Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1823-09-12

ment part of the state of Virginia, and all her
laws are acts ofusurpation. The counsel who
urged this argument would not, we are per-
suaded, consent 10 this conclusion and ye,
IT would seem to be inevitable, if the premises
insisted upon he true.
9. The next objection, which is to the
validity of the particular clause of the compact
involved in this controversy, rests upon Il prin-
ciple, the correctness of which remains TO be
proved. 1t is practically opposed by the
theory of all limited governments, and especi-
ally of those which constitute this Union.-
The powers of legislation granted les the go
vernment of the United States, as well as to
The several State governments, by their re-
spective constitutions, are all limited. The
article of the constitution of the United States,
involved in this very case, is one, amongst
many others, of the restrictions alluded to-
LII 1t be answered, that these limitations were
imposed by the people in their sovereign char
acter, 1t may he asked was not the acceptance
OF the compact the act Of the people of Ken
| lucky in their sovereign character IT, then
| the principle contended for be sound one
we can only say, that it is one, of most
| alarming nature, but which il is believed can
not be seriously entertained by any American
| statesman or lurst.
| Various objections were made to the liberal
| construction of the compact, one only of which
we deem it necessary particularly to notice.
That was, that If il be SD construed as TO deny
to the legislature Of kentucky the right to pass
the act in question, il will follow that that
State cannot pass laws TO affect lands, the title
TO which was derived under Virginia, although
the same should be wanted for public use
II such consequences grows necessarily out
OF this provision of the compact, still we can
perceive no reason why the assent to it by the
people of Kentucky should not he binding on
nf hats ,fa NJ,
ceive, why the admission of the concIusionin-
VOWED IN the argument should nvalidate an
express article of the compact in relation to
| quite different subject The agreement that
the rights Of claimants under Virginia should
remain as valid and secure as they were I'M
der the laws of that State, contains A plain.
intelllglble proposition, about the meaning of
| which, 1t is impossible there can be two opi-
mons. Can the government of Kentucky Nv
from this agreement, acceded to by the peo-
pie IN their sovereign capacity, because il in
wolves principle which might be inconvenieDt
or even perniciOus to the State, in some
| othsr respect The Court cannot perceive
how this proposition could be maintained
But the TACT is, that the consequence drawn
by counsel from literal construction of this
article OF the compact, cannot be fairly de-
duced from the premises, because, by the
common law of Virginia, ifnot by the univer-
sal law oil all free governments, private pro-
/ perty may be taken for public use, upon max
ing 10 the individual ust compensation The
admission of this principle never has been i'm
agined by any person as rendering his right 20
property less valid and secure than it would
be were It excluded ; and consequently, it
would be an unnatural and forced construction
OF tins article of the compact, to say, that il
included such case.
We pass over the other observations ofcoun-
| sci upon the construction of this article, with
the following remarks that where the words
| al law, treaty, or contract, have plain and
obvious meaning, all construction, in hostility
with such meaning, is excluded This is a
maxim OF law, and dictate of cOmmon sense;
for were different rule to be admitted, no
man, however cautious and intelligent, could
safely estimate the extent of his engagements,
or rest upon his own understanding Of a law,
until Judicial construction of those instru-
ments had been obtained.
We now come 10 the consideration of the
question, whether this Court has authority 10
declare the act in question unconstituton-
al and void, upon the ground, that it imrars
the obligation Ofthe compact (? This is denied
for the following reason 1t is insisted. in the
first place, that this Court has no such autho-
rIty, where the objection to the validity of the
law is founded upon its opposition to the CON
sttution OF Kentucky, as il was, in part in
| this case.-it will be sufficient answer to
this observation, that our opinion is founded
| exclusively upon the constitution of the Unit
ed States.
2dly. II was objected, that Virginia & Ken
lucky, having fixed upon tribunal to deter
NINE the meaning of the compact, the iuris-
| dIctIon OF this Court is excluded. If this
he SO, 1t must be admitted, that all con
troversIes which involve construction of
| tire compact, are equally excludpd FROM,
the jurisdiction ofthe State Courts of Virgil
MIA and Kentucky. How, then, are those
controversies, which we were informed by
the counsel on both sides crowded the Fe
deral and State Courts of Kentucky, to be set
tied The answer we presume, would be,
oy Commissioners, to be appointed by those
States. But none such have been APPOINTED I:
what then Suppose either of those States.
Virginia for example, should refuse to appoint
commissioners? Are the occupants of lands,
10 winch they have no title, to retain their
possessions until this tribunal is appointed and
to enrich themselves, 10 the mean time, by the
profits OF them, not only to the injury of non
residents, but of the citizens OF Kentucky p
The supposition ofsuch state of things is
too mOnstrous to he for moment entertained.
The best feelings Of our nature revolt against
construction which leads TO II.
But how happens 1t that the questions sub
mfted TO this Court have been entertained.
and decided, by the Courts of Kentucky. for
twenty five years, as we were informed bv the
counsel ? Have these Courts. cautions and
learned ms they must be acknowledged to be.
committed the crime Of usurping inrisdic-
ton which did not belong to them ? We
should feel very unwilling to come to such a
conclusion.
| The answer, in a few words, 10 the whole Of
fh.sa fe So l.. r