Source: https://constitution.org/rf/vr_1799.htm
Timestamp: 2019-09-21 17:07:32
Document Index: 776392557

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 94', '§ 213', '§ 102', '§ 63', '§ 344', '§ 63', '§ 5']

Virginia Report of 1799
REPORT OF 1799.
On this objection it might be observed, first, that there may be instances of usurped power, which the forms of the Constitution would never draw within the control of the judicial department;4secondly, that if the decision of the judiciary be raised above the authority of the sovereign parties to the Constitution, the decisions of the other departments, not carried by the forms of the Constitution before the judiciary, must be equally authoritative and final with the decisions of that department. But the proper answer to the objection is, that the resolution of the General Assembly relates to those great and extraordinary cases, in which all the forms of the Constitution may prove ineffectual against infractions dangerous to the essential rights of the parties to it. The resolution supposes that dangerous powers, not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the judicial department also may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution; and, consequently, that the ultimate right of the parties to the Constitution, to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority, as well as by another; by the judiciary, as well as by the executive, or the legislature.
To these indications might be added, without looking farther, the official report on manufactures, by the late Secretary of the Treasury, made. on the 5th of December, 1791; and the report of a committee of Congress, in January, 1797, on the promotion of agriculture. In the first of these it is expressly contended to belong "to the discretion of the national legislature to pronounce upon the objects which concern the general welfare, and for which, under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt, that whatever concerns the general interests of LEARNING, of AGRICULTURE, of MANUFACTURES, and of COMMERCE, are within the sphere of the national councils, as far as regards the application of money."7 The latter report assumes the same latitude of power in the national councils, and applies it to the encouragement of agriculture by means of a society to be established at the seat of government.8 Although neither of these reports may have received the sanction of a law carrying it into effect, yet, on the other hand, the extraordinary doctrine contained in both, has passed without the slightest positive mark of disapprobation from the authority to which it was addressed.
This conclusion will not be affected by an attempt to qualify the power over the "general welfare," by referring it to cases where the general welfare is beyond the reach of separate provisions by the individual states; and leaving to these their jurisdictions, in cases to which their separate provisions may be competent. For, as the authority of the individual states must in all cases be incompetent to general regulations operating through the whole, the authority of the United States would be extended to every object relating to the general welfare, which might, by any possibility, be provided for by the general authority. This qualifying construction, therefore, would have little, if any tendency, to circumscribe the power claimed under the latitude of the terms "general welfare."
The true and fair construction of this expression, both in the original and existing federal compacts, appears to the committee too obvious to be mistaken. In both, the Congress is authorized to provide money for the common defence and general welfare. In both, is subjoined to this authority, an enumeration of the cases to which their powers shall extend. Money cannot be applied to the general welfare otherwise than by an application of it to some particular measures, conducive to the general welfare. Whenever, therefore, money has been raised by the general authority, and is to be applied to a particular measure, a question arises whether the particular measure be within the enumerated authorities vested in Congress. If it be, the money requisite for it may be applied to it; if it be not, no such application can be made. This fair and obvious interpretation coincides with, and is enforced by the clause in the Constitution, which declares, that "no money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations by law." An appropriation of money to the general welfare would be deemed rather a mockery than an observance of this constitutional injunction.
The distinction between alien enemies and alien friends, is a clear and conclusive answer to this argument. Alien enemies are under the law of nations, and liable to be punished for offences against it. Alien friends, except in the single case of public ministers, are under the municipal law, and must be tried and punished according to that law only.10
It has become an axiom in the science of government, that a separation of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments, is necessary to the preservation of public liberty.14 Nowhere has this axiom been better understood in theory, or more carefully pursued in practice, than in the United States.
