Alexandria gazette & daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1817-1822, 1819-05-17
From. the Philadelphia Unson.
BANK OF THE UNITED STATES.
No III

those arguments are founue1, WIN WHICH
Amphyct;on attempts to support his most
extraordinary dogma.
The first is that ''the federal convention
Of 1887. was composed of delegates ap-
pointed by the respective state legisla-
lures"
This fact is stated in the opinion of the
court; and the inference drawn from it is
completely refuted by the observation that
the constitution, when it came from the
hands of that convention was mere pro-
posal without any obligation. lie whole
obligation is derived from the assent and
ratification of the people afterwards as
semb!ed in state conventions. Had Am
phyctien confined himself TO the assertion
that The constitution was proposed to the
people by delegates appointed by the state
legislatures, he would have accorded with
the Supreme Court, and would have assert
ed fact which believe no person is dis
posed to deny.
His second proposition is: "That the con-
s,itution was submitted to conventions e.
lected by The people of the several states;
that is To say, to the states themselves IN
their highest political and sovereign au-
thorty; by those separate conventions, re-
presenting, not The hole mass OF the peo-
pie of the United States, but the people
only within the limits of the respective
sovereign states, the constitution was a.
dopted and brought into existence. The
individuality of the several states was Still
kept up, &c.
ltsurely cannot escape Amrhyction him.
SELF, that these positions accord precisely
with the opinion he pronounceS so mIschle-
yousK erroneous. He admits in terms the
whole subject in controversy. tie admits
that the powers of the general government
were not delegated by the state govern
ments, bat by the people OF the several
states. This is the very proposition adj
yanced by the Supreme Court, and ad'an-
ced 10 terms too plain 10 be mlstaken.-
The argument ON the part OF the state OF
Maryiand was, as we learn from the OPT
Mon, that the constitution did not emanate
from the people. but was the act OF sove-
reign and independent states: clearly using
,he term Estates" in sense distinct from
the term people Ii is this argument
which is denied by the court; and in dis
cus,ing it, ailer stating that the conslltu-
tion was submitted 10 conventions OF the
people in their, respective states, The oPi-
piun adds: " from these conventions the
constitution derives its whole authority
Wee it possible TO render the views Ut
the court on this subject more clear, 1T Is
done in that part Of the opinion which con-
troverts the proposition advanced by the
counsel Tor the state of Mary and, that The
peope had already surrendered all their
mower 10 the state sovereignties and had
no,o,ny more to give and which, IN op-
position to this doctrine, MAINTAINS ina me
legitimacy of the general government WOO
be much more questionable had II been
created by the states. 1t is impossible to
read that paragraph and retain a single
doubt, If indeed doubt could ever have
been created, OF The clear Understanding Of
the court that the term people was used as
Designating the people of the states, and
f. the term states" as designating their go-
Ternment.
Amphyction adds, that those conventions
represented mot the whole mass OF the
people OF the-Untsd States, but The peo-
pie only within the limits of the respective
sovereign states" The individuality OF
the several states wss still kept up, &e."
And who mas ever advanced the contra
~ opinion? Who has ever said that the
convection of Pennsylvania represented
the people oil any other state, or decided ,or
any other state than Itself? vino has ever
been So absurd as TO deny that "lhe inai-
sidushty OF the several states was stiii kept
ap % Not the supreme Court certainly.
Such opinions may be imputed TO the udg-
es, by those who, finding nothing to ceh-
sure in what is actually said, and being pre-
DE- ..rmined 20 censure, create odious phin-
toms which may be very proper objects OF
detestation. but which bear no resemblance
to any thing that has proceeded from the
court.
Nothing can be more obvious than that |