Newspaper Page Text
:.i-.:i ~· i 8: ·i·~-i ~ ·'·i IM' J4 tW be nowloe #a gnrpa e ttlHaeon kai ta nioekate Jqa patip"H re en bre eoaestahto, ntd which, ashes been V temed fojr atgeas to cme;ad is de. Sapeo0h Ieinrta tity srriulrashnman It Is teretbre clear thattheatabtity of the Con. ltton ,aad thepnaesey O the Union was not gael4d o beatoredand destroyed, or changed , ba ttie ms.rIl and pleasere of any paX ft paortion less thana legal and onetitn 5e Iitstenor any prt or portion of the Sla e United -States les than the whole, W e right either to violate the Constitution the laws made in pursuance thereof, or to ee from the Union. tthe Seqdregnty of the UnitedStates is not in S y State, or in any part or portion of the people ess thda the whole. It resides not in the States, bpt fn the great body of the whole people of the CRnd States. Every fresman in this country oneatute8 a portion of the sovereignty of he aniae. In 'this country all are freemen (without babJecta) and are all entitled to freemen's rights. &inid 1e great founditl~ n pen which these repose hae tjie Uioon,the Coinstituion, and the Enforce 00enlof'the a wis. 3t'teal, therefore; seem to be ai atevint ~protelttio, that no State or States, r any part or puction of the people, can disre the one oi lb ate the othter at their more will he derraOtept of these views (if Indeed it is 0 anPe y one to entertain a doubt on the 4 ) i futethrt evinced from the fact that the t the .pes, o i ptheoe o peopele of a sta les a3dsot intheStates or any sub of Chhlmo'sExecuters e. Uthe State 2 allma L448 (3 Conad. IL 72,) Mr. ntite Wfilson, of tlhe fpremeConrtof the United i after ot i hl disapprobatiqn of the for wtIch the terms State and sover e fequ sed and of the object to l of the term sovereignty is sa, and by way of evincing tA ster State and sovereignty a: the app..iSeat which he mpdo of the latter, S e shall hatve ocasion incident e tnor i isi that States and gov were m.de for man; and at the same i7w true it is that his creatures and ser have lret depelved next villlied, and at last thir masters and maker. , .ifeaodIy and onderhtlly made," is the rm hip of his Allerfect Creator. A State, a t pl nd vaalable as the contrivance is, Is the oesetrsi, ee of man; and from his native deoves all its acqeired mportance. When peak o a State a -an inferior contrivance, I taerntbat it s a eintrlvanco inferior only to that ~ bIh ie divine.; Of all human contrivances it is , n4diyniyrettrtaýnen4a tly excellent. It i con aglng .thoentrivance that Cicero says so sub lgely: 'Nothing which is exhibited upon our globe a morenacr eptable to that divinity which overns the whole universe, than those communt Sand emblagese of men which, lawfully asso iestetd, ace enomispted States.' ~eta State ie onsidered ai subordinate to the ope; bu lt everything else be subordinate to te e Thfe attter pont this position is equally eeaeia with the' flnemer. For in the'practice, n ebe at eoigth n the science of politics, there .aip a strong eorren.agaist the natural order othing,and an inconsiderate or an Interested depalIdn ,to sacrifice the end to the means. As thShtate has claimed precedence of ihe people, , in lte same inverted course of things, the gov etnmeatba.softenclaimed precedence of the tate; nd i- t hlsotpererion in the second degree, many Ootf iola of nonfoaionocernino g sovereignty existenee. is dgnfed very properly by the ap tl 0 maglStratee, have wished, and have se n thelr wiah; to be conaldered as the of the States. This second degree of a ~e i confined to the old world, and begins to dimish eventhere; but the first degree is still tooprevalent, even in the several States of which this Ustenis composed. By a State Imean a com plete body of free persons, united together for their codemlih enbft, to enjoy peaceably what is their .owirnand to do jusoeee to others. Ait.asolyesson, Ibelleve,whyafreeman is bound .sfj'bhman laws is that he 'binds himself. Upon ieelaansprihniples upon which he becomes boned by the laws he becomes amenable to the courts oJusilte, whichare formed and authorized by those laws. If one free man, an original sovereign, may do Ulfthis, why may not an aggregate of freemen, a'eolleotion of original sovereigns, do this like wise? If. the dignity of each singly is undimin Iabed, the dignity of all jointly must -be unim paired. Who, or what is sovereignty? What is his or its sovereignty ? On this subject the errors and psanes-are endless and inexplicable. To enumerate al;, therefore, wiltaot be expected; to take notice of'dinfrwitibe necessary to the full illustration of h . ient lIportant canse. In one sense the ~ e se for its t orrelative, subject. In i ense; the term can receive no application; 1ott11 objedti the Constitution of the United tge us"er that Constitution there are olttiens, c o s.bjeete CitiOens of the United States.' *Igbe ,)' O'Qise-s of another State.' 'CitI S StateS1 .' .' Stateor citien there. k ~,ts S suea. ',) The term suarbje occurs, d, onOe in the Instrement; but to mark the strongly, ithe epithet 'foreign' (lb.) Is sa "citiaLe, I know the government of that StOpb brepCtbllean; and my definitIon of snch SS01e ~ t e,one bonstrsoted on this principle: 4 t +"l n paiwer resides In the body of the people. endgs of this Court, I know and can dels c the knowledge that the citizens of , whe.they acted op the large scale of the nlfo i, a part ofthe people of the United States, did ltsurrender the supreme or sovereign power to that State ; but, ato the purposes of the Union, 4t.di.'it to th ttselves. As to the purposes of the Union, therefore, Georgia is not a sovereign .