Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

II)/ 1 a » Ji* :;; "W* l»-l WVJPIW* \ • - *• '-.f - WI \ / - ‘ • 9 , S . \'n. \ SPEECH OF MR. RIVES, OF VIRGINIA, In the Senate of the United States, Feb. 14. n the Bill further to provide for the Collec tion of Duties on Imports. (concluded.) But, Sir, let us trace this matter a little fur- er. Among the contemporary publications, 1 i mg and recommending the new Con- itutio i, the essays of the Federalist, as well r tiiC distinguished ability with which they ere written, as ibr the high character of ^he ilhom, two of whom were members of the jonvention which framed the Constitution, ;cre universally read, and profoundly consid- »d. In the letter of Mr. Jefferson to Mr. rry, an extract of which was read the other y, by the honorable senator from Pennsyl- mia, [Mr. Dallas,] it is said with great force nil propriety, that the Constitution should al- ays be understood “ in the sense in which was advocated by its friends, and adopted y the states.” Now, sir, let us sec in what glit it was presented to the people, in refer- nee to this question of state sovereignty, by ts disiinguished advocates and expounders, he writers of the Federalist. Nothing would lave Ik cu better calculated to procure its rea- y adoption bv the states, than to have told hem that it left tneir sovereignty entir. !y un- mpaired. But,sir, its honest and enlightened idviieatet, toe writers of the Federalist, nt- empted 10 sucli imposition on the good sense >f the ptople. They told them distinctly, at “ s.ivtrcignty in the Union, and complete ndependtuce in the members, are things re- ugn.int aid irreconciieable.”—Fed. No. 15. In the 4fili No. of that publication, where Mr. I a .ison if i.oticin tiic objection that the new onstitutici would curtail the slates of some tip r! at-s tributes of their sovereignty, in.' tea.' of de > ing the charge, as it might have een poutictodo in order to appease the jealou- ly reject have been i scholiasts The repuli never conte the Constitt) to them wi n/latest breath. But » 08 1 believe in %1 ^* e t h° 3e doctrines, I utter- ’ nous interpolations which ;ed upon them by modern mmentators. s of’98 & ’99, Mr. President, that the states retained, under an absolute and undiminished sovereignty* 1 ^ tbe y possessed what they had up—that the whole was not diminished tbe subtraction of a part. But theyconte^ that all the sovereignty, which had not b 1 voluntarily surrendered to the Union, wpiviolably reserved to the states; that the f 33 are sovereign within their sev eral sphe 518 the Union is in the sphere marked to it; and that the harmony of the who , y stem 13 °nly to be preserved by e .cli po r revolving in its proper orbit. It was resfor modern times to assert that ecce.-fc an( l lawless state sovereignty, which “ shod rnadl y f fom sphere” to arrest the inr'ments and to nullify the acts of the the F' ni l authority. Tfcionorahle senator from South Caro- linu,^ile admitting, in one part of his re. marl that the people of the states had del- egaf a portion of their sovereignty to be exited through the General Government, s;ii&iat to delegate,however, was not to part wit! that as between principal and agent, ihe'Iegated power might, at any time, be rested ; and that, consequently, the people ofib several states might at their pleasure, ne the powers they had granted to the ral Government. Now, sir, .while I not deny the truth of the general propo- n, that, as between principal and agent, tl principal may at any time resume the p. ers he has granted, I do utterly deny the i>lic ation of it v. inch has been made by the ulleman from South Carolina. In the lirst uce, this is not merely a question between lact. derived this right, fix its true character as be- J enumeration of many of the powers which are j the departure from the letter of the iustruc- deemed treason or punished ' as such, &c.'* ing revolutionary, and not constitutional.— vested by the present Constitution in the Con- tions in this respect, was but a sacrifice of of sl ate ride, he boldly admits and justifies people of South Carolina and the com- lon agent of the states, the General Govc-rn- Ie tells the people of America that, fit lie deiqmtrated that the Union is neces- aent j but it is a question deeply involving ary to secire their happiness, necessary to be r *S b ^ s an( * interests ot third parties, to ('ure tlieiflagaiust foreign wars, against wi id contentwi among the states, against vi lent and opressivc factions, against ov rown military establis ments, and ag. all the other .tuneless ills that would be inevitable conpquence ol'separ.ition, it is ill to object to a tonstitution, without which t| Union cannot u maintained, that it wi curtail the stall* of a por.ion of their sovr- eiinty. On thocontrary he adds, that o i’ur as the sacrilit of a portion of state $v- ereignty shall banecessary to the object'of