Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

lions, and require contributions, such as the | e unshackled tree born spirits of the western It w.»rld was bv no means prepared to submit to. j j Born to believe, and reared under circunrstan- H < es to increase the impression, 'hat they were I t individually, as well as in their collective ca- < o icitv as communities, entitled to all the ad- < v images both natural and political, resulting < from their peculiar providential situations, the i people of the colonies could not by persuasionsji cr threats, he induced to recognize the divine > \ 4 ? of Kings,Princes and Potentates, to dir- . late to them, but fearlessly asserted, and bold- i iv maintamed their right to adopt such form of I government, as to them should apoear most congenial with the circumstances by which i'icy were surrounded, and under which it was both their province and duty to make such choice. From these considerations, showing dearly and distinctly the character of ihe ma terials, which compose their political fabric, I proceed to lay down the following, as the fun damental principles of our present form of go vernment, and shall sustain each, under its proper head. First, That the States are as they were ori ginally intended to be. sovereign and independ ant of each other, and that the Federal Govern ment is their agent. Second, That they are the proper judges of their own rights, as well their infraction, as the inode and measure of redress. I agree fully in opinion with Governor Troup, that sovereignty is indivisible; and that it can exist in but one power at the same time. It musi iherefoie either be in the government, or in the people. If it be m the government, then the people must be subject to the sovereign will, and so far from being freemen, are bond men, f*>r they arc the subjects of the sovereign. If it be in the people, then the government must be subject to the sovereign will of the peo ple, or the attribute of sovereignty is entirely lost. Tne sovereign being the superior, the subject the inferior, it must follow as an irre sistible conclusion that the people who are sovereign, must be superior to the government who are subject to their control. Now, when we approach the Constitution to enquire into (he powers of the federal government, and the rights of the States, we must do so under the acknowledged fact, that the “States are sove reign,” and that the federal government is not; because the powers vested in the State Gov ernments are derivable immediately from the people, and those of the Federal Government from the States; otherwise a total change in the character, genius and objects of the people.who made the declaration of independance, and adopted the articles of confederation must have taken place, at the tune of the adoption of the Federal Constitution; thus presenting th” strange anomdy of a people, maintaining a sanguinary war of seven years duration for principle*. and a successful practical operation of a government of their own choice for twelve prod c ited upon those principles, yielding the whole, without a murmur or an effort made for their preservation. Is it possible that any ra tional mmd can arrive at such a preposterous conclusion? But let us examine whether the Federal Constitution imparts sovereignly to that government, or whom it is reserved, by it to the States. Upon a close inspection of the constitution we find every power which is in tended to be granted by it Io ihe Federal Go vernment, plainly and distinc ly enumerated, and the 17:h clause of the Bth section of the fust article, can alone in (he slightest degree be construed as imparting powers of a general character. Let us see haw far that docs so. “ i'he Congress shall have power to make aH laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all oilier powers vested by this Constitu tion in the government of the United Slates, or tn any department or office thereof.” What is meant hy the “ foregoing powers;” nothing more not less than the powers which are plainly enumerated from the first to the six-eeiub clauses, inclusive, of this same Sth section, of which this is the seventeenth- Wnat is meant by “all other powers ?” No armvi r more satisfactory can be given, than the language iu the clause affords. “ All oth er powers vested by this Constitution in the G v-r unent of the United States, or in anv offi■ i or department 'hereof.” Not all <4n r p >wcrs ac.-oidmg to the constructions or ii>»p/.