Newspaper Page Text
only know* how much further I may
walk. Doh’t s(aad»fapinr there, hut com*
out arid relieve me; or f wl*aH ho out
S’** Thomech!t| l |Sffn^w>^nI*lu;|<»y M^k
MB.tBimn.ET—I reluctantly content-
f ed tM’becOme a candidate for Cougresi
lie wa» evtdertfly*ot {trejpretl tar *$B* new
difficuttv. He fort not e moment, how-
over, m following the merchant to do
what he coehHowarda extricating him so
awkward a prodictment. The Merchant,
me rather the merchant's leg, wea walking
rety quick, and Ttmrlrtgvort, being an
eWerly man, found it no uaty matter to
Matoa*q>ieWTO. lie dideoat last, uev-
oriheltu, and eatchmg him in hie nrfas,
lifted htta enrtro1y*oim the*fouod. But
the stratagem, if so it mey be catted) did
not faceted; far (He buttle propelling mo
tion of the leg was M grcat that it hurried
(he artri&nt along with hiaborden at the
tame rate at before. Ho eet them there
fore down again, and (topping, pretied
violently on ouo of the tpringa that pro
truded a little behind. In an instant the
unhappy Mynheer Von Wodenblock wns
off like an arrow, calling otn in the mott
pileouf accents— 4 I am lost! I am loti I
I am pottettod by a devil in tjic shape of
n cork leg! Stop nie! for heaven's take—
ktop me! I um breathless,—I am faint
ing ! Will nobody ihatter my leg to
.piocei I Turningvort! Turningvort! you
.have murdered me I' Tlie artiit, perplex
ed end confounded, wot hardly in a situa
tion more to be envied. Scarcely know
ing what he did, ho fell upon hit kneet,
clasped bit handi, and with (trained and
xtnrhig eye-ballt, looked after the richest
merchant in Rotterdam, running with (he
speed of in enraged buffalo, nwa / along
the canul toward* Leyden, and hollowing
for help at loudly at hit exhaustion would
permit.' Leyden it more than twenty
mile* from Rotterdam, but the ttm had
not yel let, when tho Missel Backsnei^ar,
Who were telling at their parlour window,
immediately opposite the ‘ Golden Lion,’
Slinking tea, and nodding to their friends
a> they passed^ saw sumo otto coming at
w furious speud along the street. Hit
foco wns pale as ashes, and he gasped
fearfully fur breath; but, without turning
dither to the right or the left, he hurried
by at the tamo rapid rate, and was oat of
dfght almost before (hey had time to ex-
claim,* Good gracious! was not that Myn
heer Von Wodenblock, tho rich mer-
Chant of Rotterdam - Next day was
Stmday. The iithabitams of Haarlem
wore all going to church, in their best at-
tiro, to say their prayort and hear their
trig*#, When a figure rushed across the
market place, like an animated 'corps,
white, bl&e, cold, and speechless,dts oyes
fixed, iu lips livid, it* teeth set, ahd its
hands clenched. Every one cleared a
way lor'it in silent horror; and there wni
ndt%,person in Haarlem who dm rtbt be
lieVk it a dead body, endowed -with the
poWdir of motion. <Jh itweht through
vIHsbo and town, toward* the great wild*
and fqresti of Germany. Weeks, month*,
yean, elapsed, but at intervals tho horrid
■(tape was seen, end (till continues to be
soon, lu various parts of the north of Eu
rope. Tbo clothes, indeed, which he who
Ota* once Mvnheer Von Wodenblock
used to wear, have oil mouldered away ;
the flesh, toe, has fallen from Ids bones,
and he is e skeleton,—a skeleton in all
hut the corking. Which still, in its origin
al rotundity and size, continues attached
to tin spectral form, a perpetuum mobile,
dragging the 'wearied bones for ever and
for ever over the eartli! May all good
saints protect us (rum lirdken legs! and
may (here never again appear n raeclinni-
cian like Turningvort, to supply us' with
cork substitutes of so an fid and mysteri
ous « power!”
