Newspaper Page Text
m
From the Georgia Journal.
SPEECH OF MR. GORDON,
Os fLTNAM,
On Friday, November 11,1854, in the
Senate of Georgia, on the Citation of
the Supreme Court oft he United States,
and the Resolutions of the Majority of
the Committee on the S'ale of the tie
public, and the Substitute offered by
Mr. Daw ton, on the part of the Mi
nority o f the same Committee s
Mr. Phmidexc—l agree with the
honorable Senator from Chatham, (Mr.
McAllister,) who has just taken his scat,
that the worst of all argument is that of
assertion without proof; and in the few
remarks which I shall have the.honor to
submit, I shall rely- upon reason or au>
thority for their support.
1 am aware, from b;it»g urged into the
debate at this late hour us the night, that
it is next to impossible to do justice to
the merits of (he many important ques
tions involved in the discussion ; indeed
that I can only glance at many of them,
and that my remarks must be limited al
most exclusively to a reply to gentlemen
■who have preceded me on the opposite
side.
Some of the most grave and important
political questions; the fundamental
principles of our government; the rela
tionship between the Federal and State
Governments; and the rights of the peo
ple, are involved in this question, and i
would have been pleased to have had al
lowed me, time to discuss them fully and
at 'arge—'out as this is in ell'ect denied
me by urging the question nt this late
hour, 1 shall proceed, though I feel that
my remarks must necessarily be brief
and limited.
It is in vain, Mr. President, to deny
that Hi this case, the question comes up
directly for our determination, whether
the State, yea, the single State of Geor
§ia, cun nullify or resist the action of the
federal Government in its attempt,
through the organized tribunal of that
Government, to enforce its laws within
her own limits.
This question we arc now called upon
to decide—Yes, sir, the question is,
whether Georgia can decide for herself.
The party now in power, have always
denied this right, and even at the presfeut
moment, whilst in the very act of resis
tance to the constituted authorities of the
Federal Government, under the vain
hope of preserving their consistency be
fore the people, they deny the very prin
ciple which they are now about to put into
practice—and in order to maintain them
selves in this awkward position, of prac
ticing nullification anil denying the prin
ciple at the same dale, the leaders of the
party, their orators, who have devoted
so much time and attention in prepara
tion for the discussion, to weave a ve.l to
screen themselves from tin*, public gaze
of the astonished multitude, and Hie
ridicule to which such inconsistency must
expose them in the sight of all me res
pectable and intelligent; finding no
moans of escape by a fair and honest
mode ol reasoning, have in the course ol
debate, been driven to every kind ol eva
sion—to the most desperate shifts, and
the most shallow subterfuges. The hon
orable Senator (from Chatham, has, 1
presume, from necessity, been driven to
this course. I cannot in any other way
account for the monstrous propositions in
untenable positions assumed by that gen -
tleman. It surely must be a desperate
cause which requires such desperate cl
furlH. If die case was susceptible of it,
it might have been better sustained by a
gentleman of such reputed talents.
In the first place, die gentleman told
us very gravely, we had no case to nulli
fy ; lor that Hie proceeding of the Fed •
eral Court was a nullity. The Citation
was nothing. Ah, indeed!—why then, 1
would ask, all this to do about nothing i
Why all this array of resistance to the
Federal mandate ?’ Why has the Gov
ernor bristled up and put ini such a show
of courage, all at once P Why lias the
honourable Senator himself, who is said
to be the author of the original resolu
tions, declared the determination of the
B.ate to enforce her criminal laws, and
proposed the employment of an armed
force to resist all ‘interference? For
nothing? Are we thus compromitdng
the dignity of this honorable body, bv
doing this Vain, silly act: of miking such
a show and parade, all for nothing? Ol
miking battle against this wind-mill ? li
the gentleman be correct, we are—and
this may account for the reason where
fore his Excellency and Ins friends are
making such a display of courage—since
they have nothing to fight, li is all a
mere farce —a silly pomp—a vain show—
idle brag.
Again, in order to prove that there was
nothing in the proceeding to nullify, the
gentleman asserts that there is no‘suit;
that to make a suit, there must be par
ties, and to be parties there must be per
sons, either corporate or natural—and an
Indian is neither. Well.it may be true,
but 1 cannot comprehend it. That an
Indian is no body ! It is passing strange.
It is an astonishing fact if it be true’. 3 I
wonder if the State of Georgia is making
all this parade about hanging no body :
Why, sir, this is the most complete act
of nullification yet It is knocking the
poor Indian info non-entity. It is blot
ting a part of God’s creation from exis
tence. The whole Indian race, by the
mere force of logic—and the beauty ol it
is, that it is so harmless. Why hau none
of our great statesmen discovered this be
fore new ? It might have rid us of some
very troublesome and perplexing ques
tions 1 We might have rid ourselves of
the Indians long ago. li tills bo true, 1
would propose, Mr. President, for hu
manity’s sake, to substitute a block of
wood, or a wax figure, or a man of B tr i w
for this poor In. tan, and hong him in
effigy. It will answer every purple
We can go through all the formula and
mock trial and execution ; and we shah
at least be able to say we hung
a man of wax. at leas', and we then can
huzza for Jackson and Georgia, and gold
and glory, and all will be well; an.f bv
this means, just as easily deceive the
people, by making them believe this was
an Indian, as that tlie proceeding in this
case is not nullification.
