Richmond Enquirer

OLD OR NEW PARTY

We scarcely supposed, that we should so soon be compelled to charge the Intelligencer again with misrepresentation. Its Editors do not relish the term: but "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." They misrepresented Mr. Jefferson's letter; and now they more grossly misrepresent ourselves. But to the proof—

"They say, "truly it is a late hour of the day for the Enquirer to come forward and tell us, that the State Courts, in regard to the laws of the United States, have a jurisdiction equal to that of the United States." Was this the proposition we laid down? No; we were aware that there were many cases in which the jurisdiction of the two Courts was distinct: and therefore we never made the assertion. But the proposition which we did advance was this: that when the two governments were supposed to invade each other's jurisdiction, the Federal government was not "authorized ultimately, to decide what belongs to itself, or its co-parcener in government;" that, of course, the decision of the Federal Court was not to be considered as conclusive in itself, as to the rights of the states, the other party to the Federal compact. This was our position; and we held that it was that of the Old Republican party. The Intelligencer chooses, however, to trump up a new one, by varying the terms in which ours was originally couched.

If the Intelligencer holds, that there is a certain sphere of jurisdiction which belongs to the federal government: we subscribe to the doctrine: but if it maintains, that this jurisdiction may be pushed so far in any case as that its laws or decrees are to be held conclusive upon the states, even where they are built upon a power which is not given, and where they trench upon the rights of the states, we dissent from this opinion. We say it is not the doctrine of the constitution; nor is it the creed of the Republican Party. We shall hereafter produce our own authorities to prove this point: for the present let us examine those of the Intelligencer so far as they may be intended or supposed to bear upon the point.

It refers "to the first legislation under the constitution"—especially to the 25th section of the judicial law, which permits the supreme court to revise certain decisions of the highest state court: and to the debates which took place upon that act—to prove what? that in 1789, those who helped to frame the constitution, and knew what was in it, intended to give this superintending power to the U. States over the state courts—and of course, to assert the incontestable supremacy of the federal over the state governments, in cases where the federal courts had decided? Is this the argument?

In the first place, then, is the 25th section itself constitutional, which gives the power to revise the proceedings of the state courts? The Intelligencer says it is, and refers to the Debates upon it in 1789, to prove "that the subject was not superficially, but even profoundly investigated." What Subject? The revising power given in the 25th section? Certainly not; because the Intelligencer admits, and the proceedings prove it, that "no proposition was made to strike out the 25th section." It was not once debated—it could not therefore have been "profoundly investigated:" in fact, it was not investigated by the body of Congress itself. It was not debated: and therefore, the subject was not seriatim decided. What mighty reliance then is to be placed on this authority?

The fact is, the members, without seriously weighing the matter, seem to have taken it for granted that they had a right to pass it, and did pass it.

The fact is, as is stated by the Intelligencer, that the great discussion turned upon the 3d sect. (about district courts) Livermore, Jackson, and others, being against it; Smith of S. C., Ames, Madison, being for it: the former contending that the state courts would do to execute the federal laws: that two sets of judicatures would be expensive, disgusting to the people, that they might clash, &c. &c.— the other side again contending, that they could not use the state courts as federal courts: that congress were bound to "ordain and establish" inferior courts, which the state courts could not be. Mr. Madison went so far as to say, that he did "not see how it can be made compatible with the constitution, or safe to the federal interests, to make a transfer of the federal jurisdiction to the state courts," &c. Mr. Smith, Mr. Gerry, and some other members, took the same view of the constitution. (The bill with the district section in it was carried, yeas 37, nays 16.)

