Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1892-01-23
SATURDAY. JANUARY 20, 1892
Is Saul Among the Prophets

Mr.. EDMUNDs, of Vermont, so long
United States senator, and who resigned
his seat in the Senate few years ago. was
always recognized by his fellow senators
~ an able lawyer. Especially was he re-
coguized as such by that other able sena-
tor, Mr.. THURMAN, of Ohio. Judge Ed
MusDs, Republican. and Judge THURMAN,
Democrat, were intimate friends when
they were in the Senate together. Mr..
THURMAN was an old-fsshioned States
rights Democrat. Mr.. EDMUsDs was Re-
publican. On one memorable occasion,
however. MIR. EDMusDs acted with the
Democrats. This was when the electoral
bill Of 1s76-'77 was before the Senate. lie
and Mr.. CoSKLINo both voted for the bill
providing for the electoral commission
the body which seated Mr.. HAYES in the
presidential chair. and thus postponed for
years the return of the Democratic party
to power. 1t must be added that that COM
mission was, "a we have intimated. rather
o Democratic than Republican measure
But MIR. EDMUSps appeared in new role
q few DAYS ago when he went before the
Supreme Court of the United States and
nstonished the venerable justices by tell
ing them that they had decided wrong the
case so well-known as " the original-pack-
age case" and asking them to reconsider
the questions raised in that case. blr. Ed
Musps. of course, did not ask them to
reconsider that case. but to correct 1T
by deciding Alright another case in which
the principal question in dispute was the
same, or substantially the same. In the
course of his remarks Mr.. EDMUSDs came
out for the rights of the States. He de-
clared that the people OF the United States
could never live under consolidated
form of government any more than under
q segregated government such as that pro-
vided for in the old articles of confedera-
ton. The principle laid down in the case OF
Leisy ps. Hardin (the original-package case)
was not, he argued. consistent with a true
construction of the Federal Constitution,
nor what it ought to have been. He pro-
ceeded to tell the count what 1t ought to
have decided-Damey, that when goods
have reached their final destination. when
they are to be consumed or remain where
thew are. they are subject to State law
lust as if they had been raised in the State
or made in the State Mr.. EDaUsDs asked
the justices TO restore the true line OF de-
marcation by returning to the true doc
trins.
Vermont is a small State, and ought
always for that reason, If no other, to have
stood up for the rights of the States. Mr..
EpMuNps will hardly succeed in getting his
construction of the Constitution adopted
by the court. 1t is too late. If in 1888 the
Democrats had not foolishly put all their
eggs into one basket, the Supreme Court
of the United States might before many
years have become the guardian OF the
rights of the States. AS it is, we do not
know how soon, IL ever, that result will be
accomplished. Possibly the Democratic
President of the United States to be elected
this year may have the opportunity to APP
point several new justices holding sound
doctrines on this subject. 1t is at any rate
interesting to find so distinguished a Re-
publican lawyer as Mr.. EDNUSDs pleading
for the restoration of the rights of the
States