Newspaper Page Text
Virginia.
Charlotte County, \ov. 28.
•fl tUriter in the Richmond Enquirer under the
signature of a “ Friend to Truth.” says,
Sir:— Perceiving that in your stictures upon
the public conJuct of Mr. Calhoun you have
added my name into the question, I avail myself
of the right, which in this instance, I deem also to
my duty, to put myself right in the court of pub
lic opinion, before which you have summoned.
In the course of that debate I did explicitly,
for more than once, impute to the doctrines main
tained by Mr. Calhoun, an irreconcileable hostil
ity to the very existence of the state governments.
And whilst I admitted that, from his ignorance
and incapacity, Mr. Clay might not be aware of
the inevitable tendency of the system which he
supported, I had too much respect for the under
standing of Mr. Calhoun to believe it possible that
he could be blind to the consequences, I fore
warded both him and Mr. Lowndes, that this was
but the commencement of a scheme which must
end in the utter subversion of the States gener
ally; and of robbery or oppression of the slave
holding portion of the Union, which it would be
imposibie for them to submit to.
I told those gentlern .i that five years would
not elapse before we should be called upon to pay
another tribute to the masters —the manufactures;
and I took the term of five years, because four is
the limit of the presidential service; and 1 knew
that each approaching election a bribe would be
held out to buy up the vote and interest of the
stronger portion of the Union. Experience has
confirmed the truth of my calculation: and the
Tariffs of’22. ’24, and their successors attest the
soundness of the theory to which the practice
will, in every instance, havebeen found rigidly to
conform.
When Mr. Lowndes, by strenuous opposi
tion to the Tariff of ’24 was buying golden
opinions from all sorts of men, l took occa
sion to remind him, that to hi in and Mr. Cal
hoir.i the southern states would he mainly in
debted for the system of pillage and oppres
sion which was then being established over
them. Ii plain truth Mr. Clay, Mr. Calhoun,
and Mr. Lowndes all came into the House of
Representatives, for the first time, at the same
session (1811-12 ) each wifi a single eye on
the Presidency—and commenc 'd a system of
bidding at auction for popularity, which, with
Mr. Lowndes, was terminated only with his
life, and has been unremittingly followed up
by the other two, down to the present hour.
In tiiis contest, Mr. Clay, has decided the
vantage ground, having given himself up en
tirely to the friends of the American Sys
tem, of which he lias, moreover, the r pu.u
tio i of being the architect as well as tli
tiiief supporter. Although Mr. Calhoun was
the father of the present 3unk of the United
States, yet his zeal in its support has been
quickened by the hope of piopitiating Penn
sylvania, and rallying under his standard all
tne friends and dependants of that colossal
scheme of corruption, wherever they arc to
be found—whether oil this, of the other sid
of the Atlantic* Accordingly we see the
Stock Brokers of London, following suit to
the lead of the Orator op the West and
hear them chaunting in the very words, and
n the same key-note of the great author of
the American System.
The friends and admirers of Mr. Lowndes,
may and probably will, be wounded by this
statement; but it is due to truth. Among the
last—his admirer —I claim a place ; although,
from the time that he lent himself to Mr.
Clay, on his motion to change lhe rules and
orders of the House—a motion levelled per
sonally at me, and utterly regardless and sub
versive of the freedom of speech and of de
bate—l lost, never to be regained, all my res
pect for him, not only as a statesman, but as
a man, and a gentleman. His conduct on
that occasion, was the conduct of a pimp and
a parasite; such as the humblest member of
the South-Carolina delegation would have
scorned to descend to. But such are the
temptations and the wages of ambition.
To some, it may appear, that in this ad
dress l have departed from a rule by which
my conduct has been governed ever since I
came into public life : never to descend to its
defence in the newspapers. But they who
will give themseivesthe trouble to examine
into the circumstances of the case, will rea
dily perceive, that the inconsistency is in ap
pearance only, and that having been drawn
before the public without being consulted,
and indeed against mv own consent, it behov
ed me to vindicate the course which l had
pursued and the motives by which 1 had been
actuated.
I am, Sit, with much respect for the opin
ions which you avow, and the ability with
which you sustain them.
Your obedient servant,
JOHN RANDOLPH, of Roanoke.
A PROCLAMATION
By WILSON LUMPKIN, Governor and
Commander in Chief of the Army and Na
vy of this State , and of the Militia thereof;
WH EREAS, I have received official informa
tion, that on the night of the 12th Decem
ber (inst.) in the county of Baldwin, and town of
Milledgeville in said State, a murder was com
mitted on the body of Lemuel Smith, by William
F’ournoy of Putnam ■county. And it being rep
resented to me, that the-said William Flournoy
basiled fromjustice. Now in order that the said
may be apprehended and brought to trial for the
crime with which he is charged—l have thought
proper to issue this my proclamation, hereby of
fering a reward of TWO HUNDRED DOL
LARS, to any person or persons who may appre
hend, and deliver him, into the custody of the
Sheriff of said county of Baldwin, where
the said murder was committed. And, Ido more
over charge and require all officers, civil and mil
itary, to be vigilantin endeavouring to apprehend
and bring to trial said offender.
