The Rhode-Island Republican. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1809-1841, 1830-10-14

impossible, that every part Of constitution
might DO rejected by a majority, and yet
taken together as whole be unanimously !
accepted. Free constitutions will rarely |
if ever be formed, without reciprocal con-
cessions; without articles conditioned on
and balancing each other. Is there Con-
stituton ofa single State out of the twenty (
four that would bear the experiment Of fbav
ing its component parts submitted to the
people and separately decided on? I
What the fate Of the constitution Of the
United States would be if small proper.
ton Of the States could expunge parts Of it
particularly valued by large majority, can
have but one answer,
The difficulty is not removed by limiting
the doctrine TO cases Of fconstruction. How
many cases of that sort, involving cardinal
provisions Of the constitution, have occur
red? How many now exist? How many
may hereafter spring up? How many
might be Ingeniously created, if entitled to
the privilege Of decision in the mode
proposed
Is It certain that the principle Of that
mode would not reach further than is con
templated. If single State can Of right
require three fourths of its co States to o.
verrule its exposition Of the constitution,
mend it, would the plea be less plausible
that, as the constitution was unanimously
established, it ought to be unanimously ex
pounded?
The reply to all such suggestions seems
to be unavoidable and irresistible that the
constitution is a compact, that its text is
to be expounded according TO the provI-
sions for expounding thinking part of
the compact: and that none of the parties
can rightfully renounce the expounding
provision more than any other part. When
such right accrues, as may accrue, 1t
must grow out Of abuses of the compact re
leasing the sufferers from their fealty to it.
In favor of the multiplying clam for the
States, individually, it appears, as you OBJ
serve, that the proceedings Of the Legis-
lature Of Virginia, in '9S, and in '99, against
the Ahen and Sediton Acts, are much
dwclt upon.
IL may often happen, as experience
proves, that erroneous constructions not
anticipated, may not be sufficiently guard
ed against, in the language used and 1t Is
due to the distinguished individuals who
have misconccived the intention OF those
proceedings, TO suppose that the meaning
Of the Legislature. though well compre
hended at the time, may net now Oe obvious
to those unnc cquaintod with the contempo
rary indications and Impressions.
But il is believed that by Keeping IN view
the distinction between the Governments
Of the States, and the States in the sense
in which they were parties to the constitu
ton between the rights Of the parties, III
their concurrent and in their Individual ca
pacites; between the several modes and
objects of interpostion against the abuses
Of power, and especially between interposI
tlons within the purvlew Of the constitution,
and interpretations appealing from the con.
stitution to the rights Of nature paramount
to all constitutions with an attention, oil
ways Of explanatory u 0 10 the views and
arguments which are comhato8, the Reso
lutions of Virginia, as vudicoted IN the Re
port on them, will be found entitled to an
exposition. showing a consistency IN their
parts, aud an inconsistency Of the whole
with the doctrine under consideration.
That TIC Legislature could not have in
tended Ia sanction such a doctrine. Is to be
inferred from the debates in the House Of
Delegates, and from the address of The two
Houses to their constituents, on the sub
ject of the Resolutions, The tenor OF the
debates, which were ably conducted and
are understood to have been revised for
tho press by most, If not all, of the speakers,
discloses no reference whatever to con.
stitutional right Of an individual State, to
arrest by force the operation OF law of
the United States. Concert among the
States for redress against the Alien and
Sodi tion Laws, a. acts of usurped power,
was leading sentiment; and the attain.
ment ofa concert, the immediate object of
the course adopted by the Legislature,
which was that of inviting the other States
"to concur. in declaring the acts to be nm
constitutional, and to co operate by the nee
cssary aud proper measures in maintaining
unimpaired the authorities, rights and lib
critics reserved to the States respectively
and to the pcople.~ That by the neccssa.
nv and proper measures to be concureniiy
and co operaiipciy taken, were meant meas.
urcs known To the constitution, particular.
ly the ordinary control Of the people and
Legislatures of the States, over the Govern
ment Of the United States, cannot be doubt
ed; and the n,erposition of this control, as
the event showed, was equal 10 the occa-
sion.
1t is worthy Of remark and explanatory
of the intcntions of the Legislature. that
the words "not law, but utterly null, void
and Of no force or effect" which had fol-
lowed, in one Of the Resolutions, the word
"unconstitutional," were struck out by com
mon consent Though the words were in
fact but synonymous with "uncons,tution
nl:" yet to guard against a misunders,and-
ing of this phrase as more than declaratory
of opinion, the word "unconsti,utionar'
alone was retained, as not liable to that
danger.
The published Address of the I.egisla-
ture to the people, their constitucnts.ailords
another conclusive evidence of its views.
The Address warns them against the On