Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1820-12-30

people being both grsntor and grantee
were exactly where they would have been,
had no grant been made. Representation
| transferred all the rights OF the people.to
Congress. and Congress may of course
do, whatever the people could have done
/ before the transfer. Thus the enquiry as
| fsf as much at idrgeas fro territorial on,
local restriction had existed I'm the grant,
because the supposed rational authority
Is superior 20 The authority ofihe states
In conformity with Ibis doctrine, the
| opinion iriumphanily asks "whcre can
be The difference whether Congress ex-
ercise their power directly themselves, or
authorize otherS TO exercise II Tor them q
There is none 10 be sure ii Congress is
the nation, or If il is the unrestricted
representative OF nation. But, il II be
an agent of the u. States, entrusted with
the exercise OF restricted aud limited ie
deral powers, ii cannot invest another
agent With the powers contideh 10 itself.
Let II be recnl;ected that the district
power contided To Congress, is asserted
IN the opinion, to be Of equal obligation
'cith any pOicer iohateper kn0wm to tie con.
stituti0h. II is repeatedly asserted 10 stand
upon a level with all other powers dele
gated by the constitution TO Congress,
OF tho highest, that of raising armies. II,
therefore, il is true, thai Congress may
authorize Others TO exercise powers granted
to itself 6y tire constitutions, II follow. that
all lis powers Whatsoever, BENG Of equat
obligation and standing on q level, may De
delegated To individuals Or corporations,
who may be authorised To impose taxes,
as in this case, or to raise arnlirs and de-
clare war, because Congress can do So
This assertion OF the opinion, is only re
called Ia the public recollection, TO dis
play the w'de scope which the learned |
lawyers have allowed 20 themselves : EN-
bracing an enmity with the idea of agency |
(the best principle OF our system Of go |
vernmenD as fatal TO it as can be con-
ceived. Ii empowers Congress Ia trans
form, and even toll transfer The govern
meni. Vel Tins pOn, is only OF impor
lance in the existing case, aud not very
essential. ii Congress itself eau get out
OF The restrictions imposed upon 1t.
The opinion asserts that the case OF
" the ten miles square bears no analogy,
" to that Of the local legislative powers OF
" the states" To me The analogy seems
to be perfect. Before the cession, the
particular states possessed only local
legislative power over the place coded,
aad if they could only cede what they
possessed, no other species oil legislative
power could pass 10 The grantee. except
that which the grautor held. The same
observation applies 10 the forts. maga-
zines, arsenais and dock yards. a ces
s,on embraced both the territorial and
moral rights of the states, and could not
extend bcycnd either. "A Maryland
could not cede that Part of the district ly-
ing III Virginia, :or Virginia that part ly-
ing in May land because OF the Limitation
ot their territorial rights by geographical
boundaries ; so neither could cede any
moral rights belonging TO the other, be-
cause their moral or Legislative bonnda-
RES we're as distinct aud as well known,
as their geographical. The moral rights
of these states within fhe place coded,
were therefore a restriction OF The power
of Congress under the cessiOD, as Visible
and binding as their right of territory
and tie ceS$!on could not more correctly
convey moral rights, than ii could carry
with it TERRITORIES belonging TO other
states. The jealousy " HIGH dictated the
geographical restriction 10 so small a
space. could not possibly at the same
moment liave contemplated the idea, that
one stale should besiow on Congress a
moral power or empire over The whole
union. Could any state, under the pow
or 10 make limited geU1rdpnical ceSSiOnS
10 Congress, grant 10 that bndy lis Whole
territory; can it grant to Congress an
exclusive legislation over its own moral
territory /; If II cannot 30 either, can II do
mote, and grant TO Congress an exclu
sive legislation over the moral territories
of all The States? {" Exclusive lrgisla
tinD" IS both moral aud geographical
restriction, referring to The earth and lis
inhabitants, and uniting both objects 10
prohibit legislative acquisitions of either
character beyond those which the grantOr
could convey. As laws only act upon
people, restriction of legislative powrr
10 Ten miles square o. land, coupled with
all inference extending it to len millions
of people, would be gIarng absurdlty.-
II would be q monstrOuS species of teudal
system, by nhich transfer of a spot of
laud should tacilly carry with il a mass
Of personal rights nO attached TO the laud
aud bclougng 10 great numbers of peo-
pie. born ADD unborn, who had no int.
rest IN The land or agency in 'he grant
STATE RIGHTS.
FoR THE ENQUIRER.
QUERIES.