Given under my hand and the gTeat seal of the
State, at the State House in Milledgeville,
this the 14th day of December in the year of
our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and
thirty-two, and of the Independence of the
Uuited States, the fifty-seventh.
WILSON LUMPKIN.
By the Governor,
E. Hamilton, Secretary ofState.
DESCRIPTION.
WILLIAM FLOURNOY is about six feet
high, square shoulders, bla<*k hair and eyes, has
a scar on one cheek, and about twenty-two, or
three years of age.
CCj* All the Papers in Milledgeville will give
tbt above two insertions.
PROCLAM A TIO N
BY ANDREW JACKSON,
President of the Uni, ed Stales.
Whereas, a Convention assembled in the
State of South Carolina have passed an Ordi-'
nance, by which triey declare “That the j
several acts and parts of acts of the Congress !
of the United States, purporting to be laws
for the imposing of duties and imposts o:t the
importation of foreign commodities, and now
having actual operation and effect within the
United States, and more especially” two acts,
for the same purposes, passed on the 29th of
May, 1828, and on the l ltlt of July, 1832,
“are unauthorized by the Constitution of the
United States, and violate the true m ailing
art t intent thereof, and are null and void, and |
,no law,” nor binding on the citize .s of that
State or its officers: and by the said Ordi
nance it is further declared to be unlawful for
any of the constituted authorities of the
State, or of the United States, to enforce the
payment of the duties imposed by the said
acts within the same State, and that it is the
duty of the Legislature to pass such laws as
may be necessary to give full effect to the
said Ordinance.
And whereas, by the said Ordinance it is
furtli-- ordained, that, in no efise of law or
equity, decided in the courts of said State,
wherein shall be drawn in question the valid
ity of tiie said Ordinance, or of the acts of
the Legislature that may be passed to give it
ff’ct.or of the said laws of the United States,
no appeal shall be allowed to the Supreme
Court of the United States, nor shall any co
py of the record be permitted or allowed for
that purpose; and that any person attempt
ing to take such appeal shall be punished as
fora contempt of court:
Arid, finally, the said Oidinance declares
that the people of South Carolina will main
tain the said Ordinance at every hazzard ; and
that they will consider the passage of any act
by Congress abolishing or closing the ports of
the said State, or otherwise obstructing the
free ingress or egress of vessels to and from
the said ports, or any other act of the Fede
ral Government to coerce the State, shut up
her poets, destroy or harass her comm rce, or
to enforce the said acts otherwise than
through the civil tribunals of tiie country, as
inconsistent with the longer continuance of
South Carolina in the Union; and that the
people of the said State will thcnceforcc hold
themselves absolved from all further ohliga-j
tion to mantain or preserve their political
connexion with the people of other States,
and will forthwith proceed to organize a sep
arate Government, and do all other acts and
things which sovereign and independent
States may of right do:
And whereas the said Ordinance prescribes
to the people of South Cwolina a course of
conduct, in direct violation of their duly as
citizens of the United States, contrary to the
laws of their country, subversive of its consti
tution, and having for its object the destruc
tion of the Union, which, coeval with our po
litical existence, led our fathers, without any
other lies to unite them than those of patri
otism and a common cause, through a san
guinary struggle to a glorious independence
—’hat sacred Union, hitherto inviolate,
which, perfected bv our happy Constitution,
has brought us, by the favor of Heaven, to a
s’ato of prosperity at home, and high consid
eration abroad, rarely, if ever, equalled in tie
history of nations: To preserve this bond ol’j
our political existence from destruction, to
maintain inviolate this state of national hon
or and prosperity, and to justify the confi
dence my fellow-citizens have reposed in me,
I, Andrew Jackson, President of the Uni
ted States, have thought proper to issue this
my PROCLA VIATION, stating my views of
the Constitution and laws applicable to the
measures adopted by the Convention of
South Carolina, and to the reasons they have
put forth to sustain them, declaring the course
which duty will require me to pursue, and,
anpealing to the understanding ami patriot
ism of the people, warn them of the conse
quences that must inevitably result from an
observance of the dictates of the Convention.
