Newspaper Page Text
S TT IF IE3 ID IE :m: IE IN" T .
GOV. W. J. STONE. Speech at Carthage, Mo., September 29. 1894. Mb. Chairman: Paradoxically, the oldest of our political questions has become the newest, as It Is also the most Important. This question relates to the respective rights and powers of the State and Federal gov ernments under the Constitution of the United States. It Is the oldest, bacause It Is coeval with the Republic Itself. It Is the newest, because the controversies between State and Federal authority, provoked by recent events, which In Illinois and Califor nia developed almost into open conflict, have attracted a new and more Intense present interest to the subject. It is always the most Important, because it affects the or ganic nature of our government, because upon It hinges not only the character but the perpetuity of our institutions, and be cause more than any other It directly and permanently concerns the personal lights and liberty of the citizen. Other prominent questions of the day, like those relating to revenue and finance, albeit of the highest Importance to national prosperity, are, after all, but questions of expediency, of public policy, of mere administrative Im port. The very nature of such questions almost necessarily makes any given solution of them a temporary solution. The most patriotic considerations, looking only to the public good, may at one time demand the modification, even the reversal, of a mere policy wisely entered upon at another time. Hot so with this great question of govern mental organism. This Is a question not of policy, but of principle. It Is fundamental, not merely Incidental ; It Is permanent, not mutable; It Is organic, not administrative. V It la a question which goes to the very root, and Involves our national life. It Is the same great question which separated Hamilton and Jefferson. It Is the old fight between Federalism and Democracy. When our National government was first established, these two antagonistic forces Federalism ana Democracy were present contending for the mastery. One sought to establish a great centralized government, practically monarchical In form , and to clothe it with un divided sovereignty, It sought to divest the states of their sovereign attributes and to compress the whole into one consolidated mass Into one single, omnipotent sover eignty. The other sought the reverse of that. It sought to establish a national gov ernment of limited and purely delegated powers. Instead of consolidating all sover eignty Into one great central government, 't sought to create a national government of limited powers defined by specific grants In a written constitution; to make It sovereign as to those granted powers only, and to 'eave the sovereignty of the States undis turbed as to all powers not granted. Feder alism denied the capacity of the people for successful self-government, and maintained that the public good could be best promoted. and the public safety alone secured, through the agency of a strong contrallzed govern ment tar removed from direct popular re straint or interference. It contended that, In practical effect, democracy and moboc racy were synonymous. It was strongly opposed to State sovereignty, because State sovereignty was too democratic; because it meant the reservation of too much power to the people and the consequent subjection of public authority to popular control. De mocracy, on the contrary, maintained the very opposite of all that. It had absolute faith In the ability of tho people to govern themselves, and with strong hand upheld the standard of popular supremacy. It stood the uncompromising advocate of local sovereignty and self-government. It was unyielding In Its opposition to unrestricted Federalism, which It denounced as a scheme to promote powerful special Interests, a menace to personal liberty, and a sure pre cursor to imperialism. Out of these conflicts acrimonious, pas sionate, stormy democracy came forth tri umphant. Federalism was overthrown Democracy was in the ascendant, and upon its principles and in accordance with Its Ideas the new Republic was organized. This Bepubllc, this new government, bear you in mind. Is a deliberate creation, not an accl dental growth. By whom or what created? By independent states. It was created, or ganized, established as the result of an agreement between those states. For what purpose was it created, and with what pow ers Invested? These purposes and powers are defined and set forth In an Instrument adopted, first, by a convention of delegates appointed by the several states, and then by the states themselves. That Instrument Is the Constitution of the United States. The Federal government , therefore, exists only by virtue of that Constitution. It is founded wholly upon it, andean lawfully exercise no power it does not confer. This new govern rcent was organized on tbe democratic plan of a limited sovereignty. In the exercise of the specific powers granted to it by the Con stltutlon It was made supreme. But It was created a sovereignty with reference to those powers only. All powers not granted by the Constitution were by Its terms ex. pressly reserved to the states and the peo pie. Let me quote the exact language of the Constitution, as It relates to this subject: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." The government established under the authority of this constitution Is dual In form. There are two distinct sovereignties In one government; or, more accurately speaking, two forms of sovereignty In one system of government. There are both 6tate and Fed eral sovereignty; and under the Constitu tion one Is just as perfect and absolute as the other. Now sovereignty means suprem acy. There is nothing over or above It. The sovereign power Is the highest power; It Is supreme. The Federal government Is sov ereign, with respect to Its granted powers; the states are sovereign with respect to all other powers. Nelthercan lawfully or safely Invade the other. To Impugn is to put slight and Indignity upon the sovereignty assailed. To openly Invade is to attack the Constitu tion of the country and menace the Integrity of our governmental Institutions. The form of the government established by the Con stitution