Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1833-05-28
POLITICAL.

ROLHHAGAA.
Il ReUe,o The Proclamation Of President Jackson o.
me ION Of December, 1882 ~, a series Of na,abers
originally published in the N1y|oik and Portsmouth,
. Herald under the signature of".4 Yirginian -
(By LirrLEroN WALLER TAzrwrLL E.uuire lat.
Senator of Unitod Sta,ss.)
In my last number endeavored prove that hy their
several raihcalons OF the Constitution OF the United States
the Sovereign States OF the Union thereby established Ell.
tered into Covenant with each other, support mi,
Con'fution-that. or the Observance Of this Covenant
each State pledged lis faith its States and that Hi
ai'h must be kept by ALL endeavocd prove further
that none could violate the faith piShed by this Cove
nant save some Of the Sovereign parties H. but that the
might DO So either directly by their sios
or indirectly, by adopting the own the acts or onis
SONS OF any others over whom they might lawfully ever
else control thus brought 10 enuuire villa; i, Inc
course that may be ,ighJuIy pursued Ly any State
should IDS coSNes break their fh pledged to it, by do
ing directly any act in violation Of that pledge or by
adopting as theirs any such done by others amenabe
to their authority!
present the question in this abstract form purpo.ey
oeeause wish TO avoid for the present, the investigation
oil any other matter not necessarily evolved in the
ry Immediately before Hence ad Of sioppnr 10
examine whether any Particular ar, is violation
Of the Constitnon-o what is or is the a epon by
State OF such aract, when done directly nv it,c.or
whether the agents by whom tho act has been been
pctratcd, under it, conroI-I have en-,
ed that the act done is violation the Constitution
that is done by State directly when done by some
other Is adopted by it as its act-and that the ac,
adopted as its act, is done by such as are amenab
to its authority Thus the question Of mere right comes
naked before u.s. and so presented must have direct an
Asto the general answer TO this question: bad suppos
ed, until recently, that no could doubt. But az op
mons upon thssubjec very dinerent from mine have
been uttered Of late, and from many and high authorize,
too, although my former confidence in my opinions is
In no degree shaken, yet feel compelled while re.as
sering them, TO endeavor establish Them by argunen,.
WINCH but few weeks since should have though, a.
Unnecessary as The attempt prove any automatic truth
In the case OF mere Individuals, contract is made be-
tween them, wherein the performance Of one party is
,ho consideration Tor The performance OF the other no
lawyer no man, can doubt that if Of the parties does
not comply with such contract he has no shadow OF
gnt 10 ask or 10 expect the observance OF by the other
party. Tho failure 10 comply by either leaves TO the
other party, the privilege OF avoiding and vacsting tc
contract altogether, OF tcndenr Performance on Ls
part claiming compliance from the other party and If
that Is then refused OF demaang compensation for any
injury sustained by breach OF iia agreement.
3d. TOO, IN the OF nations absolutely independent OF
each other, II contact be entered into by them the
failure to comply with any OF the provisions of the
contract on INC part oil either OF the high contracting par
ues, leaves the other at liberty vacatc and SnnuI
the whole contract to itself; or while affirming a
readiness ON Its part 10 continue its observance Of the
obligations, to require oil the other party like conlance
lnusraion OF this doctrine, but refer to our own
practice and to our avowed principles The Ac, of
July 4, l19S declared, chat the United States are OF
nght freed and exoncracd from the sIpulaons of the
Treaties, and of the Consular Convention CON
Guided between the United States and France and that
the same shall not henceorth be regarded as legally oh
gatory upon the government citizens of the United
states Tho reason assigned for this dcclaration in the
preamble oil me Act ITSELF is that "hcse Treaties have
oeen repeatedly violated on the part of the French Go
vernment But for this fact of violation on the part Of
France, Congress would have had authority TO enact
this Statute; because by the Constitution these Trcatio.
had been expressly made the supreme law OF the land
Therefore, the Statute does profess repeG them bv
any enactment, but declares simply that they were no
longer obligatory upon "of right because hey had
been previously and repeatedly violated by France So
shelving, conclusively that The violation OF contract by
one oil the Sovereign parties TO it, is sufficient absoyc
the other party from all its oblg aiion' this other party
chooses 10 adopt that
Now surely, will contend that what every inli.
vdual does and may rgh, do in regard TO his con,rac
sovereign has .anIh do, r;c
fully, in regard 10 their agreenens forbidden to he
zone by any OF these Sovereign States in reference
their Covenant with their CoSates Ii may be denied
as the author OF this Proclamation does dcny that any
these States is Sovereign II may be denied that thew
nave entered INTO any Covonant With each other;
me Constitution OF the United States is such Covenant
II may be Denied that this Covenant has ever been bro
ken or that any Ste responsible any other for any
breach oil IT, But ii all these things he granted land in
the question propOunded they are all ass,inedA il ow
necessarily hit violation Of the Covenant by any of the
states leaves every other State who is party it, the
right 10 vacatc the Covenant as 10 Itself also
Nor can the exercise by State of this right of decIar
ing broken Covenant longer obi upon itself or
ndcieadblo right OF Revolution, which abes with every
people This last is individual right il stands upon
the great maxim, Sa's Popmi est supreme ier II is the
right OF sedeicncc, which cannot ALLEVIATE aItIoup
lie may forbear 10 exert IT, This high right rides over all
others, whatever they may be- II claims 10 Ieeiliatze
the dethronement OF Soveregns, the Of EN-
pres The dissolution OF ancient SOcietrs the breach Of
allegiance, and even of faith itself But the tight of de-
clarng Covenant broken by Of the parties no longer
OOhEaOy upon dHOter ~ Tie very of all this IL
constitutes the foundation OF all Society; TO secure il ali
governments OF all kinds instituted and upon lie pre-
serya'o depends Sovereignty itself Upon rests the
eneacy even OF this holy right of Revolution; for unless
coDde in his fellow, resistance Of power woulJ
be vain: nor can any conde in another il their nu
iual pledges may be broken by one and remain obligatory
upon the other, against his will
The assertion Ivy state, OF dis right Of declaring bro
ken Covenant no longer obligatory upon itself or IL peo
pie, does not necessarily produce any, other effect thsn
their dissolution tom oil hc obga formerly posed
upon them by the Covenant 'Shiie IL subsied SUCH
IL leaves them, III the plight, to Tie matter Of the
Covenant IN which they before il was entered into
20 the same predicamen in which they would have been
" II had never existed. TIE Covenant as 10 the psrtv
making such declaration, becomes mere nuIlify with
out even any moral obligation upon that party who in de-
clang IT'S exemption from a tie former Obligations of The
Covenant 90 ahdons thereafter, all shallow OF claim to
any privilege right or benefit 10 which, 81 ght have been
entitled ufier a. The assertion. involves no breach OF
faith Oh the pat o. The safe dssaNns itc covoDs bro