Strict duty would require of me nothing
more than the exercise of those powers with
which 1 am now, or may hereafter be, inves
ted, for preserving the peace of the Union,
and for the execution of the laws. But tin
imposing aspect which opposition has assum
ed in this case, hy clothing itself with State
authority, and the deep interest which the
people of the United States must all feci in
preventing a resort to stronger measures,
while there is a hope that any thing will be
yielded to reasoning and remonstrance, pet
haps demand, and will certainly justify, a
full exposition to South Carolina and the na
tion of the views I entertain of this impor
tant question, as well as a distinct enuncia
tion of the course which my sense of duty will
require me to pursue.
The Ordinance is founded, not on the in
defeasible right of resisting acts which are
plainly unconstitutional, and too oppressive
to be endured, but on the strange position that
any one State may not only declare an act of
Congress void, hut prohibit its execution—
that they may do this consistently with the
Consiitution—that the true construction of
that instrument permits a State to retain its
place in the Union, arid yet he bound hy no
other of its laws than those it may choose to
consider as constitutional. It is true, thev
add, that, to justify this abrogation of a law,
it must be palpably contrary to the Constitu
tion; but it is evident, that to give the right
of resisting laws of that description, coupled
with the uncontrolled rigtit to decide what
laws deserve that character, is to give the
|)owcr,of resisting all laws. For, ashy the
theory there is no appeal, the reasons alleged
hy the State, good or had, must prevail. If
it-should be said that public opinion is a suf
ficient cheek against theahusp of this power,
it may be asked why it is not deemed a suf
ficient guard against the passage of an un
constitutional act by Congress. There is.
however, a restraint ip this last case, which
makes the assumed power of a State more in
defensible, and which floes not exist in the
other. There are two appeals from ari un
constitutional act passed hy Congress—one
to the Judiciarv, the other to the p ople and
the Status. There is no appeal frout the-
St ite decision in theory ; and the practical il- j
lus ration shows that the courts are closed !
ag iost an application to review it, botli judg- J
esand jurors Deinir sworn to decide in i's fa- j
vor. But reasoning on this subject is super
fluous when our social compact in express j
terms declares, that the laws of the United j
States, its Constitution,and treaties made un- ,
<ler it, are the Supreme law of the land; & ft r
greater caution adds, ‘‘that the judges in every
State shall be bound then by, any thing in the
Constitution or laws of any State to the con
trary notwithstanding.” And it may be as
serted, withoutfear of refutation, that no Fed
erative Government could exist without a
similar provision. Look for a moment to the
consequence. If South Carolina considers
the revenue laws unconstitutional, and has
a right to pr, vent their execution in the port
of Charleston, there would be a clear consti
tutional objection to their collection in every
other port, and no revenue could be collected
any where; for all imposts must be equal.—
It is no answer to repeat that an unconstitu
tional law is no law, so long as the question of
its legality is to be decided by the State it
self; for every law operating injuriously up
on any local interest will be perhaps thought
and c rtainly represented, as unconstitution
al, and, s.s has beeiPshown, there is rio appeal.
If this doctrine had been established at an
earlier day, the Union would have been dis
solved in its infancy. The excise law in
Pennsylvania, the embargo and non-inter
course law in the Eastern States, the carriage
tax in Virginia, were all deemed unconstitu
tional, and were more unequal in their ope
ration than any of the laws now complained
of; but, fortunately, none of those States dis
cover that they had the right now claimed
by South Carolina. Tiie war into which wi
were forced, to support the dignity of the na
tion and the rights of our citizens, might liavi
ended in defeat and disgrace, instead of vic
tory and honor, if the States, who supposed it
a ruinous and unconstitutional measure, had
thought they possessed the right of nullifying
the act bywlnch it was declarer), and denying
supplies for its prosecution. Hardly and un
equally as those measures bore upon several
members of theUnio i, to the Legislatures of
none did this efficient and peaceable reme
dy, as it is called, suggest itself. The dis
covery of this important feature inourconsti
tution was reserved to the present day. To
the statesmen of South Carolina belongs tin
I invention, and upon the citizens of that State
will unfortunately fall the evils of reducing it
to practice.
If a doctrine of a State veto upon the laws
of tiie Union carries with it internal evi
dence of its impracticable absurdity, our con
stitutin',, il history will also afford abundant
proof that it would have been repudiated will
indignation, had it been proposed to form .
feature in our Government.
in Gi-T colonial state, although depend , m
on another power, we vei'j’ ?arlv considered
ourselves as connected by common interest
with each other. Leagues were formed or
common and fence, and before the declaration
of Independence, we were known in om
aggregate character as the united colonies
of America. That decisive anil important
step was taken jointly. We declared our
selves a nation by a joint, not by several acts;
and when the terms of our confederation wen
n-duced to form, it was in that of a solemn
league of several States, by which they a
greed that they would, collectively, form om
nation for the purpose of conducting some
certain domestic, concerns, and all foreign
relations, in the instrument forming that
Union, is found an article whiah declares that
“ every State shall abide by the determina
tions of Congress on all questions which b\
that confederation should be submitted to
them.”
