Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

K ■ 1 iiu |1 THE ;< -=-■. ■■ i» J» I* GUM JEW! 4* BU.VCMS. ! - * . ■■■: r 113’ TERM." s—For 5 —For the semi-weekfy paper, published every Tuesday and Friday rooming, §5 per annum !j and for the weekly 03, nil payable in advance. i3’ ADVERTISEMENTS ar* inserted weekly for 62 !| 1-2 cents per square ; semi-weekly 62 1-2 cents tor the , first, and 43 3-4 cents fur each subsequent insertion,: and monthly for § 1, 00 per square for each insertion. | , I’or yearly advertisements private arrangements are , to be made. A deduction is made on the advertise- ft meats ofpublic officers. jj 13’ Postage must be paid on letters of business. -t. -- " ■■ ;; 1 njiu the Georgia Journal. ) ( API’E.VDI X TO KOI'GII NOTES Os a rcTinr of the decision of the Supreme f onrt, in | the case of Samuel A. Worcester ts. the State of 1 Georgia. ;' BY A GEORGIAN. jj When we commenced the Review above mentioned, it was our intention to consider more h in detail the extent of jurisdiction rightfully be- ft longing to the federal judiciary, but Ir.c great ft length to which that article was unavoidably !■ drawn out, in addition to reasons in which tire ; public can have no interest, induced us then to decline it; without, however, any determination to abandon it entirely. We had almost brought n ourselves to the conclusion that the subject hud < so far lost its interest in consequence of the pa- i r«unount concern now felt in the engrossing to pics of the tarilf and the I nited States hank, that it would scarcely excite a passing notice. But the pertinacity of our enemies, in and out of Congress, is such, that we have thought it might not he amiss,once more, to call the public attention briefly to its consideration. U e think we have sufficiently shewn from tlic contempo roneous expositions of Madison and Marshall, that the orginal clause of the constitution which prescribes and defines the judicial power, was j not considered in 1788, as conferring any juris- j diction in suits against a State. But high as j was the authority of those distinguished indivi- j duals then, and whatever similar opinions might have been entertained at that period by other public men, very few years had elapsed before such jurisdiction was claimed and exercised a gainst Massachusetts and Georgia. In referring to the history of the times, we find that so early as 171)3, such was the excite ment of the public mind in Massachusettes in consequence of the assumption of such jurisdic tion by the Supreme Court, that Governor Han cock convened the legislature and recom mended the subject to their especial considera tion, on the ground that the jurisdiction claim ed w ,s in violation of the federal comj'tict —That submission would lead to consolidation, and “the consolidation of all the governments into one would endanger the nation as a Republic,” On the 23d ofriepteinber, 17U3, the following pream ble and resolution were adopted by the Senate and afterwards concurred in by the House. “ Whereas a decision has been had in the Su preme Judicial Court of the United States, that a State may be sued by a citizen of another State, which decision appears to have been grounded on the second section of the third ar ticle in the constitution of the United States. “ Resolved, That a power claimed, or which j may ho claimed, of compelling a state to be j made defendant in any court of the Uuited States, at the suit of an individual or individuals, is, in the opinion of this legislature, unnecessary and inexpedient, and in its exercise dangerous to the peace, safety, and independence of the several states, and repugnant to the first princi ples of a federal government.” Governor Hancock died, before those pro ceedings had been communicated to the gover nors of other states, and the executive duties de volved upon his distinguished revolutionary compeer, Samuel Adams, than lieutenant gov ernor of the Slate. Governor Adams, in com municating the proceedings to the venerable George Clinton, Governor of New-York, ob served; “ the claim of a judiciary authority over a state possessed of sovereignty, was of too much moment to bo submitted to, without the most serious deliberation. The legislature of this commonwealth has treated the subject with an attention commensurate to the importance of the power demanded ; and, as you will please to observe by their proceedings, have Resolved, That it is unnecessary and inexpedient, and in j its exorcise, dangerous to the peace, safety and independence of the several states, and repug nant to the first principles of a federal govern ment. The support of the federal government is an object of high importance in the mind of evc-r ry true friend of the Union ; but, it is easily dis corned, that the power claimed, if once estab lished, will extirpate the. federal principle , and procure a consolidation of all the governments.'' ' On the twelth day of December, 1793, the House of Representatives of Georgia, on mo tion of Mr. Watkins, adopted the following rose, lution : “ that this House do highly approve ofj the measures taken by the State of Massachu-j in the case of an attempt to compel the; executive of that State, by mandatory process, to answer to a suit instituted by an individual, ini tiie Supreme Court of the United States; that: the Governor do answer the communication of! Governor Adams, on that subject, expressing! the great objects which stimulated similar ex-| ertions on the part of this State, to guard her re-- turned sovereignty, <Sc that this State have & will,! at all times, maintain such sovereignty against every infraction of her most sacred rights.” A; few