Western Sun & General Advertiser, Volume 22, Number 4, Vincennes, Knox County, 5 March 1831 — Page 1

r.f

O BY BUHU STOUT. VjCECmES, (121.) SATURDAY, XtX&KCH 5, 1831. vol. xzn. ITO

E&rotmt Sun

IS published at g2 50 cents, for 52 numbers; which may be discharged by the payment ot J&2 at the time of sub scribing. Payment in advance, being the mutual interest of both parties, that mode is solicited. A failure to notify a wish to discon tinuc at the expiration of the time sub scribed for, will be considered a new en gagemcnt; & no subscriber at liberty to discontinue, until all arrearages are paid. Subscribers must pay the postage on their papers when sent by mail. Letters by mail to the Editor on business must be paid,or they will not be attended to. PnoDucR will be received at the Cash Market Price for subscriptions, if delivered within the year. Advertisements not exceeding thirteen lines, will be inserted three times for one dollar, and twenty-five cents for eai.h after insertion longer ones in the same proportion fcjPersons sending Advertisements, must specify the num ber of times they wish them inserted, or they will be continued until ordered out. and mH be for paid accordingly BY AUTHORITY. tm Laws of the united states, passed at the second session of the twenty-first congress. No. 9. AN ACT to alter the times of holding the District Courts of the United States for the Districts of Maine and Illinois, and Northern District of Alabama. lie it enacted bit the Senate and House cf Representative of the United States of America in Congress assembled, I hat the terms ot the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Alabama, which are now directed bv law to be held on the first Mondays of March and October in each year, shall hereafter be held on the second Mondays of April and October in each year, and that the term ot the District Court of the United States for the District of Maine, which is now directed by law t be held on the second Tuesday of September in each year, shall hereafter be held on the first Tuesday of September in each year: and all processes which may have issued, or which shall hereafter issue, returnable to the next succeeding terms of the said District Courts as heretofore established, shall be held returnable, and be returned, to those terms to which they arc severally changed by this act. Section 2 And be it further enacted, Th.it the terms of the District Court of the United .States for the District of Illinois, which are now directed by law to be held on the third Mondays cf June and November in each vear, shall hereafter be held on the first Mondays of May and December in each year: and all process which may have issued, or which shall hereafter issue, returnable to t.lv next succeeding terms of the said District Court as heretofore established, shall be held returnable, and be returned, to those terms to which they are severally changed by this act. Andrew Stevenson, Speaker cf the House of Representatives. John C. Calhoun, President of the Senate. Approved, 27th January, 1831. ANDREW JACKSON. No 19. AN AC 1 to extend the time for entering certain donation claims to land in tne Territory of Arkansas. li it enwtcd b;i the Senate and House of ftwn'iiriV'.? r.f the United States of America in Congresss Assembled, That the provisions of the eighth and ninth sections of the act of Congress, approved twentyfourth dav of Mav, one thousand eight hun dred and twenty-eight, entitled "An act to aid theNtate of Ohio in extending the Mi ami Canal from Davton to lake Erie, and to cxant a on mtitv of land to said State to aid m the construction of the canals autho rized bv law. and for makincr donations of land to certain persons in Arkansas Terri tory; and the provisions pi the act, entitled "An act restricting the locations of certain lan 1 claims in the Territory of Arkansas and for other purposes," approved ixth January, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-nine; and, also, the provisions of the act, entitled "An act to extend the time for locating certain donations in Arkansas." approved thirteenth January one thousand eight hundred and thirty, be, and the bame are hereby, continued in force for the period of two ears from the twentyfourth May, one thousand eight hundred an 1 thirty-one: Provided, That nothing in ' .i 1- . ... i. .ii i lias act, or tne lo.t.u.R 'J;,0 mnv v i'i to nrt t ilt t he t ICSKle it ot the , . fl , (i - i , ,

in At kanas into market under the existing that we are onlv giving utterance to the j Monocrats, m favor ot the supremacy of law; and all el urns to donations under the of llcmochraticciu2en, of Penu- fc.ity stipulation. 1 hough they occasionbctore recited act, which shall not hav e , svqv:ini l allv seem to admit that the powers of the

y ..H,u , x,w, u. iMb...b . been presented and allowed by the proper authorities on or before tlu dav which shall be fixed oil by the President for the sale of said land are hereby declared forfeited to the United Mates. Ai'I'Rovld, 27th Januarv, 1831. Xo 11. AN ACT further supplemental to the act entitled "An act making further pi ov ision for settling the cl.iims to l tuds in the Termor) i f Missouri," parsed v:.e thirteenth day cf June, one tiiousandci!i hundred and twelve. I t'; iri'jctcd by the StnaJi qr.d Hqust

of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled That the United States do hereby relinquish to the inhabitants of the several towns or villages of Portage des Sioux, Saint Charles, Saint Louis, Saint Ferdinand, Villa a Robert, Carmident, Saint Genevieve, New Madrid,

