” Huse. Sh [) 3 VAR IS OVER A POPULAR SONG. Dearest 1 ove, do you reine ne When we last did meet, How you told mo that you loved me, Kneeling ui my feet? Oh! how proud you stood before me, In your suit of blue. When you vaw'd to me and ceuntry, ver to be true CHORUS. — Weeping sad and Jonely, Hopes and fears how vain; | Yet praying— When this cruel war is over, Praying that we meet again. When the Summer breeze is sighing, Mournfully along! Or when autumn leaves are falling, att es the song; Sadly b Oft in dreams 1 see thee lying On the battle piain, Lonely wounded, even dying, (‘ailing butin vain. Cnonvs—Weeping sad, &e. If amid the din of battle, N ¢bly you should fall, Far away {rom those who love you, None to hear your call, Who would whisper words of eomfort. Who would sooth your pain? AZ ! tic many cruel fancies, Ever in my brain. (‘nonvs—Weeping sad, &e. Sut our Coaniry calied you d wling. Augels cheer your way. Ti Lie our nation’s Subs are fighting, We con enly pial Nobiy strike for God and Liberty, Let all pions see Ilew we love our starry banner. Em ilan of the free. Cnorvs— I ecpin ———— CP EC A Fiseellancous, STATE SOVEREIGNTY: © Mercer county engane menis, to Win. S. Garvin, hee compel ed, by oiler deetine the invitation of the Demoein ic Compal Cinh to deliver an address in their al to tie Democratic eitiz ns of Philadel- pia, transmitted the following letrer which was road amid great applause to the meeting, last Saturday evening, the 106th 1. St. To Charles Inrersoll. Lsq . the Democratic Central Club, yhia: President of Philadd- Qn :—The association over which you preside. loeated ss it ix in the mictiog ols of the State of Ponnsyiviaia. and composed of gentlemen arawn 102 ther sol ly hy pa triotic purp ses and aims, is well ealeulated to do much geod in dissemi ating among the peogle stich solid inforwatien as will enable them to net inteligently for the pre- sarvation of ther own liberties and future weitme, when they come to exercise their sovereign power at the bailot box. I have rend with mich profit several of the ad- dresses delivered before your association, and 1t gives me great pleasure to see Dem cratic speakers address the judgment and reason, which has never f.iled to build up and ¢sabhsh a free people 5 ngtend of aa- winist ring to the passio: s snd prejudices, the maditication of which has so nmversally proosed to be the grave of liboriy among a people that unwiseiy vielded to the arts of Que of our great troubles which every lhe Zemagoguce. has adisen from the security body felt in the stability of our instutions, Old and young, lcarncd and unlearned, ail felt that our free ius itu ions were sede, and that they conld safily, with the w hole powers of wind and body, pursue the avo- cations that sccnied wealth and comfort.—- We bad increased so puch mm ppulaticn and means of defence, that 10 vut-Ide pow- er on carth dare think of assaiiing thew: and we conid vot conceive thai our hbtaties would ver be endongered by the action of poii teal parties in (he bosom of our cher ished Umion. We had grown great and powerful under the political structure ereet- ed by the revolutionary fathers, and fedling that everything was safe—tha we occupied a citadel that was wholly impregnable — ceased to set a watch on the ramparts.— Giving our attention to other objects, as we thought we might safely do. have we not sadly neglected the constitutional education of the generation that is now called to meet the mesorat le issues of the day 2 Had we, for ii last thirty years, busied ourselves and ulumaiian ob jects, aud wore about understanding and preserving the bulwarks ol hberty our fathers reared for our protection, would the coun- try be in the d-plorable condition we all so much lament and grieve over ¢ I think not ——and it 1s for this reason, that 4 rejoice in the efforts that such associations as yours are now making to atove for the past mud to Jess about humanitarian bring the people to a true apprecistion of the dangers that threaten ther nghts, pow _ In budding God speed to er and happiness. your holy and patriotic ‘purpose, 1 would add my contrivution to the volume of your useful ess by the discussion of a single point now al issue between the ddmimistras tion and its supporters on one side. and the Constitniion and the people on the reverse The enactment of a law by tne late Con- gress, rqquiring future members of that body, as well as all officers, both civil and military, in the employment of tre Fuderal Government, on taking the oath of office, in addition to the constitutional provision to support the Constitution of the United States to swear to bear “true faith and allegiance {0 the same,” bemg an innovation on the unvaried practice of eighty years, induces me to attempta discussion of the question— where is allegiance due 2- -which I suppose I may freely do, without subjecting either vou or myself to the unpleasant and irk- some, if hot laborous, discipline that pre- vails m the military bastiles of the day. Congress, in arrogating to itself the right and power to change the unchallenged prac- | tice of eighty years, and to decide that the alicgiance of the individual citizen is due to the Federal Constitution, brings th€ question