STATES' EIGHTS. 



579 



Union, will find it in tlie annual reports of the ad- 

 jutant-general to the secretary of war. ' The reg- 

 ularly organized and uniformed active militia of the 

 several States " in the year 1885 aggregated 84,739 

 men ; in 1886 the number was 92,734 ; in 1887 it had 

 increased to 100,837; and on July 2, 1888, it had an 

 available force of 106,814 men. This is less than 

 one fifth of one per cent, of our population, and less 

 than the whole number of persons subject to mili- 

 tary duty when required in the single city of New 

 York. (w. M. F ) 



STATES' BIGHTS. In the general sense, this 

 term, as applied in American political history, con- 

 tains a reference to the relations subsisting between 

 the United States and the respective States, but it 

 has a special sense that describes a body of opinion 

 that has exercised a large influence in moulding the 

 institutions of this country. It is in this special 

 sense that it is here considered. The States' rights 

 doctrine is a theory of the construction of the Con- 

 stitution of the United States, and not a general 

 theory of government or communal society. It is 

 to be regarded as an extreme expression of a ten- 

 dency existing in all communities, definitely ex- 

 hibited in those that have reached any considerable 

 stage of organization, and especially in those that 

 are composed of organized communities united to 

 form a general or national community, as in ths in- 

 stances of imperial and federal systems of govern- 

 ment. This tendency seeks to conserve the individ- 

 ualities of the organic units of the system as against 

 an opposite tendency to blend the entire system in- 

 to a single homogeneous and consolidated political 

 society by the reduction of the functions of its in- 

 tegral parts, and the enhancement of the powers of 

 the larger system. This tendency has a still broader 

 interpretation, and is found in all organic systems 

 conserving the individualities of their parts and sub- 

 ordinate organs. 



The States' rights doctrine, as propounded within 

 ten years after the adoption of the Constitution of 

 the United States, and at a later period made the 

 ground of an attempt on the part of a single State to 

 nullify certain laws of the United States within its 

 territories, and at a still later period the justifica- 

 tion for an attempt on the part of several States to 

 secede from the Union, denied to the United States 

 the character of a national sovereign, afiirmed that 

 sovereignty remained in the States alone, to whom 

 ixlone allegiance was due from the citizen ; that the 

 powers of the general government constituted an 

 agency created by the States, federating together as 

 independent sovereigns to attain certain definite 

 ends of common interest to them by prescribed anil 

 limited means ; that the sovereignty of the States re- 

 mained uudiminished by this delegation of powers, 

 and that as such sovereigns they were without a su- 

 perior to judge of the infractions of the Constitution, 

 and thus entitled to judge, each for itself, of such 

 infractions, and to seek a remedy for such wrongs 

 either in nullifying the acts of Congress tlius held 

 to be in excess of its authority, or to secede from 

 the Union and resume a state of entire sovereign 

 independence. 



The Constitution had conferred upon Congress the 

 diplomatic and war powers of the government, the 

 maritime police, the regulation of intercourse and 

 the adjustment of differences between the States ; 

 certain special powers, including the fixing of com- 

 mercial standards of value and quantity ; general 

 taxing powers, devoted to the payment of the debts, 

 the common defence, and " general welfare " of the 

 United States, and all other powers " necessary and 

 proper" for carrying the same into execution. It 

 was generally conceded that the powers of Congress 

 were limited, but the nature and extent of that lim- 

 itation were subjects of dispute between those en- 



tertaining opposite theories of the proper construc- 

 tion of the Constitution. 



An occasion arose, out of the complications inci- 

 dent to the unsettled political condition of France 



i subsequent to the revolution that dethroned the 

 ancient line of her monarchs, for the differences be- 



! tween the two schools of opinion to assume activity. 

 Congress assumed a certain control over aliens and 



I persons engaged in seditious practices within the 



1 States, that was claimed by the adherents of the 

 States' rights doctrine to be in excess of its constitu- 

 tional powers. On the one hand, sympathy with 

 the popular aspirations that produced the French 

 revolution and, on the other, apprehensions for tho 

 stability of government in the presence of such un- 



! controllable forces, gave color and warmth to the 



i discussions that arose, and fitting conditions to pro- 

 duce extreme expressions of opinion on both sides 

 of the question. 



The contest was between a strict and a liberal 

 construction of the Constitution. It was claimed by 

 those adhering to a strict construction that the only 

 powers that could be exercised by Congress were 

 those which were specifically enumerated by the 

 Constitution and such incidental powers as were 

 necessary to the exercise of those specifically enu- 

 merated ; and as authority over the citizens of the 

 States, either permanent or temporary, was not 

 among the enumerated powers, the attempt of Con- 

 gress to interfere with the authority of the States 

 over their own citizens, on the ground that they were 

 aliens or seditious, was in excess of its constitutional 

 authority. On the other hand, it was contended 

 that the war powers and that of regulating inter- 

 course with foreign nations and between the States 

 justified such action, as essential to the common de- 

 fence and general welfare. To this it was replied 

 that Congress had no general authority to legislate 

 for the promotion of the general welfare, but was 

 only so far to provide for the general welfare as that 

 was connected with the specific subjects committed 

 to its authority, and that the war powers were inap- 

 plicable as the state of war did not then exist. As 

 these differences were irreconcilable, it was necessary 



| to consider whether any constitutional means existed 

 for their adjustment. The national party contended 

 that the national judiciary was the only recourse for 

 their solution under the Constitution. This was 

 denied by the States' rights party, who affirmed that 

 the federal judiciary was the creature of the sover- 

 eign States, brought into existence by their act, and 



; could not control its creator. The national party 

 replied that the government of the United States 

 was the supreme authority, superior to the States, 

 within its sphere, and therefore the proper judge of 

 the extent and limits of its authority. As every 

 sovereign government is necessarily the judge of the 

 extent of its authority, subject only to the right of 

 revolution that is inherent in civil society, it was 

 necessary to the position of the party of strict con- 

 struction that the sovereign character should be de- 

 nied to the government of the United States, and 

 this position was taken. It was affirmed that the 

 Constitution was the act of the State governments 



| and not of the people of the United States as a 

 whole, and as such was a mere league, of the infrac- 

 tions of which the parties to the compact were the 



! sole judges as well as of the proper means of redress. 

 The gravity of an issue maintained not only by 

 able and illustrious men but by organized States 

 standing foremost in the rank of civilization, and 

 that presented the alternative of placing the United 

 States in the attitude of a national sovereign clothed 

 with authority adequate to effectuate its purposes at 

 home and to fulfil its engagements abroad, and with 

 rank and dignity equal to that of any other nation, 

 or to reduce it to the level of a diplomatic agency 



