Newspaper Page Text
.4- —
CO'I <U >.. ATiOy.
lire doctrine or nullihca tion
EXAMINED.
nt iian~c of constitutional freedom,
SB t!i'; first interest of civil society, and a jealous
|p filancc over thos" who are entrusted with au-
Wioritv, one of the hi trie st duties of the citizen.
{ln such a cause, even some excesses of zeal are
» without ajxjlogy. But it occasionally hap
jfk ns, that those who are engaged in resiling
,|i i encroachments of power, tuemsclves ad
( xhorhitant pretensions, which endanger
| „-iul order, and bring discredit on tin* very
of liberty itself. To analyze and expose
ip !i pretensions, therefore, becomes also a duty,
Wtf no inconsiderable importance.
i The Federal Constitution is a compact, by
| licit the thirteen sovereign states that adopted
f |t. re nounced a certain portion of their powers ;
I tied also delegated a certain portion, to be jointly
Held bv all the partie lerthe .df a ge
£ ral go. . . ihe additional members of
11. confederacy, whicli now embraces twenty,
■pur s'ates, are all on the same political footing
% li tic- original thirteen. According to this
Constitution, the legislative power is exerciser] by
. IT* ijoritiesof both houses of Congress, with the
C ucurrence of the President, or by two* thirds
m- both houses, without his concurrence. The
.Supreme Court of the L States ii the ultimate
4- '»osi.a ry of the judicial power of the general
Bovernni' nt ; and when the quosion is duly bro’ r
Before that tribunal, it has .a right to decide,
V.ether an art of Congress is constitutional or
36 t. Such is a hnef summary of our iegisla
ti svsre-m, in its regular course. But it is con
nded, that an < x raordinary case has occurred
r that the majority, abusing the advantage of
tubers, has enacted an unconstitutional law,
oppressive !o the minority— hat the judicial de
partment promts.-s no adequate redrer, —and
bs:. some corre live mor fficacious, must con
«i-qu» iitly he employ*-d. Tb- rente iy- win h
1 -jj be*.-u hitherto most, zealot;; v recoaintf.n:’- 1.
|s th-.r <■ nominal d N unification, tee m ;V. of
which, it :s our pr< sent purpose to examine. The
f lowing, we- beli- ve, are substaetiully tliu doc
inn* s comprehended under that term. —“ In ail
jt a se.sof compact among parties having no com
#uon ju Ige, each party has an equal right to judge
rm'or i seif, as well of infractions, as of the mode
Pjpmd measure of redress. The Federal Conso
le 1 ition is a case of such a compact. When a
Hu ate considers an act of Congress unconstitution
al!, it has a right to nullify that act, within its
guvvn limits. The other states have no right to
Senforcc the nullified act within those limits. A
Hpi.-nerul convention of s'ates must he called for
■lie purpose of propositi -sdr.ir-nts to the con-
Bsti;u!;ori, and the; b" I ca ing die qi - ion of con
lys'itu i nality. The states in favor of the milll
piled act, mils' propose an amendment, conferring
[•' on t ’on-gross the power to pass such a law. That
Bpower is to he regarded as having never been
■delegated, unless three four'hs of the states, in
■ separate conventions, or in their respective legis
, futures, ratify the amendment so proposed.”
It we designed to exhibit our own precise tho
wory, in relation to tlie subject in dispute, it would
.'be necessary to urge several very important
Bquuliflcat ous, even of the two first of these pro-
Bpos tu-us; but as our object is simply what has
Rb< <-n stated—to examine the merits of nullifica
tion, we shall admit for the sake of argument,
Kthat “in all c; - s of compact, among parties
1 bavin no common judge, each party has an e
qual right to judge for itself, as well of infrac
il ti Mis, as .ot tli- and cn • nuii aru of •Muiro—-,”
laud that “ the Federal Cons-nation is a case of
■ such ci compact. W e shall also in the same
imann r, a.dmi; the third proposi ion, concerning
I the right to nullify, with such explanations how.
ij ever of the term right, as will presently appear.
I All the remaining proposi ions we totally deny.
Bet us endeavour in die first place to ascer
■ tain, what will be the state of things produced,'
I by the exercise of this equal right of interpreta-1
Jtions, whieli has been admitted. Parties enjoy
Sing equal rights to interpret a contract, may:
I have th o perfect right to a speculative interpre
I tation—that is, to an opinion concerning its im-j
■ port ; because two or more persons may enter-!
I tain different opinio:..*, without any necessary
I interference. But the right referred to in tins
I discussion, is obviously the right of practical in
iterpretation—-he right of the parties, to give an
ietfect to the con ract, conformable to 'heir res-
Ipeciive opinions of its meaning. The right ofi
I none therefore can be perfect, since the right of
leach is qualifier! by tlie right of every other.!
