The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1809-04-04
The ENQUIRER.
RICHMOND, APRIL a. 1859.
20 THE EDITOR OF THE Enquirer.

'HdtU'dudts have arrayed themselves against
the laws OF Congress or the processes of
courts, but this is the first instance, in which
state has opposed the jurisdiction of the
general government.
At all times this opposition would have
been source of uneas,ncss--from the dis
cord, imbecility, and perhaps civil war of
winch It might be productive. But ar the
frcarnt time it is more distressing,
LIST. Because in the present turbid state
OF our foreign relations, we should bend eve
ry nerve towards uniting our efforts instead
of destracting them.
2utt. Because the state of PENNSYLVANIA
has always been a firm friend of the rights
| OF the nation, and it is most distressing to
be bounded in the House cf our friends.
Sd, And because this conduct affords IRE .
fert q acoiourinS for the usurpations of Mas
| sachusetts, though the motives and conduct
! OF these states are SO essentially different
pennsylvania has no interests distinct from
those OF the y. States. -The course, which
she is now pursuing, is Only adopted from the
idea of supporting the sovereignty of the
states and the rights of the constitution -
But Massachusetts is actuated by considera-
tons distinct from the general interests IF
the country. She is really taking part witt,
| Great Britain against the rights of the U
States.
Such contests however, might have been
expected. CIR form If government is
:. new under the sun" No age or country
mas presented one parallel 10 it. Ii is 2 fe-
oerai government--a government of states
one sovereignty within ancther-a wheel
within wheel. Hence arises the danger Of
ciashins jurisdictions. Hence arises the diff
hculty OF determining in Certain cases. whe
ther an act OF the general government is sane
toned by the federal constitution, whether
1t belongs to those powers which are entrees.
~ given To the general government or thnse
winch are RESERVED to the states respective
ly, or to the people But this is not only a 90
vernment of division. but of balance. That
is; 1t not only distinguishes between those
powers which are given to the federal and
state governments, but of those given to the
federal government, it distinguishes between
such as are given to the different depart
ments.
From this new organization Of things, va
rions clashings of jurisdiction may arise.
hese varieties may arise from the vari-
ety OF the subjects that are affected Is this
particular act proper and constitutional? is
the Seneret question. Bot this question NAV
be branched out into three others:
ISL. Eases may occur which involve con-
tested Jurisdiction between the general and
state governms
~ vi contested power between the
different departments ofthe general govern
ment: And
Sd. Acts of Congress NAV exist. whose
Iconstltutionality NAV be disputed This case
may generally be reduced to the two first ::
out because 1t is the one most generally nut.
Is mere stated as distinct proposition.
FROM this completely of organization
therefore, there must necessarily result va
rions instancesof clashing jurisdiction. The
case OF u. Olmstead is however, the first
one, IN which the legislature of a state has
PeaGeu 'tsen IN erect opposition TO any act
OF the federal government.
tits not my intention to touch the ner;,s If
the original question. Whether the money
really belongs to Olmstead or to the state
OF fennsylvania, is MOI the foint---thoueh on
thIs point, there is every reason to believe.
mat Olmstead deServcG the money. and that
Whatever claim the state may have had to
IL, In strict law, 1t was due to the magnani.
Inlty OF pennsylvania and the intrepditv of
Olmstead, to have relinquishcd it to him.
Nor rs 1t the point, whctherit was Mrs.
waters and Mrs. Sergeant the executives
OF Mr. kIttenhouse, or the state itself. that
was really the party to the cause On this
point, am inclined to the opinion that it was
III rue s.ate itse'f which was the party--that
~. kittenhouse, the Treasurer was no more
than the agent Of the state that it was real
ly the right ofthe 8tafe itself to the indents
or certlhcates, that nus at is8ue and that
therefore the decision of the Supreme CONT
was contrary to the amendment Of the consti-
linton OF the " States adopted in 1898. which
prohibits the judicial power Of the u States
frefn extending " to any suit in law. or enui :
~ commenced or prosecuted AGAINST anv
one OF the U. States" But though iris he
my OWL opinion, it is not the decision of the
co~r!. Ii is not the opinion Of an individual
or OF state. that is obligatory, but of the
constituted authority. The Constituted an
thorlty is the court of the u. States. hecause
the federal consultation, by giving paramount
authority to The constitution and laws oi the
~. States, gives paramount authority to the
Interpretation OF these laws.
some paramount tribunal is pecessarv-
10 decide ON the relative powers of the STATE
ana 'edeTal governments fit he said viii
Hot inc Federal courts transcend the copst;.
tuition! Can it not also be asked NAV NO.,
the states transcend their owersi
It's now therefore the dntv Of q re,rh,;,
70 ac9uiesce in these decisions of H.. fsJe
al courts II the doctrines of Pennsvlvapi.
DC orthodox, what will be the Consequence ,
why that any state legislature NAV a, sn,,
uhe dispense with the laws and processes
OF the United States--the Union will he Inn,
rope OF sand--the jealousy which ~
| Deen uniformly entertained of the nower -,
the u. states. on account of Tho sd,,o,: