were derived from that protective power, which was to be gathered from the Constitution by means of implication only, or by implication from the power given to declare war. He further asked, at what time those laws were passed, and what was the cause? And then observed, that whatever construction led to an absurdity, was erroneous. He then supposed the case of the states having the power of admitting aliens, and the General Government not having the power of removing them. The Assembly of Virginia might think a whole army of aliens admissible. Suppose, he said, that Bonaparte and his army (if they could ever get out from the Nile again) were to arrive within the state, and they should think them too, admissible; by the construction of the resolutions before them, Congress in such case ought not to remove them. The right of protection, he said, was a natural right, appertaining to each individual, and that a number of individuals had as much right to protect themselves as one individual. Did the Constitution prohibit such a right? He then observed, that both the Constitution of the United States, and of this state, directed that the trial by jury should be held sacred. He said, he would then proceed to examine if that right had never been pretermitted by any law of the state; and requested that the law of Virginia, for removal of aliens, passed in 1792, should be first read. (It was read accordingly by the clerk.) He then observed, that although the Constitution of the state directed that the trial by jury should be held sacred, yet that law "authorized the Governor to apprehend, and secure, and compel to depart out of the commonwealth, all suspicious persons, &c., from whom the President of the United States should apprehend hostile designs against the said states." In that instance, then, a previous legislature had acknowledged as a matter indisputable, what this legislature disputed, that a suspicious alien might be sent away at the instance of the President. Their law even authorized the sending away the alien without a trial, and in the mean time his being imprisoned. Yet that legislature, in passing that law, did not suppose it had violated the Constitution. He then read the act of Congress under consideration. He compared both acts together, and said that he looked upon them to be nearly the same. If there were any difference between them, he said it was, that the law of the state was more severe than the law of Congress, inasmuch as the former subjected the alien to imprisonment at all events: the latter only in case of his refusal to remove himself. It was remarkable, too, he said, that the same law of the state, although passed in 1792, was re-enacted from one passed in 1785, thirteen years ago, and so many years nearer than the present time to the Revolution, when it is to be supposed the principles of that Revolution were much purer than they were at the present time. He then contended that there was the same reservation to the people of all powers not granted to the state government, as was to the states of all powers not granted to the General Government. Consequently, the trial by jury being declared sacred by the bill of rights, the legislature of the state could have no more power by the Constitution to pass such a law, than Congress had by the Constitution of the United States. Yet no complaint against such a law had ever been heard until the law of Congress was passed. All the clamour had been reserved for that alone. He again

observed, that no other state legislature had passed any such resolution as the one before them. They must be presumed to be equally watchful: they must be presumed to have wisdom too, and that it was not exclusively confined to, this legislature. They should hesitate, therefore, in making such a declaration as was then contemplated. He then called for the reading of the law of the state, which authorized the delivering up a citizen committing a crime in a foreign country, at the instance he said of the United States, without trial by jury, on mere suspicion and on demand. (The clerk read the law.) Mr. Taylor then called the attention of the committee to the last clause of the law, from which it appeared that the offender might be tried by a jury for the offence in this state, but was deprived of such a trial by the fourth section, where he was delivered up to a foreign nation on requisition. He ascribed the reason for dispensing with the trial by jury, in the latter case, to be, because it was a case within the law of nations, which admits no trial by jury, and still that law was thought not incompatible with the Constitution. He observed that the gentleman from Caroline had dilated much upon the probable effects of the law of Congress in question. He would indulge himself in the same manner. ́

