Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1819-12-25

OF The government of the Il. S. is "su-
prcme within lis sphere of action" in The
correct import of this expression, and
That IN which il is to be understood i'm
The clause'of The constitution which has
been referred 10 and which import. il is
therefore material 10 The determination Of
Tie point in issue, io ascertain. The su-
premacy conicnded for on the part OF the
authority OF the general government, is
noi pretended 10 extend To the exclusion
or restriction as respects the object of
That authority, but only as respects the
means oil calculating those objects
liiiS distinction Is not perceived however
10 be reqNlred by amy fair interpretation
OF HE import OF the phrase in question.
which undoubtedly tmplies no pernliar
| extent, or discretionary characteristic of
The authority 10 which i, is attributed.
| but mere relation IN y Inch thai ariho-
rty Is placed 10 other co-e Xisicn, hut not
co ordinate auihnrii' S..... A supreme
uoes mol Ike sovereign au boriiy, in The
sense IN Which TINS laSi EXPRESSION is
generally understood, import "A power of
| an absolute, but only of a paramount
character, tina! is 10 say, not 3 power
unrestricted as respects liz means ar IN
amy respect wha,cvt r, bun pow cr invest,
e. whil ana MAINTAINING Sup,rlaTiiy and
conirol, over other SubSisiinr depar.
menls OF power, IN relation 10 objects of
cohnictihs or concurrent jurisdiction.
compreheuded within lis drsisna,ed
| sphere of operation. That the sense
here assigned TO The supremacy of ih.
general government, Is that in which 1t
ought To he understood, is conclusi,
'Vioeht rom The ianguage In which This
supremacy IS asserted ~ The constitution:
| i'll which, there is an explicit reference
| 10 The slate authpriltgs hx ,,.,,,o
| panied with an exclusion o any conn.
iervailing character or operation of those
authorities. his constitution and ,;te
| laws which shall be made i'm pnrsu,ncc
thereof, &c. shall be the supreme law of
Inc land, and The Judges IN every state
shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the
constitution or laws of any stale In The
contra Notwithstanding Whether The
anguagc employed IN tins clause, which
cnmpre9ends al. that is to be ,ou0, N
ihe constitution on The subject, Is io he
CONSIDERED as expressing ibe argeness of
| HE FEDERAL authority, or mer-Iy lis reIa.
| ton TO the authority of the stales Is q
point which may be safely referred iotl,s
award OF a candid Interpretation. Jtan.
pears therefore with equal evidence from
We received acceplaiion OF the exDres
sion, anu from the mode OF lis application
I'D the constitution, that no source or aid
Is TO be found Tor any constructive deri-
vation OF power in the acknowledges
supremacy OF the authority of the GOV
ernment OF the Union, inasmuch as ihis
supremacy imports no more than the
superiority OF lie general authority tn
mai OF The states both Of which ai,,ho-
riiies may Notwithstanding, Tor aught
implied by The clarac ierislic i'm ouesiiou
be confined within the Barrowesi limita-
iHIl In h.. 4
II is rested on this basis, the profession
set up on behalf of the government
OF me union, OF right to The exercise
Oh arbitrary discretion, IN the employ ment
OF means Tor the effectualion of the ends
OF It's declared powers.
1t would seem TO be a principle oC in.
depreciation OF incontroverrhIe sonud.
ness, that the construction in relation In
me degree OF discretion inv lved in The
gram oil power, over the means of lis ex
teutloh, oeghi IN every instance 10 easue
the nav as more or less absolute or
quailiied OF Tue grant. AS in the most
hhiied grant, however definite the desiUu
ana expression. The derivation of inciden-
tai d subsidiary powers mus iueyiIahly ho
leit 10 lmplIt alton, SD IN relation In eycru
qualified grant, resulting restrictions "a
respects Tie means of lis execution. NAV
De TIE subIect OF a fair, and must become
ne supleci OF a necessary implication.
"ben required 10 preserve the ooeratio,
OF The grant IN consistency with lis cha.
rscier. claim, indeed, of unrestricted
uiscfellon over HE means of executiop
such as is the sUOIecl OF The present dis
chssion. seems 10 be inconsistent with
,he existence aud operation of any quail.
bca'ioh on Tic grant oil power ina much
as rom 'he known susceptibility Of tie
w hpr nf 80.
Delng rmpl yed reciprocaly as lie uds
ana instruments of each nif,er. ~, u-res-
lrlcied control over powers available "a
means, would be tantanouut 10 a s,ineri
Ori'y TO all control whatsoever. IL tIei,,o
wholly ImmateTal whether tiuI LIMITED
powers be exercised under The name Of
unlimited powers, or under The name of
uhiiinited means OF carrying limited now
ers into effect" II, therefore. IN deter
mining tht question under review. il is 10
De heIh 10 recollection, as is asserted be
ihe supreme court, for The purpose Of
rhiargins The source of implied mower
'hdt IL Is constitution, and not legal
Co"'' WINCH we are called upon 10 ex-
pound; II is not The less 10 be recollect-
ed on The other hand, that this constjfu.
ton is one of a very peculiar and lin,;ted
character, and that a sweeping claim of
discretionary power by whatever pgeiext
u may be vanished, and whatever name
II may assume, is incompatible with, aud
subVerslve OF the character of d limited
consfliution.... The important Object.
however, OF the exclusion of the federal
government from the discretionary autbo-
rliy I'D question, with whatever obvious.
ness II may result from constructive req.
soning, founded on The character Of The
constitution, has not been let 10 depeu-
dence on this precariOus safeguard. bv