Newspaper Page Text
THE FEDERAL UNION
jOilX G. POLHILL, EDITOR.
MIEEEDGEVILEE, GEORGIA, SATURDAY, OCTOBER 30, 1830.
VOLUME 1, M'MB£R 17.
TSS F225EIIAX. tsrio’j
t l,]i v | K a cveiy biiiurdaV ut ihrfe dollars per an-
ia advance, or Four if nut paid before the end
r|,im ' j’he O.iice is on JVuyne-Street, opposite Me
re
CJ»5S
i Tavekm
J ,\' \pvtR.risuMEJiTS publish'd at the usual rates.
5‘-p Each Citation by the Cleiks of the. Courts o! 0--
AX- <hat application has been m^do for Letters ol A<1-
4l 5et-jtmn, mii'i be published Thirty days at least,
dice by Executors and Adnaiii'strators lor Debtors
‘ r ' i lt rs to reudsr in their accounts must be publish*
in- ..
*^^3 of n '-TOcs by Executors and Administrators must
. .jierti^ed' Sixty days before the day of sale
*V H of personal property (except na^ocs) <
.1 intestate estates by Executors and Administrators,
i n J !,*advertised Forty days.
i-n'ic itions by Executors, Administrators and Guar-
.j^Vto ihe court of ordinary for leave to sell Land must
ie published Four months-
=) of testati
l UlM :n ,ist be published Sixty Days before the dry
■ * “ These Sales must be made at the cuur*-house
f , l ul,- vtC n the hours of 10 in the morning and four ip
y ( " a( .“ rnii0n . N . sale from day to day is valid, unless
!«ssed in the adver isement.
'-S of Courtof Ordinary, (accompanied with aeopy
r • "bond or aip-eerim') to make titles to Land, must
b e i !verli*ed Three months at least.
ue under ex-cutior.s re<»i>iarly granted by
San
ifl’’
. wrt , m ist be advertised Thirty days.
SheritT’s sales untTcr mortgaefe execute>ns must bead-
lis d Sixty pays before the day of S3le.
TC ^; of perishable property under order of
r , i»t mast be advertised generally Tev pays.
Ah 'iRoaxs for Advertisements will be punctually ct-
tC ” at ^Vl Letters directed to the "fiFc, or tbc Editor,
c, utbcrmlpaid to entitle them to attention.
o
BI?A>C11 B ANK OF DARIEN,
PJiUeJgecilie. in Octobei, 1830.
POLITICAL.
letter of James Madison.
From the North American Review.
Montpelier, Ang. 1830.
Dear Sir—I have duly received your let
ter, in which you refer to the “nullifying doc
trine,” advocated as constitutional right, by
"Oine of our d»-tinguisln.d fellow-citizens; and
to the proceedings ol the Virginia Legislature
m'98 and ’99 as appealed to in behalf of that
d efrinc; and you express a wish for my ideas
on those subjects.
I am aware of ihe delicacy of the tusk in
some respects and I he difficulty io every re*
spect, of doing full justice to it. But. having,
in more than one instance, complied with a
like request from other fiiendly quarters I
do not decline a sketch of the views which I
have been led to take of the doctrines in ques
tion. as well as some others connected r*th
them; and of the grounds from which it ap
pears, that the proceedings of Virginia have
been misconceived by those who have appeal
ed to them. In order to understand the true
character of the Constitution of the United
States, the error, not uncommon, must be a-
voided, of viewing it. through the medium,
e ther of a consolidated Government, or of a
confederated Government, while it is neither
li e one nor the other; but a mixture of both.
And having, in no model, the similitudes and
■Dak gies applicable to other systems of Gov-
ernmrnt. it mud. mere than any other, be its
own interpreter,.according to its text and the
facts of the citse
From I h ese it will he seen th'at the charao
.». o _
(2t)
IWis due this Bank will be required at each rt-
after tin 25ih instunt.
by oi'dc*r "f Ittf Board,
GEORGE \\. MURRAY, CnshW.