What, said he, would be the situation of this country, were it once known that Congress had no such power as that of removing aliens? He begged them to recollect what horrid scenes of devastation and carnage had been exhibited by Frenchmen in their own island of Saint Domingo. If France would abandon her people there, and desolate the fairest colony in the world, could it be supposed, that they would love us more than themselves that they would spare their foes. He begged them to recollect too, the doubtful state of affairs between our country and France. It was true that the two nations were not at war, since no declaration of war had been on either side, but they were not at peace, since each party was seizing the vessels of the other. War then might ensue, and at the time the alien law was passed, it was a thing extremely probable. Every nation, before it struck, prepared as deadly a blow as possible. He then asked if the French could wound us in any respect so vitally, as by arming the slave against his master. Attempts, he said, had been already made, by French emigrants, to excite our slaves to insurrection. Suppose then, they were to attempt the thing again, and an insurrection should accordingly take place, what would be the consequence? In that common calamity, he said, the ranks of society would be confounded; the ties of nature would be cut asunder; the inexorable and blood-thirsty negro would be careless of the father's groans, the tears of the mother, and the lamentations of the children. The loudest in their wailings would be their wives and daughters torn from their arms, with naked bosoms, outstreiched hands, and dishevelled hair, to gratify the brutal passion of a ruthless negro, who would the next moment murder the object of his lust. He then asked how all that was to be prevented? By vesting the general government with that power to remove such aliens, which it had already so generously exercised for the purpose, in the law then under consideration: a law particularly calculated for the protection of the southern states. He then mentioned what success the French had had, in other countries

into which their emigrants had been admitted. What intrigues they had carried on in Venice, Switzerland, Holland, &c., all which countries had been expunged from the list of republics, and added to the already overgrown dominions of France.. These events, he said, had been brought about chiefly by stirring up the people to discontent, by alien incendiaries. It was necessary then, that the United States should adopt proper measures to prevent such mischiefs. To that end, said he, let us cherish the law passed for the purpose. He then proceeded to relate the late conduct of the French towards us, and what description of persons had migrated from that country to the United States, the most noted characters of whom were Volney and Talleyrand. He made several remarks upon the conduct of both of them while in this country, but gave a particular account of the peregrination of the latter from Europe to America, thence back again to Europe: how he was denounced and proscribed by his countrymen, restored to favour again, and in the end preferred to the ministerial office which he then held. It behoved the people of this country, therefore, to be on their guard against him and all the rest. He wished, he said, to conclude; for he was conscious that he had fatigued himself, and he supposed the committee also. He should be glad, however, to be permitted at some other time to deliver his sentiments in regard to the sedition law. He thought indeed, that the best way thereafter would be to discuss one law at a time. He further observed, that the members of that Congress which had passed those laws, had been, as far as he could understand, since generally re-elected: therefore, he thought the people of the United States had decided in favour of their constitutionality, and that such an attempt as they were then making to induce Congress to repeal the laws, would be utterly nugatory.

MR. RUFFIN arose next, and said that he was convinced his abilities would not enable him to place the subject in such a light as it would be placed before it was finished. However, as it was a matter of much importance, he was induced to assign his reasons for the vote which he was about to give. He should confine himself, he said, to two points: the constitutionality of the laws, and the consequences. The alien law, he said, was unconstitutional in two points: and, after observing that, although an alien did not enjoy all the rights of a citizen, yet he enjoyed some, he proceeded to show in what points that law was unconstitutional. He thought it so for two reasons: 1st. Because it blended several powers in one person; and 2dly. Because it contained powers not granted to Congress by the Constitution. He then proceeded to state how the alien was to be deprived of the trial by jury, and to be banished for particular acts, at the time of their commission, innocent, but which might, by a retrospective operation of the said act, (the President being thereby armed with legislative and judicial, as well as executive power,) be made criminal. The gentleman from Prince George, he said, had admitted that if Congress were to pass a law to exclude all aliens for ever, prior to the year 1808, it would be unconstitutional. Mr. Ruffin then begged leave to inquire as to the difference of the effect which such a law would have from the present alien act of Congress, should Congress annually think proper to re-enact the