•Bstartssssas**-
lie. causes of my nflttciance, 1 dt
unnereuary to enumerate, era I am now a
candidate; bat, permit me, to say, Shat
tho conversation between you end myself
upon site propriety of the meafure arid the
prospects of success do.pttveW lhdd»foccemeot «f -rtind by
proportional influence lalmtdsh.ng these o/fend of. resistance. can they. W^uch
causes from my nund. Wherefore, I-was endanger th 1 • ■
gla.v*Samuel A. Worcester; Tftbepeo-,
‘ Gdwri ] [ii wcre,indiiWififliy,(gie*-1
B the subject, there
'ev(fry one htmdeet
doubt df the right eff the Stem
lh« decision,-^dt, is a skitter on
whltb the sounds of Trotipite and Clark-
it# are urikno
m.
of its cxecufip
ter, ns'tf comji
andindep
Adams and
on the chare
ire unknown,—the txaplft ef Gforgia Kricat distinctions,
resolved end rightfully, end have ex- rely upon a literal construction Of the Pre
— ■ ■ - “■ ''amble, independent of the Constitution,
jfbr tho rectitude Of their‘bpinion.
t And is it hof 'unreasonable, iHat thc.ehar-
XctAr of the General Government, which
pressed their determination through ihe
sevarkl departments of otf*
COWET A8AEE8. ■
W ILL b* mid on the first Tuesday in JULY
nest, at' the coart hone* lo the town of
Tfewntn, Coweta enmity witliin the asual Iwara
of sale, the Allowing property,to witi
Nathan Moore's interest-in lot of land
Ne, 83.in the 3d district of mid county, to satisfy
a fi fit iaaaed firm a justice'* court in said county,
in Aver of HtSvre O'Kollr; levy made and re
tamed to me by t coueiabfe. ■
Fraction No. 148, in the 4'h district of
end eoentv,' levied on et the property of Wm.
Month, to ntioiy a fi fe issued from e jiitliee'a
court, in favor of ‘(Lomu Hammock, for the use
Of Steven Duacnnvlevy made hy a constable.
ROBERT J. If. MILLER, 0. Sli'lT.
POSTPONED SALE.
Atthi MM tune and fleet will it sold.
Jnsao C. Roherts' interest iit lot of land
No. 983, talk* U district of said county, being
on* firth-pert ef said let, levied uu u Kir property
to setiaftr ea uttsehmont 6 fa issued ftom u jus
tice's court of eeid couoty, in fsvor of Jacob L.
Ahriheme, sod other fi fa, vs said Roberts; levy
made by * eoatteble.
ROBERT J- II. MILLER, D. Sh'ff.
June 8
DIfiflOLVMlW.
T UP. copsttnersfaip heroWAre existing under
the firm of Dill aad Bedim ttnhit 3ay dir-
salved ky mutual oonseol. All notes or accounts
»»d demands for and ngainst the raid firm will
be settled by John Dill who is duly authorized to
settle the satrte. JOHN DILL,
JOHN W. 8UTLIVE.
Turtf nines. May 15—3—3t
fflHE rabranher bege leave to inform bis
m friend* uattHto public generally, tlmt h»ving
yuschaeed the atterast ef John W.Mutlive in the
the 1-tsfcm.thethe will continue the business nt
tbs old Itawi HA stock is very-complain si tbit
time, and be will endeavor to hoop it sot and
hope* by hi* •strtieae'to retain that patronage
bieh MO hoku bstutofine-eo liberally extended
JOHN
toward
DILL
SXlVA&D
U> i Biifni hinn Mined
SfetXit iXr. y.Trs “
, age,five feel High—Said negro be-
long. tatM etemi beet ttsltinore, aad left mid
beat** Cafemtrasoath*834 iaeteot, for further
iaArmutteneaqohkMdiieeAoe.
JUyflfi
GAMUTS
/V file at this Office
sorprited by (he peculiar planner in which
you udvoented in the Damocrat, my cluitnt
trpon the t) lark.party for support; sstheon
ly inference, easily deduced from the tenor
of your remarks, was, that they should sup
port me “ex necessitate rai,” bocriUsa I
advocate the doctrine of Nullification,w-a
doctrine which since 1 liavk krvoktigated
it, I have believod correct; and,'have open
ly avowed for soverat monlb* past.
