Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1833-01-24
Richmond, Thursday, Jan. "a.
DOCTRINES.


on Thursday last the propositions which he sun
ports; and we promised to expose them. We are
aboirt2 comply with this Observation-Disclosures
IS one o>those writer's whom it is impossible to des-
plse. But his errors are gross, and if generally
adopted they would prove fatal to the constit,i
ton OF our country, that cannot reconcile il TO
ourselves to publish them in silence. We will deal
frankly with hm-We really did not suppose there
was so intelligent Il man in Virginia, who was so
outrageous lIeretic--But to the proofs:
We shall reverse the order of the discussion
and take up first what Hampden is pleased to treat
the last we shall begin at the beginning-that is TO
say, we will take up the origin of the Government
before we look TO its termination. We will see how
1t originated, before consider how it may be dis
solved. According TO Hampden's argument. in
decd, the two propositions hang directly upon each
0ther' For we understand him to admit, that State
uoes possess right to secede soon us appears
that she was "a party 10 the compact'-or i'm other
words, that "the foundations of the government
must have been strictly and undeniably federal"
we are aware that llampden has here made more
! liberal concession, than many of those who think
with him on the point of secession would be dispos-
ed to admt-for, many of them infer from the fact
OF there being federal compact that State has no
right to withdraw from it. We will, however first
take Hampden on has own ground-and then 90 on
to examine the other grounds. First, then, who
are the parties TO the compact? Were they the
States, or the people of the United States? is the
Government federal, or national?
| liampden holds it to be national Government
/
Peopte Of tic u. States" in the Preamble of the
Constitution-and also certain sayings of Patrick
iiehry ana DINERS IN the Convention-to shew what
was the received construction of this celebrated
phrase sat the adoption of the CONSTITUTIONS
Those who have been in the habit of reading the
Enquirer, for years past and have done us the honor
OF attending to its statements must recolIect with
what emphasis we have dwelt on the converse of
these proposluJns We have examined all these
proofs with the greatest attention-We have shown
now little these facts calculated TO establish the
national complexion of our Constitution We have
produced other facts of decisive character: facts
which went to show what was actually the received
construction of the instrument at the time of its
adoption that weidd not believe it possible there
could be two opinions upon the subject. We went
INTO the history of the Constitution. We showed
now at every great stage of it, the People of the
States alone, las Sdtes, were its authors and the
parties. Who got up the first Convention at An
napolisP The Suites, as States. Who constituted
The great Convention at Philadelphia? The Dele
gates OF the States. How each proposition
voted for in that body? BY those Delegates having
an equal voice. How was the whole Constuo3
voted tor' by those Delegates each State having
one voico-DeIaware having one vote, and Virginia
no more. When that Convention submitted the
Constitution for ratification what was the formula?
" In Convention, Monday, Sept II, 1887, Presentn
who? the representatives of the People of the u
States? No-but) "He States of New Hampshire
massachusetts, Connecticut, Mr.. Hamilton from N
York, New Jersey, PENNSYLVANIA Delaware Mnrv
land Virginia, N Carolina, s. Carolina and C;eor-
gla'-ant this Convention recommended THAT after
1t was I" laid before the United States in Congress-
assembled "it should afterwards be submitted TO
the Convention of Delegates chosen AN eoc6 ST.
by the people thereof under the Recommendation of
Its Legislature for their assent and ratification. and
That each Convention asserting to- and ratifying the
same should give notice thereof to the IT, States in
Congress assembled. The last clause of the Con-
sttuton itself provides, that the ratification of the
Conventions Of nine States shall be sufficient for the
establishment of this Constitution between the
States so rauying the same" 1t was so submitted
TO the Convention of each State-and each State
as State solemnly sanctioned and ratified the in
strument thus laid before them There is also the
decisive iactupon the subjecthat the same parties
lthat IS, the Sates) which originally formed the Con-
sututIon, are alone competent to amend the work of
their own hands-the 9th article providing that No
amendments can he made, unless they are sratifed
by the Legislatures of 34ths of the several STATES
or by Conventions in three-fourth thereof" Who
can study these facts alone, without coming at once
TO the conclusion which is so clearly expressed in
the 81 OF the Resolutions of '9S '99-viz:
"7hat this assembly doth erpIicitlv anil DerenoDto;J,
declare that Oietcs the PotoeyS NJ the Federai Govern
menf as resulting from the compact to tohich The States
are pdThes, as limited 6y the plain sense and intention
Of the instrument constituting that compact; as no far
theT udhd than they authorized bu the grants en1ne
rdted ~ mat compact; and that IN Of deliberate
PaPdOe ana dangerous exercise Qf other pO,Cers not
granted M The said compact The States uh6 are Dnyt;es
thereto hare The right and in duty bound TO inter
pose, Ter dTTeSting the progress Of the epH and far
tanning 'cihin their respective limits The aghoyifies
TtShfS ana liberties dPPeTtaHing to them"
But lIampden shall not complain of us, that we
nave dismissed his proposition in this unceremoni-
Gus manner. We will pass to other proofs. They
are more necessary at this time, because similar
hereses have been countenanced i'm the late ProcIa-
| NATION OF the President of the United States We
might lay these proofs in the shape of Essaus which
we wrote years ago-but we do not like to quote
from ourselves, and prefer on the present occa-
SION .tontes rlUoS-tO go to the fountain head We
have before us the series of Essays from the pen of
Spencer Roanc, written in 1919 for the Richmond
EnquIrer-conyeying free criticism on the opinion
ei the supreme Court in the case of the IT, S Bank
! (mcCuIloch Us. the State of Maryand.) These Es-
says are dedicated to the Rights of the States and
OF the PeOple"-and have also attached 10 them tho
! popular signature of Hampton. Let the former
| liampden expose the errors of the more modern
In fact, who read the following quotations. with
out subscribing to the doctrines which they so clear
! ~ promulgate? We make no apology for the length
OF the extract We could scarcely strike out n word
without ippairing its value:
- am not able TO say with certainty from the lnuo,aoe
OF the supreme court, whether they aver our
10 be national government admit IL to be federal
one. Wo very respectable wdersc) to be at issue
upon 'hs question: ana shall not undertake determine
the controversy absolutely, between them Such IL tbe
indisnctness OF the language used by the court bat II
might not be perfectly easy 10 do IT, On tbe one hand
they use the term people IN sense SC ming clearly IN i'm
port the people OF the United States as contsdsinoisb
ed from the people OF the several States from which Inc in
terence would arise that The states were not known in the
establishment OF the constitution and on the other hand
mey admit that the States Of MARYLAND il soysyeo,
StGte and member Of The General Government and Ia
the cOIyHcHg p0CeTs OF the government of tho Jp;op
ana OF IT'S Debers are to be settled by the decision nj.
no. cay 70 ascen now government whose members are