Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1832-10-02


'elISchce aud truth, has ever Nentured directly L"
Ie"y ta'ts 50 certain bat while they arr too certain
or ueniai, They are also too conclusive in favour OF
'ne rights OF the States for admission. The usual
course has been adopted To rlude what can neither
oe denied, nor admitted and never has the device
oech moro successfully prac;ised, BY conounding
Stotes with state governments aud the people OF tho
states, with the the American people collectively,
Things, as 1t regards the subject OF this conunica
tion, totally dsSimilur much 50 AS triangle and
square facts of themselves perfectly certain ana
plain, and which, when well uu erstood, must lead
TO conception of the subject, have been in
voved iii obscuriy and mystery
Il viii next proceed tn state some OF the results
which necessarily follow, from the lacts which have
been established
The FIRST and in reference TO tho subject of this
communication, the most important Is, that there is
no direct and immediate connexion between the in
ufIdnal citizens of State and the General Govern
uncnt. The relation between them is through the
State. The Union is an Union of States, COM
munties, and not an Union of individuals. As
mcnibers of State, her citizens We're originally
subject to CONTROL bu, that ofthe State and could
De subject to other except by the act ofthe State
Itself The Constitution was accordingly, submitted
10 the States for their separate publications. and it
was only by the ratification of the State that its c-
zens became subject to the control of the General
government The ratification of any other, or all
the other States, without its own, could create no
connection between them and the General Govern
mcnt, nor impose on them the slightest ohligation-
Without the IA ication of their State, they
would stand in the relation TO the General Gov
erihhent, as do the citizens subjects of any TO-
reign State aud we lind the citizens of North Caro-
Ina and Rhode Island actually bearing that relation
TO the government for sometime, after it went into
operation; these States, having in the first instance
declined to raty. Nor had the act of any indiv-
uuai the least influence i'll sublectng him to the
troi of the General Government except as it might
influence the ratification of the Constitution by his
own Stnte. Whether subject to its control, or not
depended wholly on the act of the State. His dis.
sent had not the least weight against the assent of
ms State, nor his ascent against it's dissent II fol-
lows as necessary consequences that the act of ra-
thc"tion, bound the State, as community, is
pressiy declared In the article OF ratiicato above
quoted and not the citizens of the State as indiy
duals the latter being bound, through their State
and IN consequence the ratification of the former
Another, and highly important consequence as it
regards the subject under investigation, follows with
equal certainty; that on question, whether a par
tcular power, exercised by the General Government
ne granted ny the Constitution, it belongs to the
state, as a member of the Union, her sovereign
capacity, in Convention to determine definitely MS
tar as her citizens concerned, the extent of the
oolgation which she contracted; and if in her OPT
nIou, the act exercising the power be unconstitut
onal, to declare it null and void Iehich declaration
'oo"t6 be ObhgdtOry her citizens. In coming to
tins conclusion, it may be proper TO remark to pre-
vent misrepresentation, that do not claim for a
state the right TO abrogato act of the General
Government. tits tho Constitution that annuls an
uncopstituional act. Such act is of itself void
and OF no effect. What | claim is the right of the
State, as jar as its citizens concerned declare
|
ti0n rs binding them-a right, when limited TO lis
citizens, flowing directly from the relation of the
State to the General Government, on the one side
and its citizens the other, as already explained
ana resting on the most plain and solid reasons
Passing over what of itself might be considered
conclusive the obvious principle, that it belongs the
aathorty which imposed the obligation, to decare its
extent, as lar as those concerned on whom the
obligation is placed, shall present SINGLE arpu
ment which, of itself is decisive | have already
she"n that there is no immediate connexion between
The citizens of State and the General Government
ana, that the relation between them is through the
State L have also shewn, that whatever obligations
we're imposed oil the citizens were imposed by the
declaration OF the State ratifying the Constitution
similar declaration, by the same authority, made
with equal solcmnty, declaring the extent of the
obligation, must as far as they are concerned be of
equal authority. speak of course on the suppose
Ton That tho right has not been transferred as it
VIII hereafter be shewn, that it has not A citizen
would have no more right to question the one than
he would have, the other declaration. They rest
on the same authority; and he was bound by the
declaration of lis State asserting TO the Consti.u
tlcn, whether he asscnted dissented, SO would
lie lie equally bound, by declaration decIa-
ring the extent of that assent, whether opposed to,
or IN favor of such declaration. In this couclu-
sion am supported by analogy. The case of n trea.
W between sovcrclgns is strictly analogous. There
as In this case, the State for the citizen
or SUBJECT there, as in this, the obligation is impo
SAD by the State, and is Independent of his " i'll
ana thore, as In this the declaration of the State de-
termnng the extent OF the obligation contracted is
! o0IgGtoryo on him, as much the treaty itself.
Having now, trust, established the very impor-
tant point that the declaration of State as to the
extent OF the power grantod is obligatory on its citi-
zens, shall next proceed consider the effects of
such declarations, reference to the General Gov
crnment; question which necessarily involves the
consideration of the relation between it and the
States. 1T has been shewn, that the people of the
states, acting distinct and independent commu-
mites, are the authors of the Constitutions and that
the General Government was organized and ordain-
cd by them to execute its powers. The Govern
ment them with all of its Departments, is in fact
the agent OF the States constituted execute their
JOINT VIII, as expressed i'll the Constitution
| In using the term agent, do not intend to dero
gate, In any degree, from its character a Govern
Tnent' 1t is as truly and properly Government as
are the State Governments themselves | have ap-
pied 1t, simply because it strictly belongs to the re-
latIon between the General Government and the
states, as IN fact, 1T does also, to that between
state and ITS own Government. Indeed, according
To our theory Governments are in their nature but
trusts, and those appointed to administer them trus
tees or agents to execute the trust powers The
sovereignty resides esewhere in the People not in
The Government, and with us TIE peopLe mean the
pcople NJ the SercrdL Suites originally formed into
Thirteen distinct and independent communities and
row INTO twenty four Politically speaking, in re-
terence to our own system, there are no other peo
pie. The General Government, as we'll as those of
The States is but the organ of their power the latter
That OF their respective States, through which are
exercised separately, that portion Of power not dele
gated by the Constitution, and in the exercise of
which each State has local and pccuIiar interesf
me former, the Joint organ of all the States cenfcd
Grated into one general community, and through
which, they jointly and concurrugly exercise the
delegated powers, in which all have a common inter
est. Thus viewed, the Constitution of the United
ates, with the Government it created is truly and
strictly the Constitution of each state as mech 90
ttg ,sa.r. ffrt, lnr( nett