Newspaper Page Text
Congress is not irresponsible. Its mem
bers are agents of the people, elected by
them, answerable to them, and liable to be
displaced or superseded at their pleasure ;
and they possess as fair a claim to the con
fidence of the people, while they continue to
deserve it, as any other public political agents.
If, then, sir, the plain intention of the con
vention, and the contemporary admission ot
both friends and foes, prove any tiling; it
plain text of the instrument itseif, as well as
the necessary implication from other provis
ions, prove any thing : if the early legislation
of Congress, the course of judicial decisions,
acquiesced in by all the states for forty years
prove any thing, then it is proved that there is
u supreme law, and a final interpreter.
My fourth and last proposition, Mr. Presi
dent, was, that any attempt by a state to abro
gate or nullify acts of Congress, is an usurpa
tion on the powers of the General Government
and on the equal rights of the other states, a
violation of the constitution, and a proceeding
essentially'revolutionary. This is undoubt,
edly .true, if the preceding proposit ions he re
garded as proved. If the government of the
I Juried States be trusted with the duty, in any
department, of declaring the extent of its own
powers, then a state Ordinance, or act of leg.
islution, authorizing resistance to an act of
Congress, on the allcdged ground of its uncon-
tditutionality, is manifestly a usurpation upon
its powers.
If the states have equal rights, in matters
concerning the whole, then for one state to
set up her judgment against the judgment of
the rest, and to insist on executing that judg
ment by force, is also a manifest usurpation
of the rights of other States.
If the constitution of the United States be
a government"proper, with authority to pass
laws and to give them an uniform interpreta
tion and execution, then the interposition of a
ste le, to enforce her own construction, and to
rceist.as to herself, that law which binds the
other Stotes,- is a violation of the constitu-
tion.
And if that be revolutionary which arrests
the legislative, executive, and judicial power
of government, dispenses with existing oaths
and obligations of obedience, and elevates an-
other power to supreme dominion, then nul
lification is revolutionary.* Or if that be rev.
olutionary, the natural tendency and practi
cal effect of which is to break the Union into
fragments, to sever all connexion among the
people of the respective states, and to pros
trate this General Government in the dust,
then nullification is revolutionary.
Nullification, sir, is as distinctly revolution
ary as sccssion : but I cannot say that the
revolution which it seeks is one of so respec
table a character. Secession would, it is
true, abandon the Constitution altogether ; but
then it would profess to abandon it. What
ever other inconsistences it might run into,
one, at least, it would avoid. It would not be
long to a Government, while it rejected its
authority. It would not repel the burden,
and continue to en joy the benefits. It would
not aid in passing laws which others are lo
t hey, and yet reject their authority as to it
self. It would not undertake to reconcile
obedience to public authority, with an asser
ted right of command over that same authori
ty. It would not be in the Government, and
above the government at the same time. But
however more respectable a mode seces
sion may be, it is not more truly revolutionary
than the actual execution of the doctrines of
nullification. Both, and each resist the con
stitutional authorities ; both and each, would
sever the Union, and subvert the Govern,
nmt.
Mr. President, having detained the senate
so long already, I will not examine at length
the ordinance and laws of South Carolina.
These papers are well drawn for their pur-
pose. Their authors understood their own
objects. They are called a peaceful remedy
and we have been told that South Carolina,
after all intends nothing but a law-suit. A
very few words, sir, will show the nature of
t lis peaceable remedy, and of the lawsuit
which South Carolina contemplates.
In the first place, the ordinance declares
the law of last July, and all other laws of the
United States laying duties, to bo absolutely
null and void, and makes it unlawful for the
constituted authorities of the United States to
enforce the payment of such duties. It is
therefore, sir, an indictable offence, at this
moment, in South Carolina, for any person to
be concerned in collecting revenue, under the
laws of the United States. It being declare 1
unlawful to collect these, duties by whst> is
considered a fundamental law of the state, an
indictment lies of course against anyone con.
cerned m such collection, and he is on gener
al principles, liable to be punished by fine and
imprisonment. The terms it is true, are, that
it is unlawful “ to enforce the payment of
duties but every custom houso officer en
forces payment while he detains the goods, in
order to obtain such payment. The ordi
nance, therefore, reaches every body con
cerned in the collection of the duties.