law as it now stood, until 1808. The principle and effect, he said, were the same. The only rational conclusion, then, to be drawn from the concession of the gentleman was, that if Congress be incompetent to the passage of a permanent law, (except, indeed, where the Constitution interposes,) they must be incompetent to the passage of a temporary one. But the gentleman, he said, had attempted to prove the constitutionality of that act, by saying that Congress had passed, or might pass, laws respecting alien enemies. The cases, however, Mr. Ruffin said, were extremely different. Congress alone could determine upon war or peace: consequently, alien enemies were proper subjects for congressional legislation: but that alien friends were exclusively subject to the sovereignty of the several individual states; as the twelfth article of the amendments to the Federal Constitution expressly declares, that "the powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." And as at the same time, he said, the only power given by that compact to the general government, over alien friends, was in the ninth section of the first article, it must follow that this was one of the rights reserved to the states. The gentleman last up, he said, had contended however, that this power was rightfully exercised by Congress, and had taken the broad ground of construction and implication, upon which to erect his fabric. Construction and implication, Mr. Ruffin said, was a doctrine which he had hoped was banished from the councils of America. It was a doctrine which the people of America had unanimously and uniformly protested against. It was the exercise of this kind of right by the British parliament which involved us in a war with that government. It was to guard against the exercise of such a power, that the state constitutions were formed: and it was that abhorrence in America to constructive and implied rights, that induced the specific delineation of congressional powers. Let them admit, he said, the position of the worthy member, and then mark the extent to which it would carry them. In the preamble to the Constitution, the ends designed to be produced by that compact, are enumerated. Amongst them the following: "to provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare:" and in the eighteenth clause of the eighth section of the first article, " to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, &c.," were the parts of the Constitution, by which it was contended, that those constructive and implied rights are given: Suppose, said Mr. Ruffin, the general government should be of opinion that those objects would be produced in a higher degree by continuing the present members in office for ten years, or for life? Was there any person who then heard him, who would think such an exercise of power legitimate? Certainly not. Yet he contended that such a power was as impliedly given by the Constitution, as that which Congress had taken upon itself to exercise over alien friends. Mr. Ruffin then concluded by observing, that as it was then late, and the committee appeared to be fatigued, he should reserve the rest of his observations for another opportunity.

The committee then rose, reported progress, asked and had leave to sit again.

IN THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES,

Saturday, December 15, 1798.

The House resolved itself into a committee of the whole House, on the state of the commonwealth, Mr. Brackenridge in the chair, when Mr. John Taylor's resolutions being still under consideration,

MR. MERCER arose and said, that he felt great difficulty in prevailing upon himself to take a part in the very interesting discussion which had arisen, and would probably be continued, upon the resolutions submitted to the committee. This difficulty was produced, not by any want of confidence in the rectitude of the opinion which he entertained, or in the purity of the motives that would ultimately direct his vote. On the one hand, he was deeply impressed with the importance of the subject; on the other, he felt and acknowledged his own inability to do justice to its merits; but, in proportion to the magnitude of the question, was his solici tude to explain the principles upon which his opinion was formed. The manner in which the laws complained of had been defended here, and elsewhere, was to his mind more alarming than the laws themselves. It showed that gentlemen were ready to defend, not only existing violations of the federal Constitution, but any infractions which might hereafter be committed upon it. For, if the opinions which the gentleman from Prince George submitted to the committee yesterday, be correct, the nature of that Constitution was changed. It was not what the people and states understood it to be at the time of its ratification. Its powers were enlarged to a dangerous extent. It could no longer be considered as producing a confederation, but certainly established a consolidated government.

Every question, Mr. Mercer said, which related to the respective powers of the state and general government, was, in itself, of magnitude sufficient to engage the whole attention of gentlemen who were desirous of preserving to each its proper powers, and to maintain that entire independence which belongs to each, and which each had a right to enjoy. He was, therefore, surprised, when he heard the member from Prince George, yesterday, calling the attention of the committee to subjects, which, however interesting in themselves, could not be supposed to have the most remote connexion with the resolutions upon the table. Those, said Mr. Mercer, embrace several constitutional questions, which ought to be considered by themselves; they point out a plan by which the friends of the paper believe a repeal of the supposed unconstitutional acts would be most readily ob tained. It was a solemn appeal to the understanding of the committee ; yet, the injuries of France to America, her excesses in Europe, always magnified and misrepresented by the enemies of freedom in every quarter of the world, and the misfortunes of St. Domingo, had been pressed with considerable force by that same gentleman. This effort, Mr. Mercer said, had been practised with great effect in the community. It was scarcely possible to consider the measures of our own government, and candidly to