It is thought, Mr. President, by these
shallow devices to deceive -.he people;
but, I toll you sir, they are not t» be »d
easily deceived. They are not q-ji;e so
ignorant. I know they have been much
practiced upon bv the artful and design-1
* lk e. by the use of names and wisrepie-1
i
sentations—but you cannot deceive them
in this. They have seen and frit too
much upon this subject, and they w ill be
lieve an Indian is some body, iii spite oi
- all you can soy to the contrary; anil, as
r I believe so, 1 shall not stop to prove i'.
. Partaking very much of the same char
r actcr, is that part of the honorable Sena
■ tor’s argument, by which he has attempted
I to get around all the Treaties made with
• the Cherokee tribe of Indians, fir nearly
forty years, from the treaty of Hopewell,
> in 1785, until the last treaty of Tellico,
, in 1524.
, Instead of coming up to the question
f squarely, and meeting it boldly, by deny
i ing the right of the GovernmcMit, to have
> made these treaties, and declaring them
. null and void, so far as Georgia is con
cerned, and that she has the right to
: judge and determine fur herself, that
l they arc nullities, and to treat them as
i such, upon the ground that Georgia ne
■ ver empowered the Federal Government
I to cede away any part of her territory,
, or strip her of her domain and jurisdic
■ tion, within her own limits—-the. gentle
i man, without bencfltting his aide <-f tin*
; question, has adopted a new mode, by
which to test the validity of those treaties,
I and to annul or set them aside. He has
I asserted that a treaty made with an Indian
-1 tribe, was no treaty, and why? Be
e cause, says he, it is not a compact be
- tween sovereign and independent tvi-
I tiotis. The parties are not of equal dig
- nltv in point of national character.
;1 This might all have done very well, if
I the gentleman had first shown to us that
8 this was neressary, in order to make a
t treaty. This, I fanev, the gentleman
I would have found difficult. What is
a Treaty? It is a compact or agree
' mentbetween parties. It is not neces
• sary they should be equal, or sovereign
■ and independent. These treaties or
• compacts arc often made between the
t ennquerers and the conquered. It. is
i only n*cessary the parties should have
nationality of character sufficient to be
i capable of making (hose compacts—and
that is a matter for (he determination of
i the nation or government with whom
, thev are treating.
The Government of the United Slates
- have always recognized tit s Indian tribe
as a nation, and have called it #o. They
have denominated these compacts trea
ties. They made and radii d them with
all the formalities and ceremonies of
treaties. The European nations ever
since the discovery of this continent,
and (he American Government ever
since its existence, have been in the ha
bit of treating with the Indian tribes, by
agreements which,they denominated trea
ties—which (hey called so, and which
were made and ratified as such, accord
ing to the mode prescribed by the con
stitution and laws of nations.’ Siiall we
flten, now, in order to get round the doc
trine of State interposition, refuse to
consider them what the government
which made thorn, denominated and du
i dared them to be ? If they are not trea
ties, I would ask the gentleman what
1 they are ? He did not deign te tell us,
• but yet 1 would like to know. If they
I are not treaties, they are certainly coin
- pacts or agreements or engagements, on
1 the part of the Federal''Government.
0 They are certainly, not like tie Indian,
y nothing at all! They must be the acts ol
vt the Federal Government. Du. at.ll Id.i
■ not see, if the Senator could prove tins
e position which he has labored so much to
• establish, that it would get him and Ins
, party out of the dilemma—For if they are
a nullities, Georgia, in order to act in tins
case, must pronounce them so. In order
1 to assert and maintain her right of juris
• diction over the Cherokee territory, in
■ spite of all those solemn engagements on
i the part ol tlioFcder.il Government’, no
I matter by what name you call them,
■ Georgia must pronounce them null and
- void, and resist their enforcement, even
• under the sanction of tins Federal Court.
This is the strongest sort of nullification,
■ for it is annul ling Treaties, the Constitu-
I tion of the United Stales, the Federal
• Judiciary, and all.
But, it was distressing, it was truly
1 distressing, Mr. President, that after lia-
I ving been worried, harrassed.atid dtscom
i’ filed, as die gentleman was, by these
£ treaties and compacts, in his endeavor to
v put them out of the way, without nulla
u tication, to see two obstinate and rc-
I fractorv laws or acts of Congress rising
i up ami presenting themselves right in
J (rout of the gentleman, at this difficult
■ point in his argument, and saying to him,
c “ 'Veil, then, how will you get over tie
e without th» aid of nullification:” I mean,
a sir, the act us Congress, passed the duto
- March, 1802, to regulate trade and inter
course with the Indian tribes, and to j.re
-3 serve peace on the Frontiers—and the
e 25th section of the Judiciary act of 1780,
! which gives to the Supreme' Court of the
- Unfed States, appellate jurisdiction from
- the State Courts, in all eases where is
i drawn in question the validity of a trea
. ty, the constitution, or laws of the United
1 States. Now, here are acts of Congress
• unrepeated, which, in order to justify
I our present course, we must declare to
J he unconstitutional, null and void, be
•r lore we cun resist their execution and
I enforcement by the constituted organ b(
e the Federal Government.
