Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1889-07-06

Nnlllfcat,on VS.. Secession.


The Chicago Tribune quotes again from
Chiof-Justice MARSHALL in order TO prove
that tho Dispatch is wrong in contending
that the Supreme Court of the United
States had up to 1850 never rendered any
decision denying the right of State TO Sc
ced0 from the Union. But the Tribune
quotes exactly the same paragraphs which
we have printed and explained. and takes
good care not TO allow its readers TO know
what we have said on the subject. We
don't admire that sort of discussion. On
the contrary. we are so confident that we
are right in this matter that we are per-
fectly willing 10 let our readers know the
strongest argument that can be advanced
on the other side.
We say we quoted the two paragraphs
which the Tribune had furnished as from
Chief-Justiee MARsHAII's opinions. We
also showed by a simple quotation from
the Federal Constitution that those two
paragraphs were nothing more than apara-
phrase Of one section of that instrument.
We added that the doctrine laid down by
Chief-Justice MARSHALL was accepted as
true doctrine by JEFFERSON DAVIS, WILLIAM
l.. YANcKY, and all other southern lawyers.
In fact, except in notification days, when
there were found men who claimed that a
State might remain in the Union and yet
nullify Federal laws. the South has always
been as solid in holding the MARSHALL doe
trine as she has ever been in voting for
Democratic Presidents aud congressman.
We quote the distinguished Chief Justice
again;
1.-The great principle is that the Constr
tuition and the laws made in pursuance
thereof are supreme; that they control the
Constitution and laws of the respective
States, and cannot 6e controlled by them"
The States have no power TO retard,
impede. burden, or in any manner control
the operations of the constitutional laws
adopted by Congress TO carry into execu-
ton the powers vested IN the General Gov
eminent"
All readers of even ordinary intelligence
must perceive that these words apply to
States in the Union. They were intended
as denial of the right of notification
not denial of the right of secession. No
question as TO this latter night had ever up
to 1860 been decided by the Supreme Court
of the United States. And yet in spite of
our admission or rather assertion that
Chief-Justice MARSHALL spoke for the
South when he gave the opinion under
consideration, the Tribune has the unfair
ness TO say:
1.-THE Richmond Dispatch finds the Opn-
ion of Chief-Justice Marshall the eminent
Virginia jurist. affirming the supreme au-
thOrity of the nation and repudiating the
State-sOyereignty dogma hard hle 10
gnaw. If this decision had been made 10y
a modern Republican the dispatch would
have pronounced il display of par
tisan bigotry, OF if declared by any north
ern man in recent years it would have been
considered the result of prejudice against
the South and its favOrite political doc
trine. Fortunately, however. Chief-Justice
Marshall was born aud bred in Virginia,
and was beyond "A doubt the ablcst judge
the South ever contributed TO either State
or Federal judiciary, and hence some new
shift has TO be adopted in the attempt TO
eyade or parry the force of his opinion"
Either the Tribune is guilty of unpardon-
able unfairness, not to say misrepresenta-
ton, or else it is unable TO recognize and
understand the difference between MULTI
cation and secession. Borrowing from the
professor in the University of Virginia who
was quoted in yesterdays Dispatch, we will
say that it is the Trib,1e's concern, not
ours to clear itself Of such a charge.