I was surprised tor two rcusons,—First,
because I believed that you knew previ
ously to any conversation bolweeo us on
the subject of my being a candidate, that
I advocated the doctrine of Nullification.
—Secondly, because your remarks evince
a total disregard for a conviction, I know
you have experienced, of the propriety of
overlooking what you conceive imperfec
tioni of political friend*, wlten canvassing
their claims for office beforo the people.
As an editor, I believe it your duty, as
well as the duty of other gentlemen, who
are editors, to nid the people in tho in
vestigation of all imporlaut political doe-,
trines, which exotic (heir feelings, and up-
op their correct knowledge of which,
their peace and happiness mucli depend f-
but I do not believe it, the duty or privi
lege of any editor, lo injure,- or. attempt
lo injure, the reputation of a political ad
versary ;—much less of a political friend,
by connecting hi*name, inn tpirilof con
demnation, with an important political
doctrine, which Ac imagine* unpopular,
juitly or unjuttly, when the people are ig
norant of the doclrine, without a correct
explanation of it, so that ut forming their
opinion of him, they may do him justice
from a knowledge of Ihe subject from
which they learn his character,—and, sir,'
permit me to assure you, that if gentle
men who are opposed to the doctrine of
Nullification, and who would rejoice in my
defeat, if I should fail to be olectcd, be
cause I advocate the doctrine, will pursue
this mode of treatment, in connecting my
destiny, With ite, whether thoy nro politi
cal adversaries, or claim to bo political
friends, so fur as I am alone interetted 1
will feel grateful to them for their opposi
tion,—Grateful, to them for such opposi
tion, because I know, sir, from a patient
investigation of the doctrine, that H is ve-
tily, the vital principle of Republicanism,
that the fl(UCh find justly venerated arid
illustrious Thomas Jefferson, was its un
daunted und ablest advocate, wlieh ho
towered in the enjoyment of the greatest
political glory—which tho patriotism, and
intelligence of the people of tho United
! States could bestow. And sir, tha many
symptom* which 1 have recently discov
ered of the success, which the advocates
of Nullification enjoy, in enlightening the
minds of the people in various parts of
the State,as to this mode of redress, which
they can rightly use, for their relief against
the unconstitutional, unjust and oppres
sive nets of Congress, and the usurpa
tions of the General Government nud its
creature, tho Supreme Court, remind me
of the parable of the “ leaven which was
bid in three .measures of rneul until tho
the whole became leavened,“—and I do
not hesitate to express tho opinion that
thq budges of tltuir success, will in less
than three months, become so visiblo, ns
to sxrite great disquietude in the minds ef
the political Dodgers, cunning Federal
ists and wooden Nutmeg politicians, who
are actively engaged in devising and prac
tising means of filching (root the ngt icul-
turists of the southern Slatos, the pro
fits rif their labor, to enrich the northern
manufacturers.—With these preliminary
remarks, permit me to express to you, and
through you to the public {I mean this
letter for publication) what I understand
the' torm Nullification to signify.—2dly,
Why I conceive it to bo the rightful reme
dy n State against oppression by the
Gkneral Government.
First: “Nullification signifies the right
which each State has to judge of the
infractions of tho Constitution of the U.
States, and in cases of a deliberate, palpa
ble and dangeroui exercise of a power by
the General Government, not delegated
to it*by the Constitution, to interpose for
arresting the progress of the evil, and
for 'maintaining within their respective
limits, ihe autlmriiies, rights and liberties
appertaining tOChem—or, it may be defin
ed to be the means of redress which eneh
State can rightfolly use to protect itself
from the injurious-operatiou ol an uncon
stitutional act of Congress, or Irom the
usurpntious of any department of Gen
eral Government, or rtf the Supreme
Court, witiiin their respective limits.
