Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1819-06-18
RICHMOND, JUNE Is.
RIGHTS OF THE SIATES. :"
-5ND or" the PEOPLE.nf,1

AND or" THE PE0PLE.n(a)
No. 3.
" Let us not act like canbyses's Judges, who when
" their appreciation was demanded by The prince, 10
some Illegal measure, SAID, thai, fhongh there oas
arfHfsata,c. tie Persian Kings might Joiioie their
" oen sriH oad I,teasure."(Il
TO THE EDITOR OF THE ENQUIRER.
trust have shewn,> by the preceding
detail, that the words " necessary and
proper, contained in. the constitution,
were fau'oiogous and redundant, and car
RED nothing more 10 The general govern
ment than was conveyed by the general
grant oil "A specified power. I have also
shewn, that, In that case. such means
were implied, and such only, as were es-
seatiai 10 efectuaie the power /: and that
Tins IL the case, in all the codes, of the .
law oil nature, of nations, of war, of rea-
sou, and the common law. The means,
and the only means, admitted by them
all, and especially by the common law,
are laid down, tmphaJically, 10 be such,
a1thont Uh'ch the grant cannot have its
effect and j have also endeavored 10
sh-w that by that law, the construction
IN this case IS To be governed. Ia all these
codes this implied aud u!ieror power has
The same limitation. In none of them is
claim as extensive rs that asserted by
tile supreme couFt, recognized OF ioleraf-
ed; while, on the other hand, CLAIMS lar
inferior IN poini OF latitude have been Of
ten reprobated. This principle, while it
carries 10 the grantee what is necessary.
carries neking more. Ii respects the
rights OF both the parties. Ii remembers
that fhere IS granior, as we'll as a gran
lee. Il recognizes The golden principle
arc utere tho at aRenu,m non l4das." But
when you get beyond this criterion Of me-
cesslfy, you embark in a field without Ii
mis- Z; and every thing then depending on
discretion, the rights OF the weaker party
will lie swept away. This principle, so
sacred III all the codes, exists, emphaii-
caily, IN ours, IN which the constitution
has imposed express limits TO the granted
powers by the strong words used in The
10th amendment. The supreme court
has said tina, there is no expression i'm the
constitution, like those in ihe former con-
federation, excluding Implied or inciden-
Ia! powers. While tins is admitted, il is
denied that amy greater latl,nde is given
10 these powers by the constitution, than
they possess under the law of reason and
justice, under the great principle which
runs through all The codes. II there be
any clause In the constitution havine that
effect, let II be pointed out. There is
none such, and il is incumbent on The
party claiming an extension of the gene
raj principle. 10 shew that such extension
has been made. The state governments
being originally in possession of all the
legislative powers, are still 10 retain such
as are not ShetCn 10 have been relinauisll-
ed.
The supreme court, sensible of this me-
cessliy, and not being able TO shew a
specific extension of the principle. have
argued IN favor of an enlarged consiruc-
lion, by saying that these terms necesE
sary and proper" are placed in the con-
stlluiIon amoDgiAe pOtOers, aud not among
the limitations on those powers. IL the
object IN using them WAS merely for
greater caution, and 10 put down all
uncertainty on the sHbjeci, that was the ,
proper place for them. Ii would have
been wrong 10 place them among the
prohibitions, as they are not pretended 10
Prohi6u any thing TO the general govern
meni: n is only contended that they
create no enlargement OF The powers pre-
vIousiy given. In what place, therefore,
could these words have been so properly
inserted
The court is also pleased TO say, that
These terms purpo't 10 enlarge the powers
previously gwen. Ii is difficult 10 see
how reiteraiion of the words can in
crease the power and il is unmportamt
or was expressed. A given power is not
enlarged by being merely repeated. The
supreme court itself admits that these
terms were used, and only used to remove
all doubts of the implied powers of The
national legislature, IN relation to the
great mass of concerns entrusted 10 it,
This is an admission by the court that they
were moi used for the purpose of enlarge
alent and II is entirely inconsistent with
their other pretension, that these words
were put III, or purported, 10 enlarge the
powers.
The supreme court has also claimed
such enlargement on the ground, that our
constitution is one Of vast republic,
whose limits they have pompously sweIled,
and greatly exaggerated. The high sound
ing words they have used, in describing
those limits, cannot alter the force of
great principles. The constitution is a
compact between the people OF each state,
and those OF all the states, and il is moth
ing more than a compact. The princi.
pies | have mentioned are immutabIe,
and apply to all cOmpacts. II is entirely
unimporiant, whether The territory To
winch the compact relates, extends from
F" Indus 10 the pole" or he no larger than
that of The county of Warwick. There
rs no code which graduates this prjncj-
pie, by the extent ofihe territory 10 which
IT relates.
The supreme court has also claimed
favour, III this particular, on the ground
OF the magnitude Of the trust coDfided 10
the general government. Ifihaf trust be
great, neither is that reserved TO the state
governments small, or unimportanf. On
this pnint, LET what The court is pleased
to call, the excessive jealousies" of The
states, stand as an authority. That trust
is not small or unimporiant, which pro-