page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page.
0 / 75
i LIBERTY THE CONSTITUTION. ...UNION. I 1 ..ill 1
NEWBEM, WEDNESDAY, APRIL, 18, 1832.
BY THOMAS WATSON.
lish and declare these United Colonies are, and j not be unadvisable to take a more minute
of right ought to be, free, sovereign, and inde- j yey ol this subject. Some aspects under which
pendent States) and that, as free, sovereign, j it may be viewed, are far from being, at first
payable in advance. and independent States, they have full powei j sight, uninviting. Two or more Confederacies
i liree uouarn per .uu.u,. i-r- . ! , , . r , , trnrt .alliances.
No timer will be discontinued (but at the, nis- ""-y i i -7: 7. ""r " Z lS
vretionTu e E tor) until all arrearages have been j establish commerce, and do all other acts and
Si up I "' independent States may of right
"it.- . r..V
Li Hi 1 II 'fir: . . If? t ' - ..T
,VA-rf OF THi UNITED STATES PASSED AT THE FIRST
SKHSION OF THE TWENTY-SECOND CONGRESS.
Judge Tucker says: 44 Whatever political re
lation existed between the American Colonies
antecedent to the Revolution, as constituent
parts of the Briiish Empire, or as dependen
cies upon it, that relation was completely dis
solved and annihilated from that period. From
the moment of the Revolution, they became,
severally," independent and sovereign States,
possessing all the rights, jurisdictions, and au-
thority, that other sovereign States, however
constituted, or by whatever title denominated,
possess;' and bound by no ties but of their own
! creation, except such as all other civilized na
! tions are equally bound by, and which together
i constitute, the customary law of nations." 1
A ACT explanatory'of the act entitled "An act for j Tuck. Black. App. 150
the relief of the officers and' yoldJers of the Virginia 4i.By this grat measure,
line and INavy, aiul.ot the Continental Army, du
snvs Mr. TLiwIe
. , -
himself, " the Congress of Provinces became
ring the revolutionary war approved thirteenth ; al once tjle Congress of so many sovereign
f .May, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-. Stal(s cnlitled to places in the catalogue of
Bt it enacted by the Senate and House of Nations.'' p.Zl .
Hcprescntativcsofti.e United States of America' 1 The Confederation of 1777 was formed by
,,, Congress assembled, That the provisions ; rifWntes. not from the neonle of the United
of the act, entitled "An. act for the rclifef of j Statfs in their nalion'al capacity, but from the
,-ertain officers and soldiers.of the Virginia Line 30Vcrai States in their sovereign capacity, in
(nd Navy, and of the Continental Army, during dcpplucnt 0f each other; and those Articles ex
thc revolutionary., war," approved thirtieth of ! pjy recognized the sovereignty of the res
May, one thousand eight hundred and thirty, ;prrtivV individual States. It ' style's itself "The
shati not be construed to extend to any Land j Unitcd StaU,fi of America." ii declares, ex
. Warrants heretofore issued, which have been prcssl tiat each State retains its right of
located, surv eyed, or patented, on the lands i soreJ:wfy, and that the Confederation was
reserved and set ? part for the satis.action of the : formetf for "the common defence and general
Military Bounty hands, one to the Ohicers and j welfare- oflhe said Confederacy. It express-
.'"IU.i - ' "- ' vjuujrhku, on i,ri-c tin) nrifh .Vr ,-,. no -it o -
rstaldiIiment, or for kh( satisfaction of the
Oilicers and Soldiers of the Continental Army. ;
Sec. '-i.. Ani be it, f ti rthcr enacted, TJiat the ;
provisions of the third section of the act,, enti- '
?5l?d. "An act to extend the time for locating
Virginia Military hand Warrants, and return
reignty, freedom, and independence, and every
other power, jurisdiction, and right, which is
not expressly delegated to the United States,
in Congress assembled."