1F or if anyone had a perfect right, of practical 1
■interpretation—that of giving effect to his own!
I opinion ; the rights of all the others must yield
Ito it ; and all those o'hers, so far from enjoying
■ equal rights, would practically possess no right
lat all. For example—two persons, placed in a
■ situation where they can have no common judge,
I agree to build a house jointly, on a specified
jpl.m. During the progress of the work, they
Iditf-r in their explanation of the original de
ls gn. Each has a perfect right to consider his
1 °" n explanation the true one ; but neither can
| have the perfect right, to execute the work,
■according to his own judgment; since if such
■were the case, the other who in theory has
lan equal right, would in practice have none at
lad. As a house cannot be built in two wavs at
jth ' same time, their practical rights una\oidablv
■conflict; and each in maintaining his own, must
■necessarily oppose that of the other. Unless,j
wherefore, one voluntarily yields, or there is a:
f "npromisc, force alone can decide between!
lb.cm. In similar circumstances, the result would,
the same, if the contract consisted of rccip
■roo.il promises. Each party would have a right
■c interpret the whole contract —not only the!
promise made by himself, but the promise made
Iby the other.—ls in a wilderness, where no ci
vil law exists, it is stipulated between A and B,
I ‘hat at a certain time, A shall deliver to B a mim-;
! her ot rars, and on a subsequent day, receive in
exchange a number of bushels of grain ; should
: a dispute ultimat. ly arise, concerning the quan
! y : . v of grain which was to be delivered, not on- i
: ly B would have a right to judge how much had •
b oa promised by hint ; but A likewise would ■
have an equal right to judge how much had *
been promised to kin. B would have a right to
withhold any excess, which he thought was un-|'
justly demanded, and A to seize what he tho’t,
was unjustly withheld. If there were no com
promise, the strongest must necessarily prevail.
Foreign nations having no common judge, are i
on the same footing with individuals in a state j
oi nature ; and a dispute b ?tween them con- 1
oermug the interpretation of a contract or trea- !
'y, would be governed by the same principles,'j
and attended by the same consequences. Sup-
P'.se at the ena or a war between iho U. States
ahi Great Britain, that the American post of;
Niagara should be in possession of the British,
-nd the Canadian pos' of Malden, in possession,!
■'t the Americano. Suppose that the Americans,!!
? it understanding by the treaty of peace, that the
i; posts were to be mutually restored, should doli
| ver Malden to its former masters. If the Bri
. tish asserted, that, according to their interpreta
tion of the treaty, thev were not bound to re
store Niagara, and should finally refuse to eva
’ estate that post : would the Americans acquiesce?
’ Assuredly not. Thev would claim the right of
interpreting both siefes of the treaty —of judging
’ how much they ought to regain, as well as how
much they ought to restore ; and if Niagara
were not surrendered, they would either by a
’ |direct attack, or some other means, very speech-
Ily recommence hostilities.
*'t
j Thus far it is apparent, that a full exercise of
, - the right of each party to judge for itself, re
jsuits in neither more nor less, than a decision
by force. Let us see, whether the c-xercise of
. uaii equal right of interpretation, among all the
. parlies to the federal compact, would not tend
, to a similar issue. Every state on entering the
11 union, delegated a portion of its original sover
eign power, and, thereby, subjected itself to (he
p l l legislation of the genera! government, to the
-extent of the power ceded. But this delega
r ( tinn was not made without an equivalent. The
j slate at the same time, acquired a share of the
.legislative power of the genera! government;
, li. e. she acquired the right in conjunction with
, iher confederates, to enact laws operating on all
the other states, to the very same extent, that
„ she had conceded the right, to enact, lav s ope
i 'rating on herself. This was the consideration,
i the quid pro quo, the very essence of the bar.
gain. 1 o exercise over a state anv power which
! >he did not delegate, is a violation of the com
-1 pact —to resist a delegated power of the general
government, which sic- has exercised conjoint-
I iy with otners, by act of Congress, is equal
r iy u violation ot the compact. She is as much
wronged, when her just power of legislating o
ver others is obstructed, as when the unjust pow-
I er oi legislating over herself is usurped. She
j possesses an equal right to judge, whether she
li.as suliored iho one wrong, or the other—or in
idiiierent words, if a state in the minority has a
fight o judge, that an act of Congress is not
, ;constitutional ; a state in the majority has an
.equal right to judge, that it is constitutional.
I Since bo.fi parties according to the fundamental
lj principle assumed, would possess also an equal
Jj right ,o judge of “ the mode and measure of re
,.dress;” the one might select its own means of
rosis ing, the o'.hcr its own means of enforcing a
’ !law, whose cons' Nationality was disputed. Far
! Bcs in this position, are evidently arrayed a
. j gainst each other, with the unqualified licence
Mos mutual hostility. If both parties have free
choice ol “ the mode and measure of redress,”
1 states in the minority, without doubt, may nulli
fy the law whose constitutionality they den l ,' ;
and as clearly s'ates in the majority, may en
deavour to enforce it, by whatever means are
r considered most expedient. If neither party re
cedes, and gentle measures are ineffectual, the
next resort will be to those which are violent,
and civil war is the inevitable result.
