Newspaper Page Text
r .o 1^5
1
“The ferment of a free, is preferable to the torpor of a despotic, Government.))
11 ■* ' •-* ^ t ; -$k
VOL. HI-,
ATHENS, GEORGIA* APRIL 26, 1834.
IVO. 0.
The Southern Banner,
IS PUOUSIIED IN THE TOV. N OF ATHENS, GEORGIA,
EVERY SATURDAY,
B1 ALBOV CHASE.
TERMS.—Tlireo dollars per yo.ir, payable in ad-
v.incc, or Four dollars if delayed to the end of the
year. Thu latter amount will be rigidly exacted of
all who fail to meet their payments in advance.
No subscription received for less than one year, an.
less the money is paid in advance ; and no paper will
lie discontinued until all arrearages are paid, except
at the option of the publisher. A failure on the part
of siibscribars to notify us of their intention of re.
linquishincat, accompanied with the amount due, will
Ih- considered as equivalent to a new engagement, and
papers sent accordingly.
AnvKRTi!te\iE?rrs will be inserted at the usual rates.
$>oe trt>.
THE SLATTERN.
“ Girt me an ounce of civet, good qpoihecary,
Tc swveten my imagination.”
I m: rkcd her well. She wore a cap so soil’d
It see led as though *t had hung a month in smoke,
And in ungraceful manner ’twas dispos’d
Around her temples—serving not t’ adorn
Nor to protect a head, which all eyes saw,
Of such kind offico stood in utmost need.
OT All l etters to the Editors on matters connected »f r 4 hsjr ’ | n *natter clusters from beneath
with the establishment, must be poet paid in order to
secure attention.
O'Notice of the sale of Land and Negroes by Ad-
ininistrutors, Executors, or Guardians, must be pub.
lishcd sixty days previous to the day of sale.
The sale of Personal Property, in like manner,
must be publishod/orty days previous to tho day of sale.
Notice tn debtors and creditors of on estate, must be
published forty days.
Notice that Application will be made to the Court
of Ordinary, for Leave to sell Land or Negroes, must
be published four twnths.
Notico that Application will lie made for Letters of
Administration, must be published thirty days, and
for letters of Dismission, six months.
LAW.
TM1HE Subscribers having entered into co-partner-
Ji ship in the PRACTICE OF THE LAW, will
That c:rty cap escap’d, and waving free
In will disorder, half her features hid,
Her dress had once been white (when it was new,)
Rut now, alack, conjecture had been poz’d
To gu ss its proper hue. ’Tw&s stained with spots
Of every die, aud stripes of every shape,
Save tiiose which Fancy, with her haud maid Art,
And sinter Taste—best plcasud and best employ’d
When cull’d to decorate the fair, and then
Most 1< ippy in their skill—arc wont to use.
In her silk hose a grevious rent appear’d
On either heel—designed, I ween to let,
Her feet enjoy the benefit of air,
Since \oater was denied them—while her shoes,
Slip shod and loose, with scam rcut souls and gaps,
Were worn, ill-fitting, on contrary feet.
Her ch ildren were unwasli’d, their hair uncomb’d,
Their garments patched wiih ill-assorted cloth,
And “ out at elbows” was her husband’s coat.
Her lie use was topsy turvy: cobwebs liung
From the smok’d ceiling; tables, desks and chairs
attend to any business entrusted to their management I With Cust were covered, and tho wiudows look’d
fore, the word “ surrenderedI” had been used
in the constitution instead of « delegated,” the
results must have been precisely the same,
as to any power of revocation on the part of
the states. The same principles would have
been involved in the one case as in the other.
In both, resort must be had to the right of
revolution, which no one denies.
For more perfect illustration, we will give
an example. If the State of Virginia
was to solemnly withdraw herself from the
constitutional compact, and formally reclaim
those powers, which she had “ delegated1” in
that compact, without alleging an infraction of
it, on the part of the General Government,
would it not be a revolutionary movement in
V irginia 1 Most assuredly—for it would effect
a change of government. Now suppose those
powers about to be reclaimed, had been “ sur
rendered,” instead of “ delegated,” and she
were to reclaim her surrendered powers, in
what would consist the difference in these
two eases. In both, Virginia would appeal
to the natural inherent rights of man, and in
both, would be liable to be regarded as a fit
subject for hostile vengeance by the other
States, for the infraction of the compact.