Mr. Rawle also ad 'lliat, by the Articles
ol v;ontederation, " I he United stales were
i ii.. l m ' -
,iiSMi)t.iuu.iu uu- .ana miiee appro- j.formed into a Federal body, with an express
vec twentieth May, one thousand eight hundred ! r,rvation, (0 cach state, of its freedom, sore-
reignty,,nvA independence, and of every power,
right, and jurisdiction, not expressly delegated
j to the United States, in Congress assembled."
The Convention of 1787, which formed the
and twenty-six, be, and the same is hereby eon-
. iiuued in force for seven years, from and after
ihe first (lay of June, one thousand eight hun
dred and thirty two; and the. proprietors of
an v location, survey, or patent, contemplated
.1 r . . : ! J i . ; li. I
i,y me aioresaiu section, may avail memseives (;onstiuuion of tJlc T;niled States, was not a
ci me provisions ol tne sain section m tne cases (eiefration from th
:r rem enumerated
Sneaker ofthv House of Rrnrescntaiivcs.
.L C. CAhllOUN,
Vice President oflhe Unitcd States,
and President of the Senate.
A ACT t.i add a part of the Southern to the North-
e people of the Unitcd States
in their national capacity, but a delegation from
the State Sovereignties. This appears from
the manner of their appointment, and the dis
proportion of representatives from the several
States of which it was composed. The dele
gates were appointed by the State Legislatures,
and the number of delegates was not propor
tioned to the population of the States whi ch
they represented. That the Convention was a
would each fee more compact- and more mana
gfiable than a single one extending over the
same terpitory. By dividing the United Ltates i
into two or more Confederacies, the great "col
lision of interests, apparently or really different
and contrary, in the whole extent of their do
minion, would be broken, "and in great measure
disappear, in the several parts. But these ad
vantages, which are discovered from certain
points of vipw, are greatly overbalanced by in
conveniences that will appear on a4 more accu
rate examination. Animosities and perpetual
wars would arise from assigning the extent, the
limits, and the rights, of the different Confede
racies. The expense of Government would be
multiplied by the number of Federal Govern
ments. The dangers resulting from foreign
inr-uehce and internal distentions, would not,
perhaps, be less great and alarming, in the in
stance of different Confederacies, than in the
instance of different, though more numerous
unassociated States. Tliese observations, and
many others that might be made on the sub
ject, will be sufficient to evince that a division
of the U. States, into a number of separate Con
federacies, would probably be an imsatis facto-
ry ana an unsuccessmi experiment. i lie re
maining system which the American States may
adopt, is, ina union ofthem under one Confede
rate Republic. It will not be necessary to em
ploy much time, or many arguments, to show
that this is the most eligible system that can be
proposed. By adopting this system, the vigor
and decision of a wide-spreading Monarchy
may be joined to the freedom and beneficence
of a contracted Republic. The extent of terri
tory, the diversity of climate and soil, the num
ber, and greatiress, and connection, of lakes
and rivers, with which the United States are
intersected, and almost surrounded, all indicate
an enlarged Government to be it and advanta
geous for them. The principles and disposi
tions of their citizens indicate that, i if this Go-J
vernment, liberty shall reign triumphant.-
Such, indeed, have been the general opinions
and wishes entertained since the era of our in
dependence. If these opinions and wishes are
as well-founded as they have been general, the
late Convention were justified in proposing to
their constituents one Confederate Republic, as
the best system of a National Government for
he United States." Wilson'' s Lect. :0,pMbl.
Vew Jersey. SULPICIUS.
