Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1830-02-09
MONDAY MORNING., FEB. =. 1850.


MONDAY MORNING, FEB. 8. IS:sD
MR. WEBSTER AND THE Tex Ee r ip1r.-Iye ar,
requested to state--as the address indeed shows
that the following article presented to the Rich
noud Enquirer for publication, who declined it-fo
What reasons the reader after it's pcrusal will be al
no loss to determine.
It is vindicution of NIr. Webster against the
misrepresentation of the Telegraph, by one who
heard his celebrated speech-who is Jacksoniun-
and as re have to believe, Vironian. and
holding the constitutional tcnets held by minority
OF the people of Virginia 1t is more than common
~ able, and we hope will be read by every man who
loves truth, and Is DESTROYS of coming at it.
When we understood that Mr. Webster in his re-
ply to Gen Hayne had investigate the question sub
stdnally raised by S Carolina in her claim to an
nal any act Of the General Government, which she
deemed unconstitutional and the correIative RIGHT OF
any one State to withdraw herself from the Union
we We're exceedingly curious to sec lIow he treated
it, and What conclusions he came to- This curiosjfv
IS gratitied by IA Virgfuian." Mr.. Webster ac-
khowledges the right of any State to seccde-but de-
tines 1t to bca right existing not under the Cons,itu
uon but beyond it-a revolutionary rigft coincdcr,
to that, by the exercise of which, the American
States withdrew from the mother country. We are
further gfatfed, that this is the conclusion to which
our minds were led, and Which we expressed in the
year to7.
we repeat that the intelligent render will be
much pleased with the essay
70 TIE EpIroRs THE RICHMOND Exau1EEn
1.-The debate Mr.. Foors resolution still endures
II the Senate, and acquires new interest us it pro-
crosses. hir WEEsTER concluded his remarks yes
terday, and Atr HayNs replied, throwing back the
argument to the original propositions; which have
resolved the points IN Issuc the great question of
National and State powers, that formed the divdia
line between the parties OF 9S, and must ever divide
them under this gcvernment--Ir. WEBSTER con-
tending, that the National Government was csta-
hIshed by the People, who had impaired unliul
tied powers over the States and the Constutio,,.
Gen. HAyNE, on the Other hand, as did Mr. Madison
and Mr. Jefferson in 49, contending that the States
ure primitive sovereignties that the National Co
Vernment IS deGI7aive, With limited powers restrict
cd by the express provisions Of the Constitution
Hero the discussion rests present 20 saw that
the debate Was ably conducted on both sides will not
do justice to the talents of either Of the gentlemen;
bat no republican can be at loss to determine whic,
had the better Of the arganIedt. The doctrine con.
tented for by Gen, uAYNE is too veil understood
and too firmly established the essential and funda-
mental distinction between the parties of this co,,
Try, to be shaken by the concentrated talents those
Who advocate government Of limited powers in time
OF gar, and government Of untiiitef powers in tnle
of peaceA"-U S. Ieiegroat.
Is truth, rs the commonest regard for veraci,z To
be banished from politics? no. hear the fndir.
nant response of every true pirgHian-ofcvery hon
est man, 30.
r. IheTefore will hold up to their scorn the base
forgery, the profigate faisehood, which is here at
tempted to be pain1ed upon the unsusDectinn mind.
otrny countrynen. Accident has put It in nv noyver
TO make this Offering to the most indispensable of all
the SOCIAL virtues; and will place upen her altar
1T omitted to do So should deem nJvseIf a traitor
30 the first duty of the citizen
ihe only speaking ccer heard on the floor of
Congress, Is the very speech of Daniel Webster
WuEFcDf NH
FORMATION; ard the two speeches of Gen. Hayne BY
winch ic vas Immediately preceded and followed
l1hVing f'stened with attention, will state with truth
what the doctrine really was which is here so shame
lessly mlsrepresented.
First, however, let me cali upou every candid man
10 WeIgh with care the words IN which the doctrine
oscFioeo 10 dr. Webster is expressed "Mr. Web
sfer contend1ng That the National Government v-as
Established by the People, wHoa had rsIpAErrn IN f.
UNLIMITED powers over The STATES and the Coss7.1-
ICTIcN.' Let these Words be considered in con1ex
ION WIN the whole context, which, to remove tho
possibility Of misrepresentation is piren entire. ord
particularly With that part of the context-st1at tho
States are PeiDiTicE soYE REGGN TrEs that fhe NJ,
.dunai e'ovelnnent is DERTvATTvD, with LIMITED
go"eRS' restricted by the Express PROVISIONS or TIE
CoNsTLrUTIoN-wi1lc states the doctrine 1oa;,,ef
Whlcn MR. w ebSter Is represented as confeudine-
LET TINS be done and then let the reader note the
Impression lett on his mind. | will now proceed
The fundamental principle Of every couetit,fior ;
Da every lnfractlon of the constitution il void This
Is truisul familiar to the mind Of every American
AZ was e%Phcilig recognized by Dir. Webster Us q
frRisu. 80 3"
BIT in the application Of this trolsfn. there j.
difficulty which occurs the very moment we atterogt
to make that application UGo is 70 decide ,gAstIs,,
dltg gfDeD act Of functnnGry under Cons,iiution
DC tchtn or be toLout the potver desgated 10 lin, h,
ttaI CoqStitu1oD7 Whether it be constitutional ~
unconstituiioDaR Whether it have that quality
whereon by universal consent its validity depends
@s rs dlbIcniiy 1ndercat in the very nature of
sttuuonal government: which cannot be separated
from its first and fundamental principle which every
sThe words which appear in Cap;sIs il will he nco1 O.
dressed ny n for tie ppse II ealing 70 rlsr me ,,e