Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1830-03-02
RICHMOND, TUESDAY. .MARCH ?
MIR. WEBSTER'S SPEECH.

We have commenced MIR. websters I'll Speech
The reader will be pleased 70 have little patience.
We shall hasten TO ts conclusion rapidly possible
1t is one ofthose speeches. which rasas great
in magnitude, as they ara in merit. IL fills near 20
oil he wide and ponderous columns of the National
tellgencer.
Mr. W. devotes the last part to Views OF the Consiitu-
tion.-At one time he sees no difference between the
Constitutional resistance OF the states, and Rebellion
or RepolutionAt another, he admits that the Sta,es
"may interfere ty complaint and remons'ran CT; by
proposing to the People, alteration of the Fede
Cor stiiulIon. Ths would all be quite unobe c,iona
be-"
Mr. w. says,he "cannot undertake to say how the Wiz.
GINA Resolutions of 1898 understood by those
who pas'sd them Their language ia not little nde-
hnite.'-Mr. w. has surely not read through Mr..
Madson's Report, which justified an! explained hrs
ResontionS.-lic would have seen towards the close
of it, wha, the author of the Resolutions mean,-Hc
would have seen ths remedies there laid down, whcb
were supposed by Mr.. Nj. TO come within the scopc
OF constitutional resstance"-Has Mr.. W. forgotten
what the "Federast" says, upon the same point; h o.
exactly this very commentary, giving tie cotempora
Exposition OF the Constitution and OF the riyht
OF interference in the State Governments agrees with
MIR. Madison's doctrines in 90 and '99!
Mr. w. maintains, that the FedernI Constitution il
" popular government, eected by the People, those
who administer 1t responsible 10 the People," &c.
" We are here Says he) 10 administer Constitution
emansting Immediately from the People, aud trusted,
by the m, oour Administration. 1t is not the creature
oil the Safe Governmeuts."" the People then et ect-
ed ills Government. They gave it a Const ution.
and in that Con.t,uu nthey have enumerated the pow
ers which they bestowed OH iL"-Mr. W. l. here gull.
~ oi greater ambiguity than he charges upon The Vir.
ainia Resolu ions. I" The Peopie'-What People,
The people NJ ne United SfoteS7 Mr. w. will not
hazard such an assertion, unless re to Nv in tn
iaee OF all h- facts Of the origin, adoption, and action
OF the ConsIuton--as well az the theory laid do " N
m Debates OF the State Conventions the Letters Of tn.
Fede' ais the report OF MIR. Nj. Who formed the Fed
Conventions Drputes rom the nation? or from the
States, as ates, eec'ng by their Lsgislautes' Ger
talnly The last Who adopted il? The People of the
States, appearing in their State Conve nons; The small
er State having an equal vote With the lOrger. who
elects u branch OF the Federal Legislature, of which
Mr.. W. himself isa memberi Each State Legislat,Te
Even the other House, Ohe IA. Of RI is not elected
by The whole people OF the United States but by the
people in each State, voting upon certain ratios but
still eonhsed within the lines OF each Siate.-In fact
Is this go, ernDcht national, consolidated govern
ment, or Jederdl governmcnt-A c0nfederdey OF Sc
parate Sovereign a,es, granting certain, specified
powers, to the JedcrdI authorizes, and rving all the
resduary powers 10 the State Governments; or 10 tie
People themselves? IL is then a compact among tl,,
Poop themselves OF each State, as a Sfaie-Each
State s Party TO il-and the question now il, how
far the States may judge Of The dcfion of the instr
men, aud interfere for aresting The progress of the
ev-or, whether il IL 10 be reserved for one of the
PARTIES alone he United Staies) Judge Of The extent
Of its own powers-as, Mr.. w ccntends, through the
judicial tribunal IL has erected MIR. Madso,'s Re-
port shows what was intended by the clause on which
MIR. W. resis lis sssUmpuOD-and II also shows how
inside quae would be the Judiciary tribunal fjr ing
and aues,ing chnents UPON Tie Constitution
and how msIy cases there ere, which could scarcely
be atraigned Uelofe that IibUnaI-Mr. W. vas once
OF opinion, (and ne shows less csndour than becomes
politician in att mp,ing to ur the fsc) tina
the Tariff law OF 1920 was unconstitutional. But wa.
Mr.. w then clear, in what manner the constitution
atty Of he Tariff oeuld he tiled be fore the Supreme
Court Of The Utied States? II carries s face id,c
TO raise But The Merchant pleads that it has
another object in view, 10 encourage manufactures; TO
tax one person for he benefit of another and to ssst
one section al the expense Of another VIII the Courl
permit him to lrove this fact by reference 10 the De-
bates Of Congress, or the Resolutions Of BostonOr
would the Court figidly lie him down 10 the face and
provisions OF The tseIf-and then force him 10 make
out, that many cents duty cloth is tor revenue
and therefore CONSTITUTIONAL, and cent beyond thai
rate IL for the encouragement Of manufs ctures-and
therefore, sgainst the Constitution!
On the whole, we recommend 1t 10 Mr.. Webster 10
60 back again 10 the history OF government to re