Newspaper Page Text
tamumm
mtmm
t
e-tt
$ t
x-+
last four or five eventful years of our political
history. I have endeavored to snow ih.U thiy
have do foundation whatever in tiny just view
of the constitution,that they are directly at war
with the contemporary understanding and ex
positions of its founders, and that they derive
no countenance whatever from tae principles
of that genuine republican school, which re
established the constitution in its purity, after
the temporary perversions to which it had
been subjected. These modern doctrines, I
do firmly believe, arc in their tendency utter
ly subversive of that happy system of govor ..
ment, the preservation of which is not oni
the sols security for liberty with us, but the
last hope of freedom, throughout the world.
If in the depth of these convictions, I shall
have fallen into a warmer tone of discussion
than is my habit, it will be attributed, I trust
to its true cause, and not to any want of
proper respect or kind feeling towards the
members, one and all, of this body.
Sir, we live in times when it is a solemn
duty which every man owes his country, to
speak lus opinions without disguise or equiv
ocation, even at the risk of giving offence lo
some of those whom it would be bis greatest
pleasure, us. well ns highest ambition, to cou-
tent in all things. I have been already ad.
monished, sir, that a sword is at this moment
suspended over my head, which may descend
and sever the worthless thread of my political
existence for the act of public duty I am now
performing. Sir, if it should be so, I shall
have at least one consolation, the conscious
ness of haying fallen in the defence of the
Constitution of mv country, and of that liber
ty which is indissolubly connected with it.
Sir, I lake leave to say, that there breathes
not the man who is more devoted than I am
to the maintenance of the just rights of tiie
States. It is in that faith 1 was Drought up,
and in that faith I shall continue to the last.
It is in the salutary influence and power o.
the states under distinct and organized forms
of fiction, and the wise partition of power es
tablished between them and the authorities of
the Union, that our system possesses guaran
tees and advantages a. .known to any otiicr
which ever existed. Sir, the gentlemen who
have claimed to be the special champions of
State rights here, appear to have a much
more limited idea of those rights than I have.
They speak of state rights as if they consis
ted exclusively in the right of opposing -cts
of the General Government. But, sir, accor
ding to my notion of them, they comprehend
all rights of political power whatever, not del
egated to the United States, ail such being
expressly preserved by the Constitution to
the respective states.
But it is asked, where is the security for
these rights ? In the first place, tlie Constilu-
pared to say that the states might not consti
tutionally, by the exercise of the acknowl
edged legislative powers, on subjects clearly
reserved to thpm, oppose very serious imped
iments of one sort or other, to the execution of
unwarrantabfe measures on the part of the
General Government. . In this respect, it is
not easy to mark the exact limit of the rights of
the states; and as in the case of the privileges
of Parliament in England, high considera
tions of policy may require that they shoul.
be left undefined.—But one thing is certain:
a otute can never,as South Carolina has done,
directly and formally annul a law of t ie Uni-
ted States, without an open departure from
the Constitution, and a total renunciation of
all its obli gations.
The moral interposition of the states, of
which I have spoken, Mr. President, resting
on the force of reason, and appealing to pub-
lie opinion, will, I am persuaded, be found
suiiicient to redress every real grievance in
tne practical operations ol’our system, when
ever it shall be resorted to by any respectable
number of states, though short of a majority
of the whole. The success of this constitu
tional remedy, does not merely depend on its
intrinsic force, however great that must be in
every- free Government—but it derives a de
cisive efficacy from the knowledge of those
u terior, though dormant remedies, which lie
in the hands of the states, above and beyond
the Constitution. I refer, Sir, to ihose natural
rights and powerful means of self defence
and active resistance which the States pos
sess in their complete municipal organizations
civil and military. It is in this view, that, in
ill the contemporary discussions'on the adop
tion of the Constitution, tjae state Governments
were constantly referred to, as “ affording, in
every possible contingency, a complete security
ag inst invasions of the public liberty by the
Federal authority.” (Fed. No. 28.) They
were to be, ultimately, not only the voice, but
if necessary the arm of the public discontent.
