Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1821-08-31

9dis' 'nc slightest encroachnents of the general go
:" We are clearly Of the opinion that in such case,
too much jealousy Is far preferable TO excessive secu
rw-- me great mass oi the people IN more than TWEEN
" separate and independent are much less la
Die to err IN the construction of their rights Than arc
nnt ialblc men, (inaAing majority OF The national
judiciary exposed to tle temptations of POWER and
surrounded hy thousand circumstances n, b;,,s an,
niislead their judgments Ia is therefore with rl,,
sure we have Witnessed The discussion of thus suiect
Il '>e aI'rm ms been created, with regard 10 The
ncs oil me nit"nl judiciary, II will, like al other
i'isc alarms, ccnc To nOght. IT, on the other hand
tic Chitcd States court have some instances trans.
cended the limits Of their jurisdiction and assumed
powers which were never delegated Ia them ii they
Da'e annuled the acts of legislatures reversed
he DECISIONS oil state courts, and impaired state sovc-
reigny, IN an arbitrary a;l yranmic hiaii,er il is
umc inc tocs'n were sounded, aud the people aroused
from their dream ol securitv.
" At present, we shall pursue the subject M I'm,
uher. tiah 10 g'e an extract OF letter from the We
neraoic THOMAS JEFFERSON, whose opinion OH this
sunect, rs on All others growing out of construction
oil me constitutions will he deemed good authority
Here foLiorS The Letter aboat COL TfyioriS BooL !
| Newiii merely remark, that this letter has, been
differently construed by the parties in the conto
versy but IN otr opinion, the construction ,loes moi
admit OF doubt. 1t * clear that tere has been no
eHcroacime1t or 'Svp,tiOa of individual STATES upon
the jurisdiction OF the United States court Int the
reverse Is by no means clear. IL is in fact the only
point IN discussion, and 10 which alone Mr. Je1rr-
| son opinion can refer"
| There's one error in point of c.ct in the
above statement which deserves TO he correct
Ell. The case was not decided by the Supreme
Court OF Virginia; but only in the borough
court OF Norfolk one Of the lowest iudc;,-
lures IN the STATE. From that court the case
fniSht nave been removed to one (; and perhaps
TWO higherstate courts; and therefore the Su-
prcme Court ofthe u. s. could not legally have
taken jurisdiction of it even under the Act of
| Congress.
Inc next citation we make is from New
Hampshire paper-which has not vet come
out, decidedly, one way or the other:
| -, FROM NE Portsmouth Joanai. .3MguSt31
?, We nave hitherto iorllornc any ausion the great
ioiica tSueson which is beginning TO agitate Tho
| United States. 1t is n subject Of suct vas, i'm
portancc, and involves deeply the nrosneritv and
uienty, anu permlnence OF the government and
perhaps the peace of the cont,.erocytIa, no ,;,,;
| upon II should he either lightly formed or r,ebIy
expressed IL Is question of more importance than
any one which has attracted the public attention since
,ne adopuon oil ihe constitutions. Other questions re-
lateu 10 particular points of policy the Dower of
particular officers TO subjects OF great Importance
indeed but of local temporary natnrebut this re-
gits the Whole fabric of governments aud involves in
| lis decision The character and effect of al; our in
sutions. II is, in short, " Whether the Coastii,fjoa
ofHe Tinted States shall be construed by tie Gees, or
| by he State governments :"
We have stated the question in its most general and
""s'c FORM, ilat II may be considered without local
preJuces, particular constructions of the costitu
uoh may nave been wrong, right: is orr pur-
Po>e "t present 10 examine them. But t Is of the
hiSest importance To know rhere f, ,lors of piypu
construction 10 its provisions IS deD0Sie{ That *
the true question AT issue and il should now be dis
| iincty understood. Whenever il begins TO he cx-
tensiveiy discussed, it will doubtless he minecd will,
many local aud subordinate considerations which will
only tend To excite the passions and nreyert an
impartial examination "
me SUBJECT has attracted much more attention in
he southern and Western States than in New Eur-
land but the time is probably near when !, ,,; il.