>cuhaus of the gov< rnmeut of the United State - is hereby meant; but only such powers as uro ” vested bv this constitution’’ in that go ver ment, is tiio plain import of tho clause. Is tins clihish men found to bo general in its character ’ Or does it on tho other hand con- i li'ic the powers of Congress, and ot tho gov ernment ge lerally and the officers thereof, tn the plain simple enumerated grants, con tained in th<* Constitu ion. and m end- d as the rub of action «»f each ArancA, department or officer of tho government? In vain have I look- i od for any grant of power in the Constitution, ; vesting Sovereignty in the United States, jhe ! term “ sovereignty.” cannot tie found from the ! first to the list svlable in it- The power can only he contended for, therefore, by construc tion or implication, which it the foregoing po sitions are correct, tnu-t he a high handed and dangerous assumption r»f authority, nn the p.iH of the government, unknown to the constitu lion, and violative of the reserved rights of the S'.ites, and of the penpie. But to make the s " |c<-i, ts possible, still more clear, the 10th • mendmen’ to the constitution declare-'. that ■“uh powers not delegated to the United! States b* the constitution, nor prohibited by 11 j to the states, are reserved to the States re- I spectivelv, or to the people.’’ .Now no person udi d-t.y'hat sovereignty h t power and an essetitu! one too, tn the formation of any kind ! ol government. if therefore it cannot be l found by a positive grant in ihc Cons itution. I to he vested in the Gem ral Government, and ' its mdiv«du«lity of character, prombits Mi oih-, er Haims to ih»- participation in o by tha* gov- ‘ •rnment, as has already been eh wn it f.<M (> . - 1 •s a proposition too plain to he d -p red, »hai I jt must bs among the powers reee’vvd t' '*'e ♦: states; or rather an original, essential funda mental power,of right, belonging to tile people, from whom all other powers or delegated au thority flows, whether vested in the govern ment of the States of whten they are citizens, or of the United States in their confederated character. Sovereignty is a paramount power superior to all other powers whatever, and sig nifies the head or source of all other powers; lit must therefore be rationally looked fur as I residing in whatever source the power which ■ is about to be exercised, (be it what it may) or iginally emenated. If this position is denied, j you then take from the Sovereign of the Uni verse, one of his essential attributes, which belnngeth to him as the Creator of all things. And the analogy holds good in the present in stance; for as every power, whether of a posi tive,or of an implied or constructive character, if you please, that the Genera! Government possesses, has eminated from the States, and the people of the States, it follows as clearly as any demonstration can be laid down, that the States through the people, must be in pos session of the original fundamental principle, which alone could justify the exercise of such high authority, as that God himself, .being the Creator of all things, is entitled to sovereignty as a divine attribute. Let us see how far the States are indepen dent of each other. It must bo borne in mind, that at the time of the change of policy of the Crown and Parliament, with respect to the Colonies, that the charter which had been pre viously granted to each, was unconnected with, and entirely independent of the others; and that the league which through necessity, ■was formed between them lor their common defence against the usurpations of the mother country, recognised them as they had origin ally existed, entirely independent of each oth- •; er, but for the purpose of ’hat league. What gave rise to the necessity of forming this league ? A similarity of wrongs, eminating from the same power, which had assumed an unauthorised, and unnatural control over the affairs of the whole, thereby violating in the same acts, the right of each Colony in its in dividual capacity,. Nor does the fact, that the Colonies did unite for the purpose of com- i mon defence, prove that they altered in the slightest degree, their individuality of charac ter, further than the objects contemplated by the league; for it cannot be denied; that under their charters from the crown, they had the right to enter into this league, or not, as each of them though t proper; or can it bo contend ed, that a majority of the whole having revol ted, the balance were compelled to follow their example, and violate their primitive allegiance to the Crown. It is evident therefore, that the action of the Colonies in the formation of the league for their common defence, was vo luntary, and the result of their individual choice; consequently binding on each, no far ther than the objects plainly, and unequivocal ly contemplated by, and set forth in the in strument, which was the evidence of the league between them. If we take the Declarationrof Independence as the instrument which shall de termine the character of the Colonies at that period, the plain import of that instrument will fully bear me out in this view of the sub ject; for if the object of the Colonies was the preservation of their “ undeniable rights,” among which “ are life, liberty, and the pur suit of happiness,” they never could have con templated the absurdity of vesting others with authority, which the instrument itself was in tended, and docs so positively deny to the mother country, with whom they were then contending, and for this very power. And it would be a gross perversion of plain substan tial facts, to say that the rupture between the Colonies and the mother country, was predi cated upon the asserted rig-Afof the former tn judge