Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1821-05-29


sanctioned by the supreme court itself,
when il refers, hereafter, to its own decision
in the case of .Narbiuy VS.. Madison. The
obiection, therefore, only is, lii this case, that
:, writ of error does not lie from Judgment
by a state court, rendered between such
State. and It's own citizens.-Both these OBJ
iections are grounded upon the principle,
that the general government, in all It's de-
uartments, can only exercise the powers
which have been granted to 1t, by the con-
stitution, and it viii be seen hereafter, that
no power has been granted, comforting on
the supreme court, the jurisdiction in ques-
ton.
The court proceeds to say, that these OBJ
iections proceed, on the admission, that the
constitution or laws OF the United States
may have been violated by the Judgment in
question, and that it is contended, notwith-
standing, that it is not in the power of the
government" to apply corrective.-l must
be permitted TO say, >that the objection in this
case being, to the competency OF the SUI
prcme court. to settle n power disputed be-
tween the two governments, and being a
matter in abatement only, no such admission
can be fairly inferred, from the objection.
The objection Is, in its nature, entirely ante
cedent to any enquiry on the merits. 1t
may or may not be, that the Judgment APP
M.
zion but it is only no,c said, that the Ques-
lion is not triable, before the courts of one of
the contending parties. If this objection be
valid, it is evident that the government" of
the United States, being one of the contend
I'M, parties, cannot apply corrective. The
vice, If any, lies in the constitution itself, and
that can only be amended by the people,
The people only can settle a controversy as
TO the rights which are reserved, and those
which have been granted, between the head
OF the conlcderacy and one of ITS members.
The court is pleased TO add, that these
points maintain, that the nation does not
possess department capable of restraining
peacefully and by authority of law, attempts
which may be made, by ga part against the
whole" and that the government must sub
init to such attempts, or resist them by
q force" The fallacy of this argument CON
sists, in keeping entirely out Of view, that
ours is federal government, consisting OF
divers members, having independent and
sovereign rights. From the use of the
terms, "part' and 50 whole" it would he
insinuated that we are only one nation, and,
ifso, il is admitted that the tribunals OF that
cation can settle all controversies whatsoey-
er. The "parts," III that case, are only ciii-
Zcns or subjects OF the great nation, and
have no pretensiOns, as sovereign and indie
pendent powers. The court IS, also, nCor-
rect, in saying, that there are no alternatives
but submission or 50 force" A peaceabe
appeal to the people by whom both govern
pcnts were made, would settle the clasi,ihg
between the parties, to their respective
rights and these delays are infinitely bet
Ter than an absolute Remuneration OF our fa-
dcral system, and the establishment of one
great and consolidated government. These
CI;ishings, however, will not, perhaps, be as
frequent as may have been supposed. At
any rate, the defect, ii il be one, can only be
rencdied in constitutional manner.
The court proceeds to say, that the con-
sttuuon has provided tribunal, for the
.61Dat construction OF itself, and OF The laws
and treaties OF the United States, and ihat
that high duty is devolved by the .consttu-
ton, upon the supreme court.-As this pc
sition goes the full length of saying, that this
power is conclusive, even upon the reserved
and constitutional rights, Of the several
states, and excludes ali other constructions
and ludcaturcs, whatsoever, it requires, in
deed, the most serious consideration.
VIII beg leave to- remind that high court,
that although, TO some purposes. our govern
nent is national, it is, as to others, federal :
that the states except as to the powers
granted to the general government, remain
sovereign and independent states that our
Union is, i'll fact, confederation of free
states, and that that character was not Lost,
by adopting the present constitution and
that, thus, being a confederation of free
states, there are two parties to the compact,
and that, consequently, neither OF them is
competent to settle, coaclusiycly, the char
tered rights of the other.--i will endcayor to
prove all these positions, by the most clear
and uIquesiOnablc authorities.
In proof that our government remains
federal one, with some features Of nationali-
ty,n it, will be seen III The Fedcralist, { fl that
1T IS not essential to conJedeTacy, that its'au-
thority should be restricted to It's members
in their c0iiectire capacities, without reaching
the individuals OF whom they are composed.
Again, 1t Is said, that SO long as the separate
organization OF the members OF the COME
dcratc republic, be not abolished, so long as
It exists for local purposes, it will still be, in
Tact and theory, an association of states, or
corJederacy it is further said, that our
constitution, SO far frominlplying an abolition
oil the state governments, makes them consli-
tuent parts of the national government, as
by allowing them direct representation in
the senate, and leaves in their possession
certain exclusive and very important por-
lions OF the sovereign power and that this
corresponds in every rational import of the
terms, with the idea of teCierdt government.
lg(-Again it is said, that the state g0yeyu-
ments are constituent and essential parts of
the federal government (t) and that the equal
votes of the states, in the senate, is at once
constitutional recognition of the portion OF
sovereignty remaining in the states, and an
instrument for preserving it TO them(il-A-
gam il is said, that each state, inratifying the
constitution, is considered as sovereign bo-
~ independent of all others, and only to be
hound ny ITS own voluntary act, and that, in
tbs relalinn fnn tit,,iin., f. q caLo..L Ii