The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1901-12-15

CESS considers il evident to any Impartial
mind that tho Congress which proposed
the Tenth Amendment never intended 10
reserve by it the power OF secession 70
anybody. The members OF that Congress,
he says. were manifestly thinking only OF
the powers Of local government in eaoh
Commonwealth, and of the civil rights OF
the citizens therein, when they drafted the
articles. II Is at the same time admitted
that in 1850 n large majority OF the people
Of the country COMPOUNDED sovereignty
with the residuary powers OF government
and recognized what they conceived to be
a.certain kind Of sovereignty as belonging
to the individual State" Many of the
secessionists." says Prof. Burgess honestly
befooled themselves. "a well as befooled
others, by their sophistries based upon
confused premises. The majority OF the
secession leaders were undoubtedly sin
cere in the belief that they were right In
principle
w.
In our authors opinion Congress went
much too far in it's final effort TO conc'liate
the seeding States. It may be remem-
bered that In the morning hours OF March q,
1861, the Senate adopted the House resolu-
lions which had been framed for the pur-
pose. Besides making other important
concessions, these resolutions expressed
tho willingness Of the Republican leaders
10 secure slavery in the States where
IL existed by an interchangeable endm
to the Constitution; the Republicans voted
for a proposed amendment providing
that no future amendment to the Consti-
tuition should ever be made which would
empower Congress 70 interfere with slavery
in the States. and voted for il in such num-
bers as to adopt it by the requisite two
thirds majority, and, that, too, after the
Senators and Representatives from six OF
the Southern Estates" had withdrawn from
their seats. Prof Burgess submits that
TO the historian who regards the course OF
world events from the vantage grounds OF
the present, and 90 the modern political
scientist, this concession IN the part OF.
the Republicans appears too generous.
-They 1.-THE Repubfcansl never should have
been willing 20 withdraw anything from
the amending power lodged in the Consti-
tuition. This meant nothing less than the
confederatizing OF the political system
Of the United States. and the prevention
Of political progress by lawful, peaceable
means. II meant a return TO the system
OF 1881 as TO the excepted subjects. IL
meant the reversal, in principle. OF the
chief advance which we had made in the
development OF our Constitutional law
from the system of 1881 TO that Of 1897.
No puhlicist who has perceived tho move
ment Of modern political history toward
the development Of organized nations
can for n moment approve OF such a
reactionary course. Instead OF this, he
would demand that even the existing eN-
captions from the amending power be ex-
plunged from the Constitution. n that the
amending power itself should he 30 formu-
lated ms only 70 guard tho sovereign power
Of the nation from hasty and inconsiderato
notion, but never ~ as 20 thwart Its DELHI
crate and well-determined purpose
Tho passage Just quoted will he found
on page "a Ia even stronger language
on Iage "a the author had expressed his
objection 10 al Irrepealable Constitutional
provision. like that which declares that
no State shall lie deprived Of ito equal
Tepr.~entaiion la the senate without it's
own consent An irrcpealablo, unamend-
aide pro, ision In n Constitution IA regard
o. anything IL a rotten spot. which threat
ems decay ib we NlNf 'hilNlluNhh ~ ~
a standing menace 90 the peaceabbe do
,elupmout ~ any political system II 10
a.. most direct Contradictlpn possible
of lre - the most fundamental principles
81 political scisnoe. the pnucipla That the
amending poser IN a ton~1tutinn, the
Lrsally organized sovereign Il power Ia
ia. political system # "a country, must
h. Aiir Go deal with any and every sulJ~rt
~ matt.rs ar "scrptel from - Junsdio-
ton. thou they cat h. dealt With uuly Nv
u,y,lutiun that h. hy M" forCihis inter
,-utlun - ruI-uor TAysiral power not
r~-.ugnIasi by olis'ins law H. Other
vurir. to withdrawal - auy subject huu
ts autrliiyR pavri b. tho dsstruofluu
~ t-uusiIiuuuual Development 49, 80 that
rlIIsat aUi ils dnsiuutflun - tuustl.
]tYtiH.al d-rsrIlpui"ft ih Eunoial Ntl ~ufA
600 lDsslfnlIr sturihfHN - iln tuuFtl
fY.Isa cod Constitutions iusuupusni .
d. rli, 90 us dIfsfrHt tlos p-rIHuniui
t, na.it.r Ialuia iu tH" Whites - isol
U ltf h4fs.a Iurists u.si 'uHIHl.a
.fr 49, Efr-r ari NJ tlrf ,aIitt &c."
400. u.r.Hg ra i,F.Iu fHfu.s e ausHtI
rlHf U.sb ruI 81 fol. t.nfnsh uH ]sHlifli
..4i- q utHIuuHr D. bee ula Hsirh
,I.UH sI.I u.tsI CO. ffaItris - 600
ua HI.t u.srsHla uisi -
.. u.II s 81 taisHlaI o..
U. HH fiHI" lH.tIHH q
N. tH H s' 'H
f... sIaH.r Us Co.,
HHH IaIHH
l rs a Nt Hst ~
asa .Ht d . H g. FOL
Us 1 OF ID Ns