Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1825-09-02

tanned to the states respectively, to be exercised by
'he pre-exisIng state governments or was in fact
taken from them, and granted 10 the general 60
vernment at its original formation. Whether wise
or not, the people in forming their federal compact
did determine to retain the power Of making inter
nal Improvements, to the state governments re-
spectivey and not to grant it 10 the general 90
vernment. This general government, was intended
to exercise jurisdiction general objects only
BY general objects meant, such objects only as
! extended their influence beyond the geographical
limits OF the states respectively; aud not such as
| might be subjected TO local municipal regulation
within state limits Internal improv ements are
Enthusiastically subjects of local municipal po-
lice, and ought therefore to have been the last,
which should have been granted TO the general
| government for general objects. Nothing is ne
cessary Tor the general government, TO become
national" hut the u-rpation OF Jurisdiction over
local, municipal police. The inevitable con,e-
quences would be, the humiliation of the state go
vernmens, and the substitution of one consolidated
s NATIONAL government; or 10 use the French
tpiraseology, one and indivisble. Whilst the
" rench term IS most appropriate, lis frshtfG en-
ample furnishes the strongest admonion against
the adoption OF its principle In its application TO
~ y 1t would be infinitely more frightful, than I'M
fits application TO France. The more frghtful ef-
/ iects, would be produced by the greater variety,
and stronger oppo -i'ions of sectional interests in the
the U. >. than in France-all these, need not be
speclhed here. One hcwever, will be mentioned in
llius'ration In certain states, slavery is the prin-
cpe oil labor, upon which society chiefly depends
Tor ITS subsistence and prosperity. THIS principle
oil labor Is necessarily difused throughout all the
various ramihcaiions of society. In other states
the principle of labor is free. Slavery is not re-
cognised So far from it, that in some states there
blind fana,ical prejudice against its exis ence
accompanied with the most passionate, visionary
desires tor its cx,rpation This fanaticsm is wrought
ar into IL. i
moment even to fate; and necessity itself Noh-
| ipg is deemed impracticable, by this passionate
derium.
Could government, one and ndivisble rep,,-
late different societies, founded upon these differ
ent principles of labor? Concede it the right of
jurisdiction this subject and could it for a mo-
ment restrain this thou ehtless destructive fanati-
cisin! Could these fanacal mad caps be brought
10 think for moment upon the utter iInpraciicab-
~, OF eradicate! one general principle of labor,
difused throughout whole society; and substitu-j
ting different principle OF labor in its stead?
Would famine, the first inevitable consequence
of such mad attempt, attended with the certain
annIhilation OF the slaves, avail auyht against the
phrensy OF their oificous benefactors? Would thew
listen tor moment. TO the clcarest demonstrations
addressed TO unbiased reason; that eradcating one
principle of labor, and substituting another in its
stead, is political problem, that admits of no So
luton without utter destruction 10 society? No,h-
II mig Souiu stay the pnTeISy OF the ueilriun. Let
then the slave-holding states, be cautious how they
conn,enance this fanaiica doctrine OF one and int
visible. BIT aid either the slav -hoding or the
! non-slave holding states, consent 10 cede TO the
General Government, their right of jurisdiction over
the persons of individuals, within theirsresrective
limits as TO the question of bond or free7 If not
thea let all beware of the gilded poison in favor of
one grand consolidated 60 Nationap' government
OF one and in,livisble.
There are other questions presented by the us,,r-
paiioh oil tie power 10 make, internal improve
menis which the writer thinks, require the mos,
profound consideration, before the rash experiment,
Is conslmma,ed--ls the jurisdiction Of the munich
pal police, over these internal i'm prov ements, when
made, TO be usurped also? Is such Jurisdiction to
be exclusive with the general government? Is il 10
remain exclusive with the state eovernments2 Is il
TO be concurrent with both? These questions will
necessarily involve others. Is the iristcton over
pc sons, and things, within the limits OF the states
respectively, now with the state governments re-
specnvely; or Is 1t now with the general govern
ment If with the state governments is that move,
TO be usurped also? Have the states ever given ur
to the general government jurisdiction over the IL
berty OF persons, the right Of things arith1
their respective limits? Or is that ur-dicton re-
tanned by the states, TO be exercised by the state go
ments respectively! Suppose the jurisdiction ove
the persons OF individuals, whilst upon the Internal
improvements, roads, canals any other, be ex
elusive with the general government; what woulc
be Its effects, as 10 the question of bond or free il
relation to such individuals? If free, according &c
the laws OF the General Governments; then IN,
same individual, who might lie free, willie upon
the internal Improvement, in slave holding state
might be bond, when off the internal improve
within the same state, and il bond, whilst upon the
internal Improvement, within non-sIave holding
state, might be Tree, when off the internal improve
ment, within the same state. If the Jurisdiction be
exclusive with The state governments, then tn,
whole OF this grand scheme will he subject to ,It
power OF such governments respectively. If con
current, then there might be direct conflict in til
principle OF bond Free in relation to the same in
dividual at the time--similaI conflicts mich
exist in relation 10 things.
/ 1t is high lime the question OF Jurisdiction be.
tween the General and State governments over
persons aud things, within the limits of The states
respectively, should be settled, and ascertained j,
would have been better TO have been done hereto
fore. The unjust and enormous tariff, makes il i'm
por;ant in relation to thngs--a question of state
taxation depends upon it. If it had been earlier
done, in relation TO persons, The electioneering IA
naiica mischievous discussion concerning the hlis
souri question, might have been avoided. Tn,
writer thought it had been deGnitively settled bv
law of the Bud of March 1907: as will he seen here
! after But others seem to have thought otherwise
, or not to hare thought at all upon the subject
II appears 10 The writer that the question essentially
involved in the proposition for imposing condition
upon Missouri, in the admission of that state int
the Union. upon the footing ofthe original states
was mere question of Jurisdiction between h,
General and State Governments. over persons
within the limits of the states respectively. as L
NJ their condition OF bond free; ia other words
as to the liberty, slavery of such persons II 20
would the boasting free states have been willing tC
have surrendered such Jurisdiction to the Genera