Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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