- The Union party have heretofore de
nied this right in ti single .Su-c .o judge
: and determine far hersed, and declared
i the Federal Judiciary to be the tribunal
to decide these questions; bat now you
■ refuse to submit to their decision, and
: treat their process with contempt and
• disrespect. How do gentlemen of the
‘ submission party reconcile this inconsis
tency? No how. They just glide oil
with the current of public opinion, without
anv principle of action at all. They
think to screen themselves from this gla
ring inconsistency, by exciting the popu
lar rejudiccs; stilling all reflection upon
the merits of the question; and by ma
king this an Indian case, the principle
- they conceive, is changed, or they hope
1 to make the people believe so.
\ true, the honorable Senators from
Caatham and Early, have made a desper
a e ebon to extricate themselves and
oeu- party from the embarrassments
• tnrown around them bv these laws and
treaties: for so h.n , as wcie per .
■nitted to exist, there was mi wav to -et
aiong in this case without .nullification
.1 hey, therefore, resolved to m ,ke a bdd ,
move, and strike a death blow at the i
i whole of them at cnee, by abrogating i
j them all, by the compact of 1802. 'They
I have asserted that this compact has au
t
nulted ail the treaties and laws of Coa-li
gresa upon this subject. This may all be i
very plain to those who wish to to get nd
of these difficulties any how, but to those
if us, whose intellects are not so acute,
it is not altogether so easily to be under
stood how one party, without the consent
jf the other, can abrogate or rescind die
contract. How Congress could set a*
side and annul her contracts and engage
ments with this Indian tribe, without their
consent, cr their being trade per y or pri
vy, even if we could suppose the govern
ment capable of such folly, and guilty of
acting in such bad faith as to attempt it;
and wo are at still greater loss to see how
'hat compact coul I abroga'e the trcaliei
ma le since the compact itself nun made
But gentlemen who can practice nulli
fication upon the broadest ground, with
out being able to comprehend the. princi
ple, may understand ibis perfectly, and
he able to assign a very good and sat
isfactory reason to themselves for it, or
at least, sufficient to satisfy their own con
sciences. But, it is said, there is no
nullification in all this. Well, there is
some mystery about it which we cannot
comprehend.’ If it is not, we cannot tell
, what it is. In this proceeding, Georgia,
. throwing herself upon her sovereignty,
i determines for herself whether these trea
■ ties are null and void, and whether they
■ have been abrogated or not; and having
- determined that question in her own fa
• vor, resists the constituted organ of the
. Federal Government, in its attempt to
enforce them. Is this not nullification r
It smells very strong of it at least. The
Government of the United States has
made these treaties and these laws, and
in making them, has passed upon their
constitutionality. It hits asserted & exer
cised the nower to make them, and the
Supreme Court takes cognizance of, & at
tempts to enforce them. The State of
Georgia denies, both the power of the
Federal G ivernment and of the Court.
She sets up her judgment in opposition to
them—annuls their acts,and (lieproceed
ings under them—declares them null and
void, and resists their execution. What
is this but nullification, or the right of the
State, put in practice, to resist an uncon
stitutional law within her own limits;
and that too upon her own judgment, in
opposition to that of the Federal Govern
ment, and its constituted authorities. I'
maybe, that (he nutliliers have been de
ceived all this while, and what they have
considered as nullification is not nullifi
cation. II they shou'd not have been
deceived, then is this nullification; and
I am deceived in the intelligence of the
people of this State, if you can make
them believe it t be any thing else. The
spell is broken—the delusion is over—it
is too plain to be disguised,even from the
shallowest intellect. It is in vain to de
ny it—-you now practice the principles
which you have denounced. Why try to
conceal it ? It would be more nublcand
honorable to come out frankly and ac
knowledge the truth—confess the thing
—don’t try to hide it any longer—hones
ty is the best policy, even in policies.
. Admit that y. u have heretofore been in
error, and that you now discover what
the Sla e Rights party have always de
i dared to be true, that the Suites cannot
. maintain their sovereignty, and protect
, their reserved rights, without the cxer
t rise of this power. It is the only means
i by which the encroachments of the Fed
i oral Government can be checked and ar
< rested in its onward march to cunsulida
, tion. Tin’s wc have told you from (lie
beginning. Tins is and always lias been
the doctrine of the Republican or S ate
Rights party. I hope there will no long
er be any shuffling in the ranks, and
diat gentlemen will be what they pre
tend to be. It you are S ale Rights men,
be so in reality—don’t take the name
and deny the principle—ls on the other
hand you are Federalists, be so indepen
. dciuly—don’t deny the name and hold
, io the principle.
■ Between the two groat parties now
organized in Georgia, there exists this
diUerence. Flic one is governed by
principle, the other by policy—the one
is always bringing its doctrines and
principles to the light,and exposing them
to view—the other, hiding and conceal
ing theirs in the dark—the one is endear -
> wring to instruct & enlighten the people,the
other to deceive and delude them—the
‘ °ne is trying to make plain and simple,
; the oilier to mystify, to confound, and to
1 contuse. And this is (exemplified in the
i course pursued by the two parties on this
. very question; by the two sets of resulu
• lions, and by the difference in the prin
> eiples ot the two parties, as maintained
1 and advocated upon this floor in debate.