dircetly before the people of the States, who must determine whether they will quietly submit to the uhawhorized innovation or tke constitutional construction of happier days. Indeed. it is the great ques: non that lies at the foundation of all the routes that now overwhelm our loved country. and were it ence more rightfully and conclusively settiud, the side issues of the times would vanish as the ephemeral iin of a hideous dream. : Is allegiance due the Federal Constitution or Government, or to the constitution or government of the State where the citizen resides and is part; or is it due to the whole people of all the States, as one nation or one sovereignty, or to the people of each State as a seperate and independent sover ¢ign ? This is the question fairly statd. Now a these Constitutions in themselves can by no possiblity be anything but a scries of written rules established by the sover- estore “[vign power to protect the citizen and to 1 guide and control the agents to whom are entrusted the administration of public af- fairs, nothing but otedience can be due to either of them. Aliegiance can never be duc to a rule of law or to ah agent: though the un uniformly reqmres the sub- ject or citizen, on his allegiance, to obey sover the law and agents established and called {into existence by the creative power of sov- |ereigity, There is a vast difference between {allegiance and” obedience, although inseper- | able f ora the fact that the latteris always {included in the first. The soversiun coms mands the eitizen, on his allegiance, to obey the Cunstitu ton established and the lawe enacted 1 pwrstance thereof— to obey the Ure 1deut in all matters specified in his pow- er of attorney, the Constitution of the Uni- ied “tates —to obey the Governor of the | State in the matters entrusicd to Ins ¢ re— and so on with the judges. the sheriffs, the congiables, and all others to whom defined [powers are delegated. But tis obedience Liv only a resuit flowing from the highest of earthly duties comprised in our aliegiance, that under the social compact requires the sovereign to be obeyz2 in all things what- | soever affecting the body politic. The {agents — the conglitutions, governments and officials - are oLeyed because the sovereign requires it and for wo other reason, When the, sovereign chooses, constitutions ate amended or abolished. and an entirely new series of fundamenial rules substituted therefor, ard yet the citizen is bound by his allegiance, 1ctwi'hstanding he may have sworn to support and obey those previously in force. not only to cheerfully acquiesce in the change soverdignty has made; but to put the new rules into practice as speedily as required, Thisis so apparent, that it 18 | conceiy ed every fair and intelligent mind { that «xaminos the subject with ordinary at- tenon will except it as a truth beyond cop- iroversy, and turn elsewher« than to counsii- wrtions and goveruments for the high power [that is rightfully entitled w demand and re- ceive onr ailegiance. Wherever sovercignty exists, there alle- giance must be due, Ali wodern writers whose opinions are resp. cled agree that sov- reigniy, the source of power, is alone vest- ed in a people who are united in the social compact, s0 as lo constituie a State or na- tion 3; and few in this country will be so reckless as to publicly and squarely combat the truth of the proposition. Indeed, it will be granted without controversy ; and this brings us tothe real and disturbing question, the solution of which is vainly sought in the sword and in the thundering of artillery aimed at the hearts of brethren in blood, lincage and language. Are we one puople, or are we thirty-four peoples? if we are one people, it is clear that alle glance is due fo the whole, and the authori- | ties at Washington, being the agents of the whole, are entitled to our obedi. nce, no matter what the people of our own Sate | or its Go ernment, may think, or say, or do about it. Lf the whole of the people of all the States comprise one internal sovereign- ty, one people, one nation, bound together in the same social compact. it is clear that State rights is a myth, and that our alle- giance is due to the aggregate thus associa ted. If we are thus united as a whole, it is folly to talk of sovreignty in the peoples of the separate States. They are only di. vi jons in the nation, as counties in the ‘| wards in your city. see if it can be thus accomplished. State, or townships in ‘he counties, or the | They can have no more sovreignty about them than these mu- nicipal divisions, that necessarily always exist in the social compact, and are subject | whole history of the country, antecedent to 10 the great sovereignty that is lodged in the! (he formation of the Constitution, is dead ment—the absolute necessity of excluding aggregation of people dwelling on that part against their theory, and withholds the the names of all the Stace§ from a place in of the globe geographically lsnpwn as the | slightest support ; the articles of the Con- the Federal Constitution, Surely this is no United States of America. Now Jet us test gtitution, clause by clause, aff'rd them no | record of the death of sovereignty in the this by the recorded acts of our