Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1840-11-24

lid noaor he well given in terms less definite,
sss nor,cuar and less precse To be dangerous 10 TIC
nubiie softy 10 be suspectcd Of secret m"ehnael"as
aa,inst the Government: these never be mistaken
c Lara, rules or certain definitions They leave every
,,pr 10 the President His will is The law:
Rnt il is no, Legislative power only that Is gwen
10 the President lie is TO stand IN Tie place OF uie
Judiciary also His suspicion is the only evidence
which is convict: his order, the only ndsmehl WHO"
is 10 lie executed. ~
Tins il is the President whose will 1t IS to desIg-
nate the offensive conduct it is his will that IS TO as
certain individuals whom it is charged; ana II nus
will that is to cause the sentence 10 DC execute"
s RIGHTLY affirmed therefore, that the act un'tes lc-
slsirc and Judicial powers TO those Of the Execu-
ill., It is affirmed, that this union of power subvers
the general principles of free Government.
II has become axiom IN the science o. uoVern-
ment that a separation of the Legislative, Executive,
and Judicial departments necessary to the Preserva-
ton Of public liberty No where has this axiom heen
better understood in theory more carefully pursued
in practice than in the United States.
w. II is affirmed that such union oil powers SUD-
vers the particular organization and positive provisions
of the Federal Constitution.
According the particular organization Of te Soh-
stitution It's Legislative powers are vested III The Ion-
rress its Executive powers IN the PRESIDENT, ana s
Judicial powers in supreme and inferior tribunals,
The union of any two OF these powers, and still more
of all three in any one of these departments rs has
been shown 10 be done by the Alien Act must conse
uueny subvcrt the constitutional organization oil the
That positive provisions, in the Constitution securing
to individuals the benefits of fair trial. also violated
by the union of powers the Alien Act necessarily re-
suits from the facts that the act relates to Alien
friends and that Alien friends being under the munich
pal law only, entitled to its protection
Tic second object against which Tie resolution pro-
tests, is the Sedton Act. $50
OF this act il is ai red L. That it exercises in like
manner power no, delegated by the Constitution Z
Tia, the power the contrary, expressly aud posi-
lively forbidden by of the amendments 10 The Con-
st;tution. ;, That this power, which more Than
any other ought 10 produce universal alarm, because
il is leveled against that right OF freely examining
public characters and measures, and OF Tree commu-
nication thereon which has ever been justly deemed
the only ciectual guardian OF every other ri@ht
l. That it exercises power not delegated by the
Constitution.
Here again. it will be proper to recollect that the
Federal Government being composed of powers spe-
officially granted with reservation OF all others TO line
States 10 the People, the positive authority under
which the Sedlon Act could be passed must be pro-
duccd by those who assert its consttutonaty. In
what part of the Constitution, then, is this authority
TO be found;
Several attempts have been made to answer this
question which will he examined in their order
The Committee will begin with one, which has fill
ed item with equal astonshnen; and apprehension,
and which, they cannot but persuade themselves must
have the same effect on all, who will consider 1t
with GOODNESS and mpartiaty, and with reverence
Tor Constitution IN the true "
issued from the sovereign authority of the people The
committee refer 10 the doctrine lately advanced as
sanction the Sedition Act; " that the common or IN
written law law Of vast extent and compexity and
embracing almost every possible subject OF egslaton
both civil and criminal makes part OF the law OF these
States in their united and national capacity.
Tlenoveltv, and in the judgment OF the committee,
the extravaganza ofthis pretcnson, would have con-
sirned il to the silence, which they have passed by
o,hc. ARGUMENTS which an extraordinary zeal for the
To-, info discussion. But. the
unde hc this alton presents itself, have con-
strained the committee to bcsow on il an attention,
which other considerations might have forbidden
Ircxccuting the task, it may be of use, to look back
10 The colonial state Of this country, prior To the evo-
luton to trace the effect OF the revolution winch con-
yered the colonies into independent States; to inquire
into the mpor, Of the articles Of confederation, the first
instrument BY which the union OF the States was regu-
larry established; and finally, 10 consult the Cons,itu-
iiun of l7S, which The oracle that must decue inc
im,or:ant question.
In the State prior to the Revolution, it is certain that
the common law, under different limitations made
pa,t of the colonial codes. But, whether II be under
stood that the original coonists brought the law with
them or made j, their law BY adoption, it is equally
TAM that il was the separate law OF each colony within
its respective limits and unknown to them, as law
pervadng and operating through the whole, as one So
Getty.
] il could OF possibly be otherwise. The common
Law was not the i'll any two of the colonies; IN
some, the notifications were materially and extensively
different There was no common Legislature, BY which
common will could be expressed in the form OF law;
nor any common magistracy, by which such law could
be carried into practice. The will of each colony,
a1ne and separately had its organs for these purposes
This stage Of political history, furnishes no foot
htld for the patrons of this new doctrine.
Did then lie principle operation OF the great event
winch made the colonies independent States imply or
! introduce tho common law law of the Union.
! The fundamental principle Of the Revolution was,
tint the colonies were coordinate members with each
o,lcr and with Great Britain; of an empire, united by
a common Executive sovereign but not united by any
common Legislative sovereign. The Legislative power
was maintained 10 be as complete in each American
Parliament, as in the British Parliament. And The
rosal prerogaivc in force in each colony by virtue
of is acknowledging the King for lis Executive Ma
ristrac as il was Great Britain, by virtue Of like
I acknowledgment there. A denial OF these principles
by Great Britain, and the assertion Of them BY AmerI-
I ca produced the revolution
There time indeed, when an exception to the
Legislative separation Of the several component and CO.
equal parts of the empire obtained degree Of acqul
essence. The British Parliament was allowed to rcgn-
late the trade with foreign nations, and between The
different parts Of the empire. This was, however,
NEE practice without right, and contrary TO the true
the ry Of the Constitution. The convencncy OF some
citations, both those cases, was apparent; and as
thee was Legislature with power over the whole,
norany constitutional pre-eniinence among The Legs
lawes of the several parts il was natural Tor the Le-
gsture of that particular part which was the eldest
and the largest. 10 assume lHiS luHClol, III
Others ncquiesce in it, This tacit arrangement was
the ess criticised as the regulations established by the
Brit sh Parliament operated in favor of that part Of the
empire which seemed TO bear the principal share OF
the public burdens and regarded as an lndemni-
Gcaon of lis advances for the other parts. As long
as this regulating power confined to the two
objects Of convencncy and equity, it was not COM
planned Of, much enquired into. But, no sooner
was il perverted to the selfish views of the purity as
sumng it, than The injured parties began to feel aud
TO reflect; and the moment the claim 10 direct and in
definite power ingrafted the precedent of the
regulating power the whole charm was dissolved, and
every eye opened the usurpation The assertion BY
G. B. OF power TO make laws for the other members Of
the empire all nhatSoercr, ended in the disco.
very that she had right to make laws for them IN no
cases nhatsoertr.
Such being the ground of our revolution, no support
nor color can be drawn from it, for the doctrine that
the common law is binding these States as one So
ciety. The doctrine, the contrary, IS evidently re-
pugnant 10 the fundamental principle OF the revolution