This is the first stop in the prosecution of
the peaceable remedy. The second is more
decisive. By the act commonly called the
replevin law, any person whose goods arc
seized or detained by the Collector for the
payment of duties, may serve out a writ of
replevin, and by virtue of thft writ, the goods
are to be restored to him. A writ of replev
in is a writ which the sheriff is bound to
execute, and for the execution of which he is
hound to employ force, if necessary. He
may call out the posse,and must do so if resis
tance be made. This posse may be armed
or unarmed. It may come forth with military
array. And under the lead of military men.
Whatever number of troops may be assem
bled in Charleston, they may be summoned,
with the Governor, or commander-in-chief,
at their head, to come in aid of the sheriff.
It is evident, then sir, that the whole military
power of the State is to be employed, whenev
er necessary, in dispossessing the costom
'house officers, and in seizing and holding, the
goods without paying the duties. This is the
second step in the peaceable remedy.
Sir, whatover pretences may be set up to
the contrary, this is the direct application of
force and of military force. It is unlawful,
in itself, to replevy goods in the custody of the
collectors. But this unlawful act is to be
done, and is to be done by power. Here is
a plain interposition, by physical force, to re
sist the laws of the Union. The legal mode
of collecting duties is to detain goods till such
duties are paid or secured. But force comes
and overpowers the Collector, and his assis
tants, and takes away the goods, leaving the
duties unpaid. . There connot be a clearer
case of forcible resistance to law’. And it is
provided that the goo is thus seized, shall be
held against any attempt to retake them, by
the same force which seized them.
Having thus dispossessed the officers of the
Government of the goods, without payment of
duties, and seized and secured them by the
strong arm oftiie state, only one thing more
remained to be done, and that is to cut off all
possibility of legal redress; and that too is
accomplished, or thought to he accomplished.
The ordinance decrees, that all judicial procee
dings founded on the revenue laws (including,
of course,proceedin g in the courts of the Uni
ted States,) shall be null and void. This nul
lifies the judicial power of the United Sta'cs.
Then conics the test oath act. This requires
all state judges and jurors in the state courts
to swear that they will execute the ordinance,
and all acts of the Legislature, passed in pur
suance thereof. The ordinance declares,
that no appeal shall be allowed from the decis
ion of the state courts to the Supreme Court
of the Uunitcd States ; and the replevin act
makes it an indictable offence for any clerk
to furnish a copy of the record, for the pur
pose of such appeal.
The two principal provisions on which South
Carolina relies, to resist the laws of the Uni
ted States, and nullify the authority of this
Government, are, therefore, these :
1. A forcible seizure of goods before the
duties are paid or secured, by the power of the
State, civil or military.
2. The t.Jiiug away, by the most effectual
means in her power, of all legal redress in
the Courts of the United States; the confi
ning all judicial proceeding to her own State
tribunals; .and the compelling of her judges
and jurors of these, her own courts, to take
an oath beforehand, that they will decide all
cases according to the ordinance, and tiic
acts passed under it; that is, that they will
decide the cause one way. They do not
swear to try it, on its own merits, they only
swear to decide it as nullification requires.
The character, Sir, of these provisions, de
fies comment. Their object is as phiin as
their meant are extraordinary. They; -repose
direct resistance, by the whole power of the
State, to laws of Congress, to cut off, by me.
thods deemed adequate,* any redress by legal
and judicial authority. They arrest legisla
tion, defy the Executive, and banish the judi
cial power of this Government. They author
ize and command acts o be done,and do .c by
force, both of numbers and of arms, which if j limitations which the
, lone and done by force, are clearly acts of it has expressed; an
state should rush into conflict with -lithe rest,
attempt to put down the power of the U>.io .
by her own laws, and to support those laws
by her military power, and thus break up and
destroy the world’s last nope. And well the
world may be incredulous. We, who hear
and see it can ourselves hardly yet believe it.