IV ' C A 1 1 LiClLJ'LllLlJjl-llUIil till." latu o(l -I I i c; n t t ( c
,1 t.. it enacted by the Senate and House d Fed(ifal b(id aPpears from the manner of pro
&$csen!iitivrs of the United States ofAmcri-cee!U"S'- they voted, not by personal reprcsen-
: ;,;.C,,..Mrr,.vv nzt,Ltrli Thnt 11 thnr nhrt tdtwn, but 01 Males
of the. Country lying within; the limits of Ala-j
tmma, and now in the occupancy of the Chero
kee nod Chickasaw tribes of Indians, shall be
added to, and constitute a part of, the Northern
summoned as appellee This being but a name
for the defendant in error, as the Lawyers
. I quote jfrom the debates in the Virginia
Convention, called to consider the form of
government proposed to the States, by the
General Convention at Philadelphia i. e., the
present Constitution of the United States.
The Judiciary clause being under considera
tion, Elliott's "debates, vol. 2d, page 386
George Mason, (objecting to so much of lhe
Judiciary clause as extends the jurisdiction of
the Federal Courts, " to controversies between
a State, and etiizens of another State.")
liow will their jurisdiction in this case do ?
" respecting those iands. Every 'liquidated
44 account, or other claim against this State,
win oe tnea belore the Federal Court. Is
" not this disgraceful ? Is this Stat tn hP
" brought to the bar of justice, like a delinquent
" individual ? Is the sovereignty of the State
" to be arraigned like a culprit or private of-"fo-nder
? Will the State undergo this ?nor
" iifi cation ? I think this power perfectly un
" But let us pursue this subject further.
The debaters of this grave and momentous
subject Mason, Madison, Henry and Marshall,
were the ablest of Virginia's Statesmen. Tiro
of them with forecast some what remarkable,
suggested that the day might come when
Federal Court, under the letter of the Constitw
tution, might presume to summon a State to iVs
Mar and arrogate authority to sit the arbiter of
its rights. The two others repudiated the idea
and one, even denounced it as an irrati&nal
supposition that the soverim power could be
dragged before a Court. '
It has occurred to me, Mr. Editor, that the
"difficulty seen by Mr. Marshall in making a
State defendant, was the very difficulty I have
ventured to suggest, in introducing these ex
tracts from the debate the difficulty of compel-
.,, -ii i . . i , , a ' vuiuivuvv w vi i muiiuuic Jl lilt; 1 .nil rT -
" will be tried before the Fedpr-1 rnnrt T!f "vouri
.... iUlc ic r euerai vourt. IS , W anil notri. tantna rnmrinnprr hfc.
Edmund Burke once 6aid, that he could no-t
frame an indictment against a whole people.
What proportion will the difficulty of framing
the indictment, bear to trie difficulty of execti
ting the sentence of that Court
I understand the Supreme 'Court has over -
j come the difficulty of framincr the indictment.
1 j - j -j a
What is to be done, if iudp-ment br. nht.ainp.dA Next comes the execution of its sentence hie
" against a State.-Vi you issue a fieri facias?- ! labor hoc opus.
" It would be ludjerous to say, that you could ! Ir there be a jurist, within the scope of yo.ui'
"put the State's body in jail. How ts the readers, who can solve this problem, he wiJL
"judgment then to be enforced? A power confer a favor upon one in search oflruth--
" which cannot be executed, ought not to be And, perhaps, help the Supreme Court out of
"granted. a dilemma, as we understand that the Court
" Let us consider the
" subject of its cognizance-
" tween a State, or the citizens thereof, and a I on tue return ol the postei
" foreign .State, citizens, or subjects. There is ; HENRY OF SS
" a confusion in this case this much, however, :; .. :L 1 .
"mavbe raised out of it that a suit will be! 7, . ... ...
a i uiil tne jjutitijiure iiepuoilCui.
a uiiemma, as we understand that the Court
operation of the last j appealed from, and the State of Georgia, disrev
ce controversies be- i garding its mandate, this "difficulty" vill arise,
citizens thereof, and a ! on the return of the postea.
