Vandalia Whig and Illinois intelligencer. [volume] (Vandalia, Ill.) 1832-183?, 1834-05-22

tbe legislatures are forbidden 10 touch
and excepting certain powers sP7e'''eu IT,
,re transferred by the people and by the
states, from the state governments 10 'ne
General government, do certainly vest III
State legislatures, every power and aitrl-
bute of sovereignty, which the people them
selves would otherwise exercise IN person.
Those legislatures are. in fact, in the daily
exercise Of all powers belonging to the
state sovereignty, except those thus torbld-
den to them. Now, the power to Instruct
the senators of the states in congress, has
not been forbidden by the state constitu-
tions TO the state legislatures, and retained
by the people in their own hands"
"Thcrefore the state legislatures may
exercise this act of sovereignty, this right
of instructing their senators as properly as
they may exercise any of those powers
which they exercise daily without any
doubt about their right, and which are not
yet granted to them by any express dele
gation.''
Other objections have been taken to the
protest hardly worth mentioning, because
they are so totally groundless. For in-
stance, it has been said that the president
refers to his oath of office as a source OF
po,cer. Upon referring TO the paper, you
find that the oath of office is referred to,
only by way of attesting the importance
of the duties of the executive office in the
view of the trainers of the constitution.
The resolutions now before us charge
upon the president another violation of the
constitution IN sending to us his defence
and protest, for which he is now upon trial
again, without any opportunity of defend
ing HIMSELF and he is about to be tried and
condemned for presenting a paper which
we may and probably shall refuse to re-
ceive. So inexpressiby sublima,ed is the
dignity Of this august body, that we may
expect proposition to condemn the exec
utive for violations of the constitution
whenever he shall look at the capital. Bu
of all the extraordinary pretensions which
any branch oil any free government ever
set up, is the one contained in one of the
resolutions declaring that the president hac
violated the privileges of the senate fol
daring to question the iniallibility of theii
opinions and decisions. Gentlemen, too
with wisdom and research, which mark:
the course OF the opposition to the presen
administration, refer US to tie British his
tory of parliamentary proceedings, to show
that the king can not interfere with pend
ing subjects of legislation before his house
of lords!!
Yet we have not been shown a case
where the lords have considered their priv
ileges violated by the kings sending his
defence and protest to them upon matter
determined and no longer pending in e
lat eI. 81. a. Al
resolution against which our republican
president protests.
Let US examine, however, this British
doctrine of parliamentary privilege. The
only definition Of privilege which have
ever met with, is that given by sir Johr
Fortesque, described by Blackstone, as fol
lows:
"!aae privileges of parliament are like
wise very large and indefinite. And there
fore when, in 81 Henry Sixth, the house Of
lords propounded question to the judges
concerning them, the chief Justice, sir John
Forespue, in the name Of his brethren, de
clared that they ought not to make answer
to that question; for it hath not been usct
aforetime. that the justices should in any
wise determine the privileges of the hIgf
court Of parliament. For it is so high ano
mighty in its nature, that it may make
law; and that which is law it may make
no law; and the determination and knou
edge of that privilege belongs to the lord.
OF parliament, and not TO the ustices.''
10 exemplily this doctrine, have look
cd into the practice Of the British Parlia.
inent, upon this their theory, and now be-
leave to read 10 the senate a case from M
old standard English work, called "Les
Pdriiomentdria."
johnson, a servant to sir James Whit
lock, member of the commons house was
arrested upon an execution by Moore and
Lock, who being told that sir James Whit
lock was parliament man, Fulk, one OF
the prosecutors, SAID, he had known great
er mems men than sir James WhilIock's
taken from their masters heels in parlia-
ment times. This appearing, Lock and
Moora were called INTO the bar, and by the
Judgment of the house, were sentenced.
first, that at the bar they should ask for
giveness of the house, and of sir James
|Whitlock, on their knees. Secondly, that
they should both ride upon one horse, bare
backed, back to back, from Westminster to
the Exchange, with papers on their breasts,
and this inscription: For arrestine a ser
want of member of the commons house
OF parliament; and this to be done sedenti
Oh