Virginia free press. (Charlestown, Va. [W. Va.]) 1832-1916, 1833-08-22

l.uhissSasson proposes 70 preserve the Con-
sttution, by annulling every act Of tho rcde-
raj Government, which the Constitution does
not authorize; II proposes TO preserrs the Uaion.
By ssasifing ho~ ssvrpstisns In ssws u.ods
~Aseh shall not sciihdrasc he State from the Union,
nor snsbsrrsss he regwisv setio~ Of The Gorer~-
nse~t rithia The Constitution. Secession with
draws the State out Of the reach Of the usurp-
ed powers, whcA all other means of redress
have failed. Notification, therefore, is the
primary right and tho primary duty OF the
State Secession 10 the ultimate right when
Notification has Jailed.
This, sir, 10 Modification, ss understand Il.
and rs n Is undoubtedly utemplated in the
Resolutions Of l79s. I should be glad TO
Know what objection you can urge against IT,
Kermit me DOW To examine its practical re-
suits, and to compare them with those Of the
opposite doctrine, rs commended for by the
President.
IL - perfectly true as the President contends.
that II State may declare one law to be un-
constitutional. il may declare any and every
ether law To be so; aud by tie same rule. each
State may, in tho exercise Of the same right,
select particular law or laws rs unconsiitu-
tionai, and thus utterly destroy the uniform
operation OF the system. But while this IL
certainly posabts, Il il in NO degree probable
and cannot possibly occur, except i'm such
state OF feeling in rcgard 10 the Union a.
would ut all events, dissolve IL by other
means. II the States no longer wish to re-
nam IN union, they will Of course separate.
But IL they arc really dcsirous to prsssrrs the
Union, their o,cn interest affords n sufficient
pledge that they will not cndangcr il by
throwing themselves upon their reserved
rights, except IN extreme cases, which re-
quire 1t. II one State or two States should
be mad enough 10 do so. il cannot be imagin-
ed that such n number Of them will do
so, rs to afford any ground for the Pre-
sidenrs fears, or any application for the
argument which he derives from them
The government Of the United States, is the
mere agent Of the States, for specified pur-
who appointed that agent for their own use
and advantage, would without cause, so en-
barrass its action, as TO render its agency Of
no value. in practice, therefore, this argu-
ment OF the president is not entitled 10 any
onsideration.-And even if IL were other
wise, IS II more consistent with principle, that
The agent should control the constituent, or
That the constituent should control the agent,
These views OF the subject, however, are
worth nothing. We cannot Judge for the
practical operation Of the Government by any
such extreme case. Human sagacity cannot
ioreseo, nor human prudence provide for all
guase define and limit every possible modiii-
cation Of social rights. Although Govern
ments arc primarily founded in distrust, yet
there Is, OF necessity, some degree of conf
dencc in all Of them. The wisest statesmen
can do no more than .epose that confidence
IN the safest hands, while ut the same time,
he surrounds 1t with all practicable guards
against abuse. u the States may abuse their
reserved rights in the manner contemplated
by the President, the Federal Government, on
the other hand, may abuse its delegated rights.
There Is danger from both sides, and as we
arc compelled to confide in the ono or the
other, We have only to inquire which is most
worthy Of our confidence. In the first place,
as have already remarked, the States cam
not have any interest 10 abuse their reserved
rights. Besides, the right for which they
contend, Is not q right Of setion ut ell, but
merely right TO check usatsfhoriIed action, in
the other party. The abuse Of this right, can
be found IN nothing but in the interposition Of
the State to check its own agent 90 doing
what Il expressly authorised It's own agent TO
do for its own advantage. The right itself is
Indispensable 10 self-prescrVation, while the
abuse Of II Is not To be contemplated n sulh-
ciently probable, TO found any argument A.
gainst :hc right itself. On the other hand,
The Federal Government has a direct interest
To enlarge Its own powers, by encroachng on
the rights OF tho States. The constituent can
rarely, ever, have an interest In contract
ing the powers Of his agent, but p1isss Tseia,
the agent always has an interest la making
them greater. Aud when wo reflect on the
strong love which most men feel, for patron
age aud power, the influence Of this interest
upon the meTs men who WELD the Federal Go
vcrnment, land who as TO this argument,
must DO identified with it,) affords much
cause for distrust and fear. Il is therefore
much more probable that the Federal Co
Vernment will abuse its powers, than that the
States will abuse theirs. And IL VIC suppose n
case OF actual abuse ON the other hand, Il will
not be difficult To- decide which Is the greater
evil. " State should abuse is rights of IA
teTposition by arresting the operation of n
conRHWiiendt law, the worst that could come
Of Il, would be 90 suspend the operation Of
the Law for time, ~ TO that State, while u
would have all Its effects within the other
States. This would certainly 10 unjust, bat
Ia most eases. would be attended with very
little practical evil. Ia some eases, IL ~ true,
the consequences might be serious, such, for
instance as might arse in time Of war but
q ~ precisely On such eases that the state
would have the least ROties for coming into
collision with her lister States. Besides, ae-
eordipg 10 the doctrine for which I am con-
tending, this evil would be temporary only
q must cease in some way or other, ~ soon
AZ the other States set upon the subject.
acknowledge, however, that Il Is 90 best an
evil, but u y an evil tnseparAble from our
system, and one which cannot be avoided
except by submitting 90 grfaisr evil. Its
perfectly evident that this right must exist
VA the States, unisss Il be incompatible with
the rights % the Federal Government. Sup
posing this ineompatibiiity 10 exist, there
must be a right in that Gvvcrhmemt TO con
troll the States Ia tins respect, and 10 enforce
Law which tho states may have pronounced
10 be unconstitutional Lot us nov suppose
an sbuss q this right. 70 Would consist 80 an
aiienPt by The Federal t5oyernment, 10 eOcrce
Obedienee % an Unconstitutional Law. THIS,
SIR, seems 81 rae, b dsapoiissn - iis rsrg -
ssnes. " The Federal Goyernmeut Nay en-
force one unconstitutional Law, Il may enforce
srsyy unconstitutional Law, and thus al The
rights Of the States aud Tho people may fan
one BY ore, before the omnipOtcaoe u that
Governments This consequences y 800 mast
fest 60 escape even the rsFsst auuer6 al Oh