history, and | comfort ; the debates and journals of the States, Itisno surrenler on their part— conventions that framed and raufied it, The joint deciarition of Independence made on the 4th of July declared *“lhal these United Colones are, and of rights ought to be, free and independent States that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain 1s, and of right ought to be, totally dissolved, and that as free and inde- pendent States, they have the full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts things which mdcpendent States may of right do.” The declaration was nbt thal the united colonies had joined together in one social compact and declared thetwselves an independent State, but STATES, united or confederated; and this was not only stat- ed once, but twice and thrice, asf intend- ed to fix it indelibly on the mind that it was he independence of the thirteen separate States that they were declaring, instead of forming one State, and decliring it to be in- dependent of the parent State. 1n the Constitution of 1781, or Articles of Confederation, it was expressly stipulat- ed mn the sccond article that © Each State retains its sovereignty,” as well as “Every power, jurisdiction and right not expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled; and in the third article the de- claration is made that the said States here- Ly severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other against all force oftered to, or sttacks made upon them, on account of teligion, sovereignty, trade or any other pretence whatever.”” Is not this a clear declaration on the part of the States themselves, that each one claimed, and all the rest recognired each to be, separate and sovereign, and that this was the only sover- eignty that existed within their limits. Af- tr this came the recogniiition of George 111 each sta ¢ by name, ‘o be, “‘free, scv- ercign and indepondent,” Thus we see that the sovereignty of the separate Siales was not only claimed and mutually recognized by themselves, but was aiso aumitted by the prince who they had heretofore reco nized as ther vightiul and legiumate soveseign, The separate sovereiguly claimed by each State in 1776, was thus twice solemn'y and clearly recognized-- first, by ther col- leagues, who bound themselves in a league to assist in protecting the sovereignty of each, and lastly by the crowned head that bad previou ly “clumed and roceived the separate allegiance of each, If this sovereignty was ever obliterated or laid down, can it be conceived that iu would have been done in the aa k. without an open and positive declaration to that effect, and in the clear noon-day sun of the obser- vation of all men? Would net that sur- render of sovercignty in the peoples of the States, have been accompa ied by a declar- ation as sojemn and as emphatic as that which first announced the ciaim of separate independence to she world on the fourth of July, 1776, as «xplicit and posiuve as the mutual recogman and league of friendship in the articles of confederation of 1781; and as clear and comprehensive ay the mvesture of sovereignty in the peo ple of each one of them by George 111, in his formal abdication and Focogniton m 17832 Where 's to be found ithe act by which the people of the States are to be supposed to have laid down ther separate sovereignty ¢ Where the act of abdica- tion—where the deed of surrender ¢ The ume, the place, the cquivalent, the cir- cumsiances attending it, the recore eof so wowen sus and uanscendantly important a wansaction, i8 demanded , and ought to be £0 open to the vision and understand- ing of all men, us forever to banish cvery question “or doubt on the subject. Tue claim to independent sovereignty by the people of the several states was made openly, in the sight aud hearing of all warkind—the record of which is clear and nowhere disputed. In the face of all man- kind, the prince, to whom they had pre- viously yielded their allegiance, declared each one by name to be a ‘free sovereign and independent State,” and this record 1s also clear and undisputed. Now, where is the record that they laid down this free and independent sovereignty. If the people of the several States have laid down their several suvereignties, ought not the record of this stupendous act of self-immolation to be as distinct and certain as that of their birtk 2 Can it be, that independent and sovereign States, whose birth was her- alded into the community of nations with a marked solemnity, each step of their pro. gress being carefully and publicly record- ded, have died and gone out of its exis tence without a single note having been taken of the fact? : Al people feel that this cannot have been the case, that it is (oo preposterous and ab- gard to offer to the reason of the most ob- tuse mind among us, and hence the advo- cates of consolidation are driven to the ne- cessity of presenting something that can be imposed on the understanding as a record of the death of sovereignty in the separate States. or abandon the question. They have no other alternative, and seem to =ompre- hend the ground on which they stand. The present no excuse for the asswoption that "he States surrendered their sovercignty ly entering into a closer