Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1833-03-02

N
IT. lfhe meant to advocate his by this course Of
attack, he must be that he only betrayed the
weakness oil that cause by resort TO such weapons
Another motive might be attributed TO the Senator from
Massachusetts, although he (Mr CO. would not inpute
~ and that was desire prOpitiate high quarter TO
which more grateful Offering could be made than
The mmoialoh OF the indiN dual who addressed the
Senate Mr.. Z. then adverted to the charge made
against himself, OF inconsistency; aud stated that he
should always be ready TO defend his own consistency
u compare with that OF the Senator from Massachu-
SETS whenever proper time should arrive. He then
gave eei history OF the debate which had taken place
on the bill now before the other House I'm reference 10
the remarks made by the Senator from Massachusetts ON
ms (Mr Cs) language, exception had been taken TO his
treatment oil the Constitution adjective instead of
noun substantive, aud TO his OF the word "accede
lie quoted the authority OF the Senator himself Tor the
hrSt, and the authority OF Jefferson and Washington TO
Justly We last lie would amend lis resolutions by
striking out the words which had given such offence and
by substituting words which he had found in the language
OF the Senator himself
He then defended his own view of the word "co,n
pact against which he Senator had directed so remen.
dous hre OF argument ingenious and well drectet but
ms hre had not so completely demO-hed him (Mr g.
- the French artillery had demolished the citadel OF Ant
we'p, Not rock had been displaced not splinter was
exhibited lie then read from his notes of the speecb of
The Senator IRON Massachusetts, some quotations of he
language used by thai Senate, vi h view TO show thai
there was ambiguity and lOOseness exhibited therein He
dId not attribute these defects of ability i'm that
Senator. On the contrary, his MUD was OF high order
perfectly trained IN the u.s. OF Tods aud admirably quail
he'd t. give them their fullest weight But he attributed
them TO the untenabe ground which he occupied when he
laid OH the table,
He then reviewed the argument on which the Sena.
tor from Massachusetts, had endeavored overthrow the
position that this government is compact He disputed
The proposition, that Constitution being the supreme
law OF the land could be compac and insisted tb,
treaty which is also the suprStne law of the land il At
the same time compact. lie reminded the Senator that
at the assembly of the Bdrons who forced Magma Charta
on King John, before that Assembly broke up that nstr
nen assumed the form OF He instauced also
e departure oil James the Second and the OF that
event tosustain the view He then instanced the
ratification OF the Constitution by Massachusetts, and New
hampshire 10 show by the language therein that this
Constitution was ratified as compact lie also referred
TO the resolutions OF the Legislature of Virginia of l79S
TO show that the construction was there Given 10
that instrument. 1t had been contcnded that compact
could not be government because possess
ed powers 10 carry It's purposes into effect Ii true
that compact aud government could not be the same
but The Senator misunderstood the position which he (Mr
C had advanced, which was, that the Constitution was
compact not Tue government compact. The whole
oil the attacks which the Senator had made on the idea
that our Constitution was a compact had failed.
IL was compact formed by The States. This seemed
TO be acknowledged hy the Senator from Massachusetts,
although lac had made such admission in his celebrated
speech three years He congratulated himself on the
progress which truth had made in thus converting the
Senator from Massachusetts the doctrine of State
Rights ] he language which had been relied on-"We
the People, was not the language under this Con-
s,iiuon, but the language adop ed under the old
Confederation, and only Showed that there was consel
dalton oil the States at that me but Showed nothing
he KIND unGer the present system. The term used in
Tie Consiu ion "binding between the people," proof
i III
regarded as law, because laws bind over IN people
but not between people.
He believed that he had made out his three positions
that ms Constitution is comptct-a compact ade by
the people OF the States-and compact ratified by the
states acting in their sovereign capacities
Mr. Z. said that he at loss to understa nd the arp
ment that the Constitution ceased he compact when it
became Constitution He denied the possibility of a COM
pact losing It's elementary character at any time. What
was once fact must for continue to be fact and
the continuance OF the compact proved by the reerva
ton oil the power to change its character whenever the
people think proper.
He then went to shew that this Government is fe
deral in its characters and that it is national or conso-
dated. He expressed particular surprise that the Sena
to from Virginia, (Mr. Rives) should have taken the
ground on which he placed his argument that this
soldated Government.
The eo.0ary from these propositions is that allegiance
Is due the States State by its sovereignty NAV vo-
late compact, but cannot violate laws. He said nothing
to the moral right, but merely the constitutional fpht
OF doing II State violates her compact the only course
TO be pursued against her is He characterized the
bill now before the House bill of blood and Massacre
bill which is disgraceiul TO the eye.
1t was perfectly competent for sovereignty act on
The individuals OF State without destroying the federal
character of the Union. This authorised by the rail-
hcaton by the States Of the Constitutions binding be
tween the States, and acting the individuals OF the
States IT his views were correct, they would be fatal
the Bill which had passed the Senate, were it not that
they came too late for that purpose But they could be
applicable TO future cases.
We have two governments: the one a government of
all the States and the other the government the sepa
rate States for the purpose OF exercising their reserved
exclusive right of judgment OF these reserved powers If
had this right of judgment, had the other lie re-
lerred to the constitutional provision that laws made i'm
pursuance OF the constitution the supreme law of the
land. Who is 10 decide whether these laws are the
supreme law OF the land The Senator from Massa-
chuseIis had claimed for Congress and the Supreme
Court, the right OF judgment. But why had not the
Executive the same right The Executive i'm certain
circumstances, will become not only the interpreter of
these laws, but the sole and the armed Interpreters and
take away the resistance OF the States and he will have
uncontrolled power in his hands. And if Congress and
the Court and Executive, had right TO interpret the
laws, why had not the State Legislatures similar ght
10 interpret them The ratification of the State of Virgil
MIA shed important light upon this point There the re.
served power is at the will and pleasure OF the State and
he insisted that the ratification OF the Constu-
ton of the United States. Virginia proposed the tenth
amendment and her be found in her rati-
cation of the Constitution.
He considered the argument of the Senator from Massa-
chusets that the Court the abler in the resort
very nconclusive and although Mr.. Madison in the
Federalist, had sustained that dea Mr. Madison in the
resolutions of 1899, had advanced opposite doctrine
He treated lightly the authority Of Luther Martin who
opposed to the Constitution FL considered the re-
served rights of the States reservations against any
particular department. but against the entire authority of
the United States. There nothing in the Constitution
to justify any other conclusion The power to decide on
the nature OF these rights existing the State Courts
as perfectly as the Courts of the United States.
Give TO the Federal Government the exclusive right
OF Interpretation, and what becomes of all reserved rights
| II you give the exclusive rights Of judgments you
| give unlimited power Constant efforts were made,
but all without success 10 get rid OF the power of
the States. But the good of the Convention de-
ieated all these efforts, and the States retained their
down, and could not be put down. and it was the great
cuy Of the liberties OF this country The Constitution