Now, although, the words rtf these defi
nitions of Nullification are different, yet
their tenor nnd effect arc the same. Rut I
have no doubt, but that the opponents
of Nullification will object to the term,
when applied, us significant of resistance
to the decision of the Supreme Court, but
I will endeavor to prove tinder the se
cond'bend of nrgulneut, that tho distinc
tions of opposition to an unconstitutional
act of Congress, and resistance to thu de
cision of the Supreme Court, do not ex
ist in principle, are not intellectual, but
‘originate -in selfishness. And yet, not-
withttandinc'thut the principles that will
justify thk One, will the other, it is onne-
cetaary for roe to prove that we bave the
right to resist the decision o( die Supremo
phiuly exhibit its cfinratt^
“etween free, sovereign, i!hl Constitute
bates ^although Mr. Attfl, now.i
afcCSEK:
elare it was entered into by the people of
"ilw United States, regardless of their po- Government—
fificat distinctions; ss politic bodies, and jeetiOns urged against the right of a State
~ to judge trf the infractions of the Const)-
endanger, their political existence,'OS by
submission, to rite decision.—But us this
Ught'Is not disputed (if so,T am not
apprised -of the factj by any 'petiticiap
before the people of this State, or by
arty 'editor of the State, except by the
‘editor of thk Georgia Courier—the 'vio
lent opponent of Nullification, aiid wlitr ii
only consistent becauso be it in error, J
will proceed to prove that a State has tho
right to judge of, and resist an unconsti
tutional act of Congress. However, us I
believe a great many are op|iosed to a
State’s stxercising such power, because the
remedy is called, Nullification," before
1 oflbr any argument* on tlio subject, to
prepare the minds of such ns are disposed
to reason, for e proper investigation of
the matter,. I will detail the most power
ful argument* of them who think (lie pow
er in question belongs to tiie General Go
vernment. They nllcgo, “the power of
deciding for itself on the constitutionality
-of ilt own get*, it necessary to the exis
tence of Government. .Govnrnntknt would
be impracticable if its operations were li
able Jo be suspended ut the will, of a small
portion of its citizens; who might often
exorcise their power capriciously, and
would, in effect. Under colour of arresting
an unconstitutional act—have n veto on
every act of the Govelwncrit. ..TJbat this
is tho common understanding of -Kmnkind:
every civilized nation in tiie World has
some Constitution, end in none of them
unless in a fuw where specific checks ere
provided, is the Constitution guarded by
nny thing else than the Intolligepco and,
spirit of the people; the force-of public
opinion, and uctual residence, if that opin
ion shall bo disregarded. This is tjte le
gitimate tribunal tit the last resort,.' beforo
which the acts of Governmcsl must bo
tiied. It would boat absurd to-say that
every citizen of a Stale, being n. party to
the constitutional compact, might decide
for himself in the last resort, on lire con
stitutionality of laws, and his right to do
so might be vindicated by tiie same sort of
reasoning.—Tbo Constitution gives to tijg
General Government the power of ma
king laws, nnd of carrying them into ex
ecution ; und makes no provision for their
being aresled by tho State.—Can it be
thought, if it had been intended to reserve
such power to the State, that typthing
would, have been said concerning it in the
Constitution 1 nnd does any cue in good
fault believo (lint such were the intentions
of (ho framers of the Constitution 1 Such
n construction would render iho'Constitu-
tlon a mere treaty. If the power in the
Stoto were recognized, it would r.t fact be
disunion,—the confederated Government
could not answer the purposes .for' Which
it was instituted. 11 would reduce us to
the distracted end miserable condition ef
the old .confederacy.—Or if not at onco
to disunion, would itiovitably lead to dis
union, hy the difficulties end animosities
it would engender.—It would render tho
Union a “ropo of sand’’ and the Consti
tution would bo only heads of 'contention
toe disputative people.“—Now these argu
ments “ prims facie" are imposing upon
the minds of mf'n, whu are unaeqttairited
with the trite character- of-tho General
Government,—who have not reflected
maturely on tho-relative-situation of the
Stales and General. Government.—But,
sir, they have no influence upon the minds
uf Sdch persons as have learned the char
acter of lira General Government,.from
the history of ihe people rf the several
United States from ihe scttleriteqt of the
Colonies, to the time whan the Constitu
