Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1855-10-09
RETALIATION ON MASSACHUSETTS,
"LACRENS."

NJ n = a
|
prr,IJaTIoN ON MASSACHUSETTS,
"LACRENS."
We publish to-day Il communication from our es-
,,,..d correspondent "Laurens," which, hcing Il re-
III. =, some of our editorials demands respectful
confederation at our hands. We assure him that ho
is not cur oil from what hu is pleased t" term he pow
eriul aid Of the Enquirer because dirr from him
in opinion. Our editorials, written in the absence "i
the editors, tlrom some of whose opinions We
may have inadvertently ,liercd,) were nut intend
I'd to commit the paper to "r against any parll'
cuar plan Of retaliation, but simply to point oui
the difficulties that seemed to besc them all, and
to Indicate course apparently lcss impedtd than
| any other. In doing this we regret t" have been
! emtre miscOnccivcd by "Lnnrens' IN several par
ticuarS, and thus to have been brought IN r"lsi"
| with him where wensrcedin opinion. He represents
us Us saying that This is Of a violated trc"'
ty. where one violation may Ge met by another SIM
lar in character, but question under costitul'"r
which can only be thrown of by revolution or amend
ed in conformity with its provisions; and he then
makes an able and All elaborate argument reply "
prove that each State uf this Union has the right I"
Judge as 'wcl of nracuns of the constitution n ~
The mode and ne,rlIre of redress" WeSranl ih'S l"
its fullest extent but is this any thing more than TIE
right to throw it of by revolution! "Lauren'
contends that revolution must proceed from tn" p""-
ple in their individual capacity, and TINT State III
"cauceins the promises and dlsS"lvlns tho tFc''e'
| does not revolutiunzn tho government. We th'i'
| that hu mistakes the meaning ol the w"rd To'"'"
| ton" We understand il as :. .nitying li"icFih'
change of the Constitution in mannrr not Pr''"e'
| nv tbe instrument itself and TINT such chang" Il
| revolution no manner by what agency It Is br""S''
about. But why dispute about words when we "Sr''
in s,b,,nuce! We concur in the opinion ih"' 'ho
State of Virginia is the sole judge q" the 'n'"' ana
| measure of redress ii the Constitution "c F'""''"
but in the exercise Of this right II "io c"'cels "'o VI
more or all of its material Pr"vsi"ns we c"li rev"
luon," whilst "Laurcns" calls it, we know not What
W. do not sue however, why 'Laurcns' makcsnn aIsu
ment 10 show the right of the State in her sovereign
capacity to judge OF tho "moic AMI lmeasure oil rc
lrsss" when the sulo question was whether the
Legislature hul the right to prohibit Intercourse with
| rho Morrill, We know that "l.aurrns' does 1T"
mean to contend that the Legislature has the right
to cancel the promises our side ami To dissolve
the treaty." aud we cannot the applicability o
his argument, Oh tnls l'lH' uu'''''' w We
cussed. lie knows perfectly well, that IIcasurcS :"
the kind, indicated by him rs tho rightul exercise
of sovereign rights, only be carried out by u,
people assembled in Convention, ani that an "r'iIna
ry Legislature has no light rel,a,c the state al
any portion Of people from their constitutional
obligations. lfheprposes, for discussion, the qucs
ton whether tho proper time has arrived for \irSi'
MIA, in the exercise OF her sovereign rights I" 'canre
| the promises aud to dissolve the treaty. possibly
we may not ditlcr from him. But we must say That
| he has not vet convinced of the C"n-tlimii"nnl
right of the Legislature tn impose oalh. ' 'herehah'7
that they VIM .i~ -.:.t. Massachusetts, and Ia
prosecute them for peril ii they de" lie says this
il 10 than onr plan OF personal disabilities.
So it may not be; but ii may bc more umc"mstitutun
a if there be degrees of unconstitutionnlty Ii is
thing TO say to a merchant, " # you trnle with Mas
sachnsctts YOU shall be prosecuted for perj"ry, aud
| ,uo,h.r thing 10 say "you have the constitutional
right to trade but ii you exercise {, you shall not
have certain privileges granted to others. re'aI-
ties and disabilities are rs wide asier the poles
| in their character, although the effects may not mn
tcriuy differ. An individual hns perfect RIGHT 10
| be exempt from punishment for ioins II legai act
but nc has no right in such to require privileges
The denial of privileges was what We meant by "ut
lawiup" as the connection show.d for we said in
the next paragraph, ave do not sec how the mere
personal disabilities of the character We have ind
Gated could be held unconstitutional.
But We freely confess that not sure of olir
ground and only chose it presenting fewer Oh
cctions than any other. 1t certainly however, is not
liable to some Of the objections urged by "Laures
Thus, he supposes "that it sees to iure the cum
merce Of certain Atlantic State, for 10 other cause
than the prohibiting slavery by aw. lie has strange-
" misconceived lis in this particular. The phrase
Estates uu tho Atlantic prohibiting slavery by law
WAS merely descriptive and intended to be syn"ny-
nous with "Frec States on tho Aantic"-a phrase we
dislike, because it implies something Of superiority
over the Southern States. Ii we had said 'Free
States on the Atlantic" "Iauens" with us mich rea-
son. might have contenled that We sought to iniurc
them lur being free.
| Io has also misunderstood our unfortunate phrase
'sneak round the Constitution which, assure him.
had not the most remote allu-nn to anything that hr
proposed. The bnd taste We confess, but deny the
imputed incivility.
His suggestion that our plan Of disabilities might be
considered "as obnoxious TO the impu'aon Of iInp"'
leve is intended rs joke. We have no doubt that
disability to hod'occ is punishment both cruel aud
unusual, but it is not the kind Of cruelty meant ny
Magma Charta, where believe the phrase Origiila-
ted.
Apart from Constitutional objections. we think
with great respect for "L'urenr," that his plan VIII
be Intellectual to make the p,oslratsd mnmnta'"'rrs
and pn1sied cOmmrrce" Of Massachusetts, 'pleHd
trumpet-ongued TO tho deep dunnation Of f"@i"S
og." The interruption o about ilIrtieh part "i
her trade, will neither ''pr"strate her manufactures
.palsy her commerce." plead rumpet-tongucd, or
take her nni" We most heartily wish that it would
stake her off,, but we fear that she is tougher than
the meek and lowy Duncan, and not so ensily dis
posed of We fear that the plan of our friend "Lau-
rens like the nir drawn dagger Of Macbeth is but
q vision, and will not even disturb the s'lInbers oi
Massachusetts,. She is hardened sinner, not 10 10
reformed by "appeains to tho consciences o' our
merchants or 10 any body ese's conscience hut oh'y
10 be custisaed in the cotton fields Of the South
II tho Southern State will hustle her out Of the cotton
fields, wo will stop her allowance of tobacco and our
word for it, there will bc "decp damnnilon men, |"
not "t,kng off," viii not "Laurens," with h' III
genuus pen, his fidelity 10 the Constitution, ami Ills
courteous and concutory style, advocate something
of this sort
JUST REBUKE.
The London Illuminated News, in an article on 'ie
fall of Sebasopol, says that if England had not inter-