The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1900-10-14

ing the sword; possessing the right to
break the Se of the confederation as
nation might break a treaty. and to re-
pei coercion as q nation might repel inva-
sion. Coercion, il it were possible,
is out of the question:
Both President Buchanan and mis- At
torney-GeneTai, the afterward famous Ed
win NJ stanton. decided at the same time
that there was no power under the Consti-
tuition to coerce a seeding State.
THAT HERESY
But this Massachusetts heresy." as the
writer before quoted from calls the right
Of secession. was not only entertained, as
we have shown. at Inc North. before the
war. but has been expressed in the same
section In no uncertain terms Ions since
the war. In an article by Benjamin j.
Williams. esq, distinguished writer Oh
Massachusetts,, entitled "Ded for Iheir
State" and published in the Lowell sun
on June 5th. 1856, he says, among other
things:
When the original thirteen colonies
threw off their allegiance to Great Brit
ain they became Independent States, in
dependent of her and of each other.
The recognition was of the States separate
ly. each by name, in the treaty of peace
which terminated the war of the Sevolu-
ton. And that this separate recognition
was deliberate and intentional, with the
distinct object of recognizing the States
as separate sovereignties, and :iot IS one
nation, will sufficiently appear ty refer
ence to the sixth volume of Bancrofts
history OF the United States. The articles
of confederation between the States de-
clared that each State retains its sover-
eighty. freedom and independence. And
the Constitution of the United States,
which Immediately followed was first
adopted by the States in convention, each
State acting for itself, in its sovereign and
independent capacity, through conven-
ton Of its people. And it was by this rat-
tcation that the Constitution: was estao-
lshed 10 use its own words, be
tween the States so Tatifying the same
Ii is then a compact between the States
as sovereigns, and the Union created by it
is federal partnership of States, the
Federal Government being their common
agent for the transaction OF the Federal
business within the limits of the delegated
powers.
This able writer then illustrates the
compact between the States by the prlnci-
pies of law governing ordinary co-part-
nerShips. Just as Mr.. Webster did. And
ne then says
Now, if partnership between persons
IS purely voluntary and subject to the
will of its members severally, how much
more 50 is one between sovereign States?
And it follows that, just as each separate
ly, in the exercise of its sovereign Will, en-
tered the Union, SO may it separately N
the exercise Of that will withdraw there
from. And further. the Constitution pelns
a. compact to which the States are parties
Having no common Judge each party has
an equal right to judge for itself as Well
of mira tions. is of the mode and measure
Of redress as declared by Mr. Jefferson
and Mr. Madison in the celebrated resolu-
tons OF '9S. and the right of secession IT.
resistihy follows. But aside from the doc
tr;ne either of partnership or compact.
upon the ground Of State sovereignty pure
and simple, does the right of State seces-
sion impregnably rest"
We have quoted thus fully from TINS
writer. not only because he is a Northern
man. but because he has stated both the
facts and the PRINCIPLES underlying the
formation of the Union, and the rights of
the States therein, with an accuracy.
clearness and force that cannot be sur
passed.
LODGES LANGUAGE.
But again: In his life of Webster. pub
lished in $685. Mr. Henry Cabot Lodge,
from whom we have before quoted, and
one of the distinguished senators at this
time from Massachusetts,, uses this Ian
suage in speaking of Mr.. WEBSTER reply
to Mr.. Hayne. He says:
armor were historical in their nature. It
was probably necessary Cat all events Mr.
Webster felt it to be SOD to argue that the
Constitution al the outset was not a COM
pact between the States. but q national in
strument. and to distinguish the cases OF
Virginia and kentucky in 1889 and OF
New England in 1914 from that of South
Carolina in 1880. The former point ne
touched upol lightly: the latter he dis
cussed ably. eloQuently and at length.
Unfortunately the facts were against him
in both instances"
And in this connection, Mr.. Lodge then
uses this language:
when the Constitution was adoDted
by TIL, votes of the States at Philadelphia.
and accepted by the votes of the States IN
popular convention, it is safe to say that
there was not man in the country, from
Washington and Hamilton on the one side
to George Clinton and George Mason on
the other who regarded the new system
as anything but an experiment entered
into by States, and from which each and
every State had the right peaceably to
withdraw, a right when was very likeiS
to be exercised.
Mr.. James c. Carter. now of New York,
but a native of New England. and per-
haps the most distinguished lawyer in
this country to-day in a speech delivered
by him at the University Of Virginia In
1895, said,-
II may hazard the opinion that If the
question had been asked. not in 1850, but
in 17SS, Immediately aftHr the adoption of
the Constitution, whether the Union as
formed by that instrument could lawfully
treat the secession of a State as rebellion,
and suppress it by force, few of those VINO
participated in forming that instrument
would have answered in the Affirmative
CONDUCT OF THE NORTH.
And we should never forget this praG-
nant, and we think. conclusive fact in re-
gard to this quest;on-namely, The con-
duct of the North after the war in re-
gard to Mr.. Davis. Gen. Lee and others
of our leaders. AS is we'll known. MIR.
Davis was indicted three times in their
own courts upon charges which directly
and necessarily involved a decision OF the
right of a State to s2cede from the Union.
Imnedia tey on the finding of these in
dictments, he (thrOugh his eminent North
ern as we'll as Southern COUNSEL APP
peared at this bar of the court and de-
rnanded q. speedy trial. in order that he
might judicially vindcate his course and
that Of his people before the worlo. This
right OF trial was postponed by the
| Federal Government for nearly three
wears. During two Of these years he was
confined in a casenate at Fortress Mon
roe and subjected to indignitles and