No one can reasonably deny the exercise of
this right on the part of a State, to revolution
—to secede from the confederacy (for both
are the same) whenever she may deem
it necessary. Nay, she may assert.it, and act
upon it when it is not so. So inay a man
wantonly violate the laws of a civil commu
nity. (I allude to those which are mala pro-
in the Western Circutt, and Union, Lumpkin, Gilmer ! As tho' they’d not been washed since tho great flood, \hihila mcrclv ) But in dninrr <?n lie lavs him
and F. rsyth counties in the Cherokee Circuit. Their With hasy bustle fidgeting about, ? 8 ! ’‘ >S ,
'Mike will jc kept in Clarkesvillk, Habersham co. In “ sating things to rights” was she employ’d, . under lhe penalty of such Violation. It
Georgia, where all communications to them will bo
addressed. WM. //. STEELMAN,
JOHN IV. U USD Eli WOOD.
April 5.—3—(it.
m C. WAY—Agent,
cmploy’i
While strango confusion, worse confounded mark’d 1
Her efforts at adjustment—for what yet,
Perchance had in its proper station stood,
Was hy her over-active uess displac'd.
Apolog ies abundant, for the plight
In whi;h her person and her house were found,
. . ,, . r ... . , i Were glibly made; while the whole blame
(.W door to Messrs, rurpm dp D’Anttgnac,) j G f tha: most dread disgusting filthim•«,
AUGUSTA, GEORGIA, cast on all, save the true cause—herself.
O rr ,,„ a , . . e . , ... ... Determined at tho moment to tie neat,
FIT.R> for sale to h». friends and the public, a i And tc dis ljy hcr Ekill in hou£Cwifety ,
great variety ;,f SJAPLE AND FANCY , At a flirting glass, a twitch or two.
She gave her cap—then seiz’d a broom,
, . . And with such force her dirty carpet swept,
(while he was on there,) and j That soon a cloud of dust the chamber fill’d,
And like a mist, its friendly veil spread o’er
The scene abhorrent—Gladly I ’scap’d
From that loath’d interview ; and as I left
•if STAPLE AND FANCY
DliY GOODS, which were chiefly selected by him.
sell tlic last summer. ?.!ii previously to tho rise of
Goals in New.York, (while lie was on
tv I-'!: will tie sold at a very small advance for cash
or good paper, viz.
4.4, 7-8 rich chintz Calicoes, assorted colors and _ . „„
patterns. The pt lace of the queen of dirt,-and breath’d
■I I, 7-3 do. do. French and English col’d Muslins. Heaven’s purer air again, I vow’d and said
Scarlet and light chintz Calicoes for Children.
Rlack and white Muslins and Calicoes, for second and
dacp mourning.
I)o. do. striped and figured Ginghams, do. do.
Pink, blue, lilac, buff and purple striped Ginghams,
very fine.
Stri|»cd muslin pattom Ginghams—i new article.
■1-1 light figured small patterns French Muslins, and
•t. t Calicoes, for Children’s wear.
-1-1 and G-4 checked mid plaid white Muslins.
ti. I nainsook, jaconet and mull do. very fine,
book aid plain clear Lawn.
4-4, 8-4 pliin and figured Swiss Muslins, assorted
qualities and patterns.
4-4 and G. J, supcrfuio and common Cambric Muslins.
4-4 and 6.4 superfine cotton Cambrics.
Thread Laces, Edgings and Inserlings, all widths.
Inserting and scolloped Trimmings, assorted on thin
hook and jaconet Muslins.
Rich plain and figured Belt Ribbons, assorted.
Black, while and colored watered do. do.
Colored tutlcta Ribbons, assorted, nos. 1 to 22.
Cap gauze and satin Ribbons.
Lillies’ assorted H.’s Gloves, all colors,
do. do. fur lined do. and Walking Shoes,
do. black and white English and French heavy
Silk Stockings.
do. white, black, slate cotton and worsted do.
Misses anil Children’s white and scarlet worsted and
cotton do. and Bootees.
—also—
0.4 super Merino Cloths and Circassians, of
all colors and qualities.
5.4, 6.4 super black merino Bombazines.
Black Italian, Gros de Swoir and Poult de
Soir SILKS.
Rich fancy colored do. of brown, slate, pea
green,bottle,lilac, fawn, claret and crimson.
