Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1831-02-22
FOR TIE E-NcOTTJRER.

nan the DISCUSSION OF abstroc questions; and 10 liurs
me human character is remark able IA an the
tsiosi'ion 20 engsg- IN such discus ions Bin, when
W any principle, which. il 'aken in the Ah.,rAc il
100 Hsfett vi IA whether admit or DENY IL at
| em"eu 10 he enfofc in practice, TO the injury or
Deduction of other principle. no, le.. iinportant an
valuable. becomes those Interested in the prs.rva.
ion 81 the right invaded 10 snd m sin IN it, The
pubic therefore, Cannot look with indifI renee on IN
question Ci the right tn d.rl JuJ cirv 10 raviss
thej 'gm ais of thu 5 Cour = aud IN susg esin,
any views upon It, | calDot be SAID to be conteuding
Tor shadow.
The question has at various tim "a STATED ,hA cam
"u"ny' AMI OF late has stunned o,rn more d, fnit.
on ptAcleai IL was involved in the d-b4te in the
o.n',v "a winter, conducted chiefly by Mes II yne
"nh osteT, on the right OF state To tieclr. an Act
OF oonsress VOID; recently, IL has come more uer
es""s oy me ca aon OF III OF Gsorg, the har
49,, me Court IN the case OF the Indi4n, Ia
go d"i sun more recently, by the report and couu-
Ter report ro,n III Com un the Jndci,rv in the
e ~ presentatives. on the .,itu,ion Lity OF
me iwen'v-htb ion the Act of Compress ryan
,~'"s ne Jud cial d-pr IN nj OF The Un,,.d States
'-av- In teiore TO present come con id -ra ms u
." IT, "uich have occurr me, "a her az doubt. IN
mue ""y OF ehqni y, han tom presumption hat
can oesow any light upon sul sct OF so grave ami
Interesting imuo-,
The question is 'hi': Ia of conflicting claim.
jurisdiction between the States AMI the Federal vow.
erpheh', VINO has a right TO decide? Mr.. Ha,ne
says, " the State" Mr. Webster savs % ths FsI.rJ
Iout, EAch OF these e-utemen has convinced IN
p nav me one, Il wrong To say that aoy ate
N'Ve i''"nu or Delaware, Just AZ much New-York
lor Sou Csrolina-has rlYht TO repeal law Of The
Uni'ed safes, (Which wouII b.. the rssuIt n, Nr
Htynes doctrine) would make the Federal Government
an thnaeueaoie sovernmen'. To say, with MFR. Web.
sier that the Federal Court alone has the ri IA, "a
Juuge OF 'he extent OF It's pow would be make that
so'er"m"" tyranny, aud 10 give il the power II cur
Safe in th- Union " - 10y
TN dcul'y OF deciding questions of his sor arises
chiefly from the anon ou aud com lex sructur. of
our goV'r"men'-iro GU having oil tinct sets OF
tutc ionai-S vested with auh riiy over subi.c dit
,e'e' IS rue bu' irsqu nly hearnx some ,imilati-
TO each other, and sxrccs ng lhat authority over ola
same 'efr'ory, az the same iue. The history of the
trna'on OF tic Federal compac, /. " n know1 The
10 Jec'' i'r winch II was 'uted, well d. flo
ed. perhaps, "a il in the w r o. language 10 de-
ME rH dnd h- powers given TO effec; the C Obi cts
as much guarded a. cou.ls, mt with thu .hc emf
eAercl'e Al pnwefs not grarte TO the FEDERAL Gov.
etnnen'' are re'a ed to the STATES, only by 10 r
moi being granted but, out OF Abundin, ion by ex
press reservation a'o. This pc alton il ms to me
men, cannot be d-nied thei, Ia relation the powers
granted to the Federal Government, that Pny-fnmsnt
10 as sovereign az gov-rnm ,nt can BE- and th a,
IN relation te The powers not granted the a,es .s
pecuvrIy are Just as sovereign IL follows then a.