(Fed. No. 2G.) The advantages they pos
sessed, through their civil and military organ
izafion, for « combining all the resources of
the community in a regular plan of opposition;
“ of communicating with one another, and
uniting their common forces for the protection
of their common liberty for collecting the
public will, and directing t!.e public force;”
all these advantages and means of self defence
oi t c pan of the states,w re constantly refer
red to, and insisted on as demonstrating the ex
treme improbability of any serious attempt,
by the General Government, upon the liber
ties of the people or the states, and the cer
tain triumph of the true public cause,should such
an attempt be made. The remedies here al
luded to, are clearly revolutionary—“ above
and beyond the Consti uuon.” Thdy are
tion evidently intended toprovide, in the or* suc h as, I do firmly believe, there never will
ganization of the General Government itself,
important securities against the encroach
ments on the reserved powers of the states.
This body itself, representing as it does, the
states in their-coequal and sovereign charac
ters, was especially intended to guard the
rights of the states against invasion from the
Federal authority. Elected ns its members
are by the Legislatures of the states and res
ponsible to them, it could not be doubted that
they would be animated with a watchful and
jealous sensibility to the rights of their
constituents. One half of the states as rep
resented in this body, though embracing, as
might well happen, but one fourth part of the
people of the United States, have it in their
power to arrest • any legislative measure,
which would seem to them to infringe upon
their reserved powers. Here, then, we have
not only one security for the rights of the
states, but an efficient cheek to the domina
tion of that numerical majority, which h.is, of
late, been so frequently held up to the jeal-
ousy and denunciation of the states.
The President, also, is elected by the
« States ia their political capacities; the votes
allotted \6 each state being in a compound ratio
which considers them partly os distinct and
coequal societies, partly os unequal members
of the same society.” Being thus chosen by
the states, ha cannot be supposed to be indif
ferent to their rights; andtiic Constitution has
armed him with a veto, which the experience
of our political history, and especially of the
last four years, has shown may be effectually ' s
wielded for their defence.
But, if all toe branches of the Federal leg
islature, the President, the Senate, & House
of Representatives, should concur in the pas
sage of an unconstitutional measure, there is
still another resort within the pale of the Gen
eral Government itself. The Judiciary, hol
ding their offices by an independe at tenure,
and sworn to support the Constitution, may
declare such an act of the legislative authori.
ty null and void, and to refuse to carry it into
execution. Whatever leaning the courts ol
the United States may be suppqscd to have ia
favor of the Federal authority, examples are
not wanting nor very few, of their having pro
nounced against the validity of acta of Con
gress, on the ground ol their uncoastitution
ality; nor is it to be doubted, that they
will Continue to do so whenever the indepen
dent anrl (•onseiontions ovoreisi* n!";..J '
be any occasion, in the progress of our sys
tem, to call into exercise. But their potential
existence is of value as giving certain efficacy
to the moral remedies which are icithin the Urn
it.; of the Constitution, whenever those milder
remedies shall he resorted to, by any respec
table portion of the states; and it is in that
view I now refer to them.
There is another extra-constitutional rente
dy for the ultimate vindication of the rights of
the states, (when they shall have been dan
gerously and pcrseveringly assailed,) which
also deserves to be home in mind as adding to
the force and efficacy of those constitutional
remedies of which I have spoken as resting
on the moral influence of reason and opinion
This remedy deserves to be so much the more
considered ia this connection, because, though
extra-constitutional, it is at the same time
peacefui and complete. One half of the states
whenever fundamental invasions of their rights
by the General Government shall seem to
justify it, may peacefully suspendits operations
by simply declining to perform the function
assigned to them of electing senators, us in
inequality and injustice of which they have
complained. ‘
Let us contrast with this the effects which
uave been proffuceu by tae violent.and illegal
opposition oi Soutn Carolina, Have we not
ail seep, and ielt that'the attitude‘ot open hos
tility to the authority of the Union, assumed
by that Stale, is the great obstacle to the
prescat adjustment oi Uus distracting question?
Is u not the objection constantly urged h>
those otherwise manilesung the best disposi
tions xor jusuce aud conciliation ? Tne tion.
