Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1832-08-31
TO THE EDITORS or THE ENQUIRER
The VIRGINIA DOCTRINES,
Not NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS..


These Numbers have been heretofore EMPLOYED i'm CIV
aiming what may be called, not unapy, documentary
erde"ee growing out OF the proceedings of public bo
dies, and the differences dedueibe from them IL il no.
to refer TO the opinions and reasonings of an nd
Visual, 10 nave he weight TO which those opinions and
reasohings may be thought Justly entitled.
Amongst the citizens Of country, who NAV he CON
srereu 10 nave The best claims TO be consulted i'm case
oil dhcuty in the construction OF our constu,ionl
ter Is presumed that it will not be denied tba, A. NJ
olson occupies the first rank. He was menber of III,
convention which framed the Constitutions of thai which
rauieu In TINS State of the authors of an Ll
commentary written on it, long member of Conyress mn
der 's authority and last, least was the writer of tho
% oil 99-is0o generally regarded in Virgil
ma as e best exposition of the powers of the General 60
vernmen and those reserved the States and TO he
p'e winch has been ever given to the world This gen
eha 100 having hled the highest office i'm the oift of
the nation has retired covered with honor and the an
piause oil grateful people, TO private station with Tie
well-known determination never TO leave IL H., -
no earthly motive TO induce him misead his country
men, Oh subject OF great political interest nor
oy any other consideration than desire TO promote the
Puoc happiness and TO preserve those free institutions
c e estaoiShment and preservation of which, his long
HE has been devoted But is not on Mr. M,I;so's
aonS' enuuou as mcy are to great weight, that
ths writer relies to vndicate his sentiments He re-
lies on the ac that Mr.. Madison i'm the papers in which
reference IS about TO be made, giving his testimony as
10 the true character oil important which he was
the principal actor, aud the meaning and objects inf
public documents OF high political interest which proceed
ed from his pen; it being now a known fac, H., 10
was the author not only of the Report of 49, but of the
resolutions of '9S, which that report was intended to %
y FINALLY the writer relies the intrinsic force OF rea
opinions on e subjects on which those opinions are about
10 be consulted.
The documents be referred TO- is the letter from, Mr.
Madison oil August, 1880, 10 the Editor OF the North
American Review, published in that work IL il duo Il,
eandour and to the respect which every should enter
tam Tor ms own principles, 10 STATE that do moi concur
with Mr. Madison in that part his letter i'm which he
contends that The Supreme Court of the u States j. tho
sole aud final exposition of the Constitution in Csc
cuhg claims 10 authority, between the Federal and State
Governments. must further add, with great Difference
anu respect, ua' !. seems 10 mo- that there is discrepan
Cyl between the sentiments contained in the letter and
the report ON this point, and that consider those of Tho
report, as sound and constitutional relation IN Tho %
r' would also remark that do not concur with the
opinions imputed TO Mr. Madison-l have always and do
now believes that tariff for protection of man1fa
oy whGh one portion oil the community is taxed to sus-
tam aud enrich another is only unjust and opnres
but contrary TO the spirit of the Constitution of Inc I'M
ted States But in relation the views of the Letter IN
me SUBJECT oil nuhcaIion, and the true meaning of the
report as II regards the remedies 10 which the States
can with propnety resort in OF inlacons of th
Constitution entirely in tho opinions which Mr.
Madison has expressed and sanguine i'm BELIEVING,
that ms reasoning will carry equal conviction the mind
oil every impartial man. who will examine and reflect
upon It, What is said in the letter the Reviewer NAV
(as lar as II regards The present enquiry be divided first
into Mr. Madisons opinions the grounds ON which
the doctrine OF qualification rests Aud, secondly on the
question whether the advocates of that doctrine en de-
rive any authority from the supposed preccdens furnish
ed by the Legislature Of Virginia
follows:
"Should the provisions of the Constitutions as here re-
viewed be found not 10 the Government and the
rights OF states,
part oil The United States, the final resort within the pr
view OF the Constitution, lies in amendment TO the
Constitution, according 10 process applicable by the
States"
And in the OF the failure of every constitutional
resort and AN accumulation Of usurpaons aud abuses rem
lerng passive obedience and non resistance a ,rc,,
evil than resistance and revolution; there remain but
one resort, the last OF allan appeal from the cancelled
obligations OF the constitutional compact original rights
and the law OF sepreservaon This is the ultima ratio
under all governments, whether consolidated conedern
ted, or compound OF both and il cannot be doubted
That single member OF the Union in the extremity sup
posed but in that only, would have right an extra
and ultra constitutional right, TO make the appeal.
This bringsu TO the eXpedient lately advanced which
claims Tor single State right appeal against am exer-
rise OF power by the Government of the United States
decided by the State be unconstitutional TO the portie
the constitutional compact; the decision of the STAT,
10 have the effect OF multiplying the of the Govern.
ment OF the United States unless the decision OF the
State be reversed by threelourth of the parties.
'The distinguished names and high authorities which
appear to have asserted and given practical scope this
doctrine, entte il TO respect which might be difficult
otherwise TO feel for it.
If the doctrine he understood as re- nc. tI.
hreeourths OF the states to sustain, instead of tat pro
portion to the decision of the appealing state the
decision TO be without effect during the appeal yould
be sufficient to remark, that this constitutional coursc
might well give way 70 that marked by the Consu
ion which authorizes woths Of the states TO institute
md three ouTts to efectuate amendment of the Con
'ution, establishing permanent rule of the highest a-
hory in the place of an irregular precedent OF consruc
ton only.
But it is understood that the nuGyinp doctrine inn
PORTS that the decision of the State is he presumed va
nd, and that overrucs the law OF the United States I'M
less ovcrruled by three ourtls of the States"
Can more be necessary TO demonstrate the nadmissi
biiy OF such doctrine, than that puts in the power
Of the smallest fraction fourth of the II Statcs
that is OF States of twenty TO give the a,
and even the Constitution to seventeen States each of the
seventeen having parties TO the Constitution an canal
right with each oil the seven, TO expound it, and TO insist
on the exposition? That the seven might i'm particular in
stances, be right, and the wrong more than
possibe But TO establish positive and permanent rule
giving such power, to such minority over such ma
ioy, would overturn the first principle Of free govern
men aud IN practice necessarily overtun the government
itself
at is to be recoected, that the Constitution was pro-
posed TO the people WhOie, and unanimously adopted
by the States as tchoe, it being part of the Consiitu
ton that not less than three ourhs of the States should e
competent 70 make any alteration in what had unani
mousy agreed TO. So great is the caution on this point
that IN TWO cases where peculiar interests were nj stake
proportion even OF hHee iourhs is dused and unani-
ty required 10 make an alteration.
"When the Constitution was adopted as a whole II j..
certain that there many parts which II separatcv
proposed, would have been promptly rejected il is far
from Impossible, That every part of constitution might be
rejected by majority, and yet taken together as n whole
be unanimously accepted. Free constitutions will rsrey
II ever, bs formed without reciprocal CONCESSIONS ,tbo
articles conditioned on and balancing each other E there
Constitution OF single State Of the twenty. four that
would pear the experiment Of having compone rfs
submitted TO the people and separately decided on
Nhat ne late Of the Constitution Of the United States
would PC small proportion Of the States could expunpc
but answer. ~
The difficulty Is not removed by limiting the docteipc
TO cases OF construction. How many cases Of that sort
involving cardinal provisions Of the Constitution have oc-
CURED; TOW many now exist how many may hereafter
spring up How many might be ingenously created, If
entitled TO the privilege of decision i'm he mode roposcd
that H. Il