the necesary attribute OF hi. SOW sr-pn,y hn, in all
Gaze AIRING "nder tn graut-d powers, the Supreme
Cou', OF the United 5 ates las the right of ultimate
dec'sion ana that, In all cases arising under tho pow
-rs reserved 10 the States, the JJlci4r.s of ths
ates respectively, the Execuive sg-n,s of tbrir
corrective G'v-rnn@nis have the Jighf tnaly 10 d
eide, Rnd to eniorce heir own jutgmen,s. say ,be
TigF. IL IL that Tor which we are roD,euJiog d, "a
easy 30 lay down princpl which, TAX n abI,,actIv
cannot be den.d but the greet difficulty Is in mir an
pcaon to the practical purposes of lie. IL our uie-
ments were IntA.lhls and integrity ne r,-cI we
should be ole clearly .rn ths boundary Of has
principles and in the appicai of tn. one wonJ h
raeu no" TO invade the Other But principles and th,
ries, however tru- and b. auiful they NAV an
apple TO perfect infiiibi- hengs are often fuod %
be iinpraCiicabe AMI absurd w hen Applai IN man In
his present cohdtcn. We kaov I-gis orr and Judge.
are but meo; thar som times from wick -dn.ss L.
or ir weakness they do wrong in their official a.
ell as their iudiviiual capacity We knew Ibat a
Language is imperfect and that hewever cl arv we
sia.- a..
stood nv some. d wiliuly perverted bv other IT,
incipes have lard down, Therefore. tue as thev
undoubtedly are is the abstract will be found whsI
Attempted TO be reduced TO practice to conflict am,
indeed utterly d-~t oy mi anuibia,. e,cb o,b.
Tor tie rish OF The Federal Government TO dsci,e ot
all cases arising under the Constitution of tn I'm +t
: a'es, n-css-ajly Involves right to decide vvb
mowers have been granted to that government by The
C,nsuuti'n; aud in deciding what powers have been
Yrtnted, my Wu'i decide what have en- grant.
ed MI -. uce DerSd, with the s. ates-in d,ciIin.
what powers have been reserved TO hem thew are
" liged 10 decide wha' have been granted To he
eral Government. Here, il seem. 10 me- this con,ro
very mus, ,@r.'na e B'yonh this point nsi her
the advo ate Tor the Federal Court nor The advocate
Tor the Safe Cour, carry the argument We
may discuss AMI argue anil refine a. much "A vOs
please, about powers granted and powers reserved
zoe brought mo this dilemma at la; and NAV os.
edch 9th I "m horn to horn OF IT,, wi,hSat he IL
po'sib.y ether Of co vncing adversary or of be
M convinced ly him. l. there way, thsn, 10 re-
rourh' Thee ir 'n'S'rn 'gO J.' prInc Lea, and to
allow IT. due portion OF force 20 each2 T. seems le
M th-re uunr. Thy cannot b. t,coueils,l. han
Ike contrary forces w'ose resp.c i've momentum !.
precisely equal, coming in direct contact, boih must
fall 70 the g'ouod. Nei her can continue t. NOV. IN
lis or gnal cOnts'; eth strike of IN a ne "
tro ciion; from that both Neither OF ihes. priuciu.
is paramount 20 the Other add OF course neither car
confer Don tn Jurisdiction t. which il applies. any au
OrY which lhs other p'incpl- il not equally copfe
uToq he other. conclude therefore, that in practice
n-her jurisdiction ha the rig h rrvi.- and anpu the
iudg NJ. OF tn othetbai il the Federal Coz. rnmen
lacd State Government diSsr ab mt the exten, O.
tb-ir respective powers, there is legal consttn
tribunal, which has the power 20 deciIe that differ
fnce. The Federal Government, to more han an q
Safe Govetnmsnt-the Supreme Court nj the Uni eJ
STATS, than the Cour, of Appeals IT Virg ma
To deny this to say the Federal Court has In. right
10 revise and reverse the jndg- Of the State Courts
and that ihs state Courts haze such power over me
FEDERAL Court IL 10 sirm that the sover-iguty o
the Fejerd Government IA more full and annie in IL
n''Urs han thst Of he aies--'h4 il /. more sore
re n Bt.i t. asked, IL Sta Cour, decide wr,ne
i tat wrong =" he IRE e|abIe; II NAV in.t a
well be asked, if the Supreme Court of the United
States do wrong, is there way IN correct IN
say there is none, except by the omnipotence of the
people themselves. The law does not, aud perhap.
cannot, furnish any other means of Interference -
To say that the Federal Cour; has this right il much
as TO say hdt that Court has rigf TO do crong ant
the State Courts have such right. But we are told
"thi Is power which the Supreme Court has AWAY,
exercised: That there il precedent for it," That doc
not prove IL 70 be right Whenever such case has oc
Cured has been OF usurpaton and not Of rght
II has been question of power-of physica
iorca-n which the weaker party must subnit-ir
which The party injured must count the cost, and de
eide viii is the greater evil. submission resistance
In the case Of Chens, Virginia though she sincerel,
believed her rights invaded and usurped deter