Even after all that had preceded it, this ordi
nance struck the country with amazement.—
It was incredible and inconceivable, that
South Carolina should thus plunge headlong
into resistance to the laws, on a matter of
opinion, and on a question in which the pre
ponderance of opinion, both of the present
day anil all past time, was so overwhelming,
ly against her. The ordinance declares that
Congress has exceded its just |vower, by lay-
i lg duties on imports-intended for the protec
tion of manufactures. This is the opinion of
South Carolina; and on the strength of that
opinion she nullifies the laws. Yet hits the
rest of the country no right to its opi .ion Jso 1
Is our state to sit sole arbitress ? She main
tains that those Lws arc plain, deliberate,
and palpable viol itions of the Constitution;
that she has a sovereign right to decide this
matter; and, that, having so decided, she is
authorized to resist their execution, by her
tiwn sovereign power; and she declares that
she will resist it, though such resistance
should shatter the Union into atoms.
Mr. President, I do not intend to discuss
the propriety of these laws at far ic; but I
will ask, how are they shown to be thus plain
ly and palpably unconstitutional 1 Have they
no countenance at all in the constitution itself*?
Arc they quite new in the history of the
Government ? Are they a sudden and vio
lent usurpation on the rights of thestutes ?—
Sir, what will the civilized worl 1 say ; what
will posterity say, when they learn that simi
lar laws have existed from the very founda
tion of the Government; that for thifty years,
the power was never questioned; and that
no state in the Union has more freely and un
equivocally admitted it than South Carolina
herself?
To lay and collect duties and imposts, is
an express power, ^rantvd by the Constitution
to Congress. It is, also, an exclusive power;
for the Constitution us expressly prohibits all
the states from exercising it themselves. Tins
express and exclusive power is u..limited in
the terms ofthe gra *t, but is attended with two
specific restrictions : first, that all duties and
imposts shall be equal in all the states : se
cond, that no duties shall be laid ou exports.
The power, then, being granted, and being
attended with th se two restrictio :s, aid no
more, who is to impose a third restriction on
the general words of the grant? Iftne pow
er to lay duties, as known among all other na
tions, and us known in all our history, and as
it was perfectly understood when the Co ;sti-
tutioa was adopted, iucludcs a right of dis
criminating, while exercising the power, and
of laying some duties heavier,and some light
er, for the s ke of encouraging our own do
mestic products, what authority is there for
giving to the words used in the Constitution a
now, narrow, and unusual Meaning? Alt the
Constitution intended,
w'ut it has left mins-
reb' llio'.i and treason.
Such, Sir, are the laws of South Carolina;
such, Sir, is the peaceable remedy of nullifi-
cation. Has not nullification reached, Sir,
even thus early, that point of direct and forci
ble resistance to law, to which I jntimated,
three years a<”>,It plainly intended?
And now, >lr. President, what is the rca-
son for passing laws like these?* What are C r %
the
tricted, .s as much a part of its will as
restr ti.ts which it h..s imiosed.
Bui these laws, itis s i j are unconstitution
al on accou.it of the/iio/up How, Sir, can
a law he exumi ed on any such ground ?—
One
have one motive;
the other House, or anotij r member, unotii-
tnay operate to-day, and
How is the motive to be [ascertained ?
House, or one member, nil}
One motive
the oppressions experienced unde? the Union, j another to-morrow. Upon any such mode
c dling for measures which thus thre hen to of reasoning as this, one law might be u coti-
sever and destroy it? What invasion of
public liberty, what ruin to private happiness,
wlrat long list of rights violated, or wrongs un.
redressed, is to justify to the country, to pos
terity, and to the world, this assault u|>on
the free Constitution of the United States, this
great and glorious work of our f.thers ?
At this very moment, Sir, the whole land
smiles in piece, and rejoices in plenty. A
general ard a high prosperity pervades the
country; and judging bv the common stan
dard, hv increase of population and wealth; or
judging by the opinions of that portion of her
people not embarked in those dangerous and
desperate mcaures,this prosperity overspreads
South Carolina herself.