union than that which had previously existe! between them, The universally recognized laws of natohis, as recited by Vattel, is not only equally barren 'n aids to the't cause, but impregna. Jy fortifies the rightful and opposing posi- tion, by declaring that ‘Several sovereign and independcut States may unite thom- selves by a perpetual confederacy withont ceasing o be, each individually a perfect State. They will, together, constitute a Federal republic; their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain re- speets, put Some restraint on the exercise of 1t, in ‘virtue of voluntary engagements.” And thus, at this stage of the discussion, no argument has been found that would in the truth, that the only sovereignty known in this country is that cf the peoples of the separate States, to whom alone the individ- ual citizen can possibly owe any alle- grance, To the astute and sabstile of the mentally great Webster, are the friends of consolidation indebted for the only plausable argument yet adduced tor their construction of the Constitution. if the idea did not ori- ginate with him, hes yet the first states- man we have found that by a respectable and elaborate argument sought to establish the proposition that State sovereignties had been miraculously swaliowed up by the sov- ereigaty of the Federal Union as completely and entirely as the rods of the izyptians by that of Aaron There 1s evidetite that he afterwards modified his opiuion, but in his contest with Mr. Layne, he argued thas the Constitution of the United lished by the people thereo Lrain tates was estab- s a whole, that “we the jeopie of the United States,’ as re- cited in thie preamble, was an authoritative Geclaratiun that the people of ail the States, | as one aud one sovereign and not as tir teen seperate sovereign peoples, ordained and cstablishied the Constitution as a govern- ment over the whole Union; and that in the- ory aud in fact, in our internal as well as our external relations, from the moment of its adoption, we have Leen one sovereignty, one people, one nation. And thusitis that the preamble of the Constitution is pomnt- ed to with a jubilant exultation as furnish- Ing an undoubiable and complete record of the demise of the Soverieiguty of the States. As it is the only record evidence ever ad- duced 1 support of the assumption that the distinct sovereignty of the seperate States ceased 10 ¢Xist afier the adoption or ratifica. ton of the Consutution, and is only by those who favor that view as on the subject, a fair examindat.on nto the history ot the preamble may heip some to a just conclusive appreciation of the value and strength or the argument sought 10 be drawn [rein the phia- | sclogy used. The preamble states the ob. jeet ot the Constitution, and takes the place of Art. ILL in the Articies of Confederation, which referring to the Siates named in their severly enter mto a firm league of friendship with each other, f r their common defence nal and general weitare, But the States are not named 10 the pre- amble of the Constitution, as they were mi that of the Articles of the Constitution — which reads as follows. ‘We the people of the United States in order to form a wore purfect union, establish justice, insure do- mestic tranquii'y, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of hiberly to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution tor tbe United States of America,” )—and hence the assumption thag they have gone out of existence aud that their people have consolidated themselves into one grand Suite, under the very singu- lar misnomer of the United States. When we turn to the journal of tke con. vention that frained the Constitution, which was not published (0 the world antl after Mr. Websier had advanced His. theory we find that ail the diaits submitted to ts con- sideraiion, enumerated the [States by name. When section 3rd of the fourth article, which authorized the admission of new States mio the Union and the seventh and last arucle, which provides that, “the ratifications of the conventions of nine States shall be suffi- cient f r the establishment of this Constitu- tion, between the States so ratilying the same,” were adopied the enumeration of the namu= of the States, as in the preamble previously passed by the convention, was struck out by the committee on style of revi sion. The reason for ubis is very apparent If only nine States, orany less number than the whole thirteen ratified it, it was not de. sireable that the names of the non-consen- pling States should be retained ma written Coustitntion, with which they had nothing | to do, and as it was provided that an indefi | nite number of new States might be admit ted into the Union, it was impossible to an- ticipate their names, aud hence arose—as Inot a sylab'e coulu be taken from or added [ to, only in the way provided for its amend. np absolving of the previous and the tak- —am—— i the least sustain the act of Congress under consideration ; but all combine to establish | | Wisconsin claims cmunent domain by asser- preamble declares that the said Siates hereby | the securities of our liteities, and their mu- | [ing cn of a mew allegiar te by their ditizens— {no recognation of the Federal