Newspaper Page Text
iaaj.ii
VOL. I.
M1LLEDGEVILLE, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 26, 1820.
No. 46.
PUBLISHED WEEKLY,
(on TUF.'BUXT*}
TJY S. GRA YriJUYDti H. M. ORME,
vr TUREK DOLLARS, IN ADVANCE, OR FOUR
HOLLARS AT THE IXriRATION OF THE
TEAR.
ID* Advertisements conspicuously inserted at
Uie customary rales.
CONGRESSIONAL PROCEEDINGS.
Tuesday, Dec. 5.
LY THE SEMITE.
Mr. Harbour, Iroui the committee to
whom was referred the petition of Mat-
Vhewr Lyon, delivered a Report, conclu
ding with the following resolutions :
Resolved, That *r> much of the act en
titled an net for the punishment of cer
tain crimes against the United States,
approved the 14th July, 171)3, as pre-
t nds to prescribe and punish libel', is
unconstitutional.
jiesolved, That the tines collected un
der that act ought to be restored to those
from whom they were exacted ; and
that these resolutions lie recommitted to
the committee whobrought them in, with
instructions to report a bill to that ef
fect.
The report was read, and ordered to
be printed.
Tuesday, Dec. 5.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
On motion of Mr. Storrs, it was
Resolved, That the Secretary of the
Treasury Department he directed to
communicate to this House the latest re
turn made to that Department of the ge
neral statement of the Bank of the Unit
ed States and its oflices of discount and
deposito.
On motion of Mr. Simkint, it was
Resolved, That the Secretory of War
be requested to lay before this Houie a
particular statement of the expenses ol
the army of the United States, from the
end of the lale »var till the present year,
including the estimates for 1821, desig
nating the expenditures in each branch
ofthe army for each year, with such ex- 1
planations as may be necessary to render
the statement clear and explicit. Also,
that he lay before, this House the amount
of balances, if any have accrued, in each
year, from the moneys appropriated for
the support of the army ; in what w»y
»uCh balances have accrued, and how
they have been disposed of or appropri
ated. ■" .
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION
The House then, on motion of Mrj
Smith, of N. C. resumed the consider^
tion of the resolution proposing an ai
inendmcnt to the Constitution, in relaiios
to the election of Electors of President
and Vice President of the United States
vnd Members ofthe House ofRopreseu-i
tatives.
Mr. Reid, of Geo. rose in opposition
to the resolution, and, in a speech ol
near an hour, submitted bis views ofthe
impolicy of amendiug the Constitution in
clock to-morrow he should move a call
of the House.
Wednesday, Dec. 0.
MISSOURI.
The House having, on motion of Mr.
Lowndes, resolved itself into a commit
tee ot tlie Whole on the State of the U-
nion, Mr. A'etson, of Va. was called to
the chair.
The resolution declaring the admis
sion ofthe State of Missouri into the U-
nion on an equal footing with the origin
al states, having been read :
Mr. Lowndes rose, and delivered a
speech of nearly two hours in length, of
which the following is a brief sketch. •
The first observations of-Mr. L. were
lost to the reporter, from the confusion
arising from members changing their
scats, &c. When Mr. L's observations
became audible to us, lie was speaking
of (lie difficulty under which lie should
labor, in vvhut lie had to say, from being
obliged to direct his observations to argu
ments not yet urged, and in regard to
which lie must depend upon what he
hail heard in other quarters, and upon
conjecture.
In the outset, he said, he was met by
an objection of a general nature, appli
cable to other cases as well as that now
presented to the House. He could not
doubt, he said, from what he had heard,
that there wera members of tbc House
who con-idered themselves hound, by
the same principles which influenced
them at the last session, to vote at this
session against the resolution declaring
the admission ol Missouri into the Union.
On this point, he addressed himself to
the moderation and good sense of the
House—of those gentlemen particularly
who believed the constitution framed by
Missouri to be inconsistent with the prin
ciples ofour government, to say, wheth
er it was not inconsistent with the char
acter of our government, and o r all go
vernment, that questions once decided
by the legitimate authority of the coun
try should be considered as yet open, or
inconclusive ? Did not such a course of
reasoning lead to the conclusion that
all the acts ofthe government were bind
ing only on the majority who voted for
them ? That all compacts are void, for
example, as to the minority which refir
es to sanction them ? Suppose, in regard
to a debt incurred in carrying on a war,
a party subsequently in power were to
f .y—v.t did not vote for the debt ; we
did not support the war ; we arc not
bound to pay the debt. Would such an
argument be entitled to respect ? Take,
for an example, the debt incurred in the
late war with Great Britain : was it not
essential to the character of the nation
that that debt should be considered ob
ligatory as well upon those who approv
ed, as on those who disapproved, the
purpose for which the debt was contnct-
ed ? And w ore all the members of thii-
and the other house not equally bound by
the act ol the last session respecting Mis
souri ? Whether we ought or not to
iiujiuiH.jr ... .
the feature contemplated, especially bv\ - n t0 (he , e Jf Missouri the
substituting the mode propose y e j power ( 0 f orm constitution and state
resolution.