The millifiers indeed contend, that if a law
were nullified, a presumption would be created
, against its constitutionality ; and that the ma-
I jority would be bound, if it did not yield by re-
I pealing it, to call a convention of states, and so-
I licit a formal grant of the power to pass such a
law, in order that the question might he tested.
This notion is utterly unfounded. In the first
I place, if the majority of states believes a law
. to be constitutional, and persists in maintaining
it to be so ; tne contrary opinion of the minori
ty cannot create a presumption of its unconsti
j tutionalhy unices we adopt the very extraor
dinary supposition, that a smaller number is more
-i likely to he right than a greater. In the second
■ | place, the act of nullification itself is justified
. only on the ground, that all the parties have an
! equal right to interpret the Federal Compact,
jand to select their own mode and measure oi’re
dress, when they believe that a violation of it
i has occurred. The right of the parties must be
tne same, whether the violation is supposed to
||consist, in exercising a power which has not
ijbeen conferred, or in resisting one which has ac
tually been delegated. An attempt therefore
by the minority of states, to prescribe any par
j ticular mode of proceeding to the majority,
would be wnolly absurd—it would be dictating
1 the mode and measure of redress to their oppo
nents, who possess by their own acknowledg
jment, the full privilege of choosing for them
selves. Ihe very first principles of nullifica
• lion would justify the majority, in the immediate
- employment of such means, as were deemed
i most conducive, to the accomplishment of their
' purpose.
; But let us suppose that the majority, suspen
ding all measures of coercion, should gratui
tously consent to call a convention, for propos
ing amendments to the constitution ; and that
the parties were accordingly assembled.—The
millifiers would say to the majority : “ \V e de
ny that Congress possesses tiie power which it
has assumed, in passing the nullified act—Pro.
pose to the states an amendment granting that
power, and we shall sec, whether Congress is to
acquire it or not.” To this the majority would
of course reply : “ We assert that Congress
docs possess the power which it has exercised,
in passing the nullified act. Propose to the s'ates
an amendment taking away that power, and we
shall sec, whether Congress is to lose it or not.”
U hat then would have been gained ? The votes
of a majority of the convention, must neccssari
; ly constitute the acts of that body; and no a
. mer.dment which it rejected, could be submitted
;to the states for adoption. The parties would
j end where they began—But it may he argued,
that although the majority would possess a for
; mal right, to reject the proposition of the nuliiri- j
j ers ; the. latter would have equitable considera- |
lions io urge, which ought to ensure its adoption. '
Let us hear them—They would say—The
meaning of the paries is the spirit of a compact.
W iau we ratified the Constitution, we believed
that it did not confer on Congress the power in
-question. If the nullified law can be enforced, j
|wo live under a government exercising a cower-,
j which we did ra-f delegate, or suppose others r o I
'delegate : it is not the government which we de
signed. If you propose the amendment suggest
led by us. and i* is ratisfied by three fourths of
the states. Congress trill n■:ucniahhj possess the
i poiser. Hut if you reject our proposi don, the:
result must he, that <r nrre ri p, rite may assume
tor Congress, a power which constitutionally
! can be conferred only by three fourths of the
(States.” Tat se arguments, plausible perhaps at
j a firs' view, labour under this material ohjecdon;
(that they are not only quiie as good, but even |
'considerably better, on the opposite sid--. For I
I the majority without hesitation could reply— !
j“ Ves, we agree with you, that the meaning of
: the parties is the spirit of a compact. But when
: ire ratified the Constitution, we believed that it
j did confer on Congress, the power in ques ion.
|[f the nullified law can not be enforced, we live
I under a government deprived of a power, which
r ore did delegate, arid understood ail others to de
. [legate : it is not the Government which we do
- -signed. If you propose the amendment sugges
- ,ted by us, and ills ratified by three fourths of
. jthe States, Congress undeniably divested
- \rf the power. But if ws accede to vour-propcsi
? ition, the result must be, that a minority, barely
f exceeding one fourth, may deprive Congress of a
r ipower, which can constitutionally bo taken a
c,| way, only by three fourths of the A
i •{ satisfactory reply to this answer, would, we ap
i ;prebend, be somewhat difficult. In truth, the
. ; theory of nullification pressed to its ultimate
1 1 consequences, would amount to this—that three
f I fourths of the states are necessary to confer a
power on Congress, while any number beyond
j one fourth, may take it away. Whether such a
[• i system would be expedient, we shall not at pre.