Government {as the source of power. The absence of the names of the States. in l the preathlle of the Constitution, following the words, “we the people of,” is no aflirm- ation of the death of their sovereignty, buat only an ommission to ssett their indepen dent existance in a particular manner and inconvenient place, while on the other hard we have the fact staring usin the face that in theif capacity, the people of each Stare for themselves established, not only their own fundam ntal laws, by their acts of rati- | fication placed upon their own citizens the | obligation under which they ever rested to! obey the Constitution betwezn the Sates. — We also find that many of them, in framing and establishing their Constitution, (lam, avow and provide for protecting their own dependent sovereignty. Marne clawes it when she declares that sha is a **tree and in- New Hampshire, when she avows herself a “free sovereignty and an independent State.” and prohibits any ofil cer under her auth rity from performing the duties of his office, until he has an oath “lo boar faith nd true allegiance to the State New Hampshire.” Vermont protects her sovereignty byr. quiring her ofli- dependent Stage.” taken of cers to solemly swear that they will bs true Ma cetts declares that her people “*do hereby solemnly wud mutualy agree with eachother to form themselves into a free, sovercign and indepradent State, bY the nadie of the Com™ wonwealth of 2assashusetts,” and ties it down by requiring every person ** chosen or appointed to any office, civil or military, un. der the government of the Commonwealth,’ to “solemnly swear that I will bear uae (aith and allegiance to the Commonwealth of Rhode Island requires her officers “-to solemnly swear to be true and faithlul unto this State.” Mew York doeg not preseiibe an oath, but asserts —: that tate of Vermont.” achu- faithful to tne Massachusetis. the people of this Siate in their right sov- ereignty are decmod 10 posses the original and ultimate property inand to sli the lands State.” thus declaring hier sovereignty as well as the in- within the jurisdiction of he teperable conzomitart of the right of emin- cnt domain. adopted in 1776, and continued to 1810, re quired “every person appointed to an office of trust of profit,” to “sw ar that Ido not hold myseli’ bound in adegiance to the King Maryiand, as her constitution of Great Britain, ana that I will be faithiul and near trae ailegiance tothe Sia eof Mary laud.”” North Car hina declares that every one holding office under her aaihoriiy **shall take an oath to the State.” Kentucky re. quires her members of Assembly and all officers, to solem “ly Swear thue they will be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky, so long as I continue a citizen thereof.” Georgia requires each member of her Legislature to so emuly swear tha: he ~wiil bear true faith and allegiance to the State.” Michigan decla es that the people thereof “mutually agree to form ourselves into a free and independent State, by style and title of che State of Michigan,” the ting that the ‘people of the Sate in their right of sovereignty, are declared to POSS(8 | the ultimate in and to all the lands Within | the jurisdiction of the State.” nothwithstancing the pretended demise of the sovereignty of the States, ine the omis- sion of their names in the preamble of the Constitution, that the people of Siate after States, North South, Est and West, old and new, have 1 ever remitted to clam and exact the allegiance of their citizens and to declard themselves o be free and inde- Thus we sce | and pendent sovercignties. Let us now. however, proceed to fry the question by the very nature, principles and letie of the Feaeral Constitution isclf, and see 1f it will not entirely dispose of ihe whol, subject. 1€ the assumed and reported death of State sovereignty be true—if the States Rights par y be whoily wrong in their con. ception of the Constitution ahd the. political party now in power be true expounders of its theory, it i8 not time that it be so amen- ded as to give to the people, wherever they way be located, an equal representation in the councils of the comimon Government 2— Is there any roason, under this constuction that the peeple living within the lines of Del- aware should contivue to enjoy a much lar. ger vote in Cougress than the same number in Pennsylvania 2 Is har hundred thousand people so much more intelligent and virtu- ous as to entitle thew to three votes for Pres ident and Vice President. when the same | namber in an adjoining State, inhabiting the | banks of the sume river, only divided by the air line of the surveyor; can give but a frag- [tion over one vote? If we are oue people is tins right ¢ If the Republican jconstruc- tion be the true theory of the Constitution, why do not the people of the aggregate.as in the seperaie States, without regard to uni- cpal divisions, have the equality of power that such an arrangment would fairly enti- tle them to enjoy. If we are one people instead of thirey- the State from whence it occurs, issuing his writ for an clection to fill 1t? If we are ouly one people, why does the Constitution require the consent of three-fourths of the | with ohe another than had previously