o]f their own rights, and a positivedenial to them to do so by the la’tor. If we go far ther and resort to the articles of confederation as a test of the design of the original league between the Colonies, we find the same princi ples recognised therein; for that instrument docs most plainly and distinctly, m the most cautious ind guarded manner, set forth the powers tho States intended should ho exercis ed by the government then contemplated to be formed, and most positively declared their own sovereignty, in the following words : “ Each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdic tion and right, which is not by this confedera tion expressly delegated to the United States, lin Congress assembled.” Here then we find that both the Declaration of Independance, and the aruc|es< f confederation, go to show , that it wa* the intention of the Colonies, and ,th<* or.gmal thirteen States to preserve their I individual vharicter as “independent sove reignties,” and 'hat they intended to part with no power who ever, beyond such positive I grants as are plainly dcduceable Irorn tho writ j tei agreement whi h may a’, the diffirent peri ods of their existence as “ independant sove reignties,” he the bond between them. It i i must be recollected tha- the states were con- I - federated, and operating under i political Fc- - > deraZ Government, predicated upon the above I principles, at'the tune the Convention was cal- j t led to form the present Constitution. How was that convention formed ? By the will’of the ! ' government, then known as the federel gov-' 1 ernment, or by the authority nf tho thirteen States that composed the confederacy ? The ■ answer is plain—that the Convention was the joint agent of the individual States, whoie de legates composed it; and this answer is veri ffied by the last clause of the Constition itself, ! j which is in the following words: “ Done in I Convention hv the unanimous consent of the > Stalespresent, &c.” And the fact that there ; ■ was only twelve of the states present instead 1 I «f thirteen, shows more conclusively, that >i i I • was the voluntary action ot a part of the slates j t ,tn their individual sovereign and not t .»• result of the cons olidated whole. The j f provision m the Consli'uiion also, that the ra- * r ifi Kion of the ven n>n of nine States, ■ i should be eufficteE’ for :ts establishment “ be- ’ <■ tween the states so ratifying the same,” shews j; that each was left to its own ch<u< e with re-i gard to that important matter, ontrammele 1,1 and uninfluenced by the will or action cf the; balance; and that it was a reasonable calcula- I tion, that even some of the states that were | present in jho Convention by the r delegates might not chose to be bound by the proceed ings of those agents, but think proper to adopt some other course. Could they have been I prevented in such a choice? Surely not. And 1 had one or more ol them been displeased with ; the. provisions of the Constitution (as was the ‘ fact with North Carolina) the dissentients could j have set up forthemselves, conjointly, or indi- j viduafly, as to each of them appeared right and ' proper. Here then is the period, and m.der the circumstances herein detailed, that it is ab surdly contended, that tne States merged iheir individual characters tn a general consolida tion of the whole, by becoming parties to the constitution. No proposition can be better established, than, that the constitution after being ratified by the States, became the crea ture of the states so ratifying it. If so, would it not be a strange perversion of things, tor the Creator to voluntarily submit itself m the en tire will and ahsol ite control of thecreature? Or would it not be more consistent with the nature of the circumstances connected with the origin, and proceedings of the Colonies and the states, up to this period, to suppose that it was the design of the Convention that formed the Constitution, and of the states that ratified it, that the same fundamental princi ples set forth in the declaration of indepen dence, and which constitutes the basis of the articles of confederation, should be the main pillars of the government they were about to adopt. I cannot believe that any other than jan affirmative answer can be given to these questions. It is therefore a clear deduction from all the facts and circumstances connect ed with the Union of the Stites, that they are now, as they originally were, sepe.rate and dis tinct sovereignties, entirely independent of each other in all respects except for the pur poses of the league they have formed; and that the Constitution is the bond of that league, and can have no binding infl euce on the parties to it, further than its plain, unequivocal provis ions require. The Federal Government is the Agent of the States. Wc must bear in mind this fact, that the government of a state, is the primary gov ernment to which the people look for immedi ate protection in their persons and property Each citizen having a direct exercise of sove reign power in its Creator, imparts to it a con current exercise of the .same