Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1833-02-28

He believed that he had made out his three po-
sltions that this Constitution is a compact "a
compact made BY the people Of the States-and
compact ratified by the States acting in their sov.
ereign capacities.
Mr.. G. said that he was at loss to under
stand the argument that the Constitution ceased
to BE- compact when It became a Constitution
He denied the possibility OF compact losing Its
elementary character at any tine. what was
once fact, must for ever continue to be TACT;
and the continuance Of The compact Is proved by
the reservation Of the power TO change its char
ac,er whenever the people think proper.
He then went on to shew that this Government
is federal IN its character; and that II Is not ma
tiona or consolidated. lie expressed particular
surprise that the Senator from Virginia, MIR.
Rives,) should have taken the ground on which
he placed his argument that this is consolidated
Government.
| The corollary from these propositions is. that
allegiance is due to the States. A State by its
sovereignty, NAV violate a compact, but cannot
violate laws He said nothing as to the moral
right, but merely the constitutional right of do
ing SO. If State violates her compact, the on
ly course to be pursued against her is war. tie
characterized the bill now before the House as
bill of blood and massacre, bill which is dis
graceful to the age.
Ii was perfectly competent for sovereignty TO
act OF the individuals of State, without destroy.
ING the federal character of the Union. This
was authorized by the ratification by the States
of the Constitution, as binding between the
States. and acting on the individuals ct The
States. Ii his views were correct, they would
b. fatal to the Bill which lad passed the Senate,
were it not that they came too late for that pur-
pose. But they could be applicable to future
cases.
We have two governments; the one govern.
meut Of all the States; and the other the govern
ment of thessepara,e States, for the purpose Of
exercising their reserved powers. He denied
that one government could have the exclusive
right of Judgment OF these reserved powers. II
one had the right of Judgment SO had The other.
He referred to the constitutional provision, that
laws made in pursuance of the Constitution, are
the SUPP enc law of the land. Who is TO decide
whether these laws are t,r supreme law OF the
lands The Senator from Massachusetts had
claimed for Congress aud the Supreme Court,
the right of Judgment. But why had DOT the Exc
cutivp the same right? The Executive. in GER
tain circumstances, will become not only the in
terpreter Of these laws but the sole and the arm.
ed interpreter, and take away the resistance of
the States, and he will have uncontrolled power
in his hands And If Congress and the Court,
and the Executive, had a right to internret the
laws. why had not the State Legislatures a
right to interpret them? The ratification Of the
State of Virginia shed an important light upon
this point. There the reserved power is at the
will and pleasure Of the State; and he insisted
that the ratt H. a'on was part of the Co stiu
ton Of the United States, Virginia proposed
the tenth . nendment, and her reason was to be
found in her ratification of the Constitution.
He considered the argument Of the Senator
| from Massachusetts, that the Court was the ar
bitter in the la resort as verv income luSiva; and
although Mr.. Madison 10 the F,Leralis,. had sus.
famed that idea. Mr.. Madison, in the resolutions
: # 1893, had advanced an opposite doctrine -
I He treated lightly the authority of Luther Mar.
! tin, vino was opposed to the Constitution. He
considered the reserved rights of the States. as
not reservations against any particular depart.
ment, bu, agans, the entire authority of the L.
States. There was nothing in the Constitution
to justify any other conclusion. The power TO
decide on the nature of these rights, was exist.
ing ia 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 o! all
reserved rights. II you give the exc elusive right
slant Efforts were made but all without success,
to get md Of the veto power of the States. But
the good sense of the Convention defeated all
these Efforts, and the States retained their sovr-
reignties, The veto power had not been voted
down, and could not be put down. and it was
! the great security of the liberties of this coun-
! try. The Constitution would itself be mere
nullity but for this restrictive power. When the
States are admitted to possess this veto power,
this right of Judgment, then it must be admitted
that notification has its origin in our Constitu.
tinn. II the States had the right of deciding on
the mode OF resistance when their rights were as.
sailed, they possessed the right of nulifc alton
The right OF secession, Also, he contender to BE-
right Of State. which could not be denied The
doctrine of consolidation, he stated. was for the
first time brought forward in the celebrated case
of M'Culoch, but it was then wrapped up in
certain ambiguous phrases The first open avow.
al of it was made in the proclamation Of the
President of the United States. II the doctrines
Of the other side were to prevail. we should have