Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1825-08-30

IL
derivatve! He makes no Distinction and must,
therefore, be understood 10 include the whole II
is matter of surprise to the writer that po-
liticai economists, have not heretofore made some
attempts to draw more precisely the line of discri-
'nination between these two great descriptions of
rights. The writer does not propose to make
the attempt; but he will sketch out few Of the
first description which, lie thinks, will be sufficient
abundantly to shew the preposterous absurdity Of
national unity OF all rights, natural and deriva-
tive. The right to lator--the right TO make bread
land the right TO eat it, it is presumed, will be
admitted to be natural rights. Man is absolute
sovereign over these rights, in his individual ma
tive character, and in that character he exercises
them at bis pleasure. 1Suppose in this amalgama-
ton of rights, he could and weuld give them up TO
the nation for the purpose of forming its quality oil
unity; how could it be exercised by nation in this
quality of unity? Could this unity cat bread for
an individually and digest it after eating 1t! The
notion is absurd and preposterous. The right OF
marriage is a natural right Could nation in its
quality oil unity execute this right? If so, the wr-
ter calls upon the author for the modus cpe:andi
| In either case When n man becomes a member OF
a nation, he doesnot abandon these rights, bat he
carries them with him be executed in his indvi-
dual original character, in his associated state /!
| Iiese are simple, but impor ant rights; more i'm
portant than the whole tribe of conventional rights
put together; for upon their exercise depend the
very existence and continuation of the human spe-
ces These and innumerable other natural rights,
precious as numberless belong TO Individual man,
whether in natural or associated state, 10 be OK
ercised by him in his individual character original
| sou ereign owner. Without descending into a more
minute illustration at this time, the writer thinks
this view will demonstrate the absurdity and folly
OF an amalgamation of all rights natural and con-
ventional, individual and corporate, the foun-
dation of this magic quality OF national unity. E.
1 nliy lafp bac r,,fa
ton himself all that portion of his natural
rights, which, in free governments is not coded by
his voluntary consent, and in despotic ones, which
is not compulsively taken from him by the govern
ment. Even in the most despotc European 60
vernment, the writer thinks, there some rights
reserved 10 each individual member TO be exercised
in his original, native character, if not in the n
| vowed theory of such governments, certainly in
the practical administration OF them. This is one
| respect, In which the writer thinks, the authors
notions OF the extent Of governmental powers over
individual rights would not be avowed by the most
despotc government in Europe. This point will
be more particularly explained hereafter. Tire au-
| thor's principle strips the Individual members OF
government of all rights. and usurps the whole for
the nation in its united character, be exercised y
The government of that nation in its corporate cha
racter. Net veslise of right is 10 be executed
| by the individual member In his original native
character. On the contrary, the writer contends,
that each individual member retains to himself his
most important natural rights. That he is absolute
overcign over these etaied ghts to be exercised
by himself at his pleasure; and that no 20
kvernment can rightiuy control him in the exercise
OF these retained rights. This is the practice,
whatever be the theory Of governments, and in
divIsible when acting under the claims OF sove-
/ reign unlimited powers; bur it appears 10 be
disavowed by the disciples Of the new school, in
their application 10 the government OF the u. s..
although limited in It's powers BY specific charter
This doctrine is absolutely napplicable the 90
vernment of I" this Union,'' and expressly forbid
den by the fundamental laws OF every American
governmental institutions: and more So in applica-
tlob to the government of :" this Unon,' than 10
any one OF the state governments. The government
OF &c his Union" is composed of the people OF The
U. s.. previously associated by express written So
cial compacts, under several state governments
Thus associated, the people of the u S. formed tn,
government of the u. s. by division Of political
powers between the general and state governments
but, far from abrogaling the pre-exsting state go
vernments, they made the states themselves, il
their sovereign character, parties in the formation
OF the general or federal government. The peopl,
OF the u. 5. reserved 10 the states in their hgl
sovereign character, all rights and powers whatever
which were not expressly given to the general go
vernment in their federal compact, the Constitution
OF the u. 5. The people retained TO themselve
all rights not expressly given either TO the state
general government to DE exercisedby themselves
] at their own pleasure, original sovereign owner
thereof. Indeed neither The general governnen
nor the state governments properly be consd-
cred as soveregns over the rights granted to then
by the people; because the people retain the sove
regnty the granted rights. They are not ab
soiuiely but conditionaly granted 10 these govern
menis respectively. They are held in trust fol-
certain purposes specified In the written grants
: and, II the governments respectively violate thcs
u trusts the people reserve 10 themselves the RICH
to resume these grants at their own pleasure So
vereign is absolute and uncomfortable. II RICH
he held subject the control of another The hold
er is not the sovereign of such right, but that otbe
who has the ultimate control of il. Hence, accord
ing 10 The fundamental institutions Of the u S. tn
> people are absolute sovereigns over all poliiica
rights, granted, as well as retained. Neither IN
!, general nor state governments possess the sove
reigniy over even the granted rights; because h,
granted rights to be executed by these govern
ments respectively in trust, according to the cond
lions specified in their respective charters, subject
Il 10 the ultimate control Of the sovereign people
the retained rights to be executed by each indi
i vdua in mis- native character original, sovereign
n owner. But If, according ia the doctrine of tn
: new school, the American nation possess an unit
,f of rights interests and possessions in exclusion
e all individual and state rights, 10 be executed b
the government of =" this Union" then the peopl
Il Of this Unon,' possess no rights whatever, nei
) tber natural nor conventional nothing being le
10 them but the delusive hope, not the right, of be
ing well governed by their self created sovereign
absolute.
: The states also, thus become despoiled Of al
rights, whilst the government of 's9iis Union,
> one and ndysibe, becomes possessed of all rights
interests and possessions, in absolute sovereignty
Now when it is considered, according 10 the au
! lhor's hypothesis, that this national unity is to b
Cf aI..l. -.