tie Union, thus skwn to be indispensab] to the li ppiness ot tfi people, the voice of ve ry good citizen mil; be, let the s icriacibe- mnde. Sir, the sa-itice was freely fade, to the extent requirt by the great o^ects >f the Union; hut al that portion ofover- ' ignty not necessaryo be vested in th Un ion i >r those high puioses, still reman un impaired in the respa ive states. In pursuance of th|oadi .g truth, fee lan- 'unge habitually uset n tlie Fedir.list to characterize the sovfeigniv of the states, is the “residuary soveignty of the stiles,” or “ the portion of sovfcignty remiinin, in tlie states” after that wl;h is surre.ilerc 1 to the Union. In rapidlyglancing over this celebrated collection, Ijfod the expression, “ residuary sovereignty uhe states,” as dis tinguished from a complq and undiminished sovereignty, used in throsever.d numbers, (No 39, 43, 62,) dl writtiby Mr. Ma ison, whose guidance, I conical always follow with peculiar confidence, f no mtin, from the relation in which he sti Is to the Consti- tution, can be supposed to 1 more thorough ly imbued with its true plbsophy. It is a remarkable circumstance, evincing tlie un varying fidelity of Mr. Mason’s mind to wit, the other states. But, if it were purely; a question between South Carolina and the General Government, South Carolina alone could not resume the powers which had been ranted to the latter. Siie is but one out of twenty-four principals, who joi tly granted these powers, and she can no more, so far as constitutional right is concerned, by her single act, resume the powers thus jointly granted, than an individual citizen of a st .te can resume the powers jointly granted by himself and the rest of the society to tneir state government. Gentlemen seem to con found the relation in which the people of a state stand to the Government of tlie United States, with that in which they stand to their own state government. The people of S. Carolina may, at any time, resume or modify the powers they have granted to their state government; because, in relatioq to tiiat, they form the entire delegating body ; but, in relation to the Government of the United States, they are but one twenty-fourth part of the delegating body, three tourtiis of which are, by the express terms of the compact, re quired to make any alteration in the Govern- i ment. [Mr. Calhoun here said that he had been misapprehended by the senator from Virginia; that he Had not said that the people of a state might resume the powers w.iich had been granted to the General Government, but that they had a ri^ht to judge of the extent of those powers, and whether they had been ex ceeded.] Mr. Rives continued. It was more proba ble that the honorable senator, amid the di- versity of new doctrines which had been broached, had forgotten all that he had said. The senator from South Carolina certainly this fundamental truth of a p-tial surrender ; did contend'that the people of a state might of sovereignty by the states,,uit at the tance of more than ten years'rom the publi cation of the Federalist, in hisplebrated Re port of tlie Vir i .ia Legislate of ’99, he again us s the same torm ofpxpressio.i— the residuary sovereignty of o states.” Sir, that report, in recogiiizingas it does, in xpr.ssti rms, “the sovereignty ofq U.. totes,” as w ell as in ntlrinuling to toe save states a re- iduiry sovereignty only, shows, a t the idea fan absolute und undiminishedsovereignty Infill remaining in the states, was a little en- ertained by the fathers of the politic church from which the senator from SoutBRnrolina ro: asses to derive his tenets, as by loun gers and original advocates of the institu tion. In farther illustration of thispoint, since \ir inia authority h -s grown verj^uch in vogue, 1 may be permitted to refer ti tne address ot the Legislature of Vir_,i.ua Ufc lie people of the st.aes, which accompanied i 1( > famous resolution of ’98. In that addrt 3 generally supposed to be the production C resume the powers wliich they had granted to the General Government, and in this, I am What, sir, was the Declaration of Independ ence? Was it not a declaration of natural, not of conventional rights—of revolutionary, not of constitutional remedies, of remedies not founded on or consistent with the continu ance of the Constitution, but springing into existence from such a fundamental violation of its guarantees as to amount to a virtual dis solution of Government ? Sir, I should be the last man to deny, or to impair that sa cred right of resisfcince to oppression, wliich is consecrated by the Declaration of Inde pendence—the right of every people, when ever their Government shall prove destruct ive of those great ends for which all Govern ment was instituted, “ to throw offsuch Gov ernment, and to provide new guards for their future security.” But, sir, this is not the ground on which South Carolina has placed