Newspapers / The Tarborough Southerner (Tarboro, … / April 26, 1831, edition 1 / Page 2
Part of The Tarborough Southerner (Tarboro, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
DOMZS32IC. J7Vc arc authorised to state, that at tlie urgent solicitations of his friends from different parts of the district, Dr. T. H. HALL has been induced to forego his de termination to withdraw from public ser vice, and may therefore be considered a candidate to represent this district in the next Congress of the IT. States. "VVe arc authorised to annonr.ee JOSEPH H. LLOYD, Esq. as a candi date to represent this district in the next Congress of the U. States. TO THE FREEMEN Of the third Congressional District of Norlh-Carolina, composed of the counties of Hyde, Tyrrcl, Wash ington, Beaufort, Pitt, and Edge combe. Fi: l low -citiz k s : At the close of the first Ses sion of the last Congress, your late Representative gave pub lic notice, that he wished the relation of Constituent and Re presentative, which then exis ted between you and him, to terminate with that Congress. On the fourth day of March last, bv law, as well as bv the request of the Representative, that relation did cease to exist. Since that time, vour late Re prcsentativc and myself, have become candidates to supply the vacancy thus created. We entertain different opinions on some of the leading political subjects, which now agitate the Country. It is my duty to state my opinions on these sub jects: The General Government lias for many years, nay, every Administration has, appropria ted monies for fortifications, for the defence of the Country, and to afford the necessary facilities to Commerce, consistent with the Constitution. For these objects, large sums have been appropriated for the benefit of other Slates, while North-Carolina has received but a bare pittance; and our Congression al District, comparatively noth ing. This has not proceeded from an oppressive partiality in the General Government, but because the claims of the Dis trict for appropriations have not been urged; nay, have actu ally been resisted." As this is the course which every Admin istration has adopted, we must presume that this is the settled policy of the Government. If, then, the money is thus to be appropriated, I am clearly of opinion, that Aorth-Carolina should have her proportion ex pended on Constitutional ob jects. All seem to admit, at this day, the expediency of Commercial improvements of a National Character; but some doubt the Constitutionality of appropria tions for such objects, h is not contended, that there is a direct grant of power in so ma ny words, in any distinct Arti cle or Section of the Constitu tion; but, that this power is the necessary consequence of the power granted to Congress, to regulate Commerce. There is no express provision, that Con gross may make appropriations I "ii i l . ! ' ... for building llgbUboWM, light- boats, buoys, &c. vet Congress I as exercised this power, from the commencement of (he Gov-! emment. as hmnrr n nnnne., power to carry the power to re gulate Commerce, into more complete operation. My opin ion on this subject, corresponds with that expressed by our ven erable President, in what is cal led his 'Veto Message;' all ob jects for facilitating Commerce which shall be of obvious im portance, in a National point of view, I shall feel bound to sup port. During the last Session of Congress, a bill was introduc- cd to. repeal the 25th section of the Judiciary Act, passed in tne year 17o9. On this subject, al so, your late Representative and myself entertain different opinions, lie voted for the Repeal' of this section, as being unconstitutional and inexpedi ent. I am of opinion, that the Repeal of this section would place it in the power of any State, to nullify any Law of Congress, and would eventual ly be a repeal of the Union of the States. I cannot place this subject in a clearer point of view, than by giving you ex tracts from Mr. Buchanan's Report: The Constitution of the United States has conferred upon Congress certain enumerated powers: and cx nresslv authorizes tint bodv 'to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying these powers in to execution.' In the construction of this instrument, it lias become an axiom, the truth of which cannot be controverted, that 'the General Gov ernment, though limited as to its ob jects, is surprvmc with respect to those objects.' j The Constitution has also confer red upon the Preident, 'by and with the advice and consent of the Seuatc, provided two-thirds of t ho Senators present concur the power to make treaties. Jiy the second section of the Glh article of this instrument, it is declar ed in emphatic language, that lhis Constitution, and the laws of the U nited States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United State, should be the supreme law of the land ; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any tiling in the Constitution or laws of any Slate to the contrary notwithstanding.' The Constitution having conferred upon Congress the power of legisla tion over certain objects, and upon the President and Senate the power ot making treaties with