Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1819-06-22
RICHMOND. JUNE %.
RIGHTS OF 1.-THE STATES
IND or" the PE0PLE"ta)
No. ..
81 appeal unto Casar"lb)
TO THE EDITOR OF TIE ENQUIRER.


the jurisdiction OF the court. Ii goes On
The ground, that II is not competent 10
the general government, 10 usurp rights
reserved TO the states, nor for IFS courts
10 adjudIcate them away. tits boitomed
npou the clear and broad principle, that
our government is a federal. and not a
consolidated government. differ entirely
from the supreme court when they cay,
that by tkat tribunal, alone, can the deci-
sion which they have made be made
aud when they further say, that on the
supreme court has The constitution deyolved
that important duty.
| am not able TO say with certainty
from the language Of the supreme court,
Whesler' ney aver our government to be
national government, or admit II TO be
> federal one. Two very respectable wri-
terslc) seem TO be at issue upon this
question, and | shall not undertake to
determine the controversy, absolutely, be-
tween them. Such is the indistinctness
of tue language used by the court that il
might not be perfectly easy 10 do II. On
the one hand they use The term people i'll
sense seeming clearly 10 import the peo-
pie of the United States, as coniradis-
tinguis!ied from the people OF the several
states, from which the inference would
arise, thar the states were not known in
the establishment of the constitution,
aud, on the other baud, they admit that
the state of Maryland is a sovereign state,
and a member OF the general government,
and that the conflicting poDerS OF the gov
ernment oil The union and of lis members,
are To be settled by the decision. 1t is
not easy 10 discern how government
whose members are sovereign states, and
whose powers conflict with those of such
tlta hp ,,4ttn al oil III tnH
government. These traits indicate, only,
atederal government: "A consolidated gov
ernmeni OH the other hand, is one which
acts only on individuals, and i'm which
other states and governments are not
known. The Opimon OF the supreme
court seems further 10 incline 10 the side
81 consolidation, from their considering
Iie government as no alliance or league,
and from their seeming to say that a fed :
val government must he the offspring o.
the stale governments. On the contrary, l
contend, that those governments have no
power whatever To make or 10 alter the
constitution, and that If coniederal
government can be established AL all, il
must be by the people of The several states,
and by them only.
Whatever may be the. language of the
court, however, their doctrines admit of
DO controversy. They shew the govern
ment 10 he IN the opinion of the court, a
c, nsolidated and not federal govern
mtat. They are wholly iHapplicable TO
a government OF the latter character
Differing from the court entirely OH this
subject, will beg leave 10 give my own
view of it.
The constitution Of the United States
was not adopted by the people of the
United States, as one people. Ii was
adopted by the several states, in their
highest sovereign character, that is, by
the people of the said states, respectively
such people being competent, and they
only competent, to alter the pre-exist j..
ing goVcrpments operating in the said
states.
We are told by the Federalisi(d) that
che constitution was founded on the as
sent Of the people Of America, but that
this assent was given by them, not as
individuals composing one entire ration,
=. but as composing the distinct states: and
that the assent is that OF The several states,
derived from the supreme authority in
each state, that of the people thereof re-
epPctively and that therefore The eSiab-
tishment OF the constitution is not Il national
bat a federal act. We are further told IN
ihe same page, that its being federal,
and not national aci, Is obvious from
this, that the ratification results mol from
majority of the people of the union, nor
even from that Of a majority of the states
but that II must result fro IN tIle unanimous
assent of all The states that are parties 10
IT, differing no otherw Use from their ordi-
nary assent, than lis being expressed, not
10y the legislative authority, bui by The
people themselves and that we're The
prople regarded in Tins transaction, as
Il a..
rliy wOulit bind tie minority, hut that
neither q majority OF votes, nor of states,
has decided. 1t is again stated i'm the
came book(e) that the states of NV
Hampshire, Georgia, Rhode Island, Jer.
sey, Delaware, South Carolina, and Ma.
TYland, beInSa majority of the then states
did tof coii;aIn one kkiJd of The people oil
fh" union, so that majority Of the STATES
were a minority OF The people OF the uni
on and that if you even added n. York
and Connecticut, Ito make nine, the rum.
Der OF states necessary to- the adoption,
Shc people in them all, would be sill les
tllan majority. II TO this fact you ado
another, namely, that while these niH,
adopting states might carry The cousii
sutton by mere maI0r1tirs, the nOu-adnpt
ing states might be unanimously agalns
st., the portion Of ii,e people of America
who, IN that case, might adopt the gov
ernmen4, would be, indeed, exiremeD,
small. This WAS tot. al the time, AN cN
trefae or improbable supposiiion. II VA
very reasonable TO suppose that The PEG
pie OF the great states, would be almos
unanimously against government, wbic
sot oniy, vastly extended the sphere {
geneFal legislation, but pvt the sma
states, IN the senate, OH an eBtire eaualii
with themselves. a government adopt
ed by ihis fragment of the people of ILL
LLLLiLhh l.