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

| vernMent within the limits ofthc State to execute
legally the act nulliicd, any other passed with
view TO enforce it; while, the other hand the
State would be able to enforce iegaiiy 81 peaceabiv
| its declaration of Notification. Sustained by its
court'and jurics, 1T would calmly, 81 quietly but sue.
ccssfully every effort of tho General Govern
| ment to enforce it's claim of power The result
would be inevitable. Before the Judicial tribunal
of the country the State must prevail unless indeed
Jury trial could DO eluded, by the refinement of the
| court, or by some other device, which however
guarded it is, by the ramparts of the Constitu
ton, would, hold, be impossible The attempt 10
elude, should it be made, would itself be unconsti
tutional; and, III turn, would be annuaed, by the
sovereign voice OF the State. Nor would the right
| of appeal to the Supreme Court, under the Judi
ciary act, avail the General Governments. Iftaken.
| it would but end in trial. and that in another
verdict, againt the Government; but whether it
may be taken, would be optional with the State
Tho Court itself has decided, that copy of the re-
cord is requisite to review Judgment of a State
Court, and if necessary the State would take the
precaution to prevent by proper onactme nts, any
means OF obtaining copy. But If obtained. what
would tavail, against the execution of the penal
| enactments of the State, intended to enforce the
declaration of Modification? The judgment ofthe
State Court would be pronounced aud executed,
before the possibility of reversal; and executed
| too, without responsibility incurred by any one
Beaten before the courts, the General Govern
ment would be compelled TO abandon its unconsti-
tuuonai pretentions, or resort to force-a resort,
the difhcuty Il was about to say, the impossibilty)
OF which, would very fully manifest ITSELF
| should folly or madness, ever moke the attempt.
In considering this aspect of the controversy,
pass over the fact, that the General Government
mas no right to resort to force against State-to
cocrce a sovereign member of the UnIon--whcb
trust, have established beyond all possible doubt
Let 1T, however, be determined to use force: and
the dhcui'y would be insurmountabe, unless, in
deed, it be also determined to set aside the CON
stituton, and to subvcrt the system TO its founda
| tons.
| Against whom would it be applied? Congress
has, 1t is true, tho right call forth the Militia $50
execute the laws and suppress insurrections;" but
there would be no law resisted, unless, indeed it
be called resistance for the ures to refuse to find
and The courts to render judment, in conformity
| to the wishes of the General Government: no in
surrectlon to suppress; no armed force to reduce;
not sword unsheathed; not bayonet raised; none
absolutely none, whom force could be used; ex
cept 1T be on the unarmed citizens, engaged peace
aoly and quietly, in their daily occupations
| No one would be guilty of treason ("levying war
against the United States, adhering to their enc
mics, giving them aid and comfort,") or any other
CRIME, made penal by the Constitution or the laws
! of the United States.
| To suppose, that force could be called in i'm
| plies, indeed great mistake, both as to the ma
ture OF our Government and that of the controyer
| sy. Itwoud be legal and constitutional con-
test conflict of moral, and not physical force-a
trial OF constitutional, not military power TO he
decided before the judicial tribunals of the coun
try, and not on the field of battle. In such con-
ftest there would be object for force but those
/ IL
employed, but IN putting down courts and iuries
| and preventing the execution of judicial process
Leave these untouched and all the militia that could
| be called forth, backed by a regular force of fen
! times the number of small but gallant and
patriotic army, could have the slightest effect
on the result of the controversy; but subvert
| these by an armed body, and you subvert the very
| foundation of this, free, constitutional, and
legal system of government, and rear, in its place
n military despotism.
| Feeling the force of these difficulties it is pro-
posed, with the view, suppose of dscni5arrass-
ing tho operation much possible, of the trou
| blesome interference of courts and iuries tn
change the scene of coercion from land TO water;
as II inc Government could have one particle more
right to coerce State by water than by land; but
unless am greatly deceived the difficulty on that
element will not be much less, than on the other
The jury trial, at least the local jury he trial by
the vicinagel may indeed, be evaded there; but in
! its place other, and not much less formidable oh
stacies must be encountered.
There can be but two modes of coercion resorted
to by water; blockade, and abolition of the ports of
| entry OF the State, accompanied by penal enact
ments, authorship seizures for entering the waters
of the Safe. If the former be attempted, there
will be other partes besides the Genera! Govern
ment and the State. Blockade is belligerentoright
1t presupposes state of war, and, unless there be
war (war IN due form as prescribed by the Consti-
tution) the order for blockade would not be re-
epected by other nations, their subjects. Their
vessels wouid proceed directly for the blockaded
port, with certain prospects of gain; if seized under
| InIGm-
nifty, against the General Government; and if not
| by profitable market without the exaction of du
| ties.
| The other mode, the abolition of the ports of en-
try OF the State, would also have its difficulties
The Constitution provides that mo preference shall
| be given by any regulation of commerce, or reve-
nue., to the ports of one State, over those of an
other; shall vessels bound TO or from one State
be obliged to enter, clear pay duties in unother"
provisions too clear to be eluded even by the force
OF construction. There will be another difficulty
Ii seizures be made in port within the distance
assigned by the laws of the nations, as the limits
OF State the trial must be in the State vii all the
embarrassments of its courts and iuries; while be-
yond the ports and the distance to which [ have
referred, it would be difficult point out any prin-
| cipIe by which foreign vessel at least, could be
seized, except as incident to the right of block
ade, and of course, with all the difficulties belong
| ing to that mode of coercion.
But there yet remains another, and doubt
not insuperable barrier TO be found IN the Judicial
tribunals of the Union, against all the schemes of
introducing FORCE whether by land or water
Though cannot concur in the opinion of those
who regard the Supreme Court, as the mediator
appointed by the Constitution, between the States
and the General Government; and though / can.
not doubt there is natural bias on its part, to-
wards the powers of the latter, yet / must greatly
lower my opinion ofthat high and important tr
bunal, for Intelligence, justice, and attachment TO
the Constitution, and particularly of that pure and
upright Magistrate who has so long and with
such distinguished honour 10 himself and the Uni
on, presided over its deliberations, with all the
weight that belongs to intellect of the first or
der, united with the most spotless integrity to be-
| eve for moment, that an attempt, so plainly
and IDaniestly unconstitutional a resort to force
would be, in such contest, could be sustained by
the sanction of its authority. In whatever form
! force may be used, il must present questions for
| legal adjudication If in the shape of block.
ade, the vessels seized under it, must be CON
| dGmned. he cd sbo