Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1839-04-19

" e"c'usVeIy so, tor 1t is equally n powe
'"c,ocnt TO the power of inlerna protec; 10
u"c security and as such can only be- exer
y cisco oy the state. Congress, as III know
" arc not charged with the internal affairs o
.ne state and cannot legislae on The sub
e e I.c'' 'hey canno even punish the mos
y migrant murder, but this whole subject i
vested exclusively in the state. Hence i
."c surrender Is necessary or PROBE,
;, neuhs OF TINS internal protection aud So Gu
N.Y. u Is vested in the state. No implied
movers are exclusive. and from their nnturc
cannot be. but may be exercised concur.
rent'y by both governments, as in The
; matte, of banks.
Inc liberia view, and thnl, the correct,
o"t' Is that Inc power - in both Govern
menus TO be exercised by the one or the
other according to the bearing of the cues.
: t'on on The powers and duties entrusted 10
each' Hence in that great class of cases
growing out OF our border difficulties and
having a more immediate connection with
peace or war, IT a felony ia committed, the
subject should be referred TO the zen.
era' government, and though a governor
4 might De authorized to act, yet in the exer
c'se OF sound discretion, he ought not TO
exercise the power,b but refer it 10 the Presi
oeht. so on the other hand, in the case
OF simple murder, involving mainly the
question OF internal protec, ion, though the
PRESIDENT have the power 10 act, he ought
10 refer 1t 70 the Governor, and the reason
10 both cases would be the same, that it
more Immediately concerned the depart.
ment to which it was referred, and the Off
Ger entrusted with the execution supposed
10 nave the the best means ofjudging what
sound discretion required.
The view thus taken has been rather q
general one, and has proceeded on the
ground that there was no limitation to the
powers OF the general government,
and that all the powers incident to sover.
eighty were vested in the United States
but TINS ls not exactly the proper view, for
as before remarked, the United States is
limited government, and to ascertain its
powers they must be examined more in
detail.
There is nothing in the prohibtory
clause that has sembance of bearing, an.
less 1t be this--no state shall enter into anu
treaty alliance or confederation. But can il
oe inferred from this that the state has no
power to correspond with others on sub
Jects OF their common interests! The
states are continually corresponding with
each other on the most momen,ous subjects
Affecting even the constitution. aud wba,
! limitation is there on their power of cor.
responding with foreign states on matters
that concern the internal affairs of the
State. 1t is but few years since that the
Governor opened a correspondence with
the Governor Of Canada on some subjec,
relating to Memphrcmagog. and more re-
Gently relative to pretended rise in the
waters of Lake Champlain by the erection
of bridge at S, Johns.
The powers granted to Congress which
can have any bearing, are limited 10 the fol.
lowing
Congress shall have power
10 pay the debts and provide for the
common defence and gener raj welfare Of the
United States. To regulate commerce
with foreign nations. and among the seve.
raj States, and with the Indian Tribes
10 dec are war.grant letters fmarque and
reprIsa', to raise and support armies, pro.
Vldo ana MAINTAIN navy-to provide for
calling forth the militia. &c.--To make
all laws necessary and proper for carrying
into execution The foregoing powers.
The President sh all have power
By and with the advice and consent of
the Senate, to make ttcaties-Appoint and
receive Ambassadors and public Ministers
II the power is vested under the constitution,
is it in the President or in Congress III
vested, it must be by virtue of some one arti.
Gle. and not by concentration of the powers
under the whole. In what section is the grant
contained? writer in the Spectator of 25th
Jan. asserts that the power is in the General
Government. that the proceeding is national, |
and is question exclusively between two
governments. This position proves too much |
and would exclude the Governor Of Canada |
from all authority to act and not only so, |
but no demand could be made upon him, even
by the President. One argument on which |
he mainly rests, is that a foreign government
ought not to be permitted TO hold the whole
United States responsible for the act of
Governor, and therefore that a Governor has
no power. This argument followed out,
would prove that no demand should no made
upon the Governor Of Canada, lest his rcfu
sal should give cause of war against Great
Britain. But the reasoning of the learned
gentleman is more speCious than sound 1t
will not do to deny to Il State the exercise Of
a power not prohibited, merely because the
mode Of their exercising 1t may be obeclona
BILE, and may tend to produce hostilites. -
Tried by such a rule, some otthe proceedings
at tho northeast would lead 10 a denial of
admitted powers.
It is certain that this powor fsurrendcring
is not specifically granted to Congress, and {
Invested, il must be by necessary implication.
but under what clause can it be fairly implied (
1t has no connection with commerce. 1t has
no connection with the power to raise armies I
and maintain navies The President is au. !
thorized to make treaties, but what has the S
surrender of felon to do with tho power to O
make treaty. fit result from the treaty
making power, the argument would run thus:
1.-The President is authorised to make treaties, I
therefore he may surrender n lclon-whch t
would be rather an absurd conclusion. States r.
ale prohibited from making treaties, but this y