Rensselaer Union, Volume 11, Number 11, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 28 November 1878 — Begging the Question. [ARTICLE]

Begging the Question.

Since the determination of President Hayes to demand the enforcement of the law in the Southern States the ,Democratic press of the country are raising the cry of “ States’ rights.” They might save editorial labor by clipping from the editorials in the Democratic papers published in 1860. They will fit the case perfectly. The Cincinnati Enquirer of yesterday sends forth the following pitiful plea." In alluding to the promises of the President, it ■says: - "Let him not renew or make a war upon Staten. the Commonwealths remain tree and equal beneath the flag. Individual acta of lawlessness do not warrant the punishment of a State.” With all due respect to the editor we desire to say that this is very silly twaddle. This Government deals alone with individual acts, and the individuals constitute the Commonwealth. When the individuals combine to pre- “ those concerned in it cannot entrench themselves behind the forms of State Government so as to give their conduct the semblance of legality and thus devolve the responsibility on the State Government, which of itself is irresponsible. The Constitution and laws • 'of the United States operate upon individuals, but not upon States, and precisely as if there were no States. In this matter the President has no discretion. He has taken a solemn oath to enforce the laws and preserve order.” The foregoing is an extract from the speech of Senator Morton, made in 1860, in answer to this same plea for States’ rights. It is just as applicable and forcible to-day as it was in 1860, and it w{is sufficiently forcible then to open the eyes of the people and dispel the fog which was surrounding the question of “States’ rights.” The sooner Democrats learn that their States’ rights powder has been shot once, the better it will be for all concerned. The principles the Republican party are contending for are the principles of self-government, the right of the majority to rule and the duty of the minority to submit to their rule. This is all there is in the question, and, having maintained this doctrine by four years of war, they do not propose to be cheated out of it by diplomacy or robbed of it by force and intimidation. Tbe President has nothing to do with the States; he deals with individuals, and deals with them no further than he is authorized to deal with them by the Constitution and laws of the United States. If he cannot do this in the States, where can he do it? Is he President only of the District of Columbia? If he has no power to punish crime and enforce law in the States, where may he? If the plea for States’ rights .may protect the people of the State in their denial of the right of suffrage, then an Egyptian mummy would make as good a President as a Washington.— lndianapolis Journal.