Under the confederation, then, no State
could legally annul a decision cf the Con
gress, or refuse to submit to its execution;
but no provision was made to enforee thesf
decisions. Congress made requisitions, but
they were not complied with. The Govern
ment could not operate on individuals. The\
had no judiciary, no means of collecting
revenue.
But the defects of the confederation need
not be detailed. Under its operation, we
could scarcely he called a nation. We ha
neither prosperity at home nor consideration
abroad. This state of things could not be
endured, and our present happy constitution
was formed; hut forun and in vain, if this fatal
doctrine prevails. It was formed for impor
tant objects that are annouccd in the pream
ble made in the name and hy the authority
of the people of the United States, whose
delegates framed, and whose conventions ap
proved it. The most important among these
obj cts, that which is placed first in rank, o.i
which all the others rest, is, “ toform a more
perfect Union." Now, is it possible that,
even if there were no express provision giv
ing supremacy to the constitution and laws of
, the United States over those of the States, it
can be conceived, that an instrument made
for the purpose of “forming a more perfect
Union" than that of the confederation, could
he so constructed hy the assembled wisdom
of our country as to substitute for that con
federation a form of government dependent
for its existence on the local interest, the
party spirit of a State, or of a prevailing fac
tion in a State ? Every man of plain unso
phisticateed understanding, who hears the
question, will give such an answer as will
preserve the Union, Metaphysical subtlety,
in pursuit of an impracticable theory, could
alone have devised one that is calculated to
destioy it.
I consider, t' en, the power to annul a law
of the United States, assumed hy one State,
INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTENCE OF THE
Union, conthadicted expressly by the
LETTER OF THE CONSTITUTION, UNAUTHORIS
ED BY ITS SPIRIT, INCONSISTENT WITH EVERY
PRINCIPLE ON WHICH IT WAS FOUNDED, AND
DESTRUCTIVE OF THE GREAT OBJECT FOR
WHICH IT WAS FORMED.
After this general view of the leading prin
ciple, we must examine the part c ilar appß.
cation of it which is made iri an or finance.
The preamble resists its justification on three
grounds:—lt assumes ns n fact, th it the ch.
noxious laws, although they purport to be
JIACON ADVERTISER.
laws for raising revenue, were in reality in
tended lor the protection of munuli.ciun s,
tvhicli purpose it assi rts to 1.-i nncoi.stitu!ton
al; that the operition of these laws is m.equal;
that t.ie amount raised I,y them is gr ate. than
is required by the wants of the Gov minent;
and, finally, that the proceeds are le be ap
plied to objects unauthorised by the Consti
ution. l'liese arc the only" caust s alleged
to justify an open opposition to the laws ot
the country, and a threat of s. ceding Iron
the Union, if any attempt should be made ti
enfotcc them. The first .virtually acknowl
edges that the law in question was passed un
der a power expressly given .y the Constitu
tion, to lay and collect imposts; but its con
stitutionality is drawn in question f-pm t! <
motives of those who passed it. However
apparent this purpose may be in the pn sent
case, nothing can be more dangerous than to
admit the position that ;.n unconstitutional
purpose, entertained by the m tubers who
assent to a law enacted under a constitutional
power, shall make that law void ; for bow is
that purpose to be ascertatnrd ? Who is to
make the scrutiny ? How often may bad
nirposes be falsely imputed? in how many
casts arc they concealed bv false profissions?
in how many is no declaration of motive
made? Admit thisdoctriae, and von give to
the States an uncontrolled right to docid<,
and every law may be unnulled limb r t|i ?
[•retext. It, therefore, the absurd and dan
gerous doctrine should be adiaittid, that a
State may annul an unconstitutional law, or
one that itdeeni3 such, it will not apply to
the present case.
The next objection is, that th laws inqti -
tion operate unequally. The ol j etion mav
be made with truth to everv law that has be n
or can be passed. The vvisi.om of mar, nov r
vet contrived a system of taxation that would
operate with perfect equality. If the nueqmd
operation of a law makes it unconstitutional,
arid it all laws of that and. scription may be ab
rogated by any State for that cause, then in
deed is the Federal Constitution unworthv of
the slightest effort for its presr rvation. We
have hitherto relied on it as the perpetual
bond of our Union. We hav rsre veil it as
the work of the assembled wisdom of the na
tion. We have trusted to it as to the sh et
anchor of our safety, in the stormy times of
conflict with a foreign or domestic fee. W.
have looked to it with sacred awe as the palla
lium of our liberties, and, with all the so
lemnities of religion, have pledged to cad
other our fives and fortunes here, and our
hopes of happiness h reaftcr, in its d< fet e;
and support. Were we mist k n, mv conn
•ryineri, in attaching tins importance to th
Constitution of our country ? Was our rlrvo
tion paid to the wretclu and, im fli dent, clmnv
contrivance, which this new doctrdm won’
make it? Did we pledge ours lv s (o t'
support of an airv nothing—a bubble - ilia*
must be blown away bv the first ly a th o
lisafTectation ? W„ s trns srov.ng, v -
tonary theory, the work of the profound stat .
