”
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, <o
far are they entitled to respect and munster-
ial support. ’
THOMAS HENRY, Cha rman.
D. V. BROWN, Clerk,
GA tee
17 A late letter from Shuthern Calfornia
says that within a radius of sixty miles of
Port Yumaa, in the southeastern portion of
the State, the most astonishing discoyeries
cf gold and silver, copper, quicksilver and
other minerals have recently been made, —
Emigration fron the northern and central
p rtion of the Siate is rapidly setting in,
Rienes AND Poverty. —There is no fortune
$0 good but it may be reversed, and none so
bad but it may be bettered. The san that
rises in the clouds may sct in splendor, and
that which rises in splendor way wet in
gloom.