exis- ‘ted. So plain. and apparent does this ap- | pear, so conclusive in logic, so deeply and | firmely imbedded in history so impregnably States, without regard to the number of | fortified By the admitted nature of our in- their population, for irs amendment ¢ if wo are one people, why is the fundamental law so framed that a minoriiy of the popular vote, if found in thrae-feur hs of the smal States, may entirely change it? If we abe one people, why 1s it thoze of us living in the New England States, have twelve votes in the S nate, while a greater number iu New York have but twee? If we are bu one peop e, why has New Eacland cizht more clecioral votes for President that New York, when she has a less populanon? If we are one people. why is it that one State, and that the last of all, can prevent an amendment 0° the Constitation changing the representation in the Senate 8) ag to make 1 conform to the popular vote? If we are one people, why is it that cach State for uselt bas the power to determine who shal and who shall not have the right to vote for members of the popular branch of Congress ? If we are one people, why is not the rule the same throughout the whole country, and why is it not cstabhshed vy the common power over all, instead of by the constitu- tions aud laws of the various States? If we are one people--one sovereign, rightfully helding the eminent dymain over all our ter- rvitofy —why is it that the Const tution with- holds from Congress the power to authorize the erection of fonts, magazines, arsenals, dozkyards, and other needtull bu:ldings, in any of the States, until the consent of the Legislature thereof shall have been first had and obtained ? If we are one p.ople, why is it that the Constitution authorz s the appointment of clectors of President as the Legislitures of h State way drect—so that so far «8 it 1s concerned, one Nta'e may appoint by its Lenslature, anuther by its Governor, aud another give the election to the people, If we are one people; instead of thirty- four distinct peoples, why would not the Cossti non have estiblished one uniform rule so that there woul i have been no dil ference mn the practice of South Carolina and that of Pennsylvania. Why does the Con- stitution say: “Tne citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and rnmunities of the citizens of the several States,” if it did not mean to recognize the separate ex 8 ence of each people as com- positig a perfect Siate ? Why does it stipu- late that a person coarged with crime in one State, and flecemg from justice to anotper, shall be given up on demand of the Execu- tive of the Siate [rota whence he fled, if it does not recogmze the Separate eXisience and independant authority of the States Why does it prohibit Congress from forming and admitting ito the Union a new State out of territories of old ones, without the consent of the legislatures thereof, ii it does rot recognize a concurrent authority in the States evety ment—pledge itself to protect each of them sgansiLvasion, and, on appiication, aga:nst Wat does it mean, when ju says *¢every State’ and “each of them,” il ic is not the separate and indepen- dent political ex sience of the people of each one of the States? What is meant by the sccond article of the amendments, which declares that—*¢ 4 well regui.ted militia being necessary to the sceurity of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” if it is not to prohibit the Federal authority from disarming the people of the States, and thus secure them against its armed usurpation ¢ What is weaut by the tenth amendment. which declares that-—* The powers not del- egated (0 the United States by the Constitu- tion, nor prohibited by iv to the States, are reserved to the Stites respectively or to the people,’ if it is not a full recognition of the States as existing in separate and indepen- dent political bodies, who had but delegated, not surrendered or abondoned, the exercise of certain specified powers to the common agent that their sovereignties had created and called mto existence! What means the last ardcle of the Constitution as it came from the hands of its framers, which says that it shall bea < Constitution /fe- tween the States £0 ratifying the same,” if it ie not a declaration that jt wus not a mas- ter,or a superior that they were establishing over themselves, but a CONTRACT BETWEEN 2 Why docs the Union guarantee to State a republican form of govern” domestie violeace ? themsclves, in their highest sovereign capac What mean these expressive and com- prehensive words, the very last touch which the framers of the Constitution gave to thei” great work—* Done in convention by the unanimeus consent of the Statas present,” if its authors tolerated the thought that they were reprcsenting one people; instead of the twelve different sovereignties repre- sented on the flout of the convention % It is felt that a further pursuit of the in- quiry to he alleged demise of the the sov- ereignty and ind pendence of the States, would be treating the mtclligent reader iy ? four peoples, why do we elect Presidents through the interposition of electoral col- | leges casting the votes of separate States 7! If we are one people, why do we term our