'(ten, the exalted piriots, to whom the t A, of
constituliona' reform was entrust d? D’
the name of Washington sari"tion, did th
-hates deliberately ratify, such an anomal i>
the history of fundamental legislation? No.
We were not mistaken! The I iter of the
great instrument is free from its radical fiub :
its language directly contradicts the impn'a.
tion : its spmit—its evident intent contradict*,
it. No, we did notirr! Our Const itutiot
does not contain ‘the absurdity of giving [low
er to make laws, and another power to n sis
th mi. The sages, whose memory will always
be reverenced, have given us a practical, and,
as they hoped, a permanent coostitutioun
cornpact. The Father of his country did not
alfix his revered name to so palpable an ah
s irdity. Nor did the Slab s, when t hev s* v< •
dly ratified it, do so under the impressio.
that a veto on the laws of the United Sr.it. s
was reserved to them, or that they could < \
■rcise it by implication. Si arch the debah s
in all their Coavputio >s—examine tin
s|)eechesof the most zealousoppos rs of Fed
i rul authority—look at the amendments tion
were proposed. They are all sib nt— not ;
syllable uttered, not a vote given, t ot a no -
tion made, to correct the explicit supremacy
given to the laws of the Union over thost of
the States—or to show that implication, as is
now contended, could deft at it. No, we loin
not erred I The Constitution is still the oh
ject of our reverence, the bond of our Union,
our defence in danger, the source of on
prosperity in peace, it s tall descend, as u
have received it, uucormpied by sophistical
construction, to our posterity ; and the s er*
fices of local interest, of Statu pr jodice*, o
personal animosities, that w re ma le to hrm
it into existence, will again le pitriotieallv
offered for itssupport.
The two remaining obj, ctions made by th
Ordinatce to these laws an , that the sums i
tended to be raised by tnem are gr at. r th .
are required, and that the proce.ds will I.
unconstitutiona'ly employed. lie Cos .shin
tion has given expressly to Congre ss tin right
of raising n venue, and of <1 t< minting tin
sum the public exigencies will n quin , Tin
-fates have no control ov. r the t xi rcise if
this right,other than that winch t. subs fun
the power of changing the R< pn si ni.iiiv
who abuse it, and thus procun tedrss. Cm.
grt ss ntay undoubtedly abuse ibis disc.-, t w.;,-
ry [tower, but the same may be said ot oiiur
with which th y are Vested’. Yd tin di.-cu
tion must exist somevv lk re. Thu Coustitn
tion has given it to the Reprrsentatiw s of aI.
tlx- People, checked l>y the Represeni.il n
of the States, Sind by the Executive [iimk r
The South Carolina concur,ct ioii gives ii i<
the Legislature or the Cmm ntiou ( fa si <• I,
State, where neither the people of the dill! r
(“Ot States, nor the Slates in their separ/ii
capacity, nor the Chief Magistrate eh eti and In
the people, have any r< urrsentalion. Which
is the most discreet disposilon oft lie power?,
I do not ask you fellow-citizens, which is tlx
constitutional disposition—that instrument
speaks a language not to lie misunderstood.
But if you were assembled in genera! con
vention, which would you think the s;-f< s;
depository of this discretionary pmn r in tin
last resort ? Would you add a clause giving
it to each of the States,or would you sanction
the wise provisions already made hv your
Constitution ? If this should be the result of
yourdelib, rations vv hi , revii.t. g tor lit l.j.
tun,a.eyoi)—i an you—l- ready to r.sk ail
, fiat we lilt'd dear, to establish, lor .1 U mpnra
ry and a loc.d puipos , that which you mils
acknou (■ dge to tie tic sit u**tiv, mm ev.uqfi
sunt, as a tf. 11 r.d provision? Carry 0.. t ill
oiisi quinci s of this rig t v. steti m the dil
t’ rent States, an . you .. nst |> re. tve that tin
•r sis your conduct presents at ill s day
would r. cur whenever any law of tiie United
•Mates displeased tiny of tin States, and that
we s' mild si 1 n Ci ase to be a nation.
