Lynchburg Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1829-185?, 1832-10-08

| tHtFVfA"fet bhitsAtpHy an" ""t H'tt"ttht ,
and us will be shewn in the course of these re-
maks omitted by the dictates of the pratonndos
wisdom
The journal and proceedings ofthe Convention,
which formed the Constitution, atotd abuadan:
pool, that there was IN that body powerful party,
distinguished ior talents and influence, intent OBJ
tanning for the GeAerul Government II graft at the
very power III question, and that they attempted Ia
elect this object, IN all possible ways, but tatu-
nately without success. The first project Of n
Constitution submitted to the Convention, Gov.
Randolphs) embraced u proposition 10 grant pow
err 10 negative all laws contrary ia the opinion
Of the National Leg stature, 10 the articles OF the
Union, or any treaty subsisting under the au,lotl-
u pi the Union aud to call forth the ioteo ot the
| lhon against any member OF the Union taliiHg TO
fulfil lis duty under the articles thereof The next
PROJECT submitted (Chures PlnchnoVs1 contained
Il similar provision, ltproposcd, that the LIE
gslature 1.-THE L. State, should have the power 10
revise the laws uf the several States, that may be
supposed 10 infringe the powers exclusively dele
gated by ting CONSTITUTIONS 10 EonSr'ss3 ahd TO nc
snt,e vnd annuI such as do The next was sub
mitod by MI Paterson of New Jersey, which plo.
yded i" II any STATE, OF hoJy OF mcn in an, State
shall oppose or prevent the carrying into execution
such acts, or treaties ofthc unionl the federal
executive shall be authorized 10 call forth the pow
els Of the coutcderated States OF sn much thereof
as shalt bn necessary 10 enforce, OF compel
obedience to such acts, CT the observance
81 saca treaties Gen. ilanon's neat suceoo.
ded, Which provided, that all laws ot the
particular states, contrary 10 the tonstitu; on ot
| Lazy oi tha United States 20 bc utterly SoId and
the batter 10 pIcVeut such laws being passtd, Tic
! Goyqrnor -. President Of each State shall be ap
pointed by the General Government; mud shall
hsye negative on thela@s about TO be passed
ia the State of which he IS Governor on fresl-
dent
At d suhsequon, period, proposition was mo
veG and referred to II coiumitlee, To prof. idc that
tie jurisdiction oft,e supreme Goort shall fN
tend 10 all controversies between the United States
and any individual state : and, IA, sui' later pc
! rod It was moved 10 grant power Ia negative al
! laws passclby the several States interfering ~
the opinion OF the Legislature with the general
harmony and interest OF The Union, provided, Two
thirds Of the members, ofeaeh house assent To The
smnr whic. after an Intellectual attempt To coin
! nit WAS ithdrnwn
I do no, deem !, necessary 10 trace through the
Journals ofthe Convention the fate of III - sarnus
propositions. I, IS auiRcent, tina, they were II y
cd, and faded, 10 prove concu.lvey, in emonner
never 10 be ohliicrutod, TINT The Convention,
which fronci the Constitution, was opposed
10 granting the power 10 The General Gu
ycrnmcut III any form .hrougl, any of Its Depart
ments, legislative, executive or Judicial 10 cotree
or control Stat though proposed IN all oonceiya-
| bic NOTES and sustained by the most talented and
| influential members Of The body. This one would
suppose oush, settle forever the question of the
surrender, or transfer OF the power, under console
! ration and such in fact would BIZ the chse were the
opinion ola l4rge portion of,hecommuiiy mol bias
s,das u fat II sby interest A majority have d.
rect intees; in culugins the power Of the Govern
mont Il the interested ndhern power with por.l-
nacty which bids defiance to truth, though sustained
by evidence as conclusive Is mathematical dcnl9n-
straiion and accordingly, the advocates of The
| powers 81 the General Government, hotwithstanh-
ing ihc .,iptegnuble strength OF the prof. 10 the
contrary, nave boldly claimed Oh construction, a
! power The Grant OF which was 50 perseverngy
! sought and 50 slently resisted by The Convention
They rest tie claim on the provisions in the Con
! stituton, winch declare, that this Constitution
and the laws made IN pursuance thereof, shall be
the supreme law of,he aud,' and that, " The judi
cial powcl 5hall extend TO all cases in law and G.
putty arising under this Constitution the laws
ofthc United States, and treaties rnnde, or which
| shall be made under lhtir authority
! do not propose 10 80 into minute cxamun-
ton Of these provisions, They have been 50 ire-
| nuently and 50 ably investigated, and II has been
so clearly shown, that they do not warrant The as
sumption of the power elaimcd to the Govern
moni, that do not deem II necessary. shall
therefore couiine myself to few detached re
marks
have already stated, Hat u distinct proposition
was made 10 cuuitl the sery power N controversy
on the Supreme Conn, which failed which, of IL
selfought 10 override the assumption Of the pow
| or bv constructions unIcss sustained by the most
conclusive arguments; but when !, is added, that
this proposition was moyed (20h AugusD snbse-
qucnt 10 the period Of adopting the provisions above
cited vestlng the court with rs present pow
crs, 18th July) and that, an cor was made at Il
still .alcr period [23d August to invest Congress
with negative on all state lt"s, winch, M rs OPT
mon, might interfere with the general interest
and harmony oftbc Union tue argument would
Seem too conclusive against the powcis Of 'hc
court, 10 be ogcrrulcd w construction, however
| strong.
Passing by, however this, and >'so the objection
that the terms caScs 5p tor and c9ntfy are techni-
cal embracing only questions between parties,
ameaje to the process Of the court and, ofcourse,
| excluding questions between tic States aDd the
| General Government an argument winch has
| never been answered there remains another OBJ
lection perfectly conclusive.
The consideration, which would confer on the
! Supreme Court the power N question, rests on the
ground, that the Constitution has conferred on tina,
tribunal the high and important right OF deciding
on the constfuftOaaiitg0 lars. Thot 1t posses
! scs this power do not deny, but do utterly that
it is conferred by the Constitution, either by the
provisions above CITED, Of any other. II IS apowei
derived not from the Constitution, but from the ne
cessi,y of the case and so far from being posses
sed by the Supreme Court, exclusively, OF peculiar
ly, it not only belongs to every court OF the coun-
try high or low, civil or criminal, but to all foreign
courts before which n ease may he brought, inVo
wing the construction of a law which may conflict