The Portland daily press., 1889-07-05

3
upon the ocean at the east being openly
threatened in the constitution, and the
ordinances of 1887 on the west, the fathers
considered that they so shut in ON the
front and rear the system of slavery, that
in time it must die out for want of food. as
a taper at last expires in an air-tight
chamber.
The expansion of the system of slavery
which. resulted in the war, and in the
amendments to which have called atten-
tion, was not in the contemplation of the
fathers. 1t was an oscillation, and when,
as result thereof, slavery was abolished,
the country did not depart from the con-
stitutioD, but returned to it. lAppause)
So also those amendments which went
hand in hand with the amendment to which
| have referred, prohibiting States from
interfering with the life and liberty of
our citizens. These were simply the APP
plication to the States of the restriction
which the constitution originally put upon
the national government.
Let us look at the great sanctions in be-
half of liberty which we find in the con-
stitutioni the division into three great
departments. the executive, the legislat-
i've and the judicial; the judicial power
made INDEPENDENT and placed beyond
the control of faction, the veto
power; the habeas corpus; the prohi-
bition against er post .factO laws, and
against all laws for the deprivation of life,
liberty or property without due process !;
all the provisions against Determinations
in favor of states or sections; all the pro-
lection thrown about criminals; the Sc
curity of trial by jury, both in criminal
and civil proceedings; the guaranty of the
enjoyment everywhere of the privileges
and immunities of the citizens of the sew
eral states these were the great guaran-
ties of the constitution! | ask you, after
the lapse of a century, which of those have
been dfmmed, and whether they do not
all shine to-day like the consultations?
Those portions of the constitution which
concern the relations of the States to the
nation have been most subject to discus
sion with reference to this particular to
which call your attention.
Upon all these other matters the fathers
had experience; almost every State at the
time the national constitutional cOnven-
tion met, had written constitution; and
those written constitutions contained the
great guarantees of which have spoken.
But in this matter of the relation of the
States to the general government, so far as
details were conce ned, the fathers were
without experience. On the one hand
they came together for the purpose of
making more perfect union on the other
hand they did not forget that the town and
the separate organizations had enabled
them to meet, first the tyranny of Great
Britain, exercised through civil authori-
ties, and afterwards her attempts at tyran-
ny through her armed forces. These two
were to be reconciled. The arrangements
They have sgiven opportunity for differ
ences from time to time. The country has
oscillated, so 10 speak but when we take
the great landmarks in the decisions of the
Supreme Court of the United States which
finally control, not only directly, but also
| believe by appealing to the hearts and
good sense of the people, the matter stands
as it always Stood
will read what was said by Chief Jus
tice Waite in 1876:
"The government thus established and defined
is to some extent government of the States in
their political capacity. 1t is also, for certain
purposes, government of the people. Its pow
ers are limited in number, but not in degree.
Within the scope OF its powers, as enumerated
and defined, it is supreme and above the States:
but beyond, it has no existence. 1t was erected
powers necessary for its own preservation and
the accomplishment of the ends of its people had
in view. 1t can neither grant nor secure to its
citizens any right or privilege not expressly by
implication placed under its jurisdiction.
The people of the United States resident with
in any State are subject TO two governments;
one State, and the other national; but there need
be no conflict between the two. The powers
which one possess, the others does not. They are
established for different purposes, and have
separate jurisdictions. Together they make one
whole, and furnish the people of the United
States with a complete government, ample for
the protection of all their rights at home and
abroad"
will also read, as the authority of ex-
preston, what was said by Justice Miller
in his address at the semi-centennialo of the
university of Michigan in 1887. In closing
his comparison of the decisions of the SUI
preme Court since the war of the rebellion
with those before that war, he said:
"The necessity of the great powers, conceded
by the Constitution originally to the Federal Gov
ernment and the equal necessity of the autonomy
Of the States and their power to regulate their do
mestic affairs, remain as the great features of ou
complex foIm of government"
My own personal theories upon this matte
have nothing to do with the historical cues
ton which am discussing. 1t is my owl
belief that, while in view of the great ant
rapid growth of our affairs we have beef
impatient at the lack of the restraints O
law, and have therefore appealed to tn,
stronger power to aid us, yet, as the country
goes on, as our interests become settled, a
the large forces of the general government
as well as of the State are thoroughly under
stood, the people will adhere closely to tn
doctrines of the fathers and retain local gov
eminent with firm hand. But so far as TIN
doctrine of the Constitution is concerned
am unable to perceive that there has beef
any essential change in the views eXpreSse,
by the only tribunal authorized to speal
finally in reference to it.
1t is said that certain usages have inter
vened, that certain practices have grown vi
which are additional to the Constitution, ant
which, in some instances have avoided it
purposes. cannot pursue all this through
today. You recall the question of the pur
chase of Louisiana. Whatever has been sal,
concerning that, one thing is certain: N,
fundamental right guaranteed to the peopl
by the Constitution has been affected there
by. On the other hand, the borders hav
been extended within which these principle
have effect.
Some think the existence of parties is no
nf ha
stitution as intended by the fathers. but thi
element they thoroughly understood. 1t wa
radical change of party in England which
gave us the treaty of 1888. l have not tint
to trace through the history of the Englisl
cabinet and show you how parties grew III
there; but at tie time of the revolution
they were in full blossom, and have sine,
become elements with all the nations of Eu
rope excepting Russia and Turkey. :,
Washington gtcnan,uad in th his farewell ad
warned against excessive party spirit. Will
the improvements of manners and with tn
necessities arising from enlarged intercours
as the population increases there has beel
undoubtedly in the United States an anne
though not to the extent which all good citi
zens might well desire. We have not al
reached the point where we remember tina
while each of us has right to adhere frml.
to his convictions on political questions
each of our neghbors is, by the principles O
our government. entitled to enjoy the sam
inalineable privilege.
In some particulars, especially as suggest
ed by Judge Miller in the address to which
have referred, in the matter of the "spoils'
system, party has cast temporarily CLOUD
upon the proper division between the legis
lative and executive powers. will not
however, take time to develop that
merely say that this matter of party govern
ment was known and understood by GU
fathers, expected and anticipated by them
and under reasonable restraint is in no sens
necessarily in conflict with the principles O
our constitution.
There have been suggestions ON this ques
ton made with reference to our foreigl
policy. Washington, as you recollect, in hi
farewell address deprecated 'foreigl
are commonly understood. Nothing in tn
constitution, either in the preamble or tn
text, indicates more than desire to secur
internal happiness and prosperity, or an
purpose of ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, or of impreSsin
ourselves on other nations by force or diplC
macy.
Therefore Washington laid down the car
| dinal principles to govern us in our relation
| to others as follows: "Observe good fat
| and justice towards all nations; cultivat
peace and harmonylwithlall religion and mol
| atty enjoin this conduct, and can it be tina
| good policy does not equally enjoin ?"
He had especially in mind our relation
| with the nations across the Atlantic. Prol
| ably no part of that remarkable paper, whic
has impressed itself upon our people NOR
than any other since the constitution, san
| deeper into the hearts of his fellow citizen
than this caution against involving on rselve