ne principal subject of political controversy trorh
OUT ihe cnIon We could earnestly wish that the
contest might be avoided but lift becomes necessary
10 resort AGAIN 10 first principles and to decir ,,
,ne very character and form of our government we
| hope we shall all, rs good men and good cifzcns
resOlueiy ~ F'''' '''
Ihe National inieligencer, Published AT Washing
;oi, ana inc american at New York have taken the
80 III ' Wy! argument III favor OF the General govern
me me iNchnond Enquirer has distinguished
itsii rs Tire bo!dest advocate OF the o,pnsi,iou
We snail endeayour TO resume the subject at some
carry PERIOD and TO state the arguments which baye
ueeh respectively used and we hope To give such
views ct the question will be consistent with The
| UNlON OF THE STATES and the PROSpERI
| TY OF TIE REPUBLIC
| 40 From The same, .1agmss ISL
We have laid aside me original remarks ;n,coio,
oi S paper, 10 make room ior tie following extrcts
| from the National Intelligence, of Auoust g TI.y
sonn; III Il reniarkabe degree, the opinion we ex-
pressed last week, of the impogfrce OF be ouas,;op
winch Is astatIng the Southern and Western Stuncs
Whatever may be thought of the event of ihe contro
HeTsy, u discovers no little excitement TO talk famil-
iiriy oil convention of the people of tbc II St,rs
| as they do IN Virginia or OF an anneo IN ,r,ns m
| uley do IN Kentucky. These doubtless nro ;,.je
.nrea's but they Indicate the Importance which in
uoSe states, IS attached TO the subject Idle as they
casion P' f "'i' &c
IN leading these extracts, it is necessary TO remcm
t'at 'e 'rue question IS not about any particular
% sun oi ule ouprtmc Court of the United STATES
Ihat court may have erred in its construction Of ,b
constitution or laws OF the Union Though lis NON,
oers are men OF distinguished talents OF various learn
ing, and oil unbemishcd integrity thev re ,,a c;tIo
men and may have erred Ifthcv have ,Ione ,yrn,
IL rs ~ the power of Congress TO pass sucb Laws 80
VIII correct the evil. But the Question sI,ould Lo
c1uS'aered apart from their actual decisions " Who
s,iu interpret The constitution and laws of the United
| states Shall Ohio or Virginia Or shall the
United States decide upon their constitution as the
| ihd,vldual States do upon their own?
Inc quotations which follow are from the
uniform friends of the late acts and decisions
oil the federal government. The first is
/ From tie Charleston City Gasette.7
Mr. Jefferson has indeed said, 20 II IS laia heresv
TO suppose that either governments are supe-
rIor 10 the federal, the federal TO the state =
NeHher IS authorised uhimoieiy 10 decide
""d' Dcongs 10 ic or TO IFS co-parCcnOr in govern
ueh'' In differences of opinion
between these different of servants the appcaI is
| TO neither, but to their EMPLOYERS r. e. the Pro
fLEJ peaceally assembled by their representatives
IN Convention"
Now this opinion Of the sage Of Monticello oI,yious-
~ bears upon those differences of opinion which
cannot he settled by any regular and existing tribunal
ne certainly does not mean TO that the Supreme
Court of the United States, power established by
the constitution IS padeqvqe decide questions which
by the very spirit and letter OF that instrument il was
created pWp0scig 10 decide Nh Mr. JeGcrson
means some case which may occur, for which the
constitution has made provision Indeed TO ap.
peal TO convention--to imagine, for moment the
NECESSITY Tor such iing, is in many words TO say
that the Supreme Court has no authority whatsoever
and IS incapable Of deciding constitutional points
ms would be not only absurd, but an inipolilic
suppositon for II IS on coHsfi0iat Joivfs that tli,
. H.. L.. ~