" brought against Virginia. She may be sued j
" by a foreign fetate. What reciprocity is there
" in it ? In a suit between Virginia and a for
" eijrn State, is the foreign State to be bound
" by the decision ? Is there a similar privilege
" given to .ts in foreign States? Where will
" you fmd,a parallel regulation ? How will the
" decision be enforced? Only by the ultima
" ratio Reg inn."
James Madison, (defending this clause,). and
in reply to Mr. Mason, pageoOO:
" Its jurisdiction in c mtroversies between a
" State, and citizens of another State, is much
" objected to, and perhaps without reason. It
" is not in the power of individuals to call any
Mr. Clay and Mr. Gallatin. Our readers
have seen the attack which was made by Mr,
Clay upon Mr. Gallatin, in his late speech up
on tiie tariff, and are no doubt well satisfied
that the attack was no less unjust than it was
undignified ; and that coming, as it did from a
man who is held up before the nation as a can
didate for the Presidency, it can have no effeo
to advance the object of his wishes. 7
l order, however, to show how very differ
ent was the opinion entertained for Mr. Galla1
tin by Mr. Jefferson, from that which was ex;
pressed of him in the speech referred to; and to-
present to the view of our readers, in its fulL
Mr. Rawle admits, that, in the formation of
the Constitution of the Unitcd States, "It was
not tbe simple act of a homogeneous body of
men, either large or small: it was to be the
Judicial .District of Alabama, instead of the act of nV iependent States, though in a
Southern District of said State, as now arranged.
ArruovEi), March 31, 183.
greater degree the act of the people, set in mo
tion by these Statfcs : it was to be the act of the
neople of each State, and not of the people at
- rjn 1 ' "
,, . r, ' c , U large.- p. 13.
trom tne fjl,nn'r "ft"? Constitution. ' ( Th(? Convention tim3 formed did not adopt a
RIGHTFUL REMEDIES FOR THE RE- Ccusolid.ited National Government, with un-
iiULbS GKGHIEv AjNCIS No. 3. limited powers, which would annihilate the
We shall now "undertake to shqw that the j State Sovereignties. This form of government
Constitution of the United States is a Federal was proposed by General Alexander Hamilton,
compact. and advocated by Mr. Randolph, Mr. Butler,
Now, the Constitutionals either Federal, or j Mr. Governcur Morris, Mr. Charles Pinckney,
it is National. We arc aware it has been said, i Mr. Madison and other distinguished mem
by Mr. Livingston and others, to be a mixture 1 bers of the Convention. But this plan of a
of both ; hut wp deny that any such mixture can ! Federal Government "was thought by the ma
exist. A mixture of death and life might as j jority too energetic. It was opposed by John
v.cll exist in the animal body, as a mixture of Dickinson of Pennsylvania, and William Pater
Federal and National qualities in the political son, of New Jersey, &c. who zealously advoca
cody: for the several States, in forming the ted the cause of the State Sovereignties. It
Constitution, have either reserved t;o themselves was solemnly discussed, and it was deliberate-
ihc uncontrolled right of sovereignty, or they lv and formally rejected
delegated if. They are either sovereign, or I Therefore, after much discussion and solemn
they are not sovereign. If they are sovereign,
then is the Government Federal if they fare
not sovereign, then is the Government National.
we are aware that Mr. Rawle denies that
the -Constitution is Federal, lie says:- "The
itatrs do not enter into the Union upon Fed
. eral principles," p.20. And again he says,
that very littlc-of a pure federative quality was
meant to be retained in the Constitution of the
t nihrd States p.t43. '
NV e will now proceed to lay down a few pro
positions, and we sriall proceed to their estab
lishment. t ! V
L The several States forming the Constjtu
tion of the Unitcd States, were free, sovereign,
sand independent, at the time of the formation
and adoption of the Constitution of the United
2. They delegated certain powers, in forming
t!)eir compact, to be exercised by the Govern
ment they were about to constitute, and reserved
all others to themselves: And,
1 3. They reserved to thcmsel ves an uncon
trolled right of sovereignty, n-eedom,and inde
it these positions are trup. m&n ic tho rrtr.