Mr,
Bnd we,,t f .. .
large, of the expediency of the ament - ^ ( j 0 so w . ag gj V cn by Congress. The
meut contemplated by the resolution. jeonstitution was formed, and C ongre.ss
Mr. Barbour, of Virginia, followed,! re now declare that it was
and went into a general argument against V For lti mself, Mr. U. went on to say,
the proposed amendment of the Consti-j^ be j ieve{ j thnt the law ofthe last sos
tution.
luiing mo u.wub ~ j (power to lorm a constitution and state
,t ' 0D- ht u government, we have given it. Wbeth-
. Smith, of N. C. replied to r. »L f or K0 ( we individually wished Mia-
rent into a defence, consideiab y U'j g()ur j j 0 f Hrm a constitution, the author!-
admitted State, at that moment acquired
rights which it is not competent for the
legislature of (his country—which it is
not competent, upon the principles which
we hold sacred, for any Legislature un
der Heaven to divest them of.
Before he procoedeAfurther to refer
to the practice offormW times, Mr. L.
said he would notice an argument which
he had heard suggested, which was in
some degree a verbal one. It is said
that the words of the law in regard to the
admission of Missouri are prospective ;
that the Constitution says that Congress
may admit new slates into the Union ;
that no authority hut Congress can ad
mit them ; that Congress bus not admitt
ed Missouri into the Union ; and that it
is necessary she should now address
Congress and obtain its consent to her
coining into the Union. It is true, Mr.
L. said, that the law provides that Mis
souri “ shall” be admitted ; that is, pros
pectively as to the date of the law. It
is true, also, that new States ran be ad
mitted into the Union only by Congress.
But that admission may he from the time
the law passes, or on the performance
of a condition, whatever that condition
maybe. There was nothing, Mr. L.
argued, in the law ofthe last session,to
show that the act of admission was not
complete on the part of Congress when
that law passed, although it did refer to a
future time. That this was a just con
struction of the matter, lie said, wa« ob
vious by a referrencc to former exam
ples. In the case of Kentucky, for ex
ample, her admission into the Union was
deferred, by iha art of Congress autho
rizing it, lie did not know how many
months, but more than a year after the
passage of the act. Nothing more was
necessary, alter the passage of the net
for the admission of Missouri, limn a
lapse of time sufficient for the determi
nation of the People to be ascertained,
whether they chose to form a constitu
tion or not.
But his strongest argument, Mr. L. said
he was aware, m iff he derived from the
course pursued by Congress in lonner
times. He disclaimed any particular
devotion to precedent ; but, in a time
when parties were as firmly marshalled
as they were on this subject at the last
session ; when tlie true import of the
constitution was contested by nearly li
quid parties on this floor ; when geogra
phical lines were observable in the divi
sion of opinion, it was wise, it was be
coming, to look'to what had been the
practice in former times, when no caus
es existed so likely to disturb and mis
lead the sober judgment. Every man
ought to examine the records ol those
days, and rather lean to a decision con
sistent with them.
Referring, then, for illustration, to the
cuke of Ohio, after she had formed a con
stitution and sta'e government although
no resolution had passed declaring her
admission into the Union, it became ne
cessary to pass a law to extend over her
territory the jurisdiction ofthe courts of
the United Slates, an 1 the preamble to
that law recites that the people did, on a j act, all the rights which the oldest and
ceitain day, form a constitution and state ['corniest stales ot the Union arc suppo-
governinvnf, and give a nnaic, whereby »ed to possess. U hen that act w as ua-
the said state has become one of the United | dor consideration, it appears Dv the
.ion. , , lion gave Missouri a right to form a con-
Mr. Lowndes, of S. G. advocated^Jhe Lj tul|on ; a ml that, having done so, she
k now astute.
