Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1830-11-19

rFrom the Yorkville Piomeer and Whig.
TO TIE GOOD PEOPLE or SOUTH CAROLINA.
CONTINUED.

period after their proa,u CATION and previous TO
ing Mr. Madisons late letter to the Editor of the
North American Review, | had never entertained
any belief that the object of the Virginia resolutions
contemplated interposng, the power of The state to
control the operations of those laws but were only
rtended as basis upon which the constitutional
number of the State legislatures might be induced
to recommend convention to amend the constitution
ofthc United States to restrain the opera:
of Congress- in future, under the constructive pow
Had they been merely to manifest 10 the world
that Virginia had the power whenever in the
opinion af her citizens Congress had enacted an IN
constitutional law. to call into exercise her resery-
ed sovereignty, and declare those laws null and
void she would certainly have brought that power
to act upon them at once, else why declare the
laws hnconstiu ional, and her power annul hem.
unless to sasconade. And gasconading was not a
trait the character of the Virginia politicians of
that day. all will acknowledge who knew those that
acted in her councils. But Mr.. Madison has put
an end to this question, by his exposition i'll that let
ter, wherein he says explicitly, that no such power
ended to be assumed, thar state could NULL
~ law of Congress. Mr. Madison not only asserts
this, but refers to the debates the Virginia cgi<a-
ture upon those resolutions. Ii was also mIniies,
from the fact, that Virginia transmitted the resoli.
tons the other states of the union, all, most
of which, Il speak from recollection only have
MT the resolution before me} returned their answers
in the negative; which are recorded with the
int ions. Upon the return of these negative answers,
Virginia finding herself unsupported, ceased to act
I: would therefore that the doctrine of nuii-
cation is not derived from that source. Nor have
we Inc example OF virginia IN support or IT.
THE Kentucky resolutions were dawn by Mr. JEFF
ferson and he developes the object letter to MI
N cholas of the 18th December 1921. He says it
was to engage tho cooperation of Kentucky in
energetic prOtestfion against the constiutlonality of
those laws. If MIR. Jefferson had believed Virginia
had the constitutional rover To nnly those law
why engage The co-operation Of Kentucky in ener
getic protesaton This would seem to settle the
object to have been qualifications in the sense
given to that term. What are the expressions
nf Mr. Jefferson, now relied on for this strong con
structinn, expressed IN the Kentucky resolutions
themselves? They speaking of the constitutions
s'Thc several States that framed that instrument
Federal Constitution, being sovereign and indepen-
dent, have the unquestionable right Judge of its
attractions, and notification by those sOveregnties
Of all unauhorZed acts, done under co our of thai
Instrument, is the rightful remedy
Now the pulPaple and obvious sense Of this sem
fence is that the several States have this power
Indeed it is expressed Not that any of the States
or any State has this power. It cannot be made to
any other than the whole of the States ar such
constitutional majority authorized by the
constitutional provision to recommend a convention:
That majority beng two thirds. And this postu-
late all will assent to. He higgins the sentence with
"The seserni States Both the adjective and substan
tive in the plural Not any of the States lie
employs the plural again pu.ntingtle nulifyng DOW
en- "By those Soreregnties." Not by any, or either of
those sovereignties. At time when Mr.. Jeferson's
apprehensons for the safety of the Union were more
excited than at any ether period of his life let
ter of the 2sth December, 1925. to the Hon IYm. b.
Giles, wherein he expresses all the soicitude with
which his devotion to the Constitution and the ber
ties of his country could inspire him. in that letter he
is totally silent Oh the subject of notification; but
speaks distinctly of anoh her mode of redress separa
ton. when every thing else rails. If there be any
other declarations of hIr. Jefferson more direct in
favor of notification, have neither seen or heard
them mentioned: | take it, however that nothing
bearing upon that subject has been kept out of view
From these evidences, it is clear that Mr. Jefferson
never intended to support the doctrine, that single
State of this confederacy had the power, under any
circumstances to nullify law of the United States
ftherefore, these views of the Virginia and Kentuc-
ky Resolutions be corerct, the notification doctrine
rat the doctrine of Mr.. Madison or of Mr. JEFF
ferson us has been supposed.
Be its origin from whence it may, from Sir Madi
son. Mr. Jefferson, elswhere ii be maintained
upon some sound political principle or ought not to
be maintained at all Too much Importance has of
ten been given 20 new theories, with NO other sac
ton than the name of some famed personare who
first gave it to the world, or who became lis early
patron. And when about to introduce Il new
theory, upon which single State of this Union can
cpntrol the wiee coniederacy even should TINT the
ory be sanctioned by the halo of the lusrious Jef
ferson HIMSELF 1t ought not to be implicitly adop' ed
without first examining what will be its practical ope-
ration. The cxpedcncy of exercising this process of
notification the Tariff by the State of South
Carolina, has been theme of warm discussion du-
ring the past summer, but no argument that have
read, in favor Of that expedent, has satisfied me of
the practcabiity Of introducing into our confcderacv
such principle efficient check upon the acts of
the General Government.
Two modes of operation have been suggested, by
those in favor of the notifying principle. One of
which Isl that the Stale shall by lis reserved sover
eighty declare, in some formal manner the Tariff
law unconstitutional, and test the constutonaity
by the merchants refusing to pay their revenue bonds
to the collectors; and when suits are instituted hese
on, submit the questions to the Jures ofthe country
| have always been admlrer of that great palla-
dunn of civil liberty the trial by jury and have ever
had the utmost confidence in the integrity of the in
RES in the American courts. But think this mode
will be attended with too many Contingencies to set
tie great and leading constitutional principle. T
you'd not deny :he right Of iuries deerrpine on
both the legal principle and constitutional question.
in any submitted to them would not narrow
down their powers TO the Mansfield principle Of only
deciding facts. But here about SIXTY different
courts Of the United States, in tie several Stntes
And should Carolina jury determine by their
verdict that the law was UNCONSTITUTIONAL and there
fore the bond given under it avoid yet there
l,f i,r,y nF e;.t