When I wrote the article on the dividing line between the Democratic and Republican parties, I addressed it to the intelligence of the reader, and am gratified that only two, thus far. have been so deficient as to understand it other than the presentation of a question touching the organic structure of the American vernment. And it is especially creditable to the general intelligence of Americans in China that they welcome rather than object to a full and free discussion of whatever may relate to their government, be-joving that every light turned on will disclose more of the beauty and harmony of its mechanism.
The card. therefore, by which appeared in Monday's only worthy of ion. to the general rule so creditable to American citizens wherever they may reside.
But the "Critic" who hails from Peking, while the second exception to the rule, may deserve a more enlarged com-mise ration because of his apparent alarm on the subject of secession.
Little did I hope, when 1 wrote the article, that it would awaken the attention of anyone in Peking to mundane affairs, and it will at least have served a good purpose, if industry in that Capital can be aroused to any practical business on this earth; for it was to be expected that an occurrence of more than thirty years ago would he of too modern a date to-come within the cognizance of a sojourner in so ancient a city.
But to calm whatever alarm "Critic" may have on the subject of secession, as well as to indicate that the subject was foreign to my mind, it may be stated that more than thirty years ago there was an amendment made to the Constitution expressly interdicting secession, and providing, in the clearest language, that n0
"State should have the right to secede, and that this amendment is now part of the Constitution, which - all 'American citizens have taken an oath to support, maintain, and defend; so that the question of secession possibly be resurrected, and when Critic" injected it into this discussion he was guilty of an unpardonable stupid dity and' should be supplied with some elementary history of his country.
But this very Amendment, which all patriotic Americans: rejoice settled the vexed question forever, was not submitted to the people of the United tes, but to each State in its separate capacity, and was ratified by each State, acting separately, thus recognising the Federal character of the government, and not the National character contended for by "Critic." And if "Critic" can be correct, how is it that the President is not elected by the people of the United States? All know that the President is elected by electors chosen by the voters of the several States who are qualified to vote by the laws of their respective States, and that even Lincoln did not receive a majority of the voters, though no President could be elected except by a jority of the voters if the government National.
You are very much in error, Mr. Editor, in supposing that the subject of the article, which' "Critic"—misreads and then attempts to reply to, is academic, for the powers of the general government and the rights of the State governments are defined in another amendment to the Constitution, which says that the powers not granted in that instrument to the General Government are reserved to the States, leaving no doubt on the subject and it would be impossible to administer the domestic affairs of the country without a knowledge of the organic' struck ture of the government.
There has scarcely been a session of the Supreme Court, since the war, when it did not become the duty of that Court to nicely balance the rights of the general and State governments that the machinery might move with smoothness Only 'a few months ago a gubernatorial candidate in the State of Kentucky was shot down and the capital of the State was in possession of armed men, but when the Governor of Kentucky applied to the General Government for aid, he was answered that the subject came within the rights of the State of Kentucky to' determine, the opinion in behalf of the United States being delivered by Judge Taft the present head of the Philippine Commission.
And when, somewhat earlier, Italian subjects were killed in the city of New Orleans, and Italy demanded redress from the General Government, the answer was returned that the matter would have to be adjusted by the State of Louisiana, be-eneral Government could not interfere with the rights of that State. And recently it was held in New York that negro children should not attend a school ed by white children, an issnte likely' to be submitted to the Supreme Court, ha-arise, on the live of " Critie's" coutention, the exclusion violated the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments, which provide-that there shall be no distinction between, on account of colour or previous condition of servitude.
It will be evident from these examples, that the subject of my article is by no means ancient history, but is quite a live: subject of every day practical bearing, and that the principle now constitutes a dividing line between the Democra ie and: Republican parties.
The white men of New York say that their children shal. not associate in schools with negro children, but the argument of "Critic" would enforce such association, for there is no escape from the fact that it:
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.