New Bourbon, and Little Prairie, in the State of Missouri, all the right, title, and interest, of the United States, in and to the town and village lots, out lots, common field lots, and commons, in adjoining, and belonging to, the said towns or villages, confirmed to them respectively by the first section of the act of Congress, entitled "An act making further provision for settling the claims to land in the Territory of Missouri," passed the thirteentn dav of June, one thou sand eight huhdred and twelve: to be held by the inhabitants of the said towns and villages in full property, accordiutr to their several rights therein, to be regulated or disposed of for the use of the inhabitants, according to the laws of the State of Missouri. Sec. 2. And be it further enacted. That the United States do hereby relinquish all their right, title, and interest, in and to the town and village lots, out lots, and common field lots, in theSute of Mo reserved for the support of schools, in the respective towns and villages aforesaid, by the second section of the above recited act of Congress; and that the same shall be sold or disposed of, or regulated, for the said purposes, in such manner as may be directed by the Legislature of said State, Approved. January 27, 1831. At a meeting of the democratic members of the Legislature of Pennsylvania, friendly to the administration ot the National and State Governments, held pursuant to public notice on the 5d February, in the N". E. Committee room of the State Capitol, the following officers were appointed: JACOB M. WISE, of Westmoreland, President. Henry Simpson, of Philadalphia, V . G. Scott, of Northampton, Thomas Kingland, of Washington, Fedenck Smith, of Franklin, Vice Presidents. Ephraim Banks, of Mifflin, and Vm. G. Hawkins, of Greene, Secretaries. On motion, Messrs. Brown, Burden, Patterson, Geiger, Laports, Read, of Susquehanna, Wagener, Slemmer, Davis, of the city, Rankin, Stoever Taylor, and Miller, of Perry, were appointed a committee to draft resolutions expressive of the sense cf the meeting. The committee reported the following preamble and resolutions, which were unanimously agreed to: WHEREAS in the opinion of the members of this meeting, the Democratic citizens of this commonwealth retain undiminished confidence in the integrity of Genet ;d ANDREW JACKSON, President of the United States, and believe that the mea sures of the present Administration of the General Government are based upon sound principles of national policy, ooth as regards our foreign and domestic relations: And whereas it is our opinion that the great interests of the country, and the union and harmony of the Democratic party in the United States, require that Andrew Jackson should again be the candidate for the Presidency: Therefore, Resolved, That we highly approve of Gen. Andrew Jacksons consent t become a candidate for re-election to the Presidency of the United States, and of his consistency in adhering to his maxim, "neither to seek nor to decline office." Resolved, That we have entire confidence in the talents, integrity, and patriotism of our Chief Magistrate, George W olf, and vie w the measures of his administration as eminently calculated to promote tne prosperity of the commonwealth, and the cause of public virtue. Resolved, That the support cf the present General and State Administrations is the most effectual means of preserving the union of the Democratic party of Pennsylvania. Mr. Petrikin offered the following resolution, which was unanimously adopted: Resolved, That this meeting approve of the tariff adopted by the Congress of the United States, and warmly approve f the steady support given to it by the Pennsylvania representation in that body. Mr. Hassinger presented to the chair the following communication addressed to Gen. Jackson, which was read, adopted, and signed by the members copy Hamburg, 2d Feb lSal. To His Excellency Andrew Jackson, President of the United States. Sir The undersigned, members of the legislature of Pennsylvania, hav ing conven ed in order to express their opinions m relation to the next presidential election, beg leave to communicate their entire satisfaction and continued confidence in your ad ministration of the government of the Union. They believe that it is conducted upon principles of sound policv and which are eminently calculated to promote the interests and harmory of the confeueracv. They are therefore highly gratified th it you have again consented to yield to the "anxious solicitations of your fellow citizens in becoming a candidate tor rc-elccttoii.l No event could tend so much to the union I :nl hinnnnv of the e rcat rcnublican nartv i of these United States and consequently to I . . . .. , . i - ; - o - i . ! the test interests o: our ueioveu country. ln k- thcse sentiments, we are couri Here followed a list ef TS members. Resolved, That the proceedings of this meeting, signed by the officers, be publish rd in the democratic papers friendly to the National and State administrations. Adjourned. J ACOB M. WISE, President. IU-NRY NlMTsON, "I Win. G Scott. ! r D , s ... c- Pretident. I II IS RlSOI.AND, FhKD'k MITIl. J E B.NK P V . ti. iIWKl?:a, V