ALSO—
Twisted Silk, Heraani, Thibet wool and other rich
est Silk and Wool SHAWLS, in great variety.
Extra size scarlet merino LONG SHA WLS, war
ranted all wool.
:,.4,6-4 and 10-4 real IRISH SHEETINGS, all of
linen and moat approvod bleach
4.4 and 7-8 soft finish IRISH LINENS, warranted
all line i and beat of bleach, (on grass.)
5.4 and 8 4 Linen Damask DiAreas.
Extra fine LONG LAWNS, equally approvod fac
tory, 3 4 and 7.8 wide, quite undressed.
A GREAT VARIETY OF—
English and American Long Cloth and Cotton
Shirtings—all prices.
Brown Shirtings, and 6.4 brown Sheetings.
Bird’s-Eye, Russia and Scotch linon toweling Diapers.
Clark’s spool Cotton.
Tancs, Nsedles and Pins, &c. &c
Jan. lft—44tf.
I rather would lie tied down to a stake,
And thrice be flogg’d on each returning day,
Than to the husband of a thing like her,
I cannot call hcr woman. V. L.
COMMUNICATIONS.
is a mere matter of choice with him whether
he had rather endure the penalty and com
mit the breach, or vice versa. So may a
State at any time wantonly violate the consti.
tutional compact, by withdrawing from it; but
the penalty of such violation may be rightfully
inllicted on hcr. But will a State violate the
compact by withdrawing herself from it ?—
most assuredly, as the following reasons dem
onstrate:
1. Because no State could have become
a party to it without the consent of the others,
she may therfore not leave it without like
consent. And because the contemplated du
ration of the compact is unlimited.
2. Because in the formation of the compact,
the parties thereto, agreed to perform certain
duties in return for the benefit and protection
derivable from it, by them. And herein the
States who are those parties, occupy the same
grounds as moral persons in the social system.
If, therefore, the rest of the- States, parties
to the compact, see fit not to excuse any one
for the southern banner. | State, from the performance of those public
[Concluded from our last.] duties which she has voluntarily agreed to
It may here be replied, that the Sovereign- perform, of course she cannot consistently
ty of the States has been surrendered by the with justice, withdraw from it. It is a maxim
people, whereas the sovereignty of the Fed. which governs the law of compacts, that one
eral Government has been only delegated by cannot be lawfully broken without the con-
the Si ates. This delegated Sovereignty may, sent and concert of all the parties. There,
thcreliire, be at any time reclaimed, but sur- fore one State of this confederacy would have
rendered powers may not be. as much right to forbid the withdrawal of all
This is a very specious and erroneous dis- the others, as those have to forbid her; but
tinction. Words arc mere arbitrary signs of if all were to agree to withdraw, they might
ideas, and as such, must always be governed correctly do so, from their inherent, origiual
by tho properties of the subject to which they right of Revolution.
arc applied. If I were to say in reference to The question has been amply discussed,
a ship, “she sails fast,” 1 should be under- but still remaitis unsettled, has the Federal
stood as meaning that she sailed swiftly Government constitutional power to coerce a
But if I were to say a platoon of soldiers, State ? I do not apprehend that this power
“ stand fast,” they would understand me as was ever contemplated by the frdmers ot the
meaning them to remain firm where they constitution, simply because I think it impro-
were. Here, the essential nature of differ- bable they ever once thought that there would
ent subjects so changes the same word, that arise a necessity for it. But passing by the
its legitimate meaning when applied to one, anomaly of a government which has the ack-
is diametrically opposed to its true import nowledged right to make laws, and no power
when applied to another. So the word “ del- to enforce them, and also the judicially admit-
egate,” when applied to transactions apart ted (act, that where the former right exists
from government, is understood to commission, the latter power is necessarily implied; let
to dep utise,&c. which necessarily implies pow- us see what advantage would accrue from
er of revocation recognized by law ; and may this want of power in the Federal Govern-
be exercised by him who grunts it, as a ment. If when a State seceded from the
mere act of volition, without giving a reason union, the rest were by unanimous consent
to an;? one. This is, 1 apprehend, the true to delegate this questioned power to the gov
import of the word in a legal sense; but the eminent, could the separated State gainsay
ATHENS
Male Academy.
M R. HILLYER, who was expected to take charge
of the Male Academy in this place, having re
ccived the appointment of Tutor in Franklin College
the Trustees havo riot been able to inako arrange,
mcnls To? the commencement of the School, so soon
as was expected.
