Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1833-09-16


R.Dublicans. principles which directly lead to
the same result. Instead Of the concurrent anu
eosal right of the States. in their confederate ca
pacity, as plainly minated iu the Virginia res.
outions of '9S and 99, to Judge IN the last res"l'
of iufractions of the constitution, these mooerh
commentators contend for the separate ana e.
cIsire right of each individual state to Judge ae
foipefv for ITSELF maintaining that each state Is
anil a perfect Sovereign. Notwithstanding the ma
nv attributes of sovereignty delegated TO the Unit
On fahose constitutional authority Is, at the
same time declared to be supreme and that each
State, thus being sovereign. has complete con-
troll over the conduct OF it's own citiZens, "no
owe TO it sole and exclusive allegiance. lhese
are the doctrines which are now set up as 'ne
standard of the Republican orthodoxy sa'u
that although many Of those who MAINTAIN tnese
doctrines, disavow notification, the doctrines
themselves practically and Intrns,ca,iy amount
to qualification. And do they not? 1t each IN.
di,idual State has the right to judge defnit,vely
for itself, with regard to alleged violations OF
the constitution, and can legtiuately determine
the obedience or disobe dience OF Its cltlzens 10
an act Of the General Government, does It not
necessarily follow, that any one State may oy
its own separate action, arrest or nullify law Of
the United States, within its limits Away, then,
with all distinction, but in name, between the
doctrines of avowed nullifers and those OF the
modern self styled STATE Rights Republicans
He insisted that the doctrines Of this new school
not only lead to notification itself, but that they
are incompatible with the existence OF organized
societv. This position he illustrated, at length,
nv reference to the Federal Constitution and It's
co ntempora neous exposltions-also denying tnat
the new doctrines could be traced to or sustain
ed. either bv the Resolu tons OF '68 or
Mr.. Jefferson's Kentucky resolutions; but de-
car;ns that they originated in the heats OF par
~ strife and civil commotion with the Essex
Junto and Hartford Convention OF New Eng
land "
..Tnese doctrines" said he "mav be traced
in all the proceedings OF that party from me Pc
Rod Of the embargo TO the termination Of me war
But in the report of the Hartford Conve nt'on IN
Jan. 1915, they will be found distinctly summed
up and prefacins proposition Of nW'ipca'o"
in a resolution recommending TO The Legls'a'
lures of all the States represented IN that Con,
venton. the adoption Of ''measuIes etectually
to protec, their respective citizens against the
operatons and effects OF the act OF Congress
nronounced bv them unconstitutional.
That the Virginia resolutions did not author
ire the feature of notification thus exhibited ~
the proceedings of the Hartford Convention, nor
the modern Interpretation Of them. he argued
| from the fact that the Hartford Convention used
the language of the resolutions as far as 1t went,
hut added to the declaration by them OF the
rights of State to " lnterpose Its authority ana
to Judge in the last resort, the operative words
6. and execute its decisions. MIR. X. discussed
fully the subject Of the Force Bill or Bt0ody
Bill, "a grosser missioner" said he us 1t In
possible for the mind to conceive, unless DILL TO
prevent aud repel force may be termed force
| Blu and bill to guard against the probable
effusion Of blood 10 scenes OF civil strife, may
be denominated Bloody Bill
| 81 have never been able" said he "to com
prehsnd, gentlemen, how any person believing
nulli6c alton to be unconstitutional, could con.
denim this measure. The issue was distinctly
made I'd between notification on the one hand,
and the constitutional powers Of the government
nm the otber. South Carolina had declared that
the revenue laws of the United States should
not be executed within her limits, and in addl'
ton to various other measures, had placed the
whole military force Of the State at the disposal
Of the Governor to sustain her Ordinance. IL
was commended by her, at the same time, that al.
ter formal notification Of d law oil the United
States by a state. there was thencetorwarh no
right whatever on the part ct the United STATES
10 execute and enforce a law within the limits
IF such State Here then the revenue laws OF
the United States were not only abrogated by
single state, but the vital power OF the govern
ment to execute its laws was expressly and d.
rectly denied. II, under such circumstances,
Congress had folded up its arms. and made no
efficient provision for the execution of the laws.
would il not have been a surrender of the vital
powers Of the government, and the complete
triumph of notification aud all its anarchicai
pretensons. The whole question seems TO me
plainly reducible to this short dilemma-lf null
| LITIGATION was wrong. the execution OF the laws
was right-if the execution OF the laws was
wrong, then notification was right.
Mr.. r. then alluded to past history to shew
that the bull passed during the administration OF
Mr. jefferson to carry into execution the embar-
90 laws. far more deserving the name OF
force bill than that which passed Congress the
late session--that that bill also was denounced
as bloody bill. and an act of military despofism;
but that Virginia and all her leading statesmen
then saw, and felt the vital necessity OF the
measure.
| 81. 1aJ for