VF, TENTH uf the principal of all accommodation j teristic peculiarities of the Constitution are,
Lt. The mode of its formation: 2d. The di
vision of the Supreme powers of Government
between the Suites io their united capacity;
and the States in iheir individual capacities
1. It was formed, not by the Governments
7, i 0 ^ ,h ° com P°‘ ier,t States, as the Federal Gov
"" j .si returned from N. ! ,,rnmrnt l’ ,,r which it was substituted was form-
Nor was if formed by a majority of the
GSOBCtXA GOLD!
11
York itli a UlUii AS- ; cd.
SORTMF.NT f
nils jEWBLitir,
mun.ifactuipcl of O *>r>. i.i Gold,
and under !us immedi.ve insp c-
tion—. vis i* 11 ng-of Gentlemen’s
and Ladies’ patentlever H atch-
e , Seals and Key*; cul'.e, loop
and basket neck CHAINS;—
fivadPlns, Fir Hues, and Finger-r.ngs; .Miniature
Lo.Wfs' Mt rfa'ions, grid and silver leaf; Also, siivcrpa-
tin 1 1< vtr a ul plain IV-denis; silver, and plated table, tea,
and dfse.it and soup Spoons; eier pointed Ptnci; Cases;
Ft .ltd Castors, Cmdi.-sitcks, Cake Baskets, Snuffers and
Tr iv. Silver •'nect cles and Thimbles Rnt'uiur Coffee
k Tf iP'i's. Pi 1 )- Spoons and Ladles, Sheil Coin 's, Pocket
jj.nl.s r.nt P:rs.s, Dirks and Knives, Kodgu’s Foel-et
put Pn Knives, Rnzcrs.npd Scissors. ‘.Valkm? Canes—
UHLJt'ARV GOODS—oonsisti 'gcf Gilt and Plated Ep
aulets, Belts, Spurs, Hats, Lace, buttons, Cent, (Jutk*
a.les and Eizbs. Traveilinj atui Poc ket Pis'rls.
Tlie above* a.'Jed to Co. tn<-r stock w ill make a very
rompletc assortment, which are offered at whole sale-anci
rend 13 loir us at any other establishment in the South
era country.
OLD rid vr.vr GOLD i r SILVER received:for ary
of Hie di .vc articles. WATCHES and CLOCkS-Tepair-
£ti JS IUKI.ll.
Orl.>l.ir 9
-14-
CONFECTIONARY. „
|,\ FREDERICK of Angus*.and IOHN R.
AM. iVOOT SN of tim pi ice, havii g associated them-
S'i *!ogibtrina /Ihmesale and Rit.il Confectionary
e d Futiiily Grocery Store in Milk-dsctiilu, uniter (he firm
if
J. n. WOOTAIff, & CO.
' ".ccs!’is nn UmJ oi'irilurinipv . .tir Ititn*!* andthepiib-
1 ia Ktiur 11, tout they ii itc at present, and will ronslant-
•' -"•‘P or hand at their store m Col. Jones’corner build-
o|'i'i.'iite the court-house square, a complete aesovt-
tetut of
XX?KS07TGm.E,E!S .
GROCERIES, i
nut’, (■ "sorted)
"loum llahins,
Dr .an Nu s,
Fv * i,h i\ linuti,
ellAlm nds,
Bid Northern Apples,
( cinnamon,
ri ^VEAU,
- change,
no*-E,
AN'NIS,
srdNT,
rf i EE8FECT love &
Q LIFE of M \N.
o , ^s)pb’ in HONRY,
I h!..MON SYRUP,
(.BestSnani'h CIGARS.
LIQUOHS.
Y'f’i Cogu. c bKANDY.
“ do.
„ A Pl l! ^ do.
Holland GIN
)' Northern dn. *
lamaica RUM, •
4| Northern do. *
Santacroz do.
U W-h WHISKEY,
Monon*. do.
% e do.
Consisting of—
Pine-Apple Cheese,
Fielded Olives,
do Capers,
Best Sw. ct-Oil, (for tr.hie
USX )
Match Boxes, assorted
( CHAMPAIGN,
MADEIRA,
MUSCATEL,
fl! CL\k£T, Gong cork)
K PORT,
^5 ; CURRANT.
M TENERIFE &.
fe ! MALAGA.
F* Philadelphia
I BEER & Albany
l A »F.
SURAHS.
Best tiro n Sc l.Ali,
“ L o f and Lump do.
“ COFFEES.