power, so far as the rights of 'he whole community are con cerned, reserving to himself all the natural and inherent rights over which the government can have no control. Thus far and in his sense, the government of a s.aie is sovereign; be cause it is the instrument by which die essen tial power constituting sovereigntv. is carried .into effect, to wit : the will ofthe people. Ve ry diffrent from this, is the huracter of the Federal Government- That is, not like u stale government, reated by the people, but derives ns existence, a id all its authority Io act, from tho government of the stales, in their political character', consequently could not de rive from the states, a power which was not inherent tn them, and <d course such an one as they could not impart—the sovereignty possessed bv i stale bung n delegated power and al all tunes, to the coiv oul of ih. people. Each stale, however, yoss ssinga concurrent exercise of >uvere guv wit a ibe peord . so far asthege> ratin e « . .ft i -cr.iz-ti* are con cerned, Were c iiii ui to confederate, and to form a league, for bei'er accomplishment of certain objects .Inch n<.je« t- must not, and cannot exee luneed < nnrurrent ex ercise of soverei. 1 i , a.«r v.-sied ui >hc gov ernments of the -by th people. There fore this co ifedemtt • i or league, forms an agency for specific p i - »sea. d. nv ng its whole authority from the sta e , vlnch have crea-ed it under their delegated au'.’i r;iv .< >m the ->■<»- pie, to do tor them cojou-'ty, certain things, which they could not do so .c|| for themselves in their mdividn il capacity ________ [Concluded next taeet.J From the Huntsville .'v. wcrat. , LETTER IV. ■ j To the People of the L niti .. tates. ■ On the viol >lton by a majority ot it. Senate of the. constitutional rights »cuet the i 're.ri- I I dent, as well as us the plaints' . inciples of common just ce and propriety. Countrymen : Ihe President of he Uni cc br:in» elected by you through el ctor- . !ir-<-t I representative, and ivspunsib! He is also liable to impea> hmem i . rimes and misdemeanors.” I Tile members of the II ■ senia- i lives are also your direct r< and j responsible to you atone. J Vou taken particular < > ~>m: out in what mode your represcuta i, n G.e Ex ecutive Chair shall be subjected tr,<- addi tional responsibility of impeachment, ’ . e-clar ; mg that no other public functionary th at your immediate representatives, shall bavt i light to I bring nn accusal-on against him. In vour con stitution yon sav, that the House - fl. iip-.cn tatives "shall have the SOLE power of im peachment.” 1-is is certainly hs explicit in relation to the point m controversy as if i had read, "the Senate shaft .Vol have the p acer of i impeachment.” Now, what co'.ld have been your nlje<-tin providing that the House of Represeri aiives shall, and that the Senate shall not have the power of impeachment ? Was it not to reserve to yourselves throng ( vour immediate represen tatives. ffte power zo pass in the first instance upon the conduct of y OU r President > Was it not to throw be: ween him, and unjust accusers from any other quarter the shield of your direct representatives I Was it rmi <o prevent his Oemg officially charged even wi h viola mg the ‘•onetituuon and laws, unless you, or a major i- fy °f y tj ur representatives, first think him guilty? 11 Has no’ the President a right in the benefit j of this shield ? Are not the members of the House of Representatives, representing a ma-j hority of the People, his SOLE constitutional i accusers ? • | An affirmative is the only answer which can j be given. But in the proceedings of the Sen- i ate, he is deprived of this constitutional pro- I j tection. It is not the Representatives of a i ' majority of the. people who impeach him : hut , ; it is the Representatives of a majority oj the ; Slates. It is not men who are directly res- j j possible to the People—his constituents as ’ ; well as iheir own—that venture to accuse him. ! —bin men who are responsible only to the ! States. By the constitution, he can be accus- i ed only by a majority of the People; in this case, ihe principle is assumed, that be may be accused by a majority of the Slates. To be deprived of his right to have his conduct pas sed upon in the first instance by a majority of the People, is a sufficient outrage upon hiscon stitutional rights; but he has not had the pro tection which even a majority of the States would have given him. Uessrs Sprague, Southard, Frelinghuysen, and Ewing, were directly instructed by their States to vote in support of the acts tney have condemned; and their votes, independent of those of Messrs. Bell, Robbins, Knight, Black, Poindexter, &c. who equally misrepresented their respective States, would have thrown the majority against the resolution. Not only, therefore, was the President deprived of his constitutional shield against unjust official accusations, but even of that furnished him by the very States whose Representatives in the Senate have assumed the power to denounce him! The Senators usurp a power which belongs to the popular branch of the