Mitution Federal, and the Stateshe only pro
per parties to that instrument.
First. The several States forming the Con-
titution were free, sovereign, and independent,
ftt the time of the formation and adoption of the
Constitution of the United States. Let us ex
aine this matter a little. J
1 he Declaration of American Independence, the
oa the 4th of July, 1776, was the act which
n?,Tc rtn to the American State sovereignties.
1 his was an act of a Federal body. This De
naration of Independence sets forth that "We,
ne Representatives of the United States, in
'nertd Congress assemble? do solemnly ptib-
argument, the Convention adopted the present
Constitution of the U. States in which instru
ment, the powers delegated are few and defined,
extending to a few enumerated and spccified
objects. All powers, not so delegated, the
States have reserved to themselves, including
an uncontrolled right of freedom, sovereignty,
and independence. That this was at that time
the opinion of the Convention, will appear by a
statement made by Judge Wilson, who was one
of the Federal Convention, in a speech, deliv
ered on the 26th of November, 1787, in the
Convention of Pennsylvania, assembled to take
into consideration the Constitution framed by
the Federal Convention for the United States
He thus explained their views, to the Pennsyl
"The United States may adopt any one of
four different systems. They may become con
solidated into one Government, in which the
separate existence of the States'shall be entire
ly absorbed : they may reject any plan of union
or association, & act as separate & unconnected
States: they mav form two or more Cohfedera
cies: they may unite in one Federal Republic.
Which of thepe systems ought to have been
. From the Richmond Enquirer.
Til E QUESli ON.
We lay before our readers this morning, the
Speech of Judge Clayton indie House of Re
presentatives the commencement of'Mr.Cass's
able and unanswerable Review, and the follow
ing Communication from the "pen of a Virginia
Statesman, devoted to the rights of the States,
and treading in the footsteps of the Fathers of
the Constitution. He shows us what Henry
foretold, and what Mason, and Madison, and
Marshall thought, in times gone by. These
historical authorities must now be called forth.
If the Supreme Court can exercise the juris
diction, which it now claims, of dragging a
State to its bar, and there annulling the laws
which she has enacted for carrying into effect
those poAvers of sovereignty which she has ne
ver delegated to the Federal Government, then
are the Rights of the States but an empty
We respectfully offer these quotations of our
Correspondent as a part of our offering to the
Cause of Georgia. But it is not her cause
alone but the cause of every State m the.
Union. She is to tight the batt-e, as it were
but " Virginia has already been refactory,
against the same judicial usurpation and she
may again be questioned about her sovereign
ty, by, the same tribunal.
FOR THE ENQUIRER.
GEORGIA and THE SUPREME COURT.
In the case of Cohens, vs. The State of Vir
ginia, decided some few years since, it was
held by the Supreme Court, (in its opinion de
livered by the Chief Justice,) that the judicial
authority of that tribunal embraced a case,
where one of the States was su mmoned to its
bar as appellee, to answer the complaint of one
of its own citizens..
The counsel for the State of Virginia, were
instructed to question the jurisdiction of the
Court alone and if overruled, to decline fur
ther appearance on the part of Virginia.
They did so. The Court assumed the juris
diction, but upon the merits decided against
In the late case from Georgia, that State
(warned perhaps by the fortune of Virginia
at the federal bar) declining appearing at ail.
The jurisdiction, where a State is brought in
as appellee, was again asserted and a man
date has gone forth, whereby judgment is or
dered against a State. It remains to be seen
how that judgment is to be enforced or in
other words, how the Stale of Georgia, is to
be coerced into obedience to the mandate of the
The sanction of judicial authority, when ex
ercised toward a citizen, is matter of every day
experience. A fieri facias will strip him of his
". State into court. The only operation it can I lorce, the undignified and unjust conduct ol
" have, is, that if a State should wish to bringj Air. Clay towards Mr, Gallatin, we lay before.