legislature a Congress, when the meaning | of the word is an assemblage of the ambas. sadors of separate and independent States or na jous 3 Why is it, if a vacancy hap-, pens in the popular branch of that bodyy that it can only be filled by the Governor of | with a disrespect that the writer would fap avoid. The fiction, that the people of the distinct States have laid down their indpen- dent sovereignty ih establishing a *¢ Consti- tution between’ themselves, 1s exploded and confounded by its very letter and spirit ; for we find strean all chrough i's pages the most direct and positive evidences of a rec- ognition of their full life and separate exis- tence, although brought into a closer alliance sti tttions and the universally recognized | law of nations —that it is difficult to con- eerve that any who have graduated credibly from the infant schools and been vouchsaf- ed sufflcient mind to be safily permitted to go at large, can honestly and fuirly resist the conclusion that the people of the gis tinct States are independent sovereignties, and that to them, and to them alone, do the individual citizens owe their allegiance, and that t''e action of Congress, in claiming it for the Federal agent of the different States arited, is a glaring avsmdity, as well as a flagrant usurpation on the high soverdignty of the people thicreof. | It has been wisely argned that any pro- ple who would preserve their liberties, most guard ther Constitetion with such a jealons and unrem:tidag vigilence as never to per wit the rulers «0 transcend dither its letter or its spirit, without bringing them to a ir this be not done, power is sure to side out of the hands of the people into the hands of the few, and the liberty that was not valued enongh to be carefully and properly guarded will have flown away, and in its lace will be sibstitated the iron rule of despousm,— If the first fraction of the Constitution be not resisted, it becomes a precedent for the rulers that [otlows arter, and then precedent will f lluw precedect, as w_ve follows wave wn fierce and uurelen'ing attack on the foun- denng vessel, until at last constite tional lib- erty is overwheheel and enguiftd There is no possible ¢scape from this conclusion, or itis as self-evident as tial we exist, — And now, if the people of ihe States, in whom alone. as has been abundantly shown, is lodged the high sovereignty that knows no earthly superior—that at pleasure, o:- dainv, establishes, amends, and abolishes the, old. and substitutes new governments tor themselves, and ** constitutions between,” thems lvea—fail ro assert cher rightful su- premacy, in checking the assumption and prestungition of a Congress ant a President that have dared to claim for the oflicial po- sitions they hold, the al cgianze of the indi- vidual citizens, they will allow a precedent to have been establ shed that in the end must rob them of liberty, : nd s roud ihis cous - try in the glooom of an absolute desvotisn , 1 have thus, sir, given you my nature and conscientious views on q cussed. speedy and condign punishment, the question dis- I am satistied that 1 am not mis- taken in the result arrived at, and hag it | al 10 error Im any particular assumption or statement, it 1s not of that character thug would in the least impair the great truth so necessary to the life of Liberty to be esta! lished in the public nifnd. [tis truth —hoiy tuth—that we should all seek to ly hofore the people. who have so long had their con- fidence abused by the charlatans and dema- gogues that sport with their honest and pa- triotic impulses; and when she gets a fair hearieg, 1 have an abiding faith that tio pow- er on earth will be strong enough 10 wrest from the peovle of the separate Sates their nghtful liberties and independent soversiga- ties. I am, sir, very respectfully, Yours, Wor. 8. Garvax. reer, April 20th, 1803. rt 00-B Scemimo—— Political Preaching Rebukad. A weeting of the Unite | Preshyterian Con gregation of Ruchereck, Fairfield county, Ohio va the 25:h of F'ebraary 1363, the fol- lowing resolutions were ~dopted as expres. sive of the Sentiments of that coligregation the same being a portion of resoluiions adopted by the United Prosoyterian Congres sation of Springfield; Ono: Resolved, That any person helieving in the mspiration of the Bite, the tenching of the Fathors, the practices of the Church fuk eighteen hundred and thircy yeas of net Christain experience, mustdbe blind indeed il he can not discover a falling away from the Gospel truth and the substitt ting in the rou thereof the political he ricies of the pres eat dayj and thitre erng into Cmsar thus which are Cwsar’s and unty God the thins which me God's, was a great mistake. : Resolved, That as tat ds the mstry ot recouciliation have decended from the hig. and holy calling of preaching the Gospel or Jesus Christ, wiih was asaered in ny th. teavenly messenger on the plain ef Belles ham in the ever memorial of “Glory t- tod in the Highest, and on earth, peace and good. will toward men, and become babiing po 1- teins, so far have they forfeited thers claym to live ofl the Gos; el. Resolved, That so far these massengers of pence proclaim the undultered Word of God, that is able to mage wise unto salvation,