tion was adopted—and whose minds have
been seriously interested In rqfleotion up
on tho events which rendered a Constitu
tion necessary, nnd who have formed the
opinions of the character of the General
Government ftom studying upon the Con
stitution, while sensible of tho objects it
wns designed to affect.—Tho arguments
have no influence upon theii minds—be
cause, they are only applicable to a con
solidated Government, nnd although for
certain specific purposes the General Go
vernment " is invested with the character
of a consolidated Government; ft may by
means of ite tribunals, operate directly
on the persons, property and rights ef in
dividuals—for all other purposes it was
intendod hy the Constitution to remain
federative." And Mr. Barileit, as many,
who are opposed to Nullification, agree
with Mr. John Quincy Adams ttyay the
General Government is a consolidated Go
veroment, and as the arguments against
Nullification, entirely depend upon (hat
doctrine, let us consider the cause of their
doctrine, and if it be erroneous,—a a mat
ter 'of course, the arguments dependent
upon 'it—must bo futile.—Tho authority
on which Mr. Adams and thsoibar'anp-
porten-of this doctrine .rely, is tiie Pre
amble to rim Constitution ; from no ar
ticle of the Constitution, can they derive
aid, in support of tiie construction thoy
place upon the Preamble,
The Preamble is in the tallowing ^ords:
“We the peopleof tiie United. States—
in order te form a more perfect unioiif **■
tahfuh jnetke, ensure domestic tranquili
ty, proude. for. the common defence, pro
mote (Ac general welfare and skeure the
hieteingt of liberty, to ourselves, and our
posterity, do ordain und establish this
Constitution for thq United State* of
America. Then follows the Constitution,
was created by the Constitution, should
bfimore correctly delineated by tho Pre
by to any. fine, (flat there teas any incompaii;
bility between that reservation, and the
exercise of the powers granted by the
clauses in question T .Might they not have
had fiiR operation and. effect 1 And
thall it be said that records art a grant ef
porter, tehen they may hate their full ef.
feet, notmithtUmding the express reserva
tion yaf the power ctaimei to have Amb
tuttonr let us consider the department of grantedl Would it have ousted the Sit-
,1 ^ I .1 i L 2 L t raws mb ■itaisjisSABM % - Bfl* . t .
General Govern front, not del
hyJmplieatioin '
irdfer to estimate ptoper-
pposiiitm 'to Nullification—or (bo
right which # State has to *fodge of,'
and to resist opprelsiou from Ihe General
Government—" bearing in mind" the oh
• j .L . co—o.
Court id the ease of the Sta^e of Qeor- every article of which apd > the manner
amlA>, than tho Coastituiioot— And would
it not be more reasonable if the Pream
ble itself, wore the subject matter of con
troversy, to ascertain Ha signification
from the history, object and character of
the assembly in which it was adopted, and
from the Constitution, from which if
sepetatei it would be insignificant—than
from a literal construction upou the Pre
amble T
Suppose a subscriber to your paper were
lo solicit you to direct his mind to authori
ties from which he could leant the char
acter of the General Government, would
you advise him to read tho Preamble, with
a Dictionary m one hand and a Grammar in
the other 1 or, would you not advise him,
to become acquainted with the history of
our country, examine tho Constitution and
to reflect Upon the important events which
rendered it necessary, and the objects it
was designed to affect ? -
And, sir, when he had became intimate
ly acquainted with the history of our coun
try, and had read and reflected upon tho
Constitution?!!, bis mind were untrammel-
ed by prejudice and capable of reasoning,
I doubt not, but that he would believe the
Constitution, a compart between free, so
vereign, nnd independent States i nnd that
tho General Government created by it,
possessed no other powers than were there
in specified, aud that the sovereign will
of caeli State should not receive nny in
fluence fiom that instrument, other, than
such, which according to a strict construc
tion was necessary to accomplish the ob
jects for which it was expressly designed
And, sir, if he could not confide in the fa
culties of his own mind, and were only in
fluenced by such feelings, as Ihe investi
gation alluded to, would create,—und re
collected who had boon the most useful
patriots in relieving the Colonies from op
pression aud establishing the great politi
cal institutions of our country, and could
prudently regard the opinions of the
wise, patriotic and virtuous, undoubt
edly; the opinions of the much venerator!
