Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1819-07-27
RICHMOND, July "a.
FOR THE ENQUIRER.
SUPREME COURT. BANK OF THE
UNITED SIAIES-No
=, NVHEtsIdVue sVHeh
Non bene Jnbctafuin, discoI dia teniina Iernm

sal" " was my tbleilIlOn, 10 furnlSl
an exposition, 1T The doctrines uf the
supreme court. Ot,hese doctrines, il was
remarked, that al,ho' vague, obscure, and
even contradictory, they favored latitude
OF construction So bouDdloss, that they
would probably BE- applied TO cases, not
wing WITHIN The Limits of federal lrgisla-
ton.
know II may be said, thai il is rule
at coDsl rUctiou 10 take all harts of The
writing construed together, and 10 asrer-
YAM lis meaning, from q fair comparison
ot The whole. This is admitted 10 be true,
both as TO statutes aud agreements
statute manning a.ariety oiprovisons:
anu agreements, often, a variety of silpu-
ld'ions. But IT way well be doubled.
WHEELER tins rule Of construct lion, is strictly
applicable 10 tie act IF construction Itself.
The opinion of the supreme court, is
n"thins more than their construction of
The constitution aud az il H. confined 10
| single point, II is not asking too much,
10 require, that The propositions auvan-
ced, IN AN OPINION on a single point,
| should allcorrespOnd; and thai the reader
| should nei be compelled. after La,inD
read distinct proposition advanced as
HE Law OF the land, the constitutional law
oil Tie land, 10 go thrO' the labor of com
! pairing That proposition, will each OF The
olher propositions, to ascertain what is
| lie line of demarCatIon, which on The
whole ihe court meant 10 establish. The
decisions OF the supreme court il is be-
lIeved, seldom stand IN need of this in
dulgeBce. They are eninenily distin-
sulshed, as well for their perspicuity, as
for their ability.
| bui waving aiithis sort Of criticism, amt
allowing to ite reasoning Of lie supreme
court the benefit OFF The rule stated above;
| confess ms inability 10 tii Tie different
parts OF tins opiaion together, so as 10
make them one compact whole. Let the
court then speak for themselves.
IL may however be previously noticed.
| that HE first remark made by the court'
| aiier they had most truly said, that the
question Ma- not decided, related 10 The
sdurceirom which the federal government
VESTS pow r,wilhoui >ay Ing, ai5o may
| venture 10 aud, wIbeui thinking, tia. The
tact couli have any ufuencr on iiir case.
i'ls was probably done IL, courtesy 10 The
alaryla counsel. sac ueeme 3 puint
| oil SOM importance" i q this courtesy,
no rbl 'non opght 10 be made. II is
| "'tcn wlSe aS Tch as polite IN d court, 10
h"ilce an irrelevant argument. But the
objection is, thai even GA this collateral
topic, Here Is, 10 those, ho did not hear
iho argnmeEt, all obscurity not easily
penetrated. think that the opinion Civ
ell by It's C9urt Oh Ills po.ni. when adj
Jnsied, weighed, and measured. cores
ponds WIN lie doctrine advanced in
MadiSUi = Report OF 1899, adnatted by
me minority OF The General Assembly of
tina, year, and most DISTINCTLY oppressed
III the 39ti No. .; The Federalist tina, is
10 say, liza ite powers ofihe federal 20
v"rnnen' IRE uerIved from The people,
mol as Indlvldualscompuslng one Ell
IRE nallon, but "a composing The dis
tihct anu INDEPENDENT Slales TO which
they respectively belong. The act es-
taiiishlng the constitution is not q
national but federal act" But This is
mol The conclusion, To which common
raiders will al once advance. | read il
twice, and The second time with critical
attention, before could & 10 IL. The
iaci, ,bai two writers i'll the Enquirer, have
ar ued deliberately against the opinion OF
me supreme court, ona supposi,iom, that
according To the opigion, Tie establish
mem OF our constitution, was national
and not iederalact, is "a streng evidence
OF The correctness OF this remark.
But LII us proceed 10 quotations Of the
very words, used by The supreme court.
-Richmond Enquirer, March 23d 1919.
18th paragraph" This government is
acknowledged by all, 10 be one of emu
meraied powers. The principle that il
can exercise only thepoweIs granted TO
II, would seem too apparent, 10 have
required &C. But the question con-
corning The extent of the powers actu-
ally granted is perpeiually arising, and
VIII probably continue rise as long as
orr system shall exist" This is clear
and correct. ST sic omnia
The reader must bear III mind that on ibe
ground here taken by The supreme court.
the solution of The question before them,
as there Is no express grant OF power au.
thorlsing The establishment of Banks, de.
Ponds entirely, on the extent OF the right
oi congress, 10 exercise powers Incidental
TO The enumerated powers, or in other
words, TO select the means Of carr ine lie
specihc or enumerated powers, into exc
cutlon. Alter having read The following
extracts, he will decide for himself, ii lie
can, " neither according 10 them, congress
be under any SOFT Of limitation or Tes:ric-
lion IN The selection Ot means, and ii they
be, Hhal that restriction IL. | confess.
Thai my continued efforts on tins subject
have brought me 10 this conc fusion. and
this only, that although the go,trn,ucut
possesses limited pow ers only, ihere X 40
limitation, III Tie choice OF Tie means ia
carry them into effect, except such as arc
prohibited.
Before The extracts are inserted. | beg
lhe reader to procure q copy of the sem
iPhce OF Tie supreme court. When
paragrap is referred TO, let him read tlie
whole. shall insert Cnly " hat strikes
me as material. Parts material IN the es-
ilmaIion OF others, paris really material.
but mol deemed so by me, noy be, VERY
probably omitted Let The reader Judge
Tor himself, buI not impHie to me a as
position to garble The decision.
l7ih pa ograph. The court after speak
ing 81 the federal command over the
SWORD and purse, &c. 20 Oh TO SAY" Ii