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

for force. n The object had bssn to- e. sis.r Of
the veto Of the States, a. the Senator sistss tho
Csnveation certainly performed their work IN al
most bupgling manner. There vas unquestioha.
bly, large portion Ii that BODY heaSet by men Of
distinguished talents and infusnce, who commsn.
ssd early. and worked earnestly 10 The last to de-
Pfivs the Statss-not directly, for that would have
been too bold an attempt, bot indirecty-of the
vets The good sense Of the Conyentipn, howe.
Yer, put down every effort, however disguised and
perseveringly made. do not deem il necessary
10 give from the journals the history Of these va
ROSS and unsuccessful attempts, though il would
afford very instructive lssson. II 10 sufficient to
say, that twas attempted BY proposing to give TO
Congress power 10 annul the acts Of the States
which they might deem inconsistent with the con-
stitution; to give the President the power Of ap.
pointing the Governors Of the States, with view
OF ve;oing State laws through his authority; and
hnsly to give TO the Judiciary the power TO decide
controversies between the States and General Co.
vernmcni; all of which failed-fortunstely for tho
liberty ofthe country-utterly and entirely failed
and, IN their failure, we have the strongest owl
dence that il was not the intention Of the Conven
ton 10 deprive tho States Of the veto power. Had
the attempt 10 deprive them of this power been
directly made, and failed, every one would have
seen and felt that il would furnish conclusive evi.
dence IN favor Of its existence. Now, would ask,
what possible difference can il make in what form
this attempt was made7 Whether by attempting
TO confer on the General Government power in.
compatible with the exercise Of the veto on tho
part OF the States, or by attempting directly to
deprive them Of tho right Of exercising IL. We
have thus direct aud strong proof, that. in the cpl
mon OF the Convention, the States, unless depri.
ved Of IT, possess the veto power, or, what is
ther name for the same thing, the right Of null6.
eatioH. know that there 10 4 diversity of opi-
MON among the frispds Of State Rights. in regard
TO this power. whica1 regret: I'cannot but con.
s@sr power essential to tho protection Of the
MINOR intelesM Of the community. and the liberty
and the UNION Of the country. II was the very
shield Of State Rights: and the only power by
which that system Of injustice against which we
have contended for mere than thirteen years could
be arrested; by which system Of hostile legisla.
ton, OF Pundcring by law, which msst neccssari.
| iy lead TO conflict of aims, can DO prevented.
But rest the RICH: Of State to Judge of the
extent of its reserved powers in the last resort on
higher grounSs-that tho constitution is a com
pact to which the States parties, in their sove
reign capacity; and that, in all other cases Of
compact between parties having no common um
Pirs, each has right to Judge for itself. TIE th,
truth OF this proposition, the Senator from Massa
chusetts has himself assented, IL the constitution
| itself be a compact-and that it is, have shewn
trust, beyond tho possibility Of doubt. Having
established that point, now claim, as / stated
would do. in tho course Of the discussion. the .d
| missions OF the Senator, and, among the IN. the
right OF secession and notification. which he con-
ceded world necessarily follow, ifthe constitution
be indeed a compact.
Ihave now replied 10 the arguments OF the
Senator from Massachusetts,, SO far rs they direct.
ly apply to the resolutions, and will, in conclusion
notice some ofhi general and detached remarks
10 prove that ours is a consolidated Government;
and that there is an immediate connection between
the Government and the citizen, he relies on the
fact, that tho laws directly OH individuals. Tha,
such Is the case, will not deny; but am very
Tar from conceding the Poin that it affords the
/ e. Ill f.N-
stion which tho Senator wishes to maintain.
hold II to be perfectly within the competency OF
two or moro States to subject their citizens, in
ce.tain cases, tothe direct action of each other
without surren1ering impairing their sovereign.
ty recellect, while was a member of Mr.
Monroes Cabinet, proposition was submitted by
the British Government. to permit mutual right
OF search epd seizure, on the part of each Govern.
ment, of tho citizens Of the other on board Of YES
ses engaged in the slave trade. and to establish
| joint tribunal for their trial and punishment
The proposition declined, not because il would
impair the sovereignty Of either, but tho ground
of tho general expediency, and because it would
be incompatible with the provisions Of tho consti,
| tuition. which tstablisb ne judicial power. which
must be appointed b. tho President and Senate.
kind were made and aceeded to by some Of tho con.
| tinehtal powers.
With the same view, the Senator cited the ~.
ability of the States evidence of their want oil
sovcreigntyj at which I must express my surprise
coming from the quarter it does. No one knows
better than the Senator that il is perfectly w;;L r
the competency Of a sovereign State to permit il.
| self 10 DO sued, We have on the statute book a
standing law, under which the United States may
be sued in certain land cases. If the provision
IN the constiiston on this point proves any thing,
Il proves, by the extreme jealousy with which the
right Of suing State is permitted, the very re.
verso Of that for which the Senator contends.
Among other objections to the views of the con.
stItution for which contend, il is said they arc
novel. hold this to be a great mistake. The
novelty is not on my side, but that ofthe Sena.
| tor from Massachusetts,. The doctrine Of consoli.
dation which he maintains, is of recent growth.
IL is not tho doctrine of Hamilton, Ames, or any
of the distinguished federasts of that period, all
| Of whom strenuously maintained The fedoraiive
character Of the constitution. though they were
accused OF supporting asystem of policy, which
would necessarily lOadto consolidation. The first
disclosure Of that doctrine was in the case Of Nc
Culloh, in which the Supreme Court held the doc.
trine, though wrapt up in language somewhat in.
distinct and ambiguous. The next and more open
| ayowal was by tho Seni,or of Massachusetts hum.
SELF about three years ago, in the debate on
Foors resolution. The first official annunciation
Of the doctrine was in the recent proclamation Of
the President, Of which The bill that has recently
passed this body is the bitter fruit.
IL IL further objected by the Senator from Mas.
| sachusetts, and others, against this doctrine of
State rights maintained in this debate, that il
they should prevail, the peace Of the country would
be destroyed. But what f they should not prevaill
Would there DO peaco1 Yes, the peace Of despot.
ism; that peace which is enforced by tho bayonei
and the sword; tho peace Of death, where all the
vital functions Of liberty have ceased. II is this
peace which tho doctrine Of State sovereignty may
disturb by that conflict, which, in every free State
if properly Organized, necessarily exists between
liberty add power but which. &c restrained within
propor limits. "a n saluta,y exercise 10 mora
I'D isteilcctuzi faculties. In the Of Carolina
which has caused all tais discussion, who does not
900, fthe etfusion Of blood be prevented, that the
ercitement, tho agitation. and the inquiry which
u has caused, will DO followed by the most benef.
| eial consequences. Tho couhtry had sunk into
aysrice, intrigue, and electioneering. from which
nothing but some such event could rouse u, or re-
store those honest and patriotic feelings, which
had almost disappeared under their bapeful infu-
ence. What Government has ever attained power
and distinction without such oonAicts1 Look Of
the degraded state Of all those Nations, where ihoy
have boon put down BY the iron arm Of tho go.
vernment.
], for my part, have no fear of any dangerous
conflict. under the fullest ACKNOWLEDGMENT of State