herself. She seeks to throw off, not the Gov ernment, but the obligations it imposes—to enjov its protection, but to yield it .o obedi ence—to participate in all its benefits, but to bear no share of its burthens. And all these contradictions are to be reconciled by the ta- lismanic interposition of state sovereignty. Now, sir, lot us see iiow this is to be done. The argument of the gentleman from South Carolina, is this, that as the citizen was ori ginally bound to obedience to the General Government by the act of his state, in its sovereign capacity, a like act of his state may release him from that obligation—tiiat if the act of a st ate, absolv ing its citizens from obedience to a law of the United States should be a breach of the compact with the other tates, it is the state alone which is responsi ble, and that there is, thenceforward, no right on the part of the General Government, to execute the law by acting on the individual citizens of the state. Sir, this/argument is plainly founded on a total misconception of the nature of our .present political system, and of the characteristic differences between it and the articles of confederation. From the moment of the adoption of the present Constitution, a direct relation is created be tween the Government of the United States, and the citizens. The authorities of the* Unio; no lo .ger act through the states by requisition, as under the articles of confederation, but di rectly on perso is and thi igs by its own laws. The ;reat object of the change of system was to render the Government of the Union en tirely independent of the action of states, in the performance ofits high constitution d func tions. For this purpose, it was not only in vested with the power of making laws, but of executing them, by regular, judicial and ex ecutive organs, and by the physical force of the country also, if need be; for it will not be forgotten tiiat, among the powers expressly vested in Congress, is that of “ provuli i; for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union.” To m irk still more unequivo cally the intention of the new Constitution to place the Government of the Union in the ex ercise of its powers, above the control of the individual st ates, it is expressly declared that tlie “ Constitution and the laws of the United States, which shall be made ia pursuance thereof, die. shall be the supreme law of the land, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any itatc to the. contrary notwithstanding.” Now, sir, woull not all these characteristic features of the new Constitution be utterly ef faced by the doctri ie of tne gentleman iro n South Carolina, and should we not be brought back by it at once to the fatal weakness and inefficiency of the articles of confederation ? Would not the Government be superseded in its direct and authoritative action on individu. als, the vital principle of the present constitu tion ?—would not its laws become mere re quisitions, subject at Any time to be defeated or arrested at the will of a state ? Would it not, in short, lose every characteristic proper- gressoftheU. States. But, sir, the great power, form to substance—a preference of the end to the vital power ofcarryingthese powers into ef- the means. feet, was wholly wanting. The measures of Sir, the great end of the assembling of the the old Congress were addressed to the states, Convention, that which was called for by the and depended for their effect on the action of universal voice, was-an efficient government— the states. It was the principle of legisla- an institution “ adequate to the exigencies of tion for political communities, and not for the I government and the preservation of the Union.” individuals of which they are composed, that Sir, if it were not for the great sensitiveness constituted the radical vice, and led to the which has been discovered of late in regard total and melancholy failure of the articles of to the term national, I might remind gentle- confederation. The great object of the new men that in the resolution of the old Congress Constitution, was to correct the fatal defect, under which the Convention was assembled, and to extend the authority of the Union di- the object of its labors was expressly stated rectly to the persons of individuals. The to be the establishment of “ afirm national difference, in this respect alone, between the government” I am very far, Mr. President, two systems, make a. perfect contract running from saying that the government actually cs- through all their operations and results. tablished is a national one, in the sense which Gentlemen would do well to refresh their is now generally attached to that term. But, historical recollections a little on this subject, sir, I cannot, in compliance with the temper Have they forgotten that melancholy picture and fashion ol the times, so far renounce the of embarrassment, humiliation, and