Thus, happy at home, our country at the
same time, holds high the character of her in
stitutions, her power, her rapid growth, and
her future destiny, in the eyes of all foreign
states. One danger, only, creates hesitation;
o :e doubt only exists to darken the otherwise
unclouded brightness of that aspect which
she exhibits to the view, and to the admira
tion of the world. Need I sav that that doubt
respects the permanency of our Union; and
need I say, that that doubt is now caused,
more than by any thing else, by these very
proceedings of South Carolina ? Sir, all Eu
rope is at this moment, beholding us, and look-
ing for the issue of this controversy ; those
who hate free institutions, with malignant
hope ; those who love them, with deep anx
iety and shivering fear.
The cause, then, sir, the cause ? Let the
world know the cause which has thus indue-
ed one State of the Union to bid defiance to the
power ofthe whole, and openly to talk of se
cession.
Sir, the world will scarcely believe that this
whole controversy, and all the desperate mea
sures which its support requires, have-no oth-
•r foundation than a difference of opinion,upon
a provision of the Constitution between a ma
jority of the people of South Carolina, on one
side, and a vast majority of, the whole peo
ple of the United States on the other. It will
not credit the fact, it will not admit the possi
bility that, in an enlightened age, in a free,
popular republic, under a Government where
the people govern, as they must always gov
ern, under such systems, by majorities, at a
time of unprecededted happiness, without
practical oppression, without evils, such as
may not only be pretended, but felt and expe
ricnced; evils, not slight or temporary, but
deep, permanent, and intolerable, a single
stitutioual now, and another law in exactly the
same words, perfectly constitutional next
year. Besides, articles may not only be taxed
for the purpose of protecting home products,
but other articles may he left free, for the
same purpose, and with the same motive.—
A law therefore, would become unconstitu
tional from what it omitted as well as what
it contained. Mr. President, it is a settled
principle acknowledged in all legislative halls,
recognized before all tribunals, sanctioned by
the general sense and understanding of man
kind, that there can he no inquiry into the
motives of those who pass laws, for the pur
pose determining on their validity. If the
law be within the fair incauing of the words
in the grant of the power, its authority must
be admitted until it is repealed. This rule
every where acknowledged, every where ad
mitted, is so universal, uhd so completely
without exception, ns that even an allegation
of fraud, in the majority of a Legislature, is
not allowed as a ground to set aside a law.
But, Sir,i9 it true, that the motive for these
laws is such as is stated? I think not. The
great object of all these laws is, uuquestiona
bly, revenue. If there were no occasion
for reveniie, the laws would not have been
passed; and it is notorious.that almost the en
tire revenue ofthe country is derived from
them. And, as yet, we have collected none
too much revenue.’ The treasury hae not
been more exhausted for many years than at
the present moment. AU that South Caro-
linacan say is, that, in passing the laws which
she now undertakes to nullify, particular ar
ticles were taxed r rom a regard to the protection
of domestic articles, higher than they would have
been, had no such regard been entertained.—
And she insists that, according to the Con.
btitution, no such discrimination con be allow
cd; that the duties should be laid for revenue,
and revenue only; and that it is unlawful to
have reference, in any case, to protection.—
In other words, she denies the power of dis
crimination. She does not, and cannot,
complain of excessive taxation; on the con.
trary, she professes to be willing to pay any
amount for revenue, merely as revenue; and
up to the present moment there is no surplus
of revenue. Her grievance, then, that plain
and palpable violation ofthe constitution, which
she insists has taken place, is simply the ex
ercise ofthe power of discrimination—Now,
Sir, is the exercise of this power of discrim,
ination plainly and palpably unconstitutional?
I have already said, the power to lay duties
is given by the Constitution iu broad and gen
eral terms. There is also conaffd on Con-
gres the w.iole power of regulating commerce
iu another distinct provision. Is it clear aid
palpable, Sir, can any man say it is a case be
yond doubt, that, under these two powers.
Congress may not justly discriminate i** lay
ing duties for the purpose of countervailing the
jhrficy of foreign nations, or of favouring our
home productions ? Sir, wliat ought to co -
elude this question forever, as it would seem
to me, is, that the regulation of commerce, ant.
the imposition of duties are, in all cohuncrci 1
nations, powers avowedly and constantly ex
ercised for this very end. That undeniable
truth ought to settle the question ; because
the Constitution ought to be considered, when
it uses w’ell known language, as using it in its
well k‘own sense. But it is equally unde
niable that it has been, from the very first,
fully believed that this power of discrimina
tion was conferred on Congress; and tin.
