Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1821-01-25


precedent aud principle IF mischief TO times
Uhtch were 10 come
But what WAS the foundation OF this
claim OF oogn.zance, on the part of Con
EresS, over incoilsistcncies occurring be-
twecu tho provisions of u state aud of
The federal constitution The iounda
'inn of toe authority 10 Judge eft the Oh
ser>ance, by territory claiming place
| IN the Union. oi The conditions al It's at"
mission, was the supposed authority of
| Congress 10 prescribe IN, Sc cendiiious.
| Concrdirg, inr a moment, the Authority
| 10 prescribe conditions, the authority 10
interpret and decide on their observance
| or violation, 10 more followed from II than
| JUDICIARY followed, IN any oiber case,
| from legislative power. In the present
instance III principle, il il were put,
wonlt not apply, brcause the condition
OF admission which Missouri Was sup
posed tn have violated, was prescribed,
moi by Congress, bu, by the consiiiu
ton OF the u. States. What though The
condition had been inserted in the act of
| Congress OF last year, that tie constiiu.
ton ot Missouri was 10 contain nothing
| rcpugnanl to the constitution Of Tie u.
States, WAS The condition OF any greater
validity for this insertion than IL would
have been without The insertion? Would
no, Missouri have been as strongly and
as unqucs'ionahiy bound to its cbser-
vance Then The whole foundation ial
ed, which had been assigned iur the ia
| risdictiun claimed for Congress, even II
the pr nciple assumed were a sound one.
But this principle could roi be maintain.
! ed, III point of sauudness, more than M
| point of application. II was not true,
that Congress WAS invested with auihuri-
i In rfntifiDus m, tl,n a -,
of state isio the UGiou. MIR. A. bad
no design al going iuro the general az
| RumeDi ofthe last session upon Ibis sub
| lcct bu! there were one or IVA cunstds,
railons which admitted oil beng very
| briefly assigned, which, 10 his n.iud,
| appeared conclusive against the existence
| OF this authority III Congress. There wax
one general remark, too, to he promised.
applicable TO all questions Of the validity
| OF exercis IS OF power under The federal
constitution. This remark referred 10
| the peculiar effect which doubt a. 10 lis
validity ought 10 have in preventing the
| eXrrci>e at power under This con .tiIuiion.
| IL other constitutions, in which o, neral
| powers were given, subject 10 particular
| limitations, the doubt arose on the hmita-
ton OF The power, aud fairly admitted Of
IS eXer Use, unless the negative promo.
siiIon ~pre established. Bu', in The
cous tuition OF The u. States, sc h;ch vas
admitted. OH all hands, 20 be a drl.paIion
of powers, limited hv epum,rait.u. IN
case OF doubt, the affirmative grant OF rhe
power WAS required 10 be rstab,i,i,sd. 10
auIhoriZn lis exercise II then The nowcr
10 prescribe conditions TO The admission
OF state into The Uuion we're To BIZ con-
sidered as III any degree doubtful, there
was sufficient ground forts rejection. II
stood condemned, however, by a much
stronger con>ldCraiIon-iis utter incon-
sistence with The discrimuative princlp,
and character of lcdcraiye government.
HE discriminating principle OF snch q
government was HE political equality Of
the parties tot. The amount OF mower
lntendcd 10 be gran ed being spec.fi and
being made up by equa! coniribution az
the parties. II followed thai an exact coua.
lily must subsiSt between these parties
as respected The amount and character of
| The powers which were reserved. But, If
conditions might be imposed other than
| those contained IN the original charter
OF compact, on new parties 10 be admit
ted. What was The security for the prp
serva'i"E OF this equality ? How could il
continue for moment How cgregious
would be The folly guarding against
| undue acquisitions Of power al the first
inception "t lie compact, aud permitting
| an unlimited facility acquisition afIer~
wards The objection 10 the political
| inequality OF The parties was not so strong
in The case Of mere confederation Of
states, like some OF the leagues which
subsis'ed IN ancient times, as il was i'm
The case of a compact like our own
because The design of such associations.
AMI The scope OF The exercise of HE now
ers with winch they were charged. had
reference to external purposes nny. But
these ancient leagues were invariably
regarded by historians as having received
their death blow from the moment j.,
which paiiies were admitted uaeuuaI- NOT
III icdcra'ire capacities or obligations
but ~ poser and resources. Even IN
physical nature bodies Serp found 10 he
OF 40 consistency or duration of which
the clements were lncungiuOus. II was
by the iniPrmixiure OF diSsinIar elements
That a quantity al JrangibiHty Was com.
muHvaied TO The hardest of ii!rm po
!illCal bodies were liable, ayet higher
degree, to The same law of loss or dImi-
MUTTON, as respected tie conference of
their parts by impairment OF their homo.
geuPOu,ueSS
Let this view Of the subject be some
What extended, and The conclusion
would be rendered yet more apparent.
IN our tedcfative system, The material line
OF demareaIlon between The federal and
state jurisdiction had reference tn the
distinction between subjects Of general
and of municipal concern. The FIST class
was considered as forming, with some
exceptions, The exclusive subjects Of fc
deral authority. But, ifs power we're
rerognizrd 10 impose conditions al dis
crriion on new states admitted into the
con'ederacy, what was 10 binder in rec
laiion 10 these states, the assumption of