Tiie Ordinance with the same knowledge of the
future that characterizes a for er objection, tells
you that the proceeds of tiie tax will be unconsti
tutionally applied. If this could be ascertained
with certainty, the objection wou and with more pro
priety, he reserved for the law so applying the pro
ceeds, but surely cannot be urged against the laws
levying the duty.
These are the allegations contained in the Ordi
nance. Examine them seriously my fello v.citizens
—judge for yourselves. I appeal to you to deter
mine whether they are so clear, so convincing as to
leave no doubt ot their correctness : and even if you
should come to this conclusion, how far they justify
the reckless, destructive course, which you are di
rect dto pursue. Review these objections, and the
conclusions drawn from them, once more. What
are they? Every law, then forrusing revenue af
cording to the South-Carolina Or din nice, mav be
rightfully annulled unless it be so framed as no law
ever will or can be framed. Congress have a right
to pass law s tor raising revenue, and each State has
a right to oppose their execution—two rights direct,
ly opposed to each other ; and yet is th s übsur lily
supposed to be contained in an instrument drawn or
the express purpose of nvoiding collisions bet veen
the states and tiie General Government, by an as.
scmbly ot the most enlightened statesmen and pur
est patriots ever embodied far a simsl ir purpose,
In vain have these sages declared that Congress
sh ill have pow’er to lay and collect t xos, duties, im.
posts, and excises—in vain have they provided th it
they shall have power to pass taws w’hich shall be
necessary and proper to c irry those powers into ex
ecution ; that those laws and that o istitutiou shall
be the “supreme law of the land; and that the
judges in every State shall be bound tuereby, any
thing in the onstitution or law sof any St ite to the
contrary notwithslanding,” In vain have the people
ot the several Mates solemnly sanctioned these pro.
visions made them their paramount law, and indi
vidually sworn to support them whenever they were
called on to execute any office. Von provisions!
ineffectud restrictions! vile profanation of oaths!
miserable mockery of legislation ! If a bare in jo
rity ox the voteis in any one State may on a real or
supposed knowledge of the intent with which a law’
h s been passed, declare themselves free rom its ope
ration—say here it gives too little, there too much
and operates unequally here it sailers articles to
be tree that ought to be taxed, thei! it taxes those
that ought to be free in this ease the proceeds are
intended to be api lied to purposes which we do not
approve, in that the amount raised :s more than is
wanted, congress it is true are invested by the
onstitution, w ith the right oi deciding these ques
tions according to their sound and scretion. o lgress
is composed ol all the Represent. lives of all t e
Mates and of all the people of ah the States; bat
we. part of the 1 eople o' one State, to whom the
onst.tutiou has given no power 0.1 the subject, fom
whom it has e..[ ressly taken it away—we who
have solemnly agreed that t iis Constitution shall
be our law we, most of whom have sworn to sup
port it—we, no abro gate this law, an 1 sweir aid
force others t. s..e r, ti..t ii s lali be obeyed —and
wedoth s, not because on_,ress have no right to
pass sucli iuus ; tins we do not afiege ; but bemuse
they hove pu.-se 1 ineiu with improper views. They
are uuconsu utio.iui from trig motives of those who
passed them w.ucli we can never with certainty
know’ from ifieir unequal operation; although it is
impossible from tiie nature of tilings that they should
be equal ind fi,all the disposition which we 1r .
sume may be made of their proceeds although that
disposition lias not been declared. This is the plain
meaning oi toe Ordinance 111 relation to laws which
it abrogates for alleged unconstitutionality. Rut it
does not stop there. It repea s in express terms,
an important partol tile onstitution itself, and oi
laws passed to give it effect which hive never bee 1
alleged to be u .constitutional. Toe Constitution
declares that .he judicial powers of tiie (J. States
extend to cases arising u der the laws of the United
States, and that such laws the constitution and trea.
ties shall be paramount to the State onstitutions
and laws. The Judiciary Act prescribes the mode
by winch the case may be brought beiore a court o
the United states by appeal, when a tate tribunal
shall decide against this provision of the onstitu
tion. The Ordinance declares there shall be no ap
peal ; makes the State law paramount to the o Ist -
tution and laws of the United states; forces judge
and jurors to swear that they will disregard their
provisions; and even maaes it penal in a si.i 01 t
attempt re.ii iby appeal. It iurt.ier declares tiiat if
shall not be lawiul for toe autuorities of the United
States or o; that State, to enforce the payment o
dut.es irnpoi ed by the revenue laws within its li
111,ts.
tiereis a law of the United tates, not even pre
tended to fie unconstitutional, repealed by tiie autha
rity ot a small majority ol tiie voters of a single
State. 1-eie is a provision of t.ie Constitution
wliieii is solemnly abrogut id b , t it same authnray.