Senator irora Kentucky, (Mr. Clay,) has told
us tb**t, tor a long time, he considered the po
sition ot South > Caronna towards ihe Union,
as presenting an insuperuolc obstacle to any
legislations! relief during tne prese.it session
ot Congress, i am most nappy that that Hon
orable Sen-tor has, at laSi, seen cause to en
tertain other views, uud that he now icjis tne
injustice of withholding retiei ire * die . at *i v.
en States of the Sou.a generally ,04 -ccouni of
the violent and improper proceeaings oi a sin
gle one of them, i do not, certaiuly, partici
pate in the indulgence winch th .t risuu 0 uis.i-
ed Senator seerneu to feel for the errors oi
South Carolina, wuen he assuiuiated her con
duct to that of Virginia, in the case of Cohe*»s,
unn of Ohio, towards the Bank of the United
States. Sir, i can sec nothing in common
between the cases referred to, and the present
tilthaue of Soutii Carolina.
[:Ur. Clay here said he had admitted that
the nets ol' South Carolina were much more
offensive—tne measures of the States refer
red to were, in pimeipie, the same, though m
degree widely different—he meant nothing—
he felt nothing,in apology for South Carolina.
Mr. Rives continued—1 am not dispose.!,
Mr. President, to moot these questions with
tne iion. Senator from Kcutucky. Thougn
there did seem to me to be mi indulgent tone
m lus observations towards South Carolina,
m which 1 coulu not Sympathize, and while
am still unable to see any resemblance, eith
cr in principle or degree, between the course
ol V irgima and Ohio on the occasions alluded
to, and the conduct oi' South Carolina, I am
yet too much disposed to co-operate with the
honorable Senator in' the effort now to -adjust
this most distracting question, to raise any
points of needless discussion between us. lu
one thing, we are perfectly of accord—that
the conduct of South Carolina,' whatever may
be its true character, presents no proper ob
stucle to doing justice in a matter which as
deeply concerns the interests of other mem-
hers oi’ this confederacy, as Of that State.
But, Sir, the proceedings of my state, on
another occasion of far higher importance,
have been so frequently referred to in the
course of this debate, as an example to justi
fy the present proceedings of South Carolina,
that I may be excused for saying something
of them. What, then, was the conduct of
Virginia in the memorable era of ’98 and M 99?
She solemnly protested against the alien and
sedition acts as “ palpable aud alarming in
fractions of the Constitution”—she comniuni
cated that protest to the other states of the
Union, and earnestly appealed to them to
unite with her in a like declaration, that this
deliberate and solemn expression of the opin
ions of the States, as parties to the constitu
tional compact, should have its proper effect
on tiie councils of the nation in procurin
revision and repeal of the obnoxious acts.—
This was “ the head and front of her offend
ing—no more.” The whole object of the
proceeding was, by the peaceful force of pub
he opinion embodied, through the organ of the
state legislatures, to obtain a repeal of the laws
in question—not to oppose or arrestthcir.exe
culiou while they remained uurepealed. That
this was the true spirit and real purpose ofthe
proceeding is abundantly manifested by the
whole of the able debate which took place in
the Legislature of the state on the occasion.
All the speakers, who advocated the rcsolu
deserves. I notice it for the purpose ot Ye-J
marking that the decision was executed with
te dame order and tranquil suumissio »on the
part of people, ns could have been shown by
them oh a similar occasion, to any the most
lecessary, constitutional and popular acts ot
the Gover.me.it.” “Tiie General Assembly
and the good people of this commonwealth
nave acquitted themselves to their own con
sciences aud to their bretoren in America, in
support of a cause which they deem a national
ie, by the stand wtiich they made, and the
sentiments they expressed of these acts of the
Gener-il Government; but they have looked
for the change, in that respect, to a change it
the public opinion, which ouj- ht to be free, not
to measures of" violence, discord, and disunion,
which they abhor.”
It is thus-, sir, that the men of ’98 and ’99
then understood their own proceedings, and
that the honored few, who survive, still un-
erstand them. Let us now, sir, look at the
language of the proceedings themselves, and
see if that fairly w..rr mts my other coustruc-
be passages in th
the resolutions, th:
plate other modes oi
into t .ese, they must
rin B to those extreme
abuse or usurpation,
resort to original rights
stitutions.
