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

be no difference Of opinion on the ques-
ION. IL must. then, be a consideration
OF paramount duty only, o. The part oi
THIS House 10 decide upon ~, which could
induce il To undertake the exposition OF
a iaw III respect To the construction oi
which il'rre WAS a doubt.
Mr.. l.. then examined, somewhat al
large, the question. whether a judicial or
Legislative ,ribunal be The most capable
Ia decide correctly such question as
was supposed 10 be presented by the
particular clause in the Constitution OF
Missouri. He argued, from The inability
OF either branch Of Congress 10 act indie.
pendeu'ly on any such question, from
their inability TO aci with uniformity, &c.
Thai they were not The proper bodies To
he charged with Judicial investigations.
Aud why, he asked, the rights OF all the
States being equal, should those of Mis-
souri BE- subI' TO an adjudication differ
cut from that 10 which other states are
subject! The nights OF the old states, he
said, were subject TO Judicial decision
ami no man would pretend that, in res
peci to any old state, Delaware for exam
pie, her constitution could be 81, peuded.
that her Senator's aud Representatives
should be excluded from these Halls, on
Congress thinking they had discovered
something uoi altogether right III her
constitution. II was an essential objection
to tie power now claimed for Congress,
that, II allowed, il would be a power TO be
exercised III new state, which none
would pretend II could exercise IN an old
one. Upon every consideration, OF WHICH
II" urged several others, he was in favor
oil leaving The matter With The Judiciary,
where. aud where only, III his opinion, il
property belonged.
The principles which had influences!
irom TINE 10 time, tie conduct OF The dir
tereni branches OF the government, would,
he SAID, lead 10 The same conclusion. All
the time OF the formation OF The ie..cral
consultation, ito go back TO that date) il,
was ioreseen thai there might be dispo-
siilon, al some future day, in some or
other oil The states, 10 break over the bar,
riers OF The constitution about 10 be form.
ed, DC. aud provision was introduced
prescribing mode of deciding conirover-
sizes OF that description. II, III all other
cases OF constitutional questions, il has
been provided that iI,ey shall be decided
by The Judiciary, the reason must apply
aud be conclusive why this bsdy should
not undertake 10 decide a constitutional
question III The case Of Missouri. Justice
requires that those who Rave the same
rights shall have their rights decided by
the same tribunal.
III, however, The only objection 10 the
passage o! the resolution now under con
sideraiion was, that an inference might
be drawn from the silence of Congress
'ha' they approved the eScepiionablr pro-
vision IN The constitution of Missouri, Ms
l.. suggested That some mode might be
adopted ky which the objection on Tins
POM might be explained. H., should
himself, as az individual, with The utmost
reluctance, express any opinion on The
| subject, and lie thought it would be ex
ceedirgly unwise in Congress 10 do so. -
There would be no emf 10 such a course.
There were ~ The constitution OF M,ssuu-
RI, and OF every state I'D ii;e Union. clauses
To WHICH some might take exception, of
which MIR. l. insianced the provisions
respecting banks, &c. winch some be!iey.
ed The states had no right 10 establish -
Every consideration OF prudence and pro
priety, IN his opinion, forbade Congress
from lnierposin@ III 'he present instance.
Mr.. l.. SAID he did admit, however, thai
there might be cases IN which Cnugr, SIS
might lind II 10 be their duty 10 inierpose.
on Inc moment OF admission OF new states
INTO tie Union. For instance, If. I'm rrla
-.
provision which, ircm lis charac,e Ter, could
not be brought before the Supreme Conri.
the new constitution were lpcorpaiIble
with that OF the United States, II was his
opinion II would be good reason w.,y
Congress should interfere. Nor did he
think this was dt all inconsistent with the
ground lie HAD already taken, If for no
other reason than thai the judicial tribu>
nai could decide The question now agitat-
ed, and decide ii better than this house.
ne duly OF Cohgress, IN this respect,
begins where that of the judiciary ends.
referring 10 his former remark, that
gentlemen would do we'll 10 satisfy them.
selves that their opinions were moi The
effect OF prejudice, by examining what
was the conduct OF ibeir predecessors i'm
more quiet times. Mr.. L. said he would
Turn 10 The case of the 2d new state wheel,
was admitted into the Union, and the OBJ
jectioDs 10 whose admission were remov-
Ell IN the way proposed in The present
case. tennessee, without waiting for a
law oil Congress 10 authorize her, held a
Convention, formed q constitution, and
sent Ii on 10 Congress. The objection
was made IN the II. OF r. by Mr. Smith
oil South Carolina, that the constitution of
tennessee was Incompatible With tina, OF
the U. S.; 10 which MIR Baldwin replied.
that, II there should be things in the con.
siiiution OF Tennessee not compatible
with The constitution Of The u. S. Z" was
well known that the constitution Of ihe
U. ). would be paFamouni-ihe can
therefore be of no effect. He quoted
this 10 sbe", that this sugg. stion OF refer
ring The question 10 another tribunal than
this, was not an expedie0t 10 get over
this case, but one which had prevailed IN
The early days of the II pnblic. Tie con.
hict between The constitution Of TeDnes-
see, however, and that of The United
S'aies,"as much more unrquivocal than