5 isi ts tfn.e a. E lone can develope. We entertain Ii, tie doubt that either Santa Anna q. Guerrero is at this moment exercjsina. the functions of President of Mexico

 --~-----~----.--------

 From the Southern, fS. C.1 Patriot. Right of State 10 demonstrate Deniet

 The number of the North American Review for October, in an article re. E viewing the debate in Congress on Mr. koot's resolutions, goes very fully into the Nallif}ing doctrine, and most con. vincingly proves it's repegnance to tho E principles Of the Constitution, but tho I article in which this is done contains some opinions which are startling to Hs, on this side of Mason and Dixon's line. E Will 1t De believed that tic assertion E would have been hazafded by any res Pectable authority in this country, that { the '' legislative branch of q State Go vernment, has not the c0nst'taftondl riqli to Te3nonst,ate against law ot the Gen efal GoverHment?2 Ne confess thatwo looked at tie statement of such doc [ trine with as.onishment. Yet it is lad \ down with solemn gravity, in the NortA American Review, in tt.e article iust alluded 10. The argument of the Re- viewer is-" that as the right ot remoa, strance can only rest in the constitu. ents of government, and as the State governments Gn his opinion, arc neither subjects nor constituentsof the General Government, they have no constitutional right to treihohstrate." "They are not known to the Constitution in any de. gree Says the Reyiewer) as the rega. gar Repositories of the constituent pow er." @Althoagh, (says the Reyiewer) the State Legislatures nave an aeenc, ile creating both branches of he Legisla- tltre, and dte Erecutire, yet they are in no sense the constituents or subjects of the General Government"

 Now, when a smtc Legislature re. monstrates, is it not obvious that thisi is the remonstrance of the people of that State, or at least q majority ot thems Would the Legislature of State un- dertake to remonstrate, if it were con trary to the wishes or opinions of their constituents? If the Legislature of a State undertake to remonstrate. there. fore, against an act of Congress, 1t isa more eompendious mode of doing for their constituents what these constitu. ents are saved the necessity of effecting, by assembling in their respective dis tricts. It is also the proper mode of conveying the sentiments of one ormore of the sovereign parties to the Consti- tation, to the other parties. To deny the right of remonstrance to those ba- dies, the State Legislatures, which Ter prosecution the time the State sovereign ties, and to limitit to detached portions of the people, is to contend in fact for the right in question, solely, as 1t exists under consolidated government.

 But if the Reviewer denies the right to remonstrate in the State Legislatures against an act of Congress, what would he say to the right of declaaqng law .ot that body unconstitutional. The right he disputes is d lesser right tRa this. As he appears to yenerate Mir. Madlson's authority, 1t would be dilf. cult for ilirn to reconcile his opinions with those entertained by this distin~ gaished Statesman. who yindicates the, right in the State Legislatures, of not only declaring a law of Congress uncens stHntional, but a decision of the Su- ,prorne Court also. This was done by Virginia, in the case of tho alien and sedition laws. If the writer of that afs ticle IS so little versed in the theory ot the Constitution, we would refer himto the pages of the Federalist, where it IS emphaticaily laid down as the right and dany of the States to watch the cllr croachments of the General Goyern-. ment, and sound tue alarm to the peo-. pic.

 Seatenee efyJ. Knapp, .jun.--Last Mon.. day afternoon, judge Putnam pronouced captop<a xN., xoc<.,>k T( ,onu inn.