Thomas Jefferson, “the nulhor of the
title deed of our liberty”—and the opin
ions of the other worthy patriots, who
agreed with him in the support of Repub
lican pi inciplea would bring his mind to
the conclusion, whichriiis own reasou un
der tho influence of intelligence and amor
pntrite, would do, wore he capable oi rea
soning.—And, sir, the opinion which he
would thus have formed of the Conslitu-
lion and of (lie General Government;
from the history of our country—a knowl
edge of the Constitution and the opinions
of tho wisest and most^ patriotic, whose
characters he had learned ftom history,
could not be changed by the opinion of
Mr, Adams— formed ftom the Preamble,
independent of the Constitution.—He
would agree with the people of the south
ern and many of tho other States, in the
convictions they espericnced from At* ad
ministration of the General Government,
—that he hnd been too much amused by
Preambles—to regard properly the Con
stitution.—But I do nor, here allude lo
Mr. Adams, from a want of respect to the
opinions you have so frequently expressed
iu his behalf. And believe when, I say,
that many of your other friends,—and I
"were very much distressed," when you
enlisted in his support against Gcrcral
Jackson, while a large majority of the
Clark purty, were actively engaged in the
support of “<A* venerable Hero"
But, Mi. Bartlett, I deem it unnecessa
ry to say more, in argument, or by allu
sion, to the opiuions of distinguished men,
to destroy the basis oil .which tho lending
arguments of the anti-nulliftcrs chiefly de
pend; because the doctrine is so incongru
ous to the spirit of Ircemen, that I know
their oten reflections, unaided, will con
vince thorn it ii*wrong, and when they
consider its tendency by critically exa
mining the means, through which, those
who nre opposed to the right, ivliich the
nullified claim for the states, would exer
cise the powerby the General Government,
will believe them dangerous to tho peace
and welfare of our country. But I will
express the opinion—that if we enjoyed
not the privilege of reading the Constitu
tion, but had to conjecture its terms—and'
tiie character of the General Government,
from the purposes alleged in tbo pream
ble, it was designed to acccmjilish,—
whenever wo considered tbo unjust and
oppressive influence of the tariff—how de
structive it has been to (lie interests of the
Southern States—what bitter feelings it
lias produced between thn tariff and anti-
tariff States, nnd the resolutions which
many of the States have adopted in regard
to it, endangering the union and pence of
tho States, we should be forced to conclude,
I list the framers of the Constitution, hnd
misconceived the different interests, and
misjudged the character of the people of
the different Stales, or else, that the Con
stitution bad been violated. And who
that has ever read the Constitution and
the arguments of the supporters of tha
tariff, in favor of its constitutionality, has
not been surprised at the inconsistency of
politicians, who, in advocating their opin
ions with regard to tiie General Govern-
mam, which was created by the Consti
tution, entirely depeqd upon a literal
and strict construction of the preamble;
aqd* 4’ct, claim iiqpbrtant jiowers lor .(lie
the General Government thrtfogb which
anti-nullifiers propose, that the .govern
ment shaft exercise'this high authority..—
(But ‘n few ieadiug men, discovering that
the spiyil of the people is not for Submis
sion to wrong, are now disposed to seek
redress by disunion—But of this, I will
express my opinion under the last head of
argument.)—With regard to the Supreme
Court, boing the tribunal to determine
upon the'~eonstitutionality of ail aict of
Congress, tho operations of. which are
unequal upon thn people of the several
States—beneficial to some States, aud
ruinous upon others, and which a State
belrcvos unconstitutional, I will quote to
you the opinions nnd arguments which
influenced my mind in determining that
this tribunal had riot jurisdiction to adjudge
tho matter. It is not a proper tribunal to
settle a contest between a State and the
General Government for power. Its
powers are judicial aud ngt political, and
are expressly confined by the CoiMtitutioi®
“ to all cases in luw nnd equity, arising
under this Constitution, the laws of the
United 9lates, and the treaties made, or
which shall be made, under its authority,"
and excludes political questions, and com
prehends those only, where there are par
ties amenable to the process of the
Court. Nor is its competency less clear,
than its want of constitutional authority.
