Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1821-05-25

for the division and limitation of powers.
They have retained, entirely to themselves,
many important powers, and have rcilised 10
delegate them Ia any government The
powers actually delegated, have been also
divided between two governments, and again
subdividcd between the different depart
mcnts of each g0vcrnment-Thisd division
and limitation OF the granted powers, and the
clecks necessarily resulting therefrom, forms
the only security of our liberties. Without
these checks, the balance OF power would
always incline in favour Of the strongest gov
eminent, or the strongest department of each
government But for the purpose of estab-
fishing these checks, this limitation and dvi-
sion oil power, would have been wholly UNI
necessary.
The supreme court, while it must admit,
that both itself and its coordinate depart
n,ents, are to be checked by each other land
instances of which, shall hereafter specii'y,)
denies that any check exists, in favour of the
state governments. The inference would
seem TO hold, q JoriiCri, in favour of the lat
ter. 1t wOuld seem to be a much smaller a.
base, OF the federal constitutions that Il power
should be exercised by one Departmental the
same government, which was conlided to ano-
Tier, than that one government should usurp
tile Just powers reserved to another. 1.-THE line
of denlarcation betw cen the different depart
ments OF the same government, cannot be
obliterated, by implication or construction,
neither can that broader and holder line.
which is established between the different
governments. 1t would be much greater
calamity to the American people, to wipe
out these broader lines between the two gov
ernments, and thus establish one great consol-
dated government, than, by celebrating the
kiinter lines drawn between the different de-
partments, tovestall the proper powers of the
general government in one department. In
that case they would be still federal powers,
which would be exercised: but the calamity
would be uncomfortable, of submitting the
local and municipal concerns of one section
OF this vast country, to members coming from
another, and who have 10 common interest
with them, in relation thereto.
The supreme court ought not to have for
gotten, that although our general govern
ment is a national one as to some purposes,
it is n federal one as to others. They ought
also to have remembered, that states giving
up some of their rights, and becoming mem
bcrs OF a federal republic, do not, thereby,
cease to be sovereign States (c)-lf the sove-
reISnty of states IS to be tested, by the por-
ton ofpower reserved, or given up, that cri-
ierlon would clearly incline i'm favor of the
states. We are told in The Federalist IN
that the powers delegated to the general go
vernment, are " few and defined, and relate
chiefly 10 external objects, while the states
g retain residuary and myiolablc Sovereignty
" over all other subjects over all those
"grcat subjects, which immediately concern
" the prosperity of the people" Neither
can that result be varied by adverting to the
relative sizes, of the territories of the con-
tracing governments. a criterion of that
kind would exclude the little state of Della
ware, fromhcr equal sovereign rights under
the confederation. with the great state OF
New YOrk.-lf these facts are borne in
mind, and if it is, at the same time rcmem-
bered, that neither the general government
has received, nor the state governments
have parted with, any powers but those
which have been ''delc5ated,' it will be diff
cult to sustain the decision of the supreme
court. That decision has proceeded upon
the idea, that quoad the Judicial power, the
state governments are not to be respected,
and that the supreme courts of the several
states are TO be regarded as inferior federal
tribunals. In relation to the judicial power,
mt least, the states are not admitted to be So
vereign.
These, fellow-citZens, are SOME ofthc OBJ
Jectlons have TO make, TO the Decision of
the Supreme Court. shall, probably, advert
TO many others,ln the progress ofmy observa-
tons upon II. 1t is my purpose, to endeayor to
examine that decision, under all its objection
able aspects and bearings. 1T is no small
proof Oft the badness of the cause, espoused
by that decision, that the opinion before us
is Objectionable, not only in its principles
but, also, in its form and structure. Con-
sidering the great talents by which it was
composed, this defect can be no otherwise
accounted for. The opinion, besides being
unusually tedious and tautologous, abounds
in defects, which are more important. 1t
often adopts premises which cannot be con-
coded, and takes for granted, the very points
which are to be proved. Its slips in history
and IN facts, are not few, and its sophistries
are glaring and nnumerable.-Ifmy remarks
are tedious, tautologous, and desultory, tits
because the opinion, in itself, is so. / must
also throw myself upon the indulgence of
the public, in this particular, on another
ground | have not time, TO prune or to DO
fish.
shall make no apology, fellow citizens, for
canVasSIng this most momentOus opinion,
with freedom. The court, itself, has, indeed,
invited n discussion of it. 1t has adopted the
very novel course, of appealing to you, thro'
the public papers, for its justification. AS
differ from them, toto celo, on this great sub
ject, shall not yield to their principles, my
assent or appreciation. On the contrary,
readily take up the gauntlet which they have
thrown down. further remark it, as very
extraordinary circumstance, that this most
awful decision should have been given, off
hand, and as 1T were, without u moments
consideration. A Judgment of this high
court, involving the destiny Of the con-
stitution, is pronounced with the rapidity
of a judgment of a court of pic1powder 1t
is extremely remarkable, too, that all tire
judges should have been of the same opinion f;
not only as to the result of the discussion, but