The Arkansas banner., 1844-04-10


 he was apprehensive that this unqualified as sent to the position assumed by that gentle man grew out of q lack of q proper inyesti- gation Of the proof-a consequence natural enough, considering the high source from which it eaanated. For Shat gentleman had taken occasion to inform the House that he had been clad with the judicial ermine of his State for quite a number of years--a fact which he Mr. N thought would hardly be legitimate inference from the legal acumen exhibited in the honorable gentleman's argu- menl. He (Nr. N ' had not discussed the question whether the law under consideration was mandatory upon the States or not. He would not now argue it, for 1t had been most ably done by others. It was enough for his purpose that the legislatures of certain States had not obeyed it. But he felt bound, how ever, to attempt to answer the 1undllsarerdbte argumcato of the gentleman from Vermont. If he had correctly understood that gentle man, he had taken the bold position that Congress had right to pass a law command ing the State legislatures to legislate in par ticular manner, and that the latter were bound to obey such mandate; and, therefore, they were bound to obey this act. To sustain this position, that gentleman had introduced the law of Congress- making provision for organizing, arming, and dseiplining the mili- tia, as parallel case. The gentleman told the House that act was mandatory upon the States; leaving this House and the country to infer that the law of Congress, i'll relation to the militia, had been regarded by the States as mandatory and binding upon the States, and that 1t had been obeyed by them accor- dingly. Now tso happened that the history of that same mandatory militia law, and the manner ill which it had been regarded by the States, instead of sustaining the gentlenan's position-that Congress had power to com mand the Siaes-completely overthrow that postion He said he would tell that gentle man and others here who had rung so many changes upon the learned gentlemen's argu- ment-though he did it at the hazard of hav- ing the terrific sound of nulifcation again rung through this hall-that New Hampshire had never obeyed this mandatory militia law. Her militia laws differ from 1t in many partic- ulars.
 This was also true in regard to many oth- CTS, if not all, the States. And i'll some of the States no military organization was kept up at all. What did all this prove2 Why, t proved that the act of Congress i'll relation b the organization of the militia, was merely recommendatory to the States. The States have so treated it; and yet the House and the country had been told by the gentleman from Vermont that the militia law was law man datory upon the States, by which they were bound to obey, and did obey. The power of organizing, arming, and discipining the militia, was wholly vested in Congress by the constitution. The States have nothing to do with it unless they think proper to do so by the permission of Congress.
 One word in reference to what had fallen from the gentleman from New ork, ATr. Hunt. That gentleman had thought proper, in the course of his remarks on yesterday, to say, that the course pursued by New Hamp- shire, Georgia, Mississippi, and Missouri, in not complying with the districting act, was disreSpectful towards the other States of the Union. If he were permitted upon this floor to use an argument ad hominem, he would apply 1t to that gentleman How did the gentleman's own State stand in regard to this act of Congress What respect had that gentleman manifested towards the legislature of his own State, representing, as that legis- ature did, two and half millions ofireemen' The honorable gentleman would, undoubt- edly, be able to answer this question, when he compared his own course upon the ques- ton now before the House, with the follow ing resolutions passed by the last legislature of.the State of New ' ofk, in relation to the validity of the law now under consideration:
 1. C Resolred, That, in the opinion of this legislature, the interference of Congress in matter peculiarly of State concern, under cir cumstances of public necessity, is uniustifia- ble, violation of the spirit of the provision of the constitution under which the right of interference is assertsi, and at variance with the intention of its fralners.
 ,. ( ReSoired, That, in the efefHfiieeii efefHfiieeii44 f this legislature, the act aforesaid is the fruit of an arbitrary and dangerous exercise of power in Congress, and an invasion of the rights of the States, each of which ought to be left, in its own independent judgment, to prescribe such regulations for the choice of its representa- lives, as may be declared by the wishes and convenience of it's own citizens.
 3. {. Resoloed, That, in the opinion of this legislature, the interference of Congress with the choice of representatives m the different States, without being justified by any of the circumstances against which the provisions of the constitution authorizing its interposi- ton was particularly designed to guard, can only be viewed as the evidence of an alarm ing disposition in the federal legislature to encroach upon the just rights of the State.
 1. " Resolred, That our senators in Con- gress be instructed, and our representatives requested, to use their influence to procure a repeal of the said act.
 3. " ReSolved, That the Secretary of State be directed to transmit a certified copy of these resolutions to each of the senators and representatives in Congress from this State"
 Now, he would submit, whether that gen. tleman, occupying the position which he did Iii relation to the legislature of his own State, was quite respectful himself, in giving, from his place here, lecture on etiquette to the people of the four sovereign States of this