Year: 1861


but when there is an uprising against the
authority Of State, and the State Govern
ment asks for Federal aid to put down the
insurrection, it is considered that it is the
duty of the Federal Government to grant
such aid. And how would this aid be
granted? 1t would be granted, we answer,
by sending out Federal troops to assist the
State Government in putting down the in-
surrection, We will cite case in point. as
showing how this subject was recently view
| ed in this State. During the excitement
caused BY The uprising of the Vigilance Com
mittee in 1885, Governor Johnson sent Com
missioners to Washington, to ask that the
Federal Government interfere to put down
the Committee. The aid was not sent, be-
cause it was considered unnecessary. The State
Government believed that the Federal Gov
Government never denied its own right to
interfere if the occasion required it. These
Commissioners on their return from Wash
ington, asked pay from the State for going
upon the mission upon which they were sent
by the Governor. We believe the question
as to whether they are to be paid, is not yet
settled. A good deal has been said about
the matter, but nobody has raised the ques-
tion as to the right of the Federal Govern
ment to aid State Government if occasion
requires it, in putting down insurrection
against the State. Those who opposed the
measure for the paying of the Commissioners,
did SO upon the ground that the doings of the
Vigilance Committee ld not constitute an
occasion demanding Federal interference and
they also opposed it. and chiefly too, upon
the ground that the Governor alone had not
the legal right to send the Commissioners, but
that he ought to have called the Legislature
together that being the power to decide as
to whether the Federal aid should be asked
for or not. We will not pretend to say how
many there are, who advocated the paying
of those Commissioners, and who are now
olamorous for the secession doctrine of State
rights. Will they say now that a State being
sovereign, the Federal Government has no
right TO send troops into State to protect
the State laws? If so, they have changed
their minds considerably of late. If the
Federal Government cannot send an armed
force into State if necessary, to protect
the State authority, of course it would have
been nothing but folly to ask the Federal
Government to interfere in such a manner.
Now, what is this secession doctrine of
estate rights worth? There is an uprising
of portion Of the people of the State-the
State authorities say it is an insurrection and
call upon the Federal GoYe"pment for help,
and nobody denies the right of the State to
ask for help or the right of the Federal Gov
ernment to grant it if it deems it necessary.


Now we ask, if the Federal Government
has the right to send an armed force to pro-
tect the authority of State threatened by
citizens Of that State, has it not the right to
protect its own laws by force if necessary,
when menaced or set at naught by the peo-
pie of a State2 If, as the secessionists a.
lege, a State is 50 sovereign and so independ-
ent of the Union that the Federal laws can
only be enforced in n State by the consent of
the State, they cannot, Of course, claim that
the Federal Government has the right to
interfere to protect the laws of a State when
menaced by citizens of that State The Federal
Government is certainly as Independent of a
State, as State is of the Federal Govern
ment, and if the Federal power cannot be
used to protect its own property and uphold
its laws in State, it surely cannot be used
to protect the property and authority of an
individual State


This secession doctrine Of Estate rights" is
palpable fallacy and it is strange kind of
logic which leads men to deny that the pos
session of property gives the right to protect
it. A strange kind of logic it is, which
teaches the seeessionists that they can seize
on Federal property. and that a war must
follow If the Federal Government attempts
to protect that property. A strange kind of
logic it is which makes them say that any
State can at any time dissolve its connection
their doctrine Of state rights"-a doctrine
which means, ave will do as we please
this is their motto in plain English, and it
would appear to nmbody their idea of the
privileges derived under q Republic. Are
they tired of Republic? Do they grow
weary of the growing American power and
American fame "a fame and power which
arose from Union in the American Revolu-
ton, and the growth OF which can only cease
in dismemberment of the Union? Has it CONS
to this, that the doctrine of Estate rights
has lead men to advocate not merely the se-
ccssion of State, but also to allege that the
seeding State should maintain her seperate
government through the aid of some mon
archiai power2 A weak State indeed would
that be, which, having withdrawn from the
Union. would ask for the fostering care of
monarchy and yet, we are told that this is
an idea of the State rights secessionists. Veri-
ly this secession doctrine Of "State rights" is
not only papable, but a very dangerous
fallacy.


HEALTH OF MARYsvILLE.-For the last year
the number of deaths in Marysville. which
has population of over FIVE thousand, was
one hundred and thirty-one, including those
by accident and violence. Consumption and
diphtheria are the leading diseases.-SaO.
| T.sn