~i.this i.lme learned Judge, in further explain lt 'P y tha pprtensons set up that Georgtia was a .aprstgiats was not true Is point of feet, and 1st Iaeieg and explahinig the sense in which the i n p~s6tefg sa" is fcqbgently sneed, says: " In this agps, sovereigaty is derived from a feudal tour d linke many parts of that system so de it s astp n retai ts influence over our sh conduct, though the cause by which .iida~aseeswas produned never extended to the Aieriet-Stlates, The accurate and well-informed PItot, H.Btnealt, ton his excellent chronological a o~f theo istory of France, tells us that %aabhotha end ofthe second race of kings, a new sad o eoe n was aequired under the name of P a. s gecacorcst cities and provinces usurped iSrthe porc of land and the administra ni jotief.j.;.sae established themselves as pro peetoi.. Sigloca over those places in which S hd ltitaealy sivil magistrates or military a t thi mtisteeerwew istrodued into . .t.ea niyw kind .o( athority, to which was aign.dl bappeltloso of sqvereignty. In pro sspofr e sthe feudal systemnwas extended over henosadnlmost all the ot ateons of Europe. a. very kigtom' became, li foot, a large ref. a ganld this system was Introduced by the S p r, the l era we may probably refer Sthat the Kisg, or Sovereign, Severy nation which has been e, thtb Sltatei s assumed a super. asea o shove, th ple ho have tI benoeetha baugbiy' nlonisof State in 1 ' e S ove 6rt iend State sOpre J1cs eboaScents the Qstifhpset is p d ea sir meaner, both upon e es, all arbitrary daoo e the supreme, orefgovernaeat. l l~t i th ma iis degraded. * ea i commt o life. Ps In he United Sltates, and in the several States e which compose the Union, we go not so far; but in still we go one step farther than we ought to go in a' thisl nnatoral and inverted order of things. The a States, rather than the people, for whose sakes the States exist, are frequently the objects whioh a- attract and arrestour principal attention. This, I t believe, has produced much of the confusion and d perplexity which has appeared in several proceed y logs and several publications on State polities, and a. on the politics, too, of the United States. A State, I cheerfully admit, is the noblest work to of man; bht man himself, free and honest, is-I e, speak as to this world-the noblest work of God. n Concerning the prerogatives of Kings, and con to eerningthe sovereignty of States, much has been said and written; but little has been said and n written concerning a subject much more dignified to and important-the majesty of the people. The a, mode of expression which I would substitute in oe the place of that generally used, is not only poli y tically but also (for between true liberty and true e taste there is a close alliance) classically more it correct. On the mention of Athens a thousand refined and a endearing associations rush at once into the mem ory of the scholar, the philosopher and the patriot. a When Homer, one of the most correct as well as t, one of the oldest of human authorities, enumerates - the other nations of Greece whose forces acted 1 at the siege of Troy, he arranges them under the names of their different kings or princes; but a when he comes to the Athenians he distinguishes a them by the peculiar appellation of the people of e Athens. The well-known address used by Demos ,f thenes when he harangued and animated .his as a- sembled countrymen was," O, men of Athens." With the strictest propriety, therefore, classical a and political, our national scene opens with the e. most magnificent object which the nation could d present. "The people of the United' States" are a the first personages introduced. Who are those r. people ? They were the citizens of thirteen States, o each of which had a separate Constituion and a government, and all of which were connected to g gether by articles of confederation. To the pur y poses of public strength and felicity that confede racy was totally inadequate. A requisition on the several States terminated its authority; executive or judicial authority it had none. In order, therefore, to form a more perfect e union, to establish justice, to insure domestic tran quility, to provide for the common defence, and to it secure the blessing of liberty, those people, among whom were the people of Georgia, ordained and a established the present Constitution. By that Con stitution, legislative power is vested, executive a power is vested, judicial power is vested. e The question now opens fairly to our view: 0 Could the people of bhose States, among whom I were those of Georgia, bind those States, and it Georgia among the others, by the legislative, exe I outive and judicial power so vested? If the priq o- oiples on which I have founded myself are just . and true, this question must unavoidably receive ir an affirmative answer. If those States are the h work of those people, those people-and that I I- may apply the case closely, the people of Georgia s in particular-could alter, as they pleased, their former work to any given degree; they could a diminish as well as enlarge it. Any or all of the o former State powers they could extinguish or y transfer. The inference which necessarily results , I is, that the Constitution, ordained and established by those people-and still closely to apply the r case, in particular by the people of Georgia could vest jurisdiction or judicial power over those States, and over the State of Georgia in parti uenlar." See also 3 Cond. R. 68. So in Marbury vs. Madison, 1 Cranch's R., 137; (1 Cond.R.,283) Chief Justice Marshall, who, "like that great luminary of light, extinguishes in a flood of refulgence the twinkling splendor of every inferior planet," has well and admirablyosaid, "That the people have an original right to estab lish for their future government such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the Iwhole American fabric has been erected. The I exercise of this original right is a very great exer tion ; nor can it, nor ought it to be frequently re peated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental; and as the authority from which they proceed is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent." Again, in the great case of Cohens vs. Virginia, 6 Wheat. R., 380, 382, Chief Justice Marshall says: "The American States, as well as the American people, have believed a close and firm Union to be essential to their liberty and to their happiness. They have been taught by experience that this Union cannot exist without a government for the whole; and they have been taught by the same experience that this Government would be a mere shadow that must disappoint all their hopes, unless invested with large portions of that sovereignty which belongs to independent States. Under the influence of this opinion, and thus in structed by experience, the American people, in the