THE QUESTION OF POWER. This question is too gravetoo v itally important to fail to command the undivided

attention of the American people. The fact, that the Monocrats of 1831, openly advocate the right of the Supreme Court of the United States, to exercise a supervisory power over the Legislation of the States, on any and every subject, and to suspend the operation of the State laws, by writs of error, whether constitutional or not, will be considered a sufficient illustration of the magnitude of the question which has grown out of the case cf Tassels vs. Gf orgia. But, in addition to this, the ground is indirectly taken, that the general government can enlarge its own sphere of action increase its powersby the formation ot treaties with Indian tribes so as to give to the general government a right to exercise any or all the powers reserved to the States or to the people; and, that the power thus claimed, may be secured in defiance cf public opinion, we are told that it is the province cf the Supreme Court to act as the ultimate arbiter in all controversies glowing out of treaties thus formed. These alannintr doc trines will convince the republican party of the necessity of prompt and energetic action in support of the rights and sovereignty of the States. To illustrate the position assumed by those who advocate the right of the general government to dives; the htates, not only of their reserved powers, but of their territory by treaty, it is only necessary to suppose a case which has really already occurred, if the opponents of the present administration be correct, in their assertions with respect to the character and condition of one of the Indian tribes: Suppose the general government to have engaged by treaty, to regard the Cherokee, as a soveieign and independent foreign nation, owing allegu.i.ce to no power on cai th --having a riglit to exercise exclusive jurisdiction 0". er the country claimed and occupied by them; to pass laws for the collection of imposts and taxes, for the support of their government; to establish a national bank at Lchota; to erect a mint and coin gold; topasslawsto encourage the wor king of the gold mines; and laws of naturalization, by which the Georgians would be permitted, on certain conditions, to become citizens of the Cherokee nation, within the limits of Georgia.' According to the arguments and assertions of the opposition, a treaty guarantee ing to the Cherokees, the rights and immunities the attributes of sovereignty we have enumerated would be, to all intents and purposes, the supreme law cf the land, any thing in the constitution or laws of the States to the contrary notwithstanding,' By such a treaty as we have supposed, Georgia and Alabama would be dissevered dividedeach would be deprived of a portion of her territory, and a nevj foreign State vvould be erected between them, against their consent, and in violation of the federal constitution! All this would be accomplished by a mere treaty arrangement with the head men of the Cherokee nation. The treaty would be the act of the general government ret, we are told that, if the validity of such a treaty should be questioned by Georgia, the Supreme Court, which is part and parcel of tUe general government, would be the only tribunal to which Georgia could apply for redress! According to the doctinesof the advocates cf consolidation, the Supreme Court would be the sole and ultimate arbiter. In such a controversy the General Government would be one of the parties, and the aggressing party too yet the right is claimed for her, to decide a case in her own favor, which would force Georgia to succumb to a savage tribe, to yield ui a part of her domain, and to submit to the establishment of a new State, out of parts of the existing States, in opposition to an express provision of the federal constitution! If this reasoning be orthodox it is only necessary, in order to restrain the States from exercising jurisdiction ever all persons within their limits, to go to the Indians and procure treaties with them, stipulating that they shall be subject to no other laws than their own savage customs. This will humble the States teach them that they are :iot sovereign that their reserved rights exist only in imagination that they are "mere petty corporations, completely subject to the control of the general government," and that the inhabitants of such sections of country as embrace gold miles, will ever find partisans, lawyers aye, and Judges too ready to contend that killing is not murder, and that the supervisions and control of the local and municipal laws of the States can be added to the general mass of federal powers, by written agreements with the Indian tribes. In the treaty we have supposed to exist, we have yielded nothing to the Cherokees which has not been claimed, legally and politically, for them yet we are told, by the opposition, that the Supreme Court vs ill gravely entertain the question, whether the general government is bound by treaty to protect and defend them, in the lull enjoyment of all the rights of an independent foreign nation, owing allegiance to no power oil earth! It is alleged that the Cherokees have been recognized by treaties as an indeFuuu iwuuu-uuu ucau iuc w.ui tni are the supreme law, and that it is business of the President to constrain . - i i i n VTeorgia lovieiu oucuiunoc io uicui, ctcn ui the point of the bayonet. This is really the sum and substance ot the arguments ot tne federal iroverninent are limited, they are obviously unwillingto concede that the treatv makimr power cun be restrained by the barriers erected by the constitution, between the powers granted to the federal gov ernment for specific purposes and those reserved t- the Mates and the people. Treaties, they aver, ai e the uprt tne iuii' and therefore the laws, the Constitutions, and the rights e.f the b'.ates, nmvt vie id to Mem! Have the gentlemen re all) pes su ided Me. usi Ives, tl.at the ti e it) making p.twtr ui this country, aiul the Supreme Cjuit, govern by dat .c ng.'.S, ui u d