Constitution was itself recommended, ur
ged upon the people, and enthusiastically i -
sisted on, in. some ofthe states, iorthat very
reason. Not that, at that time, the country
was extensively engaged in mauuluctures, es
pecially of those kinds now existing. Bm
the trades and crafts ofthe seaport towns, th
business of the urtizuns, and manual labors
those employments, the work of which sup
plies so great a portion of the daily wants o
all classes, all these looked to the new Con.
sti ulion as a source of relief from the sovi r
distress which followed the war. It would
Sir, he unpardonable, at so late an hour, to
go into details ou this point; but the trute is
as I have stated. The papers ofthe day, the
resolutions of public meetings, the debates in
the conventions, alt that we open our eyes
upon, in the history of die times, prove it,
The honorable gentleman, Sir, from Soum
Carolina, has referred to two incidents co -
ncctcd with the procee.iiu: s of the conven
tion at Philadelphia, which he thinks - r.
evidence to slow that the power of protecting
manufactures,by laying duties, and by com
mcrcial regulations, was not intended to be
given to Congress. The first is, ns he says,
that a power to protect manufactures was ex
pressly proposed, hut not granted. I think,
Sir, the gentleman is quite mistaken iu rela
tion to this part ofthe proceedings of the con
vention. The whole history of the occur
rence to which he alludes is simply this:—
Towards the conclusion ofthe convention, af
ter the provisions of the Constitution had been
mainly agreed upon, after the power to lay
duties, and the power to regulate commerce,
had both been granted, a lo i. list of proposi
tions was m ido and referred to ttio committee,
co itai.ni ig v rious miscellaneous powers,
some or all of which it was thought might
be properly vested in Coa ress. Amou •
these, was a power to establish a university ,
to grant charters of incorporation, to regu
late stage coaches on tiie post roads; .nd,
also, the power to which the gentleman refers,
and whicn is expressed in these words: “To
establish public institutions, rewards, and ini-
muni i»-s, for iie promotio t of u^rieu turn,
commerce, trades, and manufactures.” The
committee made no report on this, or various
other propositions in the same list. But the
onl infer cefrom this ouiision is,that neither
the committee nor the convention thought it
proper to authorize Co igress ■'■to establish
public institutions, rewards and immunities,” for
the promotion of manufactures, a id otuer i .-
rests. The convention supposed it had
done enough, at any rate, it had - done ill it
intended when it had given to Congress, in
general terms, the power to lay imposts, and
the power to regulate trade. It is not to be
ir rued, from its omission to give more, that
it meant to take back W’liat it had already gi-
vcn. It had given the impost power, it had
given the regulation of trade, and it did not
deem it necessary to ive the fur her and dis
tinct power of establishing public i nstitutions.
The oth r fact, Sir, on which the ge tie-
man relies, is the declaration of Mr. Martin
to the Legis! turc of Maryland. The gen-
tlcman supposes Mr. Martin to have urged
ag.iinst the Constitution that it .lid not con
tain the power of protection. But, if the gen
tleman will look again at wliat Mr. Martin
said, he will find, I think, that what Mr. Mar
tin complained of, was that the Constitution,
by its prohibitions on the states, had taken
away from the states themselves the power
of protecting their own manufactures by du
ties on imports. This is undoubtedly true ;
hut I find uo expression of Mr. M rtin inti
mating that the Constitution had not conferred
o i Congress the same power which it had
thus taken from the states.
But, Sir, let us go to the first Congress;—
let us look i: upon this and the oiher House,
at the first session of their organization.
We see iu both Houses men distinguished
among the framers, friends, and advocates of
the Constitution. We see in both, those who
had drawn, discussed, and matured the in
strument in the convention, explained and
defended it before the people, and w’ere now
elected members of Congress to put the new
Government into motion, and to carrv the
powers of the Constitution into beneficial ex
ecution. "
At the head of the Government was Wash
ington himself, who had been President of the
convention, and in his cabinet'were others
most thoroughly acquainted with the history of
the Constitution, and distinguished for the part
taken in its discussion.