Tho Trustees now take pleasure in announcing to
the public, tnat the School will certainly open on
the 92d inst. under the instruction of Mr. MOSES
W. DOBBINS, whose known capacity and long ex.
perienen, eminently entitle him to public confidence
It is hopsd that those who wish to avail themselves
of the advantages of the Institution, will be prompt
in their application.
The terms of tuition will bo $7,50 per quarter pay.
able in advance, to Mr. E. L. Newton, Treasurer of
the Boud.
By ordar the Board.
WILLIAM BEARING, Chairman
Athcnn, Jan. 15 44_i.tr.
of ficc.ru description
for sale, at, ihts tjffiee.
States; and the unnatural position of a crea
ture s controlling its creator, another instance
of the wrong application of ideas to words.—
The maxim is good in theology—in morals,
when applied to parent and child ; but is bad
when applied to government. All govern
ments are creatures, and those on whom they
justly operate, their creators, and the apology
for this is to be found in the necessity of it.—
Governments must be created, or they never
could exist, and the purpose for which they
are created is to govern their creators. (Of
course I do not include those governments
erected by usurpation.) If a man were taken
in execution, for the violation of a law, the
penalty of which was death, in a pure de
mocracy, he, too, might say, that the crea
ture was guilty of the “ unnatural action” of
destroying its creator.
All parties must admit that the powers of
the Federal Government are limited; and
that, too, in the most solemn and imposing
manner. To observe, said that strictly, in its
operations, the limitation of those powers, is
as imperious a duty as any other it has to
perform. The reservation of power to the
States is a direct prohibition to the Govern
ment to exercise it, and the clause containing
this reservation, is as imperious upon the
Federal Government as any other part of the
Constitution. Again, no one can deny that
the States have rights—undelegated, indepen
dent rights. They are likewise restricted to
the exercise of those rights only; and by
their own solemn act of agreement, they are
compelled to respect this restriction. But
there are powers which are neither granted
to the General Government nor retained by
the States, but prohibited to both. Such is
the prohibition of the establishment of a na
tional religion, the creation of titles of nobili-
ty, &c. Are these powers delegated? If
they are, who to ? They must be surrender-
cd—given up.
In this place we propose noticing the “ doc
trine of construction,” as it is called, and say
a few words as to what rules of interpretation
the Constitution should, be subjected to.
From the multifarious defects of human
language, it is often exceedingly difficult for
us to arrive at the true meaning of a written
instrument, however carefully composed.—
Hence the equitable spirit of a statute law.
But 1 do not agree with those who contend
that the rules of law in the interpretation of a
statute, are applicable to such an instrument
as the Constitution. Those rules are derived
from the reasons which form the basis of mu
nicipal law ; whereas, the rules for the inter
pretation of compacts between sovereigns,
ought, it would seem, to originate from those
reasons which form the basis of international
law. Again, the rules for interpreting statute
laws are subject to modification, when applied
to statutes of different natures. A statute
which regulates those civil relations , which
spring from society—from corporate commu-
nities—such as bargain and sale, and the like,
will bear an extended or ample construction.
Not so with one which affects the life or liber
ty of the subject. Here the rule is, that it
must be construed strictly, i. c. literally.
The rules of interpreting compacts between
sovereigns, are, I conceive, subject to modifi-
cations also, according to the -nature of. the
compact. A treaty of amity and coiiimerce
is susceptible of a liberal construction, because
it is next thing to an impossibility, in drawing
up the articles, minutely to express every
matter intended to be included. But a trea
ty of Peace between sovereigns requires more
strictness, because the subject involves rights
and principles of more importance, and should
therefore be clearly and definitely expressed.
