Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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,