The one is frank, open, candidand hide
• pendent in the avowal of their principles,
! laying down cle rly and distinctly the
, grounds of their action, which are the
' great republican doctrine# of 171)8 and
1 1791) ; toe same which Georgia trium
> phantly acted out in 1825—2 b and 27,
■ and which the party now in power in
i this State, then denounced, and did all
• they could to put down. They were
dwn arrayed on the side of Adams, and
• Gaines, and Crowell, and the Federal ar
’ my—agianst Troup and the Treaty, and
I the rights of the Stale. These principles
II rest upon the republican doctrine, that
| the States were, and still are, sovereign
juod independent—that sovereignty a
-11 bides with the people of the States‘res
| pec lively, and not in either the State or
Fed. nil Government; and that in cases
of disputed power, they tire the judges O
themselves, and their judgment is su
preme, because there is no power above
the people in a republican government,
when acting in diedr sovereign character.
The opposite principle, makes the people
subjects, and the government sovereign.
I ins is the doctrine us Kings and Des
pots, and of all who love power, and who
are advocates for strong government.
Let us turn our attention fora moment
to the character of the resolutions of the
majority of the Union, alias Federal par
ty. T hey are so guarded against these re
publican principles, that wXlst compelled
by the force of public sentiment, and the
growing popularity of this doctrine, to
admit it in part, yet they are so mixed up
with the Federal doctrines, ns to confound
all dis inction, and leave them perfectly
ambiguous and uncertain in their charac
ter. Tney lay down no distinct proposi
tions or principles of ac:iou. Tney are
dilicicnt in principle, and Delphic in cha
racter. They aro or may be construed
to mean any thing and every thing—to
sui f anv body and every botlv’ by picking
and culling parts to suit each one. Tbev
—■ .m. mmtm il—tW———— m si
are trimmed to the wind, and have been i
drawn with an qye to the future, occupy- i
ingsuch equivocal ground, that they may j
be turned over to either the Federal or i
State Rights party, as the one or the oth
er may gain the ascendancy. It is true,
they seem to have a very strong “squint
ings’ at the State Rights principles, and
in some sartiaulars, come up very close
to that doctrine. Ami I wou d here re
mark, that 1 have no objection at all
to your coming by the side of us, and oc
cupying in common with us, the StufJ
Rights ground. It is the good old repub
lican doctrines of V irginia, and of this
State, and is broad enough for us all to
stand on; but we object to your pushing
us olf our old ground, which we have al
ways maintained and occupied—we are
willing to receive you as friends into our
camp, and toaflurtlyou shelter from the
storm, but we do not intend that you
shaft drive us out as enemies, in order
that you may enjoy all the fruits and glo
ry of the victory which ottr principles
nave gained. All we ask of you is, that
you will not hereafter play truant. It
will indeed be matter of astonishment and
surprise, that you who got into power by
denouncing the principles of the State
Rights parly, should now be compelled to
practice them in order to maintain your
selves in power. But this only proves
; the soundness of our doctrine, and the ef
ficacy of our remedy. It is in cases of
■ necessity that we see its utility. It is
i then discovered, that nothing else will
do, but this State Interposition. Then it
■ is, that its enemies, and those who have
i denounced it, flee to it for refuge.
Contrast now, if you please, with the
1 original resolutions, those of the State
Rights party. They come forward in
bold relief, maintaining and sustaining
themselves upon principle ; breathing a
manly, free, and independent spirit, wor
thy of freemen. Not like the resolutions
of the majority—limping—halting—lame
and blind. In search of truth,and deter
mined to maintain it, the former do not
shun light, nor evade the question, but
come out openly and clearly, and prompt
ly and independently meet the question
—betraying no fear, and displaying no
: malignity of feeling to individuals or to
the General Government. They sustain
the rights of the State upon the. principles
declared in the resolutions themselves.
And whilst expressing and shewing the
1 wannest attachment to the Union, and
respect to the authorities of the govern
ment acting within the scope of its poiv
i ers; yet, saying, with the independence
; of u sovereign State, “ thus far shall thou
come,but no farther.” We gave you pow
• cr to do this, but not that—we created
t you, gave you life and being, and all the
: powers you ha*e—we limited and res
■ dieted you to certain definite powers,
> and you have no powers but what we
> granted—we have the right to judge fur
i ourselves, when you transcend the limits
- and encroach upon our reserved rights,
; and to atop you in the exercise of powers
• not granted, within our limits.
Mr. President, I have so often used
i the term nullification, and as 1 perceive
t there are some who do not or will not un
derstand what we mean by it, I will de
t fine and explain it, in order to prevent
t misconception or misrepresentation—lyr
-1 discover that even upon this floor, men
i look more to names than principles.
The honorable Senator from Early,
■ (Mr. Patterson) has said, if he could be
lieve the original resolutions on your ta
■ blc, contained the principles of i.-ullitica
tion, he would vote against them and de
nounce them with all the bitterness of his
soul. Phis proves that the gentleman is
at war with the name and not with the
principle; and that he is not governed bv
. principle; for he has already told us he
intended to vole for them, and has* made
■ a long speech in their favor; but now,that
if they embodied the doctrine of nullifica
tion, he would vote against their adop
tion.. This is no doubt true, and there,
are hundreds and thousands at this time
i in the Slate of Georgia in the same predi
cament. Their opinions are formed up
. on party names, and not upon principle.