Several attempts have been made to answer this question, which will be examined in their order. The committee will begin with one, which has filled them with equal astonishment and apprehension; and which, they cannot but persuade themselves, must have the same effect on all, who will consider it with coolness and impartiality, and with a reverence for our Constitution, in the true character in which it issued from the sovereign authority of the people. The committee refer to the doctrine lately advanced as a sanction to the sedition-act, "that the common or unwritten law," a law of vast extent and complexity, and embracing almost every possible subject of legislation, both civil and criminal, makes a part of the law of these states, in their united and national capacity.15
The expression, "cases in law and equity," is manifestly confined to cases of a civil nature; and would exclude cases of criminal jurisdiction. Criminal cases in law and equity would be a language unknown to the law.16
There are two passages in the Constitution, in which a description of the law of the United States is found. The first is contained in Art. III. sect. 2, in the words following: "This Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made under their authority." The second is contained in the second paragraph of Art. VI. as follows: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land." The first of these descriptions was meant as a guide to the judges of the United States; the second, as a guide to the judges in the several states. Both of them consists of an enumeration, which was evidently meant to be precise and complete. If the common law had been understood to be a law of the United States, it is not possible to assign a satisfactory reason why it was not expressed in the enumeration.
The General Assembly were governed by the clearest reason, then, in considering the "sedition-act," which legislates on the freedom of the press, as establishing a precedent that may be fatal to the liberty of conscience; and it will be the duty of all, in proportion as they value the security of the latter, to take the alarm at every encroachment on the former.
Resolved, That the General Assembly, having carefully and respectfully attended to the proceedings of a number of the states, in answer to its resolutions of December 21, 1798, and having accurately and fully re-examined and reconsidered the latter, finds it to be its indispensable duty to adhere to the same, as founded in truth, as consonant with the Constitution, and as conducive to its preservation; and more especially to be its duty to renew, as it does hereby renew, its protest against "the alien and sedition-acts," as palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution.
[Notes of F.W. Randolph, converted to endnotes and numbered in sequence:]
1. The position that the powers of the Federal Government result from a compact to which the states are parties, has been assailed as if it assumed that the idea of a Constitution was thereby excluded, and the government converted into a mere confederation. (1 Story's Comms. on Constitution, 287.) But the essential question to which the attention of the writer seems to have been directed, was not as to the nature of the Constitution, whether it were an instrument of confederation, or of government, but it was as to who are the parties thereto, the aggregate people of the whole Union, or the states in their highest sovereign capacity, not represented by their ordinary governments, but by delegates deputed for the sole purpose of expressing the will of the people of each state on the subject.
Whether or not it follows that because the states are parties to the Federal Government, they must, therefore, be the rightful judges in the last resort of alleged usurpations by that government, in any or all of its departments, is submitted to the reader upon the reasoning in the text. (See, also, 1 Tuck. Bl. App. 170.)
2. This paragraph seems to have in view some observations of Mr. GEORGE KEITH TAYLOR, in the debate on the Resolutions in 1798, ante, pp. 122 to 126. The Resolutions, as originally introduced into the House of Delegates, had the word "alone" following "states," so as to make that clause read thus: — "to which the states alone are parties." Mr. Taylor's remarks, which are very ingenious, tended to show that the states, — which he interpreted to mean the ordinary governments of the states, — were not parties to the Federal Constitution, at all, much less, sole parties. His argument so far prevailed as to induce Mr. GILES to move to strike out the word "alone" in which Mr. JOHN TAYLOR of Caroline, the mover of the resolutions, concurred, and it was stricken out accordingly. (See ante, pp. 148 and 150.)
3. The cautious and moderate language of the text is worthy of observation. The cases proper for interposition by the states are said to be such only as involve deliberate, palpable, and dangerous breaches of the Constitution, by the exercise of powers not granted. The objects of interposition are merely to arrest the progress of the usurpation, and to maintain the authorities, rights, and liberties of the states, as parties to the Constitution.
Force, on this occasion, at least, appears to have been neither threatened nor contemplated. The moral influence of the sentiment of the states and of the people was relied upon. Not only does this appear from the declarations of Mr. Madison, in his letter to Ingersoll, post, p. 257, but it is abundantly manifested by the tenor of the debates on the resolutions, and by the report. Thus Mr. MERCER, replying to Mr. GEORGE K. TAYLOR, holds this language: "The gentleman from Prince George had told the committee that the resolutions introduced by the gentleman from Caroline were calculated to rouse the people to resistance, to excite the people of Virginia against the federal government. Mr. M. did not see how such consequences could result from their adoption. They contained nothing more than the sentiments which the people in many parts of the state had expressed, and which had been conveyed to the legislature in their memorials and resolutions, then lying upon the table." See ante, p. 41. Again:
"The state believed some of its rights had been invaded by the late acts of the federal government, and proposed a remedy whereby to obtain a repeal of them. The plan contained in the resolutions appeared to Mr. M. the most advisable. Force was not thought of by any one." Ante, p. 42. Then, after citing some passages from the Federalist, to show that state interposition had been contemplated by the authors of that work, he argues that not only is the right of the states to communicate with each other defended by that authority, but that the adoption of a regular plan of opposition, in which they should combine all their resources, would also be justified by it. "But no such wish," says he, "is entertained by the friends of the resolutions; their object in addressing the states is to obtain a similar declaration of opinion," &c. Ante, p. 44.