, If we look at the course which Con-
jress has pursued hitherto, it will be
ound that, on elevating territories from
111 I* iJUUrIVUlO) •
resolution, and replied, at some length,
to the argument ot Messrs. Reid, and
Barbour. ,
Mr. Rhea, of Tennessee, spoke a short
lime against the resolution.
The question was then taken on or
dering the resolution to be engrossed and
read a third time, and was decided in the
affirmative, by yeas and nays, as follows ;
For the resolution, 1,,J
Against it, , 59
The Speaker announced that the ques
tion was decided in the affirmative, and,
demanding when it was the pleasure of
the House to have the resolution read a
third time—
Some discussion arose on the question
whether, as the constitution required
that such a proposition should be sup
ported by two-thirds of both Houses to
enable it to pass, a less number than two-
thirds could order the resolution to a
third reading. Two thirds of the House
not having voted for a third reading of
the resolution, Mr. Cobb made the point
of order, and Messrs. Culpepper, Lown
des, Smith, of Maryland, Rhea, and Liver-
lb., the rules
and practice of the House recognized
the principle that two-thirds ofthe votes
were required on the>al passage ot a
resolution proposing to amend the con
stitution ; but that any intermediate
question might be carried by a m ‘’J l .
ofthe House. No appeal being taken from
the decision of the Speaker ;
The resolution was ordered to be read
a third time to-morrow
To obtain a full vote on the passage
of this resolution, which Mr. Stmkins
deemed of high importance, being no
he grade and dependence of a territori-
1 government, Congress has done no
aore than emancipate them from its con-
rol. On doing this, said Air. L. you
|ave reserved nothing like ari authority
0 remand them to their colonial condi-
ion. You have determined, in each
[ase, bv the act of allowing the territory
b form a constitution, that, for certain
inrposcs, she is an independent state.—
n the act of the last session, it would lie
mntl, on referring to it, there was no
ilTerence between the mode of Irgisla-
ion in Missouri, and that which had oc-
urredin regard tothc oldest ol the States
(knitted into the Union. Comparing
[vat act w ith ether acts for the admission
fStates.it would be found to confer the
une powers and impose the same res
ections. It was impossible to distin-
iiish, in any manner, between the jiow-
r which has bevn given to Missouri and
(at which had, in like circumstances,
feen granted to the oldest of the new
ntes. Mr. L. went on to quote the cases
; admission of States into the Union.—
e referred to that of Ohio. The act
r her admission was couched in the
badest terms, requiring the Conven-
jn, as usual, first to determine the ques-
in whether it was expedient to form a
institution. Although the mere act
t the admission of a territory into the
lion does not make her a state, inas-
ich ns her acceptance of the offer is
quired, yet, at the moment that she
i dares that it is expedient to forma
their constitutions to Congress, had uni
formly been held valid, tv ho are Sen
ators ? They are deputed by the states
composing the Union to represent them
in Congress. If Slulcs only can vote for
Senators, the uniform practice of recog
nizing all such elections as arc subse
quent to the adoption of a constitution,
is conclusive enough that they u ho chose
them were already in the condition of
states. In the case of Kentucky, indeed,
without any declaratory resolution, with
out any thing like a formal acknowledg
ment of her being a state, but by virtue
of an act declaring, prospectively, that
when she had formed a constitution she
was admitted without further legislation.
In the case of Indiana, there was a yet
more formal and iMlhoritative exposition
of the principle lor which Mr. L. con
tended. In the case of Indiana, the prac
tice of a declaration of admission first oc
curred, which had been since followed
in other cases. Properly viewed, that
declaration, Air. L. sail!, was only a form
of notification to the other states—u
proclamation by Congress to the Union,
of the admission of another state into ilia
family. That such was the light in
wliicli it was \iewed on tiiis first occasion
on which it was employed, was evident
from the fact, that the. resolution of dec
laration passed on the 11 III December,
1 OH), nail the representative from the
state was admitted to his seat oa the 2d
December, nine days preceding : so that
it was evident the declaratory resolution
was then regarded as a matter of farm,
and notification merely. But there was
still stronger proof, in the case of Indi
ana, of his position In counting the
votes for President and Vice President
a few days after the above date, those of
Indiana, gi ven before the passage of the
declaratory resolution, were received
and counted. If a people may rightfully
and cron without objection, elect a Go
vernor, Legislature, and Judges—rnuv
elect and send to Congress Senators and
Representative, and, finally, may vote
for President and Vice President—up
on what prthciple will it he said that a
People, enjoying and exercising all these
lights, arc not a state ; or that to consti
tute I hem . i state, requires (he further
interposition of this Uo ise ? He could
not admit it, lie repeated.