1 Hence they are always found upon the
i surface, floating to and fro, from side to
side, as the current of prejudice, whim,
. caprice, or interest may direct. They are
. without rudder, or compass, or ballast,
! tossed upon die surging waves, and whirl -
, ed and turned by every wind that blows.
, Therefore the gentleman tells us, no
; doubt truly, that he has been a Jetterso
, nian, a Troup man, and that lie is now a
. Union man. And so you may say of all
. those, who follow men and names in
-1 stead of principle. But this is not the
. rase with die republicans of the present
State Rights party of Georgia. They
_ form their opinions upon principle. They
. are always consistent. They will sup
. port anil sustain the same measure,
| whether proposed by Troup or Gilmer or
. Lumpkin—They will rally around and
, defend the rights of the Slates upon the
! principle of Slate interposition—whether
l you call it Nullification, State Rights,
, State Sovereignty, or any thing ctse°you
1 please—they care not for the name, biu
. the principle.
1 This party, in my opinion, Mr. Prcsi
i dent, is at present the purest political
i party upon earth—all the dross and trash
i and corruption have floated otV, and left
them pure. They are united alone upon
principle. It is their love of principle,
• and their devotion to liberty, their coun
■ try and the constitution, that unite them
• together. They can have no hopes oi
preferment or office by remaining in the
minority—they have to stand up in op
position to all the corruptions of the gov
ernment, and resist all encroachments of
power, from whatever quarter they may
come. This arrays against them the
Government with all its influence—the
office hunters & minions of power. Noth
ing short of true patriotism could induce
them to this. It is easy and pleasant to
glide along with the current of power;
to be borne alon» upon the swel ling flood;
but to resist and stem this mighty cur
rent, requires great moral courage.
Hence vou always find the cowardly, the
weak minded, and those wanting in’mor
al courage, (and they generally consti
tute the majority) on the side of the gov
ernment, and in favor of power—whilst
on the other hand, you see the brave, the
chivalric and the patriotic on the side of
liberty, resisting despotism and the en
craacfjmenuof die government at every
step.
Bot, sir, to return to our explanation
and definition: nullification, with me, is
synonymous with State Rights or State
interposition. We mean by it the right t
of a S ate, in her sovereign capacity, to t
judge and determine for herself, whether t
the compact which she entered into with a
the other S ates has been violated, and i
whether Congress has transcended the s
powers granted to her, and il so, to refuse i
obedience to die law passed in viola ion i
of it. It does not mean, as some suppose, i
and as its enemies have asserted, the -
ri'-ht of a S ate to violate the constitution, I
o°tu nullify a constitutional law, but to
declare an unconstitutional act to be no -
law, and to refuse obedience to it, because
it is unconstitutional and of no obligatory .
force. This is what every null.tier in
Georgia, who understands his principles,
means by it, and nothing else, and this is
exactly what we are now doing in this in
stance —we have to declare all these
treaties, the intercourseact, and the 25th
sec. of the Judiciary act, together with
the proceedings of the Federal Court in
this case, unauthorized and unconstitu
tional. and therefore null and void ; and
and to refuse obedience to them for that
reason. We cannot justify our opposi
tion to them upon any other legitimate
ground, and it is in vain, it is folly, and
worse titan folly, to pretend to act upon
, any other principle.
I would ask, sir, if it is not necessary
, for the preservation of liberty, and the
constitution itself, that the States should
possess this power ? What sort of gov
ernment would we have without it ? An
unlimited despotism—just that sort of
government which the lion. Senator from
Hancock, (Mr. Baxter) pretends to
dread; but which his submission doc
. trines lead to ; —Consolidation of all
power in the Federal Government. It is
the doctrine of that gentleman, that a
■ single State cannot rightfully resist any
| act of Congress, but must submit until
the law is repealed, and that resistance
i to an unauthorised act,is revolution. The
. consequence of this doctrine is that revo
lution must result from every attempt on
the part of the States to rescue the con
stitution from violation, and to preserve
the government in its original purity.
The States are in duty bound to pre
, serve the constitution. They cannot
, preserve it by suffering it to be violated,
i and yet in refusing to submit to its viola
, (ion, they are guilty of rebellion, or revo
lution, and incur the guilt of treason. Is
, it right, or is it wrong, in die States, to
[ submit to unconstitutional acts ? It can
. not be right, because in submitting to
unconstitutional acts, they acquiesce in
. die violation of the constitution, which
[ they are bound to preserve.
It is admitted that the Federal Gov
ernment is one of strictly limited pow
, ers. What is the use of limitations, with
, out die power of check, when the limits
are transcended ? We had as well have
’ no constitution. To make the Govern
. ment the judge of its own povvers in the
. last resort, and to give it the right to en
force its judgment, is to make it abso
! lute, a complete despotism—And this
was die doctrine of the Union party
I twelve months ago—l hardly know what
. it is now. Then, you denied the right of
. State interposition; now, you deny the
. right of the Federal Court interposition ;
t consequently, if you are consistent, you
r have arrived at the ultimatum ofconsoli
, dation—A government without check of
any sort, unlimitted, unrestrained, save
by its own will, as despotic as any upon
’ earth, and yet you talk about union and
constitution and liberty, and even the
sovereignty of the S.ates.
