States, is a gross fallacy, if the States have nothing to do with the matter. He says, this “complicated check on government may prove injurious,” &c.; but how is it more _complicated_, if the Senators are independent, than the British Parliament is rendered by the House of Lords, or any State government by its Senate? He also speaks of the power of the larger _States_ to defeat small _States_ when unreasonable, by power over the supplies. But there is yet better evidence of Mr. Madison's opinion upon this subject than all this. He has himself as a legislator, exercised the right. I have not the instructing resolutions before me, but I discover the fact from my copy of the resolutions of '98, '99, and the debate of 1800.[1] [Footnote 1: _House of Delegates, Monday, January 20, 1800._ _Resolved_, That five thousand copies of the Report of the Select Committee, to whom were referred the answers of several States upon the Resolutions of the last Legislature, the said answers [and also the _instructions to the Senators_ of this State in the Congress of the United States, together with the names of those who voted on each of these subjects,] be printed without delay; and that the Executive be requested, as soon as may be, to distribute them equally, in such manner as they shall think best, among the good people of this Commonwealth. Attest, WILLIAM WIRT, C. H. D. H. BROOKE, C. S. _Note by the Publisher_.—The part contained in brackets is not embraced in the present publication.] We approach now the last ground taken by the Judge, and that on which we should have supposed ourselves most impregnable—I mean the _Constitution_. I should have said there is nothing in that instrument to forbid, or which is inconsistent with the right to instruct, and therefore it exists. And for this, with many other authorities, we might have quoted JOHN MARSHALL, (Virginia Debates, 297-8.) “MR. JOHN MARSHALL asked if gentlemen were serious, when they asserted that if the State governments had power to interfere with the militia, it was by implication? If they were, he asked the committee whether the least attention would not show that they were mistaken? The State governments had not derived their powers {634} from the general government. But each government derived its powers from the people; and each was to act according to the powers given it. Would any gentleman deny this? He demanded if powers not given were retained by implication? Could any man say so? Could any man say that this power was not retained by the States, as they had not given it away? For, says he, does not a power remain till it is given away? The _State Legislatures had power to command and govern their militia before, and have it still, undoubtedly, unless there be something in this Constitution that takes it away._”