Sir, it has been sometii s
that if the Virginia rcsolutiT
more than to assert a rignt
the part of the States, by di
Congress unco -stituiional,
on appeals to the other Stul
the General Government, t!
of Mr. Madison’s report was
ed in maintaining a right whii
contest. But, Sir, titis right
ffd justif.
it to all co..
ntingly sniff
ant nothing
erpogition on
p/uhibits, under i i<rh penalties, appeals from-
visions to the Courts of. the ..United State*,
there I and forbids, in like manner, the. furnishing rf
_ »ns i I any copy of a record to prosecute such an ap.
hi'ch seefito co item-1 peal. These provisions, also, snould be effect-
itirtss, JlftisoiVdbk 1 Ually counteracted. The judicial power of
considjnff aa refer-1 the United States, which is expressly declared
es oflvernmental [to extend to all cases in .law or equity arising
under the Constitution or laws of the United
states would, indeed, be a mischievous mock-
ery if it could not be made to reach cases of
tliis descriptioii. I would therefore declare,
as the bill declares, that the jurisdiction ofthe
circuit courts of the United States nh.ill ex-
ng an act of I tend to all cases ..rising under the rn>enue f !.iws
Unding there. I ofthe United States—that all suits orcoatro.
Well as to I versies of that character may be removed, as
e reasoiffa 1 t e third section of the bill provides, from the
sly expend-1 state to the United States Courts, on the pe.
- one would 1 titio i of the defendant, and that if a copy of
^ rmally a .d I th record be refused, it may be supplied by
tion. The proceedin „s of the legislature of explicitly contested by all fifties whic other means or secondary evidence. I n ro .
Virginia in ’98, consisted of a scries of reso- returned answers to the resoluft of Virgin-, gar-j to those clauses of the bill which provide
lutious, eight b number. The third resolu- 1 i;, with the exception of Kemup. 0 :ffy. Let for the removal of the Custpm House,, as hqp
tion, which has been tne one the most fre- j gentlemen look at the answers 1 4 by the ne n significantly and properly said, out of
quo nth appealed to, asserts the right of the • legislatures ol Delaware, Newark, Con-1 harm s way, and for requiring payment of du.
states, as parties to the compact, in c ises of > necticut, Rho le Island, Massac.jjfts, New I ties in cash, deducting interest, where it is ap.
a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous ex rcise Hampshire and Vermont, aud tu*will see 1 prehended that the payment ofthe bonds
by the General Government of powers not that this ri rht was boldly denied bthem all would be sought to be prevented, and t s
ranted by the compact, “ to interpose .or —that they all contended that the at of pro- cutting off in their source, controversies *. a
arresting the progress ofthe evil, aud for main- . uounciug on the constitutio .ality Macts of I very delicate and dangerous charecter, th„y
tainiug, within their respective limits, the au- the General Government, was excllfcly ves- -.re conceived in a laudable spirit of peace,
thorities, rights, and liberties, appertaining to ted in the Feder J Judiciary', and ft a dec-1 and I can see no well founded objection to
them.” The seventh resolution, after ex- laration by a st .to legislature, sucks Vir-1 them. T ie provisions are in general terms,
pressing the w*arm attachment of the people j ginia has made, of the unconstitu ittity of 1 applying alike to all portions of the country,
of Virginia to the Union and the Constitution, an act of Congress, was an unWarraftlc in- incase of unlawful obslruciio -s to the collec.
proceeds “ The General Assembly doth sol- terfcre-.ee with the constituted authors of 1 tion of the revenue. Whenever, and wher.
emnly appeal to the like dispositions m the the Union. ever, such obstructions shall arise, the law
other states, in confidence that they will con- i Attempts have also been made, Sii^ de-1 applies its remedy. If, in point of fact, it
cur with this Commonwealth in declaring, as cry this right as utterly idle and wor.
it docs hereby declare, that the acts afore, practice. I have -ilready had occasio'
said,” (the alien and sedition acts) “are un- mark that the exercise of tiffs right in
constitutional, and that the necessary and ’99, by rallying public opiiffon to the truj
that case, the majority requisite to constitute
a quorum of one branch of the Legislature,
essential to tiie integrity of the Government,
would be wanting. Tiffs opinion, at least,
lias been expressed by the highest judicial au-
thority in the Union. I refer to what was
s.ud by the distinguished Chief Justice of the
Supreme' Court, ia the famous case of Cohen
Virginia.
dent .and conscientious exercise of their judg
ments shall require of them such us an act
of’duty.
