Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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 Its mem bers are agents of the people, elected by them, answerable to them, and liable to be displaced or superseded at their pleasure ; and they possess as fair a claim to the con fidence of the people, while they continue to deserve it, as any other public political agents.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- *