and even
households and 4" then we shall know what civil
war is"
We take no stock in Mr. HurFs resurrection of a
theory buried on the batteGeds of the rebellion. or
in his gloomy prognosticaton. The political heresy
of State Sovereignty has cost this country fearful
price in blood and treasure, and we do not believe
that any body of men possessing influence enough
TO organize n movement for ITS reasseriion Will
ever again trouble the peace of the Nation and
drench its hills and valleys in the blood of its citi
zens. BY constitutional changes, and by the devel-
opment of public sentiment in the ficry trial of
war; the sovereignty OF the Nation has been estab
lished and is universally recognized. The "polit-
cal peoples of the States, whom Mr.. iurd con-
stantly speaks of the only organized form of SOW
ereignty have been subordinated 10 the political
people" o; the whole Republic Whether this has |
been done in accordance with the historic facts of
the formation of governmental system it is
idle to argue. Enough that it has been done and |
that the citizens of the country gladly acquesce in
it, Their common sovereign is the United 81 ates |
which through the machinery of its executive, leg
slativesa and judicial powers is the organized and
accepted expression Of their will
SUDDEN USD PLAUDEREIEN. Second Series BY
SJGAoN NJ and MENCo STERN. 12mo. PIP xii, $50. |
Henry Holt 81 Co.
The first book of this series began at the beginning
for those who wished to study German. 1t CON
sisted of series of talks between teacher and his