There may be many and the must dan
gerous infractions on the part of Congress,
of wltich., it is conceded by all, the Court
as a judicial tribunal, cannot, ftom its na
ture, take cognizance. Tiie tariff itself
is a strong case in point; and (lie reason
applies equally to all Olliers, when Con
gross perverts a power, from an object
intended, to one not intended, the most
insidious and dangerous of all infractions;
nnd which may be extended to all of its
powers, more especially to the taxing and
appropriating. And upon this subject
Chancellor Harper of South Carolina has
well observed, “ that a grant of the power
in question has been claimed for the judi
cial department under that clause of the
Constitution of the United States, which
declares that the Constitution, and the laws
marie in pursuance of it, shall be the su
preme law of the land; and that which
provides, that the judicial power shall ex
tend' to all cates of law and equity, arising
under the Constitution and laws of tlip
United States. To these clauses, Mr.
Webster refers the grant of tiie power,
nnd the distinguished jurist of Louisiana,
Mr. Livingston, ogreo’s with him, that the
power in question belongs to the Supreme
Court, tn cases which the forms of the
Constitution will allow to be brought
within its jurisdiction, but in the other
cases, he thinks there is no arbiter—or,
in other words, that the legislative depart
ment is the judge in the last resort of the
extent of its powers, subject only to pub
lic opinion, and to the natural right of re
sistance in the case of an abuse of power.
It is plain enough that if the General Go
vernment may make laws and nppoipt
tribunals to administer them, these tribu
nals must necessarily, as'the Constitution
is the supreme law, in deciding its cases
in law and equity, have the power, inci-
dentally, of determining whether the laws
are conformable to the Consiimtion. Hut
it woxdd hardly occur to any one, whose
habits did not lead him to refine on words,
that this has any relation to the question
we are considering, or that this incidental
j>owtr makes those tribunals the supreme
arbiters of the relations between the Fede
ral and State Governments, ’ I believe,
if those clauses, which are relied on as the
express grant of the power, were struck
out of the Constitution, the Saprcrae
Court would possess exactly the same
authority that it now has. The adopting
of the Constitution, which give? the Gen
eral Government the exclusive power or
making laws on particular subjects, does
soein directly and necessarily to imply,
that those laws, when made in pursuance
of the power, shall be aupreme. At all
events, the clause declaring that the Con
stitution and the laws made in pursuance
of it, shall he the supremo law,- would, of
of itself, conclude nothing. Tho question
would still recur—who shall judge wheth
er the laws are made in pursuance of if.
I am sure the Supreme Court would pos
sess exactly the same autliority that it has,
if the other clause, giving it jurisdiction,
were struck out. If the Government
may make laws, and establish Courts, it
is a matter of the strictest and most ne
cessary inference, that tho Courts may
determine cases arising under the laws,
and within the territory over which the
laws operate. The clause was necessary
for the purposo of giving jurisdiction, in
cases wliere it sjwulq not have -110611 pos
sessed, of course—as between citizens of
different States, dec.; But tvns utterly su
perfluous, tar the purpose of giving Juris
diction in cases arising within the terntoiv,
nnd under the law* and Constitution of the
United States. If according to the idea
of Mr. Livingston, and in his words, a
clause had been inserted in the Constitu
tion, “ tlmt whenever in the opinion of one
State, a law passed by the Congress,' shall
be deemod unconstitutional and dangerous,
such State may prevent its execution, and
the President and the Courts shall forbear
to enforce the same; but Congress shall-
in that case, if they persevere in thinking
the law expedient, submit the question as
an amendment to a Convention oY the
States in. the manner prescribed by the
CorwtitutWin," would-it-h^ve ever occurred
>rema Court of any jurisdiction t
t liol still havq gone on to decide 'SI.
specified teases in, late and equity*” aad
to declare the,law applicable to themt
The oniy.GBMeqttwice would. have bom,
that in cases arising within a particular
State, which had arrested the operation
of a luw, thoy would have been erider thw
necessity of folloteiuftilhe intorprelatin# -
of the Constitution dnn by the compe
tent autliority. Mosrof the States' have
adopted the common law, and some of llis
statutes of England. In all, they have
been iu some degree differently interpre
ted, and yet, in cases arising under tha
laws of the State, the Courts of the Uni;
ted States hold themselves bound to fol
low the interpretation of the State autho
rities. The troth is, at observed by Mr.