. sent enquire—most certainly it is no' that of
( the Federal Constitution. In the article rela
. jtive to amendments, the word power docs not
!occur —it declares that “ amendments” “shall
. :i be valid,” “ when ratified by the legislatures of
; | three fourths of the several states, or bv con
ventions in throe fourths thereof.” Refrench
, ing a power of Congress, is as much an amend
, rnent, as conferring a power; and therefore to
he valid, must require the same number of votes,
j When a convention is called, to propose amend
ments relative to a power claimed by the majo
rity, and denied by the minority, it is evident
that the final decision must depend altogether
on the form in which The amendment is submit
ted to the states. If the amendment proposes
( to give the power, the power will be lost, be
cause a small minority is sulficiem to reject it ;
and for the same reason, the power will be sanc
tioned, if the amendment proposes to take it a
way. The form of the amendment then being
absolutely decisive, and each party having an
| equal right to support its own construction ; it
is the height of extravagance to expect, that a I
majority maintaining the constitutionality of the;
power, would agree to incur certain defeat, by i
soliciting a grant, whitib they Knew that a min
ority exceeding one fourth was predermined to
refuse.
It is already we think sufficiently proved, that
a minority exceeding one fourth, lias not the
: constitutional right to impose its own construc
tion on a majority. But there is a farther evi
dence which appears to us so striking, that it
would be improper to pass it entirely without
notice. If the framers of the cons nation de
signed, that such a minority should have the
right of laying an interdict, on the exercise ofj
any power which it considered uncons itution-J
al, why did not those framers plainly say so .
W hy did they not indicate the manner, in which
that right was to be enforced ? There was no
motive, no apology for a mysterious silence.
They might have simply provided, that the dec
laration of this minority, thro’ their respective
slate legislatures, or conventions, should be suf
ficient for the purpose. Instead of making this
obvious provision, or any other equivalent to it,
they did not even grant to such a minority,
the right of calling a convention—a privilege
which belongs only to Congress, acting on the
application ot’ two thirds of the states. Here
Then, if we admit the pretensions of the nullifi
ers, is the most astonishing anomaly ever wit-1
nessed in government. The constitution intends!
that a momentous power shall be possessed bv
a certain proportion of the states ; and though
!an obvious mode might have been provider, fori
| its safe and easy exercise, no mods whatever)
: was designated ; and hitherto none better has!
; been devised, than the open resisance of a whole.
Is ate, to a general law of the land ! It will be
difficult indeed to believe, that the sage authors
of the constitution, were guilty of such a blun
der—one which would disgrace the barbarous]
legislation, of a Tartar horde, or a Hottentot!
kraal. The necessity and the facility of pre-i
scribing regular means, for the exercise of such!
a power, supposing it to exist, ai«c both so niani-;
fes: : tiiat tlie absence of all provision of the
kind, is alone conclusive proof, that tlie exist
ence ot the power itself, never was contemn!a
ted.
Thus wo have shewn, that even if the majo
rity should assent to the calling of a convention,
the nullifying minority must, nevertheless, fail,!
in the accomplishment of their purpose, since
they could never cause their construction to be
recognized. Each party, according to the prin
ciple originally assumed, would remain on the
ground of itsejual right, to “judge for itself,
as well of infractions as of the mode and
measure of redress.” In such a position,
there would be no impediment to hostilities,
and unless one side or the other receded, they
must necessarily ensue. If this is evident
in the abstract, it is even more manifest, in
the case of the existing tariff law, on which
it is proposed that the experiment of nullifica
tion shall he tried. Suppose, that by the opera
tion of such a measure, the ports of South.Caro
lina are made free. If they remain so, and the
state is still to be considered a member of the
union, tlie principal importations of the whole
1 country, must be concentrated in those ports.
Congress could not impose duties on the coast
ing trade—New.York, Pennsylvania, and oth
er states, could not afford to import directly from
abroad, articles subject to a duty in their own
ports, but exempt from it in those of S. Caroli
! na ; and, consequently, all parts of the union
would probably obtain their foreign supplies))
through Charleston. As almost the whole fis-jl
cal resources of the government are derived
from the custom house, it is evident, that there
would be nearly a total failure of the revenue.