days thereafter the House of Representatives i also passed a bill making it felony without beno-j fit of clergy, for “any federal marshal or any j other person,” to levy on the territory or trea-j sui.y of the state, or on the property of the Gov-j ernor or Attorney General, “ by virtue of any! cxocuiion, or other compulsory process, issuing; out of, or by authority of the Supreme Court ofj the Uuited States, or any other court, having; jurisdiction under their authority, or which may at any period hereafter, under the constitution ; of the United States as it now stands, bo consti-| tuted, for or on behalf of the said before men-l tioued Alexander Chisolm, executor of Robert | Farquhar,” at whose instance a suit had been; previously commenced in the Supreme Court, j against the State of Georgia. With these con-1 temporaneous, and almost contemporaneous ex positions of the judicial power of the United States, as furnished by the opinions of James Madison, Jno. Marshall, Jao. Hancock vU Samuel : Adams, the legislature of Massachusetts and j the House of Representatives of Georgia before; us, wc are at a loss to conceive upon what ground; the federal judiciarv could base its usurpations in 1793. W e are aware that the details into | which wc have entered may be considered by many as dry and uninteresting, and even unne cessary, but we do not consider any thing un important which can in any degree conduce to the illustration of cur subject. These details' have been presented principally to shew the a early opinions of eminent men upon this interest- t! ing topic, and further, as connected with the J history "of the eleventh article of the amendments d to the federal constitution, wdiich, as we think t< we shall shew, removes every thing like ambi- r "uity from the-original clause of the second sec- t tion of the third article of the constitution, which v provides that “ the judicial power shall extend t to controversies between a state and citizens of v another State.”—And here we would take leave' c to observe bow' clearly the collocation of the! t words in the foregoing extract goes to sustain, s the following remark made in the \ irginiaCon- j t: vention in 1788, by John Marshall, on this sub-' t ject; “It is not reasonable to suppose that the; c sovereign power shall be dragged betbre a ; I court. The intent is to enable States to recorcr\ i claims of individuals residing in ether States .”j v But before proceeding to the eleventh amend-r ment, wc beg leave once more to refer to the; c opinions of John Hancock, as expressed in thej i following extract from bis speech to the Legisla-j c ture of Massachusetts : “ I cannot conceive that j t the people of this commonwealth, when theyj I adopted the constitution, expected that cachfi state should be held liable to answer on coirrpnl- <•; sorv process to every individual resident in ano- \ thcr State or Kingdom;” and again : “ the 1c- j gislature of the Union never yet contemplated i this subject : for in the establishment of the ju- j jdiciary svstem, it is entirely neglected; no men- t ition is made in the acts of Congress of the sualili - f | tj of a State.” So far as we know or believe,! t the extent of the judicial power of the United i States was not discussed in any of the State Con- c ven 1 ions by which the federal constitution was t adopted, but the Convention of Virginia. But j a question of such magnitude could not escape \ i the attention of Patrick Henry, George Mason, \ and others. The silence of other conventions,! I and the interpretation given by John Marshall,! \ now Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, as above quoted, ought to be sufficient to satisfy us that i jno such power was intended to be conferred on- I the federal courts as that claimed and exercised j s jin 1793. But as before remarked, if ambiguity) i j rested on the original terms of the constitution! j in this particular, we consider it as entirely rc-| i moved by the eleventh article of the amend- I ments, more especially when the history of that t article shall have bedn thoroughly investigated, i The great objection to the power exercised by j the federal court against Massachusetts and s Georgia was, that the constitution no where j recognized the “ suability” of a State. The . < amendment in question grew out of the assump- t tion of that power. Let us proceed to its histo- i ry in Congress, and then apply its principles to f the case originally reviewed by us. But we i will premise, that it is impossible to resist the i conclusion (hat the eleventh amendment was pro- s duced by the very assumption above referred to. t On the second day of January, 1794, within i four months from the meeting of the Massachu- ' setts Legislature, from the proceedings of which t our ({notations are made, and within three weeks j from the passage of the response introduced by t Mr. Watkins, in the House of Representatives ‘ of Georgia, the following resolution was intro- < duced in the Senate of the United States: “ Re- ; solved by the Senate and House of Represents. • lives of the United States of America, in Con- i gross assembled, Two thirds of both houses ] j concurring, that the following article be propos-j i jed to the legislatures of the several states, as anj 1 amendment ro the constitution of the United; i States; which, when ratified by three fourths! i of the said legislatures, shall be valid as part of, i the said constitu'ion, to wit : j i “ The judicial power of the United States,! -shall not be construed to extend to any suit in S ! law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against) < one of the United States by citizens of