If all these securities, provided in the or.
gtmizotion ofthe General Government itself,
should fail, it would thcn.be the right, os the
duty ofthe states, to interpose their conscrva-
live influence. Though the Federal Judicia.
ry should have decided the acts complained
of to be constitutional, still the states, as sov
ereign parties to the compact, would have the
right to judge, in the last resort, whether the
compact had been pursued or not; to declare
‘inthe most solemn form, tliei{ opinions that
the acts in question are unconstitutional, and
to invite the co-operation, each oi the others,
in such measures as should be necessary and
proper either to obtain a repeal of the often-
jdve acts, or procure an .amendment of the
Constitution itself These are modes of state
interposition clehrly within the limits ofthe Con
stitution. There may ho others, also within
the limits of the Constitution. I am cot pre-
With all theso means of ultimate practical
control,resting in the hands of the states, it
cannot be presumed that their solemn remon
strances, in the character of sovereign par
ties to the .constitutional compact, would Be
long disregarded by the Government of the
Union. It is true that neither the complaints
nor the opposition of a single state might carry
witii them a decisive iatiuence. But if the
usurpation of the grievance compluined of
were it serious one, the denunciations of it
would not be confined to a sin Je st le. Oth
ers would unite—their concurring appeals,
bottomed on reason aud justice, would be sus-
tained by u growing public scntiineut in the
moss of the nation, and to this progressive
moral power, entorced aud strengthened, us
I have shown, by other considerations, the
councils ofthe Union must always ultimately
yield. It was thus, sir, in the great struggle
of’98 and ’99, in relation to the alien and se-
ditiou laws, which fell beneath the moral pow
er of tiie stales as the pioneers and organs of
public opinion. The salutary efficacy of
that same moral power has already mani
fested itself, in the most encouraging man
per, in relation to that system of policy which
is the present subject of oar remonstrances
aid complaints. Have we not seen in the
north the legislatures of Maine, of New Hamp
shire and New-York, one offer another, res
ponding to the argumentative appeals of the
southern states, and uniting with them in de
manding on essential modification ofthe exis
ting tariff. In the centre ofthe Union like
wise, the altered tone of Pennsylvania gives
assurance of an auspicious change of opinion
already commencing there. In these re
sults, due aloueto the moral ibree of the re-f l
monstrances and appe Js which have procee
ded from the southern States, we have a cer
tain guarantee of tho speedy redress of the
tions which were finally adopted, distinctly
placed them on that legitimate, constitutional
ground. 1 need only refer to tho emphatic
declaration of John Taylor, of Caroline—the
distinguished mover and able champion of the
resolutions. He said “the appeal was
specification b« r v raa( i e m urt
according to a
taiiou, as excluding* V^ ie ^
ier and those who adopteiv*^
era uot specified from, the ch
tional inodes pf sfittefipti
ansidered,
j>f interpre-
[of.thewri-
ail oth-
cortsti'U-
clusiv'dy to the state courts, the judges and
jurors of which are to be found by a solemn
to carry the ordinance into execution-
m I s-iOtiiu at present apply to South Carolina only,
re-1 the fault will be hers, in opposing unlawful
and I obstructions which exist no where else, and
not that of the law, which is equal and gene.
similar and not less violent denuu Elions of
tiie ict for enforcing the. embargo, Muring Mr.
jeiiorso'.i’s admiuistrali bear ajuipL ksti.
mo.iy. My worthy colleague, (Mr. Tyler,)
proper measures will be taken by each for ciples ofthe constitution, and embody in its I rul in its proviso us.
cooperating with tnis state in maintaining un- expression in imposing organized formsn’as I The art of calli ig hard names, Mr. Presi.
impaired the authorities, rights, aud lib- found adequate, not only to ’correct thOor. dent, has exhausted all its resources cn the
erti ;s reserved to the States respectively, or ticulur usurpations of the alien and se|on I unfortunate bill on your table. But, sir, this
to the people.” Now, sir, it is u dmdamen- acts, but to produce an entire fundanfttal is no novelty in our political histdrv, ns the
i rule of interpretation, in regard to acts and revolution in the administration of the go
documents of every description, that in order ; ment. The striking and still pro r e
to arrive at their true sense and meaning, the j changes of public opinion ia various t|u.d|s
whole must be construed in reference to each of the Uaio - on the subject of the tariff', w
other. The two resolutions just cited, thee. 1 have also ha J occasion to notice, bear <
must be considered i. connection with each tinued testimony to tho eflic cy of the sa
other. The .ormer asserts theri.ht of the constitutional remedies. Sir, m a system hi
States to interpose for maintaining the authori- ours, lbunded on tho moral torce of pub!
