25. Extracts from the Preamble and Resolutions of the House of Representatives of Pennsylvania.
February 3, 1810.
Chagrined at the success of the Federal Courts, and disappointed with the replies of the other States to their proposal to amend the Constitution, both branches of the General Assembly of Pennsylvania, early in the year 1810, drew up elaborate reports and resolutions reviewing the questions at issue anew. Extracts from the Report and Resolutions of the House of Representatives follow. The Minority presented a long report sharply condemning the action of the State authorities and a series of resolutions in support of the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. This was offered as a substitute for the Majority report, but was rejected by a vote of 25 yeas to 67 nays. (Journal of the House, 1809–10, 403–424; Amer. Register, 1810, 113–136.) In the Senate a committee brought in an extensive report in justification of the position taken by the State, and resolutions renewing their proposal of a constitutional amendment for the establishment of a "disinterested tribunal" to determine disputes between the General and the State governments, and also recommending the reward of the members of the militia who had suffered conviction. (Journal of the Senate, 1809–10, 376–382.') Neither these resolutions nor those of the House were acted upon by the Senate. For Text and action thereon, cf. Journal of the House, 1809–10, 250–254, 402–426, 433–436; Journal of the Senate, 1809–10, 226–233.
* * * From this view of the subject, the committee are of opinion, that the constitution of the United States, has been violated by the decision of the judge, and the constitutional rights of the state invaded. The question then occurs, in what manner is a state to defend her rights against such invasion? It has already been observed, that the constitution of the United States guarantees to each state a republican form of government; that the powers not delegated to the United States, are reserved to the states respectively without entering into a detail of the rights reserved or not delegated, suffice it to say, that "the right of acquiring, possessing and protecting property is one." If this be not one of the powers not delegated, then indeed a state is in a worse and more degraded situation than the most obscure individual, whose property cannot be taken from him when fairly acquired, without his consent, even for publick use, without a compensation. In the case before us, all the constituted authorities of the state, have uniformly asserted their rights, and protested against every attempt to infringe them.