another; , State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign)' j State.” The consideration of this proposition j was postponed to the 13th, and not taken up un- i til the 14th of the same month, when Mr. Gal- i latin, moved so to amend it as to read as follows : ( “ The judicial power of «)»<= United States, (ex- ■ crpt in cases arising under treaties, made under j ■ the authority of the United States,) shall not be, ■ construed to extend to any suit in law or equi.j j tv, commenced or prosecuted against one of the! United States, by citizens of another State, orj by citizens or subjects of any foreign State.”) Mr. Gallatin’s amendment as inclosed in paren- i thesis, and written in italics, was negatived— i another amendment was proposed and rejected,; < when the Senate adopted by a vote of twenty-) . three to two, the originally offered proposition,) ; and as it now stands as a part of the Constitu-L tion by the subsequent ratification of a sufficient! number of the states. The amendment was sen* to the House of Re- ! presentafives for concurrence on the loth of; January, the day after it passed the Senate, andj was adopted on the 4th of March following,) without alteration, by a vote of 81 to 9. M hat ever opinion we may entertain of the English Common Law, or of the political opinions of, English lawyers, we sec no reason to dissent; from that rule of interpretation laid down by) Mr. Justice Blackslonc, namely, that in inter-, 1 ! prorating a statute wc should consider kt the old law, the mischief, and the remedy.” The federal judiciary, contrary, as wc be lieve, to the true interpretation of the second; section of the third article of the constitution, persisted in claiming and exercising jurisdic tion in s ifts at the instance of citizens of other states, or citizens or subjects of foreign states against the several states of this Union. Thus stood the old law according to the decisions of that department of the federal government which claimed final jurisdiction over the subject. The! mischief apprehended by the distinguished pa-' triots John Hancock and Samuel Adams, and as' wo believe by a largo majority of the American) people, as exemplified by the immense majori-j tics of both Houses of Congress, which passed; the eleventh amendment, was, that, “ the pow. er claimed of compelling a state to be made de fendant in any court of the United States, at the suit of an individual or individuals (was) un-! j necessary and inexpedient, and in its exercise; - dangerous to the peace, safety and independence ; of the several slates, and repugnant to the first' j principles of a federal government.” “ That the power claimed, if once established, (would) ! extirpate the federal principle, and procure a con soUdalion of all the governments —and, that the j consolidation of the States into one government , ' would at once endanger the nation as a Republic.'' i What then was the remedy sought, and obtained, as was supposed, by those who adopted in Con-) 1 j gross, and those who ratified iu the legislatures’ » of the States, the amendment referred to ? Thai! l i ’ < the federal judiciary should no longer have a pre-j ! text for entertaining jurisdiction at the < of anv citizen of another state, or citizen or 1 subject of any foreign state of suits common- ‘ ccd or prosecuted against one of the states of 1 this Union. We think we have shewn that e- 1 ven before the adoption of tho eleventh amend ment, it was, at the least, exceedingly question-*' s able whether the Supreme Court ever possessed tio :he jurisdiction claimed and exercised against |u Massachusetts and Georgia in 1793, but that all ;c ioubt is removed by an examination ot the his- ;o tory of the amendment, and by a fair and ra- [-S rional interpretation of it. But we would wish « tp invite the public attention to the ground upon which the Supreme Court entertained jurisdic tion of the case under consideration, to wit, by ■ virtue of treaty obligations. Now, when wed consider the amendment offered by Mr. Galla-jj = tin, to reserve to the court tlie jurisdiction oi. suits, the subject matter of which might arisej - under treaties, and its rejection by the beuatc. the conviction is irresistible, that it was intend ed to cut up the “ suability ’ ot states, root and; branch, in ail the cases provided for by the a- j. mendment. We know it may be said, that, e-: ven if tiie eleventh amendment did cut oil ju-[ risdiction in such cases, that tire -obligation was contracted before the existence of the amend-j meat. To this we would answer, that treaties! ‘ owe their binding force to the constitution, and ! that the sovereign power could as easily modify, limit and restrain their obligation as to create it; which it has done by the amendments in c question. Thus, as we have already observed, T we think we have clearly shewn, that the Bu-‘ c premo Court, limited and restrained ns its juris-! ; diction is by the eleventh amendment, had no' v jurisdiction in the case of Samuel A. Worces-j a ter, against the State of Georgia. It is, there-1 t fore, to us, a matter of unfeigned surprize that.) i; tliat court should have claimed jurisdiction of " lt \h as a case arising under treaty, when the judges! c could not or should not have been ignorant that i an amendment going to retain for them such i jurisdiction was offered and rejected in the Sen-; ate of the U. Stales without a division, Wei* would say one word in conclusion upon a topic j but incidentally, and yet vitally, connected, asj we believe, with tie subject we have been con- j sidoring. That topic is the tenure ot thejudici- ( u! office under the constitution of tlie L . States. —Our opinion may, and perhaps w ill be con- £ sidered heterodox by many ot the best in (brined , men among us : But, however much we may } respect the opinions of others, we claim the j { right ot’ a candid expression of our own. W e believe, as we hinted in the Rough Notes, that f much or all the evils of judicial usurpation under < i lie federal government has been produced by the judges holding office for liie. We think we shewed, in a very few observations, that the judges are above public opinion.