distress, ideas and language which, till lately, were every where exhibited in this country, in the universally familiar to the American mind, as interval between the close of our revolutionary | to say that this government has no national struggle and the adoption of the present Con- j features. Sir, though federal in its basis and stitution, all resulting from the fata! ineffici ency of the articles of confederation ? Our most sacred engagements with foreign na tions, us well as with our own citizens, unful filled—theirs with us consequently unper formed—the requisitions of Congress upon the states regarded « as the idle wind”—the non-compliance of one state an (fxample for principal relations, it does possess some na tional features, and those of‘an important character, i.n the very relation involved in this discussion, the operation of the govern ment iu the execution of its powers, it is .na tional, not federal. The fundamental dis tinction between a federal and national gov ernment, in this respect, is, that thp former the refusal of another—commerce paralysed operates on the'States, composing the confed- for the want of uniform regulation—credit, eracy, in their political capacities ; while the public and private, extinguished—industry latter operates directly on the individual citi- languishing—every thing, in short, tending to zens. In this respect, no one can deny that anarchy and confusion, and in one part of the the present government of the United States Union the banner of rebellion and defiance to is strictly national. In the representation of the laws, openly unfurled ! From all these the people, in the other branch of the Legis- calamities and disasters, we were happily res- lature, the government is also clearly n ition- cued by the adoption of our present Constitu- al 5 while iu the representation of the states tion. Would gentlemen, by construing away ia this branch, and in other important res all its vital energies, « its whole constitution- pects, particularly the foundation on which al vigor,” to use the expression of Mr. Jef. it stands of compact between the states and ferson, convert it back into those inefficient the limited extent of its powers for special articles of confederation, for which it was purposes, it is decidedly federal. But, sir, substituted, and thus rene w the reign of an- on this subject I will only refer gentlemen to archy, and of public and private distress, a well known number of the Federalist, [the wliich attended that ill-fated system ? 39th] written by Mr. Madison, where they There was another observation of my ho- will find a thorough analysis of the govern- norable colleague, founded as it seems to me, ment in all its relations ; and where it is in the same erroneous view of our system, clearly shown that it is neither wholly federal from which in all kindness and respect, I am nor wholly national, but a composition of compelled to express my dissent. He ad- both. ^ Sir, no construction of the Constitu verted to the instructions given to the delegates tion can be a sound one, or lead to results of the states in convention, “ to revise the ar- just in theory or sale in practice, which does ticies of confederation,” not to abolish them, not keep steadily in view this mixed charac as a proper guide in determining the charac- ter of the government, and look as well to its ter and operation of the present Constitution, national as to its federal features. But,' sir, it appears to me, that so far As the I have been led, Mr. President, into this true character of the Constitution is concern- digression on 1 the gonerel character of our ed, the enquiry is not wh it tlie delegates in present political system, as distinguished convention were instructed to do, but what from the articles df confederation, to which it they actually did, and what the people of the is said to bear so close an affinity, because, United States gave their assent to by their I do firmly believe that if the doctrines now subsequent ratification. The members of the contended for shall prevail, as complete convention, from high considerations, sug- subversion of -our existing institutions will gested by the deranged and critical state of have been effected, practically, as if the Con- the country, may have felt themselves justified stitution ol* the United States were formally in exceeding their instructions, and yet their abolished, and the articles of Confederation work when subsequently sanctioned by the again established ! Is not the distinguisiiin adoption of the people, would not be the less leature, the vital principle ot the present legitimate and valid. Every thing depended Constitution, the power which it vests in the upon the voice of the people, to whom the government ot executing its laws by a direct Constitution was submitted for ratification. I action on individuals ? But it is contended If