Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1821-08-31
RICHMOND, AUGUSTT 81, I8eI.
OLA PODRIDA

Puphc prliits once w and '99, when tn,
ilien and sedition laws were tried, condemned
and executed by an indignant people, the dis
cussion of constitutional principles has MOI
been SD general or animated as il is at this mo
ment- short time ago, and theyery sound
of state rights was scarcely heard out of the
bounds OF Virginia. But now the people be.
SIN to awaken. Some discussion at least be-
gins to show itself In many points of the
compass, the public papers manifest some lit
lie sensIbility upon the subject. More con
denim the doctrines of Virginia some APP
prove many show at least that they think
| the subject is worthy ofdiscussion. This is one
point gained. To enlighten the people YOU
must arouse them. No condition is more ia
tai than that of absolute lethargy. A nation
.iiat sleeps will never burst its chains Their
indifference begets encroachment and as was
once elOquently pronounced by one of our
Orators +" people that go to sleep with the
constitution under their head, will awaken in
chains"
These discussions owe the interest they
have excited, to some recent acts of the gene
raj government. The incorporation os the new
Bank of the United States has reused the con-
sttutional !ealousies of many of those old
Republicans, who were opposed to the former
bank. The principles>too on which this in
stltution has been justified by the Supreme
Court of the United States are infinitely worse
than Its incorporation. If these principles are
correct; Unnecessary means may be frittered
away into what is Convenient or expedicnt
then may we bid adieu to the great principles
OF the constitutions, and TO the views of its
founders.-Otherdccisio too of the Supreme
Court have excited opposition. Some are
charged with having transgressed some CON
stitutional principle while others are sup
| Tn hat-. 10
ton, but the interests of some of the states
In the case of Cohens VS.. Virginia, we have
seen, Ito use the emphatic words of Mr.. Mar
shall IN our Convention,) a state dragged to
the bar of the federal court;" and it is now
solemnly announced, that one contracting
party is alone TO determine ultimately the
rights of the otller.-Right or wrong, we have
seen other decisions touching and irritating the
feelings OF particular states Ohio is at issue
about the National Bank. Some of the citi-
zens of NewHampshire are offended bv the
! decision on the Dartmouth College. The
case OF the Land Occupants disturbs certain
persons In Kentucky. Some of the papers in
Georgia are also in motion-Evcn in New
ork, the cry ofState Rights is raised, by some
of the friends of Mr.. Clinton, from motives
which perhaps winot stand the ostrigid scru-
tmy.-Nay, in the distant State of Louisiana,
we occasionally hear some whispers against
The graspmg decisions of the federal judiciary.
we have before us some scraps which we
have taken from few papers. We mean to
lay these before the reader. not so much to
shed any light upon the discussion, as to shew
that such one exists abroad We shall bare
ly oiier cursory remark or two, as we go
on upon them and thus, while mixing to-
Sether our own remarks with the sentiments
of friends, and foes, and those who have not
yet taken sides with either, we cook up sort
OF hotch-potch( Ola Podidrawhich may amuse
at least, twill not instruct the reader.
The first paper we call INTO court is the
Louisiana .4drertiSsr ofthe 2Ist July:
" Every rcfecting mind will be forcibly Impressed
with the political character and bearing Of several OF
fhe decisions recently given by the Supreme Court of
the United States. The nature Of our Constitution or
Government necessarily gives that tribunal great
powers-and unfortunately perhaps for the future
tranquility Of this republic, powers, the precise limits
OF which are neither well understood nor sufficiently
| defined.
In the augmented strength which The Supreme
Coutt OF the United States almost daily To
acquire, II would be well occasionally TO bring into
Teviewthe first and what long deemed sacred
principles, which governed the trainers of our Con
sttiuon, and the founders of our government.
We consider the following number of - ALGERNoN
SIDNEY, g taken from the Richmond Enquirer as n
piece having this tendency, and well worth repubi-
cation"
on the same side; but it is sort o official pa
per of Mr.. Dewitt Clinton-and Ttmeo Dana
| 0S, &c. &c.
" An animated controversy has for some time been
carried on by several of our public journals on the
subject OF the extent of the jurisdiction the Supreme
court OF the United States. The principal bellige-
rents IN tins newspaper warfare, are the Richmond
Enquirer and Washington City Gazette rsrSus the
National lntelligencer and New York American
4teFnon Sidney, in the Enquirer and n Federdiis OF
~ Tho ANA l-... -
and tried to see who could do the other tie most in
jury. In the mean time, the other antagonists have
not been inactive aad some Of them have arrived nj
that point oihe argumcut in which they begin to fee
waspsh.
" The origin Of this controversy IS the famous case
OF the State Virginia reraLs Cohcns in which the
latter was prosecuted for selling tickets in the nation
al lOtteres contrary to statute of the state Tho
cause decided by the Supreme Court of Virginia
| against Cohens aud he, dissatisfied with the deci.
sion, appealed 10 the supreme court of the Uuitet
states, where the opinion was reversed. These, we
believe, are substantially the facts, for not hayins
documents for reference nj hand we depend entirely
on memory for history of the case On one side
u IS con'ended, that the jurisdiction OF the Unitet
oates court does not reach cases Of this kind auI
that Vt could not take cognizance of IL without ia
rngng state sovereignty, and impairina state rights
while on the other side il is urged that the urisdic
ton oil the Federal judiciary extends to al cases arts
ing out OF construction OF the laws Of the UniteC
| States.
i" IL appears that the first point to bc discuss
ed IN this controversy is whether the act Of congress
authorizing the sile Of lottery tickets can properly b.
considered law of The United States. II is wei
known that the District of Colurrt is national terri,
tory, aud therefore has legislature of its own Al
the local business Of tho district such as the construc
ton Of roads, bridges, aud canals rs we'll as the Is
Enlistment OF banks, religious, civil, and literary in
shiions, designed peculiarly aud solely for the bene
t OF that dstrIc devoves upon congress as its eris
laiure. As tho lotteries which have been authorize
by congress, were principally il not wholly inteudc
ID al a..
neii Of the inhabitants Of Columbia congress ougf
to be considered w that case as legislatng for IN
District not for the nation, and such acts would ssum
the character Of statutes individual states and NC
| ~ MI 10. IL de. It..a. 4 go. IL