—That they | , cannot be reached by impeachment. But, itj f they could, we should consider the present tenure; wrong. It is based upon a principle totally foreign to the principles ofour government. It __ was borrowed, without reflection, from the Con- " stitution of England, under which it wasncces-i sary to protect the people from the tyranny of an hereditary chief magistrate. Here, no such danger exists. We know there are some who would answer, “although sovereignty resides in , the people in this country, yet, it is necessary to ! protect them against themselvesu” —We consider s this as another version of the federal libel that “the people are their own worst enemies.” For ourselves, believing both in the right and the ca pacity of the people for self government, we con- 1 sider it incompatible with republican principle to confer office on any man for life. We cannot 1 perceive any reason why a judge should be ' tempted to play the tyrant by holding office for 1 life, when it is admitted on all hands that such tenure of office is unfit for every other depart ment of the government. These opinions have not been recently or lightly formed, nor have thev grown out of the present controversy, as | we could shew if necessary. But we expect butj little attention to our small voice beyond the' cinJ' more immediately interested in the subject ofour discussion. Nor would we press our opin ions upon the acceptance of any one; ail we ask is, that they may be weighed and examined and then taken for what they are worth. We hold no half way doctrines. We believe in the demo cratic principle, as applied to icpresentative fto. vernment, in its broadest sense. Therefore, we • would establish iliat sort of judicial responsibility J which can only be secured by appointing judges j for a limited term of years. From (he Washington News, July 21. Owing to the death of William W, Smyth, the principal Editor of the “ Washington News,” the undersigned has sold the press, and with. , drawm himself from the duties of this office. • He oilers his thanks to his friends for the patron age which lias been extended to his paper, and recommends to their support the new Editor, be lieving that no exertion will bo spared on his part, to merit public approbation, and make the “ News” interesting to its patrons. WILLIAM H. POPE. The friends and patrons of the“ Washington News” will have already seen that through an all-wise, though afflictive Providence, their pa per has been recently deprived of its principal I Editor, and subsequently the establishment! transferred to other hands, by whom its future) operations will be conducted, under the style of; “ The Washington N ews and Miscellaneous Ad- \ vertiser .” On entering upon the arduous duties, & high responsibilities of this publication, the present Editor feels setisifify the weighty obligations, which bind him to exert his best talents, to! make it a medium of communication both in- i teresting and useful to the community, whose! patronage lie most respectfully solicits, and; whose good it will ever be his highest grutifica-; tioa to effect. As the political character of the “News” is well known and established, he deems it mine- 1 ccssary, if not inexpedient, to enter into the de-j tails of the views he entertains, or the doctrines he intends to inculcate in “ The News and Ad vertiser.” Union and Rucipuocity shall be' his motto; and the Mutual Rights of the whole American family his Polar Star. In launching forth in his little bark, at a time ; when the political sea is so portentous, turbid and dark, it will be his unvaried aim to steer his ; way, amid distracted politicians and hot-headed , partizaus, veering from their extremes, as the : raging breakers on which many a gallant ship 1 has been wrecked and foundered. j j As this paper must be supported bv the peo- ! ] pie, and is intended for their benefit, its columns will not only be stored, to the utmost of uE abil- t ity, with a selection of the finest flowers and! i richest fruits, gathered from the fertile fields of < literature, science, morality and religion, spread, t out in the numerous and ably edited publics- : tions, with which our day is so happily frauvjhi ' but also well written productions, calculated to < delight the tus’e, inform the mind or mend the < heart, will be tnankfully received.