If these persons were not acquainted with
the meaning of the Constitution ; if they did
not understand the work of their own hands,
who can understand it, or who shall now in-
terpre’t it to us ?
Sir, the volume which records the pro
ceedings and debates of the first session of
rv first debate, the duty of so laying the im-
josts .is to encourage manufactures was »d-
v meed, and enlarged upon by almost every
speaker; and doubted or denied by none.
The first gentleman who suggests tt is ns the
clear duty of Congress, and as an object ne-
cessary to be attended to, is Mr. Fitzsimoiss,
of Pennsylvania; the second Mr. White, 0
Virginia ; the third Mr. Tucker, of Soc-ru
v'AROLINA.
But the great leader, Sir, on this occasion,
was Mr. Madison. Was he likely to kuo’
the intentions ofthe convention and the peo
ple? Was he likely to understand the Consti
tution ?
At the second sitting ofthe committee, Mr.
Madison explained his own opinions of th
July of Congress, fully and explicitly. 1
must not detain you, Sir, with more th n
few short extracts from these opinions, hu
they are such as are clear, intelligible, an
decisive.
“Thestates,” says he, “that are most ac
vanced in population, and ripe for munufac
ares, ought to have tin ir particul r iateres
attended to, in some degree: VW.ile thes,
.-tales retained the power of maki .g regula
tions of trade, they hud the power to chcris
such institutions. By adopting the pres.
•o stitution, they have thrown the exerci*
of tins power into oth r hands; they mas
have done this with an expectation that thos
i '.ter sts would not be neglected here.”
In ..noth r report of the same speech, Mr.
Madison is represented .,s usi .g still strong
I nguave; as sayiag that toe Constitution,
ving taken this power away from the states
a d co f rre i it oa Congress, it would be
r md oa the states, and on the people, wer
Congress to refuse to exercise it.
Mr. Madison argues, Sir, on this early an
interesting occasion, very justly and liberally
in favor of tlie general principles ot unres
tricted commerce. But he ar ucsalso, with
equal tore ..nd clean e ss, tor certain impor-
tu i exceptions to these geucr-l principles
Tim ers Sir, respects those m uufactur s
whicn had been brou ht forward under en
couragement by the state Governments. “ I
would he cruel,” says Mr. Madison, “to neg.
lectthcm, and to Jiver: their industry into oth
er channels, for it is not possible id the hind
of man to shi from one employment to an
other without bei ig injured by the chan
Again : “There may be some m nuf cture?
which, being once formed, cun advance to
wards perfection without any adve titious
aid, while others, for want of the iostcriu
baud of Government, will he unable to go on
at all. Le gislative provision, therefore will
be necessar, lo collect the proper objects tor
this purpose; and this will f >rtn another ex
ception to my general pri ciple. And again
“ The next exception that occurs, is one on
which great stress is l ud 'by some well in
formed men, and this with great plausibility
tli -t each nation should have, within itself, the
means of defence, independent of foreign sup
plies; that, in whatever relates to the oper
ations of war, no state ought to depend upon
a precarious supply from any part oJ the
world. There may be some truth in this re
mark .aid, therefore, it is proper for legisla
tive attention.”
In the some debate, Sir, Mr. Burk, from
S. Carolina supported a duty on hemp, tor
the express purpose of cucour igiug its growth
on the s rong finds of South Carolina.—
“Cotton,” he said, “ was dso in coutempla-
iio i among them, and if good seed could be
procured, ho hoped might succeed.” After-
w r-is, Sir, the cotto . seed was obtained, its
culture was protected, and it did succeed.—
Mr. Smith, a very distinguished member from
that same state, observed: “It has been s..i ,
and justly, that the states which adopted this
Constitution, expected its administration would
be conducted with a favorable hand. The man
ufacturing states wished the encouragement
of manufactures: the maritime states the en
couragement of ship building ; and the agri
cultural states the encouragement of agri
culture.”
