Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1818-09-22
h}Ii (I Ay

-
RICHMOND. SEPTEMBER -:
Mr.. CLAY.
We felt ourselves under The necessity
al noticing during The las, winter, with
some Misrepresentation, the course Viii, h
MI Clay had taken, on HE resolutions Tor
internal unniovemeni. and especially
lie terms ~ whIri, I've had spoken ut Tie
mendan'''s decision Of the Conrl OF An
pesls of Virginia, Mr. C!ay's Speech on
that snbicci il just placed .rfnre MS he
Inc National lniellisencer of the l9hinsi.
We regret that the rxteui of This he, ale
prevents lis haI Ing place in the columns
OF 'lns paper; bat we owe II 10 ourselves
as we'll as 10 Mr.. Clay, To extra, the pre-
else terms ia which that portion of his
speech Is couched, on which we parli,.n
iai'y anipiadvericd.- On the Question ol
the United States Bank, and of The power
III Congress over Internal IMPROVEMENT.
we think That Mr. Clay has erred-,hai he
like mamy ether republicans, has aban
doned i!ie old republican doctrine in The
construction of The constitution; that If
such doctrines we're 10 prevail, the rights
oi .hcSiaies would b. come AN easy prey 20
lie power OF The federal government, and
thai we should verge rapidly TO cunsoii-
da,!on.. All the ingenuity of W:ssrs
Clay, Calhoun, or other advocates, is 1T
adequate 10 The justification of ihesc doc
ilrnes. hut 10 The Speech
In the course OF MIR. Clays speech, he
begged the Comm;ilee-he enircaicd
The true friends of the coniedera!cd union
OF these states, TO examine this doctrine
of state rights, and see 10 what abusive,
II MOI dangerous consequences j, may
lead, 10 what extent il bad been carried,
andii0w il bad hcenvarirdb by hrsame state
at different lines" He then Instances
the case Of hiassa Ciuseits, WHO in 1853
had denied the right OF ihe states, III Their
sovereign CanacliIes, 10 examine nate Tie
constiiu'ionaliiy or expectancy Of the
measures offle general government ',ur
~ 1919, drIrg the late var, had rri only
claimed, but exercised the right MGlci.
in l799 she had 40 soIemnly discaimcd.
She claimed The right to Judge of Sic pro
prieiy of ibe call made, b. the general GOV
erDmtri, for her militia and she rri;sed
the mill'ia called Tor. There mas 80 much
p'ansihi'iiy III the reasoning employee by
that state, III support OF her modern doc
Irne OF state rights that, were itmui
Tor lie nnpopmlariiY Of iie stand she took
IN The late War, or had II hcrn IN oillpr
times and under other circumstances, size
would very probably have escaped a srca1
portion OF tia, odium which has most
Justly lalin to her ot."-Mr. e. after eA-
posing the ial!acy of the doctrine oi Mas
sachu'eiis on this subject, proceeds 10 iiie
case of Virginia =
"NLr G.. said, that, greatly as he voncraied
the state which gave him birth, and much ~ he
respected the Judges OF its sHpreme cont Sc
veral OF whom were his personal friends. be
was obliged to think that some OF the doctrines
which that state had recently held concerning
state rights were tranquil with much danger
Had those doctrines been asserted durii,. the
late war. and related to the means of cary,in"
on that war, large share of the pHb!c di>aD.
probation which has been given 10 MAsSati.,I.
sets. might have fallen on Virginia What
were these doctrines! The courtr OF Virginia
have asserted that they have right To defer
mine ont the consiitutiocaiity Of auy aw or trea.
~ of the United States, aud TO expound them
according To their own views. even ii they
should vary from the decision of The supreme
Court of the United States. hey have assert
I'd mGye-t that from their decision there could
he 40 appeal to the supreme court of the Unit
ed States. aud that there exists iir congress no
power ioiranic law, Obiieilig the court ni the
state. ~ the last resort, to submit It's decision
IN The Supervision Il the supreme court II Iic
tnIieh States; OF, IL he didnoi misundp r>iaud
the dnciiine, to Withdraw from tie state tsibG
nalS controversies involving TIE laws at tile II
States, aid H. place them before The federal IN
dietary. ain triend, said Mr.. c. trnc
tiiend TO state rights but not in all cases as
'hey are asserted. The states have their APP
pointed Erhit SO has Tie union aud each
should be confined within its fair legitimate
and constitutional sphere. We Shonid equally
avoid that subtle process Of argument WhIch
dissipattS INTO tie air the powers OF this 20.
vcrrmcni, and that spirit of enCfoarhmant
whirh you'd snatch from Tie estates powers not
delegated tn tie CEREAL government. We
shall thus escape beth The danger, have motto.
ed--tIat Of reiapsing into the alarming weak
ness OF the COnfedeI atou, which vas deScrib
ed as a mere rope Of sand, aud also liIat OTHER,
perhaps not The greatest dauget consolidation.
No man dcprecatcS more than DO the idea of
consolidation vet. between separation aud
consolidation. painful as would be the a!ttrnd.
tive, he should greatly prefer the latter