These observations. Mr. L. said, h.
had made with a view to shew how little
foundation there was for an opinion
which lie had understood was not un
common, 1 ’tliot the ,ct of the last session
was merely a suggestion to the People ol
.Missouri, that they might form a cousti
tution if it pleased them, and that, it
that Constitution met the approbation
of the Congress of the United States til
their next session, they should thou be
admitted into the Union.
Another circumstance, Mr. L. sai
shewed, beyond dispute, that it was not
intended by this House, in‘passing the
act ofthe lust session, merely to give
authority to the p> ople of Missouri to
propose a Constitution, hut that it Was
intended to confer on Missouri. l>v that
States—that i-, by the act of forming a
constitution. And such, Mr. L. said,
was the principle on which the United
States had always acted. But, he said,
the preamble was interesting, not only
because it confirmed his argument in the
main, but also marked the time and cir
cumstance win :h, in the opinion of Con
gress at that time, made a people a state,
viz. the day on which a constitution U
formed, and the act of forming it.
The proof afforded bv other prece
dents, however. that a people became a
state on forming a constitution under the
authority uf Congress, was still 1
quivocal than that w hich had been
Journal of this House, thai a motion w as
made by Air. Taylor to amend the hill
bv striking out these won 1 - And the
said state, when formed, shall tie admitt
ed ioio the Union upon an equal fooling
with the original states, in nil respects
w hatever and inserting ip hen thereof
tiio-e which follow ; “ And if the same
(that is the Constitution,) ifliuii he appro
ved by Congress, the said territory shall
hi; admitted' into the Union as a state, up
on the same llnding a- the original states”
—the difference being Cut, in the lull
as it sio d, (the act as it now Stands,)
s e-1 we made, tier a State—and in the other
tod.!"o were to give tier, nulhoiity to form a
in cverv instance,and, as far a« he knew, jConstitution, u.! . uve our approbation
without an attempt nt resistance, when to he n condition of its final admission,
ever such a constitution has been form-; A very large m only, (1 ~.» to 40) c-
ed by a territory, they have not only j ven at that tim ; • on., excitement and
been considered a state, lint the elec- I nearly equal th . i ; . <4 opinion with res-
tions which they have nude >md< r iheii
constitution have been held to he good.
If, by the art of forming a constitution,
they have not become indc|fi nlent status,
how has U happened that, without a sin
gle exception, they have elected their
own governors, judges. &c. and their
acts have been constitutional ami valid ?
Can it be said of oil these cases, that
Congress, knowing these territorial peo
ple had usurped the powers of states,
would have silently submitted 4o it ?—
Their having done so was the strongest
proof that every one of these states had,
in the opinion of Congress, of the state
governments, and of tho people, the
powers which they exercised
peel to the restricti'.n, voted in live m-
guiivc.
t he substance of Mr. L's argument
then was lie s.u I. (hat, hy the act author
izing the people ofAIissouri to forma
Constitution and St it" Government, cer
tain rights were given to them ; hy the
former practice ofthe Government, he
tiati endeavored to shew that the mere
circumstance of assenting t« the proposi
tion of Congress was enough to constitute
the people a sta'e, the act of dcclartion,
now proposed to the House, being mere
surplusage. Missouri had, then, a right,
to form a government absolutely and ina
lienably. If she hail not now the rights
of a state, let it be show n how she had
Mr. L. said lie knew there were per- lost them. It is contrary to the princi
ples of the Constitution, contrary to the
genius of our government, that having
mica giv cn them the right of self-govern
ment, Congress cau now take a from
them.
I Consiilpt ing this question as settled,
the next important question was, wheth
er the constitution formed by tnc state
sons wiio believed that the people of Mis
souri territory do not become a state,
until, by an act posterior to the forma
tion of their constitution, Congress de
clares their admission. Air. L. said he
could not admit this. It was disproved
by the uniform language of precedents.
uln> , The acquiescence of Congress in their _
nstitution at that precise moment! elections of Senators and Representative * of Missiouri becomes void hy the ndmis-
deemed of high importance, 1 • a „ |ho rights of a state—I to Congress disproved it. These elec- 1 sion into it of a clause not compatible
less than a proposition to amen ie peoplo of Missouri* as of every other! tions, held previous to the submission ofi with the constitution ol the L. States, ad
ititution, he gave notice tnaiai one ° if r «
mitt ing, for the sake of argument, thnt
such is the fact.