When, therefore, a compact is entered into
between sovereign States, the object of which
is to form a federal government for the whole,
when sovereignty is delegated, when a law
making power is created, any other than a
literal interpretation of the instrument setting
forth these particulars, seems to me to be in-
definition of this word when applied to our it 1
government, is, I think, quite different. Be- this power would be granted to impose the
cause the powers of that government have rightful penalty consequent upon that breach,
been delegated by a solemn Compact between And if the State so acting were to be tbe^
equal sovereigns, and that compact can be subject of this infliction at all, it must come
broken ns readily by withdrawing from it, and through the General Government. Why?
reclaiming what was delegated, as by any Because the remaining States would still be
other means; for the States have retained no members of the Union—parties td the conpact,
revoking power whatever, and the public law] and could not, according to the letter of that
gives no such right by implication or other-1 compact, Stand in the attitude of belligerents
wise ; Only in case of n breach of the com- as States. It is true that by an express del-
pact which would amount to a violation of I egation of this power, the States that remained
those laws by the party breaking it. Iu the would alter the nature of the compact to which
next place, the length of time, which the Fed- the seceding State was a party; but the seed-
eral Government was to exercise those dele- ding State, by ceasing to be a party, could
gated powers, is no where either expressed claim no voice in the amendments which might
or implied in the articles of the constitution, be proposed and adopted by the others.—
That Government, though limited to certain This reasoning applies directly to the case of
powers, was not limited-as to duration. On a State refusing obedience to a law which the
the contrary, « esto perpetua” was the glow- rest of the States have decided to be constru
ing itnd holy sentiment of the patriots who tional; for we must bear in mind, that when
formed it. a * aw “ » not the act of the govern-
W11 hold it an irresistible conclusion, there- ment independently,but the act of a majority of
fore, that when those powers were delegated the States also, through their representatives,
by the States in the formation of the Federal The presumption always is that the law is
Government, they were, to all practical pur- constitutional, and that instrument may be
poses surrendered. No law which is enact-1 broken as readily, by refusing obedience to
ed ur, ier the compact, can exercise authority j laws made in “pursuance thereof,” as in any
over it ; but it must be governed by the I other way. In either case the State refu-
agreements expressed therein. And the law I sing obedience, and the States declaring it
of nations can alone interpret the trao import I to be constitutional, would, if their positions
of those agreement*. In reference to our were persisted in, ultimately 'assume the utti
Government, if wc admit that its powers are tude of belligerents in relation to each other
delep itod, still a replnimfife of those powers But more of this when we come to the sub
wouk amunrit to r. violin ion ; and if 'they are j jeet of the right to judge in these cases,
udinned to he surrendered, a reclaiming 61 r ' Much hasl>een said in relation ro thc Gen
them would amount to nothing more. If.there-j eral Government, as being lha creature ofine
admissible. The very impdrtanco of the in.
She would have broken the compact, and 1 strumeut demands it, for it is : unreasonable
and absurd and unnatural, to suppose that
these powers should be granted without an
express and solemn enumeration and defliii
tion of them; and if any one of them requires
an express grant, they all do. There is al
ways danger of violating a compact of any
kind, by subjecting it to unlimited construe
tiou—a literal one is always safe.’ *
There is an additional argument of much
force, which supports the idea that the Cqn-
stitution of the United States should be con.
strued literally. It is this: It is evident that
the firamers of it considered it as embracing
all necessary powers by express enumeration,
to answer the ends for which the Federal Go-
vernment was created; else they would hot
have adopted it; end if they did not intend to
express all that it was to ekercise, why did
they express any. But fearing, it would seem
that it might be defective, either as to too
much or too little power, they inserted the fifth
article, which provides for amendments. The
obvious inference from this is, that ifin the pro-
gress of its operations,the government should
be found too weak to accomplish all necessa-
ry objects; or too strong for the preservation
of freedom and liberty; amendments might
then be proposed, and if adopted by the con
stitutional number of States, the government
might proceed in the exercise of a new,- or
upou the establishment of an old pon^r, as
the case might be. But if a further grant, of
. nn «i ivoro Kir Slitao th'A CAY.-
It has been said that when the govertiiuo.'
is alleged lo have thus gone astray in the ex
ercise of undelegated power, it "may call a
convention of the Slates to decide upon it.
This is fraught with more than the estimated
difficulty. If the convention thus called were
to decide that it had gone astray, the very
authority by which the convention would be
called, would have been illegally exercised ;
for if the government had thus gone astray,
it would have violated the compact, and could
therefore claim no authority, privileges or im
munities, arising from that compact. It is al.
so said, that when the government has exer
cised a power not expressed in the Constitu
tion, that an amendment to that instrument
might be * proposed, and if ratified, it might
proceed to the exercise of it as at first. This
could not be done without a re-enactment, be-
cause the grant of power authorizing the act
in question would be younger than the ad,
which could only be constitutional as emana
ting from the grant.