foreign na tions, the next question which natu rally presented itself to those who iramed it was, m what manner it would be mot proper that the Con stitution itself, and the law and the treaties made under its authority, should be carried into execution. They have decided this question in the following strong and comprehen sive laniruae: ' 1 he judicial nower shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitu tion, the laws of these United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made under their authority.' Arti cle 3, Sec. C. This provision is the onlv one which could have been made in consistency with the char acter ot the Government established by the Constitution. It would have been a strange anomaly had that in strument established a judiciary whose powers did not embrace all the laws and all the treaties made un der its authorities. The symmetry of the system would thus have been destroyed; and, in many cases, Con gress would have had to depend ex clusively lor the execution ot their own laws upon the judiciary of the States. This principle would have been at war with the spirit which per vades the whole Constitution. It was clearly the intention of its framcrs to create a Government which should have the power of construing and ex ecuting its own laws, without any ob-truction from Slut? authority. Accordingly, we find that the judi cial power of the United States ex tends, in express terms, 'to all cases,' in law and in trinity, arising under "UMiiuuou, mo laws, and tie treaties f the Unite,! Slatjs. This ceticral toniruairo ' coninrclicmlx urn. jcisely what it ought to comprehend, 11 l,,c jmlicial power of the United States dues nqt e,xtentl to all cases arising under 'the Constitution, the laws, and treaties of the Union, how could this power be brought Co em brace such cases without a law of Congress investing the Supreme Court with original and appellate-' jurisdic tion where the Constitution gives it? It was the imperious duly of Con gress to make such a law, and it is equally its duly to continue it: in deed, without it. the judicial power of the United States is limited and re stricted to such cases only as arise in the federal courts, and is never brought to bear upon numerous ca ses, evidently within its range. When Congress, in the year ITS 9, legislated upon this subject, they knew that the State courts would oft en he called upon, in the trial of cau ses to give a construction to the Con stitution, the treaties and laws of the United States. What then was to be done? If the decisions of the State courts should be final, the Constitu tion and laws of the Union might be construed to mean one thing in one State, and another thing in another State. All uniformity in their construc tion would thus be destroyed. He sides, wc might, if this were the case, rct into serious conflicts with foreign nations, as a treaty might receive one construction in Pennsylvania, another in Virginia, and a third in New York. Some common and uniform standard of construction was absolute ly necessary. To remedy these and other incon veniences, the first Congress of the United Slates, composed, in a consi derable proportion, of the framcrs of th" Constitution, passed the 25lh sec tion of the judicial act of the 21th September, 17.S9. 'Sec. 2.5. And be it further enacted, That a final judgment or decree in any suit, in the hihct court of law or equity of a State, in which a decision in the suit could he had, where is drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under, the United States, and the decision is against their validity : or where is drawn in oucstion the validity of a statute of, or an author ity exercised under, any State, on the Ground of their beinir rcnuirnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the Uni ted Slates, and the decision is m favor of such their validity; or where is drawn :i question the construction ot any clause f the Constitution, or of a treatv or sta tute of, or commission held under, the United States, and the decision is atrainst the title, right, privilege; or exemption, specially set up or claimed by either nar- tv under such clause of the said Consti tution, treaty, statute, or commission, may be re-examined, and reversed or af firmed in the Supreme Court of the Uni ted States, upon a writ of error, the cita tion beinsr siirncd by the chief justice, or judge, or chancellor, of the court render ing or passing tne judgment or decree complained of, or by a justice of the Su preme Court ot the United States, in the same manner, and under the same regula tions, and the writ shall have the same elTect, as if the iudirmcnt or decree com plained of had been rendered or passed in a circuit court; anil tlie proceeding up on the reversal shall also be the same, except that the Supreme Court, instead of remanding the cause for a final deci sion, as before provided, may, at their discretion, if the cause shall have been once remanded before, proceed to a final decision of the same and award execu tion. Hut no other error shall be assign ed or regarded as aground of reversal, in any such case as aforesaid, than such as appears on the face of the record, and immediately respects the beforemention ed questions of validity, or construction of the said Constitution, treaties, statutes, commissions, or authorities in dispute.' This section embraces three class es of cases. The first, those in which a State court should decide a law or treaty of the United States to be void, either because it violated the Consti tution of the United States or for any other reason. Ought there not in such cases to be an appeal to the Su preme Court of the United States? Without such an appeal, the General Government might be obliged to be hold its own laws, and its solemn treaties, annulled by the judiciary of every Stale in the Union, without the power of redress. 