Whether that particular clause ofthe
constitution, to w hich exception was un
derstood to he taken, was constitutional
or not, the interest ofthe nation, justice
to Missouri, and respect for itself, re
quired that the house should not under
take to decide. In taking this ground,
Air. L. Mtid he knew lie should be con
sidered by some as evading ttie perfor
mance; of a duty which, in the present
case, they supposed to be devolved on
this house. On this account, Mr. L. said,
he should attempt to show tliut no dutv
devolved on this house to express uu o-
piniou with respect to that clause ; and
intimated that he could show, were it ne
cessary, that similar provisions were
contained in various acts ofthe U. States,
to which exception had been taken in
neither house. The clause of the Alis-
souri constitution to which lie referred,
iv as that requiting the Legislature to pass
i.vs to prohibit the settlement of free
negroes in the State, which was suppo
sed to conflict with (he provision-of the
constitution of the United States which*
provides that “ the citizens of each state
shall he entitled to all tho privileges an I
immunities of citizens in the several
states.” Mr. L. here .vent into an argu
ment of some detail, tin* amount of tv hi- b
was, that, as to numbers, it ven largo
majority ofthe free black* in the United
States were not considered ciiisons in
their respect iv o state* ; auJ that, in con
struing any general provision of u con
stitution, it was fair to const tor it as hav
ing a general application, and not as be
ing without exceptions. In any view,
there could be nothing more dear than
that, if the objected provision was capa
ble of a construction which would recon
cile it with the constitution, it ought to
receive that consti*u"tion. For example,
in this case of ''li-souri, he thought i'
■night he quite f ir lo sav that that pro
vision respecting free people of color
must be construed liberally, as intending
to exempt from its operation such of
them as were citizens in other states,
However this might lie,. - he contended,
is. the committee hat! laid it down in
their report, that it was a question not
for this house, but for a different tribu-
nul, to determine.
But Mr. L said there wore many who
object to this course—the course pursu
ed in nil other cases—who allow that the
judiciary could, with morn ease, cer
tainty, uniformity, and effect, expound
constitutional law, hut contend that we
must decide whether the provision in
question he constitutional or not : we
must express an opinion on it, however
inexpedient, because it is our dtUy.—
Now, Air. L. said lie did not see, that
having declared th .t the People of Mis
souri should firm a Constitution and
State Government, imposed on this house
tho duty of construing law in tins more
than any other case. It might be con
sidered rather an objection to it, inas
much as, in doing so, they would have to
expound the law themselves had made—
no principle being better established
than that the authority which forms the
law should not construe nor apply it-—
I ht: tr ie question in this case then, was,
Mr. L. said, which was tho bust tribunal
to decide tin* question respecting this dis
puted clause of the Missouri constitu
tion ? If it wore asked whether this
House, or the Senate, or the Judiciary
of the.country, were the Imst qualified
to expound a law, there would be no dif
ference of opinion or» the question. It
i must, tbeu, be a consideration of para
mount duly only, on tho part of this
House to decide upon it, which could in
duce it to undertake the exposition of a
law in respect to the construction of
which there was a d -uld.
Air. L. then examined, somewhat at
large, the question, whethur a judicial
or legislative tribunal be the most capa
ble to decide correctly such a quertion
as was supposed to be presented by the
particular clause in the Constitution of
Missouri. He argued, from the inability
of cither branch ofCongross to act inde
pendently on any such question, from
their inability to act ivi'.h uniformity. Sic.
that they were not the proper bodies to
he charged with judicial investigations.
Ami why. he usked, the rights of all the
•Slates being equal, should those ol Alis-
souri be subject to an adjudication dif
ferent from that to which other state-
are subject ? The rights of the old states,
lie said were subject to judicial decision-,
and no man would pretend that, in re
spect to any Old State, Delaware for ex
ample, her constitution could be suspen
ded, that her Senators and Representa
tives should be .excluded from these
Malls, on Congress thinking they hud
discovered something not altogether right
in her constitution. It was an essential
objection to the power now claimed for
Congress, that, if allowed, it would he a
power to be exercised in a new state,
which none would pretend it could ex
ercise in an old one. Upon every con
sideration, of which he urged several o-
thers, he wo* in favor ofleaving the mat
ter with the Judiciary, where, and where
only, in his opinion, it properly be
longed,
The principles which had influenced,
from time to tithe, the conduct of the dif
ferent brunches of tho goyernment,
would, he said, lewd to tho same conclu
sion. At the time of tho 1 formation of
the federal constitution (to go back to
that date,) it wm foreseen that there
might he a disposition, at some future
day, in some or other ofthe atittea, to’
break over the barriers of the constitu
tion about to be formed, Jtc. and a pro
vision was introduced prescribing a mode
of deciding controversies of that descrip
tion. If, in nil other cases of constitu
tional questions, it has been provided
that they shall be decided by the Judi-
iary, the reason must apply add be con-
litsive why this body should not under
take to decide a constitutional question
the case of Missouri. Justice re
quires that those who have the same
rights shall have their rights decided by
the same tribunal.
