Newspaper Page Text
MMH aw & _ &irjj bm mismm • amgaKL3fe&<MMgr wmg
*\>r ihv Mactrn Advertiser#
licuLtw of the People.
The people of the United States are divi
ded into two gri.it political parties ; the pol
icy of the one leading to consolidation, that of
the other to the preservation of State Rights.
These parties are not of recent origin—they
e coeval with our Government. Though
assuming different names at different periods,
their doctrines have remained the same—
their policy unchanged. At the formation of
our Constitution they were known as Federal
at:d Republican. It was the favorite theory
of the one, that the peojJe were the greatest
enemies to themselves, whilst it was conten
ded by the latter that they were fully compe
tent to self-government. lienee the Fede
ralists, cherishing a predilection for the anci
ent institutions of Europe,were the advocates
of adopting in this country, a splendid and en
ergetic Geminent, possessing undefined
powers, no*o becontrouled by the States and
virtually aua practically independent the
people themselves. But the Republicans,
friendly to national simplicity and economy,
sought the erection of a limited government,
to-be Comprised of an In ion of the several
Independent States and to bo allowed no oth
er powers than what were indispcnsiblo to
the accomplishment of the object of its erec
tion. And what was that object ? It was
mainly, the management ofou-r foreign rela
tions, leaving the regulation of our internal
ordomestic policy to the legislation of the
States severally. These were the leading
views of the two contending parties—a hitter
strife ensued between them, each endeavor
ing to incorporate in the new Constitution, as
much of their respective creeds as possible.
Fortunately for ourselves, and we hope it may
prove fortunate to a distant posterity; the Re
publicans succeeded inframing a constitution
•tm their own principles oi limited government,
which was solemnly accepted and ratified by
the States separately. And it is under the
banner of this Constitution, that the Amctican
people arc now called upon to rally. They
owe to it their allegiance and their affection
for it has sustained them in every trial with
honor and success; it has commanded nation
al respect abroad and afforded individual se
curity at home; it lias borne them triumph
antly in war and prosperously in peace and if
they never depart from its plain and simple
principles their happiness and freedom will
endure and the federal Fnion he perpetual.
But who can curl) the restless spirit of am- ■
hinon and cupidity 1 It was for a long time'
believed that the hostility of the Federal par
ty to the restraining principles of the Consti
tution arose from a candid difference of opin
ion merely, and that so soon as experience
should test the stability of a Government of
defined and limited powers, all opposition to
ihose restraining principles would cease.—
llasi this hope been realized ! A fair trial of
40 years has proven the adequacy of our Con
stitution to all tiie fair and legitimate ends
of government, and yet it is assailed by its
thousand enemies ; yet there are a combina
t ion of mammon-miiided men and lawless as
pirants, who seek their ow n enrichment and
political advancement in the extirpation of
the salutary restrictions of that instrument.
'The same spirit that opposed those restric
tions in the convention still wars for their
destruction ; that spirit of the Federal party —
the love of power, and of hatred of political
equality—has been abroad in our land, work*
ingsometimes openly but mostly like a p< sti-'
1-uice in darkness, from the closiugof the Rev-1
elution, down to the present period ; and if it j
be not speedily arrested it its progress; in
will triumph in the total obliteration of every
republican feature of our Government.
The sages and patriots who framed our Con
stitution, ffatte.red themselves, that they had
by a compact so clearly expressed and sc sol
emnly ratified, forever secured the rights of
the States and the people from all federal en
croachments. But behold, not a lialf century
has elapsed before Wc witness the violation,
xrf some of the most sacred principles- it con
tains, and shameless attempts at usurpation of
some of the most important powers withheld.
Tin; Federalists have gained by construction !
tv-ha* was expressly denied them,A the Repub- 1
iicans, have yielded to these encroachments
w readily as to legitimate authority. It is;
'time that the warning voice against these u
sirrpehor.-s should be heard, livery violation
of tiie sob sti tution is an invasion upon the j
rights x£ the states anti the freedom of the 1
people ,An*l when that instrument shall bc :
effectually underminded; when its restraints
shall he Mis regarded ; when it shall be no lon
ger look,* f u von as the paramount, authority'
in our coni ‘i y, 1 take the liberty of admon
ishing tire pi m>lo that they have parted with
their freed >i i and forever. They may “drop
some natural tears when all is lost” but an
ocean of ref e ntant tears will not regain their
inestimable J leritagc—never restore their
“Paradise Ljs
Never were the free institutions of our
country in gw ter jeopardy than at the-pres-
I- it crisis. Mj you ask for the evidence ?