No question, all this time, was made about the 25th. section it was adopted without debate, or due deliberation. Had any member risen in his place, to push the matter one step farther: had he asked Mr. Madison or Gerry, how they who denied the right "to invest the judges of the state courts with authority to take cognizance of federal actions"—who said that Congress could not "establish and ordain" the state courts as inferior federal courts— could in fact try to make them so,—by giving the Supreme Court an appellate superintendence over their decisions.; might not the difficulty have struck them with some, perhaps irresistible force? They would have gone on to see that the state judges held no commission under the United States: were not paid by the United States: could not be impeached or punished by the U. States: and that the mandates of the supreme court were in fact, as to them, a brutum fulmen. They might have seen, that the constitution has given no power to Congress to create such a revision; and that the power, which was not given by the constitution, was void. Perhaps if the light, which has been since struck out on this subject, had been presented to their minds, they might have hesitated before they had passed the 25th section. On this judicial act, however, we submit the following authority which carries with it extraordinary weight:

"With respect to the opinions of the members of congress, who passed the judicial act, I had not expected that they would have been quoted, to prove it constitutional. "Their opinion was already manifest, in the act itself, and it required the opinions of others, at least, to corroborate and support it. The reiterated opinions of the same men, gains nothing, on this question of constitutionality, whereas the opinion of others, however insignificant, might have been of some importance, to shew a concurrence of sentiment, on the subject. This quotation however proves another thing tending, essentially, to weaken the authority of these opinions. It shews that the judicial act, in all its parts, received far less discussion in congress, at the time it was passed, than the single point now in question, has received in this court. That point was not then considered or discussed, in an individual and insulated manner. This was, perhaps, unavoidable, as the whole government was to be then, forthwith, organized, and time was very pressing. It is not wonderful, therefore, that an act passed under such circumstances, should be found to have violated the constitution, in some of its parts; an instance of which has been detected and admitted, by the Supreme Court of the United States itself, in the case of Marbury v. Madison."—Virginia Court of Appeals, Judge Roane in case of Hunter and Martin

But the Intelligencer is pleased to say that "for thirty-one years has this section remained in the statute book, undisturbed by the storms of party, unapproached by the most heedless hands"?—Is the Intelligencer really so ignorant as not to know, that both the 11th and 25th sections of this Judicial law have been combatted and disregarded by the solemn and unanimous decision of the highest tribunals both in Pennsylvania and Virginia: the first about 1798, the last in 1814? opinions which are not more to be respected as the evidences of republican principles than of the legal abilities of those who delivered them. Few cases occur under this law and therefore so few inducements to combat its provisions, or to obtain their repeal.
But, even give to the Intelligencer all the authority which it claims for this judicial act: allow that the constitution does grant the power to the federal court to "overhaul and annul" the decisions of the state tribunals, does this come up to the conclusion which the Intelligencer would draw from it? That in all cases the federal court is supreme; and that the federal government may exercise a supremacy over the states in cases of collision? Is the Editor of that paper so rash as to rush to this illogical conclusion? Suppose for instance a law is passed which violates the most sacred rights of the states—Are they quietly to yield to this law, although the supreme court has enforced it? If that court passes the Rubicon, are the states to bow in silence? Is that court in fact, authorized ultimately to decide upon the dearest rights of the states? from their unconstitutional decision is there no appeal to the state legislatures or to the people?

—Suppose, as in the case of the Cohens, the supreme court should go so far, as not only to bring a case before them, which had been before a state tribunal, but a case where a state itself is a party, is that state to be "dragged to the bar," of the federal court, without one protest against this assumed and alarming jurisdiction? and in the very teeth of the declarations of those, who adopted the Constitution?

"Mr. Marshall, in the convention, expressly declared this case against his present opinion. He denied that, even in controversies between a state and citizens of another state, the states could be "dragged" to the bar of the federal court. He said that the express provision in the judicial article, in relation to this case, could not be expounded so as to make a sovereign state a defendant, in the federal courts. The opinion of this very able man, was then governed by substance, and not by forms. Great principles then operated on his luminous mind, not hair-splitting quibbles, and verbal criticisms. Mr. Madison said, that it was not in the power of even citizens of another state, to call any state into the federal court: That the only operation the clause could have, would be that a state might sue a citizen, as plaintiff, and that if a state should condescend to go into the federal court, as plaintiff, the court might take cognizance of the case."

[Algernon Sidney.]

