Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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°*. ?-