Hni; the amfci ’ion and cupidity of our aspi-
N -witness the rapid departure
oi '.jdF •- f.rtra mt from its original purity
■i--- incity aitdc sonoiny—w itness the strides
OoufW eswotot ffu Rubicon of legitimate
aatbority,-atwtad ove all witness that unhal-
T oWC d -'system of partial and corrupt le
gislation' calbt the “American System,”
but a of the most unparallellcd
robborv. ieduptcc to build up the fortunes of a
dew upon tire Ton isol tliousamb'.’Thcse things
move the domiuft aril tendency of on r gov < rn
inent, which'il itf >t arrested must ere long lead’
to the necessity *of throw ing additional safe
guards around the rights of the people, ll
j (’ormeps tie not reclaimed from its guilty ah-
I p,.rations —if it continue unchecked in its
I supteirt icy—if it continues to make
I the lust of powet and plunder the grouml-
I work of its legislative enactments, the inevi
§’ table consequence will he, that the states by
§ its oppression Wi.'l he placed in the same atti-
I tude to tllut body that the colonies were to the
] mother country.
And what was this attitude ? It was this.
I “Feeling might and forgetting right” the mo
ti er country sought by imposing taxes in va
i rious.shapes, to appropriate to her own pur
the lior.est earnings of the Citizen* 01.
tin si Colonics. YVJrr rsked by what nti-
I: therit) flu* jrttVJicJ uxu.
lev in this country, without the consent of the
! people to be disbursed in another, she mod*
justly replied that the majority of her Parlia
ment had the right to bind the Colonics in
! ill cases whatsoever. A power so unlimited
I and aosolute as this was no soone-r claimed
than denied—it was as promptly repelled as
it was audaciously aSscrtcd ; and if the first
attempts to exercise unwarranted authority
were always to he as readily discerned and i
as firmly resisted, we should no more hear of
the bowing down of people to the despotism
lof rulers. Too proud to recede from the
I high ground she had assumed, and still less
I unwilling to lose the tribute she exacted,
! the infatuated mother country attempted to
I enforce her arbitrary and unjust mandates bv
1 the sword—the result is familiar to us all.—
| Unconditional subinssion belonged not to the ‘
(character of the American Colonies—tiiev
j knew no such doctrine as passive obedienofc.
: and the government that attempt'd to drivel
j them into it by force, was made to rue iti bit- j
Iturncss the unhallowed endeavor. Let us!
| profit by the example. What were Colonies j
1 then, arc States now, each possessing the !
j same unalienated right of self-government and j
J self piotcction. Who shall abridge these
i rights ? Who shall circumscribe that liber
' tv, which hut a few years ago, our fathers de- j
! fended at the price of the best blood of the j
j world. Let lawless invaders of others rights I
j stand admonished by the history of that llev
l olution, and if not reclaimed to a sense of
! justice they may at least learn their destiny.
Now who is there enjoying the light of
i common sense, whose mental vision is not
j dimmed by low and selfish passions—that
i cannot perceiv e the striking similarity be-'
| tween the policy of Grenville and North and
that pursued by the present despotic majority!
in Congress ? In what respect should the i
| Tariff act he considered less odious ordange
-1 rous to the Southern people than the Stampt
; Actor the Tea Tax ; all originating in the
, most inhuman selfishness, based upon the
same claim of political power, and differing
in their operations in this regard, that the
Tariff’ brings fourfold ruin to those on whom
the burden is made to fall. And shall we
I he told that this is the settled policy of the
! Government ? and that it is treason to oppose
,it ? No. YVhen it shall become the settled
; policy of this country there will be a rupture
jin it. The sincere devotion of the South to
I the Union has made her patient under many
( wrongs in hopes that a returning sense of
justice in Congress would ere long slacken
Hie hand of oppression. But let these hopes
be destroyed—let the American System of
Tariff and Internal Improvement be obsti
nately persevered in until the people become |
fully convinced that it is not lobe abandoned
until its vampyre operations have draw n the J
last cent from their pockets, then will those ;
party divisions which now distract and weak
en them, have an end, and the States that are .
