Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1822-05-03


eases whatcveS, wNhoutressrd TO the con
liiion of the parties"
Z. T5at where Il judgment has been oi,tafr- |
I'd by state, III one Gifts cou.ts, in case
!" whose correct decision depends ON the con-
siruction ef the Constitution of the United
STATES. their laws, or treaties" and where the
decision Is against the constitution, sc. the
Supreme Conrt possess, nos original but ags-
pcll,ie jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court also sustained, OF
c@'Usc, their decision in the case of Huntes.
and Martin. This decision will be only iaci
den,ally noticed. The subject is fully before
the Public. The reasoning of the Court of
Appeals in the case of Hunter and Martin, will
he found IN Nlunford's Reports, vol. 1. and in
Halls Law Journal, vol. 6 and that Of the
Supreme Court on the subject Mt large, i'm the
first atld sixth volumes of WheatOn's Re
ports.
My principal! object is to examine the two
propositions above stated, advanced by the
Supreme Court. These propositions being
advanced by them, ought, according To the
rule vi law, rs well as of logic, TO be ;sroved
by them To be true. The burthen, strictly
speaking, lies su them. This will be admit
ted and 1t has already been said, that the
proof required is now bctoreIth- public, in the
report of the case published originally in the
National IntelliSencer, and since in the 9th VOL
of Wheaton's Reports.
This prompt communication, on the part of
the Supreme Court, of their opinion, through
the medium of the press, on point " vitaiIy
affecting the Union" has my unqualified APP
probation. But, while it indicates their eniiie
confidence in the rectitude and sountness of
their decision, IT seems to call for notice, and
to invite, if not TO defy, discussion.
Hayiu.r had ofiirialIv soma. ,r.nrv in ,,ro
pairing the resolutions, which were offered by
the Senate OF Virginia, as substitute for tho,.
sent up by the House OF Delegates, aud which
were agreed to by that House aud believing,
now what believed then, that these resolu-
tons are justified by Il fair and correct expo
siton of the constitution of the United States,
deem it my duty, as un9sestionably it is my
rgh'.ts accept this invitation, sc. &c.
We do not mean, in the few remarks with which
we now acCaaipauv The Letter To the Editors which
appears "n she preceding page, TO enter an ernu
meRt with the writer lie is too familiar will, his
sni9cct and too well skilled in the Of his weapons
Tor us TO "nd-rtake TO measure pens with linn. We
have no doubt his challenge will be answered and
when his opponent On esens himself nj the lists we
shall he content with remaining spectators OF the en-
counter. Before leave the field free 10 the com.
oa'an's, we shall but offer few words 10y way oil
explanation.
The term New School, was never used Law ne
with the comprehensive application which orr Vir
Sinian friend would give TO il. We have applied il
only 10 those extreme doctrines the atempt 10 ur;c
tse upon winch would bring the federal aud state
governments into certain and direct conaic, MucI,
less have we inipeached thc state Of Virnu, oi
arrogance aud characterization! We have too great
u respect Tor that stale utter snch sentiments of IL
rs we Know would he undeserved But there are
speculative and visionary theorists in every free com
munty-lnd the iierr the more Of them-who Weld
10 the suggestions OF tier fancy AS If they
friifh
oi strange doctrines. Ii one such men, of t.
spe'teh character an'. conspicuous sta'ion start "a
new h'ei oil tis sort, II IL away with hy those
VINO do not discriminate nicely rs the ORIGINAL dis
coycTers Of il, but are very apt TO nut their eor;,e
mo prict'cc. nus our col respondent, and those
who think with him, opposed io a resistance bv
tofc' OF decisions OF the SupreRie Cou1, rvcn where
HEY deny ihicr consiuiionairy being sl,isiicd with
The right, which dare refuse 10 them o., nro-
testing 'saHst these decisions. Had this l,een the
limit o The doctrines, nlusirously disseminated of
'Ie, we shouii not have questioned them, because
we CONSIDER judicial matters ont Of proyince rs
we Know them 10 he above oar Capacity But wien
we found u sad aud repeated, that the decisions OF
'He o"piem Court we're 10 he /" reSs ed unto blood"
when we heard that Vrg na. or any other State was
sovereign and independent Of the Constitution Of the
C"'on when we saw proposition, in the deliberate
'"rm OF bill, with terrible preamble 10 resist the
execution oi the laws of the United States by force
"hrn these were daily presented eyes, tn alb
s'tdi'y they At first carried on then face began 10
tnrn tn something more serious aud we vcnturc,l TO
protest against them. The New School," ii will lie
admitted was ms mild designation as could have
been sivcnio herisies so fllring
Inc compliment which is paid us nj the close of
our correspondents letter, is kiRdy meant hut il is
undestrved. We pre- il is The desire OF every
honest conductor OF public Journal, that the Con.
s;Itu,ion Gl The Omitted States shall receive ~ rs
poSlo& This can only be established after :, full
a"" Tree examination Of the questions which have
been recently raised To assist that sheet we we've
10 see before the pubkc the referred to-
and cheeIully offered the aid of our press 40 b,ng IL
10 light. 20
WIN Tie same disposition now publish the let.
Ter, &c oi our correspondent, winch, we hope, will
not IN vain invite reply. We shall witness the con
,roversy without attempting to Interfere and shall
hoid ourselves opes 10 conviction on every point
winch does not interfere with principles wcl, we
regard as vial, and not to be contested, viz thnt the
a"thniiiy oi the government OF The United States is
supreme over this land, when employed in the cxey.
Chs" VI It's constitutional functions. Mt In.