or write anything "false, scandalous, and
malicious," with intent to excite against either House of Congress or
against the President, "the hatred of the good people of the United
States." It can readily be seen what gross oppression was possible under
this elastic law, interpreted by judges who, to a man, were members of the
Federal party. Matthew Lyon, of Vermont, ventured to read aloud at a
political meeting a letter which he had received expressing astonishment
that the President's recent address to the House of Representatives had
not been answered by "an order to send him to a mad-house." For this Mr.
Lyon was fined $1,000, and imprisoned in a veritable dungeon.

These unconstitutional and un-American laws were vigorously opposed by
Jefferson and Madison. In October, 1798, Jefferson wrote: "For my own part
I consider those laws as merely an experiment on the American mind to see
how far it will bear an avowed violation of the Constitution. If this goes
down, we shall immediately see attempted another act of Congress declaring
that the President shall continue in office during life, reserving to
another occasion the transfer of the succession to his heirs, and the
establishment of the Senate for life."

Jefferson also prepared the famous Kentucky resolutions, which were
adopted by the legislature of that State,--the authorship, however, being
kept secret till Jefferson avowed it, twenty years later. These
much-discussed resolutions have been said to have originated the doctrine
of nullification, and to contain that principle of secession upon which
the South acted in 1861. They may be summed up roughly as follows: The
source of all political power is in the people. The people have, by the
compact known as the Constitution, granted certain specified powers to the
federal government; all other powers, if not granted to the several state
governments, are retained by the people. The alien and sedition laws
assume the exercise by the federal government of powers not granted to it
by the Constitution. They are therefore void.

Thus far there can be no question that Jefferson's argument was sound, and
its soundness would not be denied, even at the present day. But the
question then arose: what next? May the laws be disregarded and disobeyed
by the States or by individuals, or must they be obeyed until some
competent authority has pronounced them void? and if so, what is that
authority? We understand now that the Supreme