Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1821-06-19
RICHMOND, JUNE l9, l8eI.
FOR THE ENQUIRER.
Examination orthe Opinion Of The Sapreme
Court ia lie case Of COHENs rs. TIE
STATE OF VIRGINIA.

- VI
am aware that may seem To many, I'M
necessarily minute but shall be forgiven
by those who yet feel any interest in the
preservation OF our constitution. | am tho
roughly convinced that no one measure has
ever made SO alarming "a breach in our po-
litical institutions, rs the opinion of the SUI
preme court in the case of Cohens VS.. the
State of Virginia
The court still continuing in their course
of abstract reasoning TO establish their luris-
diction, and pursuing their policy of using the
weapons of their adyersaries, have called i'm
the aid of n principle which | have before
mentioned, as leading to the opposite con-
cl,lsion. The least that can be said is, that
IN their hands it is entirely powerless. They
say that the Judicial power of every well
constituted government must be co-cxten-
siye with the Legislative, and must be capable
Of deciding every Judicial question which
grows ous OF the constitution and laws."--
There is a remarkable defect in this part of
taer reasoning, which should not have ex-
pected from the supreme court. 1t is evil
dent that the argument must fail short of its
object, unless the court can shew that the
legislative power extends TO the states iii their
political capacity. If they had done this,
their conclusion that the judicial power ought
IL have similar extent, would have been
NOulu nave
been wrong. But this they have no. attempt
cd To do and this they would not venture to
do. The public mind is not yet prepared
for the s,ceeping doctrine that congress can
pass laws to act directly on the states. But
VIII supply this defect by inserting the prin-
ciplc which they have omitted, and which is
absolutely necessary 90 make their reasoning;
inteiiigible and consistent i will suppose that
the court have said that congress hare the
power to pass laws to act specifically on the
states. viii even 80 further. j will sup
pose that they maintain the proposition, that
The Erecatiye has a similar power in its APP
propricte sphere of action. | have already
silewn that there is the same reason for give
lag this extent to the erscutire power, as TO
thr Legislative and j1iiciai Their argument
will then stand this the judicial power
must have equal extent with the legsla-
tive and executive aud as the federal tegis-
tdiure and erecutiee can act on the states in
tier political character, it follows that the
Judiciary must have equal power Within
its sphere of action. This is the awful and
mon,eatous consequence 10 which the rea-
soain5 Of The supreme court inevitably
leads l must be pardoncd for pausng
moment to contemplate principle which is
nov first introduced into Our government,
and to measure, IL some degree, the ,lnde-
fined prospect which it opens to our view.
Ii the three departments of the federal
government possess the right to control the
states, there is an end at once of the state
governments All the subtlcty of the SUI
prc!ne court cannot lind another alternative
The practical operation OF this doctrine will
be made manifest by selecting a particular
instance. Congress have "A general power to
lay taxes. According to- the supreme court,
this Includes a power to lay taxes OH the
states. For they contend that under the gem
eral clause which gives jurisdiction I" in all
cases III law and equity arising under this
constitution, the laws OF the United States,
&c" the states are necessarily included,
without their being specially named. Pur-
suing the same rule of construction, the gem
eral power TO lay taxes, must equally include
the states in their political capacities. The
Constitution must be consistent with itself
Ii the states are the natural and proper OBJ
.ects OF Judicial power, they are equally the
objects of legislative power. This conse-
qlence Is inevitable, unless the court can shew
some difference between judicial and legisla-
tive powers, in this respect Suppose then
that congress should lay a tax on the several
states, apportiOning the quota of each ac-
coro.inS TO some rule which they may devise,
and to enforce the law, they should add the
sanction of heavy penalty. According to
the supreme court, such i law would be per-
f:ctly constitutional. will suppose that
Virginia proves refractory, las | trust in God
$ re would,) the next step must be to coerce
her. She is summoned into the supreme
court either by original process or by appeal.
Here every thing is smooth. The law must
ba pronounced 10 be constitutional because
the states are included in the general power
10 lay taxes; the court have jurisdiction, be-
Tho 4.,f,~ = 4
Cause which gives jurisdiction {" in all cases,
IN law and equity, arising under this consti-
tuition, the laws OF the United States, &c"
If 1t is necessary TO call on executive aid, that
will be given without hesitation, because the
executive power must be co-extensive with
legislative and Judicial power. Thus we find
tnat by the principles of the supreme court,
congress have power to tax the states "a
power never yet dreamed of by the most
ardent admirer or the most Jealous adversa-
Fy of the federal government. Ifthe people
acquiesce in this decision, the time will come
when the federal government will lay claim
to this power and many others equally ex-
travagant; and what is worse, the decision
VIII be quoted with triumphant effect. Prin-
Sipiis oJsta.
The court proceed to say that the doc
trine commended for on the part ofVirgna,
would PROSTATE the government and its laws
@t the feet of every state IN the Union. How
often must it be repeated that the court cam
not mould the constitution, 10 suit their ideas
eteXpediency that they are 20 perform the
more humble Office of interpreting what has
oeen already written by others, and not to
add or subtract one iOta. But the very pro-
position itself cohfessrs that the doctrine of
inc supreme court, will PROSTATE the states
at the feet of the federal government. If the
1enial of jurisdiction over the states would
LAY the federal government PROSTATE at the