Yield then all the weight which is claimed for the judicial act: say that the constitution has actually given this power to revise the state courts, how far short is this of the broad ground which the Intelligencer would hold— (would, we say, for in no place has it clearly laid down its own proposition. Its whole statement is confused: and we cannot clearly perceive what it is driving at.)—If its proposition, however, be, that in all cases, the supreme court has authority to decide ultimately; and if it draws this conclusion from the precedent of the judicial act, its logic is as unfair as its principle is untrue. It would still remain to be proved, that wherever the supreme court dragged a state before it as a party: or wherever it violated the rights of the states: or transgressed in any respect the provisions of the constitution, that we were bound hand and foot by its decision. It could not follow, that because one power was granted, all were granted: and that where any power was usurped to the detriment of the states, they were bound by the decision as by the decree of fate.

On the other hand, we maintain our own doctrine to be the true one. It is the only one which accords with the constitution—or with the Republican doctrines of '98, and '99.—We will not multiply authorities unnecessarily upon this point. The following are sufficient to show what were the doctrines of the republican party:

"In the case of Cobbet vs. Pennsylvania, it was unanimously resolved by the supreme court of Pennsylvania, that all powers not granted to the government of the United States, remained with the several states; that the federal government was a league or treaty made by the individual states as one party, and all the states as another: that neither of the parties, has the exclusive right to construe it, as to the extent of their respective rights.; and that there is no common umpire between them, but the people. The Legislature of the same great and patriotic state, avowed, precisely similar sentiments, in their act instructing their senators to vote against the Alien law, proposed in Congress, and added, "that the general government was not constituted the exclusive or final judge, of the powers it was to exercise, for that their own judgment and not the constitution would be the measure of its authority."—In the celebrated report of Mr. Madison, and which was ratified by the Legislature of Virginia in 1799, it is stated—that it is essential to the nature of compacts, that when resort can be had to no tribunal superior to the authority of the parties, the parties themselves must be the rightful judges, whether the compact has been violated, and that this was the principle, on which our independence was established. It was further resolved therein, that the Judiciary is not in such cases, a competent tribunal, for that there may be cases of usurpation, which cannot be brought before it: that if one of the parties, in such cases, is not an impartial and competent judge, neither can its subordinate departments be so; that, in truth, the usurpation may be made by the judiciary itself; and that the last resort by the judiciary, is not in relation to the rights of the parties under the compact under which that judiciary is derived.

"I close this long list of authorities by one which cannot be heard by the sons of freedom, with indifference. It is the authority of our most distinguished sage and patriot, THOMAS JEFFERSON.—In the resolutions adopted by the legislature of Kentucky in the year 1798, and admitted to have been written by him.—it is resolved, "that the several states composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by that compact, they constituted a general government for special purposes,—delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving each state to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own selves respectively; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void and of no force: That to this compact each state acceded as a state and is an integral party, its co-states forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government it created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, since that would have made its discretion, and not the constitution, the measure of its powers; but that as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."

[Algernon Sidney.]

Such were the doctrines of Jefferson and Madison, and the Republican party, "at those times which tried men's souls"—Such were the principles maintained by that party, when it came into power. Has "Jefferson changed his opinion to this day?" and what does his letter "scarce one month old" say for him? "That it is a fatal heresy to suppose that either our state governments are superior to the federal, or the Federal to the state—that "neither is authorized ultimately to decide what belongs to itself, as its co-parcener in government:" that "in differences of opinion between these different sets of servants, the appeal is to neither, but to their employers peaceably assembled by their representatives in congress."
In conformity with these suggestions, we consider it our right and our duty firmly and respectfully to examine the opinions of the supreme court. We consider these doctrines to be those of the Republican party—If the Intelligencer holds a different opinion, be it so. It is not the first time, that on constitutional points, it has swerved from the party of '98. If it can swallow the decision of the supreme court on the bank law, and fritter away the definition of "necessary and proper;" if it can consent to drag Virginia to the bar of the federal court; if it can bring the states to the feet of the District of Columbia: if it can without a murmur extend the power of the federal government in so many ways, which the constitution cannot sanction, be it so. But let it not complain of the epithet it incurs. It is really too late in the day to say, that "the Enquirer is laying the foundation of a new party." It is too late for the Philadelphia Franklin Gazette and the Charleston Patriot to say, that the elements are disordered, and new parties are to be created at the bidding of Caesar Borgia.

