Litchfield enquirer., 1831-09-08
Ertrocts from ths address cf MT. CatAO''n'
 s,u6l;Shed in the PendLetOn Messenger.


 (. sf.ho Cuestion of the relation, which the States and General Government bear to each other. is not one of recent origin. From the commencement of our system, it has divided n,,bIic sentiment. . After the General Goyerntnent went into operation. experience soon proved that the question had not termi- mated with the labors of the COnventIon.- The great struggle that preceded the political revolution of 1901, which brought MT. Jefter. son into power, turned essentially on it and the doctrines and arguments on both sldes were embodied and ably sustained on the one, in the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions and the report to the Virginia Leg'sia9ure and on the other, in the replies ot the Legs lature of Massachusetts and some OI '"e Olu or States. These resolutions anu this rePo''; with the decision of the Supreme Court or Pennsylvania, about the same tune: \PaFuIu larly in the case Of Co0Det' oenVe1eu Dy Chief Justice M'Kean, and concurred in by the whole bench,) contain what believe tobe inc true doctrine on this important subJect.- [ refer to them, in order to avoid the necessity of presenting my views with the reasons m support of them, in details ' : But as there are many who may not have the opportunity to refer to these documents, and as It IS pos sible, however clear they may be. that di1er- ent persons may place different interpretations on their meaning. I will, in order that my sen tinents may be fully known. and to avoid all amb;puitv. proceed to state summariIy the doctrines which conceive they embrace.
 Their great and leading principle ls' that the General Government emanated rom the Peo' ple of the several States, forming distinct po- iitical communities, and acting m thelr sepa, rate and sovereign capacity, and not rom al, the people forming one aggregate PohT7ca.' community; that the Constitution or tne On;- ted States is in fact compact, to which each Stare is a party, in the character already de- scr;hed and that the several States or parties have right to judge of its infractions. and m case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of power not delegated, they have inc right, in the astresort to use the language of inc Virginia resolutions. ito tnterpose .tor orresting tRe progress of the eOiI and tor '"a'n- tn;ninp. ,oithin their respective Amits. the da- thoritips. rights aud liberties appertoini"g to them." This right of interpretation, thus sol emnly asserted by the State of Virginia. be 1t called what it may, state right, veto, nulfca- ton. or by any other name, conceive to be the fundamental principle ot our system resting on facts historically as certain as our Revolution itself, and deductions as simple and demonstrative as that of any political or moral truth whatever; and | hrmly believe that on its recognition. depends the stability and safety of our political institutions.
 lam not ignorant, that those opposed to inc doctrine have always, now and formerly. regarded it in very different light, as anar- chiaI and revolutionary. Could believe such in fact to be its tendency, to me it would be no recommendation. yield to none' trns1' in deep and sincere attachment to our po'it- teal institutions, and the union ofthcse States. ! never breathed an opposite sentiment out
 on the contrary, have ever considered them | the great instruments of preserving our i'ber-
 ty, and promoting the happiness of ourselves and our posterity: and next to these, have ever held them most dear. Nearly halt my l life has passed in the service the Union, ana | whatever public reputation have acquired is indssoluby identified with it. To be too national has, indeed, been considered by ma ny,even ofmy friends,to be my greatest polIt- | ical fault. With these strong feelings of at tachment, I have examined with the utmost care, the bearing of the doctrine in question and SO far from anarchial or revolutionary, solemnly believe it to be the ouly solid foun. | dation of our system, and ofthe Union itself l and that the opposite doctrjne, which denies | to the States the right of protecting their re- served powers, and which would vest in the General Government, Git matters not through | what Department,) the right of determining exclusively and finally the powers delegated to it., is incompatible with the sovereignty of the States, and of the Constitution itself, con- sidered as the basis of Federal Union. As strong as this language is, it is not stronger than that used by the illustrious Jefferson, who said, to give the General Government the final and exclusive right to judge of its powers, is to make "its discretion and not the Constits- ton he measure of its po,oers ;" and that "in all cases of compact between parties having no common Judge. each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of the opera ton, as of the mode and measure of redress" Language cannot be more explicit, nor can higher authority be adduced.
 That different opinions are entertained on this subject, consider but as an additional evidence of the great diversity of the human intellect. Had not able, experienced and pat riotic individuals, for whom have the high est respect, taken different views, would have thought the righttoo clear to admit of doubt but am taught by this, as well as by many similar instances, to treat with deference opinions differing from my own. The error may possibly be with me but it so, can on ly say, that after the most mature and consci- entious examination, have not been able to detect it. But with all proper deference must think that theirs is tho error. who deny, what seems to be an essential attribute of the conceding sovereignty Ofthe States; and who attribute to the General Government right utterly incompatible with what all acknowl-