Having cried "revolution" so long the Republicana have at length got it. It has not come, and could never come, in the proposal of the Democrats to annul eertain sections of laws which are applicable only to a period of civil war, and for which there is.no warrant during the reign of the Constitution in a. time of peace. It has come from their own camp, and is cried by one of their own number wliom tliey have protected from an inyestigation of , most serious charges against liim. llevolution, in this country and under our form of govemment, can only be an attempt to subvert that form of government. Congressman Robeson deliberately proposes it, and refuses to shrink from the consequences. He pronounces openly for a sovereign central government- sovereign not merely within its allotted sphere, but everywhereand at all times; the States its creatures; the people its victims ; as powerf ui to act on property as upon persons, and upon eleetions as upon both. Mr. Kobeson maintains, and challenges opposition, that everything within the Irnion is subject to the supreme will of this irresponsible Central Government; that there is nothing local which is not tirst Federal ; that the people derive their sovereignty instead of its being of their own independent achievement and establishment; that their tighta are secondary and not original; that the Federal power is as clear in a State Legislature as it is in its relation to individual citizens within limita defmed by themselves ; that we cannot be a nktion without such a solidtication oí power as even Old Federalism never ventured to assert ; and that whatever end was reqnired had the means provided and authorized for eecuring it. Now this is a blank "revolution," because it is a complete subversión of the system according to which we enjoy politica! existenee as a people. If the Republican joumals are in earnest about starting a revolution alarm, they now have thevery opportunity which they covet. If revolution means the violent upturning of what is established, then this is the very thing itself. There were a few Republican members who instinctively shrank from the bare announcement of such a doctrine, but a very little rertection ought tujeonvince them that.their party is drifting to it as straight as waters ever drift to the gulf that receives them. The issue is nothing but the same old one that has divided parties since the Federal Government was put in operation. The incidente of course cliange, but the issue continually lies underneath. It is that between a genuinely federal system and a system of centralizalion more or lesa disguised. It is an issue between union and consoiidation ; between local sovereignty, witlja supervisión that is supieme for certáin ends and within detined limitations, and a central sovereignty that is to gradually absoib its local constituent element and become a colossus without an acknowledged responsibility. Like the parentage which they c;in so distinctly trace, the liepublcans hold to the doctrine of a supreme central authority, sup reme not for certain purposes but for all purposes ; trae to the inspiration of their politioal oigan, the Democrats hold to the opposite doctrine and maintain that power is safe and responsible only as it its distributed, and arrogant and dangerous as it is accumulated and centialized. The Democrats, therefore, continue to hold to the original doctrines of the Constitution ; the Kepubliuans are for abandoning them. The latter believe in dynasty, in concentration, in ]arental government, in practical absolutism. This they illustrateby their longings for the return of Grant and the bayonet. And they are the abettors and advocates ot revolution. - Jioston Pont.