Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1830-03-05

national, consolidated government, or i Federal
Government" &c. &c. &C..
we nave quoted enough from the Enquirer TO OK.
PLAIN what 1t is at. The Editors of that name,
VIA be surprised to learn, that between Mr. Web
ster and themselves, there is upon this question
Oh tue origin or powers of the Government the
slightest imaginable difference of opinion. The
"hoie dispute is one of words, things. He nf.
Hfms the Government of the o: States, to be the
feopies GovernWent, "made by the People; made
Tor the Peoples answerabe to the People," And is il
not so' All! but (says the Enquircr) the people in
originating, and adopting the Constitutions acted by
and through the State Legislatures, and not in ano
ther way-as the members of single, separate State
sovereigntes, and not the people of the u States
amalgamated into one. True they did So History
vouches for it, and Mr.. Webster was not simple or
ignorant enough to deny it The inference from this
and other facts, drawn by the Enquirer is that the
Federal Government is Government, of Jndeparden,
Sovereign States, and not consolidated GOVERN.
ment This too Wr. Webster acknowledges. He
usfees that the Federal Government is limited to
certain specific, chartered powers, and beyond those
limitations that the State Governments are SOVEREIGN
against the whole world. Where then is the differ
ehce between the Senator and the Editors of the En-
1eherai GoVernment-that 1t was derived from nom
ular WILL expressed and acting, not tbrouob tho whole
people OF the u States people, but through
the people of the several States as inden,ndon, ona
distinct soveregnes They agree also in their views
OF the State and Federal Governments-that the lat
ter is limited, but sovereign within those limits fits
laws being declared the paramount law of the land
by the Constitution) and that the State Governments
1vha
ed to the Federal Government. There is however
somewhere or somehow, mighty difference between
Mr.. Webster and Mr.. Richie. What is it, It is
s' reader-and hold the idea by the TAIL lyon can
MT WEBSTER says the Federal Government is an
swefaoie to the People of the U. States--Mr
Sltchie says it is answerable to the States that
10 10 the feopie OF the several States through
the State Governments! One would sunnose
'hae the people of the U. STATES, and the peg
pie inabllng the several States called the u States
were one and the same people; yet Mr.. Richie
makes them out two very different things We do not
understand Mr.. Webster any where's or at any time.
as denying, that the people may act upon the Fed
eral government, through their State authorities.
fhat inference Is violently and unfairly ascrbed to
hlm Each State may controul its Senators. and
sufficient number of States concurring, NAV tbus
controul the Federal Government. He does NOT do
ny the right of the States instruct or the oboa
ton OF the Senator instructed to obey He contends
OF he may consistently contend that this is one ex-
ample OF the truth of his position that the Federal
Government is "answerable to the people," The
State Legislatures speaking the wishes of the neon,
for 1t is that which gives virtue to their Instructions
instruct their Senators. The Senators obev and
thus the people by another name controul the oov-
crnment' Doing it through the State Legislatures
Is the oae 1t is not the thing itself Tt is the pcoDie
ana the people only, at last-and if we IMAGINE
case, ID which State Legislature ATTEMPTS to con-
trout the General Government, clearly, acknowJedo
~ IN opposition to the wishes of the people of the
state every and feels at once that il is b
people and not the Legislature, to whom obedience
and the right ofcontrouling the Government beloner
Even here then, see no substantial difference
between the Orator and the Edtor-cxcept his .bat
one deals in plain common sense, which eyerv man
can unders tand-the other in metaphysical abstrac
TONS which if he is fortunate enough to comprehend
himself, he yet can never make the peop7e cempre
bend.
Mt Webster's speech vindicates his title to be con-
sdered an advocate of State Rights, Familiarity SO
caiied'ln the fullest manner. lie contends for their
sovereignty. in all cases. where they have not dives
ted themselves oft by cession to the General Gov
ernren He contends thatth Federal Government
is limited q thatfthat limit is overstepped the act is
null and void He recognizes the right of the States
to interfere by complaint by rcmonstrance by amend
ment. lie even recognizes their right to uullify an
act OF the Federal Government, but he insists that
this is right not tcIhin, but beyond, the Con-
stItution that it is revolution, that ultimate right
which every people possess to change, modify, abo!-
ish, destroy, at pleasure. All this he recognizes
and how rFesstiby he drives and clinches as he goes
the reader will discover by reading his speech.
In what then does Mr.. Webster stop short Of being
State Right man, under the newest patent? Where
inis he offensive TO s. Carolina and to the new lirbs
in and out of Congress- In two respects. First, he
aedges that the Supreme Court the aSter between
thc(t it,,t:c al