Legislature; and in the exercise of that usurped power, openly set at naught the will of the States they pretend to represent! Here is a double usurpation ? But ’.he most shocking part of this usurpa tion is, ihat the judges turn accusers and pros ecutors; disregard all the forms of judicial pro ceedings. try ivilhout evidence, and condemn ivilhout a hearing. The Convention which formed our Consti tution, first resolved that the power ol trying impeachments should be vested in the Supreme Court. In the first draft of a Constitution reported in pursuance of their resolves, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was declared to extend “/o the trial of impeachments of officers of the United Stales;” and in the same paper it was provided, that the President, “sZta/Z Ae removed from his office on impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction in the Supreme Court of treason, bribery, or curruplioH.” if the Constitution had been adopted in this shape what would v>m have thought of the judges of the Supreme Court, if without any accusalion from the House of Representatives, they had spent the whole of their late term in discussing among themselves a resolution that the Presi dent had committed violations of the Constitu tion and laws, for which he ought to be im peached, and finally adopted and entered it in perpetual memorial upon their records ? Would not all America have risen up as one man and declared them usurpers? Would they not have been told, that the People have reserved to themselves, through their immediate represen tatives, tho sole right of bringing accusations for impeachable offences, against theii* Presi dent, and that it is enough forjudges to try lhe case when it comes constitutionally before them ? A majority ofthe Senators have placed them selves in just such an attitude. In the final draft ofthe constitution, the power to try im peachments was transferred from 'he Supreme Court to them. They are made judges, in all such cases, as entirely as tho members of the Supreme Court would tiavo been ts tho original plan h id been adopted. fl the President has “assumed powers not conferred upon him by the constitution and laws, but in derogation of both, as declared in the resolution ofthe Senate, it will not be de ni' d that he has committed an impeachable offence. Mr. Hopkinson, on the impeach ment of Judge Chase, said; “?\ misdemeanor, or a crime, for in their just and proper signifi cation thev are synonymous, is an act commit ted, or omitted, in the violation of a public law, either forbiding or commanding it ” If there ; was any reason to believe tha- the President j hud committed such an act, the penally for which is removal from office, and a disquali , fi< ation to hold anv office of honor, trust, or j profit, under the United States, his conslitu ; tional judges were certainly not the first who j ought to have become his accusers. No prin | ciple is more sacred in a free Government, and ■ among honest men in all Governments, than j that the citizen or subject who may be charged with crime, shall bo tried bv an impartial tri butial. In our system of jurisprudence, so caret.div is this right of lhe accused secured, 'hat no man who has made up or expressed an opinion upon the case, is permitted to act as a juror. Proof of anv bias or previous expres sion of opinion, i« good ground for setting aside a verdict ofgmhy. >'y Countrymen—See how this sacred principle is outraged in the case of yo ir Pres ident! The Senators are the jurors to riy him. It was notenoughthat Mr. Calhoun, one of Ins jurors, was his deadly enemy, and has been long laboring to destroy him. It was not enough that .Mi. Preston another of his jurors, had denounced mm, as “a toothless tiger,” and a tvraiit of the blackes' dve, when nullification I was brandishing its itnpo'ent sword io South ' Carolina It was not enough that Mr. Clay, I another <*f Ins jurors, was so eager, to destroy him lhai he would desolate his country with i “war, pestilence, and famine, or any other I scourge,” for that p rpnse II was not enough ! that Mr. Southard, another, of his jurors, en- I tertained the most dead'v malignity towards!, tom. which overle p- all the bounds of truth I and justice to tarnish his fame. But these, i and thetr kindred ?pir:ts, must get uo a dtscus- sioniii their jury box, without waiting for an ac cusation, or hearing a worn of testimony, and pronounce him guilty before trial ! Is thisjus tice or law, in this free country’? Would not jurymen who should so conduct themselves, bo followed by public execrations, long and loud, if even they escaped ihe vengeance of just lawe. It is vain for Senators to say they did not condemn the President in the character of Judges. “ Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots?” If a man were to take part in a bar-room meeting, condemning a fell ‘W-citizen who was about to be put upon trial in court, and being afterwards called in ass a juror to trv him. were to say “/ shall be a most impartial Jur>r— l only abused and con demned Ihe accused io another capacity,” would he not be justly