conventions of their respective States, adopted the present Constitution. if it could be doubted whether from its nature it were not supreme in all cases where it is em powered to act, that doubt would be removed by the declaration, that 'this Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the Judgesin every State shall be bound thereby; anything in theaConstitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithatanding.' This is the authori tive language of the American people; and, if gentlemen please, of the American States. It marks, with lines too strong to be mistaken, the characteristio distinctionlbetween the Government of the Union and those of the States. The General Government, though limited as to its objects, is supreme with respect to those objects. This principle is a part of the Constitu tion; and If there be any who deny its necessity, none can deny its authority. To this Supreme Government ample powers are confided, and if it were possible to doubt the great purposes for which they were so confided, the peo ple of the United States have declared that they are given ' in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, pro. vide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity.' With the ample powers confided to this Supreme Governinent for these interesting purposes are connected manyexpress and important limitations on the sovereignty of the States, which are made for the same purposes. The powers of the Union on the great subjectsof war, peace and commerce, and on many others, are in themselves limitations of the sovereignty of the States; but in addition to these, the sovereignty of the States is surrendered in many instances where the surrender can only operate to the benefit of the people, and where, perhaps, up other power is conferred on Congress than a conservative power to maintain the prin ciples established in the Constitution. The main tenance of these principles in their purity is cer tainly among the great duties of the Government. One of the instruments by which this duty may be peaceably performed is the judicial department; it is authorized to decide all cases of every description, nrtoing under the Constitution or laws the United States. And after adverting and commenting at length upon the dangers of collision likely to arise from State legislation, State action, and the decision of the State Courts, unless the supremacy of the a Union and the Constitution should be maintained and upheld through the judicial department of the Union, this eminent Jurist, at page 387 of this same oase, says: " These collisions may take place in times of no extraordinary commotion. But a Con Stitution is framed for ages to come, and is de- i ilaned to approach immortality unearlyas human inttlntieon an approach it Its course cannot al ways be trangqilt. It is exposed to storms and teempets, and its framers must be unwise states men indeed if they hasv not provided it, as far as tI i nature will permit, with the means of sslf-pre. servatton from the perils It may be destined to en. enantar. NoGovernmentought to be so defeetfve in its organpsation as not to contain within itself the means of securing the execution of its own laws against other dangers than those which occuo every day. Courts of justice are the means usn ally employed; and it is reasonable to expect tha. a Government should repose on its own Court rather than on others." And in the case of Martin vs. Itanter's Lessee, Wheat, R. 341-3, 346-7, 348, Mr. Justice Story, it giving the opinion of the Supreme Court of thi United States in relation to the supremacy of thi Union, the Constitution, and the decisions of thi Judiciary of the Union, says : " It has been arguee that such an appellate jurisdiction over Stat, Courts is inconsistent with the genius of our gov ernment and the spirit of the Constitution. Thai the latter was never designed to act upon State sovereignties, but only on the people, and that it the power exists, it will materially impair the soy eignty of the States and the independence of theii Courts. We cannot yield to the force of this rea coning; it assumes principles which we cannol admit, and draws conclusions to which we do not yield our assent. It is a mistake that the Constitution was not designed to operate upon States in their corporate capacities. It is crowded with provisions which restrain or annul the sovereignty of the States in some of the highest branches of their prerogatives. The tenth section of the first article contains a long list of disabilities and prohibitions imposed upon the States. Surely when such essential portions ol State sovereignty are taken away, or prohibited to be exercised, it cannot be correctly asserted that the Constitution does not act upon States. The language of the Constitution is also imperative upon the States as to the performance of many do ties. It is imperative upon the State legislatures to make laws prescribing the time, places and mano ner of holding elections for Senators and Repro. sentatives, and for electors of President and Vice President. And in these, as well as some othet cases, Congress has a right to revise, amend or suo percede the laws which may be passed by State Legislatures. When, therefore, the States are stripped of some of the highest attributes of sove ereiguty, and the same are given to the United States; when the Legislatures of the States are, in some respects, under the control of Congress, and in every ease are, under the Constitution, bound by the paramount authority of the United States, it is certainly difficult to support the argument that the appellate power over the decisions of State Courts is contrary to the genius of our institutions. The Courts of the United States can, without question, revise the proceedings of the Executive and Legislative authorities of the States, and if they are found to be contrary to the Constitution, may declare them to be of no legal validity. Surely the exercise of the same right over judicial tribunals is not a higher or more dangerous act of sovereign power. Nor can such a right be deemed to impair the independence of State Judges. It is assuming the very ground in controversy to assert that they pos. sess an absolute independence