ought not to be the subject of con jecture or discussion. There is. Indeed, no just reason why it should be. If the plain terms of the Constitution do not themselves Instantly dissipate all doubt, then the oft repeated decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States interpreting the Constitu tion should put the matter beyond the do main of legitimate disputation. A half cen tury before the civil war that great tribunal used this expressive language: 'The powers of the General government and those of the states, although both exist and are exercised within the same tenito. rial limits, are none the less exercised by separate and distinct sovereignties." Nearly a decade after the war that same high court used this unmistakable lan guage: "The General government and the State, although within the same territorial limits, are separate and distinct sovereignties, act ing separately and Independently of each other within their respective spheres. The former In Its appropriate sphere Is supreme; but the States, within the limits of their powers not granted, or, In the language of the Tenth amendment, 'reserved,' are as Independent of the Federal Government as that Government, in Its sphere, Is Inde pendent of the States." Later still the same court gave the same construction to the Constitution In the fol lowing language: The government of the United States Is one of delegated powers alone. Its author ity is defined and limited by the Constitu tion. All powers not granted to It by that Instrument are reserved to the States or the people." These judicial expressions, which might be multiplied Indefinitely, are the Interpre tation, the definition, of our Constitution made by the highest judicial authority In the Republic. These ought to silence discussion and put the question at rest. Unhappily they have not had that effect. The mon archical notions of the Federalists were set aside at the beginning, and the Democratic Idea was triumphant. But Federalism was only defeated; unfortunately It was not ex tirpated. It rose almost Instantly from the ashes of Its first great defeat to confront Its old and victorious adversary, and ever since has sought by artifice, by force, by whatever means it could, to warp and twist our gov ernmental structure Into a form more con sonant with Its purposes. It has remained with us a living, potential force. It has sought constantly to Impress Its autocratic spirit upon our Constitution. It has sought unremittingly to amplify the powers of the Federal government, and to diminish those of the states. It has striven after new grants of power, and sought by cunning and licentious construction to enlarge those al ready granted. And no wonder, mv fellow- citizens, for the advance of Federalism means the more easy promotion of private or selfish Interests. The government at Washington Is far removed from the people, and Is less subject to the re straints of public opinion. The stronger It Is made, the more Independent It be comes ; the greater the power conferred upon It, the more It Is tempted to defiance and aggression. Hence, throughout our history we have found those who have self ish Interests to promote anxious to rob the people or power ana Destow it upon a great central government, which they can the more easily corrupt or control. All such have been, and are, the stalwart champions of a strong government.ofcentralizatlon.of Fed eralism. Sustained and stimulated by these powerful Influences, which were never so powerful as now, Federal Ism has for decades waged an Incessant and most audacious warfare upon our democratic Institutions, seeking to dwarf and to break down the states, which constitute the fortress of pop ular sovereignty, and to exalt the Federal establishment Into a universal supremacy. Against these onslaughts the Democratic party has offered Its uncompromising re sistance. For a century that party has up held the constitution of the fathers and stood as the organized exponent of the Jef fersonlan plan of government thereon es tablished. But In recent years Federalism has been more arrogant, adroit and successful than formerly In Its assaults. I cannot be un mindful of the fact that Democracy Is on the defensive. Federalism has been gaining and Democracy losing ground. The old party still stands forth the battle-scarred and veteran defender of local sovereignty and the inestimable right of the people to govern themselves ; but 1 am not oblivious oi tne trutn, wmcn, unhappily , is too appa rent, that the party, and the cause It repre sents, have suffered grievously in recent years. Strange things have come to Dass. The Democratic faith, the doctrines of Thomas Jefferson, have been discredited by some who should have been the first to vindicate them. There are those who have betrayed, where gratitude meant fidelity; who assailed, where duty required defense; who dealt a blow, where love and loyalty should have lifted a shield. Democrats have been so tossed about In the storm of recent events that many have become unsettled. ami some nave lost tneir way. There are men affiliated with the Demo- cratlc party, and vainly Imagine themselves to be Democrats, who are nothing but rant ing Federalists. Judged by their acts and utterances, they have never known what Democracy means, or have wholly lost the tenets of their faith. I hear of men holding uiKii place m iiie counsels,,! iiie pariv pooa poohlngtlie doctrine oi state sovereignty and lioldly asserting that all such questions were settled thirty years ago by the arbi trament of the sword. That assertion I most positively deny. There Is no truth In It. The effect of such statements from high sources Is vicious. They create wrong Im pressions; they !eget false education; they undermine and weaken great constitutional barriers which the well-lielng of the repub lic requires should be strengthened from day to day. These questions settled by the war? Why, they were not even Involved In the war. Whosoever thinks so, or says so, does not understand what he as sumes to discuss. He Ignores alike the Con stitution and the post-liellum decisions of the Supreme Court of the United states. He does not comprehend what was Involved in and settled by the war, nor understand what Is