If, however, the only objection to tho
jirogress of the resolution now undoc
.‘onsiJerttion was, that an inference
might be drawn, from the -Renee of
Congress, that they approved the excep
tionable provision in the Constitution of
Miwnnri, Mr. L. suggested that some
mode might be adopted by which the ob
jection on this point might be explained.
Ho - Dpi] l<l himself, u* an individual, with
tlie utniiwt reluctante express anv opin
ion on the subject, and he though'. :t
would be exceedingly unwise in C;n-
gi'i'-- to do so. JTimns would os no end
.-qc!i a-couise.. Thera were in th»
constitution of Missouri, and of every
state iu the Union, clauses to which sor.i*
might take ox,-i ption, of ahich Mr. L. in*
-lanced the provisions respecting banks,
&c. which some believed the states nad
no right to establish. Every considera
tion of prudence and propriety, in his
opin.cn. forbade Congress from interpos
ing in tlie present instatve.
Mr. L, said he did admit, however,
that there might he cases in whi.'h Con
gress might find it to be their dutv to in
terpose, on the moment of admission of
new states into the Union. For instance,
if, in relation to the term of .Senators, or
my other provision which, from its char
acter, could nut be brought before tlm
c 'U|irvmo Court, .the new constitution
were incompatible with that of the U-
nited States, it was his opini-m it would
tie h good reason why Congress choilld
interfere. Nor did he think this was at
all inconsistent with tbw ground he had
already taken, if for no other reason than
that the judicial tribunal could decide
tli.; question now agitated, and decide it
I) Her than this house. The duty of
Congress, in this respect, begins where
that ofthe judiciary ends.
Referring to his former remark, that
gentlemen would do well to satisfy tbem-
selvcs that their opinions were not the
effect of perjudice, by examining what
was the conduit of their predecessors in
more quiet times, Air. L. said he would
.urn to tbc case of the second new state
•Uiieb was admitted into the Union, and
the objections to whose admission were
removed in the way proposed in the
pr.-seut case. Tennessee, without Wai
ting far a law ofCongrcss to authorize
her, field a Convention, formed a consti
tution, and sent it on to Congress. The
objection was made in tlie House ofUe-
pn.\-.eututivcs, hy Mr. Smith, of South
Carolina, that the constitution of Tennes
see was incompatible with that ol* the
United States ; lo which Mr. Baldwin
replied, that, if there should be things
in the constitution of Tennessee not com
patible with the constitution ofthe Uni
te,! States, “ it was well kaown tbit the
constitution of the United States would
fie paramount—they can therefore be of
no effect.” He quoted this to shew, that
this suggestion of referring the question
to another tribuual thaw this, was not an
expedient to get over this cast, but one
which ha l pi evaded iw the early days of
tin* Republic. The conflict between the
constitution ofTennessee, kowet^r, and
tfiat ot ihe United States, wus much more
unequivocal than in the presold case,
and so far the present case is more fa
vorably presented to Congres* than was
that of Tennessee. In the latter case,
the Legislature were required to pro-,
vide some means by which the state of
l ennesseo should be sued in its courts,
with a proviso that this advantage should
fie confined to citizens of t|yit st«te, and
not extended to those of other states.—
Here was a direct conflict with the Con'
stitution ofthe United States, whilst that
of Missouri is only constructive. Yet,
in that case, the question of constitution.!
law was left to those who were no;>
likely to decide correctly, and witha!
competent to enforce their decision—
that is, to the Supreme Judicial Tribu
nal. He thought it perfectly compatible
with the most nice and rigid sense of du-
t», for Congress to do the same in the cato
uow before them.
Mr. L. said he knew an objection ha.l
been taken to leaving the Judiciary
sustain a conflict with a state, inregai d
to the conformity of its Constitution t.
that ofthe United States. But sure!
if in regard to all other stales, it now fi
that authority, there can be bo hardship