of the United States. In respect to the powers granted to the United States, they are not independent; they are ex pressly bound to obedience by the letter of the Constitution; and if they should unintentionally transcend their authority, or misconstrue the Con stitution, there is no more reason for giving their judgments an absolute and irresistible force, than for giving it to the acts of the other co-ordinate departments of State sovereignty. It is manifest that the Constitution has pro ceeded upon a theory of its own, and given or withheld powers according to the judgment of the American people, by whom it was adopted. We can only construe its powers, and cannot inquire into the policy or principles which induced the grant of them. The Constitution has presumed (whether rightfully or wrongfully we do not in quire) that State attachments, State prejudices, State jealousies, and State interests, might some times obstruct or control, or be supposed to ob struct or control the regular administration of jus tice. And after enumerating the many cases in which parties have the right to have legal controversies heard in the national courts, as well as the "neces sity of uniformity of decisions throughoutthe whole United States upon all subjects within the pur view of the Constitution," this same eminent jurist and scholar says: "There is an additional consideration, which is entitled to great weight. The Constitution of the United States was designed for the common and equal benefit of all the people of the United States. The judicial power was granted for the same benign and salutary pur poses." And in the great case of Cohens vs. Virginia, G Wheat, R. 414, (and from which we have already so freely quoted) Chief Justice Marshall holds this emphatic language: "America has chosen to be, in many respects, and to many purposes, a nation; and for all.these purposes her government is com plete. The people have declared that in the exer cise of all powers givenu for these objects it is sopreme. It can then, in effecting these objects, legitimately control all individuals or governments within the American territory. The Constitution and laws of a State, so far as they are repugnant to the Constitution and laws of the United States, are absolutely void. These States are constituent parts of the United States. They are members of one great Empire-.far some purposes sovereign, for sore purposes subordinate." So, in the cases of Ableman vs. Booth and United States vs. Booth, 21 How., R. 516, the present Su preme Court of the United States, through Chief Justice Taney, says: " And although the Slate of Wisconsin is sovereign within its territorial limits to a certain extent, yet that sovereignty is limited and restricted by the Constitation of the United States. And the powers of the General Govern ment, and of the State, although both exist and are exorcised within the same territorial limits, are yet separate and distinct sovereignties, acting sep arately and independently of each other, within their respective spheres. And the sphere of action appropriated to the United States is as far beyond the reach of the judicial process issued by a State Judge or a State Court as if the line of division was traced by landmarks and monuments visible to the eye. But, as we have already said, questions of this kind must always depend upon the Constitution and laws of the United States and not of a State. The Constitution was not formed merely to guard the States against danger from foreign nations, but mainly to secure harmony at home; for if this object could be attained, there would be but little danger from abroad; and to accomplish this pur pose, it was felt by the statesmen who framed the Constitution and by the people who adopted it, that it was necessary that many of the rights of sovereignty which the States then possessed should be ceded to the General Government, and that, in the sphere of action assigned to it, it should be su preme, and strong to execute its own laws by its own tribunals, without interruption from a State or from State authorities. And it was evident that anything short of this would be inadequate to the main object for which the Government was estab lashed, and that local interests, local passions or prejudices, incited and fostered by individuals for sinister purposes, would lead to acts of aggression and injustice by one State upon the rights of an otther, which would ultimatelytely terminate in violence and force, unless there was a common arbiter be tween them armed with power enough to protect and guard the rights of all by appropriate laws, to be carried into execution peacefully by its judicial tribunals. The language of the Constitution, by which tits power is granted, is too plain to admit of doubt or to need comment. It declares that this Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be passed in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the Judges in every a State shall be bound thereby; anything in the Con. stitution or laws of any State to the contrary not wI ittatndiag But the supremacy thus conferred on this Go vernment could not peacefully be maintained unaless It was clothed with judicial power equally paramount in authority to carry it into execttion; for if left to the Courts of Justice of the several States, conflicting decisions would unavoidably take place, and the local tribunals could hardly be expected to be always free from the local influ ences of which we have spoken. And the Consti tution and laws and treaties of the United States s and the powers granted to the Federal Govern ment, would soon receive different interpretations i in different States, and the Government of the United States would soon become one thing in one State and-another thing in another. It was essen tlal, therefore, to its very existence as a Govern meat that it should have the power of establishing I Courts of Justice, altogether independent of State power, to carry into effect its own laws; and that a tribunal should be established in which all cases t which might arise under the Constitution and laws and treaties of the United States, whether in a State Court or a Court of the United States, should be finally and conclusively