Involved in the discussions of today. What were the issues involved in that mighty armed conflict between the sections? Incidentally negro slavery was at Issue; but the primary, chief, all-Important question at stake was the great constitutional ques tion of the right of a single State, or of sev eral co-operating States, to withdraw on their own motion and at their own pleasure from the Federal compact, and thereby dis rupt and destroy the Union. That question was permanently settled and that preten sion forever dissipated by the war. But the great Issue of this day lstheverv reverse of that. The question now is, not whether one or more states can destroy the 1 nlon.but whetlierthe Federal government usurping arbitrary and unconstitutional powers, can Invade and destroy the states One related to the preservation of the Union; the other to the preservation of the states. me was resistance to state Invasion of Federal authority; the other Is resistance to Federal invasion of state authority. The sovereignty of the Union has been upheld: the sovereignty of the Stat la now In peril. The Indissolubility of the Union Is, thank God, firmly, and, I hope forever, estab lished; me ingnts ana powers oi me amies are now In Jeopardy, The Union Is in no danger of assault from any quarter; the General government Is absolutely secure. The danger Is to the states. Federalism, over mastering and omnipotent. Is the deadly enemy now menacing the Institutions of our country. It is a continuation, I have said, of the old war between Hamilton and Jeffer son. It is even more than that; for then Federalism struggled only to organize the government, while now it seeks to over throw what was established and to substi tute what was rejected. I am amazed, Mr. Chairman, to find so many Democrats undecided as to where duty and allegiance call them. My heart burns with Indignation when I behold the con tempt wltn which the time-honored prlnci- Slesof my party are trampled upon, and I esplse the subterfuges under which as saults upon them are justified. This Is a day when Democracy ought to be radiant with triumph and Its Immortal principles domi nant throughout the land ; but instead, we are driven about from post to pillar, with out unity, cohesion or co-operation, disput ing with each other about our party policies and the very dogmas of our faith. We need a more fearless and rugged manhood, and less obsequious timidity; a loftier devotion to principle, and less of fawning adulation; more old- fashioned Jeffersonlan-Jackson Ian democracy, with which all genuine Demo crats are familiar, and less of that more modern and spurious article, which few Democrats can recognize and many utterly repudiate. It Is time to call a halt and take our bearings. We should renew our hold on the faith of the fathers. Democrats at least should understand what Democracy means, and what the Iemocratle party really stands for. Let us see. In lsuo Thomas Jefferson, the founder of the Democratic party, was nominated and elected to the presidency upon a platform containing these declara tions: "Preservation to the States of the powers not yielded by them to the Union and resistance to existing movements for trans ferring the powers of the States to the Gen eral government. Reliance for Internal defense solely upon the militia, till actual Invasion." In 140 the Democratic National convention adopted this resolution : 'Resolved, That the Federal government Is one of limited powers, derived solely from the Constitution; and the grants of power shown therein ought to be strictly construed by all the departments and agents of the government, and that it it iitexptditnt and danger out to exercite doubtful constitutional powert." That resolution was adopted. In exact or substantial terms, by every national con vention of our party from 1H40 to l.s92. In 1892, after reaffirming allegiance to the principles of the party as formulated by Jefferson and exemplified by a long and Illustrious line of his successors In Democrat ic leadership," the Chicago convention made this declaration : We believe the public welfare demands t'aat these (Jeffersonlan) principles be ap plied to the comiuct of the Federal govern ment through the accession to power of the Sarty that advocates them; and we solemnly eclare that the need of a return to these fundamental principles of free popular gov ernment, based on home rule and individual liberty, was never more urgent than now, when the tendency to centralize all power at the Federal capltol has become a menace to the reserved rights of the states, that strikes at the very roots of our Government under the Constitution as framed by the fathersof the Kepubllc." Upon that platform Grover Cleveland was elected President of the United states. To this great principle of local sovereignty and self-government the Democratic party Is absolutely pledged, and hitherto in loyal devotion to it there has been "no variable ness, neither shadow of turning." Never has a Democratic National convention spoken upon the question without reaffirm ing Its allegiance to the principle. If platforms are without meaning. If they are nothing more than campaign deceptions. If their principal object Is, as the "Globe Democrat" asserts, "to catch votes and Dromote success at the polls, rather than to declare vital principles and Important pur poses," then the platform declarations of the party which I have quoted are without substantial significance. But If party plat forms are, as I hope, constructed on a higher plane than that; If they are In fact what they pretend to be, and ought to be, the honest expression of party conviction and party purpose, then, as to this great ques tion of local sovereignty, whatever any of ficial may do or Individual say, there can be no controversy as to the position of the Democratic party Itself. And If the great fundamental principles of the Democratic party were ever essential to the perpetua tion of our Institutions or Important to the cause of human liberty, they are just as much so todav as they were when Thomas Jefferson stood forth as their exponent, or Andrew Jackson lifted his Iron hand to de fend them. Mr. Chairman, at this point I will conclude the discussion of these general principles. I