they should disapprove it, though it might be I that the government ot the Union may, at in exact pursuance of instructions, the work I any time, be superseded in this direct action would be of no effect. If, on the other hand, on individuals for the purpose of exccutin though departing from instructions, it shouid its laws, by the interposition of a state declar- be approved bv the people, that high appro- ing a law of the United St .tes to be null and val Would blot out all antecedent irregulari- 1 “ :J ’ " " ' **•“ sustained not only by my own but by the pri ited report of his remarks, which seems to nave been very carefully pre pared, and I presume, under his own eye. [Mr. Calhoun again explained. He had contended that if a state should resume the power granted to the General Government, such resumption would only be a breach of compact tor which the state, as a community, would be responsible, and not its citizens in dividually.] Mr. Rives replied. If, Mr. President, it be admitted that an attempt, on the part of a state, to resume the pqwers granted by it and the other states to the General Government would be a breach of compact, then it nec s- sarily follows that no state has a right, under the Constitution, to make such resumption. In other words, no state can have a constitutional right to break the Constitution. In regard to the effect of such an unconstitutional act of n this, 1 am ty of government, and become a mere league ? j adopted by the states ! It i recollection, l Such, sir, are ihe inevitable efiect and fatal tion, the people's Constitute void. If this be sn, is it not obvious, that the government of the Union is, at once, reduced again to that depcndance on the authorities of the individual states, in the performance ot its Constitutional functions, which it was no. toriousl v the chief object of the present Con but what Constitution was actually I stitution to avoid and remedy ? is that Constitu-1 That the interposition of a state acting in The true question always is, not what pro ject of a Convention may have been original ly contemplated by this or that state, or brought forward by any member of the Con vention John Taylor, of Caroline, as thorough gouq: a state, in reference to the obligations of its a champion of state rights us the senator jeitizens to the Union, I shall presently show from South Carolina could nesire, we .find the following declaration—“ It was then admitted that the state sovereignties were only dimin ished by powers specincally enumerated, or necessary to curry the specified powers into effect,” tlius acknowledging, of course, tiiat to that extent, the state sovereignties had been diminished. Sir, I claim myself to be an humble but de. voted disciple of this good old school ot ’98 and ’99, and I might speak, if it were proper to do so, of some little opportunity I have en- joyed of being instructed in its doctrines, by *he great men who were its teachers and foun ders. | cherish their doctrines, air, as I do their fame, with reverence, and I will adhere W b at it caiiuot, in any manner, disturb the re ar action of the Geueral Government on hividuals. Wt, before I do so, permit me to remark hertagain, upon that confounding of things entirfy distinct in their natures, of which we have »ad so many examples in the course of this dih.ussion. I could not but observe, the other Oy, that the honorable senator from KentucV, (Mr. Bibb ,) in developing the prin ciples (A the senator from South Carolina, had appeied to the Declaration of Iudepend. ence, in sioport of the ri„ht of a people of a state to re»me the powers granted to the General Gb-emment. Now, sir, does not the source frim which the honorable senator tendency of the doctrines now broached—to subvert, by refined constructions, the present Constitution of the United States, and set up again, in its place, the abandoned articles of confederation. , Do we not already, Mr. President, hear the Constitution of the United States in vari ous quarters and in the grdvest manner, de nominated a league, a treaty of alliance and confederation. It was with regret, sir, that I heard my worthy friend and honorable col league, [Mr. Tyler] the other day call.itin express terms a league, and insist upon the close resemblance and identity in many res. pects, which he supposed to exist between it and the articles of confederation. Sir, to me, the two systems are as opposite as light and darkness. The articles of confederation were a true league, constituting a common consult ative body for all the states, but depending entirely on the sovereign will und pleasure of each state for the execution of its measures. The present constitution creates a Govern ment—Government it is true, resting on compact between the states and limited by the terms or that compact, but still to the ex tent of its granted powers, possessing all the means and organs of efficient