decided. With out such a tribunal it is obvious that there would be no uniformity of judicial decision; and that the supremacy (which is but another name for inde pendence) so carefully provided in the clause of the Constitution above referred to, could not pos sibly be maintained peacefully unless it was asso ciated with this paramount judicial authority. The importance which the framers of the Con stitution attached to such a tribunal, for the pur pose of preserving internal tranquility, is strikingly manifested by the clause which gives this Court jurisdiction over the sovereign States whichl conm pose this Union, when a controversy arises between them. Instead of reserving the right to seek re dress for injustice from another State by their sov ereign powers, they have bound themselves to submit to the decision of this Court, and to abide by its judgment. And it is not out of place to say here that experience has demonstrated that this power was not unwisely surrendered by the States ; for in the time that has already elapsed since this Government came into existence, several irritating and angry controversies have taken place between adjoining States in relation to their respective boundaries, and which have sometimes threatened to end in force and violence, but for the power vested in this Court to hear them and decide be twveen them. This judicial power was justly regarded as in dispensible, not merely to maintain the supremacy of the laws of the United States, buhat also to guard the States from any encroachment upon these reserved rights by the General Government. And as the Constitution is the fundamental and supreme law, if it appears that an act of Congress is not pursuant to and within the limits of the neower assigned to the Federal Government, it is tihe duty of the Courts of the United States to declare it unconstitutional and void. The grant of judicial power is not confined to the administration of laws passed in pursuance to the provisions of the Con stitoton, nor confined to the interpretations of such laws; but by the very terms of the grant the Constitution is under their view where any act of Congress is brought before them, and it is their duty to declare the law void,and refuse to execute it, if it is not pursuant to the legialalive powers conferred upon Congress. And as the final appel late power in all such questions is given to this Court, controversies as to the respective powers of the United States and the States, instead of being determined by military and physical force, are heard, investigated, and finally settled with the calmness and deliberation of judicial inquiry. And no one can fail to see, that if such an arbiter had not been provided, in our complicated system of government, internal tranquility could not have been preserved; and if such controversies were left to arbitrament of physical force, our Govern ment, State and National, would cease to be Gov ernments of lhws, and revolutions by force of arms would take the place of Courts of Justice and judicial decisions. In organizing such a tribunal, it is evident that c every precaution was taken which human wisdom could devise, to fit it for the high duty with which d it was entrusted. It was not left to Congress to create it by law, for the States could hardly be ti expected to confide in the impartiality of a tribu- P nal created exclusively by the General Govern ment without any participation on their part. And 0 as the performance of its duty would sometimes P come in conflict with individual ambition or inter. 0 eats and powerful political combinations, an act of Congress establishing such a tribunal might be re pealed in order to establish another more subser- i vient to the predominant political influences or ex- S cited passions of the day. This tribunal, there- . fore, was erected, and the powers of which we have spoken, couferred upon it, not by the Federal 6 Government, but by the people of the States, who ti found and adopted that Government aud conferred upon it all the powers, legislative, executive, and judicial, which it now poseoses. And in order to secure its independence, and enable it faithfllly and firmly to perform its duty, it engrafted it upon the Constitution itself, antd declared that this Court should have appellate power in all cases arioing T under the Constitution and laws of the UInited States. So long, therefore, as this Constitutiton shall endure, this tribunal must exist with it, decid ing in the peaceful form of judicial proceedillng i the angry and irritating controvercic, betwenc sovereignties, which, in other countries, have been determined by the arbitrament of force.:" In the cafe of Cohens vs. Virginia, 6 Wheat. It. 389, ChiefJustice MIarohall, in delivering the unan- i imous opinion of the Supreme Court of the United tl States, holds this emphatic and explicit language : ri "The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of their a will, and livesonly by their will. Bu t this supreme and irresistible power to make or to unmake re sides only in the whole body of the people; not I in any sub-division of them. The attenmpt of any of the parts to exercise it is hsurpatiog, and ought to be repelled by those to whom the 'eople have delegated their power of repelling it." So in Ableman vs. Booth, 21 How. R. 523-4, (which was a case growing out of resistance to the c execution of the fugitive slave law in Wisconsin,) Chief Justice Taney, in giving the unanimous opin ion of the Court, says : And although,as we have said,it is the duty of the Marshal, or other person holding him, to mnake known, by a proper return, the authority tnder which he detains him, it is at the same tiel' ilo peratively his duty to obey the prncess of the United States, to hold the prisoner in custody under it, and to refuse obedience to the malndate or process of any other government. And consequently it is his duty not to take tihe prisoner, nor suilor himn0 to be taken, before a State Judge or Court uapon a habeas corpus issued under State authority. No State Judge or Court, after they are judicially int t formed that the panry is imprisoned under the au- t thority of the United States, has any righti to inter fere with him, or require him to be