think the application of them can be safely left to the sober second thought of the peo ple without special suggestion or without any discussion In detail of the somewhat exasperating Incidents out of which all these recent controversies arose. My se rious apprehension now Is that, yielding to Influential pressure In a period of great ex citement, some bad precedents have been established, which may return to plague us at some future day. Those who would Jus tlfy or extenuate an arbitrary exercise of doubtful constitutional powers, because at the time exercised in defense of public order, should remember that It Is during periods of unusual public excitement and commotion that dangerous precedents are most easily established. They should not forget that a bad precedent established today may return to plague us on the morrow; Indeed, that the future danger of a bad precedent Is to lie far more dreaded than its present effect. Once permit the unlawful or improper inter ference of the Federal authority in the po lice or local affairs of the states, and the precedent thus established will be appealed to as a warrant for future Interferences in other respects; and every new precedent. It should be remembered, weakens the power of the Individual states to resist future en croachments. The police power, so called. Is one of the powers which was not granted to the General government, but was reserved to the states. This has been settled by repeated decisions of the Supreme Court of the United states, from one of which I quote the following : "All those powers which relate to the in ternal police of a state are not surrendered or restrained by the Constitution of the United States, and the authority of the State over these Is unqualified and exclusive. " The term "Police Power" Is very compre hensive. In a general way It embraces all those powers necessary to a sovereignty In protecting the personal and property rights of the citizen, and in the preservation of public order. It means a great deal, but means nothing more certainly than the pres ervation of the public peace, the suppres sion of mobs, and the prevention of domes tic violence in every torm. The Supreme Court declares that "the au thority of the State over these Is unqualified and exclusive." The Federal government has no right to Interfere in these affairs, ex cept in pursuance of the Constitution of the United States. That Instrument authorizes the General government to protect a state against "domestic violence" only when called upon by the legislative or executive authority thereof. Here Is the exact lan guage of the Constitution : "The United States shall protect each (State) against invasion, and, on applica tion of the Legislature or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic violence." I protest against Jthe right assumed by the Federal authorities of exercising police power in the State of Missouri, or In any state of this Union. Time and again the Democratic party in National convention has declared "that it Is Inexpedient and dangerous to exercise doubtful Constitu tional powers." The authorities of this State are both willing and able to suppress local disorder and preserve the public peace without any arbitrary or officious external Interference. I look with disfavor and re sentment upon whatever Infringes ujmn the sovereign rights of this commonwealth. I disapprove it not only because It conflicts with those great fundamental principles of general application, to which I have re ferred at length, but- also and especially be cause it conflicts alike with the ott-re pealed declarations of the Missouri Democracy and the wise provisions of our state Constitution . At the May convention at Kansas City the Missouri Democracy adopted tills declara tion unanimously: "We declare In favor of local self-government, the highest possible degree of person al liberty consistent with the public good, and a strict construction of the Constitution. We affirm our adherence to the great truth that our free Institutions can only be I preserved by a st rlct construction of the Fed - J erai constitution, miu me lowfiuimw m times of the limitations therein on National and State authority . We demand that Con- tress shall enact laws so defining and llmlt ng the Jurisdiction of Federal courts as to protect the states and the people from their enormous and dangerous usurpations." With me platforms mean something; they mean Just what they say. The Globe-Democrat declares they are Intended merely to deceive the people and to catch votes. Sen ator Gorman says : " It Is to the declarations of the candidate himself the people look. Platforms are obsolete." I contradict, despise, repudiate those statements. Such debasement of public morals, such confes sion of party mendacity, are monstrous. Party platforms are, and should be, the de liberate and honest expression of party principles and purposes, livery man elected to public office as a party candidate is bound by every consideration of honor and good faith to obey the behests of his party arid to do his utmost to enforce the declarations of Its platform. Any other standard of con duct would stamp every party profession as a cheat, a fraud and a lie. When the De mocracy of Missouri adopted the resolution I have quoted , I accepted it as the sincere expression of party opinion. I shall stand loyally by It and do my utmost to uphold It. But that Is not all. If party platforms can be lightly treated and disregarded, the Con stitution of the state can not be. Upon the very front page of that Instrument are to be found the following clauses : "That the people of this State have the In herent, sole and kxclisivk right to regulate the internal government and police thereof. "That Missouri is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United states ; and as the preservation of the states ana me maintenanceor ineir gov ernments are necessary to an Indestructible Union, and were Intended to eo-exlst with it, the Legislature Is not authorized to adopt, nor will the people of this 8tate ever assent to any amendment or change of the Consti tution of the United States which may In any wise impair the right of local self-government belonging to the people of this State. " That Constitution I am sworn to support. Is it not a wise constitution? Is not what I have quoted an accurate conception of cor rect principles? Wouid you have me, or any other State official, disregard its provisions or look upon it with disloyalty or disfavor? Am I wrong when I stand forth to defend the sovereignty of my State? Do I merit censure If I resent attacks from any and all quarters upon the great constitutional right of local self-government ? I will let the peo ple of Missouri answer. Strange things. 