State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1831-1836, 1836-04-26

WlIlOh plONluGS THAT OOllSEeSS, uuuCT GER
tain circumstances, shall protect the State,
from domestic violence" 1t is to be OBJ
served, that such protection can only he
given on special "applicaton of the Legis
lature, or, when the Legislature cannot be
convened, Of the Executive of the State,
and that then it is to be of an executive, moi
u Legislative character. 1t is only when
resistance to State authority becomes sulfi.
GENTLY alarming to induce the State Gov
eminent to apprehend the inefficieney oil
its own means to suppress it, that it may
demand of the General Government to fur
niSh from its police, its army, its navy, OF
m,ltlt, sufficient force to vindlcaie the
supremacy of State authority; and such
requsition, by the terms and spirit of the
Constitution, must be obeyed. Instead II
proving legislative obligation on Congress
/ seems to the minority that the language
Of this very article is almost, if not quite
conclusive, TO show that the trainers of the
Constitution intended to eXclade from Con
gress the power to aid State legislation by
legislation of its own. On any other sup
position, how can their extreme caution lie
accounted for, of making the aid of the
General Government of purely an eXccu-
til actual violence has occurred, and ther
not suffering it to be given until forma
and direct application has been made, first
by the State Legislature, if practicable il
not, then from the Executive? Could the
trainers of this Constitution have supposed
that previous legislative obligation eXis-
ted? Or rather, if they had intended to
impose any such obligation, would it not
like the executive obligation, have been eX-
pressed, and the terms and conditions of lis
execution been equally well guarded and
defined But one answer can he given to
these questions. The power of Legislative
aid was designed to be excluded.
Our previous notions of this branch OF
constitutional law are not erroneous. A
State cannot call OH Congress to make laws
for the punishment of offences against
State authority, as for the punishment OF
larceny, arson, robbery, or resistance 10
State process or laws. 1t is not in the
power of Congress to eXalt offences against
the States into Offences against the Genera
Government. The jurisdiction of the Cen
oral Government is confined to offences
against its own authority, and cannot by
any process of nystifcation, be extended
to offences against; the authority OF the
States And if Congress cannot within the
limits of particular State convert offences
against that State into offences against the
United States, equally unconstitutional
would be the exercise of this power OF
transmutation on acts committed withou,
tic State jurisdiction. Although Congress
may prescribe, and has prescribed, the
mode by which the acts OF the Legislature
of one State may be proved i'll the courts
of n sister State, yet Congress possesses nc
power TO make the laws of one State the
rule of action in another, and to impose
within that other u punishment for THEN
violation. When Congress has origina
constitutional authority over a subject, il
NAV doubtless odopt State Legislation as the
basis of its own. A provision i'll the stat
ute of August Z, 1889, declaring that al
pilots shall continue to be regulated by the
laws of the respective States in which they
NAV be, "untH .huther Legislative provision
ShnH be made by Congress" is an example
of this kind of legislation. But Congress
in such case, instead of adopting, may, IN
its discretion, omit to recognize the state
law, and supersede it by full and complete
legislation over the whole subject.
The conclusion then TO which we are
drawn is, that if Congress has constitutional
power TO cgislate for lie suppression o.
the mail circulation of such publications u;
may be offensive to the States, Congress
NAV exercise that power 20 the fullest OK
tent, and can derive no constitutional all
from any reference TO State laws. If Con
gress may pass the act under consideration
allowing the States for it to Judge Of The
character of the publications to he prohib
tied, Congress may omit to delegate power
and exercise it itself Congress may, unc
should. according 10 all the principles O
LEGISLATION heretofore observed, fully define
in the ect itself the crime for which the
Dulishnent is TO he inflicted. As before
shown, Congress would, by this statute
commit to the several States the power o.
prescribing in their discretion, any and al
publications, on any and all publications, OF
any and all subjects. If the statute under
consideration would be constitutional, i
would he equally so were it part OF it,
provisions, that no publications OH the sub
Iect of slavery, none advocating the reIl
gious belief of the Arminians, the Calvin
lists, or the Unitarians, none maintaining the
doctrines of nulliicalion, and none i'm
pugning the principles of the Administers
lion, or the conduct of IFS otilcers, should
have the advantage of mail circu ntion
for all these and an indefinite variety o
other publications are within the scope o
the powers committed 10 the State Legis
lalures by the provisions of this act. -
Whether Congress has the CONSTITUTIONS
power to pass such an act will be examined
hereafter.
The minority will now proceed TO notice
the third proposed mode of Legislation
which confines its penalties to the officers
of the General Government, and provides
for the punishment ofposImasters and 9th
er persons employed by the Post Oilic'
Department for knoloingly transmitting
through the mails any publications pro
hibited by the laws of The States to which
| they are directed.