and lead them to assert the sovereignty of their rightful State laws over every inch of their territory, even though it should be in the face of a writ of error from the Supreme Court of the face of Federal troops?

United States and in the

The greater part of the southwest was finally and completely opened up to settlement by annexation to the United States, as we have scen, just as the constitutional questions which divided the friends of Jefferson from those of Hamilton, were the subject of violent party contention. The most vital of these questions affected this district closely, and the people were educated in politics by practical experience of the operation of the Constitution as construed by one party or the other. Their first lesson in constitutional law came from that doctrine of Jefferson and Madison, set forth in the resolutions of 1798, which was a few years later incorporated in the resolutions of the Hartford Convention.

66

The Virginia Resolutions, adopted by her Legislature, December 24th, 1798, were written by James Madison, who has been styled "the Father of the Constitution." The most important paragraph of those Resolutions is the one which declares that "in case of a deliberate, 'palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers not granted by the said compact, the States who are 'parties thereto, have the right and are in duty bound "to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and "for maintaining within their respective limits the authorities, rights, and liberties, appertaining to "them."

66

66

The Kentucky Resolutions, adopted by that State, November 10th, 1799, were written by JEFFERSON,

66

after consultation with MADISON. The language made use of was not so guarded as that of the Virginia resolutions. It declared that the Federal Government "was not made the exclusive or final judge of the "extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that "would have made its discretion, and not the "Constitution, the measure of its powers: but that as "in all other cases of compact between parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to "judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode "and measure of redress." The Resolutions went on to define the manner in which this principle might be put into practice, by declaring that "the several States who "formed that instrument [the Constitution] being sov"ereign and independent, have the unquestionable "right to judge of the infraction: and that a nullification by those sovereignties of all unauthorized acts "done under color of that instrument, is the rightful "remedy."

At a later day, when the sentiment in favor of Union had become strengthened by time and by the growing greatness of the Republic, it was endeavored to argue away the plain meaning of these celebrated resolutions. Madison, in 1831, asserted that his Resolutions were merely declaratory of opinion, that they pointed out no mode of correcting illegal Federal acts, that the words "to interpose " meant legal interposition, and that the word "nullification" which appears in the Kentucky Resolutions was not to be found in the Virginia Resolutions. BENTON, in his "Thirty Years' View," attempts a defense of Jefferson, by asserting that he was not the author of the Kentucky Resolutions. The publication of Jefferson's Works at a later

day refutes the denial of Benton, and the evasions of Madison. There were found among his papers, two original drafts, in Jefferson's own handwriting, of the Kentucky Resolutions. In one of them is this resolution: that when the general government assumes powers" which have not been delegated, a nullification "of the Act, is the rightful remedy: that every State "has a natural right, in cases not within the compact "[casus non fœderis,] to nullify of their own authority, "all assumptions of power by others within their "limits."

Although the Virginia Resolutions used the words "to interpose," where Kentucky used the word "nullify," there is not room for a shadow of doubt that both meant the same thing. Jefferson says that the conference on the Kentucky Resolutions took place between him and the two brothers Nicholas, and he adds: "I think Mr. Madison was either with us, or "consulted, but my memory is uncertain as to the "minute details." The two sets of resolutions bear upon their face evidence of consultation and unity of sentiment between the two distinguished authors. VON HOLST, professor at the University of Freidburg, in his Constitutional History of the United States, very justly says, with reference to these Resolutions: "In a word, "as the principles advanced in the Resolutions were the same, they led to the same logical conclusions, which

66

were clearly expressed in the Kentucky Resolutions, "namely, the right of the States, through the organ of "their Legislatures, to 'resolve' that laws of Congress 66 were unconstitutional, and therefore void and of no "effect."

Jefferson wrote to Madison, November 17th, 1798,

66

enclosing him a draft of the Kentucky Resolutions, and we have nowhere, in evidence, any protest against, or difference of opinion, as to the use of the word nullification,” expressed by Madison, until the lapse of more than thirty years, when South Carolina, under the teachings of Calhoun, put in practical effect the doctrines of the Kentucky Resolutions. John Quincy Adams, in his eulogy on Madison, said: "Concurring "in the doctrine that the separate States have a right "to interpose in cases of palpable infractions of the "Constitution by the government of the United States, "and that the alien and sedition acts presented a case "of such infraction, Mr. Jefferson considered them "as absolutely null and void, and thought the State Legislatures competent, not only to declare but to "make them so, to resist their execution within their respective borders by physical force and to secede "from the Union rather than submit to them, if at"tempted to be carried into execution by force."

66

Whatever doubt there may be as to what MADISON meant by the right and duty of the State "to interpose" to prevent Federal infractions of the Constitution, there is no doubt as to what JEFFERSON meant, and not the least doubt as to what Virginia meant The State of Virginia meant precisely what the State of Kentucky had said. At this time HAMILTON wrote to DRAYTON, Speaker of the House, charging that the Virginia Resolutions meant the overthrow of the Government, and that her hostile declarations had been followed up by preparations for the use of force. He declared that Virginia had taken steps to put her militia on a war footing, and had established magazines and arsenals. The truth of this charge is not denied by Randall,

the biographer of Jefferson. Indeed, at a somewhat later day, John Randolph admitted in Congress that there was no longer any cause for concealing that the great armory at Richmond was built to enable the State of Virginia to resist by force the encroachments of the then administration upon her indisputable rights.

The views of the anti-Federalists were well expressed by John Randolph when in March, 1799, he debated with Patrick Henry at Charlotte Courthouse, Virginia. Mr. Henry, at the request of Washington, had come from his retirement and offered himself as candidate for the legislature, with the purpose of defending the acts and doctrines of the Federal administration under ADAMS. RANDOLPH was a mere youth, and his reply to HENRY was the first of a long series of brilliant addresses. He had been educated in the ideas of Jeffer

son and Madison. Said he: "In questions of meum "and tuum, where rights of property are concerned, "and some other cases specified in the Constitution, I "grant you that the Federal judiciary may pronounce "on the validity of the law. But in questions involv"ing the right to power, whether this or that power "has been delegated or reserved, they cannot and "ought not to be the arbiter; that question has been left, as it always was, and always must be left, to be "determined among sovereignties in the best way they 66 can. Political wisdom has not yet discovered any "infallible mathematical rule by which to determine "the assumptions of power between those who know no "other law or limitation, save that imposed upon them "by their own consent, and which they can abrogate "at pleasure." He continued: "Shall the creature