—But if as-! tor all, he should tail to render the future nurn-! t bers worth more, he has the pleasure to assure! i his readers that they shall cos- less. | i Ihe papers will lie duly forwarded to all the!' j subscribers to the “ News” till their terms arc'A xig and then continued at the reduced rates, j 5 mlcss otherwise directed. V\ o hope for an m- j c trease of subscribers on the present terms —$ 2 v a vear, in advance —83 at six months —and §4 at* the end of the year. No subscription for less than rfyear. ■. WILLIAM A. MERCER. j* Julv 21st, 1832. ? ' __ ■ - 1 FRIDAY, iIGIST 3, 1832. ) FOR PRESIDENT, Andrew jacksoa. ,1 VICE-PRESIDENT, | t U ARTIA V\\ BVRSX. \ . jjß. LAM AR, Esq. of Muscogee County, is a ,j candidate for tlie Representative Branch oi Congress, at t tlie election in October next. jl CANDIDATES FOR CONGRESS. j* The duty is painful, but it has to be performed. cent events constrain us to discontinue the publication oi j the ticket for members of Congress, nominated at aj convention of the republican members es the legislature in Milledgeville. That duty must be imperious indeed, a which, with our well known principles, could lead us to act in the manner we now do. Before we publish that j. ticket again, we must have better assurances than w e j now possess, of the real course the candidates intend to ■ pursue in the present crisis of the political affairs ot the . country. __ _ . d3= Hereafter no communication shall be published m i this paper, without the name of the writer being known ; to the editors. This rule will be strictly adhered to. j JUDGE CLAYTON. Some of the Sauth-Carolma papers, state that a pub- , lie dinner was given, on the 25th of last month, by the , citizens of Laurens District, to Judge Clayton, who had - been detained at that place, on account of the injury sustained by his lady in the late stage accident. It is also stated that he gave the following toast, which he prefaced with a speech, in which he sustained the prin-j ciplcs of the Nullification party to their fullest extent : “ The Tariff of 1832 has placed the case fairly be fore you, Liberty or Submission. He that dallies is a dastard. He that doubts is damned,” This requires confirmation, j : CHOLERA. In New-York, from the 23d to the 24th, 10 o’clock, A. M. 296 new cases, and 96 deaths; from the 24’b to the 25th, 157 new cases, and 61 deaths, and troin the 25th to the 26th, 141 new cases and 55 deaths. The Courier j and Enquirer of the 26th states, that the pestilence was ' subsiding. MACON BANK. ■ The following is the copy o f a printed circular, issued by the Cashier of the Macon Batik: j “ The Public are hereby advertised that the MACON , BANK has stopped, and will not resume payment—the assets of the Bank have been assigned to trustees for j I the general and equal benefit ot the creditors ol the in- 1 1 stitution- 1 i (Signed,) L. ATKISON, Cashier.” j. Who arc to be the losers by the failure of this bank ? j The poor. Who should be made to suffer ? The mem- j bers of the Legislature. Why? Because against facts, j which stared them in the lace ; against the statement ot i this bank, submitted to the legislature at the last scs- | ( sion, thev adopted a resolution recommending that in- jj stitution to the confidence of the people ; and because , that same legislature granted charters for the incorpo- ration of three more banks; thereby increasing the c- . vils which a superabundance of banks and banA bills has j produced and will continue to produce, as long as banks , arc located among farmers, and not confined, as they should be, among merchants and traders. The resolu- . tiou or report is in these words : “ The joint commit- ( tec on banks, giving the utmost credit to those who manage the Macon Bank, and placing the most liberal ( construction on their annual statements, teel authorized ( to say the institution is able to redeem all the bills it has in circulation, and its issues in bills do not exceed the amount which strict banking principles allow.” This report is siirned bv Thomas .stocks, 1 resident of tne Senate, Asbury Hull, Speaker of the House, and Wil son Lumpkin, Governor. And were the committee warranted in making such a report ? Not at all. They, as well as both houses, were warned of the condition of that bank, and of tlie manner the directors had managed its concerns. The blame should fall almost exclusively upon this committee, because the report was perhaps a dopted by both houses without due reflection, &. without many members knowing what they were voting for. There is something in the transactions of this institution, which appears strange and unaccountable, unless ex plained by those who are connected with the manage ment of its concerns. We hope a full investigation will be set on foot, by the next legislature, and every operation sifted to the bottom.' arr Since writing the above we have received the Ma con Advortister of last Tuesday, which contains the fol lowing information, respecting this Bank: “ The Bank of Macon has failed. —Within a few days past, much excitement has prevailed in our little bustling community, by so important an event as the failure of the Bank of Macon. It has closed doors, stopped payment of its hills, and there is every prospect of its never resuming business. From all that we can learn, and we have sought to become acquainted with the facts, yet we, like others, are unable to state, what portion of the debts will be paid.—Tlie Bank has constituted assignees, (Messrs. E. D. Tracy, C. B. Cole and A. R. Freeman) raid turned over to them the entire management of the business—to which they are devoting active attention, and, as soon ns they can do so, they will more fully ac quaint the public with the condition of the Bank, and the facts which may be developed.” TARIFF OF 1832. The nullification prints in the South mislead the pub lic mind, and misrepresent facts, when they assert that the friends of the protective system exult at the final pas sage of this Tariff act. And they have the boldness to declare that the new tariff is worse than the tariff of | 1828. We acknowledge that the new tariff is bad en-i ough, and that it still contains the odious feature of protection. But however averse we are to the protec. tive principle, candour demands of us to say, that the new tariff is less objectionable than that of 1328, and that it we pursue the victory we have obtained, with | caution and prudence, we may at the next session of Congress obtain more concessions, and in time the re jection from our statute book, of that principle which is a palpable violation of the federal constitution, and an infringement of the individual rights of the citizens; for the individual rights of a citizen are invaded, when I; I the government attempts to regulate for him in what j manner he should be clothed, and from whom he should j purchase his clothing. To show' tiiat the new tariff ought to be less objee tionab'e to the South than that of 1828, wp have made j the following extracts from the speeches delivered in j Congress, on the subject ot this tariff, by the friends of ; . t the protective system : Mr. CLAY.