action as com pletely as any other Goverfiment under the sun. Compare the two instruments, sir, and their very form admonishes you of this radi cal difference. The one is, in form as in substance, a treaty by which “ the states sev erally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other.” The other is "a. Consti tution ordained and established by the people of t]ie United States” It is true, that you will find in the articles of confederation, an Constitution, and not the her sovereign capacity through a convention project of Muther Martin, of Mr. Patterson, I of the people, as in the case of South Caro or of any other member of the Convention, I lina, is of no more avail to arrest the execa which we have sworn to support. tion of the laws of the United States, than an The true character of that Constitution de- interposition in her ordinary political capacity pends on the sense itt which it was under- is apparent from the language oi that clause stood and accepted by the people of the states of the constitution which asserts the suprem- at the time of its adoption; and that: again, aey of the constitution and laws of the United as Mr. Jefferson so forcibly remarked in his States, “ any thing in the constitution or laws letter to Mr. Gerry, on the sense in which it of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.” was explained and advocated by its friends. The constitution of a state is always the act It is in this view, that the papers of the Fede- of a state in her highest sovereign capacity ralist are entitled to greater weight, in I and if it can oppose no obstacle to the laws of fixing the true construction of the Constitu- the Union, as is here declared, it follows tion, than any other commentary whatever; that neither the sovereign, nor the legislative for it was, in reference to the explanations I interposition of a state is sufficient, under the. given by it of the new system of government, constitution, to defeat a law of the U. States, proposed that the public mind throughout the If any thing farther wtsre wanting to show United States formed its judgment in the final that the interposition of a state, cannot, un er adoption of the Constitution. the constitution, absolve the citizen from his Now, sir, in regard to this matter of in- obligations to the Union, conclusive proo is structions, it was distinctly admitted by the furnished by the rejection of the amendment writers of the Federalist and other friends of proposed in the convention by Mr. Luther the Constitution, that the Convention had, in Martin, which was brough to the view of* the Constitution, some respects, departed from their instruc. tions. But still the departure was more in form than substance. Their authority, it is true, was “ to revise tlie articles of C-onfede ration, and to propose alterations and further provisions thereinbut the purpose of that revision was expressly declared to be to ren der “ the Federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government and the preservation of the Union.” These were the great ob-« jects to be kept constantly in- vieAr by the 1 Convention, anff should never be lost sight ofi by us in our interpretations of their work. If, to accomplish these objects, it was found necessary to propose in entirely new system, senate, a few days since, by the hon. senator from Delaware (Mr. Clayton.) Mr. Martin, with the express view, as he tflls us, of se curing the citizens of the respective states against the effects of their responsibility to the United States, where, in obedience to the authority of their own state, they should op pose the laws of the Union, submitted a pro position in the following words, as an amend ment to the article in the Constitution con cerning treason: : k provided that no act or acts done by one or more of the states against the United States, or,: by any citizen of any one of the United States under the authority of any one or more of-the said, states, shall be This proposition, sir, waa rejected, and tha- inference drawn from the fact by Mr. Martin is irresistible—thatit was intended to preservo the constitutional authority of the Union oV« T the citizens ot the United States in full force and effect, whatever might be done or 6H- joined by a state to the contrary* But among the new constitutional theories- to which the controversies of the times have given birth, it seems to be now gravely con tended that there is no such tiling as a citizen of tlie United States—that it is only us citizen of a particular State, add in virtue of their 4* legiance to that state, that the ptople of this country are under any obligations of obedi- * ence to the Government of the Union. [Mr* Tyicr here said that he had not asser ted that there was no such thing as a citizen, of the (Jnited States. He had asked, who had even seen a citizen of tlie government of the United States.] Mr. Rives