Other evils equally great would ensue. Every
holder of dutiable articles purchased under the
j tariff, would find them reduced in value, to the
| amount ot the duiies which had been paid on
I them. Ship-owners, "landholders, merchants,
i artisans, all the inhabitants ot our other large
cities, who owe their prosperity or subsistence
to foreign commerce, would be exposed tj ruin
and beggary. All the dependent agricultural
| districts would participate in the shock. In the
: monwv market, which is so sensitive to every
■ political and commercial vicissitude, confidence
would be destroyed, private credit would be sus
pended. public credit would be menaced—em
barrassment, and bankruptcy would pervade the!
land. Is it reasonable to expect, that the other!
members of the confederacy will permit such a i
state of things to continue, or even to commence ?i|
If every party to the compact “ has an equal j
rirht to judge for itself, as well of infractions, as
ot the mode and measure of redress;” surely j
fins is a case, in which tlie majority would not j
fail to exercise their privilege. Even states in
‘the minority, deprecating such a wild career of j
! political innovation, would at least not disapprove '
the by which it was arrested. Ac
cording to the latitude of choice conceded, bv ;
the fundamental principle of the nuliifiers, the I
majority might, in these circumstances, adopt j
any mode of proceeding, which seemed most ex-'
pediont. The reasonable presumption however 1
-N is. that ths moot obvious, gentle, ana effectual
. j plan would be selected—that of immediately
-! blockading all the ports which had been made
f free. If the nullifying state did not then sub
i mil, it must resist by force, and the very first
. blow would be the commencement of civil war.
o: It is superfluous to enquire, by what species of
t |>oliticai agency, the majority of states would,
-j in the present instance, perform this indispensa
l! bk duty of self defence. They would doubt
. | less, without any reference to new fangled theo
■ i ries. act through the instrumentality of the ge
m O * C'
? j neral government, whose direction is in their
■|i hands. An objection from any quarter, to this
i mode of operation, would be unreasonable ; but
I coming from the nullifiers—those who claim for
i all parties, an equal right to judge of “ the
.1 mode and measure of redress,” it would be su
f j premely ridiculous.
From the premises, we think ourselves au-j
t thonzed to conclude, that the believers in the j
. doctrine of nullification, labour under an extreme |
delusion—that the pretension of any minority!
exceeding one fourth, to impose its construction j
. of the constitution on a majority, is in the high-,
est degree chimerical—that those who resort to
. i nullification as a peaceful remedy, are rushing
I blindfold into hostilities.—The nullifiers have
spoken of the natural r.ght of parties, each to
, interpret a compact for itself, as if it wore a con
stitutional right, whose exercise is compatible
• with the maintenance of a common government: I
,| when it is palpably in effect, the mere privilege |
II of mutual warfare. In speculating on the inter-;
| prelation cf the constitution,they entirely forget!
|j that the states which ratified this instrument,
J- adopted X as a whole, and as much for the sake
• jot the powers, which they supposed it to confer
jj on the general government, as for the sake ofj
those, which they supposed it to reserve to the
! | states individually—They forget, that theopin
non of any state, believing a power to have been
delegated, is entitled to as much consideration
i as the opinion ot another state, believing it to
have been reserved—Finally, they forget, that in
• every disputed case, where there was a variance
in the original understanding of the parties, the
intensions of one side or the other must necessa
rily he frustrated; and that this unavoidable in
convenience may as properly be endured by
seven, as by seventeen—by any minority, as by
I any majority.
| V. hen there is a material, and irreconcilable!
difference cl opinion, between the parties to the
Federal Compact, it is manifest, that secession is
■I the only effectual remedy for the weaker. It has
; indeed been maintained, that the right ofsecession
i itself, is only the right of nullifying the whole
Constitution and laws. Those who are misled j
by such an assertion, can have paid but little at-i
tendon to the import ot the words. Nullification is f
represented as an act performed under the con.
sutution, anil compatible with the continuance of
the general government. Secession on the con
trary, as is implied by the very term, dissolves
tiie government, releasing those who secede,;
from the obligations of the compact. To call se-|j
cession, therefore, a species of nullification, is a
mere solecism. But it is farther urged, that ad
nutting the two measures to be essentially differ
ent; the scheme of nullification can at worst only
eventuate in the other, and in the meantime isj
j more, gentle in its operation. This is a most I
i pernicious fallacy. Whenever secession is un-!
j equivocally proposed to the people, the data will |j
| be fairly before them—.they will choose, with a,!
j full knowledge of the alternatives—they will de-ji
| cide their destiny in open day. But when nulliJ)
ficauon is recommended to them, as being, in fact,
' ae Ci die best means of pr eserving the union, j
(notwithstanding we have seen that it is decided- 1
ly tue reverse;) if they credit such a represen.
