Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1828-1831, 1830-11-19
from the roskviiie Pioneer and Whlyl
TO THE GOOD PEOPLE or SOUTH CAROLINA.

pctsos after their PRONUNCIATION and previous 10 see
ing Mr. MHdisvns late letter Ia the Editor of the
North American Review, I had never cntertsiLed
any belief that the object of the Virginia resolutions
contemplated interposing the power OF tho state 10
control tho operations OF those laws but were only
irtended as a basis upon which the constitutional
number Of the State legislatures might De induced
tn recommend convention TO amend the constitution
fthe United States, IS TO restrain the operations
M Congress- In future, under tho constructive pow
err Had they been merely to manifest to the world
that Virginia had the power whenever in the
opinion of her citizens Congress had enacted
constitutional law to call into exercise her reserv,
ed sovereignty, and declare those laws null and
void. she would certainly have brought that power
70 act upon them at once, else why declare the
laws unconstitutional, and her power to annul hem.
unless 10 gasconade. And gasconadng not
that dav, all will acknowledge who knew those that
ucted in her councils. But Mr.. Madison has put
an end to this question: by his exposition in that let
ter wherein he SAYS explicitly, that such power
was incn,led to be assumed that could NULL
~ a lay Of Congress. Mr.. Madison not only asserts
this but refers to the debates in the Virginia egisla
tire upon those resolutions II also manifest,
from the fact, that Virginia transmitted the rcsolu.
tons tn the other states Of the union all, most
Of which, Il speak from recollection only Ihave
ptt the resolution before me returned their
in the negative; which are recorded with the rcso-
liions. Upon the return of theee negative answers,
Virginia finding herself unsupported, ceased to
Il would therefore that the doctrine Of nulif-
cation 10 not derived from that source. Nor have
VI.
The Kentucky resolutions were Il, avn by Mr. JEFF
fetsou and he dsveopcs the object a letter to Mr.
n eholas of the 18th December 1871. lie says it
WIS to engage the corporation of Kentucky in an
energetic proeston against the constiutionality of
those laws. If Mr.. Jefferson had believed Virginia
had the constitutional rover IN nullIfy thusc law
Why engage the corporation of Kentucky
getic protestdtion. This would to settle the
object not TO have been notification in the sense
now given to that term. What are the expressions
Of Mr.. Jefferson, now relied on for This strong con
struction, expressed in the Kentucky resolutions
themselves? They say, speaking ofthe constitution:
''Thc several States that framed that instrument .
Federal Constitution, being sovereign and indepen-
dent, have the urquestonable right TO Judge of It's
infractions and notification by those les
Of all Unauthorized acts done under co our of that
instrumeut, is the rightful remedy
Now the papape and obvious sense of this sen-
tencc ia, that the several States have this power
Indeed it is expressed Not that any fthc States
or any State has this power. II cannot be made 70
mean other than the whole Of the States or such
constitutional majority suthoriZcd bv tho
constitutional provision TO recommend a conventions
-That majority beng two thirds. And this postu-
late all Will assent to- He begins the sentence WI h
d7hs ssBerai STILES" Both the adjective and s,,bstau
tive are in plural Not any one of the States
cfdploys the plural again in pnutingthe MULTIPLYING pow
"By those Socere'gnties" Not by any, or either of
those sovcrrgntieS. AT time when III r. Jefferson
appfehensions for the safety of the nion were more
excited than at my other period OF his life IN let
Ter of the 2Sth December, I325. to the Hon Wm b.
~
which his devotion to tho Constitution and the iber
tics Of his country cnud inspire him, in hat letter he
Is totally silent the subject OF qualifications but
speaks distinctly of another mode of redress separa
ton when every thing else rails If there be sut
oth.r declarations of Mr. Jefferson moro direct, If
favor of notification, have neither seen or hear,
them mentioned: l take it, however, that not biur
beuring upon that sub jet has been kept out of view
From these evidences It is clear that Mr. jefferson
nrpur intended TO support the doctrine, that snrie
STATE of this confederacy had the power, under any
circumstances to nulify law of the United State
II therefore, these views Of theVirgiuia and Kentuc
ky Resolutions be curerct. the notification doctrine
n.n' the doctrine Of Mr.. Madison or of Mr.. JEFF
fersDn, uIs has been supposcfl.
BE it's origin from whence it rDay, Gom Mr. Madi-
son Mr. Jefferson or elswhere II must be main; aned
Upon sound political principle il ought not "a
be maintained at all. Too much Importance has Of
ten been given % now theories, with no other sac
ton than the name of some famed parsonage who
first gave It to the world, or who became its early
na,ron. And when we about to introduce q new
theory, upon whic! a single State of this Union can
controu the whole confederacy even should tha, the
6ry be sanctioned BY the halo of the lIus,rous JEFF
fevsoD himself, It ought not TO be implicitly, adop ed
without first examining what will be its practical opc
ration. The expediency of exercising this process of
notification over the Tariff. by the State of South
Carolina, has been theme Of warm discussion d.
ting the past summer, but no argument that have
read favor ct that eXpedient, has satisfied me of
the practichblity of introducing into concderacy
sucb principle efficient check upon the acts of
tho General Government.
Two modes of operation have been suggest ed, by
thuse in favor of the multiplying principle. One Of
which is, that the Stale shall by it's reserved soyer
eighty declare, in some formal manner, tue Tariff
law Unconstitutional, and test the consti'utionality
by the merchants refusing pay their revenue nds
70 the collectors; and When suits are instituted tbcre
on, submit the questions to tho lures the country
have always been an admrer of that Crcst palia
dunn of civil liberty. the trial by jury and have ever
had tho utmost confidence in the integrity of the in
ries in the American courts. But think this mode
VIII be attended with too many contingencies TO set
tie great and leading CONSTITUTIONAL principle"
Would not deny :he right Of inries 10 determine on
10th the legal principle and constitutional question
ia any submitted 10 thern-I would not narrow
down their powers 90 the Mansfield principle of only
deciding on facts But there bout sixty dfercni
courts Of the United States, in tie several S,n,e.
And even should Carolina jury determine by their
verdict that the law UNCONSTITUTIONAL and there
fore the revenue bend given under it avoid vet tInre
would DO but ono jury out Of sixty which VIII have
decided. Besides iurics of he same court are chan
red with alnnst lrIal. So ihni vnn may n..a