New York and most of New England; even in ultra-Federalist Massachusetts. By the time of the second election of Jefferson in 1804, these organizations were enabled to carry every State in the Union, except Delaware and Rhode Island, for the Republican candidate. Party spirit was at high tide. Party feeling had reached that stage where every measure was discussed with bitterness, and was allowed to take on a party coloring. Even the impeachment trial of Judge Samuel Chase, of Maryland, a Federal district judge, developed into a partizan issue.

Third party. The controversy with Spain over Western Florida embarrassed the Administration and led to the breach between Jefferson and John Randolph, of Roanoke, the recognized leader of the House and chairman of the committee to which the matter was referred. The followers of this eccentric leader, whom Benton said was the "political meteor of Congress for thirty years," were nick-named "Quids," from quid tertium, a third something. This breach which amounted to little was evidence of the strength of the party in power and the weakness of the party in opposition.

Influence of the war. The approach of the war cloud between this government and Great Britain, with the antiEnglish party in authority at Washington, was fruitful occasion for bitter attacks upon the Administration. One of the measures which received unqualified condemnation from the dwindling opposition was the Embargo Act, which was nicknamed "Ograbme Act," which name was not far wrong. At this time the Jefferson party was in power in most of the States, including Massachusetts. The embargo policy struck home in commercial New England. However, the State under the Republicans resolved, "We consider the imposing of embargo a wise and highly expedient measure, and from its impartial nature calculated to secure to us the blessings of peace." The inevitable reaction came, and in 1808 the Republicans were defeated in the legislature. The legislature at

once instructed the Massachusetts delegation in Congress to procure the repeal of the act. Congress, instead, replied by the enactment of a stringent enforcement law. Then followed the famous protest of Massachusetts, which has been wrongly quoted as declaring the principle of State Sovereignty. On the contrary, it declared the principle of National Supremacy. However, the reply of the Federalist House to the Republican governor's criticism of the attitude of certain sections of the State in their town meetings, clearly asserted the doctrine of the State's right to judge of the constitutionality of a Federal law. The House in its answer declared that "We are unwilling to believe that any man can be weak or wicked enough to construe a disposition to support that Constitution and preserve the Union by a temperate and firm opposition to acts which are repugnant to the first principles and purposes of both, into a wish to recede from the other States... The legislature and people of the State of Massachusetts ever have been and now are firmly and sincerely attached to the Union of the States, and there is no sacrifice they have not been, and are not now willing to submit to, in order to preserve the same, according to its original purpose."

New England's attitude. The resolutions of the two branches of the Massachusetts General Assembly on the Enforcement Act of Congress came dangerously near the Calhoun theory of nullification. They resolved that in the opinion of the legislature the Enforcement Act of Congress is "in many respects, unjust, oppressive, and unconstitutional, and not legally binding upon the citizens of this State." They did not declare openly the positive right to nullify, but they did assert that the law was not binding. It was recommended that the State should co-operate with other States in all legal and constitutional measures to secure necessary amendments to the Federal Constitution to obtain commercial protection. An examination of the action of the State will show a striking similarity to that of Kentucky in the adoption of the Kentucky

Resolutions. The latter made less profession of allegiance to the Union, but went no further than did Massachusetts in declaring a Federal law unconstitutional and therefore not binding.

In January, 1809, the House of Representatives of Delaware took a position on the point in dispute. A strenuous effort was made to secure an endorsement of the national Administration but it was defeated, and the House declared that the Enforcement Act was "an invasion of the liberty of the people, and the constitutional sovereignty of the State government." Without defining State Sovereignty, it further declared that "they will use the remedy pointed out by the Constitution for the evils under which they suffer, rather than jeopardize the Union of the States and the independence of their country by an open opposition to the laws."

Connecticut took an advanced position and declared it to be the duty of the legislature, in such a crisis, vigilantly to watch over and vigorously to maintain the powers not delegated to the United States but reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. It further declared that "a due regard to this duty will not permit this assembly to assist, or concur in giving effect to the aforesaid unconstitutional act, passed to enforce the embargo." It also commended Governor Trumbull in declining to designate persons to carry into effect by the aid of military power the aforesaid act.

Rhode Island declared the Enforcement law, "in many of its provisions unjust, oppressive, unconstitutional, and tyrannical;" and while cautious not to infringe upon the Constitution and delegated powers and rights of the general government, the general assembly should "be vigilant in guarding from usurpation and violation those powers and rights which the good people of this State have expressly reserved to themselves and have ever refused to delegate."

History repeats itself. The close of the administration of the elder Adams was disturbed by the agitation over the Ken

tucky and Virginia Resolutions which stand as the pronouncement of the Virginia theory of politics. At the close of his administration Jefferson was embarrassed by a similar attitude of the New England opposition to his policy of embargo. Massachusetts made a pronouncement of the relative rights of the government and the States, which did not pretend to enter into the theory of Federal government as was done by the two Southern States, but which did call in question the constitutionality of a Federal enactment. This attitude was seconded by Delaware, Connecticut and Rhode Island. All the other States, save New Hampshire, were in the hands of the Republicans.

United States against Peters. The most acute stage in this conflict between the two authorities was reached in 1808, in the famous case of United States against Peters. This case, in one form or another, was before the courts for thirty years. It grew out of an appeal from the judgment of a Pennsylvania court to the Committee of Appeals of Congress. The decision of the Pennsylvania court was reversed, but the State authorities succeeded in preventing the satisfaction of the judgment on the ground of want of jurisdiction of the appellant court. Application was made to the Supreme Court of the United States to command the execution of judgment. Chief Justice Marshall granted it, declaring that

If the legislatures of the several States may at will annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the Constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery, and the nation is deprived of the means of enforcing its laws by the instrumentality of its own tribunals.

The attempt of the United States officer to serve the writ was resisted by the State militia. Finally, the State receded far enough to allow the national decree to be enforced. The Pennsylvania legislature recommended an amendment to the Constitution providing against a recurrence of the unfortunate

circumstance. This recommendation was sent to the several States for concurrence. Eleven States replied, each one repudiating it. In the list were seven Southern States, including Kentucky and Virginia. The strongest position against the plan was taken by Virginia, which is significant in view of that State's former position. Her resolutions in reply declared that the Supreme Court was the best qualified body to decide such matters that could be erected; that the Judiciary was the least dangerous of the three departments; that the Judiciary held neither the purse nor the sword and had to depend upon the Executive for the enforcement of its decrees. She therefore resolved to disapprove of the proposition to amend the Federal Constitution to limit the powers of the Judiciary. Pennsylvania, chagrined at the attitude of the other States, resolved by an almost unanimous vote

That the sovereignty and the independence of the States, as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, ought to be most zealously guarded, and every attempt to depreciate the value of those rights, and to consolidate these States into one general government, is hostile to the liberty and happiness of the people, and merits our most decided disapprobation.

It further justified the efforts of the governor of the State in his efforts to sustain the "rights and sovereignty of the State, under the act of 1803."

Democratic Pennsylvania. There had ever been a strong Jeffersonian element in Pennsylvania, which watched with vigilant care the rights of local self-government. As far back as the contention over the Presque Isle case, when Governor Mifflin requested of the general government a justification for the suspension of positive law in the State of Pennsylvania by executive advice, the jealousy of the State had been aroused. The governor remarked in reference to the above suspension, "I could not think that he (the President) would deliver an opinion to the executive of a State which it might be thought indelicate to disregard and illegal to adopt."