I have said, sir, that the States were
pledged to support and maintain the con
stitution of the United States, and that
when they permit unconstitutional laws
to be imposed upon them, they do not
support and defend the consti utiun, but
suiter die violation of that sacred instru
ment. How can the government, there
fore, be preserved in its purity, unless
the constitution be guarded and defended
from violations? How can the union be
'' preserved if the constitution be des.ray
ed ? And how can the States preserve
the constitution, if they are bound to sub
mit to its violations ?
| It is true, some inconvenience might
| arise out of the wanton exercise of this
power; but it is not likely that any Stale
’ would ever exercise this power wantonly.
A single S ate will always be reluctant
| to exercise this right, for however justi
fiable, she will have to hazard much, in
| the opposition, and odium at least, of
the other States. The majority will al
ways be against her. She will be the
J weaker party, and nothing but a sense
ot wrong anti a flagrant invasion of her
, rights, will induce her to resort to this
remedy, nor will it ever be exercised but
r in extreme cases—For it is the interest
of the States to remain in the Union, and
to preserve it and the government, in its
original purity and strength. They gave
; ireely and voluntarily to the Federal
. Government all the powers it possesses,
and the Stales will be willing to allow
Congress the full exercise of all the pow
ers clearly granted; for it is to the inter
’ est of the States that it should, and so
1 long as the Congress refrains from the
exercise ofldoub.ful powers, there will be
no difficulty; it is only in the exercise of
• doubttu 1 powers that a contest will arise;
1 and in cases of questionable or disputed
i power, it is much safer and belter that
Congress should not exercise the right,
and if she does, that the States respec
. lively, each for itself, should possess die
power of stopping and checking it in the
assumption and exercise of this disputed
power. For without this check, the Fed
eral Government will most cer ainly,
sooner or later, concentrate all power in
itself, and become absolute. The pow
ers of this government, if unrestrained,
must necessarily accumulate and contin
ue to increase—every new power assum
ed and acquiesced in, adding new force
and strength to it, until it will become
irresistible. It is therefore, in my opini
on, the lesser evil of die two, for the States
to have the rißit to exercise this power of
check, than that the Federal Government
should possess ab;olute, unlimited, and
uncontrolled power.
I am reluctant, Mr. President, longer
to trespass upon the patience of the Se
nate, which I know must •be exhausted
by this long protracted debate, during
the whole of this day, bat I must be per
muted to make a few remarks in reply
to the honorable Senators from Hancock
and Chatham, on the question of sove
rctgiitv. They have said much about the
i llusion of sovereignty, and have both of
them asked the questiota, with some de- ,
gree of earnestness, as if they thought it (
could not be answered, if power cannot
be divided, and whether there ia any
tiling inconsistent in that ? I answer in ■
the affirmative, that it may be divided,
and that there is nothing inconsistent in
it. But I must be permitted to say to the
gentlemen, there is something very in- .
consistent and even impossible, in divi- '
ding Supreme power, and still to preserve t(
Supremacy; and here lies the error into i.
which so many have fallen. It is the con- ft
founding of power with sovereignty, and h
the exercise of sovereign power with so- w
vereignty itself. What is sovereignty? fc
It is supremacy—lt admits of no equal a
or superior. Satan himself possesses pow
er, and great power too, and yet he is not
supreme, nor equal to the Deity. So in
relation to government, there must be
supremacy somewhere, and that admits a
ol no equal or superior, because the ino
snent you introduce an equal or supe- °
rior, you destroy supremacy. This
supremacy or sovereignty, we of the
State Rights parly, say abides with the '
free people ot the Slates, respectively,
(the fountain of all power in this govern- 1
merit,) to be by them exercised whenever 1
it becomes necessary to resort to it for ’’
the defence and preservation of fheir t '
rights & liberties, and to resist encroach- v
ment upon them by the government. t
There is a sound distinction, between
sovereignty itself, and the exercise of
sovereign power. The sovereign may ,
authorise and permit his agent or minis
ter to exercise sovereign power for speci
fic: purposes, yet that does not constitute
him sovereign.
So long as (here is no dispute between '
the government and the people, as to the r
exercise of this power, there will ba no j
difficulty; but whenever the government
assumes to itself the exercise of powers .
which the people say they did not grant, t
then they become the rightful judges for
themselves, and so they ought to be in all i
free governments.
The honorable Senator from Chatham,
in his opening remarks, expressed some
surprise that no gentleman of the State ,
Rights party, who had addressed the Se’ ,
nalo, had denied the right of the State to
enforce her criminal laws wi.hin her own
limits. I must confess my surprise at his
surprise. I cannot conceive how the gen.
tleman could have expected any other
course from the State Rights parly, than
that which they have pursued, unless the
gentleman supposed that they would
have abandoned their old ground, be
cause his party had come over to them.
1 will just say to that gentleman, if he sup
poses the State Rights party capable of
such conduct, he has not as yet elevated his
thoughts up to them. They are not to ho
driven from their position, because those :
who may have heretofore acted in opposi
tion to them shall have come over. They
do not belong to that class, that wheel,
and turn, and jump about, for preju
dice or popularity sake. They act from
higher and better motives. Their course
is steady and onward in support of those
pure republican principles which are calcu
lated to perpetuate the Union; and to pre
serve the constitution and the liberties of
the country from the hand of violence;
mid it matters not with them, who are
tor and who are against—whether they
he in (he majority or in the minority—they
will cling to their principles—they will
stick to their integrity, and, having nailed
their colours to the mast, (liberty’s bright
banner,} they will swim or sink with the
ship.
