Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1829-01-17

Note. The first Zine that this objection was
ever started in Congress, is believed to have been
IN April, 1920, when il urged by Mr.. Whit
man OF Massachusetts,, and when it noticed
in the following terms by a leading debaler, on
the other side, (Mr. Clay)-'' The honorable gem
ueman has found an insurmounable constitutional
impedImeni 10 the Encouragement of manufactures,
oil winch, as no other 9entem an has relied upon
1t, sha! leave him in undisturbed possession. 1t
Is TO be remarked that many OF the representatives,
OF Virginia, (P. p. Barbour, Archer, Tyler, Alex
ander, johnson, &c. &c) participated with great
ability i'll he debate, all in opposition 10 the
measure, (BSdwin's TARIFF and yet not one of
them all, tho yigilant and ssgAcious sen'inels of
the constitution, then sounded the alarm of vo-
la ion OF the constitution The truth is this is no
virginia doctrine. All of her chief statesmen,
w Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe land
MIR. Jefferson not less than his distinguished com
patIos) have at various times recognized the ex-
istence Of the power in question, and recommend
ed thesexercse OF ii on particular occasions. The
history oil 1t Is somewhat curious, and proves that
1t comes IRON aquar'er, 10 which we in Virginia
have not been occu tca- & l-oS f3g tie sourdls
doctrines Ci constr utloDai ia". 1t was Dsst
brodched in Congress, as we have seen, by Mr.
Whitman of Massachusetts, 1t was soon after ia
ken up by Mr.. Webster in a public meeting at
Boston. Ii was, however, at first very slow in
Spreading, Tor, in 1923, when the Tariff policy CAME
again under discussion in Congress, not a single
member, il is believed, advanced the doctrine aud
H. The following year (I82l) when the discussion
was renewed, but single member (Mr 2. p.
Barbour) then urged it, The doctrine, however,
now began to sprea al more rapidly, not because it
was more true than before, but because tire pas
sions had become more excited. In December
1924, one branch Of the Legislature, Uhc Senaie)
OF South Carolina, adopted a rcso ution declaring
protecting duties to be unc0nstitu iondl while IN
the other Branch, the resolution was either mega
tiyed or postponed. In the succeeding year 1925
both branches ofthe South Carolina Legislature u
nited the declaration, and soon AFTER TO wit: IN
the early part Of 1926, Virginia followed The
doctrine then, comes TO us from Massachusetts
u,d South CGroIind-lrom that Massachusetts
whose standard Of constitutional law, however lust
ami unqGestonable her claim ~ other praise has
certainly varied good deal with the interests aud
party passions Of the day--thdt Massachusetts,
who, in 1893, declared the Alien and Scdifion
Laws 10 be, not only constitutional, hut expcdi-
ent and necessary and at the same time, denied
the right of Oh State Legislatures to pronounce
opinion against the constituonality Of an act of
the General Government, that Massachusetts
who, in 1903, pronounced the Embargo to be TN
constitutional, and in 1919, denied the conslitu-
tonal power Of the General Government in time
Of war, 70 call out and command the Militia Of The
States, for the defence Of the Union-via that s.
Carolina, whose leading politicians however dis
tnRushed for talents and patriotism and elo.
quence, have not, until lately, been distinguished
10 an equal degree, by their zeal TO restrain the
encroacbments Of the General Government, and 10
tsfsndFhe sovereignty of be = J'rs