Mineral Point tribune. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1854-1858, 1855-03-21
MONROE SENTINEL AGAIN.

The Monroe Sens17ei oil Inc l4tn deSotes aDout
two columns TO our especial BE- neft upon the
question of State Rights and Nuli6cation- We
have no disposition to continue this controversy
with nei ghbor, for We do not believe that any
great difference of opinion exists between us upon
the main points at issue. if may judge from
the article in the lest Sentinel and we have idea
either of us possess sufficient knowledge of Con
sritutonal Law TO render explanations OF 1t OF
any great service to the public.
We are glad, however, to learn that the editor
of the Sentinel believes a law of Congress passed
in pursuance of the Constitution is the supreme
law of the land The only difference between
US, on this point, appears to be as TO who is TO
decide whether the laws of Congress are IN pur-
suance OF the Constitution While we consider II
within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court OF
the United States as the highest judicial tribunal
the Sentinel believes if it exists at all II is WIN
State Courts Under his view of tne case, we
cannot see how Congress can pass laws that are
equally binding upon ali of the States, for some
State Courts may consider them constitutional
while others do not. For instance, Congress may
pass law that every State Court in the Union
except Wisconsin would decide 10 be in pursu-
ance of the Constitution" but if our own State
from that law Z?
Again, the Sentinel says, The people of the
United States never formed the Constitution
never adopted it; but the people of the individual
States did do it, Now where is the difference
If the people of the individual States adopted TIE
Constitution severally acting in State capacity
is it any less binding than if il had been adopted
by general vote of the whole people? Certainly
we can see no difference. The people of the Uni
ted States are nation, otherwise, how is the
President commandern chief of the militia o
the several States when called into service?" 4
consolidated government may, as the Sentinel say
have been very far from the thoughts of the fran
ers of the Constitution, but that consolIdat ed
Union was not, is evident from the admirable let
ter of General Washington transmitting the Con
sttuiion 10 the Governors ofthe several States
He says In all our deliberations on this subject
we kept steadily in our view that which appears
70 US the greatest interest OF every true American
the constellation of our Union, in which is involved
our prosperity felicity, safety-perhaps our ma
tional existence States are recognized through
the Constitution but only as instruments in the
hands of the same people who alike the au-
thors both OF the Union and of the States. and the
people on the occasion of the adoption OF the
Constitution, says Prof Mansfield, acted in their
original sovereign, .;Gtionol capacity" But we
pass from this portion of the Seatines article for
the present.
The editcr declines to publish extract from,
Mr.. Websters speech, for the reason, he says that
il is not in point. If were not very mach de
ceived as to the editors language, he was talking
of the controversy between Hayne and Webster, or
the Sonih Carolina question. He said:
And when the fog and nists which now shrouis
this question, IN consequence of the Sophisfry 81
Hcjster; (for il is worse than folly 10 call thai
argument which is founded upon false premises
logie.) shall be cleared away by The eliminating
light of State rights. shall clearly the ab
Srpdfy Of his Grgle1nent-founded, it was. upor
an assumed state of facts, having no foundation ir
the facts Of history or the nature of the case.
We only desired the Sentinel TO copy portion
of Mr. Webs1ers speech which he alludes il
the above extract that its readers might judge fol-
themselves to the absurdity OF his arguments,
but be declines doing so, and yet we cannot be
ieve that Daniel Websters reputation, as MAI
of good sound sense, is utterly annihila,ed, thro
the columns of the Sentinel