" suit against a citizen, it must be brought be-j them the following letter to him from the sag'
" fore the Federal Court. This will give satis-! ol" Mouticello.
" faction to individuals, as it will prevent citi-'
zens, on whom a State may have a claim,
beinor dissatisfied with the State Courts. It
TO ALBERT GALLATIN
MONTICELLO, Oct. 11, ISO'!).
44 is a case which cannot often happen, and if j iscar btr:l ao not Know whether the rter
44 it should be found improper, it will bo al-i quest of Monsieur Moussier explained iu the
" tered." inclosed letter, is grantablc or not. But rny
"It appears to me that this" (the clause in partialities in favot of whatever may promo t,
"question) can have no operation but this to I either, the useful or liberal arts, induce me to
"ffive a citizen a ritrht to be heard in Federal Pco n unuer your consmerauon, 10 cro in n
roposed by the Convention? To support, property. . A capias will deprive him i of his
J . . .i-.--.V-i- 7.'Aw,, t. K.r tVi fit of the JuuffG, nis lite
mhi v Igor, a single irovernmeni over me wuoie i -y j "- .
With Vlfrnr a ano-l
extent of the Unitcd States, would demand a I may be taken. What sanction there is to ju
system of the most unqualified and unremitting ' dicial authority when assumed toward a Mate,
despotism. Such a number of separate States, is a problem yet to be solved,
contiguous in sitnaHnn nn,nnn,fprl and His- In the mean time, and while the question is
11 a 1 4 4- fi on r 4 irniiM
in Government xvmdd hn nt one .tirr.v. pending, let. me can uie ducuuuu y-ui
prey of foreign force, foreign influence, and ders to the speculations of some of the sages
gn intrigue at another, the victims of mu- and best statemen of Virginia, on this very
"Courts and if a State should condescend to
44 be a party, this Court may take cognizance of
"it." (page 3i)i.)
Patrick Henry (in reply to Mr. Madison,
"Mr. Chairman: 1 have already expressed
44 painful sensations at the surrender of our
44 great rights, and I am again driven to the
44 mournful recollection. The purse is gone
44 the sword is gone and here is the only
44 thing of any importance that is to remain
44 with us As I think, this is a more fatal de
44 feet, than any we have yet considered, for
"give me if I attempt to refute the observations
44 made by the honorable member in the Chair,
44 and last up. It appears to me, that the pow
"ers in the section before you, are either im
44 practicable, or if reducible to practice, dange
"rous in the extreme."
(Page 397.) 44 As to thecontrovcrsies- be-
44 tween a State and citizens ot another otate,
44 his construction of it, is to me, perfectly in
comprehensible. He says, it will seldom
"happen that a State has such demands upon
44 individuals. There is nothing to warrant
44 such an assertion. But he says, that a State
44 may he plaintiff only. If gentlemen pervert
44 the most clear expression, and the usual
44 meaning of the language of the, people, there
44 is an end of all arguments What says the pa
44 per? That it shall have cognizance of con
troversies between a State, and citizens of
44 another State, without discriminating between
44 plaintiffand defendant. Whatsays the honora
ble gentlemen? The contrary that the
44 State can only be plaintiff. WThen the State
i 44 is debtor, thereis no reciprocity. It seems to
" m c that gentlemen may put what construe-
"tion they please on it. .What! Is justice to
"be done to one party and not to the other ?
"If gentlemen take this liberty now, what
44 WILL THEY DO, WHEN OUR RIGHTS AND LIB
ERTIES ARE IN THEIR POWRR?"