Sir, I will detain the Senate by reading no
more extracts from these debates. I have al
ready shown from a majority of the inemb rs
came necessary to adjust the revenue to a
-lata ot peace. On the contrary, the powe r
v ts then exercised, not without opposition a s
o its expediency, but, as fur as I remember’
>r have understood, without the slightest op*
position founded on auy supposed want o^
constitutional authority. C. rt tialy South
arolina did not doubt it. The Tariff of
IS 16 was introduced, carried through, and
•st ihlished, under the lead of South Carolina,
.aven the minimum policy is of S. Carolinaor-
ln * The honorable gcutlein m himself sup.
orted, and ably supported, the tariffof 1816.
liej. s i :: 0 rnie.l us, sir, that his speech on
that oce sion, was sudden and off hand, he
eiag Culled up by the request of a friend,
n* s ' ,re tiie gentleman so renu nbers it, and
at it w,.s so ; but there is, nevertheless,much
lethod, arrangement, and cle .r exposition,
• h t extempore ’speech. It is very anie,
very, very much to the point, am ; very deci.
ive. And in another speech, delivered two
honths e rliur, on the proj oti ion to repeal
internal taxes, the ha .or..ble gentleman
ad touched the same subject and had decla.
v d, * that a certain encouragement ought to be
•itended, at least to our woollen and cotton
uuimf, udurcs.” I do not quote these speech,
s, lor tne purpose of showing tua. the hon-
>rable ge itlcmun h.is changed his opinion ;
ny object is other, and higher. I »to it for
■e s ke ot say ing, :lmt that cannot be so
ji aii’lv and palpably unCo .stitution.il, as to
vV rr int resistance to law, nullification, and
revolution, which the honorable gentleman
nd his friends h ve heretofore agreed to, mid
-eted upon, without doubt md without hesita-
tion. Sir, it is no answer to say, that the
tcrili oi 1816 was a revenue bill. So arc
they all revenue hills. Tim point is, and the
truth is, that the t riff of 1816, like the rest,
did discriminate; it did distinguish one , rticlc
from anoiuer; it did lay duties lor protection.
Look to the case of co urse cottons; uauer the
minimum c loulotion,’the duty on these was
60 to 80 per cent. Something besides reve.
nue cerh.i ly was intended in this; md,in
ct, the law cut up oar whole commerce with
i di in that article. ‘ I» is, Sir, only within
few years that Caroti ;a i is denied the coa.
stitutionuhty of tlu.se protcc..vc laws. Tne
gentleman himself has narrated to us the lru>
ius-ory of!, r ; r icm di.; s on this point Sic
says, that after the passing o» the law oi i828,
••spairing then of being able to abolish the
s sii ni oi protection, politic.d me i we or.ii
mo i g the people, an ; sen up the doctrine
that the system was unconstitutional, “And the
people," says the honor idc gentleman “rrctir*
the doctrine.” This, I believe is true, sir
The people did then receive the doetri e;
they had never entertained it before. Dowd
to tunt period, the constitutionality of these
laws had been ..o more doubted in South 0.
than elsewhere. And 1 suspect it is true s ir,
and I deem it v. great misfortune that, to the
present moment, a great portion of the pi o.
pie oi the state have never yet seen more
than one si e of tiie argument. 1 believe that
thousands of honest men are iuvo.vcd in
scenes now passing, led awu\ by one sided
views of the question, and following tin ir lea-
ders by the impulses of an unlimited confi
dence. Depend upon it, sir, ii w< c n avoid
the shock of arms, a day for reconsider tion -
and reflection will come ; truth anil re .sQii
will act with thitir accustomed force, and the
public opinion of South C rolina will he res
tored to its usual constitutional and patriotic
tone.
But sir, I hold South C iroli ia to her an-
cient, her cool h r nnin hi n ed or .! libi r te
opinions, I holJ her to h> r own 'udmissio.is,
u .y, to her own claims and pretentious,i.. 17-
89, i i the. first Congress, and to heracknowl-
edgements uud avowed sentiments throu h a
lonit series of succeeding years. I hold her
to the principles on which she led Congress
to act in 1816 : or if she has changed her
own opinions, I cl .im some respect lor those
who still retain thq same opinions. I say she
is precluded from asserting that doctrines,
which she has herself so long and so ably
sustained, are plain, palpable, and dangerous,
viola ions of*llie Constitution.
