The Arkansas advocate., 1831-09-28

:. Constitution may prove intellectual agalnst iniractions dangerous to the es- sential rights oi the parties to it. The resolution, supposes, tiiatt that dangerous pow
 CTS not delegated, may not only be usurp- ed and executed hy the other depart mehts, but that the Judicial department may also exercise, or sanction danger ous powers beyond the grant of the con- stituiion, and consequently that the ul- innate right of the parties to the consti- tuition to judge, whether the compact iiias been dangerously violated must ex- tend to violations by one delegated au- thority, as well as by another-by the Judiciary, as well as by the Executive or LegIslative.''
 Against these conclusive arguments as they seem to me, 1t is objected, that II one party has the right to judge of the infractions of the Constitution, so has the other, and that consequently in ca scs of contested powers between State and the General Government, each would have right to maintain its opin- ion, as is the case when sovereign pow CTS differ in the construction Of treaties or compacts, and that of course, it would come to be d mere question of force.
 The error is in the assumption that the General Government is party to the Constitutional compact. The States, as has been shown, formed the compact, acting as sovereign and independent communities. The General Govern ment is but it's creature, and though in reality Government with ali the rights and authority which belong to any other Government, within the orb of its pow CTS, if is, nevertheless, Government emahating from compact between sovereigns, and partaking in it's nature and object, of the character of joint commission, appointed to superintend and administer the interests in which all are jointly concerned, but having be-
 yond it's proper sphere, no more power than if il did not exist. To deny this would be to deny the most ineontestib!e facts, and the dearest conclusions; while to acknowledge it's truth is to destroy utterly the objection, that the appeal would he to force in the case sup- posed For if each party has a right
 to judge, then under our system of Coy
 ernment the final eegnizanee of ques-
 lion of contested power would he in the States, and not in the General Govern.
 ment. If would be the duty of the lat ter, as in all similar cases of a contest be- tween one or more of the principals and a joint commission or agency, to refer the contest to the principals themselves. Sucb arc the plain dictates of reason and analogy both. On no sound prin- cipie can the agents have right to final coenizance. as against the principals. l much less to use force against them. 10 miantain their construction oftheir pow CTS Such right would he nonstrous: and hasnever heretofore, ,beenclaimedin similar cases. Flat the doctrine Is applicable to the case of 2 contested power between the States and the General Government, we have the authority not only of reason and analogy. hut of the distinguished statesman already referred fo. Mir. JeEI ferson, at a late period of his life. after long experience and mature reflection. says. "With respect to our State and
 Federal Governments. ] do not think l their relations are correctly understood by foreigners. They suppose the former Isuhorainaie to the latter. This is not I the case. They are coordinate depart |ments of one simple and integral whole. But YOU may ask if the two departments ishouid claim each the same subject of bower, where is the umpire to decide between them? Tn cases of little urgen- cv or importance. the prudence of both parties vii. keep them aioof from the Questionable ground; but if it can nei- lther be avoided nor compromised, con Ivention of States must he called to as- crihe the doubtful power to that depart I ment which they may think best" IL IS thus that our constitution. by authoriz- ling amendments, and by prescribing the authority and mode of making them. has,. by simple contrivance with it's characteristic wisdom, provided power which i'll the last resort supersedes ef- |tectually the necessity, and even the pre- text for force, a power to which none can
 fairly object; with which the interests of all arc safe; which can definitely close all controversies in the only effcctual mode, by freeing the compact of every defect and uncertainty, by an amend |ment oi the instrument. itself. It is i'm possible for human wisdom, in system