Mr. BARBOUR observed, "that the gentleman from Prince George had remarked that these resolutions invited the people to insurrection and to arms. But, Mr. B. said, that if he could conceive the consequence foretold would grow out of the measure, he would become its bitterest enemy, for he deprecated intestine commotion, civil war, and bloodshed, as the most direful evils which could befall a country, except slavery. A resort to arms was the last appeal of an oppressed, an injured nation, and was never made but when public servants converted themselves, by usurpation, into roasters, and destroyed rights once participated; and then it was justifiable." Ante, p. 54. Again: "The gentleman from Prince George was for the people's rising en masse, if the law was unconstitutional. For his part, he was for using no violence. It was the peculiar blessing of the American people to have redress within their reach by constitutional and peaceful means." Ante, p. 59.
Mr. JOHN TAYLOR, of Caroline, spoke of the threats of war, and the apprehension of civil commotion, towards which the resolutions were said to have a tendency. "Are the republicans," said he, "possessed of fleets and armies? If not, to what could they appeal for defence and support? To nothing, except public opinion. If that should be against them, they must yield." Ante, p. 113. And he is not less emphatic and distinct in a subsequent passage. Ante, pp. 114-15. See also the report, post, pp. 230-31.
It has been suggested, however, as proof that resistance by force was meditated, that Virginia prepared herself for the anticipated conflict by establishing arsenals, and erecting armories. The fact standing alone, hardly warrants the inference under any conceivable circumstances, but especially does it not warrant it in the face of the declarations just cited of the prominent guides and advocates of the action of the state, at that period. But, in truth, the armory and arsenal bill was enacted 23d January, 1798, about six months before the alien and sedition-laws were passed, and three months, probably, before they were contemplated, at a time when Mr. Adams's administration, though certainly not popular in Virginia, was not particularly obnoxious. Can it be believed, indeed, that a party which could marshal so much talent and character, and so respectable an array of numbers against the less extreme measure of the resolutions of the succeeding session of 1798-9, when the provocation was infinitely greater, would have failed to penetrate the belligerent purpose of that bill, if any had existed, or that perceiving it, they would have hesitated to expose and denounce it?
This note, protracted, as it is, ought not to be concluded without referring to the temper of wise forbearance which, at this perilous crisis, was earnestly inculcated by Mr. JEFFERSON. In a letter to Mr. JOHN TAYLOR, in June, 1798, he says:
"Mr. New showed me your letter, which gave me an opportunity of observing what you said as to the effect with you, of public proceedings, and that it was not unwise now to estimate the separate mass of Virginia and North Carolina, with a view to their separate existence. It is true that we are completely under the saddle of Massachusetts and Connecticut, and that they ride us very hard, insulting our feelings, as well as exhausting our strength and substance. Their natural friends, the three other eastern states, join them from a sort of family pride, and they have the art to divide certain other parts of the Union, so as to make use of them to govern the whole." Then, after observing that this was not the natural state of things, and that time, of itself, would bring relief, which besides was likely to be hastened by impending events, he continues:
"Be this as it may, in every free and deliberating society, there must, from the nature of man, be opposite parties, and violent dissension and discords; and one of these, for the most part, must prevail over the other, for a longer or shorter time. Perhaps this party division is necessary to induce each to watch, and delate to the people the proceedings of the other. But if, on a temporary superiority of the one party, the other is to resort to a scission of the Union, no federal government can ever exist. If, to rid ourselves of the present rule of Massachusetts and Connecticut, we break the Union, will the evil stop there? Suppose the New England states alone cut off, will our natures be changed? Are we not men still, to the south of that, and with all the passions of men? Immediately we shall see a Pennsylvania and a Virginia party arise in the residuary confederacy, and the public mind will be distracted with the same party-spirit. What a game, too, will the one party have in their hands, threatening the other that unless they do so and so, they will join their northern neighbours! If we reduce our Union to Virginia and North Carolina, immediately the conflict will be established between the representatives of these two states, and they will end by breaking into their simple units. Seeing, therefore, that an association of men who will not quarrel with one another, is a thing which never yet existed, from the greatest confederacy of nations, down to a town-meeting, or a vestry; seeing that we must have somebody to quarrel with, I would rather keep our New England associates for that purpose, than to see our bickerings transferred to others." "It is true that, in the mean time, we are suffering deeply in spirit, and incurring the horrors of a war, and long oppressions of enormous public debt. But who can say what would be the evils of a scission, and when and where they would end? Better keep together as we are, haul off from Europe as soon as we can, and from all attachments to any portion of it," &c. (3 Jeff. Mem., &c., 393.)
