Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1821-01-25

state iuio the Union, 10 ensue on The
commission OF mere error or lnadver
teacr! Was such a principle Ol ioriel
ture ever heard ia any system ot jurls-
prudence There WAS another tel WHICH
appeared 10 Mr.. Archer 10 be of cOnciu-
si,e application in relation 10 this branch
q! The question. The states already adj
ni,ted into the Union were at liberty IN
form new constitutions. Take an exam
pie from Pennsylvania. state which MIR.
A. believed had more than once reno
deiied It's constitution, and IN which there
MAS said 10 be- party favorable 10 a stili
iariher modification of il. Suppose Penn
sNlVanla-- an instance OF absurd and
culpab,e ianaticism, though II could ne
yer occur IN fact. might be Imputed in
The way oi argumeni-suppose Pcnnsyl.
vania, III new modelling her CONSTITUTIONS,
were 10 insert provision, giving power
In her legislature, tn adopt protective re-
gulaiions, in relation 10 persons held 10
service Or labor IN other states and es-
Gaping into that state, in coniraven.ion
of the clause of the constitution of the u .
States, which requires such persons, in.
stead OF being protected, To be delivered
up on the claim of those entitled To their
service or labour. In such an event,
would Pennsylvania stand discharged
from her relation TO the Union or would
the whole OF her new modelled constiiu-
ilon he vacated? Ii the first of these
consequences would follow, il was moi
Improbable that there was no state which
had re organized IT'S constitution, bEt
would be found, upon careful enquiry,
10 stand discharged from lis affinity 10
the Union. If this consr quence we're
Just, state committing, in the re- modi-
hca'ion Of lis constitution, any act of the
most iOadverteni violation Ot the consti-
lu,ion OF the United States, was liable 10
be displaced irnm its affinity 10 the
Union by Congress. who, il ought TO be
remembered, vas said 10 be invested with
an authority to trercise judgement without
confroul upon this subject OF the contra
ven'ion by state constitution of the
constitution OF the United States. But,
Il state was not only liable in Mis- view
o. tn subject TO be discharged from her
relation 10 The Union by Congress. II
ais" followed that he ull have j, IN
her power "a dis barge herself. bv remo~
d'hng her constitution with that design.
~ roniravention of The known principip
that the Union coui Only be dissolved
20 Hgnmine quo HgoiN~. BIZ th4 consent
a
IorIiy ot The states, TO the dissolution.
lie; il be conceded, however, ,ha, only
the rc>modeled constitution, and no,
the relation ct Ilie state 10 In Union.
was te be vacated by provision a,imit.
ing OF being construed into brea cl o {
The federal constitution. Was there any
person TO be iourd who would contend
Tor this doctrine? IF there were. how had
II happened that, by parity Of reason. TIE
constitutions OF The old thirteen states.
all OF which, perhaps, contained PROV.
sions Inconsistent with The constitution
OF HE u. States, had not been invalidai,
cd by the adoption of this instrument
1t wOui be said, indeed, that there was
a Distinction, ~ This resp q, between
states already admitted. ana those apply,
ing Tor admission, INTO The Union Mr..
\. INSISTED, on the contrary, that there
was ii adequate ground for distinction.
In "ordIiion was the same in relation
70 all the parties 10 the Union, Of obl:ga-
ton 10 conformity, in their legal and con
siiiuil'nal regulations, 10 the provisions
OF 'h' constitution of The Z. States. The
power, too, oil supervIsal aud control on
tiIi subject, on ihe part OF Congress, was
The same, namely. that which resulted
from the operation OF the clause enjoin.
ing on Congress lie guarantee, as respect
ed the states, of republican form of
gavrr meni. The construction then be.
ing excluded. which rendered a constiiu-
on liable 10 invaidation TOR one consist
emi and invalid clause, Missouri vas moi
10 be rejected from the Union, although
a clause OF tits description should be
found to have crept into her constitution.
But, whatever might be The character
OF the disputed clause OF the Missouri
constitution, the enquiry remained as 10
the competency OF Congress to pronounce
any determination on The subject. The
question, as relating 10 The construction
OF an ins'rUment, WAS obviously one of
judicial character and where did Con.
gress flnd authority either la the general
principles Of tree government, or the pes
culiaT structure OF our torn, for the eXer-
else of function OF this kind The
reasons which opposed such an inrermix-
ture OF functions, were of peculiar ap-
pilcali@u 10 the present case. The most
obvious VAS The un!i;nrss, ironi habits as
well as humble, OF a legislative body for
the dis barge OF IA Judicial function, The
had evidently Contemnlated
tins ,dra IN itr provision respecting the
guarantee st republican form Of COVE NJ
ment the character of a government, as
respected lis conformity 10, OF departure
iron republican form, being subject
which statesmen were as well qualified 10
de de as judges. Tie expression too, IL
W. 10 be remarked, o. . Jurisdiction, on
ia part Congress, iu this case, clearly
excluded lis Jurisdiction in any 9th :.
A fr h r and uuansw cradle objection 10
th jurisdiction cIaimcd, was h. be found
in The abs nee Of all responsibility, and
the opeIaliuH indeed, OF positive induce
meDi 10 The abusive discharge Of II, The
discharge was known in be liable 10 ~
hueuce from party aud sectional feelings,
OBJ" irncr TO which was assured, moi
mfr ~ II exemption from blame, but OF
reWar and favor ID The source 10 mhich