Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1833-04-30

oriy may virtually exercise power which the Constit
ton meant TO conne TO threeiourths OF the States may
De answered. that the incongruy would be far less
majority To have the power OF interpretations than for
Single Slate, as would be the case if ii had the light
veto or Notification. But in truth the OF the Con-
suuuon not aiming at anciul and unatainable degree
Oh perfection lett the power OF iHtepretaon-in gener
al limited oneto be exercised in the ordinary practical
"oue oy majority; but restricted the far greater power
~ amendment 10y which the whole Constitution might
changed TO the concurrence OF three .iourths.
Another inSuperablc objection the doctrine of Multi
ication is that AN implied pO,cer greater than an
express Potcer upon the subject Thus, suppose
alter the experiment. OF the bankrupt law in 1899
oil The States had wished that grant OF power revoked by
an amendment to the Constitution, they could
famed their OBJECT except by concurrence of three
ourhs oil the Siatesthais oil IL out OF the To- But sup
pose also that any one State had deemed that law
stutional, as several members from Virginia argued in
the debate on similar law in 1922, and had
huy H. then that single State would have exercised
power by implication, which expressly denied by the
Constitution TO any number OF States less than t,ceire
Is worthy OF remark that those who disposed
an implied power lar in the presen, instance regard
opposition TO that class Of powers, oi the fundamental
articles oil their creed.
One ia,e reasoning on this suhec, has been
the vague, underlined notions which persons form of
sovereignty, which they think incompatible with any re-
srahS even those which il has agreed impose itself
But, according TO fundamental principles of govern
ncht, It's powers founded supposed social compact
anu the individuals who formed that compact were as
truly sovereign aud independents any could
be- and natural right redress when the pow
ers were exceeded, would be complete Yetthas
oeeh supposed, that this gave any individual the right
make himself the exclusive Judge OF such violations He
mas the right TO exercise his Judgment in the matter and an
important right when il has the concurrence o other
but 1t Is notifications in itself is but single fibre in
the cord though it of such ibres that the whole cord
Is composed So, where number sovereign States agree
10 FORM themselves into permanent government for their
mutual bcneht, State have the exclusive right
TO interpret the compact Judge OF the exercise of the
powers over IT, IL has, indeed, perfect right Judge
out the other States having the its peculiar right
may be Intellectual without the concurrence of others
4 live apply the preceding principles TO the alleged
right oil secession, II follows that when the principles
the compact have been seriously violated and dangerous
powers not granted have been usurped injured State
has right TO secedeto consider itself absoved from its
former engagements and her deliberate belief must
be SUFFICIENT evidence of the TO herself But so
long the compact not been violated she can have
no right 10 withdraw from the Union she has consented to
lorm and the deliberate belief OF the other States that the
compact has not been violated, is sufficient evidence TO
hein oil that ac III then State that the compact
has been violated and she therefore has right 10 secede
but the other States affirm that there has been no viola
non, ana that she has no such right, both parties have
Drawn ogicai conclusions from the premises. But they
differ about these, there be way settling the diff
ference except either by leaving the question TO the de-
cisioh oil the majority, or, what will commonly come
the same result, to the greatest physical strength IT, in
case OF such collision, State should be-
eve herself seriously injured in her rights and that her
interests would be promoted by Separation would not
only be her right, but her solemn duty 10 assertit
IL mas oeen oil late frequent matter of controversy be-
tween The agatos and their opponents whether State
has the right pedceabiy secede from the Union and
whether the right OF secession differs from the right
oofution But II would seem from the preceding views
mat me right OF State TO secede, well that the
other States TO oppose her secession depends upon he
Judging rightly OF the alleged iniracon OF the compact
et as 10 the Jdct whether the will be
BILE or not will depend upon the judgments actually form
ed The probability is, judging from the history nations
that, except where the separation deemed mutually
beneficial, the other States nine nine cases out of
hundred, would consider their rights under the compac
invaded well their interests affected and conse
queniy That the secession would not be peaceabc Blu
whether peaceable forcibe it would be
measure, II by revolution be nal change
OF government and would rest for its justification
the same principles revolution in I776 OF in
deed that of England in 1858, and that France in Jul,
1881
2. arguments from auihority-These are chiefly from
The resolutions OF Virginia and Kentucky in 1905 (Which
nave been already nenoned and elaborate report by
e Legislature oil virginia IN 1892 in defence OF its
lutIons which report, well the resolutions the m
selves, known 10 have been written by Mr. Madison
The doctrines contained in these papers, which are
sion arc " That the powers of the Federal Government
farther valid they are authorized by the grant
enumerated IN the compact Ghe Constii uon) to wbcl
The States are parties; and that, in OF deliberate
papabe and dangerous exercise of other powers not grant
ed by the said compact the States who parties there
have the night and are in duty bound interpose
resting the progress of the evil and for maintaining with
IN their respective limits the authorities rights and ber
lies appertaining 10 them. 4 VHgind Resolutions ~
1851 Aud again: =" That the government created d,
this compact was not made the exclusive final Judge o
the extent OF the powers delegated 10 itself; since tina
would have made its discretion and not the Constitution
the measure OF its powers but that all other cases
OF compact among parties having Judge eacl
party has an equal right 10 judge for ITSELF we'll of in
fractions, OF the mode and of redress Ken
"ehy Resolutions If I70S, dra,on by Mr.. JcGeyson)
n IL is insisted that it, these high authorities maintain
unconstitutional acts void that the States may
fully Judge what act, unconstitutional, and seek te
own redress; concIusively follows that they may multi
~ such acts, prevent their execution within their re-
spectve territories.
But, the other hand it urged that
were investigating the powers of the States, i'm reference
to their common agent the General Government Iaf
they in the passages cited, referred the States coec
lively, and not individuality They speak but OF par
tes-the States Governments and the General Govern
men Had they intended to speak OF the several Statcs
Instead OF the community OF States they would have also
spoken OF the relation between single State and its
States, which they have where done Besides, both
sets OF resolutions, alter full exposition of the relative
rights OF the States, and OF the General Government,
cIude by inviting the other States concur
ona and to take the necessary proper for
cooperating to e" maintain unimpaired, the authorities,
rights and liberties reserved to the States respectively
TO the people The report OF 1888, in vindicatng this
resolution refers to this expression, the necessary and
proper measures, and where gives the lie inimaion
that " Nuihcatlon," of those measures II
ought in fairness to have done il suchhad been its
ing. On the contrary, IL specifies several modes of
operation, and by such specifications, excludes those
mentioned Thus il says To find objection, then, il
must be shewn that meaning was annexed these
general terms, which not proper; and, ioF Inns pur-
pose, either that the used by the General Assem-
b bly, were example OF improper means, that there
i were proper TO which the terms could refer.
"ln the example given by the State, Of declaring the
Alien and Sedon Acts TO be unconstitutional and Of
muncatng the declaration the other States
improper means has appeared And If The other States
i had concWTed in making like declaration, supported
too by the numerous applications, flowing mmediaelS
II from the people, IL scarcely be doubted that tie
efr,