ties, rights, and liberties appertaining to the rc- o; iiffon, it is remedies of tiffs sort, I am pell Judge ofthe District to provide convenient
spectivc states. But in what manner, by whut suaded, that will be found most effectual I place to serve as a temporary jaii, ami to
measures, are these rights and liberties of the while violent and unconstitutional modes Jlinake the necessary provision! for tne safe
States-to be maintained ? The latter of the redress, like that of South Carolina, will eveikeeping of prisoners committed|un<icr the au.
two resolutions give the answer—“byneces- be atte :ded with danger of reaction, excit:<jhority of the United States./ Now, sir, let
sary a d proper measures to he taken ny each prejudice, coniirm the obstinacy ol power, its enquire wiu< was the motiw of this
in his fervid eloquence, denomiaafcd it a Rot.
any Bay Bill, and founded his {enunciation
on the clause which authorizes tjie Marshal,
in certain cases, under the direktion ot the
idc K c
i provis.
(hr co-o]x;rating with Virginia in maintaining and raise up new obs.ucles ia th;
ummp tired the authorities, rights and liber- lief,
ties reserved,” <kc. The measures were to \ Sir, I would appeal to gentlemen from the
be not only necessary and proper, but such as south, who profess attachment to the Consti-
admitted o(co-operation, mcuseresio be “tak- tutio ial loctriu s which are cherisued'iu that
en by each for co-operating with Virginia in quarter ofthe U»ffoi, aud ask, when was there
maintaining,” &c. Tiffs language obviously ever less occasion to despair of the moral
excludes all measures, which have their full power and ultimate ascendency of a sound
and complete effect within the limits of the re- j public opinion? When have more triumphs
spective States. Kentucky could not, forex- been won for the cause of State rights and of
ample, co-operate with Vir iuia in an act, by ■ limited Constitutional construction, than dur-
wtffch Virginia should nullify a law ofthe U. [ ing the last four ye .rs, by the patriotic Chief
States, within her own limits, beci;.usa, there, j Magistrate, in whom the public opinio.* of this
of
public opinion—-if that is against us, we must
yield.” The same sentiment was avowed and
maintained by every friend of the resolutions
throughout the debate.
But, Sir, the real intentions and policy
Virginia were proved, not by declarations aqd
speeches merely, but by facts. If there ever
was a law odious to a wholipeoplo by its dar
ing violation of the fundamental guarantees of
public liberty, the irecdom of speech and the*
freedom of the press, it was the se fftio a law
lol.ie people of Virginia. Yet, ami-, .di this
indignant dissatisfaction fter the solemn
protest of the LegisU ur • ia ’93, and the
renewal of that protest tin ’99-—this most
odious and arbitrary law was peaceably carri
ed into execution in the-.capital ofthe state by
the prosecution and punishment of Callender,
who was fitted and imprisoned for daring to
canvass the conduct of our public men, (as
Lyon and Cooper have been elsewhere,) and
was still actually imprisoned when the Legis
lature assembled in December, 1890. Not.
withstanding the excited sensibility of the pub-
lie mind, no popular tumult, legislative in-
torferenco disturbed, in any manner, the full
tnd peaceable execution of'the- law. The
senate will excuse me, I .rust, for calling their
attention to a roost forcible commentary on
tiie true character of the Virginia proceedings
of ’98 aud ’99, (;ts illustrated in this transac
tion,^ which was contained in the official com
munication of Mr. Monroe, the Governor of
the state, to tiie- Legislature at its assembling
in December, 1800. After referring to the
iistribution which had beeu ordered to be
made among the people, of Mr, Madison’s
celebrated report of ’99, he says—J*Iu coq-
uectiou with this subject, it is proper to ode!
that, since our last session, the sedition law,
the measure would receive its foil aud com
plete effect by the separate and independent
action of Virginia. Such measures, there
fore, must have beeu contemplated by the res
olutions of Virginia, as, although adopted sep.
arately by each of the st ttes ia tne uiccption,
were yet to have their final effect bey ond their
respective limits, in being directed to a com
mon object, for the attainment of wliich, the
States could co-operate with each other. That
object, in the case of the alien und sedition
acts, was the repeal of the pimoxious laws;
and the measures hy which- it was to be
sought were to be legislative protests against
their uuconstitutio .ality, instructions to the
representatives of the States iu Congress, di
rect remonstrances to Congress, and sueh
other modes of interposition as mi jit be deem
ed most eligible to bring the public opinion
of the States to bear, with united weight, ou
the councils of the Union.