“ Imp rial and Hyson
TEAS
“ RICE & MOLASSES.
“ Sperm and G *. mould
CANDLES.
“ Che ing TOtVACCO,
(tivis,t and paper.)
" Tahk Salt dried Beef.
Foolscap and IVraping Paper.
Together with a good assortment of
(»!ass &: Crockery Ware.
Al, a. I'-hich th>*y will dispose of on low and aceotnmo-
dn.irrg terms.
They w ill r"*pivp in ^ f,. n . dava ’i full assortment of
*V£ST INDIA FRUITS.
MdudtriviUe, Oct. loth, 1830 15 ‘ 3t
, MISS BEN HAM
I.FPECTFULLY irdorrns the Citizens of Milledge-
vnte , ll( j i; 3 vicinity, that in the course of the present
, n i.’.b, , ^ ere " id be added to the other advantages of her
«rliool,dTeacher of MUSIC, FRENCH, DRAWING,
•"' LANDSCAPE PAINTING Particular exertions
1 l*e made for the advancement of their pupils.
A h-w young Ladies can be eccoinmcHiaUd with board
’Mamdy with the Teachers. Oct 1C 3t ''
4 A—-Walton county.
11/HCRfiAS, William Price applies to me for letters
. v V of Administration on the estate of George Price,
•‘‘t at said county, deceased :
* t)n‘r Sfi / re ,herdbre to cite and admonish all the kin-
« n n d creditors of sa ,d deceased to be and appear at
«a'jie C r' W * t [' 1 ' n t* me prescribed by law. to shew
Jhtted.
Uivf.i
if any they have, why said letters should not be
,vt ‘ n underlay hand, this 2d October 1830.
Qm . • JESSE MITCHELL, c. e. o.
** • f4 5*
people of the Uiiited Stntes, ns a stogie rotii
munify, in the manner of a consolidated Gov
ernment.
It was formed bv the Slntes, I hat is, bv the
oeerde in each of the States, acting in their
highest sovereign capacity; and .formed con
sequently by ihe same authority which formed
th: S'nfc Constitutions.
Bptng thus derived from Ihe sam° source as
the Constitutions of the States, it has, within
each State, the same authority as the Consti
tution of the State; and is as much a Constitn
fion, in the strict sense of the tern-, within itr
i rescribed sphere, as the C institutions if the
Suites are. wilhin their respective spheres; hut
with Mus obvious and essentia) difference, that/
hi ing a compact am :eg the States in their
highest sovereign capacity; and constituting
the people thereof one people fi r certain pur
poses, it cannot be altered cr annulled at the
will of the Sta’es individually, as the Constitu-
tibn of a State may be at its individual will.
2 And that it divides the Supreme powers
of G ivernmonf, between die Government of
he United States, is stamped on the face of
the instrument; the powers of war and of tax
ation, of commerce and of treaties, and other
enumerated powers vested in (ho Government
of [he United Stales, being of as high and so
vereign a character, as any of the powers re
served to the Suite Governments.
Nor is the Government of the United States,
receated by ti e Constitution, less a Govern
ment in the strict sense of the term, within
the sphere of its power*, than the Govern
ments created by the Comtitulion of the
States are, within their several spheres. It is
tike them organized into Legislative, Exocu-
me, and Judiciary Departm- nts. It operates,
'like them, directly on persons and thing? —
And, bke them, it has at command a physical
force for executing the powers committed to
it. The concurrent operation in certain cases,
is one of the features marking the peculiarity
•jf the system.
Between these different Corstitutional Gov
ernments, the one operating in all the States
the others opera*ing separately in each, with
ihe aggregate powers of Government divided
between them, it could not escape attention
that controversies would arise concerning the
boundaries of jurisdiction; and that some pro
vision ought to be made for. such occurrences.
A political system that does not provide for a
peaceable and authoritative termination ofoc
curring controversies, would not be more than
the shadow of a Government; the object and
end of areal Goverrmif?nt being the substitu
lion of law and order for uncertainty, confu
sion, and violence.
