The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1809-02-14
"TnuNGs TURNED TopsY.TuRvY.
FEDERHLLaTs TUPSEDA p1YE E
DERiL{STS-
THE FRIENDS OF oRBER TURNED
JACODINS. :

OER.iI ISIS
THE FRIENDS OF oRBERTURNED
JAconINs.
The oge cfgeon9ere will never cease. F.
very day is continua!ly bringing forts, some
new monster, some strange phenomenon, to
excite our wonder and indignation.
|. mere "as-opce tiUc. WREN he Federal
istS assumed 10 themselves the exclusive me.
mt OF the ftIc"7s Of o,der and s-ce.xGsr 90
~VcFhhfenf. At AL times, the name OF a le-
deralist has beef. svnoaymuus Wild. a friend
to the obligation q INC l,s oT the federal p,.
Vernncnt. but these tines sc rapiditeDas-
sing like the drcams Of the morning.
For what DO we now hear?
Even tho'ail the Fcleralists Of the Eastern
States, 79err the friends ofthc union of these
states, they are maintaining doctrines and
practices which viii defeat the force of this
onion. What is the language of their or
thouoX editors, a. 20 the late embargo Laws?
a writer for the Philadelphia PoEticuL
H.cSi&'cr avows. that an Unconstitutional law
imposes no moral duty Of obedience upon
.he citiztn and then goes on to show that
tle "eR1bargolaw" Is of that dcscription.-
he n, York Eveniny Pos. avows that
" such acts would be Of no binding force. and
Wi6ht therefore be lawfully disobeyed.-Dis-
'o:afeiiee IN such. case would become n dr.
y. -6nt what shall We thin of the grave
anu reverend legislature of Massachusetts,
VINO seem determined not only to declare
that the law "is not legally Binding upon the
citizens OF that state" but to enact a law.
tor the purpose of Furnishing any officer of
~. StateS, who should dare 10 carry one of
IT'S provisions into effect!
IL these doctrines go into effect, the chain
mat binds together these states, will soon be
dissolved. If it be at any time within the
power OF n state to evadc the force of the re-
neral Government within that particular dis
trlct, over which It's own jurisdiction extends:
II afGrlHI will can, at any time, break the
'"rce ot the general 'giil if the general go
vernment is thus compelled to consult the
wishes OF each state, before it darcs to adopt
anyin0portsnt law. the Union of these states
w!il be like a rope Of sand. lie who main
tains this doctrine, is any thing but a fede-
ralist and 4 friend of Order-he is at heart
an nti-icdcraiis and a jacabin.
what n the Act proposed to the Lerisla-
tnre OF massachusetts should become a law ,
he stat: OF Massachusetts VIII directly ar.
ray it.elfn ohhosifi7n TO the laws Of the u
states. According to this act, the collector
OF Boston NAV % called before CHE JUS ce
Parsons, for having dared to execute the Inv
or the U.S.--if he dar-s to plead tiiis law a,
MS Jnstlhcation, as IT specially directs, il $ to
- NNN '' ''t'iiiS-titC COlJtClOr is to bt
punished with fine and imprisonment. The
Legislature here eThre$siu Establishes a ~
val jurisdiction, not merely equal to. hut Da
raAnount to eJuTiSdictisn of lie general 90
Vernment. But what SAYS the Constitution
CT the u. >. on this very point?
lbs CONSTITUTION, and the laws of the Unit
I'D States which Shall be NAL lie in pursuance
thereof, and all treaties made. or which shall be
~ Une' uAHer the authority OF the United States,
:'l,t We me supreme law Of the land and tie
Judges IN every state shall be bound thereby. any
th'ngm the constitution or laws ofany state 20 the
contrary Notwithstanding"
And what says The 25th sec. of the Judici %
al act OF 1889, which is Intended to Drovide
Tor those cases, where there NAV hahhen
to be conflicting jurisdictionsa The assembly
OF Massachusetts is however about TO e sta
n!ish "A deliberate and wilfnl opposition =
The 25tb sec. is in these words:
" y tI3ai Idcem mt or ,Iee"-< - any emit .,
the highest court e Jaw or equity of a STATE in
which a decision in thc suit could II, had ,.S.ra
IS drawn IN question he validity of treaty or sta
tu,e Hf, or AN authority exercised under the I'm,
.ed States, and the decision is against their valid.
ny ! OF "here is drawn III question the validity
- Il statute OF. or an auth 2rity exercised under n
ny N'"ts' on the ground OF their being reDugrant
20 tle coaslitution,~ treaties or laws Of the limited
states, and the decision is in favor of such thau.
validity, or where is drawn in question the con.
S'cucllon otany clause N tie Constitution. or Of =
treaty. or statute OF, or commission he'd ,nIer
inc United States, and the de,is;a1 - so,r.. liz
Title right priviiedge or exemption specially Ger
"? or claimed by either party, under such clause
. NC "aiu constitution, treaty, Statute or commits
SON. may DE re. examined and reversed o. aniFm
eo III me supreme court ofthe u. States unnn >,
writ OF error, the citation being signed Lvrbs ol.icf
justice or judge or chancellor otthe court. rem.
der'nS or passing the Judgement or decree com
planned on, or by a justice Of tie supreme co;rf al,
the shted States, in Tie same manner and I'm.
berthe same regulations, and the wrie shall b,v.
el'e same effect as 1.-THE judgement nr decree
complained o! had been rendered or passed IN y
circuit court. and inc preceding upon t,s reycr.
'"i sIiaii also be tie same, except that the sat
P'cine court, instead Of REMINDING Inc cars. liz.
a maj decision as before provided. nav 81 tbei,
discretion, IT the c~usc sAall have been orce re-.
Inrnded before, proceed to a final decision Of IN.
same, and award execution. But no other e.
fdf' Sil"li De assigned or regarded rs q ,rrnupj of
feVef5"tii arr such case rs aiu.esajls rh1o s,ic,
rs appears on Tie face Of the record and ,mwe-
dLately respects the before mentioned questions
o. v'idty ~ construction II the said consttn: .
on treaties, Statutes, commissions, er auth ,rit,es.
in dispute" ''' -
The thing therefore is obvious. The doc
triue and course Of the Federallsts is at war
with all their professions and their very
But these men are just as, Inconsistent with
meh0scfrea, as they are with tie n,ineihlcs