Mr. President, it is growing late, and
! must come to a conclusion; but before 1
sit down, I must say a word or two in de- “
fence of Georgia’s brightest star—l mean
that man of stern, inflexible Roman vir
•ue—l l iie patriot, in wiiose bosom burns
the pure flame of love for liberty—That
noble champion of Georgia’s rights—He "
who has not been seduced from duty’s
path by honor’s glare—who has neither
been intimidated,nor purchased, nor corrup
ted—who never bartered his country for of
fice. He has been charged upon this floor
with inconsistency. It is cruel that this blow
should be aimed at him by hi* old professed
friends—by those who but lately used his
name to justify their dereliction from prin
ciple—who sheltered themselves for a
while under his name. This is the im
, kindest cut of all. And how, I would
ask, has he been guilty of inconsistency?
vvhv, it is said by one, that bo has oflate
changed his politics? This is a mistake—
it is the weathercock (hat has changed,
and not the magnet.
Again, it has been said, and an attempt
: has been made to prove it by two honor
able Senators, that he is inconsistent,
1 because he voted for the law to enforce
• the embargo, but against the law to enforce
the Tariff! How does this prove his in
consistency? He might have, and I suppose
did, consider the Embargo law constitu- I
; fional and expedient, and therefore have 1
voted for the bill to enforce it. But he 1
• might have, and I suppose did consider 1
the Tariff act unconstitutional and inex- 1
pedienl, and therefore, as an honest man, 1
"nd faithful servant of the people, voted, ,
1 as in duty bound ho was, against (hat i
bloody bill, which sought to enforce this <
act of abominations, upon his State, and 1
upon all the South, even at the point of !
the bayonet. And is he to be charged I
with inconsistency and dereliction of prin- i
ciple, because he did not, like some oth- t
ers in Congress from this State, vote for <
a bill to enforce n law upon their constitu- !
ents, which they admitted not only to be 4
unjust, unequal, and oppressive, but also J
unconstitutional? (
Sir, lam amazed at the lengths to which 1
gentlemen seem prepared to go, for the 1
sake of party. Others may be found the J
pliant instruments of power; but let them J
not charge George M. Troup, nor tarnish r
his name by so gross a slander—that name f
which shall adorn the pages ofhis coun- ’
try’s history, and go down to posterity, )
surrounded with alialo of glory, asimper- J
ishablo and bright and unfading as the sun =
itself
I had many other things, Mr. President, r
to say, and which might be very properly t!
said in reply to various other matters em- b
braced in this debate, but the lateness of U
the hour, and the evident impatience of *
the Senate, forces me to a conclusion, h
which I now come to by declaring it to
be my intention to vote for the adoption of ri
the substitute, offered by the gentleman w
from Greene. 1
si
•‘••eti-M- si
The Hon. ffm. Wilkins, Minister to Rusia, rc
has purchased in England, three fine blood hor- rc
ses, which it was his intention to forward to the H
care of a distinguished sporting gentleman in m
VITgITUi.
VALUABLE rfMßfe
Jti&Real Estate *£l
FOR SAIiE.
THE subscriber, having located himself in
Oglethorpe county,‘offer* for sale his Hou
ses and Lots, situated in Broad street, near the
liswer market, in the city of Augusta, having a
front on Broad at. of 60 feet 5 inches, and running
back about 200 feet. The buildings are of brick,
with slate roofs; one with a spacious store suited
for a Grocery, and a large well-finishod Dwelling,
and all necessary out-buildings. The other cal
culated for a Dry Good store, and a comfortable
residence for a small family.
ALSO,
A Vacant Lot on Centro street, between the
travel mid Reynold street, 41 feet on Centre st.
and running back 82 J feet
C O’ Apply to Mr. Joax PaixrzT, in Augusta,
or to the subscriber, at Bowling Green, Oglethorpe
county, Georgia.
F. V. BURDELL.
March 18 g tw 49
JVOTICE. “
I HEREBY forewarn all persons from trading
for a Note given by myself to Thomas Ben
nett Shaw, for 300 dollars, backed with 75 dol
ars, dated the first of December, 1834, and due
the last of Pob’y, 1835. The consideration for
which said note was given having failed, I am de
termined not to pay it unless compelled by law.
G. HOLLINGSWORTH.
April 1, 1835 3tw 35
SPOCK&ifT ESOO££ JLO&T!
reward.
W OST, on tl;e 16th inst, either in Milledge
-83 ville, or on the road between there and Au
gusta, a la.ee Calf-skin Pocket Book, containing
various papc.s (some of them with the subscriber’s
name thereon,) and Ten dollars in money, com
posed of two Five dollar bills. The finder, by
leaving the Pocket Book and papers at the Chroni
cle Office, or anywhere else, so that I may get it,
shall be entitled to the Ten dollars which it con
tained. JAMES GERMANY.
March 25 3tw 51
to' eb omi is s :vms as w.
WJMJVTJEMP,
A PERSON of the above business, as a Jour
neyman, or Partner. In the latter case,
character and ability is all that will be required to
an equal share of the profits.