That to have left a final decision, in such
cases to each of the States, then thirteen, and
• 'ready twenty-four, could not fail to m-ikefhe
Constitution and laws of the United States dif
ferent in different States, was obvious; and
not less obvious that this diversity of inde
pendent decisions must altogether distract the
Government of the Union and speeddy put an
end to the U. ion itself A* uniform authority
of the laws is in itself a vital principle. Some
of the most impx rtan laws could not be par
tially executed They must be executed ir.
all tiie States, or they could be duly executed
in none. An impost, or an excise, fut exam
ple if not in force in some States, would be
defeated in others. It is well known UrA this
was among the lessons of experience, which
had a primary influence in bringing about the
existing Constitution. A loss of its general
authority would moreover revive the exaspe
rating questions between the States holding
norts for foreign commerce, and the adjoining
States without them, to which are now ad
ded all the inland States, necessarily carrying
on their foreign commerce through other
{ To have made the decisions under the am
ihoritv of the ‘ individual States, co-ordinate.
L h T.;tl wi.h decision, under the nulhon,,
of the United States, would unavoidably pro
duce-collisions incompatible with the peace of
society, and with that regular.and efficient ad
ministration, which is of the essence of free
government. Scenes could not he avoided,
m which a ministerial officer of the United
states, and the corresponding officer of an in
dividual State, would have rencounters in ex
ecuting conflicting decrees, the result of which
would depend on the comparative force of the
local posses attending them; and that, a casual
ty depending on the political opinions and par
ty feelings in different States.
I o have referred every clashing decision,
under the two authorities, for a final decision
to the States, ns parties to the Constitution,
would be attended with delays, with inconve
niences, and with expenses, amounting to a
prohibition of the expedient; not to mention
its tv ndenoy to impair the salutary veneration
tor a system requiring such frequent interpo
sitions, nor the delicate questions which might
present themselves as to the form cf stating
the appeal, and as to the quorum for decid
ing it. •
To have trusted to negotiation for adjust
ing disputes between the Government of the
United States and the State Governments, as
between independent and separale sovereign
ties. would have lost sight altogether of a Con
stitution and Government for the Union; and
opened a direct road from a failure ofthat re
sort to the ultima ratio between nations whol
ly independent of and alien to each other. If
the idea had its orrgin in the process of ad
justment, between separate branches of (he
same Government, the analogy entirely fails.
In the case of disputes h- tween the indepen
dent parts of the same Government, neither
part being able to consummate its will, nor the
Government to proceed without the concur
rence of the parts, necessity brings about an
accommodation In disputes between a State
Government and the Government of the Unit
ed Smtes. the case is practically as well as
theoretically different; each party possessing
all the d parimenis of an organized Govern
ment* Legislative, Executive, and Judicial;
and having each a physical force to support its
pretensions. Although the issue of negotia
tion might somo times avoid their extremity,
how often would it happen, among so many
S'ates. that an unaccommodating spirit in
some would render that resource unavailing?
A contrary supposition would not accord with
a knowledge of human nature, or the evidence
of our own political h story
“Tbo Constitution, not relying on any of the
nrereding modifications, for its safe and suc
cessful operation has expressly declared, on
♦ he one band—1. ‘That the Constitution, and
the Jaws made in pur-uanre Ihereof, and all
treaties made under the authority of the Unit
ed States, shall he the supreme law of the
land; 2. That the Judges of every St at it shall
be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitu
tion and laws of any States to the contrary
notwithstanding 1 ; 3d- That the judicial power
of the Uni’ed States shall extend to all cases
in law and equity arsing under the Constitn
tioo, the laws of the.Unifed Stales and trea
ties made under their authority. <$*e ”
On the other hand, as a security of the
-irrbfc and powers of (lie State*, in their indi
vidual capacities, against an undue preponde
rance of the powers granted to the Govern
mrnt over them in their united capacity, the
constitution has relied on—1 The respond
biiitv of the Senators and Representatives in
the Legislature of the United States to the Le
gislatures and the peoyde of the Stales 2d.
The resnops-iljjli^v of the President to the pco-
olr< of the iraTl States. And 3d. The lia-
tor the light in which the subject was regarded
by its writer at the period when the Coustifu
• iouwas depending; and it is believed, that
he same wa3 the prevailing view then taken
ol it, that the same view has continued to pre. gel her as a whole, he unaniajomly accented.
tr-ial orwl f not ■# Jaao .. t itl- i!, . • * *• ... * *
vail, and that it does so at thb lime, notwith
standing the eminent exceptions to it.