! tation, they have net the true data before them
| —they are deciding upon premises absolutely
i false, and may precipitate themselves into a re
; volution, when their purposes are diametrically
i opposite. Inc claims of nullification loagreat
-Icr gentleness cf process, are equally futile. If
i tliG scutnern stales, impelled by their wrongs,
.mould, through a convention, or in any other
manner, propose to the majority, that the Union ■
be dissolved by common consent; either those I j
wrongs will be redressed, or their proposition';
will be accepted; for no rational man will cher
isa the desperate project, of retaining them in the
union by force. The parties would arrange the
terms of a peaceful separation. The laws of the
general government would be respected by both
sides, until the moment of dissolution; and then
the ports of each becoming foreign to the other,
their respective systems of impost could be
enforced, without collision or inconvenience. We
have already seen, how different would be the \
consequences of nullification. We have seen,
that the nullifying state being still considered a
member of the confederacy, no duties could be
imposed on her coasting trade—that her ports '
being free, she would absorb nearly the whole
importation ofthe country, and distribute supplies
to every district of the union—that this state of
affairs if acquiesced in, would cause a failure of !
the public revenue, and a convulsion in com-!
merce, which must scatter dismay and ruin, i
along the whole extent of our coast. The gov- <
eminent could not submit to such evils. It would
immediately interpose, to secure its own peculiar
interests, and those ot the community at large j
committed to its protection. For the nullifying
state there would remain, only the two alterpa°
lives, of humiliation, and civil war.
I But while we demonstrate that open secession!]
greatly preterable to the chimeras of nullifica-ji
tion, and that it is in fact the only proper reme-jl
dv, \% hen the policy ot the general government jj
is no longer endurable : let it not be supposed, 1 !
that we contemplate such au event with indiffergj
cnce, much less witu satisfaction. No! even if ]
j finally constrained to such a course, by obstin- i
ate injustice, every good citizen will adopt it. ; ,
with the most sincere reluctance, and profound:
regret. Long! long! may the patriotism and!
intelligence of the American people, defer that,
unhappy day, when sordid cupidity, or flagitious'
amoinon shall be permit:ed, to destroy the mag
nificent system ot Republican Union, which has
descended to us. consecrated by the blood of he
roes, and the wisdom of sages—-bv the hopes,
and the admiration, of all civilized men. * I
Our tas;-c is ended, if not completed. In this
plainessay, the writer has endeavoured to avoid i
all attectation of learned technicality, or rheto-l
rical ornament, which could only have tended i| *
to obscure the subject. Ilis highest aspiration!],
has been, through the medium of a simple and q
perspicuous s y!e, to transmit the rays of truth h?
uncoloured and unrefracted. ' |u
OGLETHORPE. - r
~ - • i:
TO >ll ss C TEACHEIiS. p
| ANTED—-a Male or Female Music Teacher cf j: c
v - steady Labi's, c impotent to instruct on Flano;i a
an:,. Guitar— in a respectable Female boarding School—j
Application may be rn ue to Dr. M. Antony, Augusta, j:
June 26 & 3 jj?
Ogr SHERIFF’S TITLES, I 1
For Sale at thru Office.
J iCS^—^gE—L JLLU-i XL IPUPWra—f-illK i-»
j Slats 113 la*
30, 1833.
Appointment by the Governor. — John’ P. King, Esq.
, Judge ol the Court of Common Pleas of the City of
Augusta, Vies Robs a r Raymond Reid, resigned.
Ur Oca renders will not be sorry to find a scarcitv of
editorial matter in this day’s paper, when we present
them with such a rich treat as the examination of the
doctrifie of Nullification by “ GoLETHORrE.” We would
not often trouble our indulgent patrons with our lucubra
tions, it we had to offer them in every paper produc
tions written as is the one published to-day.
On our first page, and under the head of “Deferred
Articles,” will ba found several pieces of some interest.
: Respecting the Teachers’ Convention, we have recoiv
| ed the address of ?»fr. Slade, which we shall publish,
|as soon as we find room for it. The bill introduced by j
j|Mr. Tipton, of Indiana, for the formation of five com
-1; panics of Rangers, for the protection of the Northwes
j tern Frontier, has passed both Houses of Congress.
.1
VOICE OF GEORGIA.
We stated in our paper of the 19th instant, that we j
would publish, under the head of “ Voice of Georgia,’’
the expression of public sentiment in Georgia, with re
gard to the approaching election of President and Vice
-1 President of the United States, as conveyed through
; the medium ot the press, and as the newspapers, con
j turning articles in relation to the subject, should come
to hand. lathe same paper we published two articles :
one from the Georgia Journal, and another from the
Macon Adverfser: both advocating the re-election of
General Jackson to the Presidency, and the election of
Mr. Van Daren to the Vice-Presidcncv. In accordance
jj with our intention, we publish in tins day’s paper, an ar
■ tide from the Federal Union, the organ of the Clark
'party in tnis State, against the nomination and election
|of Mr. Van Curcn. lv edo so because it is our sincere
I desire to act towards the dark party, with liberality and
fairness, and to give to its followers, upon a subject so
important to the American people as the presidential
election, ?. chance ot being heard jointly with the party
to which we belong. In extending such a courtesy to
our opponents, we do not.part wfh the editorial privi
liege of commenting upon any article we are willing to
(publish, whenever a"sense of public duty will require
j that the expression of our opinion should accompany
the article. In thus placing the subject before our rea
ders, they will have it in their power to compare both
sides ot the question, and to draw such conclusions as
their principles of public justice and their partialities
may dictate. Though in the minority in the State, yet
the Clark party ia strong, and can count among its num
bers, men honest ana upright, having the welfare of the
F Estate at heart; but who, at the same time, arc mis
guided by erroneous political principles, and whose im
plicit faith in the infallibili y of their leaders, has led
tnem to advocate doctrine ', .and pursue a policy, fre
quently at variance with the best interests of the state,
with the wholesome changes which the state constitu
tion demands, and with an impartial and proportionate
distribution of the legislative power among the people.
