Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1825-12-30

GU,
says, at 10 undoubtedly well settled principle in
the exposition OF statutes, that euerv part is TO be
con-idcred, and the Intention OF the Legislature to
be extracted from the tchoie." 2 Cranch $50.
| United States Fisher. See H. Ruth Inst. G.
II. VII. TX. pa. 323, 32i.
z. See Madison's Report, CT, 6S, 80, 30, 10.
See Deb. British Treaty. Gallstin, Vol. l. pa.
40. e, passim. McCulloch vs. the State of Mary
land, l6. Niles Reg. II, ~, 73.--i, Nlunf. SO.
ct alib passim, Martin Hunter. J. Wheaton,
333, 335, ct passim, Martin VS.. Hunters lessee 2
Cranch i52SIES;e pbarn VS.. Ellzey There
are many other parts of the Constellation which
serve to illustrate this subject.'' l. Cranch 49,
Marbury Madison.
$. Does the definition OF the term people,
found in the st, Art. IL. cl l. of the Cons,i-
tuition of the United States apply TO the same term
used in the preamble? Does this definition apply
10 the same term used by the federal COW enion, IN
their resolution or the 18th Sept. 1857, in which
they recommend that 90 This constitution for the
States" should " be submitted 10 n convention of
Delegates chosen in each state by the people there
| or did they mean - the people, as defined in
the ar lcle above quoted? When the convention
OF Virginia was assured by the members of the fed
cal convention, as shewn in the preceding number,
that =" the people are 10 choose The electors" what
other definition did they suppose was attached to
that term: Did 1t ever enter into the conception
of any III ember of that cow ention tba, any per-
sons other than iTeehoiders," in Virginia who al
that time were and still are, the People defined
as ABOVE referred to, could choose electors? W hen
Geo. Nicholas declared in the convention of Viz
gnia, that every heeholder having right TO
vote for the President, by the interrogation of e.
lcciorS,' wh'nce did he derive his information of
ills fact: And if Geo. Nicholas was of this opin-
ion, openly avowed by him in that body, and was
not coutradicted can any one LAY that there was
singh member of that convcatiou who did not be-
liesew what the members OF the federal convention
uniformly declored and admitted on this point? Let
those " no now hlch these people OF this power
answer these questions.
| D. Suppose there had beeu no express clause a,l-
'horising the Legislatures to appoint Senators: TO
| whom would this appointment belongs They did
not raiy g this constitution for the states" The
legislatures in this case, would have power to pre-
scribe the manner Ct their election but surely
| tley could claim nothing more. The persons cree
atlng the powers growing out of this establishment
OF constitution for the states, would surely retain
| all power not given. Who are they: The
people;'' as defined in the constitution.
The Legislature of Virginia in their celebrated
report on the alien and setition laws, Goth Jam
1900, have defined the parties the constitution
to be the people 10 whom il was submitted, and by
whom it adopted SO pa. of Madison's Re-
| port.
10. Power "given in two separate and distinct
sections of the constitution scarcely be consi-
dered as one, and the same. l. Cranch I56, Mar
! bury Madison
| IL. See note 8.
~. See Federast XXXVIII.
| Ii. In cases where there is mo Analogy be-
tween powers created by the constitution, new
| powers not before conferred" 1.-The constitution
then, considers these powers substantive and
distinct, ana so places them in the enumeration il
contains Gibbons vs.. Ogden, New York stem
boat case. l have no report of this case, except
that in the Richmond Enquirer, 18th March, 1924
| 4. OuOuenim M
credit. Bacon. L'esprit est solvent la dupe du
cceuT. Benham. See Note 4, OF LIST No - Pow
eriul and ingenious minds may, by course
OF well digested but refined and metaphysical rea-
soning, so entange and perplex the understanding,
as 10 obscure principles which were before thought
ie Ra% sHa sd % d9%Rs Y hSns wod do be
ceived." Gibbons Ogden.
10. That the words .',nay'' and 60 shall
have, in this constitution for the states a meaning
totally different from each other, and were so in
tended, Is plain. by reference to the Journal of
the Federal Convention, it is seen, that regular
votes were taken, in that assemblage of sages, to
strike out tie one and insert the other and vice
versa: One important is g ecorded" ma
800, 32l. Journals OF the Parliament are records
jeff. Manuel, sec. XIX Why not those of the
Federal Convention Each house of Congres.
shall keep Journal. Cons art. V. sec. 3 cl
are these records! In some parts Of this constitu-
ton for the states ut keast) the Supreme Court of
the u. States have decided, that there is differ
ence between the words may and ss shall" l.
Wheaton 33I, Martin VS.. Hunters lessee, 1928
329, 1913. (i6) See the last note This change
| In the phraseology not accidental, 'EDeorum
pGovldenta mundus administering iidemque consul
/ lent rebus humans; neque solum uHiUersis, verum
eliam sINGULIs. Cic. de DiVintat c. L. For.
the darkness and the light are both alike TO thee -
! David
H. Journal of the Federal Convention. 100.
! (IS) Pa. 200 (l9) This subject occupied the
convention nearly four months: an attentive peru
sal of their Journal will shew that no one subject
gave them much difficulty. 1t is highly proba
bic that the difficulties which the contention ex-
perienced, on this point, with them one of the
| principal reasons Tor inducing them TO draw up|
the plan OF constitution 10 be ratified by the
PeoPie;" and not by the state legislatures, by
whom the articles of confederation had been rati-
fed.
20. The trainers of the constitution wished its
adoption, and well knew that it would be endan-
gered by its strength, not by its weakness. Had
they been capable OF using language which would
convey to the eye one dea and after deep reflection
impress on the mind anoher'--- McCulloch vs
the State OF Maryland. l6 Niles Reg. 72-But
IT, in this case, the constitution be this Janus BIZ
irons" V hch some pretend, ought not the princi-
pies upon which it advocated before, and un-
dersood by the people TO prevail over the literal
meaning of the terms? But we have seen that no
such obliquy can be thrown ON this instrument in
this case.
q. McCuoch " the state of Maryland, I6
Niles Reg SO. (22.) Secret Journals of Con
gress, VOL 1, pa. 4O2, 400, 404, 4O6, 4O7, 4l2,
4l3, Az, AIS, 4l6, 42I, 42I, 433, 1876, 445
%. Extrac from the agument of distinguished
advocate in the OF Martin v. Hunters Lessee
Wheaton 32I.
q. McCuoch v. the state of MARYLAND, IS
| 4