Bat it is perfectly consistent with the con
cession of tliis power to llie Supreme Court,
incases falling within the course of its func
tions, to maintain that the power has not al
ways been rightly exercised. To say nothing
ofthe period, happily a short one, when judges
in their seats dul not abstain from intemperate
and party harangues, equally at variance with
their duty and their dignity; there have been
occasional decisions from the*bench, which
have incurred serious and extensive disappro
bation; still it would seem, that, with but few
exceptions, the course of the judiciary has
been .hitherto sustained by the predominant
sense ol the nation.
Those who have denied or doubted the su
premacy of the judicial power of the United
Slates, and*denounce at the same time a nulli
fying power in a Stale, seem not to have suffi.
cicntly adverted to the utter inefficiency of a
supremacy in a law of the land, without a su.
premacy in the exposition and execution of the
law; nor to the destruction of all equipoise be
tween the Federal Government and the Stale
Governments, if, while the functionaries of the
Federal Government are directly or indirectly
elected by and responsible to the States, and
the functionaries of the States are, ia their ap
pointment and responsibility, # wholly indepen
dent ot the United States, nt> constitutional
control of any sort belonged to the U Slates
over the States. Under -*uch an organization,
it is evident that it would be in the power ot
the States individually, to pass unauthorised
•laws, and to carry them into complete effect,
any thing in the Constitution and laws of the
United States to the contrary notwithstanding
This would be a nullifying power in its plenary
character; and whether it had it's final effect,
through the Legislative, Executive, or Judi
ciary organ pf the State, would be equally fa
tal to the constituted relation between the two
Governments.
Should the provision of (he Constitution as
here reviewed, be found not to secure the go
vernment and rights of the States, against u-
surpations and abuses on the part of the U-
niied States, the final resort within the pur
view ot the Constitution, lies in an amend
ment of the Constitution, according to a pro
cess applicable by the States
And in the event of a failure of every con
stitutional resort, and an accumulation of usur
pations and abuses, rendering passive obedi
cnce and non-resistance a greater evil than
resistance and revolution, there can remain
buf one resort, the last of all—an appeal
from the cancelled obligations of the constitu
tional compact, to original rights and the law
of self-preservation This is the ultima ratio
whicli if separately proposed, would have
been promptly rejected. It is far from irapoi-
>ihie, that every part oLa Constitution might
he rejected by a majority, and yet taken lo<
Free constitutions will rarely, if ever,he form
ed. without reciprocal concessions without ar
ticles conditioned on and balancing each oth*
<r. ’Is there a constitution of a single State
out of the twenty four, that would bear the
experiment ot having its component parts sub^
mi ted to the people, and separately decided
on?
What the fatccfthe Constitution of the U-
nited States would be, if a >-mall proportion of
the States could expunge parts of it, particu
larly valued by a large majority, can have but
one answer.
The difficulty is not removed by limiting the
doctrines to- cases of construction. How
many cases of that sort, involving cardinal pro
visions ot the Constitution,have pccuired?——
How. many now exi*i? How many may here
after spring up? How many might be int-e-.ii-
jously created, it entitled to a decision in the
mode proposed 1
It i* certain that the principle of that modo
would not reach further than is contemplat' d*
If a single State can of right require three-'
fourths of its co States to overate its exposi
tion of the Constitution, because that propor
tion is authorised to amend if, would the pica
be less plau«ibte that, as the Constitution was
unanimously established, it ought to be unani
mously expounded?
The reply to all such suggestions seems to
bn unavoidable and irresistabln; that the Con
stitution is a compact; that its text is Uxbe#^r,._
pounded according to thV prov sious for ex
pounding it, making a part of thu CompaCUgjfdT
that none of the parties can rightfnlly re
nounce the expounding provision more than
any other part When such a right accrues,
as may accrue it must grow ort of abuses of
the compact releasing the sufferers from
their fealty to it.
In favor of the nullifying claim for the safes
individually, it appears, as you observe, that
the proceedings of the Legislature of Virginia,
in ’93 and ’99, against the Alien and Sedition
Acts are much dwelt upon.