4. Judge Story holds that each department of the government, and each member of every department, is the interpreter of the Constitution for itself, in the first instance, whenever called upon to act under it. If the question is not of a nature to be capable of a judicial decision, he considers such determination by the department called on to act, — whether it be the executive, or the legislative, — to be final. If it be capable of judicial investigation, he regards the judicial power and the Supreme Court as the head thereof, the final arbiter of the constitutionality of the act.
As to the second observation in the text, that the judicial department may also exercise or sanction dangerous powers, not granted by the Constitution, Judge Story esteems it a case not to be supposed, or that, at all events, the people, in forming the Constitution for the Union, — in like manner as in forming the state constitutions, — have relied upon the judiciary as the ultimate barrier against usurpation, or the exercise of unconstitutional power.
The difference between these views is certainly marked, but it is less considerable than at first view may appear.
According to the text, if all the departments of government, including the judiciary (where the question is of a nature to be submitted to it,) combine to commit or to sanction, a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous violation of the Constitution, the states, as parties to the Constitution, may determine, in the last resort, whether the alleged violation has occurred, and may interpose to arrest the evil.
Judge Story allows of no interposition by the states, but insists that, in the case supposed, when the evil has become no longer endurable, resort must be had, by the people and not by the states, to the ultimate right of resistance.
Neither construction discards resistance to dangerous and palpable usurpation. They only differ as to the means of ascertaining the usurpation in the last resort, and of setting on foot the resistance, when ascertained. The one refers it to the states as sovereign members of the confederacy; the other to the people exclusively. (See 1 Story's Com. on Const., 346 to 375.)
The constitutional remedies against the exercise of unconstitutional power, in Judge Story's opinion, are: — if the Congress be the offender, an appeal to the elective franchise, and, if need be, an amendment of the Constitution; if the executive is guilty, an impeachment, and a new election; if the judiciary, an impeachment, and an alteration, for the future, of the bad law as judicially expounded.
5. The bank law referred to is that of 1791. Its constitutionality was the subject of warm discussion in Congress. When it had finally passed both houses, and was submitted to the President, he requested the opinions of the members of the cabinet upon the constitutional question. Mr. Hamilton deemed the law constitutional. An outline of his argument may be seen in 2 Marshall's Washington, Notes, p. 5. Mr. Jefferson's opinion, which he has himself preserved, was adverse to the power of Congress to incorporate a bank. (See 4 Jeff. Mem., 523.) The President, after considerable hesitation, signed the bill. That charter having expired in 1811, Congress then refused, in the Senate by the casting vote of Geo. Clinton, the Vice-President of the United States and President of the Senate, to renew it. In 1815, a bank bill passed both houses of Congress, but encountered the veto of President Madison, on the score of some objectional provisions contained in it. But two years afterwards he gave his sanction to another law for the incorporation of a bank, justifying his disregard of the constitutional objection, which in 1791 he had pressed in Congress with great vigour, upon the ground that he felt himself obliged by the legislative and executive precedents, which had occurred, affirming the constitutionality of such a law. (See his letter to Mr. Ingersoll, post, p. 257, and his veto message of 30th Jan., 1815.)
