Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1813-12-23

which they may be chosen, is contrary to
"the constitution of the United States: there
fore Resolved. that William M'Creery is
entitled To his seat in this House."
The opinion Of the committee that the law
of Maryland requiring the representative
for Baltimore to live in that city, was I'M
constitutional, was warmly supported by sc"
veral gentlemen, and in the course of argu
mentit was advanced, as a political princi-
pie, that lhe representatives from each state
| are the representatives of the people Of eve
ny other state as well as of the people Of
their oz,r Particular state.
This doctrine is, in my opinion. totally re-
Pugnant to the true principles OF the fede>
raj government as the other doctrine, if
established, would be completely subversivc
of an important right OF the states.
Under these impressions, felt it to be my
duty to declare my opposition to both doc
trines, and not to pass a silent vote; altho'
the largencss and construction of the room,
in which we sit, are circumstances very dis
couraging 10 any person, whose voice is no
stronger than mine. In the one doctrine |
heard a denunciation of right, which my
own native state had exercised, and had not
been before questioned, from the origin of
the government to that day. In the ASSERT
on OF this doctrine the acts of the Virginia
Legislature, which at three several periods
distrlcted the state, and require d that each
district should be represented by 4 person re-
siding therein, were implicated as unconsti>
tutional acts /; and so the law of the land in
that state, which requires a representative
to be seized of freehold estate TO certain
amount, was likwise implicated in the doc
trine, as being contrary to the constitutions.
feel consciousness, which i most sincere.
ly believe is well grounded, that the legis-
latures of Virginia have been, at all times,
as Careful not TO assume to themselves any
power which did not rightfully belong 10
them, rs those of any other state in the
union at the same time that they have e.
minently distinguished themselves, at the
most critical periods, in asserting their lust
rights while their wisdom in discerning the
limits ofther federal powers was as emf
nent rs their fortitude in asserting their own
rights. Much as | venerate that wisdom,
that fortitule, SO periodically displayed, <
contiSued down through each succeeding
legislature, l should not oppose the doc
trnes, ii have mentioned, if from the iudg-
menI formed of them in my own mind did
not believe that they were erroneous. But
do believe that they are erroueous-palna
bly,, and dangerously erroneous. It was,
therefore, duly, which bowed TO the state,
those doctrines as did.
begin by taking view of the nature of
the House of Representatives, as a legis!a.
tive body: and the following is my process
OF reasoniHg.-l have always considered the
tiou OF Representatives to be'a body com
posed OF Representatives of the People Of the
several states, as the people OF those Sevtral
states in their distinct individual character
as states the delegation from each state
forming the representation of the DeOpIe of
that state. These several delegations here
assembled Constitute this branch of the fed
eral legislature. l!cre the important enqui
ry is whether the members of each deleea-
tim represent the people of their own mar
Heular state only-or whether they also re-
present the people of every other state.
In persuinS this enquiry will first advert
to the constitution. This constitution, think,
it must be admitted on all hands, is a COM
pact entered int" by the people of the several
states IN their sovereign capacity. They
entered into it, not for the purpose of de-
stroying that sovereignty, but for the 2ur
pose OF uniting their energies for the benefit
OF each member of this confcderacy, as a
distinct integral member of it. can form
no idea then ofthis system Of representation,
other than that The representatives from
each state, are the representatives of the
people OF that state solely and exclusively.
But IN entering into this compact it was ne.
cessary to gi-e up some portion of their So
verelgnty TO the federal government. That
portion Consists OF those powers, and those
alone, which are expressly delegated to this
government in the constitution: and all the
powers, not so given up, are reserved to the
states, or to the people. Now would ask,
To what people and in what character are
any powers thus reserved II thcml an
swer that the reservation is to the people Of
each state as thc people of that state-that
It Is TO them in ihat character only, becauie
IN that character they entered into the com,
pact and not that the reservation is 10 them
IN their general character, as the people og
all the states collectively. This l consider
as GEAR unqucsuouable principle from the
nature and end of the INSTITUTIONAL principle
quite plain and incOnirovertble from view
OF the institution and the contracting parties
to 1t even If the iOh article of amendments
to the constitution had not recognized that
priscipJe But that article certainly has re-
Gognized il.
How, then, are The powers, which are
reserved TO the states and 10 the PEOPLE of
the states, 20 be exercised They must be
exercised by Tie states, or not exercised at
all Tor they cannot be consttutionalIy tx
ercsed by tins government as the mpor
tant principle, / have Just mentioned, forbGs
IT. IL, then, the states alone arc eRtitied To-
q righ'ful exercise Of those powers, can it
pos,ibl be tue that state has not author
ny TO Tx The qualifications Of the members,
whom the people Of that state are 20 dele
gate To this HOusf. ~ their Renregcufatives