—“ Kentucky was sacrificed; Louisiana was sacrificed ; the woollen manufacture was sacrificed ; other interests were spared to be sacrificed some oth er day.” Mr. WEBSTER.—“ He would be false to every du ty which he owed to his constituents, if he did not ex. , press his entire dissatisfaction with the proceedings of the Committee (o; Conference) from beginning to end. lie had thought that in voting for a committee, he was veiling for sending negotiators to carry' the views cf the . ?cnutc, anS not giving a powcT of attorney, signed, scal-| cd, and ready to be delivered, giving up every thing for which the Senate had contended-” Ms. HOLMES.— ‘“ New-Enjlaml is sacrificed.” Mr. FOOT. “To me this bill has no charms. Per-; hrrss there is not a single state in this Union which will; be more, if as much, affected by its passage, as my own.; More manufactures of various descriptions are spring- j ing up under the protection ol your laws in the state off Connecticut, than m any other portion of the Union., Many of them ere in their infancy; and must he scri-j ously affected, if not totally prostrated, by this bill. The; committee knew full well our convictions ot the blight-, ing effects of the bill on the eastern states-.” Mr. BELL.—“ He had hoped that the hiil from the House would have undergone such modifications as , would have rendered it acceptable to the friends of do»| mestic industry. He had hoped that amendments would. have been adopted by which the great interests ot thej country might have been preserved. But lie did not be-| lieve that the bill, in its present form, would preserve I those interests, and he did not believe that the bill would, be acceptable to the people. He would express the o-j pinion that the effects of the bill would be disastrous to the country generally, and particularly to some sec tions of it.” X I LLiFICATION . “Copies of resolutions passed by the legislatures ot; several of the states, upon subjects ot general concern, are laid before you. Your attention is particularly call-j ed to those from Massachusetts and Connecticut, charg-j iug tliis state with the design of dissolving the Union, 1 because of its express determination not to permit the Supreme Court to control its jurisdiction over crimes committed within its limits. It is much to bo regretted that the prejudices and unfriendly feelings which have already been excited among the people ot different sec tions of our country, by jarring and local interests, should be embittered by unnecessary intermeddling of one state with the affairs es another. In what Georgia has done, and what Massachusetts and Connecticut condemn, others have only perceived the fixed resolve of the state to sustain its constitutional rights. Georgia has claimed no right to nullify, (in the verbiage of the day,) the acts* of th« general government, and only demands an ex- j emption from attempts to controul its authority whilst ex.; ercised upon such subjects as are w ithin its exclusive ju risdiction.” The above is an extract from the message of Govern, or Gilmer to the legislature at the opening of the last; session; and this extract contains, in a very few words, the difference between the doctrine of state rights, as entertained and practised by Georgia, and the doctrine of nullification, as explained by Mr. Calhoun, and main tained by Gen. llayno and Gov- Hamilton- The colli sion which sprung up between the federal govern ment and Georgia, did not involve any other state of the I Union in the controversy : this state was alone imme-j diately interested ; and the other states were interested, I only so far as their feelings were drawn into the contest, either for Georgia or against her. Whether Georgia resisted or not the assumption fey the federal government, of a power equally oppressive &. unconstitutional, and the exercise of which interfered with the sovereignty of the state over the territory lying within her chartered limits* the other States of the Union could not immediately suf-j for as Georgia would, because they had not that kind ofj population within their territories, which, it is well! known, has prevented this state from making those im-i provements which the industry of her people, and the j immensity of her internal resources, would have enabled her to prosecute with signal success. Gov- Gilmer vc-; ry properly says, that the fixed resolve of Georgia has been to sustain its constitutional rights, and to demand an exemption from attempts to control her authority, whilst exercised upon such subjects as are within its exclusive jurisdiction; and nothing more could Georgia demand, j She would not let any other state, or the federal govern ment, meddle with her local or municipal laws, enacted for the government of the people residing within her limits, being very careful at the same time, that those laws did not conflict with the powers she had parted with, and delegated to the federal government. In her resistance Georgia kept, constantly in view the federal constitution, while