driven out of court as a malignant wretch seeking not for justice; but, for vengeance? Just such triers of the Presi dent would a majority nf the Senate nowbe. Nothing is wanting to make plain the atrocity of their conduci, but to imagine that the faith ful old soldier, hero, and statesman, is arraign ed before them for trial on an impeachment by the House of Representatives, and that Mes srs. Calhoun, Clay, Preston, Southard, Poin dexter, and their compeers, are standing with their hands upon the book, taking a solemn oath before Almighty God, impartially to try him! Shade of Washington ! would not a pang reach thee in Heaven at having consented to body a Court for the trial of impeach ments! I There is another point upon which the con stitutional rights of the accused have been grossly outraged. It is provided in the con stitution, that no public officer shall be found guilty of an impeachable offence without the concurrence of two thirds of the Senators pre sent. Yet your President has been found guil ty by a vote of less than two-thirds. There were forty-six present : it would have required thirty-one to convict by the constitution; yet is he found guilty upon tne vote ot twenty six. If an impeachment had been presented by iha House of Representatives, and after full trial, the vote had been twenty-six to twenty, the Pre sident would have been acquitted’, but accused and prosecuted by his judges, without notice to defend, he is condemned by a vote which lhe constitution declares to be an acquittal, and stands forever denounced upon the records of the Senate. Could there be usurpation more palpable, or tyranny more hateful? So it said that tho removal from office and the disqualification which follow conviction upon a constitutional impeachment, do not flow from this proceeding? If his good name be taken from him, what does Andrew Jack son care for office ? His hones! fame is all he lives for. I was one of those who vi-ited and congratulated him when he entered upon his second term of service; and on alluding to that as the first day of that term, he exclaimed, with the utmost fervor, “Would to God it were ths last.” Instead of tho restless ambition which urges on his accusers, he looks to the 4th of March, 1837, as the day of his deliverance from an arduous service in'’which he has no motive to stimulate him hut love of country and of fame. If malignant Senators defeat his exertions for his country and tarnish the fame he cherishes, they will have inflicted all the pains and penalties of a conviction upon irn • peachment which he regards. Sooner than lose all ho thus cherishes, ho would cheerfully I hare his ho mm to the assassin, or lay his head upon the block. If his countryman and the world can be made to believe what tho Senate have declared, his punishment will indeed be j felt bv him as worse than removal, disqualifi cation, and death itself. Will a free People tolerate this usurpation of their own power, and that of their Representa tives bv Senators who even deny their obliga tion to represent the will of their respective States? Will they permit their President to be condemned, without trial, bv the irrespon sible instruments of a moneyed corporation 1 Impossible. I shall endeavor in my next, to give a true history of the 'Treasury of the U. States, with the view of showing that the Bank Senators are striving to usurp Executive power, for the benefit of the corporation thev represent. JEFFERSON. The following are the resolutions offered by the Committee appointed by the House of Repre* sentatives to investigate the affairs of the Bank of the United States. 1. Resolved, That by the charterer the Bank of the United States, tho right was expressly reserved to cither Hqusq of Congress, by the appointment of a committee, to inspect tho books, and lo examine into tho proceedings, of the said Bank, as well as to ascertain if at any time it had violated its charter. 2. Resolved. That tho resolution of the* House of Represeniativ es, passed on the 4th of April, 1834, for the appointment of a com— i mittee, with full powers to make the investi gations embraced in said resolution, was in ac cordance with lhe provisions of tho charter of said Bank and the power of this House. 3. Resolved, That the President and Board of Directors of the Bank of the United States, by refusing to submit for inspection, the hooks and papers of the Bank, as called for by tho committee of the House of Representatives, have contemned the legitimate authority of the House, asserting for themselv *s powers and privileges not cuniemphted by the framers of 'heir charter, nor in fairness deducible from any of the terms or provisions of that inslru ! merit. 4. Resolved, That either House of Congress has ihe right to compel the production of any ■such books or papers as have been called f or by their committee, and also to compel sa?d President aad D.rectors to testify to such in terrogatories as were necessary to a full and perfect understanding of the proceeding of tho Bank at any period within tho term of its ex istence. 5. Resolved, That tho Speaker of this House