The Richmond palladium. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1855-1875, 1863-02-06

IN cases OF disagreement, and would be q
plain violation of the Constitution" &c
Massachusetts,, on the 9th day Of Februa
ry, 1899, adopted this resolution; among
others, as Q reply to the Virginia resolution.
Of the year before: THAT the people il
that solemn compact. which is declared te
be the supreme law of the land, have mo-
constituted the State Legislatures the Judges
of the acts Of measures of the Federal Gov
eminent, but have confided to them the
power Of proposing such amendments Of the
Constitution as shall appear to them neces
sary. DC. That by this construction Of the
Constitution amicable and dispassionate
remedy is pointed out for any evil which
experience may prove TO exist, aud the peace
and prosperity Of the United States may be
preserved without in Interruption. Put should
the respectable State of Virginia persist in
the assumption of the right to declare the
acts of the National Government unconstitu.
tional. and should she oppose. successfully.
her force and wW to those Of the nation,
the Constitution would be reduced to a mere
cipher. to tbs form and pageantry of author.
ity without the energy of power" &c. &c.
We have not quoted the responses of the
different Legislatures in full, but merely
enough to show the spirit of their answers
Rinia resolutions of 1898.
All the Legislatures made similar replies
to these we have quoted, except North Car
olina, Georgia and Kentucky. The three
former made no response that we have ever
been able to find. but the Legislature Of
Kentucky. in 79e. replied. not only indors
! ing the doctrine of the Virginia Legislature,
but stating it in much palmer aud more
unequvocal language, as follows: THAT
this government created by this compact
(the Cons,itution) was not ma ie the final
Judge Of the extent OF it's powers. &c, bu,
that as in all other cases of compact among
parties having no common judge. each party
has an equal rigM to jud2e for iself as ,ceI
of the infractions. as the MODE AND
MEASURE ofredress."
In 1899. the Legislature Of Kentucky, in
rejoinder to the several States that had de-
nounced the Vir,iua resolutions of the year
before, indorsed the State Rights doctrine
bv a resolution containing these words =
That the several States who formed the
Constitution being sovereign and indepen-
don't, have the unquestionable right to judge
Of .he infraction of the Constitution, and that
. MULTIPLICATION by those sovereign
ties, of all unauthorized It's done under col.
or Of that instrument. is the rightful reme-
edy" See vol. 4. Elliot's Debates p. 3S3.
And this was the origin Of the terms Md
Efcation'' as subsequently applied in our
political discussions.
The unfav orable answers of the different
Legislatures, most Of which were unani-
mously adopted, and the severe criticisms Of
the papers nearly all of which took strong
ground against the doctrine of the Nlrgi inia
Legislature. left the State Rights" party
but little hope of ever seeing their favorite
theory put into practice by permission OF
the general government.
But the Nulliiers, or those who maintain
that State has the right to judge of the
Coustitutionality of acts of Congress. aud to
nullify, or abrogate within its limits such
IS i. may deem unconstitutional did not
cease their efforts to establish this absurd
theory. Mr. Hayne came forward as its
champion again in 1880 All remember the
long and exciting debate between him and
Mr.. Webster in that year, and how Mr..
Webster triumphantly vindicated the Con-
sttu,ion from the false construction of Mr..
Hsyne and his nullifying brethren. 1t will
also be remembered that Mr.. Calhoun, see-
ing the overthrow and utter destruction Of
the notification doctrine and the dscomGt-
ure of Mr.. Hayne, came to his rescue. and
that they two. with the Virginia and Ken
lucky resolutions for their text, urged the
doctrine upon the people Of South C4rolina,
ill in 1882. she passed the celebrated ordi.
nance nullifying the Tariff laws within tha,
State Then followed General Jackson's
lullification proclamation, the sending Of
General Scott with troops and ships of war
TO Charleston, &c. The nulli6ers finding
themselves about to be ''coerced" by Gen.
jackson, into obedience to the laws, availed
themselves of Mr. CIay's compromise bill as
a pretext. and backed down from their po-
sition. This was apparently. the end of null
Iiticaiion. But it was not dead. il only slept.
No more was heard Of it. howver, till l8 50,
when the Southern Democracy secured the
adoption by the National Convention, that
nominated Mr.. Pierce, of the following res
olution as part OF the Democratic platform.
and this lras done as an entering ,esdge to
accession:
.Resolved, That the Democratic party
will faithfully abide by and uphold the p'in-
ciples laid down in the Virginia and Ken
tucky resolutions Of 1898 aud 1899. and in
the report Of Mr.. Madison to the Virginia
Legislature in 1899. that it adopts these
principles as constituting one of the main
foundations of its political creed. and is re-
solved to carry tbem>out in their obvious
meaning and import"
Adopts what prir ciples? Why, that
State may Judge Of the Constitutionaliiy of
laws Of Congress and nulliiy within its linn
its such as it may deem unconstitutional
the very thing that Mr.. Hsyne contended
for in his debate with Webster--the princi-
pie that South Carolins contended for 10
her controversy with Gen. Jackson; and the
principle upon which the Personal Liberty
Laws that Judge Perkins complains of. were
enacted BY the Northern Democracy; for BE-
il remembered that almost every ooe Of
these laws was passed by Democratic Leg
isla,ure~: and they found their Justification
for them in the Democratic platform OF 1859
and the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions
OF 1898 and 1899.
The terrible civil war in which the coun-
try is engaged has not been brought upon
the country by the passage of these Person
al Liberty Laws. but by the persistens ad-
vocacy by the Democratic party of the ab-
~ II, 4.