1 said, have come to pass. An unexpected Impetus has been given to Federalism. In my Judgment, the safety of our institutions requires that it should be Instantly and abruptly checked. 1 can not approve of those things that have caused the heart of every Federalist, of every In terested advocate of a "strong govern ment," of every enemy of popular suprem acy and Ktato sovereignty from the Penob scot toCallfornla bay to beat with exultation Chauncey M. Depew, writing tothe London Times about the strike. In speaking of the action of the Federal authorities, said: "Safe anchorage has been found at last for persons and property. The General gov ernment will now find a way to protect the citizens of the United States from the cow ardice of all State officers or their corrupt sympathizers with luw-breakers. Every vested interest Is now more secure and the rights of every one more safe." This sentiment of Depew was echoed by a leading Republican journal of this State In the following language: "One by one the delusive idols hugged and worshiped by the Democracy are shattered in their own household. That household god of Democracy, State rights, lias been destroyed. No more will we hear Demo cratic denunciations of Federal Interference by Republican administrations, for the pro phet of their own faith has gone farther In the use of Federal bayonets than any Re publican President ever did. " Only a few days since, ex-Senator Ingalls, of Kansas, born and reared a New England Federalist, said In a public speech delivered atolathe: "It was an enlightened public opinion that Justified President Cleveland In sending troops into Chicago against the protest of the Governor, whom he did the most that he could to elect; and I want to say right here, to show you how devoid of partisan bias I am, that there was one act, and one act alone, of President Cleveland's admin istration that I approve, and I am sure there will never be another one." General Schofleld, the head of the army, was literally Inspired by the occasion and the opportunity. He wanted a law passed at once Increasing the regular army to 0, UOO or 70,000 men. See what a beautiful pic ture he drew : "How easy It would have been to increase the array if the President had had the pow er. The honest workmen out of employ ment would have enlisted gladly. It would have helped to relieve their distress by re ducing the number of idle ones. By the. time tne noting oegan inese men woum have been splendid soldiers. Such men could have been sent to guard the factories in whlcn they had worked, and In which they would work again when times were better. For when quiet was restored and Industry revived they could have been hon orably discharged and restored so their oc cupations. " The commanding general out-Denews De pew. He Is not the least embarrassed by me cowaraly state omcers anu tneir cor rupt sympathizers." With superb noncha lance he simply brushes them aside, swears tne mie sinuers into tne regular army, ana details them to guard factories until return ing Deace and prosperity shall again sum mon them from the rough trade of war to gentler and more profitable pursuits. Holy Moses ! is not tins r eueransm in a nut-shell and paternalism wtth a vengeance? Unfortunately, this Republican railroad magnate, this Republican editor, this Re publican "statesman without a job," this mugwump warrior and all ot her Republicans and mugwumps, are not the only ones who were caught up In the frenzy of the hour. Many Democrats lost their grip also, and drifted away from the old moorings of the party, one oi tne leaning Democratic jour nals of Central Missouri had this to say: 'When a riot is once under headway, the first consideration Is to restore order and afford life and property the full protection of the law. The peoplecare nothing whether this Is accomplished by Stateor Government omciais. it is to oe nopea mat mere win not be any more great strikes and riots. But if such events do occur, the neiinle will largely look to the Government to maintain order. ' ' That I repeat is from a Democratic, not a Republican, paper. It Is amazing, but so It Is. And that Democratic editor, I am sorry to say, is not the only one who lost his bear ings In the storm. There were many others. What, not care whether the Government at Washington shall thrust Itself Into all our local disorders? And are the people really to look hereafter to the General government to maintain order in mestates? wnytnissua den desertlonof Democracy? Why this sud den desertion of the old standard Jefferson unfurled and Jackson threw to the hreezev Why should we Democrats discredit our Mate autiiorities, our mayors and our po lice? Why should we treat cnnteinnrtiniislv the sheriffs of our counties and the Judges of our courts? Why should we lose confidence in our own omciais? And, above all, why should we lose confidence In ourselves lii the ability of the people to administer their own affairs? Why ignore the state, and turn our faces upon Washington? Why lift our hands In prayer, and Join our voices In clamor, for a "strong government," for centralization, for a more comprehensive and dominant Federalism? others may do j " mej wiu, out. uou neiping me. l snail never uo it. iirrxnsoK quotkd. Mr. Chairman. In mv nillnlnn f unnnt mnpa fittingly or wisely conclude the discussion of inie subject than oy some appropriate and per tinent quotations from Thomas Jefferson, the greatest oi au uemocrats, ana tne most 111 as. trlous man of hi age. neThan nf m Daring the formative period ot our Government hi inllaenoe was the most commanding, and be left a deeper and far more lasting Impress upon oar history than any of his contemporaries. He w tue lueai Democrat, attnouKii aenounced