Year: 1860

| ioSicaiiy ana iegltiinatelV deduclDic rom the
Federal Constitution ITSELF and that the State
itself was necessarily the sole judge of the
suficiency or insufficiency of the cause al
legged for such a step. Whatever the course
of Alabama and the South generally may be,
we regard the maintenance of these great
principles, at this juncture, as of tbs most
vital ard essential importance. We regard
them, moreover, as susceptible of the most
rigorous and logical demonstration.


1t is great and fundamental principle of
all law-and here we use the tern law in its
widest sense as embracing all international,
constitutional, and municipal law-that no
legal right can exist without legal remedy
for the Infringement of that right


1t will not be denied by any that the
sovereign, independent States which adopted
the Federal Constitution, reserved to them
selves SOME RIGHTS. We need not pause to
inquire what was the measure or amount of
those reserved rights. The 10th amendment
to the Constitution asserts that all powers
not expressly delegated arc reserved, and
this assertion is merely declaratory of prin-
ciple which would have been true, even if it
had not been thus expressed, out of abundant
caution in behalf of the maintenance of States
rights.


Now, if any Of these reserved rights of the
States are violated by other States, there
must be a remedy. What is it! We NAV
be referred to the Supreme Court for it. 1t
is true, the Supreme Court has constitutional
jurisdiction in all controversies between
two or more States, between State and
citizens of different States" &C., but the
misfortune is that it bas no power 10 enforce
its decisions upon an unwilling State. There
is then no alternative, in the case of State
thus aggrievedunder the bonds ofthe Federal
Union, and failing to obtain redress from
the Supreme Court, unless it be either to ap-
ply for the aid of Federal coercion against
the aggressing State, to attempt TO enforce
its rights by its own strength within the
Union, or else TO withdraw and throw itself
upon its original sovereignty. Either of the
first two alternatives would be of the nature
of civil war, either would involve the peace
and welfare of other States, and neither
would be otherwise practicable. There re-
mains no remedy, then, except the last of the
three, which would be peaceablc legal, and
violative of the rights of no third party.


The fact that no right of Withdrawal is
expressly rcScrred in the Constitution amounts
to nothing. The right results as legitimately
from other express provisions of that instru-
ment, and indeed from its whole tenor and
spirit, as the power of the President TO re-
move from office-apower which is nowhere
expressly conferred upon him by the Consti-
tuition, but which is universally admitted to
follow necessarily FROM other provisions.


We have said, too, that the sovereign State
is the sole judge of the suficiency or unsuffi-
cheney of the cause alleged for Withdrawal.
1t must be so, from the very nature of The
case, for there is no other tribunal to which
the question of any right pertaining to State
Sovereignty eau be committed.


1t will not do to say, (as has been said of
late,) that the same formalities are necessary
for abrogating the compact which were re-
qured in order to its formation, and that no
NState has righ, TO retire from the Confed-
| eracy without the consent of all the other
States. The idea is founded on deceptive,
though specious fallacy. A State would have
no right to withdraw, il in so doing she
should violate or impair The rights of other
States. but this she need not do.


After the formation of the Federal Con-
stitution each State was the sole judge, for
ITSELF as to the propriety and expcdiency of
adopting it. North Carolina did not adopt
it until nearly nine months afer the Govern
ment had gone into operation. Rhode Island
did not adopt it for more than year af,el-
wards. 1t is inst as reasonable 10 argue thai,
as each State alone decided the question OF
its own entrance into the Union, so each
State alone may at any time decide the qucs-
ton Of continuance therein, as it is TO urge
the objection above stated. We do not be-
lieve either argument to be valid, but merely
preseut the one as fair offset 10 the other.
The case rests upon higher grounds.


There was nothing scerdmentaEin in the CON-
pact of union between the States. We hold
high ideas of government, believing it 10 be
oe Divine origin, and not a mere voluntary
compact. We yield to none in appreciation
Of the obligation of allegiance to government.
We recognize a limited allegiance 10 The
Federal Goyerument-an allegiance which no
private individual or collection Of private iu-
dividuals has any right to repudiate. But
that allegiance extends just so far as the
sorereign State authorizes and requires il
There can be no such thing, in any case that
we can suppose, as conflict Of allegiances
With regard to human government The
doctrine recently set forth by Amos Kendall
and endorsed (thougltlessly and inconsider-
ai-ly. as We must believe,) by Journal Of


II