Southern standard. [volume] (Columbus, Miss.) 1851-1856, 1852-01-17

,s;velv vested bv the people in the judicial courts
&c tho limited States. But should the State OF
VIRGINIA persist in the assumption of the right 10
declare the acts of the National Government IN
co0 sttt;ondE and should she oppose, successfully
her force and acU to those of the Nation, the Con-
sttDt;on would be reduced to mere cypher, to
the form and pagentry of authority, without the
energy ofpower Every act of the Federal Govern
mont which thwarted the views, or checked the
ambitious projects of a particular State (precisely
the argument of the present day against nuliihca-
tion) or of its leading and influential members
this like the modern attacks upon Mr. Caihouh'
was intended for Mr.. Jefferson, who was then oP-
posing John Adams, the favorite son OF Massa-
chusetts) would be the object of opposition and
remonstrance while the people, convulsed and
confused by the conflict between two hostile jurs--
dictons, enjoying the projection of neither, would
he yearied into submission to some bold leader,
who would establish himself on the ruins of both"
The State of New York received the Virginia
doctrines under like impressions, and was abso-
lutely insulting to that State, for having advanced
them She affirmed that ''the judicial power ex-
tends expressly to all OF law and equity ars-
inc under the Constitution and laws of the United
States, whereby the interference of the particular
States in those cases. is nanifestly excluded, and
concluded by saying, 'fhe sentiments and doc
trines contained in the resolutions were lntamma-
tory and pernicious, repugnant to the Con
stitution of the United States, and the principles
of their Union than destructive to the Federal
Government Can any man believe that such
strong language would be used against such a
State as Virginia. if she meant nothing more than
what her Senator, Mr.. Rves, asserted on the floor
of Congress And if that her meaning, Is
it possible to conceive a motive for resting quiet
under such bitter aspersion, without atfording TO
New York the opportunity of retractingit as doubt
! less she would under the plea of misconceptlon
No one believes it.
Connecticut 'explicitly disavowed the principles
contained in the resolutions, and decidedly refus-
ed to concur with the Legislature of Virginia"
| New Hampshire felt so indignant at the resolu-
tons, that, like some of the valorous States who
were lately for whipping South Carolina into sub
mission, she was full of fight against Virginia.
She declared it to be her firm resolution to main
tain and defend the Constitution of the United
States against every aggression, foreign or domes
tic.' And Vermont adopted similar resolution
Now, here are the answers of seven States, pre-
Dictated upon the belief that the resolutions assum
ed the right to declare law of Congress unconsti-
tutional, ''each' State could ''take measures to
'nterpose'' for 'arrestng the progress of the law
within their respective limits" What is the con-
duct of Virginia upon the receipt of these answers:
Does she say to these States, you have entirely
mistaken me | meant nothing more than that
had the right to petition, beg, entreat, expostuate
and if this would not do could enter into bully
ing resolutions, full of threat and pretended fight
designed to frighten the General Government into
measures and this failing, perhaps the united
force of the these ''mOral agencies would bring
about change of public opinion, and thereby eff
feet repeal of the obnoxious laws. Mercfu
Heavenl how contemptible-an how ought Vr-
ginia to blush to have such construction placed
upon grave proceeding as her far-famed reso-
lutopS Rut this not the le0itinoa ia char
of those resolutions Mr.. Madison, by one of the
ablest productions ever penned in America, vindi-
Gated them upon the issue formed by the answers
of the opposing States, and in contradiction to
their principles.
See his report adopted by the Virginia Legisla-
ture in 80, an abstract from which we published
last week