the victims of the flagitious policy will have
done with all par lying. And is it sneering- [
ly asked; whativiil they do ? I answer, what- !
ev< r may he rendered necessary to rid them- 1
( selves either of their burdens, or of those j
who impose them. Gladly would they avoid
the painful necessity of choosing between ,
perpetual separation or unconditional submis
| siou to arbitrary, selfish and unconditional le- ;
j gislation ; but if driven by intolerable burtli-,
ms into the dreadful dilemma, there can be
no uncertainty as to the choice that will he j
made. Either will be bad enough. Both j
may be avoided by a little more unanimity on I
the part of Southern States—a unanimity i
which common sufferings will bring them j
into after awhile. It is them divisions that,
enable their enemies to triumph over their j
rights—let them become as one people and!
their voice will be heard—their complaints!
attended to, and their wrongs redresssed.
Much may be expected from the labors of
the Free 'Trade meeting to beheld in Phildel- 1
pliia. It is to be hoped that this convention in;
the name and behalf of the citizens of the !
States they represent will be able to present
their grievances to Congress in that true and
forcible light; and address to that body such
an argument -to the understanding, and such \
an appeal to the honest feelings of the boort, (
as cannot fail to awaken them to a sense of I
their injustice, and not only procure the repeal!
of that odious enactment that sits like an In
oulms on the country; hut also convince them
how absolutely important it is to the preserva
tion of peace, and the perpetuity of the Union
to abstain for the future from all legislation
that overleaps the barriers of the Constitu
tion. But if every peaceable and friendly ef
fort prove unavailing—if the despotic majo-;
ritv of Congress impervious to reason, and,
callous to every principle hut selfishness, con-1
tiimo obstinate, and obdurate, heedless of our j
complaints and regardless of our rights, the in- j
quiry necessarily presents'itsclf. “ What then
is to be done!” 'This is a question which the!
people who are the sufferers must answer
themselves. Surely there must be some rem
cdy ti r enormous evils—evils which no en
treaties can abate and submission but increa-j
ses. Failing in all others they ran in the
last resort interpose the shield of their Sove
reignty.
It is not my intention to enter into an elabo
rate investigation of the American System,for
j as its principles and tendency are familiar to
I all swell a course at present would ho aprofit
less expenditure of labor, and a useless con
i sumption of time. But if any of my readers
are unsatisfied as to its disastrous operations
I on the South, I would entreat them to hear
in mind the undisputed, and important fact,
that more than one third of the whole staple
production of the couutry is surrendered in
submission to that system w ithout any return
of benefit or the least possible remuneration
j whatever. Out of every hundred bales of cot
! ton, sixty only can the Planter claim—tliere
j maining forty are taken as a bounty to hegi-
I ven to others. And to whom? It would he
some consolation under the burden to know
that the fruits of our labor went to the extin
guishment of National Debt, but instead of
1 this it is divided, one half to the rapacious
j manufacturer, the other disbursed among
j such States as may be bribed by approprin
i tions for Internal improvements, to the sup
port of the iniquitous System. No State
however great ts resources can bear up un
der such policy long—the wealthiest must
sink under its operation and hasten into pre
-1 nurture decay. Mre adv are the signs of r"in
v isible—it will soon be upon the country.—
The people are not free of debt—the staple
I commodity of the country bears no price—
; the value of slave labor is becoming as noth
-1 ing—our luxuriant fields will be turned into
! waste and our comincice utterly destroyed.