Oa such expositions and reasonings, tae Or in .nee
j grounds not 011. v un ass ruon o. t.ie right to ..niul
the laws oi w hich it com all but to en aree it by a
tnreut of seceding from the Union, i. any attempt is
made to execute them.
this right to see de is deduce i rom the n ur of
the oustitul ou, which they say is a e impact be
tween sovereign Mates who have preserved then
whole soverei fe nty, and, therefore, aie suojeet 10 no
superior ;th -t, because tliey made the coin,.act, they
can break it wdien, in tneir opinion, it has been de
parted irom by tae other* Males. Fallacious as this
course of reasoning is, it enlists Mute pride, and
finds a lvo.n.tesin the honest prejudices of those who
have not stuuied the nature ot our Government sul
fieiently to see the radical error on which it rests.
T.ie I* ople of the United Slates form .
.in- Constitution, acting through the Slat.
I. gisLttin s in making tin; compact lo unc
and discuss its piovisions, and acting in s
arate conventions when they rat,tied those
prows its; but the terms 11s din itsconsttui
110.1 sin vv a 10 be a Government in w hich th
pi ople of .11 the Slal.s collectively are r
r s n'i and. We are ink people in the cho.c
• 1 fin- Pres,l,un ami Nice President. H ,
t.ie St.i s have no , fit r agency than to ii,-
ii ci ti e m me .„ iviimi, the votes shall fiegiv
11. 'J he camTidntes Imving the maj. rtv •
II the vo es '.re clioscn. The electors 1
am; jnrfiy of 1' iati s may have giv..n the*,
vide Iwr o ii* eamli.lai , and yi t another mav
0 chosen, 'i he peo|de lin n, and not t
ai< =•, are repres. nieil in the Exe u s
ranci .
in th House of Representatives th re i.-
his diß renci, that lhe people of one Slai.
o not, as in th case ot Prvsident and Vic
I’r. sul nl, all vole for the s .ine officers. Th,
, ople ol all lhe States do not vote for all tin
me,nl er>, each Slate electing only its own n
rcscntaiivi.B. But ting creali s no materia 1
istinction. Whe,, chosen, they arc all re|ire
sentatives of the United Stites, not represen
tativi s of the particular State from vvliicl
iliey come. Tin v are paid liy the Unite,
'■'tati s, not hy the Sta e ; nor are they accoun
lalde to ii for any act. , n in the perforinanci
of tlioir legislative fine ons; and, howeve
they may in prucli -e. ns it is tin ir rlutv *1
(Jo, consult und prefer the interests of tiicir
| n.cuE.r constituents when they co , ne
cu.iiln-.i win .my ollu r partial or focil
.--I, yet ,1 ,3 Urn,r first h,„| highest
nq.r.s, .natives of the Uniltd Stan s as
mute llie gi in rul good. ' 0 fho
'l’ll Constitution of 111,. Unite,l State, th
loiinsu cover..in nt,not a league- iiN n , hen
■r,t „e funnel l,y compact Cl
Elates, nr m any other iiiuun, r , in X* lhe
is th same. It , s a f ov. rnini nt in
t e„eo|.le are r, ~r, seuteil, which o.*m l,
<1 r Ctly on lilt: | ii ople individually , Jnl L<
t esiat.s: they r. tained all the’newer iT”
.Ini I.ot grant. But each State hr,vim, 7
..iyxa.lv ported w it.l so many powers as to n*'
siitute jointly witii the other States a •,
N .tuin, cannot from that period i.oss,
ri-ht to s cede, because such seci ssio,, 1 ' f" 7
not break a league, but de.-troys tl )e
a nation ; and any injury to that unity L ' °
o .ly a breach which won I result ‘ ot
comr;ivention of aco ipret, Int it j s "T
fence against the whole Union. To sav"ii
any State may at p'easnre see, de from ti,,. p
mu, is to say ih .t the United States Hr ,
nation; because it would be a solecism
contend that any part of a nation ' m 2
dissolve its connexion with the other ari
to t ,eir ii.j .ry or ruin, without commit’
ting any ollence. Secession, like anv o h
revolutionary act, may be morally
lied b the extremity of oppression -but
etca.l A a c .ns 1 utional right is confound
ui 0 tnc meaning of terms; and can oulv
be done througli gross error, or to deceive
those w.lO are willing to assert a ri4f
bat would pause before they made a V
volution, or incur the penalties consemirm
oa a failure. M 1
Because the Union was formed bvcom
pact, it is said the parties to that compact
may, when they feel the mselves aggrieved
depart, from it : but it is precisely because
it is a compact that they cannot, A com
pact is an agreement or binding oblioa
ti°n. It may, by its terms, have a sane
t.on or penalty f.r its breach, or it may
not.—lt' it contains no sanction, it nwv
be broken with no other consequence than
moral guilt; if it have a sanction, thei
the breach incurs the designated or in
phed penalty. A leagve between inde
pendent nations, generally, has no sanction
other than a moral one; or, if it should
contain a penalty, as there is no common
supenor, it cannot be enforced. A Gov
ernment, on die contrary, always has a
sanction, express or implied ; and, in our
case, it is both necessarily implied and ex
pressly given. An attempt by force of
arms to destroy a Government, is an of
fence, by vvha ever means the constitution
al co npact may have been formed; and
such Government has the right, bvthe
la vv of seb-defence, to pass acts for punish
ing the Gander, unless that right is modi
fied, restrained, or resumed, by the con
stitutional act. In our system, although
it is modified in the case of treason, yet
audiority is expressly given to pass all
laws necessary to carry its powers into
effect, and under this grant provision has
been made for punishing acts which ob
struct the due administration of the laws.
