Daily Richmond Whig & public advertiser. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1833-1840, 1833-04-03

a,sV Pfsseuteo tnat beautiful and cassfsal ims9e
strorg man struggling in bog, without the
power OF estricating himself, and incapable Of
being aided BY any friendly hand, while, instead
OF struggling in a bog, he stands on the ever
lasting rock Of truth
Having now noticed the criticism OF the Sc
major, l shall proceed TO meet and repel the main
assault on the resolution. He directed his ut
, ,h against tse strong point, the very horn Of
,he eitaoei Of State Rights. The Senator clear
" perceived that il the constitution be COMPACT
was impossible to deny the assertions contain
ed In the resolutions to resist the consequences
which had drawn from them, and accordingly
directed his whole fire against that point but,
alter so vast an expenditure OF ammunition, moi
ihe slightest impression, so far as can perceive.
mas teen made. Atleast the work is not reduc.
ed 10 that heap Of ruins TO which the fire of the
French artillery reduced the citadel Of Antwerp.
VIII not. however, pretend to decide whether
TINS Is owing TO the difference in the skill and
force Of the assault, or in the difference of the
strength OF the works But, to drop the simile,
aiter careful examination Of the noses which /
look OF what the Senator said, | am now at q
loss 10 know whether, in the opinion Of the Sc
major, our constitutions compact or not though
The almost entire argument OF the Senator was
u'rected to that point. Az one time he would
seem to deny directly aud positively that il was
compact, while nj another he would appear in
language not less strong to admit that il was.
have collated all that the Senator has said
upon this point; and that what have stated
may not appear exaggerated will read his re-
marks IN Juxta-position.' He said that
| The constitution means government not a
compact. Not constitutional compact, but
government. IL compact, il rests on plighted
iaith, and the mode OF redress would be TO de-
clare the whole void. States may secede, if a
league or compact"
thank the Senator for these admissions,
fR Ln.. f.. NJ -
proceeded to read from his notes.
The States agreed that each should partici-
pate IN the sovereignty Of the other"
lCerlainly, very correct conception OF the
constitution. but when did they make that agree
nent but by the constitution, and how could
they agree but by compact71
The system, not a compact between States,
IN their sovereign capacity, but by government
proper, founded on the adoption of the people
and creating individual relations between itself
and the citizens
This the Senator lays down as a leading
fundamental principle TO sustain his doctrine
and | must say, by strange confusion and I'M
certainty oil language; not, certainly, TO be ex-
planned by any want Of command Of the most
appropriate words on his part.
ut does not call itself compact, but a consti-
tuition. The constitution rests on compact, but
II is no longer a compact
would ask TO what compact does the Senator
refer, as that on which the constitution rests 2
Before the adoption Of the present constitution
the States had formed but one compact and that
was the old confederation and certainly the
gentleman does not intend TO assert that the
present constitution rests upon that. What, then.
is his meaning What can it be, but that the
constitution itself is compact and how will
his language read when fairly interpreted, but
that the constitution was compact but is no
longer compact. 1t had, by some means or
other, changed its nature or become defunc,.
He next states that
"A man is almost untrue 10 his country who
calls the constitution a compact"
fear the Senator, in calling it compact, a
bargain, has called down this heavy denuncation
on his own head. He finally states that
III is founded on compact, but not compact
results from it,"
To what are we 10 attribute the strange con-
fusion OF words The Senator has a mud OF
high order, end perfectly trimmed the most ex-
act use of language. No man knows better the
precise import OF the word he uses. The diff
Guilty is not in him but in his subject. He who
undertakes TO prove that tins constitution is not
a compact, undertakes a task, which, be his
strength ever so great, he must be oppressed by
its weight. Ts'Iing the whole of the argument
OF the Senator together, would say that il is his
impression that the constitution is net compact,
and will now proceed TO consider the reason
which he has assigned for this opinion.
He thinks there is an incompatibility between
constitution and compact. To prove this, he
adduces the words "ordain and establish con-
tanned IN the preamble Of the constitution. |
confess am not capable Of perceiving in what
manner these words are Incompatible with the
idea that the Constitution Is a compact. The
Senator will admit that single State may or
daln compact, and where is the 6Giculiy !;
where the incompatibility Of two States concur
ring IN ordaining ndestablishing constitution
As between the States themselves, the instru-
ment would be a compact but in reference TO
the Government, and those on whom IL operates,
it would be ordained and established ordained
and established by The joint authority Of fieo,
instead Of the single authority Of one.
The next argument which the Senator adj
vances TO show that the language Of the Consti-
tuition is irreconcilabe with the idea of its being
a compact is taken from that portion Of the in
sirument which imposes prohibition on the au-
thorty Of the States. He said that the language
used in imposing the prohibitions, is the Ian
guage Of superior TO an inferior; and that
therefore IL was not the language of compact
which implies the equality Of the parties. As a
proof, the Senator cited the several provisions of
the Constitution which provides that no State
shall enter into treaties Of alliance and confcde-
ration, lay imposts &c without the assent of
Congress. II he had turned TO the articles Of
the old Confederation, which he acknowledges
10 have been compact, he will find that those
very prohibtory articles Of the Constitution are
borrowed from that instrument. That the Ian
guage which he now considers as implying SUI
periorty, was taken verbatim from il. II he had
extended his researches still farther, he would
find that it is the habitusl language used in trea-
ties, whenever stipulation is made against the
performance of any act. Among many instan-
ces which | could cite IL il were necessary, re-
fer the Senator to the celebrated treaty negotiated
by MIR. Jay with Great Britain in 1893, and in
which the very language used in the Constitution
is employed.
To prove that the Constitution is not a com
pact the Senator .ixt observes, that il stipulates
nothing, and asks, with an air oftriumph, where
are the evidences Of the stipulations between the
States7 ] must express my surprise at this inter
rogatory, coming from so intelligent source
Has The Senator never seen the ratification Of
| the Constitution by the several Statss1 Did he