Staunton spectator, and general advertiser. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 183?-1849, 1837-01-12
10. the Editor Of the .0lsrandrio Gazette

zo.th Editor Of ths Hl,randria Gazette.
SiR:-My absence from the city of Wash
tngton on short visit TO the country, has
prevented me until this morning, from no
lcing asparagraPh which appeared in your
paper, OF the 22d uit. y, headed with my name.
Your whole article is written in 50 proper
and liberal spirit, that feel il my duty TO
respond 10 II without reserve. II doubts or
Misrepresentation prevail in relation To my
opinions on the two subjects mentioned by
you, il has moi been owisg 10 any fault of
mine for have never been in the habit of
concealiog either my opinions or impressions,
on any subject interesting 10 the public; al
though do not think that any one can justly
accuse me Of being yiolcn, political parti.
zan.
In regard to the right of Congress 10 a.
holish Slavery in the District of Columbia,
whilst have fel, no disposition TO denuunce
those who admitted j, in theory, but were de-
termined TO oppose il as decidedly in prac-
tioe, as II their objections to lis exercise,
were constitutional ones-mv own settled
conviction has been, that Congress possesses
no such right. AS a Representative al the
State of Virginia, my object will be 10 pre-
vent, as far as possible, all agitation Of this
exciting subject; and, 10 oppose, 10 the Ut
most, the designs Of the Aboliionis;s To in
'ertere with il in any way in the District or
elsewhere, under the firm belief tina. our u
uion Will be endangered, il they receive, to
any extent, the Countenance OF Congress
In relation 10 The other subject TO which
you invite an explanation OF my views,
nave 10 say, that If Mr. Davenport, ei JEFF
ierson, IN tho debate Oh the election of Sc
nator, expressed his belief, from personal
knowledge or otherwise, that my opinions OF
chartered rights were consonant " it'll those
OF MIR. Dallas. he greatly misunderstood
them inprooi of this, might refer 10 sew
'erai letters written by me 10 different iudi.
Vidua's, soon alter Mr.. Dallas's communica-
ton appeared, and 10 conversations held
with others, amongst whom may mention
Judge Tucker, OF our Court Of Appeals. |
have never thought that a convention, any
more than an ordinary legislature, could inns
pair The obligation OF contract protected by
the Constitution of the u. s.: nor have
ever expressed any opinion concerning the
justice or legality of the State Of Pennsylva-
hia's interfering with the charter granted by
II, TO the Bank of the United States. In
point OF fact, never read that charter;
Know not how it was obtained, nor what has
been It's operation, for good or evil, upon the
people of that State.-But in speaking o! The
abstract question Of the inviolatility of all
charters, have more than once siaIed il as
my Impression, that a charter granting pri-
vileges, whether banking or commercial, in.
tshdsd for public purposes, as well as for The
bsxsht OF individual stockholders, might be
resumed ny subsequent legislation for rea-
sons OF Stale necessity; provided Just COM
Psasation vas mado 10 the persons affected by
the repeal, Including oil course the return of
may bonus eXacted. In other words, I do
mol consider all charters granting mere pri>
vheges, as coming within the meaning of
that clause in the Federal Constitution, for
bidding any State to pass law "impairing
the obligation Of contracts" nor do believ Q
that so broad proposition has ever been es-
tabiished by the decisions of the Supreme
Court OF the United States, on which some
rely 10 maintain il, or by any other, entitled
to respect. freely admit that the faith of
the State Is spiritually pledged to respect char
tered rights OF every description, SO long as
The corporation acs within The scope of it's
authority. and the public good does not man
hsssiy snd im2erously require lis privileges
10 cease; and there are, in my opinion, few
cases which would justify legislature in re-
sumIng lis grant. But il has appeared to
mo, that 70 contend that there are no such
cases, and Tint il is a question for the decision
OF the Courts alone, is 10 place the interests,
and even liberties of people, for n indefi,
pite period, at the mercy o. 40 uniformed
or imProvident Legislature without the posi-
billy of obtaining redress Under the guards
and restrictions have pointed out, cannot,
al present, see, that this doctrine would be
unsafe or unreasonable. have believed il
10 be the doctrine of the English Wings and
OF many eminent Statesmen 10 our ow n coun-
try, who are neither radicals nor Jewellers.
confirmed by the practice of several of The
Stale Legislatures Yet, ] confess, have
never examined il in all its bearings with The
care 1t merits. Should ever have occasion
TO act on i, in any capacity, and upon luIl
consideration find il TO Interfere with The
vested rights Of property, or with the obi
gation Of contracts, no one will be more un-
willing than myself 10 see il established. or
more readily relinqush the impressions |
now enteftain in respec, to it,
u is not, as you will perceive, sir, my OBJ
1ect IN this hasiy communication, to do more
than TO state frankly my real sentiments in
relation To the subjects TO which you have
called my attention. am sorry tina, this
explanation has been postponed by roy ab-
sence from The city. II is now al your ser.
vice.
Respectfully, nm your obd't servant,
RICHARD e. PARKER.
Washington, Dec. 3Otb, 1886.