Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1861-03-30

the rightful judges in the last resort, whethe
the bargain made has been pursued or violated
The Constitution Of the United States wa
formed by the sanction of the States, given b,
each i'll its sovereign capacity. 1t adds to tn
stability and dignity, as we'll rs to the author;
ty OF the Constitution, that it rests on this le
Ultimate and solid foundation. The States
then, being the parties to the constitutions
compact, and in their sovereign capacity, i
follows of necessity that there can be no fri
bunal above their authority, to decide, in tn
last resort whether the compact made b,
them, be violated; and, consequently, that a
the parties to it, they must themselves decide
IN the last resort, such questions as may be O
sufficient magnitude to require their i~nterposi
ton.
1t does not follow, however, that because th,
States, as sovereign parties to their ~constitu
tional compatct, must ultimately decide whe
ther it has been violated, that such a decision
ought to be interposed, either in u hasty manne
or on doubtful and inferior occasions. Ever
in the case Of ordinary conventions between
different nations, where, by the strict rule O
Interpretation. i breach Of a part may be deem
ed a breach Of tho whole, it is always laid dowr
that the breach must be both wilful and mate
rial to justify an application of the rule. But
in the case Of an intimate and constitutions
Union, like that of the United States, it is evi
dent that the interposition Of the parties, il
their sovereign capacity, can be called for by
occasions only deeply and essentially affecting
the vital principles of their political system.
The resolution has accordingly guarded
against any misrepresentation Of it's object, BY
expressly requiring for such an "interposition
"the case of q deliberate, palpa5lc and dun
9erous breach of the Constitution by the exer
else Of poWers not granted by it. 1t must be 8
case, moreover, not obscure or doubtful in its
construction, but plain and palpable. Lastly,
1t must tie a case, not resulting from a par;ia'
consideration, or hasty determination; but O
case stamped with q final consideration and de-
Hterdte adherence. 1t is not necessary. be-
cause the resolution does not require that the
question should be discussed, how far the exer,
else OF any particular power, ungranted by the
Constitution, would justify the interposition Of
the parties to IT, As cases might easily be stated
which never would contain ought to fall within
that descriptions; cases, on the other hand,
might, with equal case, be stated, SO hsgrant
and SO fatal, as to unite every opinion in placing
them within that description.
Now, MIR. Chairman, il Mr.. Madison in the
argument he luade to sustain the position as.
sumed in the third resolution, has not vindi-
Gated the position that the States are now SOW
ereign and independent I should like to know
how it may be maintained. l think that the
argument is irrefragable. | regard the posi-.
ton which Mr.. Madison and Mr.. Jefferson have
taken, that the States have the right to judge
of the infractions Of the compact and Of the
mode and measure Of redress, necessarily in.
plies the exercise Of a sovereign power. a
power independent OF all other powers. But
the gentleman from Prince George, (A1r. Rt7Es)
would seem to suppose that we have q nation
al sovereignty that covers this whole Union, in
such a manner as if ours is u consolidated and;
not 6 Federal government II this be so, al
though Virginia shall throw the pancply and
shield Of her sovereignty over her citizens. Yet,
if they obey her injunctions and mandates,
they are traitors and rebels against this con-
solidated government at Washington and lia-
Die to be treated aS such.
This doctrine reduces our people to the con-
ditiou Of the serf OF Russia and the slave Of
Tirginin-the right to resist intolerAble and
unbearable oppresSlon-to the condition in
which if their revolution shall be successful,
they may receive the plaudits and honors
which usually attend successful revolutions,
but if otherwise, may be compelled to fl! tue
graves assigned to felons and traitors. 1t is 10
such extremities that these gentlemen are
driven.
But. Mr.. Chairman, these doctrines find no
sanction in the history Of the formation Of our
Federal Government, or in the character Of our
institutions. They are ut war with the great
principles Of human liberty upon which our
governments rest, aud are antagonistic, as it
seems to me-, to the impulses Of every p,triotic
heart. According to the arguments Of some
gentlemen, the deduction is clear and indispu.
table: if We adopt an ordinance Of secession,
and Virginia withdraWs fr' III the present Black
Republican Ccnfederacy, and her citizens obey
the ordinance, they will be traitors to, and
rebels against the Federal Government
There is no gentleman on this floor e'tnel q
traitor or q rebel; for although find gentlemen
differing from me widely US to the best means
of indicating the honor and maintaining the
rights of our own Commonwealth, will do
every one OF them the justice to say that It Is
only a difference, as humbly believe, as to the
bust means Of accomplishing the same common
object. I hope, for these reasons, which nave
been more strongly impressed upon this Com.
mittee by others than By myself, that the Com
mittee will sustain the amendment offered ny
the gentleman from Middlesex (Mr. Montague).
Mr.. SLAUeurER-I agree, in general, with
tho doctrine laid down by my friend from Mid
dlesex, (Mr. MoSrAGUE,) in regard to States
Rights; but | think that the amendment ne
proposes is impolitic and unnecessary, Tor seve.
raj reasons. In the first place the resolutions
of the committee are so bound together. and
the PRINCIPLES contained in them are so con.
nected together, that if you begin to amend
them in any respect, you will mar and destroy
their symmetry. In the second place the
words which he proposes to insert are lncon'
eruous with the proposition upon which he
SCI k to engraft them. The proposition OF the
committee speaks Of the condition OF different
States at the time the Confederacy was formed
and of their action at that time. 1t says they
were then independent sovereignties, nd'ln
adopting the Constitution they then agreed to
associate on terms Of exact equality. The gen.
tlemen proposes to amend so as TO make the
resolution speak Of their present condition.
Moreover, when you come to m the con-
clusion which the committee deduces from
these premises, you find that the words propo'
sed TO be inserted are not in the least neces-
sary to sustain the principle announced oy me
resolution, viz: the duty Of the common Go
vernment TO respect the rights of the States
and the equality of the people thereof:
I, therefore, contend that the amendment OF
the gentleman does seem to me to be out OF
place in this connection. Why the necessity
of introducing any thing more? When TINS
amendment was first proposed by the gentle
man. I prepared an amendment which pro.
posed to offer, embracing my views OF the
subject. I proposed to change the section SO
40 TO make it read as follows: ain adopting
that instrument, the States did not part with
their sovereignty, but agreed to associate with
each other upon a footing of exact equality,
but, upon examining the whole report | tn,hs M
these views are so clearly enumerated by tne
whole taken together, that I have deemed II
unnecessary to offer the amendment sugses'eo
by the. ,,,.e
,ha question nc In the right IF secession. On