The question of the validity of the bank law of 1816 was soon brought before the federal Judiciary, and in 1819, in the great case of M'Culloch v. The Staff of Maryland, 4 Wheat., 316, the Supreme Court pronounced, by the mouth of C. J. Marshall, an unanimous and decided opinion in favour of its constitutionality. The sentiment upon the subject was not thereby quieted, however. Judge Roane, of Virginia, reviewed the judgment of the Supreme Court with freedom and ability, in a series of articles first published in the Richmond Enquirer, in June, 1819, under the signature of "Hampden," and amongst the people, the dissentients were numerous and influential. It was discussed also, along with several other constitutional questions, with his usual acuteness, by Mr. John Taylor of Caroline, in a work called "Construction Construed," which deserves more readers than, by reason of its peculiarity of style, it has had, or is likely to have.
In July, 1832, President Jackson vetoed a bill renewing the charter of the bank for fifteen years from 1836, resting his objections in part upon constitutional grounds, and in part upon the danger to the institutions of the country from so large a moneyed corporation. A similar fate, at the hands of President Tyler, befell two other laws to incorporate a national bank in August and September, 1841.
6. The act of Congress, of 5th June, 1794, imposing a tax on carriages for the conveyance of persons, provoked a degree of opposition, especially in Virginia, the reason of which it is not, at this day, easy to understand. The complaint respecting it was that, although it was a direct tax, yet it was laid uniformly through the states, instead of being apportioned amongst the states, as the Constitution directs, according to population. One Hylton, in Virginia, in order to test the question, refused to enter certain carriages which he acknowledged himself to possess, and an action having been instituted against him, in pursuance of the act, by the District Attorney, in the name of the United States, an agreed case was submitted to the Court, upon which a pro forma judgment was entered against the defendant, and thereupon he obtained a writ of error from the Supreme Court of the United States. That court pronounced the carriage tax not to be a direct tax, within the meaning of the Constitution, and that it was proper, therefore, to make it uniform. Congress, it was argued, possesses the power to tax all subjects of taxation, without limitation, with the exception of a duty on exports. There are two restrictions only, on the exercise of this authority: — 1. All direct taxes must be apportioned; 2. All duties, imposts, and excises must be uniform. If the carriage tax were not a direct tax, within the meaning of the Constitution, nor a duty, impost, or excise, Congress was under no restriction as to the mode of laying it, in which case the tax ought to he uniform. But the Constitution could not have meant by a direct tax, which it orders to be apportioned, one which could not, with any regard to equality of burden, be apportioned, and it the tax on carriages could not be equally apportioned, it was, for that reason, not a direct tax. That it could not be so apportioned was manifest, since the number of carriages in the several states bore no relation to population, and consequently the tax on them might be $10 in one state, and $100 in another. The Court intimated an opinion that a direct tax, in the sense of the Constitution, could mean nothing but a tax on what is inseparably annexed to the soil, or otherwise capable of apportionment, under all circumstances, according to population, such as a tax on lands or persons, including slaves. (Hylton v. U. States, 3 Dall., 171.)
This view seems to have been acquiesced in, and when, in 1813, during the war with Great Britain, it was deemed expedient to resort to extraordinary taxation, a tax on carriages was again imposed according to the rule of uniformity, (4 Laws of United States, 570.)
7. This report on manufactures, by Mr. Hamilton, is an elaborate exposition of the protective policy, in all its economical bearings, with reference especially to certain leading articles, such as fabrics of metals, of flax and hemp, of cotton, of wool, of silk, &c.
The constitutional power of the federal government to apply encouragement to manufactures, he disposes of very summarily, employing a process of reasoning not a little formidable to those who desire to maintain the organization of that government, as one of specific and limited powers. The sentence quoted in the text, however, is somewhat qualified by what follows. "The only qualification," Mr. Hamilton proceeds to observe, "of the generality of the phrase in question which seems to be admissible, is this, that the object to which an appropriation is to be made be general and not local, its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot. No objection ought to arise to this construction from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the general weltare. A power to appropriate money, with this latitude, which 13 granted, too, in express terms, would not carry a power to do any other thing, not authorized by the Constitution, either expressly or by fair implication." (See the Report, — 7 Amer. State Papers, 136.)