John Marshall (in reply to Ir. Henry,
page 405:) . f
44 With respect to disputes between a State,
44 and the citizens of another State, its jurisdic
tion has been decried with unusual vehe
44 mence. I hope no gentleman willthink thata
State will h called at thebaroftheI
FEDERAL COURT. 5
44 Is there no such case at present? Are
"fliere not many cases in which the Legislature
"of Virginia is party, and yet the State is not
44 sued ? It is not rational to suppose that
44 THE SOVEREIGN POWER SHALL BE DRAGGED
44BEFOR.E A COURT.
44 The intent is to enable States to recover
44 claims of individuals residing in other States.
44 1 contend this construction is warranted by
44 the Words. But, say ihey, there will be par
44 tialitv in it, if a State cannot be defendant; n
tual rage, rancour, nrwl it-, xiit-.or siibiect
these systems found advocates in the late Con- On the question whether, under the Consti
ycntion I presume they will not find advocates tution of the U. States, a State could be brought
in this. Would it be proper to divide the TL ;,it tli- Federal Courts as defendant The
States into two or mo Confederacies 7 It will , question. I apprehend to be the same, when prevent its being plaintiff."
whatever is right, neither more nor less. 1
would then ask you to .favor me with three
lines, in such form as I may forward him by
way of answer.
I have reflected much and painfully on (he
change of dispositions which has taken place af
mong the members of the cabinet, since the
new arrangement, as you stated tome in thcT
moment of our separation. Itvvouldbe,indeed.:
a GREAT PUBLIC OALAMITY Were U tO fix VOU
in the purpose which you seemed to think pos
sible. 1 eonsidor the fortunes of our republic
as depending, in an eminent degree, on the ex
tinguishment of the publib debt bciore we en
gagod in any war : because, that done, we shal I
have revenue enough to improve ourcountiv
in peace, and defend it in war, without recur
ring either to new taxes or loans. But if tht-i
debt should once more be swelled to a formida
ble size, its entire discharge will be despaired
of, and we shall be committed to the English
career of debt, corruption and rottenness, clo
sing with revolution. The discharge of the
debt, therefore, is vital to the destinies of our.
government, and it hangs on Mr. Madison and
yourself alone. We shall never 6ee anofheiv
President and Secretaryjof the Treasury making
all other objects subordinate to this. Were.
either of you to be lost to the public, that great.
hope is lost. 1 had always cherished the idea
that you would fix on that object the measure
of your fame, and of the gratitude which our
country will owe you. Nor can I yield up
this prospect to the secondary consideration
which assail your tranquility. For sure I am.
they never) can produee any other serious effect.
Your value is too justly estimated by our fel
low citizens at large, as veil as theii -functionaries
to admit any remissness in their support
of you1. My opinion always was, that none ot
us ever occupied stronger groundin the esteem
of Congress than yourself, and I am satisfied
there is no one who does not feel your aid to be
still as important for the fbtw o. unas
been for theyast. You have nothing, therefore.
onrpheiid in the dispositions of Congress.
and still less of the President, who, above alL
mo ij the most interested and affectionately
disposed. to support you. I hope, then, yon
will abandon entirely the idea you expressed
to me, arid that you will consider the eight years
to come as essential to your political career.-.
I should certainly consider any earlier day of
your retirement, as ihe most inauspicious dlav
our new government hasjever seen. In addition
to the common interest in this question, I feet
particularly for myself the considerations ol
gratitude which I personally owe you for your
valuable aid during my administration of the
public affairs, a just sense of the laeoe por
tion of the public approbationwhich was earn
ed by your labours and belongs to you, anfl
the sincere friendship and attachment which
grewfcut of our joint exertions to promote fh
It is necessarx tore so,- and j commpn good ; and ot which 1 pray you uv "
accept the most cordial and respecttui assui .
tn nnffim luaz?
ii-n m rtfttrtnt ft t rnnniii 77 17 it- j o
" ment against a State, thongh ne ma oe suea j
"hv a Statei
"CANNOT BE AVOIDED I SEE A DIFFICULTY IN.
4 MAKING A STATE DEFENDANT, which doCS not