The Arkansas banner., 1845-11-26
LITTLE ROCK, WEDNESDAY, MORNING, NOVEMBER 26, l845

NSttNNSt@N aSSOititls to iHc ihuIitiIul ldW. not according 10 the law of nations Under this view of the subject, the Act Of Congress for the removal of Alien enemies, being con iornable with the law of nations, is justified by the Constitution and the Act for tie removal of alien friends, being repuguant 10 tie constitutional principles of municipal law, is unusiifable
 Nor is the Act of Congress for the remo- val oi alien friends, more agreeable to the general practice of nations, than 1t is within the purview of tie law of nations. The general practice of nations distinguishes be- tween alien friends and alien enemies. The latter 1t has proceeded against according to tie law of nations, by ezpeling them as eu- ,emies. The former t has considered as un- der a local and temporary allegiance, and en- titled 10 correspondent protection. II con tfary instances are 10 be found in har6a! ous countries, under undeGned prerogatives, CT amid revolutionary dangere, they will not be deemed fit preeedens for the Government of the United States, even if not beyond its constitutional authority.
 It is said that Congress may grant letters of marque and repFisal; that reprisals may
 
 and that the removal of aliens may be con- sidered as the exercise, in an inferior degree, Of the general power of reprisals ell per- sons.
 Without entering infinitely into question that does not seem to require it, it may be remarked, that reprisal is seizure of foreign persons or property, with view lo obtain that justice for injuries done by one State or it's members; for which refusal of the az gressors requires such resort to force under the law of nations. Il must be considered as an abuse of words to call the removal of persons from | country a seizure or rcpfisal on them: nor is the distinction to be oyes- looked between reprisals on persons within the country and under the faith of its laws. and on persons out of the country. But, laying aside these considerations, 1t is ev- dcnlly impossible to bring the Alien Act within the power of granting reprisals since 1t does not allege or imply any injury re- celTed from any particular nation, for which this proceeding against it's members was ln- tended as a repafatioa.
 The proceeding Is authorised against aliens of eUery aatioR; of nations charged neither with any similar proceedings against Amefi- caR citizens, nor with any injuries fer which justice might be sought in the mode pre- scribed by the Act. We're il true, therefore, that good cause existed fer reprisals against one CT more foreign nations, and that neither the persons nor property of it's members, un- der the faith ol our laws, could plead an ex- emption, the operation of the Act ought to have been limited to the aliens among us, belonging to such nations. To license re- prlsals against all nations, for aggressions charged on one only, would be measure as contrary to every principle of justice and pnblic law, as to I wise policy and the uni. yersal practice of nations.
 Il is said that the right of removing aliens is an incident to the power of war, vested in Congress by the Constitution.
 This is former argument in a new shape only; and is answered by repeating that tlte removal of alien enemies is an incident to the power of war; that the removal of alien friends is not an incident 10 the power ol war.
 IL is said that Congress are by the Con sttution to protect each State against ia- vasion; and that the means ol preeeaiiag ;n- yasion are included in the powerof protect- ing against 1t.
 The power of war, naageneral, having been before granted by the Constitution, this clause must either be mere specification for great CT caution and certainty, of which there are other examples in fhe instrument, or be the injunction of duty, superadded to a grant of the power. Under either explanation, il cannot enlarge the powers of Congress oil the subject. The power and the duty to protect each State against an invading eae- my, would be the same under the general power, if this regard to greater caution had been omitted.
 Invasion is an operation of war. To pro tect against invasion, is an exercise of the power of war 4 power, therefore, not in- cident to war, cannot be incident to q partic- ular modification of war. And as the remo- val of alien friends has appeared to be no incident to a general state of war, 1t cannot be incident to a partial state or a particular modification of war.
 Nor can 1t ever be granted that a power to act one case when it actually occurs, in- eludes power over all the means that may lend 10 preUeat the occurrence of the case Such latitude of construction would ren- der unavaling every prac.ical definition o particular and limited powers. Under the idea of preventing war in general, as well as an invasion in particular, not only an inds criminate removal of all aliens might be enforced, but a thousand other things, stil more remote from the operations and pre- cautions appnrtenanll to war, might take place 4 Abigoted or tyrannieal nation might threater Us with war, unless certain religious ol political regulations were adopted by us yet it never could be inferred, if the regula- lions which would prevent war were such as Congress had otherwise no power to make that the power to make them would grow out of the purpose they were to answcr- Congress have power to suppress iasurrec. tions, yet 1t would not be allowed to folio" that they might employ all the means tending to prevent them; of which system of mora instruction for the ignorant, and of providen support for the poor, might be regarded as among the most elIicacious.
 One argument for the power of the Genera Government to remove Aliens, would haYt been passed in silence, if it had appeared un der any authority inferior to that of RePor made during the last session of Congress, t