by the Federalists of his day as the ideal dema gogue. The same character or denunciation are atill hurled by the same class of people against every man who adheres to Jeffersonlan democracy and defend the great principles of popular government be enunciated. Except for .Jefferson our form of government would have been organized npon a wholly diffeient plan. It would have been practically monarchical in torm. That it is democratic is olefly doe to nil labor and influence. Let me qaote somewhat from the Sage or Montloello: "The way to have a good and safe govern ment 1 not to trust it all to one, bat to divide It among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions be is oompetent to. Let the National government be entrusted wit the defense of the nation and it foreign and federal relations; the state government with the civil Tights, laws, ponce, anu tuimininuiw wnat concern mo omm, eix--' ' -- v - h tho local concerns of the count! a, and each ward direct the interest within Itself. It la by dividing ana buuuithuur vuwo iwm th. ,rrttt national one down through all Its subordinations, until it eads in the adnu ni tration or every man's larm uy uiuukui. uj placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the beat. w Dai na aeatroywi 1 1 , . j hu iu w ,.. in .n OTlVAmment Which tU CTCf CXlSt" ed under the eun? The generalizing and con centrating all cares and powers into one uuujr, no matter whether of the autocrats of Russia or France, or of the aristocrats of a Venedsn senate, ana i no ueuevc ibh ww nuui,.; has not decreed that man shall never oe tree r..l it I b hlnannemv to believe it), that the seoret will be louud to be la the making himself the depository of the powers respecting himself, so rar as be is competent to them, and delegating only what is beyond bis competence, by a syn thetical process, to owner anu nucues wmwo functionaries, so a to trust fewer and fewer powers la proportion aa the trustees become more and more remote." Again: "The capital and leading object of i he oonstltntion waa to leave with the states all authorities which respected their own citi zens only, and to transfer to the United States taose which respected citizen of foreign or other states: To make as several as to our selves, bat one as to all others. "I ask for no straining of word against the General government, nor yet against the states. I believe the atates caa best govern oar home eonoerns, and the General government oar for eign ones. I wish, therefore, to see maintained hat mrhrkleasime dtstrlbntlnn of rjowere estab lished by the constitution for the limitation of both ; and never to see si offices transferred to Washington, wher, farther withdrawn from the eyea ol toe people, they may more secretly h. hnnirht and anld an at market." Again: "The original objects of the Federal ists were, Orel, to warp our Government more to the form and principles of monarchy; and, second, to weaken the barriers of the State gov ernments as co-ordinate powera. In the first thev have been so comnletelv foiled by the uni versal spirit of the nation that they have abandoned the enterprise, shrank from the odium ol their old appellation, taken tothem s lves a participation in oars, and omler a peeudo Republican mask, are i ow aiming at their sec ond object; and, strengthened by unsuspecting or apostate recruits from oar ranks, are advanc ing last toward an ascendancy. ' ' Mr. Jefferson was especially distrustful or the Federal judiciary. "In truth, ' he wrote, ' 'man Is not made to be trusted for life, If se cured against ail liability to account." He feared that the indgea. ambitions for power. would strain tbe constitution, and undermine and ultimately shatter the fabric erected upon it Expressing this fear on one occasion, he wrote: ... "U has long been my opinion, and I nave never shrunk rrora its expression, tnat tne germ of dissolution of our Federal government la in the constitution of the Federal judiciary, an irresponsible bdy (lor Impeachment is scarcely a scarecrow), working like grav ity by night and by day, gaining a ut ile today and a little tomorrow, and ad vancing its noiseless step like a tblef, over the Held or inris.llction. nnttl ad shall be usurped irom tbe states, and the Government of all be consolidated into one iotsu i am oppuseu : because, when all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall b drawn to Washington as tbe eeuterof all pow er, it will reoder powerless the checks provided f one government on another, and will be come as venal and oppressive as the govern ment from which we separated." Mr. Chairman, 1 could continue these inter esting and instructive quotations from the writ ings or this remarkable man until they should grow Into a volume, bat it is Impracticable, It not an necessary, to consume additional time in this bebair What I have read Is sufficient to disclose tbe opinions and convictions or tbe most eminent of all American statesmen Whatever tbe Federalists or this day, whether masquerading as Democrat or Republicans, may think of these quotations. I want tbe peo ple to remember that the quotations are irom the writings or Thomas Jefferson I want all the people to remember that It was the same Thomas Jefferson who wrote the Declaration of American Independence I want all Democraia to remember that It was the sun Thorns Jef ferson who organized the Democratic party to uphold the Democraiie principles he advocated. I want all Missoorians to remember that It waa under the administration or this same Thomas Jefferson, and a result of bis matchless statesmanship, that every toot of tne territory embraced In our beloved State was acquired from a lorelgn potentate Nothing I have read to yon was written by him la a spirit of par tisanship. Every quoted word was written long after Mr. Jefferson hd retired from public life, and from active participation in public aff irs. The words I have quoted give deli berate expres sion to the matured jadgment of this wonderful man. the most illustrious and commanding character in American history. I stand by Jefferson still . And when I stand witb Jeffer son I am In tbe company of James Monroe, of Andrew Jackson, and a great host of oar great est Democratic statesmen. In this company I