New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-08-22
FEDERAL SOVEREIGNTY.
THE PUZZLE OF MODERN POLITICAL
PHILOSOPHY.

Aside from its general discussion OF the prop-
lens of political philosophy, the matter OF speclal
interest in this book is its treatment OF federal
unions and the heresy Of secession 1t Is well
known that though the Civil War put an eho 10
the more formal statements or the doctrine OF
dsunion II did not render threats Impossible. IN
q country politically divided and with no dynasty
10 dispute about. the characteristic internal wal
,nrs, ALWAYS be war Of SECESSION in other
words. Of section against section. DOCK shouiu
always be welcome that makes any point clear IN
respect TO a peril that is inherent in the plan OF
q subdivided State
The central fact in DR. Wnloughoys STUDY Oh
tho theme is the definiteness with which he To-
cates the quality or attribute of sovereignty. In
order to make his argument complete he INDUCES
IN some new definitions He dsapproves en-
phatically of the traditional use Of the word
Estate as applied to the grand divisions of the
American Union He would. perhaps be satisfied
with the word commonwealth" suggested as
suhstitute by DR. Burgess. which is in general
Use among orators as an alternative expression.
But he is content on the whole, to await the al
vance of that sense of National unity that mas
made such strides since the late war. 1t Is true,
as he saws that names are retained long after
the original meaning has been taken out or them
by change in the facts which they are supposed
TO describe, as. for example, in England, where
there is still queen by the grace OF Goa
though "the idea of divine right of rulers orig
inally signiied by this phrase has long since as
appeared" For his own purposes he goes back 10
the meaning of words due TO their Derivation lie
,,ould refer the word nation to birth and race,
and people" TO public or polite life The SWISS
are one people in a political sense but three ma
tons judged by language and race aihila'ons'
The word government should not be used as
ANONYMOUS with state" but merely as the des-
fsnation Of the machinery by which the VIII OF the
State is expressed and executed The state tsel
is that social and political unit in which men APP
pear to themselves not as individuals, nut as Or
ganized for a common purpose. The state Is d
nersop in the theory of Dr. Willoughby. and this
personality is not arrived at by merely aoulhs
ND the number of citizens for it is only in certain
ways that these contribute to its existence Con-
sidered as individuals much OF their life has
nothing whatever to do with the State The
prime characteristic of the State is that it is SUI
nreme. It makes laws. but is subject to none. If
II is not sovereign then il is not State. That is
the central principle of Dr. Woughbys book.
II Is easy TO see what is the bearing of this doc
trne upon the so-called rights Of the States in
the American Union. From DR.. Wnloughby's
point of view, Lincoln was never more IN the
right than he was in that noteworthy speech 10
the Legislature of Indiana when he compared the
States to counties and insisted that the rights
which they had were rights under the Constltu-
ton not above ii nor outside of IT, In the snt Oh
that sneech II seems strange that few people ever
think of an illustration from English history as
late as the time of Charles l. when counties were
so much like separate countries that the soldiers
raised for the King refused for a time to serve
outside of their own boundaries Such an incl
dent shows that the Anglo Norman conflict be-
tween central power and local self-government
did not begin in the United States That the local
feeling was overcome is typical fact in the his
tory of the race But it was a vastly more i'm
portant thing in America and it had to be over
come In different way. The political phenomena
in federal systems are different from those in
other political organizations that many students
of the subject have reckoned federalism in class
by itself
DR.. Willoughby condemns this practice. He
aims to reach a general statement of the facts
that will be as true of federal republic as of
limited monarchy. Now. if the States of the
American Union are sovereign, it is impossible TO
classify them or the system to which they belong,
which is necessary sovereign also. with anything
else on earth Some Of the obstacles in the way Of
such theory as the author aims at are removed
by the careful distinction which he makes be-
tween the State and its Government The latter
cannot as he views it, have anything to do with
the attribute of sovereignty. 1t has only powers
which are given it by the State. These powers
are supreme but they are only held not owned
by the Government. The difficulty here is. Of
course. that Dr. Wioughby DEPARTS from the
popular use of words instead of explaining it,
But he has nevertheless stated the facts in the
Il chi
ton it is possible to make a comparison between
such a union and even an absolute State embod-
led In the person Of a monarch.
Obviously he is determined not TO be led away
from the legal principle that sovereignty is in
divisible If the Union is supreme in the domain
marked out for ii by the Constitution, and the
States are each supreme as far their own citi-
zens are concerned then sovereignty is Invisible
and the juristic fabric totters. Even with the
doctrin. of secession cancelled. it IS no easy thing
20 harmonic the diverse aspects of State and Ma
ton--to revert to ordinary American phrases
from the philosophers point of view. Dr. Will
loughby does not attempt TO solve the historical
problem whether the States ever were supreme.
He simply points out that if they ever were 50,
then the Constitution is the product Of revolu-
ton. If they were not So then the Constitution,
devised in times Of doubt and uncertainty. left the
dispute unsettled. That the Federal Government,
felt Itself be the holder of the highest and most
perfect authority shown in almost its first
statute--that which created the national jadic-
AIRY under the Supreme Court; for this law gave
the right Of appeal from the highest State courts
to the courts of the Nation. 1t is no wonder. says
Or Willoughby. that Calhoun and his school in
Weighed bitterly against this right Of appeal a
violation Of me Constitution.
But on the other hand. in his pursuit Of indivis-
ibe sovereignty the author rather ignores the
fact that there is a tangible limit TO the power Of
the Nation over the State. No who thinks at
ali can forget the wave If establishment and in
credulity that swept over Europe when certain