the federal government, during Mr. Adams’ administration, and especially the Supreme Court j of the United States, overleaped that, instrument, in or- i der to compel this state to submit to the liberal construc tion given to it, and to the arbitrary measures of the cx- i ecutive department of the federal government. There- 1 sistanco of Georgia has produced a salutary effect. Iff has given time to the people, to the Congress of the U. j States, and to the President, to reflect upon the points ass issue between Georgia and the federal government.! And what is the result? That the people of the United; States have tacitly admitted the right of Georgia to re-| sist in the manner she has done, and that the President 1 has declared that he would and cotdd not interfere in the measures adopted by Georgia for a due execution of* her laws within her chartered limits. Georgia has at tainei her ends; she is perfectly satisfied; and why? because she kept herself within constitutional bounds, and never attempted to go beyond them. The case of South Carolina is different. If that State' were to carry into complete operation the doctrine for which she is now contending, and nullify the tariff of 13128, would the effect of such nullification be felt only in that State? certainly not. This act of nullification would; place South Carolina out of the pale of the constitution,; and beyond the protecting arm of the federal government,! should it be needed. She could not remain in the Union, j and yet put at defiance the authorities established by the! constitution for a due execution of the laws. Every other j state of the Union, by this act of nullification on tho pun; of South Carolina, would be absolved of all restraint, I with regard to the integrity of the territory of South! Carolina, which the federal constitution promises to rc-j spect and maintain. And why would South Carolina! be considered as out of the pale of the constitution ? Be-j cause twenty-three States could not allow within the territory of the Union, and in the heart of it, one state to be governed by other laws, and by a policy which would place them in danger, and in direct collision with foreign powers. South Carolina would open her ports free to all foreigners ; the opening of those ports would be a viola tion of the federal compact, because the power has been expressly conferred upon Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations; and to all commercial regulations, all the states of the Union are bound to submit. The tariff now in force is undoubtedly unconstitutional; but * > the regulation which admits foreign vessels in the ports! of the United States, is not unconstitutional. So that; the fact of admitting vessels of all nations, with the pro ductions of their respective countries, free of duties, would be a palpable violation of the constitution on the part of South Carolina ; for if the tariffis unconstitutional, it is so only so far as it affords protection to the manu-j facturos of the north, to the detriment of the southern planters; confined to revenue duties, a tariffis constitu itional. In opening her ports to all foreigners, South j Carolina maybe induced to lay a certain amount of da ilies on the goods imported into the state, for the purpose of revenue. And is that state to determine the amount; of duties which will be laid, and intended for revenue on-j ly ? Will Mr. M‘Duffle, with his usual acumen, be able to* discriminate between duties for protection, and duties for revenue, to meet the expenses of the government, in so nice a manner as to produce exactly the amount wanted ?! These are interesting questions. While South Carolina! is welcoming into her ports vessels of all nations, the! twenty-three other states of the Union, will have to look,' on, and witness the country inundated with foreign goods;! the public treasury dried up; the constitution perverted ;! foreigners taking u foothold in the heart of the countrv; 1 or compel South Carolina to submit to the tariff, how-' • • I ever unconstitutional and oppressive it may be, in order| to avoid a greater evil. Before such a state of things happens, it would be better for South Carolina to join in| • ! calling a southern convention? ! CoKuiniiiiicatioiiM. Bi’rke County, July 12, 1832 Messrs. Guieu Bunco. —Tho closing scev of the fourth of July celebration in WaynesL rough, associated with the peculiar situation our country, left such an impression on my ill that I am led to believe, that even a description -ffll of it presented to your readers, by the master!*- hand of Washington-Irwing, could not fail bo very interesting to them —and may, from : novelty, gratify a few, in the very imperfect c j hoinelv stvle of one unaccustomed to write A subscriber. A large number of citizens partook ol' a uk.o * excellent dinner in company with two voluute companies. Two long tables groaned under tff weight of substantiate and delicacies. After the cloths were removed, and a number of t drank, fthe utmost harmony prevailing the whole time.) the company began gradually t, disperse, till six o’clock, when it was unanimous 1 ly resolved, by those remaining, to continue fl iL > enjoyment till night. All assembled around on board, and notwithstanding some dilferonce of sentiment on tire subject of nullification, all w . harmony, peace and concord. A Liberty Pole ! seventy feet high, had been raised the day p rt ! i vious, handsomely ornamented and capped, and ! on the morning of tho 4th, the national flag was 1 hoisted, which remained during the day, float, ing in the air, displaying at every breeze, tff “ broad Si ripes and bright stars.” The lord of day in all his