Oue more subject claims our attention, and
it is one of more difficulty than any which has
yet arisen in the course of. our politics.. It is
this : Who has the right to judge, in case of
an alleged infraction of the Constitution ?—
That a State has the right to judge, for her
self, in case of an alleged infraction, is evi
dent from the nature of the laws .which gov
ern compacts. But that she has in addition
to this right, the right also to make the other
States (equal parties with herself,) withhold
their judgment—.to place an estoppel on their
equal right to judge—is what cannot be ad-
mitted. If on# State believe that the com-
pact has suffered a breach, she has the natu
ral (not constitutional, for that instrument no
where contemplates such a case,) right to de
cide accordingly. The other States likewise
have the 9ume right to decide that it has not
been broken. The right of either is held by
the same tenure. If one is good the other is
also.
If a law is passed by the Federal Govern
ment, by which in the opinion of one State the
Constitution is violated, and this State declares
she will not be governed by it, but will rather
leave the Union, the other States, equal part
ners with herself, will undoubtedly have the
right to decide that the Constitution has not
been broken by the law in question. Now,
which is presumed to be correct in their judg
ment—the smallest possible minority, or the
largest possible majority? According to the
laws of evidence, the presumption would as
suredly be in favor of the majority. And
when on issue of this kind is made up and
persisted in, the parties would cease to stand
in a constitutional relation with each other, for
if the Constitution were not broken by the
law, the State so acting would certainly break
by refusing obedience to it; and if it were
broken' by the law, it would be broken first by
exercising a power reserved to the States, or
generally prohibited to both; and secondly,
by requiring obedience. So one or the other
would consequently have forf ited all claim to
the benefits and privileges of the federal com
pact. They must therefore stand in the rela
tion of disputing sovereigns—of independent
belligerents, having the authority, sanctioned
by the code of nations, to assert and defend
their respectively esteemed rights. The ter
mination of this question would, if pushed to
its legitimate results, end in revolution and the
final subjugation of one of the parties. It is
absurd to assert that the exercise of these re.
spective rights could he constitutional in ei.
ther party, for the reason before given, that
the Constitution no where contemplates a case
in which an uppeal to them would be neces
sary. They are'purely extra cdnstitutional,
and derivable only from the inherent natural
right of revolution, of which right a people
cannot be justly deprived, either by their own
act or the acts of others.
But when a State believes the compact to
be broken, may she not peacefully withdraw
from it? Yes, this might be done when the
compact is not alleged to be broken, provided
the other parties consent to it; but not other
wise in either case. Why ? For the reason
elsewhere given that she may not refuse the
performance of duties voluntarily assented to
ip the compact, without injuring tho other
parties thereto ; for federal compacts always
express duties to be performed, burthens to
be borne in return for benefits enjoyed from
them, and therefore an abstraction of this aid,
a refusal to perforin those duties by a party,
would bo injurious to the others, for which
they would, of course, havo the natural right
to indemnify themselves. GROTIUS.
N. B. The various subjects contained in
the preceding article, will receive further dis
cussion in succeeding numbers; it being in
tended merely as a skeleton, for future essays
to fill up. '
Brooklyn, April 14th, 1834
Messrs. Editors,—In yonr paper of the
8th ultimo, I see a communication over the
signature of “ Uncle Fed,” inviting an hon
esty fair and decorous discusrion, by a union
man and a ntillifier, of the reasons why it is
that two parties professing doctrines diamet
rically opposite, should both claim the illustri
ous names of Washington and Jefferson as
authority by which to prove each their own
doctrines. He says it is an enigma to him
which he cannot solve, and yet “ Uncle Fed”
says he is both a union man and a nullifies
This,‘indeed, is not the first time I have heard
of nullifiers in part and union men in part
-a., same time hold to opinions and principles
as opposite as the nadir and the zenith?
“ Uncle Fed,” perhaps, alono can make tho
solution of this difficulty*
But to me the reason why the two parties
in Georgia should both claim the names of
Washington and Jefferson as authority to
prove their doctrines by, is quite obvious and
satisfactory ; for if any man or party of men
were to discard openly and avowedly the opin
ions and doctrines of Washington and Jeffer
son, it would bo to that man or party of men
the herald of his or its own political destruc
tion. In asking the question before alluded
to, “Undo Fed” means more, perhaps, than
one at first view might suppose. He means
that he (Unde Fed) lias the authority of
those names on his side, while he who holds
a contrary opinion, has the high authority of
those illustrious names arrayed against him.