The important question which has arisen
on the Vir. i .ia resolution oi '99, is lot what
inodes of redress might be justiffaule in ex
treme coses, and on the principles of natural
rigid, Hut what meusur s of state interposition
were leemed to be consistent with the Con-
sututidn itself. Besides the evidence on *uts
point for ushed by proper attention to th.; res- ‘
olulions themselves, as just explained, the
question is conclusively settled by the subse-
quo-.t report of’99, wliich is known to - have
been drawn hy the pen of Mr Madison, then
a member of the Virginia legislature, as the
previous resolutions of ’98 were also from'
him, though he was not then a member of that
body. Therepor:, in reviewing that part of
the seventh resolution already cited, which
refers to the necessary and proper measures
to be taken by the states for co-operat
ing with each other in muintai tin . tii ir ri hts,
specifies the v urious measures of th .t sort,
which are deemed to be “within the limits
ofthe Constitution.” After insisting that a
declaration by a state legisl -.turn of the ud-
constitutionality of on act of Congress, and
au appeal to other st.ues to concur i 1 the dec.
laration, is a measure of state interposition
“ withiu the limits of the Constitutionthe
report also mentions, os being of u like char
acter, a direct remoustnince ofr.the legisla
tures of the States to Congress, instructions to
their respective Senators to propose an ex
planatory amendment of the Constitution, and
one ofthe aots complained of, haq been car
ried iatq effect ia this commonwealth by the
Sr of a federal court. I notice this
.event, fiot with a view of censuring or ciith
-ciaing.it.. The transaction has gone to the
2 world and the impartial will judge of it as it
country has found a firm and uaiiinching ore
gaii? Has he not, Sir, by the cour t eous
exercise of u power which had hitherto almost
lain dormant in the Constitution, annihilated
the earliest encroachment of feder 1 power?—
has he not, iqlike manner, artested the'waste
ful torrent oi public expenditure for unconsti
tutional objects?—and has he not nobly used,
as he is still using, the hi^h influence, with
which the confidence of his country has
invested him, .o relieve every portion of that
country from the burthens of the unequal anti
oppressive system of taxation of which we
complain ? Sir, I reier to these topics with
no wish to awaken any unpleasant recollec
tions of past contests here or elsewhere, but
simply to remind gentlemen who come rom
that portion ot' the couutry where the politic
al principles to which 1 have uiludcd so gene
rally prevail, of the rapid progress' which
tnose principles have made, under tiie auspi
ces ofthe present Chief Magistrate, towards
a settled ascendency in the public councils :
an-tto ask them if there ever Was less reason
ibr ti.e friends of those principles to distrust
tiie peucefol in.lu nee of opinion, and by fly-
ing to extremities, to hazard not only theiriri-
umph, but the existence of o.ur mstitutio .a
themselves.
I will proceed now, Mr. President, to state
very hri- fly, my ideas of what we are called
upon to do ia tiie preseut cin umsta.*ces ofthe
cou .tr*. If ice were to separate without do
in., something, and sometning effectual too,
to vindicate the despised authority of the laws,
the Government and the Union would be
thenceforward virtually dissolved. Our oaths
to support the Constitution—our highest du
ties to our country (which, having a right to
equal laws, is entitled also to an equal execu
tion of them) demand, at our hands, proper
and effectu .1 provisions lor tiie execution o*
the laws in question. My plan, then, woul.