no wrong?' If they have, they arc deceived. Though treaties are pronounced 'the supreme lav:,' they are no: supreme. The supreme law of the land is embodied in the federal and State constitutions and these, together, constitute the organic law of cur

free institutions. These are the Sonds of Union, and the lights and powers guaranteed, under each, are sacred, and should be held inviolable. To be valid, treaties mut conform to the organic law of our governments They must be made in pursuance of the provisions of the federal constitution, by w hich all the attributes of sovereignty not specifically vested in the general government are reserved to the States. This reservation, when fairly construed, is an ample shield to State rights. While the States maintain republican forms cf government, which do not authorize encroachments on the powers delegated to the general government, no valid treaty can conflict with a State constitution. In other terms: while each description of government continues to revolve in its appropriate sphere, the action of each will be separate and distinct, and equally sovereign and supreme that is, equally binding under the organic law enacted by the people in Conventions. But, the federal and State governments are, in truth, nothing more nor less than separate agencies, established by a common soveleign the people and clothed with full powers to execute the trusts specifically confided to them. Hence it fellows, that, in all controversies with respect to the trusts delegated to each that is, with respect to jurisdiction neither party can act as the ultimate arbiter that is the high provincecf the common sovereign, the people. These views accord with the opinions of Mr Jefferson, as expressed i-his letter to Judge Johnston. Discussing the case of C ohens r&.the State of Virginia, Mr. Jefferson says kIt may be impracticable to lay down any general formula of words which shall decide at once, and with precision, in every case, thisimif of jurisdiction. But there are two canons which will guide us safely in most of the cases The capital and leading object of the constitution was, to leave ith the states all authorities which respected their own citizens only, and to transfer to the U States those which respected citizens of foreign or other States: to make us several as to ourselves, but one as to all others. In the latter case then, constructions should lean to the general jurisdiction, if the words will bear it; and in favor of the States in the former, it possible to be so construed. And indeed, between citizens and citizens of the same State, and under their owo laws, I know but a single case in which a juris diction is given to the general government. That is where any thing but gold and silver is made a lawful tender, or where the obligation of contracts is otherwise impaired." "Let us try Cohen's case by these canons only" ,it Was between a citizen and his own State, and under a law of his State. It was a domestic case therefore, and not a foreign one." "Can it be believed, that under the jeal ousies prevailing against the general government, at the adoption of the con slitution, the States meant to surrender the authority of preserving order, of enforcing m&ral duties, and restraining vice, within their own territory? And this is the present case; that of Cohen being under the ancient and general law of gaming. Can any good be effected, by taking from the States the moral iuIc of their own citizens, and subordinating it to the general authority, or to one of their corporations, which may justify forcing the meaning of words, hunting after possible constructions, and hanging inference on tnferer.ee from heaven to earth like Jacob's ladder? Such an intention was impossible, and such a iiceneioi&nc8s of construction and inference, if exercised by both governments, as may be done with equal right, would equally authorize both to claim all powers, general and particular, and breakup the foundations of the Union. Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding, and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of com mon sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties, which may make any thing mean every thing or nothing, at pleasure. It should not be left to the sophisms of advocates, whose trade it is. to prove that a defendant is a plaintiff, though dragged into court, torto coo, like Bonaparte's vol unteers, into the field in chains, or that a power has been given because it ought to have been given, et aliatalia 'lhe States supposed, that by their tenth amendment, they had secured themselves against constructive powers. They were not lessened yet by Cohen's case, nor aware of the slifiperiness of the eels of the law. I ask for no straining of words against the general government, nor yet against the States. 1 believe the States can bct govern our home concerns, and the general government our foreign ons. 1 wish, therefore, to sec maintained that wholesome distribution of poTjers established by the constitutor, for the limitation of both; and never to see all offices translerred to Washington, where, lurther withdrawn from the eyes of the people, they may more secretly be bough: and sold as at a narket " 'But the Chief Justice (Marshal ) say, 'the i e must be an ultimate arbiter somej where." True, there muv; but does t bat prove it is either fiary? Tur ul i X1M.VIC AKBUKR 11 lit P&OFI.X OT

the Union, assembled by their deputics in convention, at the call of Conj gress, or of two thiids of the States

Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed ty tzvo cf their organs. And it has betn the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once t force." The language of Mr Jefferson on the case of Cohen vs. Virginia, is entirely applicable to the case of Tassels . Georgia. Cohen was prosecu'ed for selling lottery tickets in violation of one ot the penal laws of Virginia. The lottery was authorized by an ordinance of the corporation of Washington City, and the corporation was authorized by act of Congress to pass the ordinance, authorizing the lottery. On this ground Cohen, when fined under the penal law oF Virginia, applied to the Supreme Court for a writ ol error, which was granted. The Supreme Court assumed jurisdiction cf the case, against which tho Supieme Court of Virginia (Judges Cabell, Fleming, Roane, and Brooke) unanimously protested. This isihecaso to which Mr Jefferson refers. With respect to the division or distribution of p wers, between the state and fcdeial governments, the wews of Mr. J sen will be understood by cvey republican in the nation; and the lar.guac ho applies to the Court proves, tl.a he viewed the assumption of juiisdicnon, in the case of Cohen, as an usurpati-.n, and that the Chief Justice had, in Mr. Jefferson's opinion, by that and simi'ar assumptions uf power, forfeited all claims to public confidence. The expressions, 'forcing the meaning of words 'hunting 3fter possible constructions' hanging inference on inference from heaven to earth,like Jacob's ladder' Ticenti usness of construction and inference,' cc. unerringly indicate the hostility oi iho Sage ot Monticcllo to the usurpations of the Supreme Court. He declaiea that it 'was impossible' that the Stares intended to invest the Supreme Court with power to supervise the decisitns of the State Courts, and that the claim that tribunal has set up to "all powers, general and particular,' is calcu'ated, i tolerated, to "break ufi the Joundation ef the Union In another letter to Judge Johns'onj Mr. Jefferson uses the lodowing language, in reference to the case ol Cohen and the official conduct ot Judge Marshall: "You request trie confidentially, to examine the question, whether the supreme court has advanced beyond ita constitutional limits, and trcspassec on those of the stateauthorities ? I do not undertake it, my dear sir, because I m unable. Age, and the wane of mmd consequent on it, have disqualified mo from investigations so severe, and researches so laborious. And it is the less necessary in this case, as having been already done by others with a logic anrj learning to which I could add nothing. On the dtcision of the case cf CfiKns vs. the state of Virginia, in the sup. emo court of the United States, in Maich 1321, judge Roane, under the sigratuic of Algernon Sidney, wrote for the Enquirer a series of papers on the law of that case. I considered these papers maturely as they came out, and confekSy that they appeared to me to pulverize every word which bad been deliveiedby judge Marshall, of the extra judicial part of his opinion; and all was extrajudicial, except the decision that the act of congress had not purported to give to the corporation of Washington the authority claimed by thejr lottery law, of controlling the laws of the (states within the states themselves. But unable to claim that case, he could not let it go entirely, but went on gratuitously to provef that notwithstanding the tlcventh amendmcnt of the constitution, a state could be brought, as a delendant, to the bar of his court ; and again, lLat congress might authorise a corporation of its territory to exercise legislation within a state, and paramount to the laws of that state. I cie the sum and result only of his doctrines, according to tho impression made on my mit-d at the time, and still remaining. If not strictly accurate in circumstance, it is so in substance. This doctrine was so completely refuted by Roane, that if he can bo answered, I surrender human reason as a vain and useless faculty, given to bewilder, and not to guide us. And I mention this paiticular case as one only of several, because it gave occasion to that thorough examination of the constitutional limits between the general and state jurisdictions, which you have asked for." Tbe subject w as taken up by our legislature of 1821'22, and twodraughte of remonstrances, were prepared and discussed. As well as I remember, there was nodiffcrencci of opinion as to the matter of right ; but there was as to the expediency ot a re-, monstrance at that time, the general mind of the nates being then under extraordinary excitement by the Missouri question: and it was dropped on that consideration But the case is not dead, it only skepeih. the Indian chid said he ciid not go to war for esery petty Ln-