no question or ambition. The doctrines maintained are those of the Republican party. We will seek to maintain them with the same devotion to the Union, the same love of peace, the same weapons of argument, the same abhorrence of force, the same preference of the remedies designated by the constitution itself—which graced the Virginia Proceedings of '98 and '99—We are as thoroughly aware that the states may fly into disaffection, as that the general government has violated the constitution. We would avoid both extremes. We would watch both the centripetal and the centrifugal forces. Our government is a new experiment in politics. It is the "wheel within a wheel;" the imperialism in petto— and the great danger is, lest the machinery should clash and conflict together. The constitution, however, has wisely provided for its own amendment—and the appeal is to the people "peaceably assembled by their representatives in convention," or to the State Legislatures.

Whether the crisis has come for resorting to these remedies, is a problem as difficult as it is important. Whether the contests which have arisen from the bank law; the decisions of the court upon it; the points involved in the case of the Cohens; the great question of internal improvement; the expediency of retouching the sweeping clause of the constitution; and of regulating the judiciary upon better principles, may not justify this resort, is one question: in what way to do it, is another. May it best be done by a convention with specified powers, and who may continue to shift and shape the amendments until they can compromise and please all parties? Or by the ordinary mode of legislative amendments? The Intelligencer lifts up its hands at once against a convention, and sagely says "the mode for amending the constitution is distinctly and wisely prescribed in that instrument itself" as if one of those very modes was not a convention itself!

One word more—The Intelligencer insinuates "that Mr. Jefferson's name has been dragged before the public to bolster up doctrines, which, openly proposed to him, he would certainly disclaim."—And again "we feel a moral certainty that every one of them ("the fathers of the republic") is directly opposed to the Enquirer." Now we repeat in the most positive terms, that in the case of the Cohens, Mr. Jefferson utterly disagrees with the supreme court.

From a letter from a gentleman in Pensacola, dated July 10, to his friend in this City, says— "This day Gen. Jackson entered this city with his troops, and hoisted the American colors. The city consists of from 450 to 500 houses. Rents are from $600 to $1000 per annum, payable monthly."

MOST DARING OUTRAGE.

Yesterday about 12 o'clock a negro man about two miles from the town of Cartersville, with a gun in his hand, laid violent hands on a very respectable married woman; threw her down, and attempted a rape. Summoning all her strength, she rose with him, after a strong contest. Finding his efforts unavailing, he presented the gun, she seized the muzzle, and averted it, till her mother whose house was near, could approach to aid her. She escaped from him, and is She ran off. he discharged the gun at her, but missed his aim. Within an hour after, he appeared at the house of another very respectable married woman, about 3-4 of a mile distant. She was gone to the spring: he waited for her return: and immediately, in the yard, attempted to ravish her. Unable to vanquish her, he drew a knife which she wrested from him, and seeing another suspended at his side she grasped that also, and got possession of it. He then sprang at his gun, which stood not far off, but before he could fire at her, she had attained the distance of 50 or 60 yards he put 26 shot into the back of her neck and head. Not disabled however, she succeeded in escaping with her two little children, while he threatened to kill all the white women he might meet with. They both accord in describing him to be a negro of light complexion, moderate stature, slender form, and thin visage: clothed in mixed home spun, a white hat with black crape or ribbon band. One of them thinks he has a scar in his forehead.

The citizens of Cartersville and its vicinity, will pay a reward of $50 to any one who shall apprehend The rascal, so that he be brought to condign punishment.

It is hoped that the editors throughout the state will give the above an insertion.

Cartersville, 10th inst. 1821.

