Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1821-09-25

partner take npoa itself to- decide aiiuaalsl,
all the vascs'oi collision between them ?-Tha
is to saw, if the lntelligencer holds this posi-
ton. But we beg his pardon /; he Las no turr
for" legal disq,lisiiion."
He dOcs indeed seem to hold this position
! If we ran understand the drift of his neat ar.
iguncnt:
In the Convention which formed the Constitution
ad al the several Conventions of the people IN the
states by which il ratified there question
whether The general government ought 10 hr Supreni,
or NOT The important question in the Gcner;,, Con
vcnton was. in fact whether the state Cover
slo hc suffered cocks, or not The federal par
~ was in favor of dispensing with them, altogether
The republicans insisted maintaining tlep, ant
they fortunately overwhelmingly say, foI
Heaven forbid that the state governments slutld be
shurn, ly construction otherwise, of particle oil
their just authority"
This is not the only occasion on which Inc
lays stress on the proceedings of the General
Convention form his paper of the god inst
he even refers, rs, "A sort of authority, to the
late work of Judge Yates--which is not only
very mutilated hut Il very incorrect expose
of the matter TO which it refers. But in any
event, we must not take the debates and incl
dental decisions of the Convention as a GER
tain guide in applying the provisions of the
Constitution. In this point of view, they have
take the instrument itself rs our text; if we
seek key elsewhere, it must not be in the in
tentions of those who planned it, but in the
sense which was attached to it by the people
IN their respective state Conventions where it
received all the authority it possesses.7-But go
into those Conventions, and where shall we
find any evidence of this wish to abolish the
states! where, of any intention to bow them
in all cases before the supremacy of the gene
raj government of denying them the right,
as parties, of interpreting 4" in cases of deli
berate, palpable and dangerous exercise of
powers not granted by the constitution ?"-
We find no such doctrines in the Virginia Con-
vcntion-none in "the speeches of Mr. Ma
olson and others )" the n. !. TO the contrary
Notwithstanding.
As ifby way of denying this right, the In
telligencer throws out this idea:
We should be clad that the writers in the Enqui-
rcr the literal interpreters, who reject all inference
OF power, would point out the part OF the constitution
OF any state in the Union, wherein the people of thai
state have authorized tlieir Legislature (much less
their Judiciary, the creature of the Legisaturc) 10
resist defeat the laws of the United States made bv
the govern OF which they are rs much part US
they arc oi the government of each particular
Ii is, indeed curious spectacle 10 see the represen
iat'Nes OF the people IN state government opposing
the acts OF the representatives of the people in
opposing themselves"
Surely the Intelligencer need not have re-
minded us of its inability to discuss legal, or
constitutional questions. After this, who will
dispute it? We tie down the general govern
ment TO its bond because it is limited in
strument of delegated powers. Itholds nothing
but what is given TO it.--But are not the state
constitutions very different Are they not gen
eral transfers of power and who therefore cx
poets them to be interpreted on the same strict
principles But besides this gross mistake,
the whole argument is vague III lis terms.
Does it mean by the words Z" opposing and re-
l" sisting," that the state governments are TO
he prohibited from doing any thing that be-
cause one set of representatives have acted,
the other set are to fold their arms in silence !:
that let the rights of the states he ever so scri-
ousiy attacked, they are TO seal their lips :?
Such is not the doctrine of the Federasi, l..
p. 500, who says that the state legislatures will
be ready TO sound the alarm to the people,
and effect change. Such was not the doc
trine of the republicans Of '9S--of the rcsola-
lions of Kentucky or of Virginia-but it was
that of the federal legislatures of Rhode ISL
and, of Massachusetts, of Connecticut. and OF
New Hampshire. The former denied the SUI
premacy of the federal court; the latter main
tanned it. The first were the republicans, in
"times that tried mems souls ;",the last belong
cd to the federal party" Choose We, then,
this day whom We will serve "for you cannot
serve two masters"
"Tis true, that in an evil hour, the Virginia
Legislature did depart from the doctrine oi
'98. They passed certain resolutions in 1909,
under the excitement those feelings which
were produced by the case of Olmstead. They
adopted them Observation-Disclosures went a.
gainst the whole stream of the doctrines held
by this STATEN '98, and down to the present
moment with that one exception. II was il
vain that these resolutions were quoted during
the last winter in the COhens case-they were
mentioned but TO be secuted by the republi-
can party. They found their only support a.
mOng the federalists of the house.
1t is in vain then for the Intelligencer &c
rake these ashes from their grave.-The doc
trines, which we now advocate, are not new
The lntelligencer knows they are not. They
were the doctrines of the Republicans of '9S
and '99-thc doctrines of Virginia, Kentucky
and Pennsy lvania--of Madison, and Jefferson
and Monroe-not the ns,c lights of day, bu
the fathers of the church. Let not the !. clay
this fattering u notion to its soul"-nor throw
over its apostacy this veil of delusion*
And" is it come to this ?" Shall the state:
be cast by, as parties to the compact? d" Mus
tney CROUCH wien the King speaks :: MUS
they see their best rights invaded, without ut
tering a syllable of complaint? Must they
not even demonstrate ?-May they not commu
nicate their views freely to each other, anC
invite their concurrence in like declara
| ton ?" May they not even attempt to redres
the wrong by an united effort TO amend til,
We quote from Madisons Report the doctrine O
3d. which the people sealed by their votes, whcI
| they hurled tie Fedcrasts from power:
"Butit is objected that the judicial authority is Il
be regarded as the sole expositor of the constitution
in the last and it may be asked for what rea
son, the declarations by the General A,scmbly suppos
ing TO be theoretically true, could be required al tn
present day and in so solemn n manner