APPLY AT THIS OFFICE.
April 4 • 61
GEFIKEt S 9.
FROM and after this date, the Mail will leave
Augusta twice a week, say Sundays and
Thursdays, for Edgefield Court House, in com
fortable Coaches.
Ifj’ OFFICE at the Eagle U Phoenix Hotel.
J. McLEAN & CO.
Augusta, March 1, 1835. 9t 47
CHATEAU lAEfiAUX,
AXD
TEASBI.
fja THE celebrated imported
CHATEAU MAR
GAUX, will cover at my stable
the present season, in Hick’s
{ M? Ford, Virginia, at 75 dollars
the season, and 100 dollars
insurance, with one dollar to the Groom. Good
and extensive pasturage, and servant’s board will
be furnished gratis, and Mares, grain fed, for 25
cents per day. Every necessary accommodation
is provided for Marcs and Colts from a great dis
tanee, and great care will be paid to them, but no
responsibility for accidents or escapes.
CHATEAU MARGAUX is a largo and beau
tiful brown bay Horse, 5 feet 3 inches high, with
uncommon strength and power, and particularly
Jine shape, with unquailed beauty and action.
As a Pacer and Stallion he has no superior and
few, very few equals even in England, and no
horse affords a better cross in blood for our Marcs.
He won IS times, 14 of which were races of 4
miles or more. He was a horse of prodigiously
fine speed, running the t. Leger Course, when
60 yards longer than at present, carrying at 3
years old 114 pounds, in 3m. 22Js. If he had
continued his speed for only 248 yards more, he
would have finished his two miles under this
heavy weight in 3m. 38s.— much better time than
ever was made in America with the light weight
of 86 lbs. for this age. This proves beyond doubt
the great superiority of English over American
horses. Ho beat at New-Markct all their best
4 mile horses, as Memnon, the Alderman, Mort
gage, Leeway, and many others over the Pea
con Course, near 4J miles, thus proving he had
speed enough to run with the fastest, and game
and bottom enough to outlast the stoutest! His
career was truly brilliant ; at 4 or 5 years old,
winning, in succession, 17 races without losing a
heat, 12 of which were 4 miles or more. -7s a
racer he had no superior!
His colts ate running in England with great
success, having won more and better races than
the colts of any H orse of his age. They are re
marable for fine size, form, beauty and action,
and run long and short distances equally well.
One ofhis colts run second for the Derby, 1833,
124 subscribers, “ malting it the fastest Derby on
record”.
CHATEAU MARGAUX was got by Whalo
bono, the best son of Waxy, the best son of Pot
gos, the best son of Eclipso. His darn, Wasp,
was got by Gohanna, High Flyer, Eclipse, Rose
bud by ylph, Miss Belsea, Regulus, Bartlett’s
Childers, sister to the two True Blues. All of
these were the best Horses of their day, 5 of
them having never been beaten! a rich, authen
tic, and truly excellent pedigree.
TRANBY, at Richmond, Virginia, under the
direction of R. C. Williamson, Esq. at S6O the
season, and SIOO insurance. Every accommo
dation, separate enclosures, and attention will bo
furnished at 33 cts. per day, but no liability for
accidents or escapes. Tranby, now rising 9 years
old, is a beautiful rich bay, nearly without white,
5 feet 2 or 2J inches high, of fine bone, great
length and substance, beauty and form, with un
surpassed action. His racing performances were
of high character, beating many first rate horses,
as Lucetta, &c. but his excellency was untiri ig
stoutness and unflinching game and bottom. He
travelled in two months near 600 miles, run 9 hard
races, winning when carrying 175 pounds against
older horses with the same weight; and was
then rode by Mr. Osbaldcstone, in his famous
match against time. He was rode 4 heats of 4
miles each, carrying 157 pounds when 5 yetrs I
old, and running his second heat during a violent
rain-storm, over a deep and miry course, in 8 mi
nutes. This is perhaps the most masterly per
formanco on record, for he was not touched by
whip or spur. He had two races this same
week, and now run Ist heal in Bm. 10s., 2d,‘B m 3
3d, Sm. 155., and 4th, Bm. 505.; running, with
this immense weight, for a 5 years old, 16 miles
in 33m. 15s.—Character enough for any Horse !
beauty, fine size, high form,
rich colour, excellent action, pure pedigree, and
the great promise of his colts, which are said to
be “ as fine as man ever saw,” arc recommenda
tions rarely met with in the same tallion. Breed
ers, who desire stock from this noble animal, are
advised to avail themselves of this opportunity, as
he will perhaps be without their reach hereafter.
Tranby was got by Blacklock, one of the best
racers and tallions ever in Engla r.d. Blacklock
when 4 years old, run 4 miles in 1818, carrying
119 pounds, in 7m. 255. his dam was by Orville
sire of Emilias, Octavius, and Muley ; and grand
sire of Priam, Plenipotentiary, and Sarpedon.—-
Miss Grimstone, by Weaxel, a capital son of He
rod, Ancaster, Damascus, Arabian, Sampson, O
roonoko, sister to Mina, by Godolphin Arabian
Hobgoblin, Whitefcot, Leedee, Moonah, Barb-’
!a \ n ; , A. T. B. MERRITT.
March 25 3tw 50