It may often happen, as experience prove*,,
that erroneous constructions not anticipated
may notjbe sufficiently guarded against, in the
language used; and it is due to ttip distin
guished individuals, who have misconceived
the intentions of those proceedings, to suppose
that the meaning of the Legislature, though
well comprehended at the time may Hot now
be obvious to those unacquainted with the
cotemporary indications am’ impressions
But it is believed, that, by keeping in view
the distinction between the Governments -of
the States, and the Stab s in. the sense in
which they were parties to the Constitution}
between the rights of the parties in their con
current and in their individual capacity s; he-
confederated. or a compound of both; and it
cannot be doubted, that a single member of
the Union, in the extremity supposed, but in
(hat only would have a right, to make the
appeal.
Th is brings us to the expedient lately ad
vanced, which claims for a single Ante a right
to appeal against an nxerrFe of pover by the
Government of the United States decided by
the State to be unconstitutional, to tlyj parties
to the constitutional compact; the decision of
the State to have the effect of nullifying the
act ofthe government of the United States,
unless the decision ofthe State be reversed
hilify of the ISxecmive and judicial function*-)- j by three-fourths of the parties.
under all governments, whether consolidated, fiveen the several modes and objects of inter
nes of tbe United Stat< s to impeachment by
the R nresenfatives oft he peoplo ofthe States,
in one branch of the Legislature of the Unit
ed Stages, and*trial bv the Representatives
the St at s in the other branch; the State
functionaries, legislative executive, and judi
✓*i:tl, being, at *he«iame time, in * heir appoint
ment and responsibility, altogether indopen
dnnf of the agency or authority of the United
St . . •
IT iw far this structure ofthe Government of
the United States is adequate and safe for its
object, time alonp can absolutely dol^mine.—
Evp^rience seem* to have.shown, that what
ever mav grow out of future stage* of o*w na
tional career, th re i*. as vet, a *uffi i nt eon
fro!, in the popular will over the E\«'ro - ; ve
and Legislative departments of ^Ihe Govern
rpAut. When the alien and sedition laws were
parsed, in contravention to the trillions and
fpelings of the community, the first elections
that ensued put m end to theih. And whatev
er mav have been the character of other act*,
in the judgment of manv of us it i* hut true,
that they have generally accorded with the
view of a majority of the States and of the
people At the present (lav it seems well un
derstood. that the laws whicl? have created
most dissatisfaction, have had"** like sanction
within doors; and that, whether continued,
varied, or repealed, a like proof will bn given
ofthe sympathy and responsibility of the Rep
resentative body, to the constituent body. Ir-
d ed, the great complaint now is, against the
results of this sympathy and responsibility in
the Legislative p»o!icy of the nation.
With respect to the judicial power of the
United States; and the authority of the Su
preme Court in relation to the boundary of
jurisdiction between tbe Federal and the State ‘
Governments, I may he permitted to refer to
the thirty ninth nnrober of the ^•F<derai;srq/ , »
The distinguished name and high authori
lies which appear to have asserted and given
a prncti«d scope to this doctrine, entitle it to
a respeeiwliich it might be difficult otherwise
to trel for it.
If the doctwics were to be understood ns re
quiring the tfw&e-fourlhs of the States to sus
Uiin, instead ofthat proportion to reverse the
dec sion of the appealing state, the decision
to be without effect during the appeal, it
would be sufficient to remark, that thi9 extra
constitution! course might well give way to
that marked out hv the.Constitution which
authorizes two-thirds of the States to institute,
and three-fourths to effectuate, an amendment
to the Constitution, establishing a permanent
ru 1 ^ of the highest authority, in place of an ir
regular precedent of construction only,
but it is understood that the nnllifyiruf doc
trine imports that the decision of the State is
to be presumed valid, and that it overrules
the law of the United States uuless overruled
by three fourths of the States.
