New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1844-11-16


fact that the States instructed and empowered
their delegates merely 70 amend the Articles Of
Confederation The delegates departed from
their instructions, and transcribed their powers.
Ins,e:d Of altering, thcy abolished the old con-
s,itutcn and formed new enc. Several Of the
delegates refused 10 sign or 70 aid II IFS conPe-
sioD, on the ground that they had 10 power 10 90
SO. II is evident, that the convention oistrusteo
the inclination or capacity OF The great oooy Of
the people to originate good system oi govern
meat, cut they trusted tn their COCO sense 70 &c.
cept one when presented TO them; and they trusled
10 the same for their justification FOR having DE-
parted from the line OF their Instructions. hey
eonyide,e5. and SO did the whole country, that,
If this convention separated without agreeing
upon form Of government, II was very lDProoa-
bic that another would ever assemble. they,
therefore, determined 10 take the lead, and in
stead Of obeying the instructions received from
their constituents to send instructions to them IN
the form of constitution prepared for then
ADOPTION. Ali their doings were ratified, though
not without much murmuriDg and disconient'
In 1879, fifteen years from the frs: assembling
of the continental Congress, the PRESENT govern.
ment vas organized. This was our probationary
and to considerable extent anarchlcai pencd.
That of Mexico has been but twenty years, End
there is great reason TO believe that It IS now
drawiag TO speedy cioso.
Ii we trace our subsequent political history
with strict impartiali'y, we may f0d IN that els'
much less cause to exult, in comparison with cur
neighbo,s. than we are apt to imagine. In the
wear 1893, two of the States declared that 1t IS
The right and duty of each State to nuiliiy any
act of the General Government which they may
deem to be contrary to the Constitution; and, In
pursuance Of this power they proceeded to de
clare certain acts of that Government null and
void This, of course, was as subyerslve of the
judicial authority, the constitutional umpire IN
such a case, rs It was of the legislative and eI
ecutive. 1t is no. very material to my present
inquiry, whether the nullify;ng States were right
or wrong in point cf law. Because if we have
framed d faciious government, and organized
anarchy, by putting 1t in the r;gh,ful POKER OF q
part of thirteenth or twenty sixth part TO UNDO,
at it's pleasure, what il took the whole to d. it is
evident that this would make full as strongly,
as any possible view of the CASE IN favor Of my
argument. Inasmuch however, as tho transac-
tons to which have alluded were the beginning
If notification in this country, it may be useful
10 look, for moment, at their history.
A cerlaia act of Congress, called the Sedit;on
act, wes alleged 70 DO violation of that pro-
vision Of the Constitution which prohibits Con-
gress from passing any law abridging the free
dom of The Press" The act forbade the publ
cation OF any false and seandalous soriting with
intent to stir up seditioD, TO bring the Govern
ment, or either branch thereof, into hatred and
contempt, or 10 oppose and coenierect lie meae
ures. This law gave the defendant the right to
prove the truth OF the wiring in defence, and 1T
gave to the jury the right 10 decide the law and
the fact. The law OF libel, rs II existed and was
practised throughout the country prior to this
statute, did not permit the truth TO be given in
evidence, but maintained tse old maxim, the
greater the truth the greater the libel" Neither
did it permit the jury 70 determine the whole
question OF guilty or not guilty." but merely
the fact Of writing or publishing, the judges
elaiolipg and exercising an absolute right of de-
terminipg whether the publication were libe!ous
Nov, as this was generally the only question OF
any real importance, It follows, that the right Of
trial by jury, which is Justly regarded as the
Democratic principle in the judiciary, was com.
plstely neutrazeG in respect 10 class of offences
in which, above most others, it was necessary.
The law in question, then, far from 'ebridging,'
did, in fact, enlarge the liberty of the press and
the difference between being fined and impris.
oned and disgraced at the discretion of q judge,
and being chaired by the people as a champion
of truth, expresses accurately the difference be-
tween tho old and this new law OF libel. And
yet it was declared null on the ground of abridg-
ing the freedom of the press." A law called the
Alien act was at the same time, and By. the
same legislatures declared to be unconstitutional,
null, and void, and yet that law stands on the
statute book to this day, was subsequently exc
cu,ed, and its rigor increased by tho same party,
and by some of the Identical leading individuals
who had nulli6cd it. This first act of nulllfca.
ton did not proceed 10 instruction, and did not
overthrow the Constitution but it did overthrow
as pure and patriotic an Administration as ever
led in any country II awaited nothing
that the Supreme Federal Court, the consti,u-
tiona Judges of the validity Of Federal acts, had
decided that those laws we;e fully authorized by
the Constitution. In all probability, the princi.
pal authors of the opposition to them never
doubted ihsir constitutonsllty, but they had a
party purpose TO answer. and They awaited them
selves Of the popular Jealousy of any interference
OF the Government with the Press. 70 Augment
their party and accomplish that purpose. They
made The Alien and Sedition laws the catchwords
of faction, and the fact that no person could be
made amenable excep. for false and scanda.
lous" publications, and that tho new law greatly
enlarged and projected the Press in the pubca.
ton OF every thing true, however severe, against
The Government, were entirely lost sight Of Mr.
Jefferson was the author Of the multiplying resolu.
lions of kentucky and Virginia, and It is a curl
Gus fact that during his Presidency, prosecutions
were commenced and carried on by his officers
in different States, for alleged libels on his char
acter; that in the State of New. York trial was
had in one of the cases according to the old law ;
that the defendant offered and was not permitted
TO give the truth in evidence, whereupon the
Legislature of that State passed an act adopting
the principles of this SANDER and much msun.
derstood, but really humane and righteous Sedi-
ton act. Aud now, every State in the Union
has incorporated similar provisions into It's stat
utes, aud many of them into their constitutions
There need be no better Illustration than this Of
the danger and TIE iniquity Of the principles OF
nulhfcauon. From their nature they must be
applied, il at all, for factious and sectional pur-
poses. The case necessarily supposes, tina, q
mslorty of the nation, the General Government
ana Judiciary, are ono side. and State OF
sectional patty on the other. For, if a majority
of the people, or OF their representatives, are
opposed to an act, it will not pass, or it will be
x.naalo5 n, ;f tho Jpd;c;ayy - ,os;ne, :, ,Lo,,