Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1821-06-22


rancous exposition Is so strong as that of the
contracting parties in the very act of CON
tracing In the transactions whether of ma
tons or individuals, the doubtful expressions
nj an instrument, have, by the common
sense OF mankind, received their interilreta-
ton from the understanding of the parties at
the time OF the contract, where that can be
clearly asceririncd. Look then at the de-
bates in the convention of this state, which
adopted the constitution. When the vene-
rable MIR. Mason, with the indignant and un-
bending spirit OF another Fletcher of Sal
tom, dcmanded* whether "this state was to
be brought to the bar of justice like "A de
llnquent individual, whether its sovereign
sly was 10 sustain the modification of being
arragned like culprit or private offender
at the bar OF the federal court" it was re-
piled by Mr.. Madisont that it was not in
the power of individuals to call any state
into court" The same objections were
also promptly repealed by another memher.t
lie considered the supposition of a state be-
ing brought to the bar OF the federal court as
lnadmssiblc upon any fair principles of con-
structlon, and as arising only from the vi
slonary fears OF the opponents CT the consti-
tuition. hope", said he, F." no gentleman
will think that state will he called to the
AL TO suppose that The sovereign poiCer shall
be dragged before a couf."-How much less
rational, that the majesty of the sovereign
power iii the exercise Gifts most awful fiinc-
hons-the punishment of the wicked, shall
itself, be dragged before another tribunal by
the West miscreant, and compelled TO ana
swer TO the degrading question "What dost
thou The heatedimagination OF the most
Incorporate antifederalists the ardent long
mgs alter consolidation of the most jealous
followers of Alexander Hamilton their a
cute and adventurous leader himsef-neyer
dreamt of a construction of the constitution,
which, if it had not been promptly and
universally dsavowesi, would have annih-
lated every hope of tie adoption of the con
templated form of government. Hear what
even he has said in that work which we are
told " has always been considered as of great
authority" both ''from its intrinsic merits
and the part which two of its authors per-
formed in framing the constitution" In
speaking of the objections raised against
that instrument on the ground of the suabili-
ty of state he declares it to be " inherent
IN the nature of sovereignty not TO be a
menable to the suit of an individual with
3" out It's consent "This is the general
sense and the general practice of mankind,
OF sovereignty is ROW ca;oyed by the go
vemmcnt of every state in the union. I'm
less there is a surrender OF this immunity
In the plan of the convention, it viii remain
with the states, aud the danger animated
must be merely ideal" He then refers TO a
former numberN on taxation, in which he tells
us he had =" discussed the circumstances ne
cessary TO produce an alienation OF state
sovereignty" In that number we are told
mat as the plan of the convention aims only
at partial union or consultations the state
governments clearly retain all the rights of
sovereignty which they before had, and
which were not by that act erclaSiUelu vest
" ed in the United States" And he after
wards observes, g that IL Is not a mere possi-
" bihty Of Inconvenience IN tie exercise Of Doic-
" erS, but an immediate constitutional repug-
nancy that can by implication ALLEVIATE and
" eXtInguish pre-eXisting right of soveregn-
ty." !" recurrence to these principles
we are iniormed,TI will satisfy us that there
is no colour TO pretend that the state go
vernments would be Invested of the priv
lege of paying their own debts in their own
way, free from every conStrGint but The obi
cations Of good .fnith. The contracts be-
tween nation and individuals are only
binding on the conscience of the sovereign,
force. They confer no right of action in
+" dependent Of the sovereign will. To what
purpose would it be to authorize suits a.
galnst states for the debts they owe? How
could recoveries be enforced ? 1t is evident
1T could not be done lVitl,om ,rGgipe aca!
against the contracting state find to as
c'15e to the .JederGI courts BY MERE IOIPLIcA-
" TIoN, and an destruction ola pre-eriSting
f!ght Of tie state governments, q p0tCer icI,ick
iOOUiG InUotUe such q consequence, iCOuld be
altogether. forced and UNyyARRANTABLE."
have been more minute in extracting
these opinions of Mr.. Hamilton, because such
stress has been laid upon the authority of his
work, and because the principles he advances
bear strongly upon another part of the sub
Ject under consideration. 1t is here ONLY pro
per to remark the universal coincidence of
opinion among the advocates of the consti-
tuition, that the stability of states was not TO
be found In its provisions. If we are TO re-
sort to contemporaneons exposition, to cx-
tend the powers of the government, we are
equally entitled to its benefit for the preser-
vatlon of the fragments of state auihOritv.-
If the assertion of federal power, by con
temporaneous writers, affords evidence Of IFS
existence, an universal disavowa of federal
jurisdiction is not less conclusive against it,
III the opinions of an anonymous newspaper
publication, written in the heat and hurry of
the battle, are entitled to respect, with what
Difference must we not b0IV to the solemn
declaration OF distinguished member of
the convcntion-made upon the response
bllty of his own high character and growing
Notwithstanding a construction Of the
constitution which was likely to raise up enc
mics to its adoption?
And yet, this cOntempOraneous cxposi-
tlon," this high authority, is dsrcgarded, and
the STABILITY OF the states, under the consti-
tuition as it originally stood, is avowed and
maintained as the basis of the decision of
the case Of Cohens against virginia. II was
tIn1l...I q. l.. l. L. L IL