Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1821-06-01

justly exposed, in all It's various aspects. by
the court ofappeaiS OF Virginia, in the case
OF Hunter against Marlinld) and 10 that de
clsion, upon this point, beg leave to refer
In deducing the appellate jurisdiction, in
| this case, under the general words before
mentioned, the general proposition that n
state cannot be sued, but by its ownconsent
Is admitted by the supreme court. also adj
INIT with them, that that consent may be
gwen by general clause in the constitution
and II that consent, rs applied TO this case,
can be Inferred from just construction of
the general clause In question, then the states
| have submitted 10 be sued. There is no
particular and express delegation ofthe pow
er, IN this case, and the construction adopt
ed by the court, is not only founded upon
remote implication, but is confronted by the
lnsuperable difficulties already mentioned
shall only add, on this part of the subject,
that II the jurisdiction is not given in this
case, expressly, or by fair and necessary inn
plicaiion,the power is retained by the states,
and the decision of the state court is, conse-
quently, final.
The court goes on to say, that il, by gen.
erai act, the state has consented TO be sued
1t haspartcd with IFS sovereign right, of judg-
ing of its own pretcnsions, to that tribunal. in
whose impartiality it coniides.-The state
has, certainly, never forgotten that this
| high power might be abused, by that tribu-
nal, and its rightful powers wrested from it.
Nor did 1t ever mean TO give up the check
| provided for il, by the constitution, and
which have already endeavored to sustain.
! The position here laid down, by the court.
would lead TO passive obedience and non-re-
slstance, by the states, until their confedera-
| cy was completely overthrown, aud a con-
solldated government erected.
The court seems to consider that the con-
stitution, adopted by the " American peo
pie" expected that large portions of the So
yerciSnty of the states should begiven up
| On this | have no other remark to make
than that as much of that sovereignty is Civ
| Ell up, as has been given up, expressly, or by
lar and necessary implication. All other
! powers are retained by the states, and the
| people. AS TO the term American peo-
| pie" used by the court, it seems to SAVIOR too
much of consolidation. The constitution
was adopted by them, not as one people, but
by the several states, by the people thereof,
respectively. I'm support of this idea, Will
| refer to The FederaIist, and TO nIadson's
| celebrated report, in almost every page.
VIII refer, also, to the Debates in the Con
vention of Virginia. The difference is not
ummportant. In the last view, the idea of a
confederation Of the states is retained, and
| check upon the proceedings of the other CO.
vernment is made more manifest The ex-
preston now used seems to pave the way
| Tor that consolidation, which must flow from
| The principles now established.
The court .lustiiies its supremacy. in ell
cases, in which cit is empowered" 10 act,
| by the supremacy of the consultations, and
| laws OF the United States.-I do not object
to this passage, qualified as it is, by the
court, and rescrving to the states the checks
existing against all undue assumption of
| power. The supremacy yielded by the
| constitution, is to that constitution, ITSELF
! and the laws duly made under it, but does
| not extend to lInwarranted evposiiOns there
oil, by the courts of one OF the contracting
parties.
The court very adroitly hurries over
very important distinction, in relation 10 the
| powers of the two contracting parties. By
| that distinction the states retain all the now
| ers which they have not parted from
whereas the general government has only
such as have been granted, and to the ex-
| tent TO which they have been granted.
The term supremacy" then, with which
the court is SO much enamoured, dwindles
INTO that of granted powers and these gen
tIcmen must come down from their hirb
entrusted with few powers, and is limited
IN acting upon those powers, by the express
sions OF the constitution, as 70 such as are
granted, and by the degree of the necessity
as to such as are implied, can scarcely be
said TO be supreme.
The court is fond, on this and>s i Other
occasions, OF Wanting chat its powers are
supreme. That court does not possess such
powers. The whole government has them
not. take the holder ground, and saw.
that the people themselves have them moi.
The sovereignty OF even the people them
selves is limited by reason and Justice.
These are paramount, not only TO the text
of written constitutions, but even TO the orr
ginal power Of the people The neoDle.
themselves, associated for the common good.
cannet subvert that good. They cannot vi
olate those great principles, which soar above
all constitutions, and are paramount 10 the
rShtful power of the people, themselves.
II therefore, the people themselves have not
TINS tTanscendent and unlimited power, Meth
er have the messcurs judgcs-Not even
these high characters, can justly deprive our
people OF their chartered rights, or violate
the sacred duty imposed on the state gov
ernments, of preserving the morals of their
people. Ills not in their power 10 LET loose
a system organizing among them
TO this "supreme government" the court
says, the most ample powers are granted.
and they refer 10 the preamble of the const-
tuition, TO shew how ample these powers
are.-But the people have, also, said, by the
tenth amendment to the constitution, that
all powers which are not granted by the
states, are retained. Now it is rule of con
struction, applying to all pacts and contracts
whatsoever, that, in Interpreting them, you
are to take into consideration AL their parts.
AS to this preamble, you are to narrow the
general words therein used, by the special
grants contained in the instrument, and un-
der the influence Of fhn r,.,n..l,,....A -