'Flic second class of cases is of a different character. It embraces those cases in which the validity of .-iaie laws is contested, upon the principle that they violate the Consti tution, the laws, or treaties of the United States, and have therefore, been enacted in opposition to the au thority of the Supreme Law of the land.' Cases of this description have been of frequent occurrence. It has often been drawn into question be fore the courts, whether State laws did or did not violate the Constitu tion of the United States. Is it nnt then essential to the preservation of me oencrai uovernmcnt that the Su preme Court of the United States should possess the powers of review inn the iudjrmont 'J j r wiiin; tuui is in all cases wherein they have establish ed the validity of a "State law, in op position to the Constitution and laws ot the United States? The third class differs essentially from the two first. I the cases em braced by it, neither the validity of acts ol Congress, nor of treaties, nor of Slate laws, is called in question. I his clause of the 25th section mere ly confers upon the Supreme Court, the appellate jurisdiction of constru ing the Constitution, j;,Us, and trea ties of the United States, when their protection has been invoked by par lies to suits before the State courts, and lias been denied by their deci sion. Without the exercise of this power, in cases originating in the State courts, the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States would be left to be finally construed and executed by a judicial power over which Congress has no control. This section does not interfere, ei ther directly or indirectly, with the independence of the State courts, in finally deciding all cases arising ex clusively under their own Constitu tion and laws. It leaves them in the enjoyment of every power which they possessed before the adoption of the Federal Constitution. It merely declares, that, as that Constitution es tablished a new form of government, K..J and consequently gave to the State courts power ot construing, in certain cases, the Constitution, the laws, and the treaties of the United States, the Supreme Court of the United States should, to this limited extent, but not beyond it, possess the power of re viewing their judgments. The sec tion itself declares that 'no other er ror shall be assigned or regarded as a ground of reversal, in any such case as aforesaid, than such as appears on the face of the record, and immcai- alcly respects the hrj hrement ioncd (ucstion oj validity or construction of the said Constitution, treaties, statutes, commissions, or authori ties in dispute.9 Another reason for preserving this section is, that, without it, there would be no uniformity in the con struction and administration of the Constitution, laws, nnd treaties of the United States. If the courts of twen ty-four distinct, sovereign States, each possess the power, in the last re sort, of deciding upon the Constitu tion and laws of the United States, their construction may he different in every State of the Union. That act of Congress which conforms to the Constitution of the United States, and is valid, in the opinion of the Su preme Court of Georgia, may be a di rect violation of the provisions of that instrument, and be void, in the judg ment of the Supreme Court of South Carolina. A State law in Virginia might in this manner be declared constitutional, whilst the same law, if passed by the Legislature of Penn sylvania, would be Void. Nay, what would be still more absurd, a law or treaty of the United States with a fo reign nation, admitted to be constitu tionally made, might secure rights to the citizens of one State, which would be denied to those of another. Al though the same Constitution and laws govern the Union, yet the rights acquired under them would vary with every degree of latitude. Surely the framers of the Constitu tion would have left their work in complete, had they established no common tribunal to decide its own construction, and that of the laws and treaties made under its authority. They are not liable to this charge, because they have given express power to the judiciary of the Union over 'all cases, in law and equity, ari sing under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority. ' The first Congress of the United States have, to a considerable extent, carried this power into execution by the passage of the judicial act;- and it contains no provision more important