be simply tins—I would take up this uew
code of nullification, I would examine it in all
its iqveutious, aud apply to every one of
devices, au effectual counteraction. Whe:
.is, nullification provides that goods
the payment of duties shall be taken out oi
hands of the collector or marshal un der jilor
of a fraudulent process of replevin uesgncd
for the sole purpose of defeating the \ifts of
the United St .tea : I would say, as
now under consideration says, on
way of re-|un. Heretofore, in South
[ther states, persons rr
derthc authority ofthe
cu confined in the jails
'.cr recent legislation,
...dJen, under very
ui> of her public jails t
at has mo o .’-r. {
pt*oas under poi. *
ni'M, .rom . hiring
hotle, or building, to
Unftd States. In
can* absolutely nec
oth cl provision for th'
the:
applications from themselves to Congress, for principles of jurisprudence, that
thil
uliua as in the
or committed
i States, nave
state. But,
nth Carolina has
h pen .Itu s, the
the Uni’, d St tes,
ihited ali pri* !o
tine nd m;»r .-on.
etting any pi cc,
used as ajeil, by the
state of things, it be.
ry to make some
usto'ly of debtors and
otheA, who might be* rrested or committed
underlie authority United States; and
that plovisior. is m e
r soiiaoa of Con r
p .sseqtio provide
on thopart of any
with a previous r
respecting foe usi
Si des. I Bv what
iu ihe very words of a
ofthe 3d M rcli, 1791,
the c.iso of a failure,
the States, to comply
irmhenduriou of Congress
f their jails by th<- United
ocess a provision so sim
ple andhatural c.iJbc metamorp.iose.. into u
Botany Biv Bill,/am at a loss to .conceive,
as r think my Moruble colleague, when he
comes to review more calmly, will be not
l ss at a loss toppl>ffn.
But, sir, the pt vehement denunciations
have been cirefd against those clauses of
the bill, wnicMuthorue the employ ment ot
railit-ry .brceJi certain cases, to repel ah
tempts by fori to obstruct the execution ot
tbo laws. Whnve been told, t.»at it is ma
king war ujf f orth Carolina. Now, sir,
w-iiie I do n{ concur in the policy of these
provisions, Jhe present moment, for r .a-.
sons which /shall presently state, I u 0‘-r y
deny the ji/ess of tiffs qualification ot the
bill, as wefts tne principle on which it was
founded, /here is no proceedin ’ whatever,
iu my parf f this affair, ag.ffnst South v,..ro-
linn/ TmGovernment of the U. States, m
the execib.i ofthe laws, ccnhave no proper
referenedo St. ks. It acts upor. indivi uals,
not upoit. tes, .m I have already hint occa-
sioa db/lantly to shew; and the Consti
tution <#hc United States, when it declared
thatn/ia; iuthe Constitution or laws qf «
state should co ret the Unit*
has not permitted the Govern-
tes,
ofthe
part!
cd Sfiea, ii*«j ***>. v'' . , .c
menfof the Union, in executing the laws oi, ^
the/nited States, to enquire if oppositioa to
tli/ is, or is not authorized by a particular
'e. If the laws be opposed by costitta*.
too powerful to be overcome int® or
course of judicial i roceediagfl.
i
the foil of u Convention. At the end of this
specification, the report adds “ these several
means, though not equally eligible in them-
selves, nor probably to the states, were oil con
stitutionally open for consideration.” As the
occasion culled for a full exposition ofthe
measures of State interpositibn deeraad to,be
“within the limits of*the Constitution,” the
•he custody of the law are irreple
shall be given up onl , in obedio c
der or decree of a Court of the U
Nullification, while it subjects ot!
United States to heavy penalties
settled
thus in
lo, and
or-
ff States,
of the
d damages
f ary course ot judicial
sesame right, uuffer tiieCo^“» ^ ^
cute the laws by caih.ig in the ai
tarv power, whether such comhia io
wonzod by a law of the < wl ” ch
Coiistirution hua declare* w ® ,
•j'J. das- i
untary. I have nob ’ r ti
I. ' ,hf» ri'fot and power -of the
the country, in, a oose like the
k- noressarI am also
fto the
for iischarging their duties, prq/idcs that all
controversies, civil or criminor, which may
arise under its ordinance, s^ilibc drawm. ex-
l tii.' ■ f am also aware that th®
provisionsli the hill now alluded to, are stdet-
fv defensive, authorizing force only- to tspd
force* that, amended as they have been, th> I
• ve a ’ ^ less extensive power over the imh-
rerv force, than was given duriffg the admin.
• nation of Mr. Jefferson for the enforcement
lS f flip embargo; and that in > fact, they give
no powee bf that sort which does not already