The constitutional question involved in protective duties is presented on both sides in 2 Story's Comm. on Const., 429, et seq., and 520, et seq. (See Construction Construed, 203, and Address of Phila. Free-trade Convention of 1831.)
8. This report will be found 20 Am. State Papers, 154. It proposed to establish a society under the patronage of the general government, which should extend its influence through the whole country, and comprehend the extensive object of national improvement, but especially the promotion of agriculture. It was to have been a body corporate, capable of holding a limited amount of property, and was to be composed, in part, of the members of Congress, the judges of the Supreme Court, and the heads of departments.
9. This argument, extending as it does, to governments of general, as well as to those of specified powers, is pressed too far. A state may prescribe what conditions it will to the admission of aliens, and amongst others, the condition which, indeed, may well he understood as implied, of dismissal when their presence becomes disagreeable. (Vattel, B. II. §§ 94, 100, and 101.) Whether the power to prescribe conditions has been conferred, in our system, upon the federal or the state governments, or upon neither, is a different question.
10. As to aliens domiciled in a foreign country, see Vatt. B. I., § 213. As to aliens merely sojourning temporarily, see ib. B. II., § 102.
11. Vatt. B. III., § 63.
12. The idea that reprisals cannot lawfully be made upon persons, or property within the country, and under the faith of its laws, is plainly not necessary to the argument. The proposition that such reprisals are inadmissible is sustained by the authority of Vattel (B. II., § 344, and B. III., § 63,) and others, and is certainly conformable to the general usage of nations. If a state chooses, however, to adopt a less liberal policy, it cannot, for so doing, be reproached with the violation of any principle of international law. (See Martens' Summ. B. VIII., c. ii., § 5. The Boedes-Lust, 5 Bob. Adm'y Rep. 246. Brown v. United States, 8 Cranch, 121.)
13. The argument contained in the report here referred to, (which may be seen 20 Am. State Papers, 181), in vindication of the constitutionality of the alien and sedition laws, is condensed, but able. It will repay the perusal of the diligent student, who desires audire et alteram partem.
14. Montesq, Sp. Law. B. XI. c. 6.
15. The argument that the sedition-act was justified by the common law, and that the common law is part of the law of the Federal Government, is stated at length by Mr. George K. Taylor, in the debate on the resolutions, Ante, p. 133, et seq. See, also, 1 Tuck. Bl. Part I. Appendix, p. 378, n. E.
16. The phrase "cases in law and equity" undoubtedly means cases in law, and cases in equity, and both were made cognizable by the federal judiciary. Whilst, then, there cannot be criminal cases in equity, as the text observes, there may be criminal cases at law, and so the expression in question would include such cases. The reasoning is not much aided by this observation of the text. It is fortunately strong enough with. out it.
17. If this mode of argument were correct, it would in like manner exclude all cases at law, as well of a civil as a criminal nature, for the seventh amendment to the Constitution secures trial by jury in the former, as it had already been secured in the latter, and further declares, that no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. The general argument to prove that the common law is no part of the law of the Federal Government is irrefutable, but the conclusion is not helped by the inferences attempted to be drawn from the phrase "cases in law and equity."
18. In the original resolutions as submitted by Mr. John Taylor, there followed after the word "unconstitutional," the words "and not law, but utterly null, void, and of no force or effect," In the course of the debate, they were stricken out upon motion of Mr. Taylor himself. (See ante, p. 150.) Mr. Madison's explanation of this fact, in his letter to Mr. Everett, (see post. Appendix, p. 256,) is, that although these words were, in fact, but synonymous with "unconstitutional," yet to guard against a misunderstanding of this phrase, as more than declaratory of opinion, the word "unconstitutional" was alone retained as not liable to that danger. This explanation is abundantly supported by the circumstances. Mr. John Taylor had contended that the resolution in question, merely expressed the opinion of the legislature, such as it was competent to it to express, as a necessary concomitant of an attempt to procure an amendment to the Constitution from the other states. (Ante, p. 112-13.) Mr. G. K. Taylor, on the other hand, insisted that the words used, imported not merely an opinion, but a fact, which discharged the people from any submission to the laws thus denounced (ante, p. 140); and then Mr. J. Taylor moved to strike out the words above mentioned.
Part V | Analysis | Resolution & Vote | Randolph Contents | Text Version