resumed. My honorable friend will perceive that this is but an evasion, not a. so- lution of the difficulty. Who, sir, has ever seen a citizen of the governmentof Virginia? There is no more a citizen of the governmentof Vir ginia than there is a citizen of the government- of the United States. The relation of allegiance, sir, is it not be tween citizen and government—it is between citizen and sovereign. It is the whole body of the community winch is, with us, the sov ereignty, and it is to that sovereignty that al legiance is due. Now, sir, I have already shown that the United States, for Certain pur poses, do form one great political community,. in which the sovereignty of the Union resides just as the sovereignty of the respective stated resides iu the people of each state separately considered. It is to the United States, then# in their sovereign character, and not to the Government of the United States, that allegi ance is due. That there is a direct relation of allegiance between the United States and the citizens of this country, so far as the ob jects of the Union are concerned,i3 sufficient, ly manifested* not only by what is intrinsi cally implied in the term “ citizen of the Uni ted States” which is frequently used in the Constitution, but by the fact that the Consti. ►tution provides for the punishment of “ trcascrt against the United States.”—Treason is es se iitially the breach of the allegiance due to the sovereign powe r against which it is com mitted. There is then, a direct allegiancd due from the people of this country to the U* States, as citizens of the U. States, to tlie ex- tent of the sovereignty which for special pur poses, resides in the Union. We are, at the same time, citizens of our respective States, and as such owe allegiance, each one to lifer own State, to the full extent of the sovereign ty abiding in the States severally. To each power we owe allegiance, within the limits of their respective sovereignties ; to neither be yond. But, sir, it is said that allegiance and protection are reciprocal, and that our protec tion in all t hq most interesting relations of life is derived from our respective States ; to them our allegiance is exclusively due.- It has been contended that we derive no protection from the United States, except when , we are on the ocean or in foreign countries, beyond the limits of the states. If this were so, still it would be something, that we arc efficient, ly protected by the strong arm of the Union, where the States are powerless to protect.—- But sir, is it true that we receive no protec tion from the .United States, while we remain within the limits of the country? Do not the United States on the contrary, protect us even against the arbitrary and unjust legislation of our own states, in declaring, as the Constitu tion declares, that “ no state shall pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law im- posing the obligation of contracts ?” Is it not the United States which, through the medium of the judici .1 power, secures to uaan impar tial administration of justice in all controver sies with citizens of other states or foreigners? Is it not the United States again, which se cures to us the privileges and immunities of citizens of tha other states? What power nit that protects us in the enjoyment ot our mo9t inestimable political rights—which guaran tees to us the blessia is of a“ republican torm of government”—-which defends us against Ihe excesses of“ domestic violence” and faction, as well us the calamities of hostile “invasion?’* Is it not this same despised United States ? Sir, wherever we are, at home or abroad, on the bosom of the ocean or by the tranquil fire side, whether danger threaten us in oar civil, political, or i iternation.il relations; the broad iEgis of the Union is over U9 and covers us with its ample protection. Let it not be said then, that we derive no protection from the United States,which mi;nt merit some small return of allegiance. Sir, proud as I arn<jf the title of citizen of Virginia, gratefid as I ara for the unmerited favour which that honored mother has shown to me, I yet feel - with the father of the country, that “the just pride of pat riotism is exalted” by the mors comprehensive title of citizen of the United States—that title which gives me a share in the common inher-. itance of glory which has descended to us from our revolutionary, sages, patriots* and heroes that title which enables-me tar claim' the name of the Rutledges* the Pinckneys, and the Sumpters of South Carolina, of the Han cocks, the Adams’ and the Otis’ of Massachu setts, and all the other proud names which nave illustrated the annals o£ each and all of these states, as“ Os compatriot with my own” I have thus, Mr. President,.rtviewedtheftOPf d&inentel tenets of that new school of consti tutional law, which has sprung up within to© : 4 —JL. : > •• 4.