Mr. President, it the friends of nu’.lifica-
of South Carolina, in this very first session, j tion shouid be able to prop.;,.ate their
the House of Representatives, lies before mo.
1 open it, and I find that having provided for
the administration of the necessary oaths, the
very first measure proposed for consideration
is, the laying of imposts; and in the very
first Committee ofthe Whole into which the
House of Representatives ever resolved itself,
on this its earliest subject, and in this its vc-
acknowledging this power of protection, vo
ting for its exercise, and proposing its exten
sion to their own products. Similar proposi
tions came trom Virginia ; and, indeed, Sir,
in the whole debate, at whatever page you
open the volume, you find the power admit
ted, and you find it applied to the protection
of particular articles, or not applied, accor
ding to the direction of Congress. No man
denied the power—no man doubted it ; the
ouly questions wero, in regard to the several
articles proposed to be taxed, whether they
were fit subject for protection, and what the
amount of th it protection ought to be. Will
gentlemen, sir, now answer the argument
drawn from those proceedings of the first
Congress? Will they undertake to deny
that that Congress did act on the avowed
principle of protection? Or, if they admit it,
will they tell us how those who framed thu
Constitution fell, thus early, into this great
mistake about its meaning? Will they tell
us how it should happen that they iiad so soon
forgotten their own sentiments, and their own
purposes ? I confess I have seen no auswer
to this argument nor any respectable attempt
to answer it. And, Sir, how did this debate
terminate? What law was passed? There
it stands, Sir, among the statutes, the second
law in the book. It has a preamble, and that
preamble expressly recites, that the duties
which it imposes are laid “for the support of
Government, for the discharge of the debts
ofthe United States, arid the encouragement
and protection of manufacturesUntil, Sir,
this early legislation, thus coeval with the
Constitution itself, thus full and explicit, cun
be explained away, no man can doubt of the
meuning of that instrument.
Mr. President, this power of discrimination,
thus admitted avowed, and practised upoy, in
the first revenue act, has never been denied or
doubted until within a few years past. It
was not at all doubted, in 1816, when it be-
opm-
ions,*and give them practical effect, they
would, in my judgment, prove themselves
the most skilful “ architects ot ruin,” the most
effectual extinguishers ot high raised expec
tation, the greatest blasters of human hopes,
which any age has produced. T hey wouM
stand ua to proclaim, iu. tones which would
pierce the years ofhalfihe huro..n race, that
the last great experiment ol representative
government lmd toiled. They would scud
forth sounds, at the hearing ot which the doc
trine of the divine right ol kings would ted,
even in its grave, a returning sensation ol vi
tality and resuscitation. Millions of eyes, ot
♦hose who now teed their inherent love ol lib
erty on the succ *ss of die American example,
would turn away from beholding our dismem
berment, and find no place on earth whereon
to rest their gratified sight. Amidst incanta-
lions and orgies of nullification secession, dis
union, and revolution, would be celebrated the
funeral rights of constitutional and republican
liberty.
But, sir, if the government do its duty, if> 1
act with firmness amt moderation, those opin
ions cannot prevail. Be assured, sir, be as
sured, that, among the political sentiments ot
this people, the love of union is still u PP® r *
most. They will stand fast by the Constitu
tion, and by those who defend it. I re l} 01 '
no temporary expedients—on no political
combination-hut I rely on the true American
feeling, the genuine patriotism of the people,
nd the imperative decision of the pubhc voice.
Disorder and confusion indeed, may arise ,
scenes of commotion and contest yre threat
ened, and perhaps may come. With m)'
whole heart I pray for a contiuuence ot tbo
domestic peace and quiet of the country. *
desire most ardentjy the restoration of affec
tion and harmony to all its parts. I desire
that every citizen of the whofo country may
look to this Government, with no other senti
ments but those of greatful respect audaUacb-
*