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


Un on were superseded, by thenew, evidently
mean, that the old parties title states) were
about To amend their old Union.
TO shew that the states, except ms to the
powers granted, remain free and sovereign
states, will add, To the authorities already
quoted, the following. 1t is said in Vattel
(pl, that nations, like men, are considered as
equal that dwarf is as much man as u
giant-and that small republic is as much
Il sovereign state, rs powerful kingd0m.-
Again, it is said,(q) that Il nation does not
cease to be free, when she has fulfilled the
obligations into which she has entcred.-A-
gain it is sad,(r) that several sovereign and
independent states may unite themselves to.
gcther, by perpetual confederacy, without
each, in particular, ceaslnS to be perfect
state and that they will form, together, a
federal republic."-To come home to the
case before us it is said In The Federalist,
Isl that in truth " the great principles of the
constitution may be considered, less as abso-
lutely new, than as an expansion of the prin-
ciples, contained i'll the articles of confedera-
ton and again,(D that the new constitution
consists less i'm the addition of new powers,
than in the invigorating its original powers.
1t was also said, by Mr.. Madison, in the con-
vention OF Virginia, az that g the powers
so much an augmentation of powers, i'm the
general government, as a change rendered
necessary for the purpose of giving efficacy to
thosevested in it before" was decided by
the supreme court itself, in the case of Hun
terv VS.. Martin,lr) that the sovereign powers
vested i'll the state governments, remain I'M
altered and unimpaired, except SO far as they
are granted, to the government of the Unit
ed States.-It was also decided by the Court
of Appeals of Virginia, in the case of War
der VS. Arell,(,c) that though the several
states form confederated government, yet
they retain their individual sopereigniies, and,
with respect to their municipal laws, are to
each other foreign.
With respect to there being two parties to
our national compact, and as to that compact
being league or treaty, between all the
states on one part and each state on the other,
thecasesof Pennsylvania V. Goblet, IS Dallas,
S43, and Hunter vs.. Martin Munf. L, may be
referred TO. In both these cases this position
was clearly aud unanimously repealed, by
the supreme courts of Pennsylvania and Vir-
ginla. 1t Is also taken passim,, in the cele-
brated report of the Virginia Legislature, in
the year l799.-lt is also stated by Professor
Tucker,trl that the federal constitution is a
compact whereby the states and the people
are bound to the United States, and, by which,
the federal government is bound TO the seve-
raj states, and to every citizen of the United
States. II cannot be otherwise, if the
state soyereignties exist at all, aud have any
treaty or compact, rs a general government
As then there are two sovereign govern
mems, connected together, by league or
treaty, are the courts of either competent to
bind the constitutional rights of the other !?
And, If So, which And is not the right re-
ciprocal ?-lf this right exists, does it not ex-
ist in favour of the rights reSerred, as well as
the rights granted And if this power ex-
lists, duesit Lot hold j5rtiori, in favour of the
state judiciaries ?--Thcse officers are bound
by oath To support the constitution and laws
OF The United States, whereas the federal
Judges are not so bound, in relation to the
constitutions and laws of the several states.
The Judges OF all the states have also an in
terest III the general government, and it is,
emphatically, Their government but the
Judges of the federal courts have no interest
in the government or laws of any state, but
that OF which they are citizens. As to every
| other state but that, they are, completely, a.
| liens and foreigners.
On this great subject let us advert to some
| authorities.-W are told by that noble mar
| tyr 70 the cause of liberty, ALGERNoN SID
I
| Caius and ,Seius, neither Of them may deter
mine it, but that it must be referred to Judge,
| superior to them both and that this is, not
| only, because each would Judge in his own
| cause, but because both would have an equal
| right, and neither owes any subsection TO the
| othcr.-Again, he says, that no man can be
| my Judge, but my superior, and that he can
not tie my superior, but by my consent, nor to
any other purpose, than have consented to-.
| (y) In principle, this authority is decisive Of
| the case before us.---It is said i'm Vattcl that
no sovereign ought To set himself up as the
| Judge of another.(z) Again, he says that it
| does not belong to nations to usnrp the power
OF being the Judges Of each other.(aa) A
gain, he says, That il there be any disputes in
| a state, respecting the fundamental laws, or
| on the prerogativcs, of the different powers of
| which it is composed, it is the business of the
nation alone to judge and determine them.
| (6b)-Hesays, also, that ii would be highly I'M
| becoming in prince, to resolve to be the
| Judge in his otcn cause.(cc) He, again, says,
| (dd) that g neither of the contracting parties
I" has right to interpret the act or treaty, at
I" has pleasure, for if (says he) you can give
my promise what sense you please, you
can oblige me to do what you please,
contrary TO my intention, and beyond my
engagement" Again, he says, that the faith
of treaties forms the only security ofthe con-
tracing parties.(ee Elm the case os Cobbett
VS.. Pennsylvania, before adverted to III, it
was unanimously resolved by the supreme
court of Pennsylvania, that all powers not
| granted to the government of the United
States, remained with the several states that
the federal government was a League or treaty
made by the individual states as one party,
and all The states as another that neither of
the parties, has the exclusive right to con-
strue it, as to the extent of their respective
| rights and that there is no COMMON umpire
between them, but the people. The Legs
laii1rn IL flic anil