brought before them. t And if the authority of a State, in the form of judicial process or otherwise, should attempt to control the Marshal or other authorized olficer or agent of the United States, in any respect, in the custody of his prisoner, it would be his duty to resist it, and to call to his aid any force that might be necessary to maintain the authority of law against illegal interference. No judicial process, whatever form it may assume, can have any lawful authority outside of the limits of the jurisdiction of the Court or Judge by whom it is issued; and an attempt to enforce it beyond these boundaries is nothing less than lawless violence. These decisions of the highest Court known to the Constitution and the law, show too clearly to leave any rootl for doubt, that no State nor any one by its authority has any right to oppose or inter fore with the authority and duo execution of the laws of the United States. And if any or all the citizens of a State oppose with force, or there is an assemblage to oppose by force the authority or execution of any Constitu tional law of the United States, all those who per form any paft, however minute or however re mote from the scene of action, and who are actu ally leagued in the conspiracy, are guilty of 2.3e-o son, according to the Supreme Court of the United States. See 2, Story on Constitution, section 1801. The third section of Article three of the Consti tution of the United States declares that: "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." When this section defining Treason was before the Convention which framed the Constitution, Luther Martin, of Maryland, a distinguished mem ber of that Convention, proposed the following as an amendment: "Provided thatno act or acts done by one or more of the States against the United States, or by a citizen of any one of the United States, shall be deemed treason or punished as such; but in case of war being levied by one or more States against the United States, the conduct of each party toward the other, and their adhe rents respectively, shall be regulated by the laws of war and of nations." Even had this proposed amendment been adopted, there would have been no foundation for the as saumed right of peaceable secession. On the con trary, it would only have avoided the penalty of 71)eason. Each and every one opposing with force tihe authority of the General Government would still be liable to be treated according to the law of nations and the rules of war. But this amendment of Mr. Martin's was voted down in a very decided manner, and the above section, declaring it treason to levy war against tihe United States, or to adlhre to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort, was adopted after a full discussion, and on mature deliberation. All opposition, then, by force, as well as all banding together witil an assembling to oppose tihe authority of the United States, or to prevent the execution of any law of the United States, is Treason, and punishable with death. How idle, then, to talk of a right of peaceable secession! And how culpable to attempt to de ceive the people by holding out such false lights, to mislead and deceive. The Government can only be changed in accordance with the require ments of the Constitution, or by IRevolution and force of arms. When tile Constitution was submitted to the Convention in New York for ratification, it was proposed to ratify.it conditionally, but this propo sition was voted down. In July 17"8 Mr. Madison, in reply to Mr. Hfamil ton, on the subject of a conditional ratification and the right of a State to witlldraw, says: " The Constitution requires an adoption inl loit and forever. It has been so adopted by the other States. An adoption for a limited tinle would be as defective as an adoption of some of tile articles only. In short, any condition whatever must vitiate the ratification." * * "Tile idea of re. serving the right to withdraw was started at t.ich mond,and considered as a conditional ratification, whichwas itself abandoned as worse than rejec Hlere, then, we have the authority of Mr. Mladi ison, the great author of the Constitution, that the Constitution was not only designed and intended to be adopted unqualifiedly and forreer, but that it was so understood at the time by those who adopt ed it. It was also well understood, as fully appears from tile above langurage of Mr. Madison, that no Staite had the right to withdraw after an adoption of tile Constittitution. Nor do the celebrated resolutions of Virginia and Kentucky respectively in '90-'Ot, at all militate with this position. On the contrary, they louk only to an oppoitio n irotre and under the forms of the Constitution for the purpose of cnsolidat ing public opinion so as to oibtaiu a repeal of an obuoxious law or to the procurement of an amendr meat to the Constitrution. In 1832, when South Carolina claimed the right of secession, and threatened to defy tile authrority of the laws of the United States, that great states man and patriot, General Jackson, in his justly celebrated proclamation of that year, in speaking of the question as to the right of necesrsion, well says: "Every man of plain, unsophisticated un derstanding, who hears the question, will give such an answer as will preserve tile Union. Metaphysi cal subtlety, in pursuit of an impracticable theory, could alone have devised one that is calculated to destroy it. I consider, then, the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, incom patible with the existence of the Union, contra dicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed." And to vindicate tile correctness of tile above views of Gen. Jackson, (if, indeed, any vindiantion is necessary) let us refer to the language of the Supreme Court of the United States, in a case which was decided in 1s.0. In the case of Ableman vs. Booth, (21 IHow. i., 521t-) tilat enlighitened Court, through Chief Jus tice T'fney, unarrirrsn'y ,ays: Nor is there anything itn this supremacy of the General Government or the jurisdiction of its judi- t cial tribunals to awaken the jealousy or olfend thile t natural and just pride o State teovereignty. Neither this (Government nor the powers of whih I we are speaking were