cannot go astray. H4T10SAL PATRIOTISM. Mr. Chairman : I yield to no living man on the point of national patriotism; I yield to none in nueuty to ins repaouc, in aevotion to tne Union. Ba' Jefferso dan democracy ia tbe very essence of a perfect nnion. and In the applica tion of its principle is to be found tbe most substantial assurance or national permanency Cuiin thoae orinclole the Government waa es tablished. and by tbem aloue can tbe Union be preserved and our free institutions perpetuated. Local sovereignty is a source of national strength, not or weakness. Federalism may develop national splendor, bat it will lead to early blight aod decay. Toe local government aflord the sart protectiou to popular authori ty, and tbe m ml reliable aategaard against corruption or iiuperiillem To distribute power is to diminish tbe danger or its abuse To limit authority Is to check usurpation To divide responsibility to multiply restraints. State sovereignty, within the Constitution, Is tbe safety ol tbe people and tbe surest bulwark of the republic. Above all tblngs else I love the union of these states tbe glorious anion of these sovereign states. There is not a spot within onr broad domain npon which I would not feel at home, and which 1 do not regard as my native land Let the Hag, starry emblem of anion aod liberty, flatter in every breeze, float above ever school -house, and hang nnfaried In every home. Let oar children be taught that it is the symbol or anion, tne nag or ait oar people, aoa tnat any American who does not uphold It against all other flags and against all the nations of the world Is unworthy to live in the land over which it waves: bnt let oar children ue also taught that ever) star shining npon it field of blue was set there to represent a great and sovereign state Not only should no star in that drmameat ever oe blotted oat, oat not one amng them should ever be In tbe least diminished in power or glory. If I eon hi stamp a motto opon the flag It would be, "Tbejnnton, undivided and indissoluble for ever, with Sta.e sovereignty preserved Intact and unimpaired " A. r a. Governor Stone next discussed the subject of religious uoeny, protesting, aa he expressed it, "against any direct affinitv between religion and politics, or anything squinting at a oon- Bduus union uetween cnorcn ana state." He denounced the A. P A. as both un-Democratic and an-American, and characterized tbe move ment as a revival of Know-noihingism, of that old spirit of noliticsl nroscrintion based on blrtb and religions opinion, which the Demo cratic party stamped oat forty years ago. Con tinuing along that line, he said: "In that fight, awav hack In the fifties, the situation was very similar to the situation of toaay. History nas repeated Itself; the condi tions or tnat aay are reproduced in this. The 'Know-n itning' or so-called Ameri can party waa more formidable than the A. P. A , was equally pretentiona, and equally mendacious and pernicious. The Whig ana nepuoncan parties not only avoided an open Issue witb it, hat secretly courted it favor and support. In tbeir olat'irms thev said never a ward against the movement On tbe contrary. In a covert way, tbey invited Its en-operation. Not so with the Democratic Sarty. At the very oat-start, the Democratic ational Convention of 1ST6 ampted a resolu tion declaring that "a political crusade In the IHlh century, and in the United State, against iatnoncs ana loreign-DO-n, is neither justified by the past history or future prospects of the country , nor in unison with tbe spirit of toler ation and enlightened ireedom wbicb peculiarly distinguishes the American system of popular Thus, while tbe Whig and Rputllran partlei were making arutcable overtures to knaw-noib. ingism, ihe Democratic party opened war npon it and dealt it a staggering and defiant blow So again todav. Within the last two years, the American Protective association, so called, has oeveiopea into a political lorce or some preten sion, whose chief Dornose is to wage war nnon American citizens belonging to the Catholic euuxiw, Because ot tneir religions opinions or affiliationa. Tbe lint political saiw ) this year, and indeed the arst arid s since the A. P A. became aa tanmS? tical factor, was tbe DtmoeraUe ianr" this State, assembled la May buTv, City, over which I had the honor toMJS that convention, tbe Deufcoeraey ofh condemned the A. P. A. a ande-anS nn-Amerieaa, and pledged ItSttUto eyery citizen, without reierene t Jr or creed, against any laterfersaaTL religious liberty. Three months taerw Republican of Missouri met In juuTV tin. at 1 r.Ul.i, Ui .-i . --TSSS, the American Protective mat agust aaaemoiy? au. i Kerens, who la something rfaCauS?! more Republican than Cathoue, fore th it body with a resolution 4aiZ i A. P. A. in most emohatla 1T7.WV tion to offer each a res.. lull o was advertised throughout the &tax by dire threat as to all the terriohPnS? might da if the resolution was set sou' due season Mr Kerens appeared on tktaW before an imposing arrar of delsswVt' came not like a conquering arsk) slightest flutter of applause greeteu kU-L' ant ears. Self-heralded be earn kT corned, onhonored and ansanCf m1 chill, repugnant etare. For kin uTi?' phere ot toe convention hail wa, fjii7' even ia the sultry month of ajujtai not permitted to read bis resoUUoa j ence or the con yen lion. H was Men?" Committee on Resolutions witasstLT poor courtesy of a hearing. He wit ssZ nlously bounced . From the convsnlfc ' committee he bore the paling colic and proo-ise, especially of hi ptwais pea ted Tbe committee did denMr goised reluctance to hear bin bmlf kn" tened without sympathy, and witavnau ! patience. Keren waa bounced scsisT. when be departed tbe eoauuttssMsTti'' hie little resolution there, urroasdii' mlea, without a genuine mend is sizst champion or protect it. The lfiiBi which It was treated by the ooaynsUgsn! peated by the committee. IlsuaanZ incontinently and Inglorious! vH? The Hon. Nathan Frank (a of that committee; bat If he did notan? the "slaughter of the Innocent," as at made no vigorous protest against tt e, than Frank is a Jew; and to Jews afT; peoples of tbe earta should be the last s! ate and the first to resent every fans stit upon religions liberty; for more lass