Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1833-03-22


in the choice Of person to whom 90 important
trust was TO be confided. This end will be an
swered by committing the right Of making II, not
to anv pre- established body, but to men chosen
BY the people. for the special purpose and at the
particular conjuncture." Again he says, San
other and no less important desideratam, was,
that the Executive should be independent Tor
continuance in Office, on all but the people them
selves. He might otherwise be tempted TO sac.
rifice his duty, to his complaisance, tor those
whose favor was necessary to the duration of his
official consequence" In addition to this au.
thority, reference to the Virginia debates will
shew what Governor Randolph and MIR Madison
thought upon this subject. Governor Randolph
said. - The Electors must be elected ny thr
people at large" Mr.. Madison SAID, " Per-
haps it will be found impossible to elect him
(meaning the Presidency by the Immediate
sufiages Of the people. Difficulties would
arise from the extent and population o! the
States. IDstead of this the people choose the
electors." Again he says, 9 The deputies lfom
the small States argued land there Is some force
in their reasoning) that when the people vo'ed. the
larger States evidently had the advantage over e
rest;-aithout VARYING the mode, the interest, OF
the little States might be neglected or sacrificed
Here is a - compromise All this shows very
clearly, Mr.. Chairman, that the election OF the
cleo tors for the President and Vice President,
belongs to the people and not to the State Legs
latures The :. compromise" made with the
little States, of which Mr. Madison spoke, was.
when the electors had failed to make choice.
to let the election of the President be decided IN
the House of Representatives, when each State
should have one voie This shews how, in the
wav of compromise with the small States, this
federatlye feature was engrafted upon the Con-
stiution-And although it is strictly federative.
and can seldom be brought into practice, yet 1t
has already given, and may perhaps continue TO
give, to the large State Rights States. more dis
satisfaction than any other part OF the Constitu-
ton.
Mr.. Chairman, much has been said about the
reserved rights of the States, IN the course of this
disc usson-And each State has been described
as being an independent sovereign. But have
heard no satisfactory definition of these reserved
rights. or OF this independent sovereignty. And
vet, upnn these underlined things, the right OF
State, TO nulify law of Congress, or to secede
from the Union. seems chiefly to depend The
people of the States, are the United States
They are the source Of all power, aud OF all SO.
vereignty. They are the same people; standing
in the two-told character Of the people Of the
States quoad their State governments, and as one
people quuad their General Government. Ii LETT
to the operation of INV own understanding,
should look to the Constitution OF the United
States, to see how much sovereignty the whole
people had delegated to the General Government
And shnuld look To the State Constitutions to
ascertain the Quan'um Of sovereignty which the
people of the State had delegated TO their State
Goycnmehts. When, therefore, I examine the
r Stat. l find IT. q tho
people have declared that instrument. and the
.aws made in pursuance therepf. the supreme
law of the land" "any thing in the Constitu-
ton or The laws of the State to the contrary not
withdrawing When / look to the State Con-
s.itutons, find no such reserved rights there
defined, and no such sovereign power there de-
i.cated as will enable State to Dullity. by Law,
a law Of Congress, which is Of higher authority
than lis own. Nur can find any authority for
the doctrine, that the people Of State are so far
sovereign as to secede, or to withdraw themselves
from their obligations, and fom their allegiance,
10 that Government, which all the people contr.
buted TO form, which ali have pronounced the
{. supr,mp law of the land" But the right IS 50
qualified that State. in its exerci,s can only ST.
crde in one way And that is, by throwing her.
self upon her reserved rights, and upon that IN.
dependent aud unlmpaired sovereignty which she
has never surrendered This leads me, Mr..
Chairman, to enquire, if this claim OF State to
independent sovereignty oe legitimate. II IT DC
not Legitimate. then the right OF secession which
is based upon its supposed existence, cannon oe
sustained. In the letter addressed by the Fede-
raj Convention To the President 0f Congress, and
which accompanied the Constitution and was
mart of their report it is expressly said that u was
;,nnossibIe 20 secure to each State all the rights
of independent sovereignty" Thus it appears
ina, those who framed the Constitution denied
that each State was left by its provisions IN all
its rights of "independent sovereignty
The same letter gives the opinIan OF the Con
ven,ion upon another characteristic OF the TO-
yernment, in the following terms: "ln all our
deliberations upon this subject, we kept steadIy
in our view that which appeared to US the great
est interest Of every true American, the consoli.
dation of our Union, in which, is involved our
prosperity, felicity, safety. perhaps our national
existence" Now, Mr.. Chairman, it this con-
struct,on Of the Constitution be correct. how can
. St,,a which has not retained ita 'Independ-