Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1819-04-13

States in the clear and ingenious manner
IN wlIich ITS trainers understood II, in
which the clearest heads aud best hearts
of those who adopted that instrument
explained II at the moment of lis ratiis.-
l'ton.
Yes, sir, say il, and saw it with the
UTMOST confidence, that those who pass
ed upon this instrument IN 1888, utter
preied il in directly different manner
, from the supreme court, IN Tie case Of
| McCuIlob rs. the slate at MAJ ylaud; and
| take 1t 10 be IA proposition, sir, which
even The supreme court VIII MOI coniro.
vert, that the understanding OF the con
tracing parties at The time otconsmnmai-
ing contract is the best possible expo
sitiOn OF the instrument, the more rspeci
| ally when that exposition vas expressed
and acted on as correct.
As legal principle, | call it settled
and uI,ieniable When applied TO ordinary
contracts between A and b. and il is
equally true and equally applicable 10 IA
construction OF the constitution Of the
United States, which according 10 the
| decision OF esuprrmecuuri Is a compact
or agreement between The people of the
| United States. understand il 10 he
conceded by the supreme court, that the
|
the rule land down applies with full force
10 it, both in limiting the powers granted,
and in explaining and interpreting words
used IN The instrument, which may be
considered IN their meaning as doubtful
or ainbiSuous-lrt us now apply The rule
10 the very first proposition advanced
| by the court and before this is done,
| beg II TO be remembered by the reader,
| that II the court ale shewn to be wrong
| IN the first step taken 10 destroy the
state sovereisniies, The subsequent prin
! clpies the opinion attempts 10 settle must
meet the same fale.-The court foresaw
the difficulties i'll which they would BE-
entangled unless they could first shew
| that The states were not parties TO the
compact, that il was government in
siiiuied wholly by the people, and not
tederaitNe compact between the states;
aud Il Is therefore they have laboured TO
sustain this their strong ground, q TO forti
| fy and guard this their citadel; 10 do so,
| they have broken ground at good dis
lance from the object, aud by The most
| specious yet faliaclous arguments, have at
| tempted 10 secure their purpose.
Ii is not a new doctrine or opinion in
| this country that the states are not the
| contracting parties under the constitu
| ton Of the United States /; il is 6 tie good
| old federal doCtrine"---it is this which first
produced the distinct denominations of
parties; il is this opinion which first i'm
pressed upon my mind preference for
| the republican as distinguished from the
federal party. What have been and what
are now the arguments to sustain this
opinion will examine the latter and
the former, and compare them with each
other; and am disposed 10 think the
court itself cannot, with all is wonted in
| genuity and penetration, draw the slight
est shade of difference. The first argu-
ment 1T the supreme court 10 sustain this
| position is drawn from the words
We the people, In the preamble 10 the
! Con tiiution. This is so stale an argu-
ment as 10 make it almost unnecessary 10
give II an answer and'but that il should
have come from so august body,
| who seem on this occasion 10 have la
boured SO much after truth, and who are
| SO anxious 10 slew their devotion to
the constitution, that they suggest the
| POSSIBILITY II mat become their pain
| iul duty to pronounce a law of Congress
unconstitutional, should consider il
waste of time TO comment upon the re-
mark.
| In the debates of the Virginia conven-
lion of 1888, Mr.. Henry opposed with all
his power of eloquence and blaze Of ge-
| mus The adoption of the constitution,
and he pressed these words upon the
convention 10 slIew that the proposed
government was not a compact between
the states, bat government Of the peo-
pie, and consolidation, in The following
streng terms" That this is CONSOLE
| dated government is demonstrably clear;
and the danger of such government is
TO my mind, very striking. | have the
highest veneralion for those gentlemen
but, sir, give me leave to demand, what
right had they TO say ICE the people? My
| political curiosity, exclusive of my anxi
GUS solicitude for the public welfare,
| leads me to ask Who authorized them 10
| speak the language We the people, in
! stead OF ne the states ? States are the
characteristics and soul of confedera-
tlon.-lF THE STATES BE NOT THE A
GENTS OF THIS COMPACT, ii must ibe
one great consolidated national govern
ment of the people of all The states"
! Such was The language of this patriot
| and orator thirty-o years ago f; he urges
these remarks as the fears and apprehen-
sions OF man deeply interested in and
ardently attached TO the liberty and hap
| piness of America. But if The supreme
court be right, all MIR. Hen:y's predic-
| tiohs, oil his ioTeeoulnSs nave Deen real
| lzed, and what men then thought ground
less fears, have now become matters Of
fact. What was the reply then given 10
these objections Hear what MIR. Madi-
| sou says on the same day, and before the
| same august body" Let me observe also,
| ihata faras the number of Representatives
may seem 10 lie Inadequate to discharge
their duty, they will have sufficient inior-
nation from the laws of particular states,
| from the state legislatures, from their own
experience and from great number of