than the 25th section. This section ought not to be repeal ed, because, in the opinion of the mi nority of the Committee on the Judi ciary, its repeal would seriously en danger the existence of the Union. The chief evil which existed under the old confederation, and which gave birth to the present Constitu tion, was, that the General Govern ment could not act directly upon the people, but only by requisition upon sovereign States. " The consequence was, that the States either obeyed or disobeyed these requisitions, as they thought proper. The present Con stitution was intended to enable the Government of the United States to act immediately upon the people of the States, and to carry its own laws into full execution, by virtue of its own authority. If this section were repealed, the General Government would be deprived of the power, by means of its own judiciary, to give cfiect either to the Constitution which called it mtb existence, or to the laws and treaties made under its authority. It would be compelled to submit, in '"any important cases, to the deci sions of State courts, and thus the ve ry evil which the present Constitu tion was intended to prevent would be entailed upon the neonlrv Tu judiciary of the States might refuse li. .-.r. .... . rr ... . " ' ivuny into cucct tne laws of the U. nited Stales; and without th to the Supreme Court which section authorizes, thee law 2H thus he entirely annulled anil not be executed without n COlll'i force. rt5M k This position maybe illustra,,,,, a few striking example S v the Legislature of one of believing the tariff laws to be n " stitutional, should determine they ought not to be executed Vv! its limits. They accordingly r law imposing the severest eJ!v upon the collector and other cust1 house officers of the United Si within their territory, if th(v collect the duties on'thc import of foreign merchandize. The colb tor proceeds to discharge the du,-r' of his office under the laws of th r nited States, and he is condemVj and punished before a State court f violating this State law. Hepe section, and the decision of the St ! court would be final and conclu and any State could thus nullify -T' act of Congress which she deemed' be unconstitutional. The Executive of one of the States in a message to the lc-islature, b' declared it to be his opinion, that land belonging to the United 1 within her territory is now the proD erty of the State, by virtue of her sovereign authority. Should the p gislature be of the same opinion, ard pass a law for the punishment oftj. land officers of the United States whj should sell any of the public laci within her limits, this transfer of pro. perty might be virtually accomnlii ed by the repeal of the 25th section:' the judicial act. Our land off might then be severely punished, thus prohibited by the courts of thr State from performing their duty u der the laws of the Union, without the possibility of redress in any con stitutional or legal form, h this manner, the title of the United States to a vast domain, which has cost the nation many millions, and which just ly belongs to the people of the seve ral States, would be defeated or great ly impaired. In all such cases, redress can no? be peacefully obtained in the ordinary administration of justice. A writ it error issues from the Supreme Court, which finally decides the questiw whether the act of Congress was con stitutional or not; and if they deter mined in the affirmative, the iudj- men t of the State court is reversed. The laws arc thus substituted insieji of arms, and the States kept within their proper orbits by the judicial au thority. " But if no such appeal exist ed, then, upon the occurrence of ci scs of this character, the General Go vernment would be compelled to de termine whether the Union should he dissolved, or whether there should he a recurrence to force an awful alter native, which we trust may never presented. We will not attempt la ther to pourtray the evils which rni$ result from the abandonment ot!-"' present judicial system. They sir; every reflecting mind. To illustrate fully in what manner this subject was vie"'' cd by Congress, it is onr ne cessary to state, that 1ST in favour of retaining the section, and only 51 for its re peal. To those who arc not ac quainted with my political cnursn. it mnv hn nnCCSsarVW , . statn. that 1 1 invn hern an u viating Republican. To $1 acquaintances, such a lccbra" tion would be unnecessary. . Should I obtain a majority0' your suffrages, my time, talent and exertions, shall be pul requisition, to advance yourv interests, to solicit appropj tions for the improvement our Commerce, and to p1 serve the Union of the States Very Respectfully, Your Ob't. Scrv'u J. R. LLOYD April 23$, 1831. 07The VirgmTa and N-C rolina Transportation Comf ny have formed a cotnp1 the proprietors of the otber nj by which their operations bo conducted with much er certainty and despatch t1' heretofore. The steam & Lady of the Lake, will po employed exclusively i" toU
The Tarborough Southerner (Tarboro, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
April 26, 1831, edition 1
2
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75