Jtferson, that the Constitution no more
commits the interpretation of the Consti
tution to the Judiciary, than to any other
department of the Government. Each is
bound by the Constitution, and each, in the
exercise or its powers must determine for
itself, incidentally, what the Constitution
is. Indeed the Constitution no more
commits the interpretation of itself to tha
Supreme Court, than to the Courts of tho
States. The words arc, "the judicial
power shall extend to aft casea in law arid
equity, arising under the Constitution and
laws of tho United States." And does
not the jurisdiction of tho State Courts ex- .
lend to rases arising tinder the Constitu
tion and laws of the U. States T Are theso
less bound by the laws and Constitution T
Is it loss their duty, or less within their
province to decide on them and determine
what laws are in pursuance of the Conati-
union 1 It is truo that this authority lias,
been peculiarly arrogated to the Supreme
Court—not by.warrant of any thing to be
found in thq Constitution iiselC but by .
moans of tliat four which-declares that
“there shall lm an‘appeal from the Courts
of (he last resort of the several Slatea, to
the Supteme Court." , • •
And I will here observe, that the 25th
section.of the law, here alluded to, is that, -
by reasou of which, the majority of the
Judges of the Supreme Court, principally,
claimed jurisdiction for the Court in the
case of Sampel A. Worcester vs. the Stale
of Georgia, and that this is the section
which Mr. Lumpkin, when a member of
Congress, desired to bring before the
House tar its consideration, and that It-
was for his conduct in regard to this sec
tion, that you so violently opposed him in
the election for Governor, and denounced
him as a "slippery fellow," and I have no
doubt, if tim alterations had been made in-
this section that Mr. Lumpkin desired, be
would have slipped away the causes of,
and prevented the, difficulty with Which
Georgia now contends in consequence of
that decision—and tho effects anticipated
by the operation of the laws of the state,
—respecting the lands now occupied by
the Cherokee Indians, would Itsve been
produced, end, perhaps, the peoplo ef
Georgia, would now have been in the en
joyment of the lands occupied by the--In
dians.—And Mr. Bartlett—your opinions
ns expressed in (lie Democrat of. Mir.
Lumpkin—were “read in surprise nnd
pain" hy “many of vour other friend* and
by me"—and yoHr conduct in this parti
cular, recurred to my mind With great
force, when I road the declaration- yen
made about my advocating a Republican
doctrine—" that it was humen-tO’ err.'V—
But with regard to this few J will say no
thing morn, for, if constitutional, it does
not give the court jurisdiction, in cases of
the character of those to-which tve have
had allusion. And I dir not coMrcive it
necessary in this place-,tome more argu
ment with regard to the claim of jurisdic
tion....far the' Supreme Court in doter-
fnining the question....of controversy be
tween the General Government and n
State" tar power, not delegated by th*
Consti'.ution...:as under the last head of
argument, I may speak more particularly
of it,....and, if f should fail to do so,-..it
being created' by one branch and one de
partment of tho General Government, it
is incumbent upon such as claim the powor
for the General Government, to show it
has been delegated, as what was not dele
gated, to. the General Government, or
prohibited to tho States....was reserved to
(he States. Wherefore, were tho argu
ments to end here,....as aft the powers not
delegated to die Geueral Government or
prohibited to tho Statesi...were reservaft
to the States, respectively,^..and as they
who contend in favor of the power in ‘.he
General Government,....can not show (hat
it has either been granted to the Geqtoret
Government....or that the States are pro
hibited from oxerening die power to ques
tion, the right is cleariy in foe State.
However, I will proceed to offer, other
arguments, why, a State has the right to
prevent the operations of ah unconstitu
tional act of Congress within its. jurisdic
tional limits. And to prove this, I mnet
necessarily consider the relative situation
of the States and the General Govern
ment,-—and Mr.. Bartlett, I will trie in
the commencement of tile argument tho
language of jbe preamble upon 4his sub
ject; which was framed by ihe comoflttee
appointed By (lie inhabitants of this conn-.
tjTtO-report a preamble and resolution*
with regard to the-declsioh of the Supreme
Court imho gase pf (he State of. Georgfet
vs Samuel A, Worcester, for, tn otaer
words, in the ease .of the Missionatbu^
of which committee you and I, wesetwo
members.the-tvtq of ihe Revqht-