Can more be necessary to demonstrate the
inadmissibility of such a doctrine, than that h
puts it in the power of the smallest fraction,
over one-fourth of the United State?, that is
of seven States out of twenty-four,. fo give
the law and even the constitution to seven
teen States, each of the seventeen having as
narties to the constitution an equal right
with each of the seven, to expound it, and to
insist on the exposition? That the seven
might in particular instances be right, and the' was struck out by common consent, though
* No. 39. It is tru -, that in cOBfro»er*ies relating io
the .boundary between the two jurisdictions, the tribunal
whieh is ultimately to decide, is to be established under
ihe General Government. But this does not change the
principle of tbe case. Tbe decision is to be impartially
made, according to the rules of the Constitution; and all
the usual and most effectual precautions are taken to se
cure this impartiality. Some such tribunal is clearly es
sential to prevent an appeal to the sword, and a dissolu
tion of tbe compact; and that it ought to be established
under the General, rather than under the local Govern
nents; or, to speak more properly,, that it could be safely
stablishcd under the first alone, »• * position not bkcly
to be combatted.
seventeen wrong is more than possible. Buf
to establish a positive and permanent rule,
giving such a power, fo such a minority ever
such a majority, would overturn the first prin
ciple of free Government, and in practice ne
cessar ly overturn the Government itself.
It is to be recollected that the Constitution
was proposed to the people of the States as a
■whole, and unanimously adopted by the State-
as a whole, it being a part ofthe Constitution
that no less than three-fourths of the States
shonld be. competent to make any alteration
in what bad been unanimously agreetfjto. So
great is the caution on this point, tbat'fo two
cases where peculiar interests were at stake, a
proportion even of three-fourths is disl rusted,
and unanimity required to make analterafion
When the Constitution was adopted as a
whole, it is certain that there were many parts,
position against the abuses of power, and es
pecially between interpositions within the pur
view of the Constitution «nd interpositions* ap
pealing from the Constitution to tbe rights of
nature paramount to ail Constitutions,, with an
attention always of explanatory use, to the
views and argument*'which were combatted,
(lie Resolutions of Virginia, as vindicated in
the RejKt on them, w ll be foun^l entiiled to
an expoPtion, showing a consistency in their
parts, and an inconsistency ofthe whole with
the doctrine under consideration.
That the Legislature could not M&fotond-
ed to sanction such a doctrine is t<> $BHBrr<-d
from the debates in th*r House ofdfelqg^pp,
and from the addrc% of (be two HmA>e* to
their const fuents, on the suhject of the reso
lutions. The tenor of the debates, which
were ably conducted, and are understood to
have been revised for the press by mo.-t, if
not all, ofthe speakers, discloses no reference
whatever to a constitutional right.in an indi
vidual State to arrest by force (he operation
of a law of the United States. Coocert am ng
ilie States for redress against the A!i n and
Sedition Laws, as acts of usurped power tvas
a leading sentiment; and tbe attainment of a
concert, the immediate object of ;he eouree
adopted by the Legidaturo, which was that of
inviting the other Stakes “to concur in declar
ing tbe acts to be uncon-rtitut ional, and t<> co
operate in the necessary & proper measures in
n ainUiaing- unimpaired theanthorities rg ! s
and liberties Telferved to the Sthte? respect
ively, and to the people* That by t< 1 neces
sary and proper measures to be concurrently
and co-operatively taken Were meant measures
known to the CvUstTlution, particularly the
ordinary control ofthe people and Legislatures
of thn States over the Government of the U
r.Jed States, cannot be doubted, and the in
terposition of this control, as the event show
ed, wa*. eqtial to the occasion.
It is worthy of remark and explanatory of
the intentions of the Legislature, that ibe
words, “not law. but utterly null, void, ard of
no force or effect,” which had followed ir< one
ofthe resolutions, the word “unconstitutional”
the Words were, in fact, synonymous w ifh un
constitutional.” yet to guard against a itmmiq-
derstanding of this phrase as more than de-
c'aratory of opinion, the word “unconstitution
al” alone was retained, as not liable to that
danger.
T he published Address of the Legislature to
the people, their constituents, affords another
conclusive evidence *qf its views. The address
warns them* against (he encroaching spirit of
the General Government, argnes the tmeon*
stitutiooality of the Alien and Sedition Acts
points to other instances in which the consti
tutional limits bad* be«-n overleaped; dvrella
upon the dangerous mode of deriving power
by implication: aqd in general presses tko-'pe-
cessity of watching over the consolidntie^ ten
dency of the Federal policy, ftynothing is
*See the concluding resolution of 1793,