Notwithstanding the differences which have separated,
and still separate, the two parties, it is hoped that on
those great questions of federal and state policy, in
which the Union, the independence and sovereignty of
the states, and the free exercise of jurisdictional pow.
er by the state of Georgia, are involved, both will act
l in concert, ana throw in the balance a moral and physi
| cal weight sufficient to give to the cause of freedom,
j liberal principles, and democratic government, a dccid
jed preponderance. The jirae approaches when an ap
peal will be made to the patriotism of the Clark party:
ihe presidential election, and the tali of a Convention
to revise the State Constitution, are questions about
which there should be no division : We hope and trust
there will be none.
In our next paper we shall offer a few comments on
the article of the Federal Union.
THE CHOLERA,
V e have received the afflicting intelligence, that the
Cholera has mads its appearance on this side of the At-
I antic. Letters received in New-York from Montreal,
dated June 11th, state, that one vessel from Dublin,
, with a full number of emigrants, had lost 12 persons
j during her voyage, by the Cholera; and that the dis
; ease had been officially ascertained as existing in Que
bec, where 15 cases had been reported, on the 9th,
and several death*. The municipal authorities of Al
banj and New.\ ork, have taken prompt measures to
prevent the introduction of the disease into those cities
and neighborhood.
With feelings of the utmost regret, do we announce
the demise of the Collector of this' port. Major JOHN
STEVENS, whose spirit took its flight on Sunday nitrht
last, after an indisposition of only thirty-six hours. Ma
;jor Steaens was beloved by those oflns iellovv-citizens
who knew him for his firmness of character, urbanity of
manners and principles. In his official capacity he was
ever assiduous, which gained for him the additional
esteem ofthe merchants, who, with the rest of his fel
low-citizens, deeply deplore his loss.
[<S , «c. Repub. j
Messrs. Editors, Please to announce M. B. |
Lamar, Esq. of Columbus, a candidate for the
Representative Branch of Congress, at the dec- 1
tion in October next, and that he is not a caucus
candidate. A VOTER.
H. (PARSONS, |
Hus lately received a supply of Boston N. York made I
PIAXO FORTES, ‘
_ Comprising a variety of qualities from 150 to 40D •
Dollars each. They are offered on very accorntnodat
mg terms.
June 26 3
plal\teks» hotel i
GA LVE.S VIIXE, GEORGIA.
TSIIE PLANTERS’ HOTEL in this plac r -, G yet
kept by the subscriber. Promises and pledges are j
the common order of the day in such cases, but as here- '
tofore he refrains from either ; ye; he hopes to be able •
to give as general satisfaction as any other man so high j
up the country. G dnesville is a pleasant Village, and is !
perhaps one of the healthiest places in the Sta-e |L
in the immediate vicinity of the Go'd Region, with t ro * '
Lime-stone springs near it, one is 1 1-2, and the other 3‘
miles distant, with a good road to each. A St .go has
commenced running from Augusta to this place twice
a week. “ L. CLEVELAND.
Gainesville, June IP, 1832 3t 3
Wanted aI ihb OKI-r, <
‘ two or three APPRENTICES ; applications
to be mane aeon.
June 26 3
1 H*“~~ " ————
AUGUSTA MARKET, June 26, 189/.
COTTON, 3 1-2 a 10
CORN, 60 a 65, retailing 75
SALT, 50 a 55
B ACON, 7 a 10
MOLASSES, N. Orleans, 34 a 35
West India, 32 a 33
WHISKEY, in Hilda., 38 a 40
in bla., 40
RUM, Jamaica, 112 a 125-
N. E. 40 a 42
GIN, Holland, 115 a 120
Northern, 40 a 46
BRANDY, French, 125 a 150
Imitation, 65 a 70
Apple, 45 a 50
Peach, 87 a 100
SUGAR, St. Croix, best quality, 10 a 11
N. Orleans, 8 a 9
Loaf, 14 a 18
COFFEE, 14 a 1G
COTTON BAGGING, Scotch, 15 a 18
Kentucky, 24 a 2fc
American, 22 a 24
FLOUR, Canal, 8-. B 1-2
Georgia, 5 a 6
BAR IRON, Assorted, 5
STELL, German, 16
Blister’d 10
LEAD, 7 1-3
| NAILS, Assorted. 7a 7 1-2
I SOAP, Northern, 8a 9
( ANDLES, Northern, none
Georgia, 15
Sperm, 36
GUN POWDER, Dupont’s, 7
REMARKS.