Now, “ Undo Fed” says that that moment
Congress shall extend its legislation to the
field of doubtful powers, that moment a State
has the right to nullify, and that in any way
she in her sovereign capacity may direct.
Now this, if I am not mistaken, is neither
more nor less than nullification, for it pre
supposes each of the States of this Union to
be a perfect and undimiuished sovereignty,
and that as sovereigns tho States have the
right to judge, each for itself, of any alleged
violation of the constitution, os well as of its
own mode and measure of redress. On pro-
seating the constitution to Congress, then sit
ting under the old confederation, what ■ does
Washington say ? He says that “ it is obvi
ously impracticable in the federal government
of these States, to secure all the rights of in
dependent sovereignty to each, and yet pro
vide for the interest and safety of all.” And
what says Mr. Jefferson? He says, that ab-
solute acquiescnce iu the will of the majority
is the vital principle of republics, from which
there is no appeal but that of force, the imme
diate parent of despotism—not the majority
of atjy particular State, but the majority of
the people of the United States. Docs lan
guage like this sustain the positions “ Uncle
Fed” has assumed ? I think not. The re
sult of Uncle Fed’s opinions is, that what a
State chooses to say exceeds the powers of
Congress, she may nullify in any way she
may think prepdr ; and as she is to determine
whether her rights have been violated—what
is the extent of the injuries done her—what
mode and measure of redress her wrongs may
make it fit and expedient for her td adopt—
the suffering State may proceed to idemnify
herself by withdrawing from the union and
forming a foreign alliance; by cruising against
the property of the other States of tho union,
authorizing- captures and making open war*
The other States, with an oye to their own
safety, would by the laws - of self defence
have the right to break up any allegiance so
formed, and by all the means in their power
compel the seceding member to return to the
union. Here we would have, upon Uncle
Fed’s theory, the sad spectacle of a govern*
ment at war with its parts. This was pre
cisely our situation under the old confedera
tion. Congress could make requisitions upon
States—the States refused compliance—
what was to be done ? There was no resort
but that of force. The consequence was an
abandonment of the articles of the confeder
ation for the present constitution. This con
stitution was adopted by the convention as
sembled at Philadelphia; was submitted to the
old congress then in session; and was after
wards submitted to conventions of the people
of all the States.- These conventions did rat-
fy the constitution—they did not, as Mr.
Calhoun would have- us believe, accede, to a
compact, but they ratified and adopted a con
stitution or form of government—a funda
mental law. This constitution does contain
ample provisions both for its amendment and
preservation; it declares that new States may
come into the union, but does not. say thnt old
ones may go out—its principal object is to es
tablish a union among the people of all the
States which shall last throughout all time;
for it says in irs very preamble, that *' we tho
people of the United States, in order to form
a more perfect union,” &c. “ do ordain and
establish this constitution.” It has created a
supreme judicial tribunal; it has created a
legislature of Us own. The Supreme Court
has final and appellant jurisdiction of all cases
in law and equity arising under the constitu
tion. In cases not assuming the character of
a lawsuit, in those political questions which
terminate with the legislation of Congress,
congress must determine upon the extent and
interpretation of its own powers; it must, lih6
other representative bodies, be trusted with
this power. This rule results from the ab
solute necessity of the case. Can any man
give a sensible reason how congress is to make
all laws which are necessary to carry into ef
fect any of the delegated powers, withdut ,
judging at the same time of the extent of those
powers? What powers are not delegated ape
reserved to the States respectively, or to the
people. In all extraordinary cassstbe ulh.
mate arbiter is the people of the Unit* as
sembled in convention, at the call of dongress
or of two thirds of the States,,
But, says “ Uncle Fed,” to suppdso the ex
istence of a majority in this case, that is, in a
controversy bsfcveen a State and .the federal
government, is sounding the knell of State
ri jhts; for we would have at once a consoli
dated government. - What precise meaning
does ** Uncle F id” attach to the term conaol-
bbtirrj -Is aven^thing-consolidation wiiieh
is not ruiiniciiti jn.? Does “ Uacle Fed” mauA
to say that ours ii-aot to somn exee^ r: c«n.
$1* .
■
' •
\ c'- ;
' '
: ■-
Ambit ima
1^11