glory and grandeur, was just bid. ding adieu to freedom’s natal day for anotlu-r year, tinging the western horizon with his de parting rays, when a procession was formal ia front of the dining room, and moved in military order, (preceded by a hand cf martial music,) to tho Liberty Polo. Having arrived at the foot j ot the sacred emblem, Isaac, with his band, | played Hail Columbia, whilst the procession ! marched around it thirteen times—after which a j circle was formed around it, and the company, j with unusual animation, gave thirteen cheers, ! between each of which, was a ruflie from thy drums and a gun. The flag then descended rapidly to the bosom of its friends, who received it with open arm, and conveyed it to its home in true military or der. The procession then marched in the sane order, to Mrs. SrrRG-fcs’ to supper. During the whole ceremony the utmost bar. ! rnony, good order, and decorum, was observed, i Not an occurrence took place to mar the eujov. meat, nor indeed was a single word to bo heard, save from the commanding officer, except one single observation from a venerable republican, while the flag was descending: which was so much in unison w ith the feelings and sentiments of all present, that a cheering, loud and long i ensued. It was this, and addressed in a kind of 1 soliloquy to the flag: “You are coming to | your friends, who can lower you at pleasure, I but your enemies cannot do it.” j Thus closed the celebration with us, and I i truly hope that many, very many returns may ! find us in possession of tiie same blessings that we now enjoy, the same enthusiastic devotion for independence, and the same united an ilial. lowed disposition to celebrate its anniversary. A SPECTATOR. ■■■ . A WARNING VOICE TO GEORGIA. Messrs. Editors: Permit me, if you please, to make a communication through your paper; as I indulge the hope it may have the effect of placing my fellow citizens upon their guard.— Much of my time having been spent in South Carolina, I have had a favorable opportunity fur observing the feelings, plans, and intentions of the Nullification party. My observation li;m i been prompted by a twofold motive—a desire j for the continuance of the peace and welfare of j our happy country; and a fear that Carolina I would he successful in making my native Staff , a tool to aid her in effecting an unconstitutional; i unwise, and irrepublican act, of resisting an im i politic Iaw r of Congress, (the unconstitulioualitv j of which being a mere matter of opinion.) And I after diligent inquiries and faithful observation, i I am inclined to believe, that Carolina will con -1 tinue to nullify by words for many years more, i and equally long continue her estimates on pa. .j per of the benefits of disunion to the Southern i States, before they attempt to test its truth ; tin less she can successfully propagate her poison ous politicaldoctrines extensively in other States, and secure their co-operation. The Nullifying , party, though in political opinions they arc un sound, inconsistent and remarkably fickle ; yet they possess much talent, and when excited, much energy and determination. They area ware, that it is a less laborious task to threaten j tnan to perform—to theorise than to practice; & j they are equally well aware, that the force which i could now be collected under tho banner ofNul j ideation would not bear a comparison with the * difficulty of the object they desire to accomplish j —And their feelings, I think, will always bu so j much under the control of their judgment, ns to ! permit their truly lamentable doctrines to exist j only in theory ; until they succeed in convert i ing our state or one or more of the other south i ern states to her faith—this is the only hope ol 1 the Nulliflera. If other states only hav'& firmness enough to maintain their own opinions, and keep themselves above their poisonous influence; "c need indulge no fearful apprehensions from the excited feelings of this State ; unless they art* countenanced by one or more other states, they w ill soon die a natural death—for it is a "ch known fact, that tergiversation in politics h one of the principles as well as practices of the leaders of tho Nullification party —for proof, i only recall to your memory who were tiie warm ; est advocates for the Tariff and Internal Ini -1 provement, in 181 G—who were opposed to j state right principles until flic year 1821 —uc-; who were the ardent friends of Gen. Jacksou until after his election; when he became guilty of not appointing a South Carolinian to any im* 1 portuut station, of manifesting a particular friend i ship for Mr. Van Huron instead of a South Car liuian, and of writing to the Union party of thff state, expressing his determination of preserving the I nion ; and only think now if that party maintain those opinions and feelings. There po litical doctrines do not continue more than about | f ton years at any one time. Therefore, by form* lj ing our opinions from the past, we may indulge j the certain expectation for the future, of seeing their return ere long to their former erroneous doctrines of tiie Tariff, Internal improvement j anti-state rights, Ac. Ac. or probably to som j other more novel, hut equally heterodox opic* j ions; unless they are encouraged to persevo* i by an early concurrence of Georgia—which I ; hope a kind providence will forever forbid, ft iJ | on this possibility that our apprehensions should | rest; that our own state or some of the other ; states equally friendly to the union, might 1 deluded and induced to come to their aid. Caro j lina will not act she cannot; for within her own limits, the friends of union have f*