Nothing doing in Cotton—the Stocks very email aad
diminishing.
Savax.vaii, June 23. —COTTON, S 1-2 to 101-2. The
demand quite moderate, and the sales of the week not
exceeding 1200 to 1500 bales, at all prices, from 8 1-2
to 10 1-2, principally at. 9a 9 1-2. The Stock in first
hands, for calc, quite email, and the business of the sea.
son fast drawing to a close.
Charleston, June 23, —COTTON, 8 1-2 a 11. The
Sales of the week have been about 300 bales Uplands in
the lower qualities, Irom 8 1-2 to 9 5-8, and a few fine
front 10 to 10 3-8. The last unfavorable accounts from
Liverpool, together with the want of shipping, has closed
all transactions for the present.
Mobile, June 15.—COTTON, 8 a 10.1-4—choice,
none. The business of the season nearly closed; but s
small stock on hand for talc.
Liverpool, May 10.—COTTON, Upland, 5 7-8 a
17 l-Bd. Alabama 5 3-4 a 6 5-Sd. The complexion of the
Market presented the same cheerless aspect as lor a se
ries of weeks previous, and the transactions were at a
decline of l-8d lb. upon the previous currency; the anxie
ty of holders to sell continues undiminished, while on the
other hand, consumers are indifferent about purchasing
beyond a very temporary supply ; there were SGO Ameri.
can taken for export, and the import of the week was
23,600 bales.
The sales of Saturday were 3000 bales, no change in
price—there has been, and still is, a considerable excite
ment throughout the kingdom, arising from the resigns,
tion of Ministers and the formation of a new Cabinet;
this has no doubt had some influence on our market.
BANK STOCK.—Twenty-five shares ot Augusta
Bank Stock, were sold on the first Tuesday in this month:
10 a 120 1-4 &, 15 at $l2O, for SIOO paid in, with div. off.
AUCTION SALE.
BI'J.
On To-Morrow Morning, 27th instant, at 10
o’clock, will be sold, without reserve, to close
a consignment.
-M- .81 BARRELS Sweet Wine
9 half Barrels Shrub
6 kegs Manufactured Tobacco
Lot of Castings, &,c. Ac.
3 Steel Corn Mills, with fly wheels
1 large Beam ami Scales, with 60 weights of
60 lbs. each
All suras over <soo, four months credit for approved
endorsed Notes.
ALSO,
Sundry other articles of
GROCERIES,
FURNITURE, &c.
Terms Cash.
June 26
BY WEDNESDAY’S MAIL,
Will be received the Drawing of the
KEW-YORK CONSOLIDATED
LOTTERY *
Class, No. 20, for 1832.
HIGHEST PRIZE ,
10 9 000 DOLLARS.
Scheme,
Prizes of 10,000 Dollars,
do do 3,760 Dollars.
5 do do IjOOO Dollars.
6 do do 500 Dollars.
6 do do 300 Dollars.
20 do do 200 Dollars.
30 do do 150 Dollars.
01 do do 100 Dollars.
&c. <fec. <fec. Arc. dro.
Tickets 83, Halves 81 50, Quarters 75 Gems.
Beers’ Official Prize List.
DRAWN NUMBERS OF THE
UNION CANAL LOTTERY,
Class, No. 12 for 1832.
19, 9, 40, 51, 14, 31, 20, IG, 13,
Lowest Prize $ 10.
Prizes Cashed and
6'? Prompt attention paid to orders at
DEEDS’
Fortunate Lottery Office, No. 241. Bread-Street.
JLT Address W. P. BEERS. ’
June 26
BY WEDNESDAY’S MAIL,
H ill be received the Drawing of the
NEW-YORK CONSOLIDATED
LOTTERY.
CLASS NO. 20, for 1832.
SCHEME,
1 PRIZE of 10,000 DOLLARS
1 do of 3,700 DOLLARS
5 do of 1,000 DOLLARS
6 do of 500 DOLLARS
6 do of SOO DOLLARS
20 do of 200 DOLLARS
30 do of 150 DOLLARS
51 do of 130 DOLLARS
&:c. &:c. &c, <S:c. <S:c.
Tickets 83, Halves 81 50, QH&rters 75 .?•
DRAWN NUMBERS CF T~ 7
UNION CANAL LC': .. TT-.-
Chss No. 12,
19, 9, 40, 51, 14, 31, •
lUT PRzes cashed and ;t ;.,: t at?'
ders at
rr* '
JM _
Office , tinder LV EngJc an P ,
Broad-Zireei) •*’ -*
f-V* v j , \
V .'-.Alloa XX. Ax. X-i ij
J Lille