forced upon the States. The Constituootn of the United States, with all the powers conferrted Iy it on the General t Govers-. nlent alnd s'renol:ered by ithe States, deliberately dtne for their ownl ptetioi and safety against injustice from one another. And their anxiety to preserve it in full force, in all its powers, and to guard against re-istaltce to or evasion of its author ity on thle part of ta State, is proved by the clause which requires that the members of the State Leg islatures and all Executive and Judicial officera of I the sovereign States (a;t well as those of the Gene ral Governmlent) shall be iound, by oath or altirm ation, to support this Constitution. This is the last and closing clause of the Constitution, and inserted when the whole frame of Government, with the powers hereinbefore speciflled, had been adopted by the Convention; and it was in that forme, and with these powers, that the Constitution was sub. mitted to the people of the several States for their consideration and decision. Now, it certainly can be no humiliation to the citizen of a republic to yield a ready obedience to the laws as administered by the constituted authorities. On the contrary, it is among his first and highest duties as a citizen, because free gov ernment cannot exist without it. Nor can it be inconsistent with the dignity of a sovereign State to observe faithfoully, and in the spirit of sincerity and truth, the compact into which it voluntary entcrel when it became a State of this Union. On the contrary, the highest honor of sovereignty is untarnished :aith. Anl certainly no faith could bo more deliberately and soleantly pledged than that which every State hrtte plighted to the other Stat,'s to support the COmstittittn as it is, in all its provisions, until they shall Ie altered il the man ner wlich the Constitution itself prescribes. In tile emphatic language of the pledge required, it is to suplort this Countitution. And no power is more clearly conferred by the Constitut:on and laws of the United States than the power of this Court to decide, ultimately and finally, all eases arising under such Constitution and laws; and for that purpose to bring here for revision, by writ of error, the judgment of a State Court, where such questions have arisen, and the right claimed under them denied by the highest judicial tribunal in the State. And, besides, to this emphatic exposition by the Supreme Court of the duty of the States to adhere to and obey the authority of the United States, Section ten, of the Constitution, Article one, among other prohibitions, says: "No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance or confederation, etc." " No State shall, without tile consent of Congress, a lay any duty of tonage, keep troops or ships of war in tilme of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another State or with a foreign prower, etc." itowr thrt can any State or States enter into any comptlact or agreement with another State without violatitg both the letter and spirit of tile Constitu tion? Itow raise troops or keep ships of war with out also violating the sacred compact? By the Constitution the President is required to take the following oath before he enters upon the discharge of the duties of his office: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The Con stitution further provides as follows: "He shall take care that the laws be falthfully executed, etc." *r (Article 1. Section 3.) With such an overwhelming weight of the high e eat judicial authority knIown to the Union and the Constitulon, all the pretensions put forth in the different quarters of the nation of any right in any part or portionof the people ofany State or States I to disregard or violate at their will and pleasure any clause of the Constitution or any principle of the sacred compact of the Union, or to violate any law made in pursuance of the Constitution, must be dissipated and vanish in thin air beneath the glorious light of the principles of the Union, the Constitution and the Enforcement of the Laws, as expounded by the Supreme Court of the United States. Nor is this to be deemed a hardship in any ros. pect whatsoever. For as is well said by Chief Justice Marshall, in the case of Marbury vs. Madi son, 1 Cranch 137, (L Cond. it. 214): "It is emphat cally the province and duty of the judicial depart. ment to say what the law is." And in a previous part of this same case (1 Cond. It. 275) it is well said by the Court: " The Govern mlent of the United States has been emphatically termed a Government of laws, and not of men." It is to this sovereign panoply of the Union, the Constitution and the law, then, that we would invite one and all to rally. Beneath the broad and ample folds of the flag of the Union, the Constitution and the Enforcement of the Laws, all, all will find repose and full and com plete protection for all their Constitutional rights. And besides, let us ever remnember, as has been wcil and beautifully said, that : "A thnm .am! yen l., ,' astate A,i h, ,r ,oi ly i.: In dla ,. ; And when ca 1,nnn intslU l ,her' pleldndr renovate, Recall t.n ri.tu back and vauYiaiah tftne and fate." Let every one, then, who is a true patriot and friend of the Union say with the godlike Webster when advocating before the Senate the Compre mise measures of 1150 (and which gave peace, repose and quiet to the country.) "I shall stand by the Union and all who stand by it. I shall do justice to the whole country, according to the best of my ability in all I say, and act for the good~W the whole in all I do. I mean to stand upon the Constitution. I need no other platform. I shall know but one country. The ends I aim at shall be my Country's, my God's and Truth's." Let us, too, cherish and exclaim, with the dying but glorious Clay, as follows: " I may be asked, as I have been, when I would consent to a dissolution of the Union. I answer, Never I Never ! Never!" And let us cherish with more than filial affection the following patriotic advice from the Farewell Address of the Father of his Country: " The unity of Government which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It Is justly so; for it is a main pillar inthe edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquil ity at home, your peace abroad, of your safety, of your prosperity, of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as itis easy to foresee that from different causes, and from difterent quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaket in your mnlilds the conviction of this truth -as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and exter nal enemies will be most constantly (though often covertly and insiduously) dirc,'tcd--it is of infinite moment that you should lproplerly estimate the im mense value of your national Union to your collec tive and inlivieluae happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitua;l and immovable attach ment to it. acrcustioii.g; yourselves to think and to speak of it as a pallailciul of your po litical safety and prosperily ; watching for its pre servation withi jealoui anxietyt: discountenancing whatever Ilmaly sulggest cveln a ctepicion that it can in any event be abandoned: and indignantly frowping upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts." Of this fatherly advice let us also cherish and forever remember what that great patriot, General Jackson, says: " The lessons contained in this invaluable legacy of Washington to his countrymen should be Cher ishlobed in the heart of every citizen to the latest generation; and, perhaps, at no period of time could they be more usefully remembered than at the present tlmoment. For when we look upon the scenes that are passing around us, and dwell upon the pages of his parting adlress, his paternal coun sels would seem to be not merely tihe offspring of wisdom and foresight, but the voice of prophecy foretelling events and warning us of the evil to come." Let us remember, too, that General Jackson has said : " If the UNION is once SEIVEII:It, the line of sep aration will grow wlm:n and WIDER, and the con troversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legi-lation, will then be TRIED IN FIELDS OF1' IITTLE, and determined by the sword." Let us one and all exc.laim with the hero of New (lrleall to the patriots of our opponents: " Leare yourefriels (land s"tLt(I ?by our CO U1N " The Unit , . - 1,"T.7"3 l'EPRSERT 'ED !" And, linall ' l'*"''-very true patriot's voice be heard, acndT La ', ,ldbined shout, "like the ming ling of r;: . oa a l,'tg u..dying to freedom's farthest h;Ot ..x ,e re. in one joyous and har monious strain to t..l4Ouun.- " Lor, shnll it ie awl evoI ,y blast defy, 'Ti I Timen last whirlwilnl swesp thle mlated kyr." StetL-PLATr ' TE Setoos,-Flrom present appear ances it is barely possible that ships encansed with steel platesn may ultimately supersede the ordinary steamship for purposes of naval warfare, almost to the same extent which the latter has already dis placed the square-rigged sailer. England and trance are competing in the efort to enlarge their respective naval forces by the addition of ships of this description, thdEgh sufficient progress has not pet been made to determine the actual value of the improvement Their sides, as proved by trial, are virtually impenetrable by shot; but rumors have been current that thie French plated ships drew so much water as to render them useless in wet wea tler, as the lower tier of guns was often rolled nu der water. According to tile latestFrench papersr, hotwever, the great steel-plated frigate La Gloire is declared to be a complete osccess. The trials made of her sailing iqalities, and effect of her bat teries; are said to hoave ibee on satisfactory that the Patli considers the problem solved. On a re cent occlasion iho went to sea tally armed and etuipl tdt, as if piroeediug oo a cruise; and with all her weglht she sank loes in tIe water than her enlgileers had anticipated. After giving various deltaila, the writer concltodes as fllows : llecunooenwac tile thrue bships of war exist in Franne, Tile sailing vessel was no longer one, for ifs liconotion was ae uncertain and irregular as the caprice of the elements. Neither is the steamer entirely composed of wood a true ship of war, for a single Ihapily directed lprojectile sunfficed to tear its sides at tile very first moment of the combat, and, it certain eases, to paralyze its engine, the organ eseontial to its life. Sleel-plated steamers alone bear in themselves tilhe principles of their movement and of their force, and are, so to say, enveloped by almost complete invulnerability. Our floating batteries alrendy possessed that invul nerability, but they lacked speed. The Gioiro pos sosses both. Englund will follow us closely in the path we have just opened. In little loess than a year hence slhe will, no her turn, have armed the Warrior, Our success obliges us to consider that of our neighbors as certain. Does it not, moreover, satisfy tne legitimate sell-love of our officers and engineers, as well as our national serlf-love, that we have effected twice in two years. without exam ples or models, a radical revolution in naval con struction and in naval war?" LITERATURE ANDI PAU'6nPeRI.-More than a hun dred years ago one Syivaous Urbcn, a quaint and ouizziecal English writer, published a Literary Bill ofit Miortality for 1752, lshowing the casualities for that year amonlg books and authors. Of the books we find 700e set down as "anbortlive," 3000 as "still b'rn," and 320 as lavingi "expired suddenly." T'lcre or four tihousaind polisli hy the Iands of trunk-alkersl estry cooks, and fire-work manu facturers. It cony Ie suplposed that if such was the late of the works, tile authors must have had a lihard time of it. So, in fact, they had. As a professional class their census is fixed, in ronund numbers, at 3000. Of these onetbifd are regins tered as dying insane, 1200 as ,starved," 17 as dying by the hangman's hand, and 15 by their own. This is rather a startling statement, and must be taken with some grains of allowance ; yet there can be no doubt that literature and eauper ism were cousins germain in England a century ago, and that in the hand-to-mouth bnuaslness of writing for the press, the intercourse between the former and the latter was neither frequent nor regular. A young gentleman of our aoqausntantd says he thlnks that young ladies who refuse good o.frs oi marriage are too "Noing by half."