Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1832-10-30

not only used these al pre- ont
the passage of laws, but 1t has also refused to ell
force tbc execution of Laws, actually passed. An
ouiincnt instance of this is found i'm the course
adopted relative to the Indian Intercourse law
OF 1902. Upon being applied to, in behalf of the
MISSIONARIES, to execute that law for their relief
! and protection, the President replied that the
State of Georgia haping extended her lu,ps orer
the inan territ'ry, the lao IF Congress hui there
by been smpercedcd: this is the substance Of his
answer, communicated through the S,cr,
tary Of War. He holds then, that the law of
the State is paran,ounf to the lao of CONGRESS.
The Supreme Court has ndjudgcd this act Of
Georgia to be void as being repugnant to a const.
tutiona law OF the United States But the Prcsi
dent pays regard to this decision. than
the act of Congress itself. The MISSIONARIES re-
main i'm prison, held there by a condemnation
under law of State, which the Supreme Judi
cial Tribunal has pronounced to be null and void
The Supreme Court have decided that the act of
Congress is CONSTITUTIONAL that it is binding sta
tuc, that 1t has the same force other laws and
is as much entitled to be obeyed and executed as
other laws. The President declares that the law
the State, and therefore he will carry it's proyi
sions into effect. Now, we know, Sir that the
Constitution of tho United States declares, that
that Constitution, and all acts of Congress passed
IN pursuance Of IL, shall be the supreme fa,c of the
land, any thing in any State la,D to the contrary
Notwithstanding. This would seem to be n AIN
case, then, in which the law should be executed
Ii has been recently decided to be in actual force
by the highest judicial authority; it's execution is
demanded, for the relief of free citizens now suc
iering the palms. of unjust aud unlawful imprison-
mcnt; yet the President refuses to execute IL.
In the case of the Chicago Road some sessions
ago, the President approved the Bill but accompa.
MED his approval by Message, saying how far he
deemed IL proper lao, aud hoic far, therefore, IL
ought to be carried into execution.
In the case of the Harbor Bill ofthe late session.
heng applied to, by Member of Congress- for di-
rections tor carrying parts OF the law into effect,
he declined giving them, and made a distinction be-
toccn such parts Of the la,o he should cause to
De executed and such as he should not; and his
right tn make this distinction has been openly main
tanned, by those who habitually defend his mea-
sures. Indeed, Sir, these, and other instances of
liberties taken with plain statute laws, flow, natu-
rally, from the principles expressly avowed by the
resident, unoer his own hand. In that important
document, Sir, upon which it seems to he his fato
to stand, or to fall. before the American People,
the VETO message, he holds the following lanpu
"Each public officer, toho lakes oath to support
the Constitution, spedrs that he oiU support II as
ne understands ii, aud 2ot as it is understood by
others" MIR. President, the general adoption of the
sentiments, expressed in this sentence, would dis.
solve our Government. 1t would raise any mans
private opinions, into standard for his own con-
duct, and there certainly is, there can be, no Co
vernmcnt, where every man is to Judge, for him.
self, OF his own rights, and his obligations
Where every one is his arbiter, force, aud not
law, is the governing power. He who may Judge
Tor himself, and decide for himself, must execute
his own DECISIONS and this is tho law of force.-
] confess, Sir, it strikes with establishments
that so low, wild, disorganizing sentiment
should be uttered by President OF the United
States. should think it must have escaped its au.
thor, through want of reflection, from the habits
OF little rehcction such subjects, if could sup
pose 1t possible shat Oh question exciting much
public attention, and of much national import
ance, IN ITSELF any such extraordinary doctrine
could Ind its way through inadvcrtence, into form
al and solemn public act. Standing as it does il
atfirms proposition which would effectuaIly re- |
md all -.
The Constitution. declares, that public officers in
Tie State governments as well as in the general go
sernmcnt' snail take an oath TO support The COnSti-
luton Of the United States. THIS is all. Would |
II not have cast an air of ridicue the whole pro-
vision, If the Constitution had gone on to add the |
words, Gas he understands it2" What could |
como nearer to solemn farce, than to bind a man.
~ oath, and still leave him to be his own interprc-
Ter OF his own obligation? Sir. those who are to
execute sae laws have no mare license to con-
strue them, for themselves than those whose only
duty is to obey them Public officers are bound TO
support The Constitutions; private citizens bound
20 obey II; and there is more indulge granted
o the public officer, to Support the Consti- !
uton only as he understands it, than to a |
private citizen to oboy it, only as he under
stands ii; and what is true of the Constitu- |
lion, IN this respect, is equally true of any law |
Laws are TO be executed, and to be obeyed not as
individuals may interpret them, but according to
public, authoritative Interpretation and adiudica-
ton The sentiment OF the message would ebro-
IL
every man is to Judge of the Constitution and tho
laws for himself, If he is to obey, and to support
them, only as ne niay say he understands theni a
revolution, think, would take place in the adj
ministration ofJustice; and discussions about the
law OF frcGSon murder and arson shou be address,
ed, not to the judicial bench, but to those who
might stand charged with such offences. Tho OBJ
Ject oil discussion should be, if out this no.
ton to its natural extent, to convince the culprit
himself how he ought to understand the law.
Mr. President, how it is possible, that a scnti
ment so wild, and so dangerous, encouraging TO
all who feel desire oppose the laws and to quar-
rel with the Constitution, should have been uttered
by the President of the United States at this event
iul and critical momenR Are we not threatened
with dissolution of the Union? Are we not told
that tile laws OF the Government shall he openly
and directly resisted7 Is not the whole Country
looking, with the utmost anxiety, to what may be
the result of these threatened courses? Aud. at
this very moment, so full of peril to the States
the Chief Magistrate puts forth opinions and SEN
tIments as truly subversve of all Government, as
absolutely in conflict with the authority of the Con
sitution the widest theories Of Notification
Mr. PRESIDENT have very little regard for the |!
law, or the logic, of NulfcatiOp. But there is |
not an individual in its ranks capable of putting |
Two ideas together, who if you will grant him the |
principles Of the Veto Message, cannot defend all |
that Notification has ever threatened. To make
this assertion good, Sir let us see how the case
stands. The Legislature of South. Ca, DINA, it is
said, will nuify the late Revenue, or Tariff law
because, they say, ii il not warran ed y the Cons
tuition OF tire United States, they understand that
Constitution. They, as we'll as the President Of the
United states, have sworn to support the Constitu-
ton Both ho and they have taken tho same oath, |
III the same words. Now, Sir, sinco he claims the
right to interpret the Constitution as he plcascs
how can he deny the same right to them2 Is his |
oath less stringent than theirsl Has he a preroga-
tive of dispensation, which they do not posscss7
How can he answer thcm, when they tell him that |