[COMMUNICATED

Departed this life in the 21st year of his age at Kanawha in Powhatan county, on Sunday the 5th inst. Mr. LOLLING MURRAY son of the late William Murray of Amelia. Few have ever been the occurrences of this life, which have given the writer of these lines so much pain and regret: it seems but yesterday he saw him last blooming into life, with the smile of joy on his countenance, and manifesting in his whole form and manner the strongest evidence of a long and joyous existence, but alas! how fallacious are all human calculations, how deceitful the fond admiring hopes of friends; how unstable and fleeting the created things of earth. But the other day, and poor Murray, little thought that so soon the portals of the grave were to close on him forever, and shut him out from the enjoyment of every earthly blessing! little did he think his young, active and careful form would so soon be deposited within the jaws of cold and silent sepulchre, and in an untimely moment suddenly snatched from the bosom of friends and kindred. Many, no doubt, were his hopes; much his anticipations—for few indeed were more amply endowed with all that could render him an object of delight and admiration to those who had the pleasure of his acquaintance. His mind was strong and discriminating; his manners, mild, modest, gentle and smilingly dignified his heart, Kind, ardent, feeling, and affectionate. Long, long, will his afflicted friends, mourn the loss of him whose virtues were manifold. Yet great are their reasons to believe that he is now reposing in the bosom of his Father and his God, "where the wicked cease from troubling and the weary are at rest."

A sincere and watchful friend.

At Mount Eagle, Albemarle county on the 23d ultimo, in the 19th year of her age, Miss SARAH L. SHIRTAZRD, of Staunton, much regretted by her numerous friends and acquaintance.

LAND FOR SALE.

The subscriber being desirous to sell a tract of land in the county of Powhatan, containing 540 acres, certain half of the land is in wood and weed timber, a considerable pro portion of which would produce good tobacco. On the land is a new two story dwelling house, finished, with convenient outhouses. It is contiguous to Mr. I. Farrar's Manufactory and saw mills, twenty-five miles from Richmond, and four from James river. The price will be made to correspond with the delivery of money.

FRANCIS HARRIS.

Powhatan, August 17.

29-sw

By the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia,

A PROCLAMATION

WHEREAS it has been represented to the Executive by the sheriff of Southampton county, that a certain negro man slave, named SAM, confined in the jail of said county, under sentence of death for the crimes of burglary and robbery, and who was to have been executed on Saturday the 18th inst. did on Monday last break and make his escape from the said jail, and is now at large: I have therefore thought fit, with the advice of the Council, to offer a reward of ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS to any person or persons who shall apprehend the said slave SAM, and convey him to the Jail of Southampton county.

And I do moreover require all officers civil and military, and all good people of this Commonwealth to use their best endeavors to apprehend or cause to be apprehended, the said Sam, so that he may be dealt with as the law directs.

Given under my hand as Governor, and under the Seal of the Commonwealth, at Richmond, this 10th day of August, 1821.

(Seal)

THOS. M. RANDOLPH

He is a stout black fellow, about 5 or 6 feet high; has a scar on his left cheek and another on his forehead, and is very bow legged. He was accompanied by a bright mulatto fellow named Jim about 30 years old 5 feet 9 or 10 inches high, who had been committed to said jail on a charge of burglary.

Aug. 17.

20-4w

FINE ARTS.

Ladies and Gentlemen who have not received since he opened his school on the 1st of Jany.

SIGNOR LEWIS PADUANI, FROM PORTUGAL—INFORMS THE PUBLIC

That he has taken a commodious room for the boarding of young gentlemen, in the new brick building on the corner of J. and 14th street, nearly opposite the theatre, where Lewis teaches Spanish, Italian, and Latin. He will also give lessons in Drawing, Crayon, in Miniature, or in Oil scape painting

Signor Paduani will give lessons in any of the female Academies, on reasonable terms, provided he gets a sufficient number of pupils, and will attend to the private instruction of young Ladies in any part of the city. On the first of September, he intends to furnish another room for the public instruction of those Ladies who may choose to attend him. Terms $10 a quarter, one half in advance.

Portraits In Oil or Miniature executed in the neatest manner and on moderate terms.

August 17.

20-4t.

THOMAS H. PROSSER.

TAKE notice, you are not an inhabitant of the commonwealth of Virginia, and have no visible estate in the state that I know of, that I shall, pursuant to a decretal order of the superior court of law for the county of Henrico, wherein I am plaintiff and you are defendant, entered on the 15th day of February next, unless you appear on that day, take the depositions of witnesses to prove the two tracts of land purchased of you, lying in the county aforesaid.

J. H. HEPBURN

Richmond, August 1

19-w.