Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1821-09-04
Old on NEO-PIKyY :


;he great question at issue. 1t writes " about
and about it'' but fears To come TO the point.
In that paper of the eth August, we have two
laDorcd columns upon " things in general
There is melancholy want of precision in
stating its propositions. The great point at
issue between US is not brought distinctly into
view It is not embraced either totiden rerbis or
ID the substance OF the concessions which the
intelliSencer seems now to have made
WHAT'S that point? What has it been from
the start few words by way Of recapitu-
lation will explain il.
The controversy began with some brief re-
marks which we offered on the publication of
MIR. Jelierson's letter. We called upon the
republicans of '98 TO read il. We intreated
those politicians who are designcdly, or
heediessly yielding up the rights of the states
at The feet OF a Self-a'rogatrd supremacy and
hurryng us into the gulf OF consolidation, to
pause In their career; 10 look back to the his
tory OF the constitution; and 10 listen to the
warning voice of Jefferson and Tayior" Now.
let any man read that letter, and say whether
the following IS not the most striking doctrine
IL embraces. 1t is fatal hcresy To suppose
that either Our state governments are superior
to the federal, or the federal to the states"-
Each equally supreme rs to the powers dele
gated to itself, and neither authorized ultimate
y to decide what belongs to ITSELF or to its CO.
parcenor in government as independent in
fact as different nations"
How did the Intelligenccr receive this LET
Ter lit seized on another sentence in it,
winch recommends Z" spirit of forbearancc
ana compromise, and not of encroachment
and usurpatlon, Ito both parties as) the healing
balm of suchia constitutions" &Lc-amdpressed
| this sentence into lis own service 1t attempt
Ell to shew taat Mr.. Jefferson had written this
| letter with the case of Ohio full in his eve
and that he intended by this letter to admon-
| lsh and warn her against the consequences OF
her recent conduct.-Such was the pervcrsion
of the intention of this letter which the InteIli-
gencer committed
We attempted to point out this perversion.
We showed that Mr. j. had not the case OF
Ohio in his view that it was the supremacy
| claimed by the Supreme Court in the case oil
the Cohens which gave birth to the letter
ana that IT was against |" the fatal heresy $50
much talked of here, and SO prevalent else
where,) that the judiciary is the sole exposition OF
the constitution that it was the infalible
oracle :" and that the federal government,
through this oracle, was " authorized ultimate
~ TO decide what belongs TO ITSELF or to its CO.
Parcenor in government !" which Mr.. J. meant
to level his battery.
The lntelgencer reioined.-It pathetically
expressed its opinion 50 that friendly part is
(not) acted towards the venerable patriot oil
4Ionticello, by putting him forth as the CHIEF
OF new party."-It maintained that " the
clear inference from the whole letter. perusc
II how, and as often as you may, considering
hoU Me letter has evidently been dr0tcn forth, is
irresistible in favor of our construction. Would
u be believed, however, al his time of life,
DIR. }. would stoop from his high estate to pro-
mote collisions betCeen The state and tederaI atl-
thonties would he not rather discourage
them as far as he could with proprietv Rca-
son unitcs with construction to shew, that Mr..
.. meant TO act the peacc-Inaber on this occa-
siOn."*
We shall otrepeat our reply-but the pro
mnent question on which we again touched,
was, the supremacy claimed for the federal go
ycrnment over the s;ates.--We protested a.
ganst quitting Mr. !. forth as chief of a
! ne,O party !" and that thc doctrine we held
on the great question of supremacy in cases oj
collision between the two governments was
the doctrine of the old Republican party, oil
Mr. Madison's Report of '98, and ofthc Ken
lucky resolutions penned by Mr.. j. himself
| How did the lntegenccr meet this qucs-
| ton Not at al il shrunk from If. In place
OF manly admission or denial, it put forth a
| long article, vague, confused, and trying 10
! place the controversy upon new ground. II
declared that il was " a late hour OF the day
for the Enquirer TO come forward and to tel
| The intelligence has alluded in another paper tc
Tie manner IN which this letter has been drricn from
/ Mr. ). Whether ihe object he scff-ora'ifcptiop. o
to operate on the public, IL is very common thing {,
address letters 10 great mon, clearly indicative Of wha
the writer's want, in order to induce the reply wlcl
from beueyOlcnce ofdspositon OF particular kindnes
OF feeling towards the writer. is generally nm terms
favorable 20 The object Oh writer a. regard 10 ~
i truth will allow This is not the fist time Nj f.
name has been dragged before the public" &c &c
u the aliusion be hero made Cot TAYLOR, then la
The lnieiigcncer not only asserted letter 10 bav
been written 10 hiu from which We published an e,.
tract, iUsiuuaied tlla I've cxioricd II from MrJ, lr
has most cgregously uiisreprcsentcd Mr.. Is meaning
thou any foundation in irut--all which ere asser
upon the 5.s' gahorhJto &c ml5tepresesLi,ions.