Ii vv. tilil seem superfluous tuadd any thing to
sli w the nature of that Union which connects us:
hut us err> neons opinions on this subject are th/
foti ml alien of doctrines the most destructive h
our peace. 1 must give some further developmeil
to my views on ti.is subject. Noone, fellow-cil
seus has a higher reverence for the reserved rii'hs
•if lhe States, than the Magistrate who now”at
dresses you. Noone would make grealer personal
sacrifices, or official exertions, to defend them
from violation; hui equal care must be taken to
! preve.it on .heir pari an improper interference
w nil, . r resumption of. the lights they have vest
ed in the nation. The line has not been so dis
tinctly draw 11 as to av. id doubts in some cases of
tin* exercise ol power. Men of the best intern
li. n- and soundest views may diifer in iheir con
struction 01 some parts of the constitution: but
mere are others oil which dispassionate reflection
c..n leave 1.0 doubt. <J 1 this nature appears to be
the a?sumed light 1 f secession. It rests, as we
h ive seen, am. on their having formed ill this sot
reign <• parity a compact which is called the
Co;i.-i tu 1 1, from wnieli, lx c uise they made it
iiey iia.e toe right tu secede. Roth of these pu>
i --iti us are err. i.e nis, ami some of the arguments
' to prove n.eiii so ii.ue been an imputed.
Toe .Mites seveiuny have not retained their
entire sovereignly. It. has been shown that in
; oec ming parts of a nation, not members oft
eigi.e. they surrendered many of their essential
parts of o.ereiguty. The right to m .ke treaties
—declare vv.u —evy t.ixe —exercise exclusive
j diet 1 a.ol legis.alive [towers were all of them
fuKCti. m. ef sovereign power. The Stales, then,
I<r a.I these imp riant purposes, were no longer
soveie.gn. The allegiance of their citiztns wat
II angler red, in the first instance, to the Govern
ment of the United Mates—they became Ameri
! can citizens, anil owed obedience to the Consti
tution * f the Uni ed Slates, and to laws made in
eonf.iiiniiy wit,, t.ie povv rsit vested in Uongress
- 11,I 1 , is la.-t pm itioii has not been, and e:nnotht
deni. t., liovv tin’ll can th t State be said to b*
e.eign and nidi jiendent, whose citizens ovvi
obedience to laws not made by it, and whoa
maginii .tes a.e sworn Id disregard those law*
vvm 11 t :ey come in conflict with those passed bj
iiu iiiei < Vv ti..t shows conclusively that the
•Males 0 not lie sai. to have reserved an undivi
ded sove.r ignty, Is, that they expressly ceded th*
right to punish ire.iSon-—not t eased against their
separ.i.e | ovv r—t ut treason against the United
Ooiiis. t .ease nis Hit ulleiice against iovcru'g n '
tj. and sover* ignty must reside with the pow er to
punish 11. lint the reserved rights ol the States
are not less sacred, because they have for their
c anmon interest made tt.e General Government
the depository of these powers. The unity of our
p nr,leal character (as has been shown foranotu*
er purpo-e) commenced with its very existence.
Ulln rtheKoy.il Government we had no sepa*
■ aie character—our opposition to its oppressions
began as Umted UopoNis. We were the Units®
States under the confederation, and the n a * e
was perpeiuated, and the Union rendered ro° r ®
perfect, liy the Federal Constitution. In ,l0 "
ol these st .ges did we consider ourselves many
••liter light than as forming ope nation. If** 11 ?.
nd alliances made in the name of a •
I'roops wi re raised for the joint defence.
alien, w ith all these proofs, that under all chung
esof our position we had, for designated purpo s *
•ind with defined powers, created National G°'
ernineuts—how is it, that the most perfect 01
ho e several modes of union should now becun
-idered as a mere league, that may be disso ve
at pleasure? It is from an abuse of terms. U-orn
pact is used as synonymous with le*g°*. ?-