Nationalism And Consolidation

The contest betweeu Demoerats and Republicana over the use of the arm y at the polls grows out of two antagonistic tueories of governmeut. This is showu by the whole course of the diseussiou in both houes of Congres. Itis eoDfessfd by tb( Pie-sideut. The Army bill put the use of the army back, wuere it was placed by the Coustitulion. Wheu the. authorities of tx State are unable to quell an insurrection or put downadisturbance agaiust the public peaie, the Legislature or Governor may cali on Ihe President for Federal aid. But, says the Piesident- What is this but the pubstitution of the discretion of the State governmen ts for the discretion of the Government of the United States as to the performance of ks owu duties? In my judgïnent this is an abandonment of its obligationa by the National Government, a subordinaron of national authority and au intrusión of State supervisión over national duties, which arnount in spiritand tendency to State supervisión. These pregnant tentences indícate plainly enough the radical objectkn the President and other Republicans have to the measure in question and all othersof asimilar nature. They believe in a Consolidated government, and are opposed to any and every measure whicli may iuterfere wlth their design. Heury Ward Beecher. advocates the same view in his paper of last week. The Government of ihe United States- of Washington aiyJ Jtfterson and Jackson and Lincoln - ia too democratie for him ; it permita too much "politics ;" it ought to approxiuiale more closely to the Eüglish systern. This is the belief at the bottom of the whole Republican agitation. That party is Federalistic in instinct and history. lts whole couise since 1861 has tended to increase the power and authority of the Federal Government at the expense of the States and other local authorities. Uuder the plea of national neeessity in a period of war it arrogated right after riht and overrode whatever local obstruction stood ia its way. And when the war euded .it eontinued itsaggressive poliey by ruling the Soulheru States as bo many coucjuered rovinces, setting up governments to divide and def and plunder the people who had surrendertd, and declartd tüeir loyalty in the most expressive ways, and complied with everv detxiand made upon them. The law allowing the use of troop s in j tions, tbe law providing for Federal supervisors with their ari'itary powers of arrest, the law requiring test oaths of jurons- Indeed, half the laws pasaed by the Republicansj since the war- represent tbesame tendeucy to consolidation. They want to convert this nation into au empire under the forms of a republic. Grant- who was a personal ruler instead of a ïibtitutional executive, whose method was as arbitarv and dictatorial as though he were abs'olute sovereign, who treattd the offices of the country as though they were his personal perquisites to be divided among bis personal friends at discretiou- is the ideal Itepubliean X'reHident, for who.ii the leaders of the party invoke a third term. It is the oíd contest taking a new form. The application is different, but the principiéis the same whioh led to the excitingcontroversy between tbe Federalists and the Demócrata eighty yeara ago. The Republicans to-day ara fighting over the battles of the Federalists fora Consolidated opposition to a democratie government. They were defeated and broken. The contest was revived by the Whigs, who carried it on for a whole genearation, until they were annihilated. The war called for vigorcus eö'orts for the defenseof the Federal Government and the preservation of the Union. All Arough the war the Democrats in Congress aod in the country contended that while everythlng should be doue for the uatioual defoube, nothing should be done for Federal aggrandizemeut at the expense of popular or State .rifibtü. They were outvottül, overriddeu, abused, iusulted for maiiitaiiiing tbát the great principies of democratie republicanismasexprtssed in the Consiitutton and expounded hy Jefïerson and MadisOD, and even hy Washington hitnself, should besaeredly respected. And now, as theu, they simply deuiand that the Constitutioc, vvithitstinue-honoredguarantees, shaü be followed to the letttr anl interpreled in the spint and according to the preeedents establisbed by the bunders of the republic. Tlie heresy of State sovereignty, which originated in New England and ftrst showed ita ppf.ili-nt head in the Hartford C'onveution in opposition to the war of 1812, has beeu crushed. But the doctrine of State rights is imbedded in the Constitution itself. It is part of the framework of the Government. It cannot be torn out without doing violenee to the whole system on which our institutions are based. We contend for the rights of the States under the Constitution, the rights and liberties of fortyfive millions of people in these tuirtyeight Statts, as giiaranteed by the Magna Charta of our freedom. Itisthe old battle between . demooracy, with its popular tendencies and its respect for individual and local rights, and consolidaron. A great deal has been said and written about centralization. There 8 no objection to an unobjectionable centralization. It stands to reason that a nation covering half a continent requires a more centialized aparatus of government tnan one confined to a dozen half-settled States along its eattern fringe. Fifty millions of people, with diversilied interests and tendencies" cannot govern themselves in town meetings. The bigger the body the gtronger tbe head should be. JBut it must be the head of the body- a partof the organio systeiu, and in vital aud constitutioüal sympathy with every other part of it. Deniocrats do not object to proper and legitímate eentralization ; for there are interests which the central governmeut can manage and supervise better than the States. But they resist and antagonize the wrongful and perilous tendeucy to consolidation so strongly represented in the Ropublican party today. The real issue down at the bottom is whether America shall have a Consolidated go%rernment or a popular goverument. Shall itbean empire under the formsof a republic, ora genuine democracy ? On that issue, when it is fairly pitented, an overwhelmiiig majority of the American people will decide for the latter against can