sr?" have they suffered persecailoa. tas-wi tores of hell, for conseienc saks g than Jew Is Nathan Frank lis Is aat." tician a great St. Louis politic!, -Z whose distempered vision It 1 said tliSkT. political glory flash sow and then; swlta!?, ambition is a dangerous thing, naakw' destine amour with tbe A. P. A. iiiasnsT, what amazing strategy, to what raoasuT, tltiee, a bloated nniuttion may resort. Ti And so, alter all Mr KereBa voettsW after all bis load alarums, alter all axes, contortions, not a word did the RepaUtesii vention apeak against the A. P A kZ truth can It oe said that this same I f i J absolutely donilrant In that eunvtauaa. J Mr. Kerens has ijOW thrown up ibs tpon is maintaining a most discreet ars RW silence. That fierce aspect of Man Act begirt his brow haa disappeared. Fnan mg lion he has degenerated Into aaskgr 11 he does not march with FiuevTh, Waters and the A. P. A , be will at h-u, obstacle tn their path Ii he ia not o j be ia at least subdued He will ?, another blow Henoerortb, be tiLas devote hie diplomatic talents totas tony , of Inducing Republican CatboUot I m tbe Repablfcan-A. P A. cmbisstlei; & doabt not, wiU succeed most aunurskhi i The A. P. A. ia eeseutially, asd at practical purposes, a RepuMioa nn lion. The two organizations are etrisju, operating Dr. Day and Mr. Gariaad. ,, most prominent St. Loul nfednberiof taut A have recently withdrawn taerefNsj u other Democrats, tbey had been tsoaet some persuasion to join It Beta km pu bile their timely repentance. tr. fisja, "I was unwilling to longer remalsisk, ganizatlon wbicb la officered, oootroUsiit manipulated by Repnbiieaa Titi Wn-kaj seekers," and 'that no decent and srif-Mav it. g Democrat can afford to affiliate vlttt main In it." Mr. Garland was sosattik, and severe. 1 Bat srter all, there is no occasion for m or beating tbe tom-tom. There is aotUat, natural or unusual In a com bias tioa an. Missouri Republicans and a proacnBUy tattoo like tne A. P. A. A csUow-tssttge make ibem wondrous kind. Tne a ?.ii not offensive to any Republican seas i touch, taste and smell. It is both talks J agreeable . It waa by tbe most brutal s age proscription that tbe Bepabtlesa malntslntd itself in Missouri twenty-swa ago. Democratic Catbolie priests s driven chained like cattle throngk tat a streets ot onr cities, and Democratic Pratt, clergymen were locked up with nrmti a t cells all over tbe state. ItisbntBStsral.fe fore, that a party which malntaiasa iu by such despicable man, abonlA amv ) self with an organisation Uketaatlas nounoing, hoping thereby to sdrsnes t effort to regain ascendancy Is this Cans wealth. There Is nothing la alt that at priw. I I know not what Republican Cstkaba do I suppose they wiU continue to sassi with Brother Keren and vot tat straight. Recently acme Republics, as of bis party's record in this befit If, irons hsaghty denunciation of the A . P. A sal it forth a an utterance of ex-Speaker S I wasaettn high-sounding vhiass, aassM tens! vely quoted throughout the os0 t snthenticliy was questioned, th Inl t wrote directly to Reed ror tne tnttk, sals replied that the a bole story Is a pan Ism He did not denounce tbe A P. A. i " greatly surprised if Thomas B. Betatsisx such a thing aa that at this tun. Anrt Democratic party ha fought and testrarM organization, and Reed and bis earn; as) louger use it, he will come Umpiss t his dernndation la trumpet tone. v now. The A. P. A. and Thomas Brackets are cheek by jowl In this ytaraf csti grace. 1 Co-operation between Republican sMiJ A's should give no reason for aarpriw. S s re not antagonistic But what boia Democrat in anch unsavory coronas?? J There is not a tblng about lbs nwnaatf is sot opposed to the spirit, purpose a! of tbe Democratic party, and Is sot rioifc the very genins of our g jvernmeatal logs Upon the granite obeuak which sbstis tSt of tbe great Jeffereon is this epltatn, wnwv himself : ' Here waa buried ThonusM" author or the Declaration of Amencst fc pendence.of tbeSiatcteof Vlrcisisiarsay Freedom, and Fstber of the University glnis." Among the three proudest srsWs of his life, he nnmb red the autbonj Virginia Statute lor Religions reeaoa ? original draft of tbe Conttitonos, tlsi George Washington, is the following ' No religions test shall ever be reqaw " aualiflcation to any odloe or public Bat st e United Slate j J And the very first ameadment to tatOaw Won provided that: "I Congress shall mske no law wisri; tblishment of religion, ox prokiBSa free exerc.se thereof. " 1 J establishment of religion, OK prosil Tbe Constitution of Missouri declsrar "Tbat all men have a natural SMO hie rio-ht tA wor-htn Almlvhtv Sod eCf to the dictate or tbeir own conscieaees" person can. on account ol his rellrtasxP1 be Tendered ineligible to any onHests' pro lit under this Slate; tbat no MBsF can control or Interfere wltn tbe rtf J science; and that no person ought, by sr? to he molested in bis person ursstauaj count of bis religions profession " J Everywhere aod on all occasions tas W le party baa instantly ami boldly rrxT' unhesitating antagonism to everj Wraar tical int-rlerence with tbelreeoontfo"" or of worship Aa I have bows, tt tare and destroyed the old Know-sotkisgoJ" can parly And now again, while th? can party is dumb, we find tbe arss?T Missouri, Illinois. Indiana, "u" 3 other states holding convention J present tear, speaking witb one aPl'l1 nanclstlon of this new edities of Kse"r Ism, self-styled tbe Americas Protect" elation. Are the wise provision or fj" Constitution ; sre tbe sslegoanl tr"' Ington and bis great eoadjoior lneitw Federal Constitution i letheproad ses" Jeflersou desired carver) upon bis ""JJ; to be discredited, uprooted aod "i.! band of mlscbievru nnstsru sndlj" marplota who play upon tb "J prejudice of th lgnersitt "f by the selfish ambitions excited Is tf IV And are there men calling thewse!" f" crate, who will lend tbeir names see to promote the mteerebl f'rVJ tuls r secret order of poliilcal fjTZ. bo, wb'te professing the hi"' t!r, defy and trample anon the t""" both elitte and nation! No wonder respecting Democrat who ha Into it venal embrace I heartily ssMJ" J Woy should he not be sbea ""J,, duped by r publican nwchlaw's thoroughly Btideinucretle feU" - should be not hasten to sev i We"