Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1840-1842, 1841-08-11

construction, enSs,Vor to oefend his political pu.
my, according to their own arbitrary standard by
ne plea OF Hsesss,fy. They urge that while he
won Il no; allow himselC in any case, to give free
Iehposi'ion oi the Constitution, he night in cases
lo' extreme urgency, disregard Il altogether. To
hs may be answered, that the question OF strict
IM hoeral construction IL Of little moment, If the
CONSTITUTION may I've violated on the gTound of mora
necessity; OF which tho agent is To- be the Judge (:
mat one OF the miin advantages o. a written Con
sutution aud of the oSths 10 support it, is to ex-
elude this, the fyrdsrS pea; that the alleged ne.
| Cess'y oil the LOUISIANA purchase amounted only
TO strong inducements, about which the minds OF
| men were then much divided; and that what Mr.
| wilson Nicholas and others conlesscdly did with
"ut purpcSely violating their oNihs, Mr. Jrhicson
might bc supposed TO have done, without VIC atinc
ms And lastly. that Il the necessity had been OF
such pa'pabls and TcsiStlesS character rs to ex
euse the overlapping Of all Constitutional
thAt case, the same plea could not he urged IN lie
| fence OF several other acts and opinions of Mr..
Jefferson. IL could defend him for asserting to
the repeal OF the Judiciary Law, enacted in the last
moments of has predecessors term, by which Con-
gTeSs, which was prohibited by tho Constitution
from icsseaing the salaries Of the Judges, lest It
| should impair their independence, vas allowed To
taks ihSn atcEy dii2gshr. No such necessity could
| TO alleged IN favor OF the Cumberland Road, by
which, n power otherwise unconstitutional, ms
thought might DC lawfully cSerted by Congress,
with the assent of three States. Nor would the
pea avail TO justify his plan suggested to MIR Eppcs
OF allowing the General Government carry on the
]
obtain tho assent OF such State, separately and in
diyiiually.
These and other instances Of liberal construction
as well rs the acquisition o; Louisiana, were iusti-
ned by Mr. Jtherson on precisely the same ground
as he JusNhed other cases Of strict construcIion-
giving to the Constitution that Interpretation which
IN h.S eyes, would best promote the public good, and
illhl the purposes of that instrument. He knew
that both strlctness and lberality OF construction
were equally deviotlons from The obvious and ordi-
nary acecptauons OF language, and that the same
considerations which authorized one, equally au-
thorzsd the o;hCr. This rule OF interpretation con.
forms TO the common sense and common prac ice of
a. mankind, except technical lawyers; end any
other rule, from the mpOsslbj'i;y OF toTcseeinc IN
the lnhnts combinations OF human concerns, every
case that may arse, ard the lmpOs.lbiity OF proyid
lnS for them IN language that all men would uuder-
sand alike, even It they were icre,.eu must some
tunes co.vert tue wisCst constitutional provisions
into absurd',ies, and what wero mesnI as whole
some restraints mo letters that sooner or later
would be too sa!!Irg 10 be borne.
In conclusion, tie btographer returns his thanks
Tor the very hInu and courteous remarks with which
these structures were qualified, and which were not
the less islt because they not sooner acknow-
edged. L.
July. 10, Is4I.