Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1833-03-07
Virginia Legislature.


I
SPEECH OF Mn. Brown, Of Petersburg, deliuered in
Committee IF the Whole, The state Of the Relations
bcDeeH the United States and South Carolina, on
Saturday, the 5th January. COncluded
There was, said Mr. b. official of the Assembly
Of '9S, which tended to show that the right Of making
free declaration of opinions, either in public or priva
capacity against acts of Congress otherwise,
tested not by resolutions only but, apprehended
in practice few days after the adoption OF the cele-
brAtOd resolutions, passed, and which, he said
still stands unrepealed on statute book making
demoonor in any person, prosecute any
Der " for account OF any words spoken written,
any proposition made proceedings had, in the said Sc
nate or House of Delegates; and authorizing the Judges
upon application, TO hherate by hG6edS corpus, any
member arrested or imprisoned such account. He
had often heard il said that this act Of multi
hcaon by Virginia but he did so consider it.
There direct reference to the Sedion Law,
and whilst he thought il quite probable it aimed
that law in part, yet 1t might have been equally
say to protect members from prosecution under the prn
eiPes OF the common statute law, in the State courts,
and that he presumed the why il was still
found in Revised Code. Even were intended ex-
clusiyely counteract the Sedon Law-yet copy of
the record not denied and had its validity been
mined by the Federal Court under the 25h OF the
judiciary act, there TO doubt that Virginia,
far her ordinary Legislature was concerned would
have acquesced He understood that the nerposition of
the State in her sovereign capacity was, according the
s. Carolina theory, essential element Of Notification
How then could the Legislature, in which the sovereign
power certainly did not reside nhfy law Of Congress
Ii had been often mentioned principle Of
government, that the State Legislatures would 'sound
the alarm to the people" whenever there infrac
alarm the people, il the right of redress in them
selves? Each State he said, had government composed
Of two distinct branches-the Federal and the local
branch-and there set OF agents employed in the
management Of each. Each set OF agents, within its al
loted sphere and the subjects ssly submitted
II, liable 10 controu from the other. Each agency
had judicial department, whose province
fine the action OF that agency within its constitutional IL
mts There was danger also that agency might en-
eodch the jurisdiction OF the other and hence, for its
protection in the exercise OF its Tghtful powers suprc-
macy given TO the Federal agency government by
that clause OF the Constitution which says that "The Con
sttuon OF the u y and the laws which shall be made in
pursuance thereof SC shall lie the supreme law oe land;
and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby &C.
The fear, that time doubtless was not that the auhor-
~ OF the State Governments would be maintained
but that the rghtl authority of the Federal Govern
would moi be acknowledged; and hence the requsi-
lion that the agent conducting the former should to
support the Federal Constitution. He would take that
OCCASION he said to add that sovereignty did not reside
in either Of those Governments that cath oath
oil allegiance from cuZen TO a sovereign power but
merely oath by set of agents TO support the
situtonal authority II another of agents The man
in which the Federal Judiciary should act upon a
State law repugnant to the Constitution of the United
States pointed out in the 18th section Of the Judicial
~ Act Virginia had asserted the validity of the pro-
visions Of that section in her resolutions 1907 growing
out OF the Pennsylvania case OF Olmsead, and long
she acknowledged its force Act Of Assembly she could
pass would amount Nullcation because in the pro-
Of enforcing H. the Federal Judiciary might arrest
and override IT, This act Of OS like many acts passed
by the States might have concted with an act of Con-
Rres but It it had been adiudged and declared
Bat Mr. r.. said, whilst he commended, that the As
semby of 90, had not, in fact, rcsortcd 10 any other
than constitutional means OF redress, OF which MULTI
cation was not enumerated "a one, he did not wish to
he understood that there were according those reso
luion', other modes OF inerposiiion open to the
States The third resolution, which he had before
quoted asserted the right Of the States 10
Report OF 90, specified the constitutional means Of inter
position; hut there also Of interpretations be
yond the provisions Of the constitution, and lllhough not
pointed out expressly in hf report, the resolutions
themselves, they were necessary deductions from the
principles there laid down This extra constitutional in
terpOiiOn OF the States, could be made only by the
reign power-the majority OF the people-and only in
" those great and extraordinary cases in which al the
forms Of The constitution may prove Intellectual against
fractions dangerous 10 the essential rights Of the parties
IT," AS long State remained subject to the Federal
Cou'ttion SHE must abide by its operation her ciii-
Trough the medium Of the constituted authorities
when she appealed from That constitution TO her sovereign
rights il interpo,on ia her sovereign capacity
AID must be made according 10 the rules OF tile law Of ma
tons As he had before remarked, in such case, there
two Alternatives AMI the Stcte might either regard
Che compact as at end, in other words secede or
else she ght compel the other contracting parties 10 per
form their engagements 10 general, the weaker patty
believing se aggrcvcd, would choose the Orncr alter
niiyc, and the stronger party the latter lie had already
gone fully INFO consideration Of The circumstances under
which the former course might be pursued and il was
sufficient 10 add, hat precisely the circumstances
and no other would justify the Latter measure. when
according 10 The rules be had laid down, the right
70 compel The other party to perform its promises had
accrued TO state, be would not deny the right OF
such State 10 Judge OF the means Of coupr-ion. or
n other words cot the mode and Of redress -
tie would concede tIat Modification might be .
part Of The plan Of coercion But hen ought 10 be dis
uncy understood bat Modification, IN such case y1s
war measure differing iu form but not in principle from,
real Hostility lie bad before remarked hat when State
acted ~ iis sovereign capacity without The pale Of the
Constitution, 10 could only be attacked cOerccd by the
co Stllcs tJdug 90 Che usages o war. The oblga-
ton was reciprocal the acgueved State to SEEK redress
IL she sought 20 81 ail TIE same principle Nuiffca.
ton appeal from fle Cousu'uou and pre- ppOs.
ed Withdrawal FROM the Union. in order 10 Justify
such attack the other STATES ~ was incompatible
with The Constitution. As long State Acknowledged