! A few more yaars and the South, the flower
( of the continent and the home of chivalry—
(stripped of itsgpcalth, insulted lor its weak
; ness, will be but as “ empty skin of an itnnio-
I lated victim.” And all this is the result of
i patriotic, equitable and Constitutional legis
| iption ! What an insult upon injury. Sure
! ly the Southern people can want no other ar
gument against the constitutionality of such
legislgtion than that it is a system of robbery
1 upon them—that money is extorted irom
from them without their consent to be dis
bursed in other sections—that those who irn
i pose the burdens, whilst free from our res
ponsibility are the sole beneficiaries of tlie
robbery—that they are compelled to pay trib
ute, not to (licit friends but to their enemies;
not to goverunent, but to individuals and
communities, who traduce our character, are
opposed to our institutions, and at war with
our political doctrines. Can this be a legiti
mate exercise of power ? Is it not a perver
sion ol all the just ends of government ?
Wh ;t is the object of Government ?
the imposition of equal burdens for an equal
protection ol rights. Is not the American
System subversive of this ? Lei the defend
ers ot its constitutionality turn to thecompact
and lay a finger upon that portion which gives
| the right to an interested majority in tJon
gress to legislate for their exclusive benefit
j and not with a view to the benefit of all—to
| plunder thousands in one section, to build up
j a few in another ? Who denies but that this
j is the design and such the effect of the 'Tariff'!
j And yet there are those affecting to depre
cate this flagitious policy who say that it is
j constitutional. But believing myself that
| every measure combining selfishness in its
j origin—oppression in its aim, and ruin in its
operation is violativoof our National compact,
i 1 leave those who think differently to theenjoy
: meiit of their opinions hoping the people will
duly appreciate their penetration into th prin
ciples of our Government whilst I proceed to
the great and material matter of present con
j sideratiou which is an examination into the
principles and policy of a certain remedy a
! gainst not only tins national course, but a
j gainst all such like glaring abuses of federal
! power. Among the various modes of redress
j proposed for oppressions grow ing out offla
! grant violations of the constitution, there is one
i which has been zealously defended and as
warmly opposed, known to my readers under
the odious appellation of Nullification. It is
the doctrine contained in that alarming term
that l propose to consider* I enter upon the
; task with no ov< m eaning self-sufficiency but
whilst. 1 would communicate my views with
becoming modesty, 1 hope to be indulged in
that confidence which springs from a strong
conviction in the truth and justice of the
i cause. Aware of the “hue and cry” against
the term, I might avoid much of the prejudice
of weak minds by substituting stinc anony
mous word, but this I care not to do, for 1
I prefer leaving such policy to those who pur
sue truth win u it is fashionable and forsake
it when in Coventry. To me the rose smells
as sweet with one name as another, and if the
doctrines l advocate be sound and just, they
are not the less acceptable because iatitudiria
ry g< ntlcinen have labored to associate the
idea of treason and rebellion with the w ord
Nullification. It is not a word that I defend
for 1 am no philologist, but it is certain doc
trines, which 1 shall presently state that I am
about to contend for. And well would it be for
the people before joining with the federal pol
iticians in their vague and random denunci
ations of a mere solitary word; to enquire in
to the nature and extent of the all dangerous
and alarming power comprehended in this ter
rific term? What is Nullification'? It is
nothing more nor less than a right, which 1
am persuaded the people on mature conside
ration will never he willing to surrender—a
right of the citizens of a State in their sover
eign capacity to judge of and protect their
reserved rights. When these shall lie
grossly and tyrannically invaded by Congress;
the people have the right, after failing in eve
ry other means of redress, to hold a Conven
tion and free themselves from the oppressive
operation of such unconstitutional legislation,
by declaring it null and void within their ter
ritorial limits.
“ The very head and front of its offending
Hath this extent —no more.”
And this power in the people 1 hold to be as
essential in our government, to the preserva
tion of liberty, as a jury is to the attainment
of justice in a court, or the bayonet to victory,
in the field. And is it asked w hen did the
people obtain this right 7 I would ask, in re
ply, when did they ever surrender it? They
derived it not from the 'Talmud nor the Ko
ran, but from God himself-—it is an inherent
principle of sovereignty; and a state can he di-
I vested of it. blit in two ways—by voluntary
surrender, or surrender to superior force.
The states of this union have never parted
with it in the one way, and whether doomed
to loose it in the other, is a matter vet to be
decided- Such is Nullification. Terrific
sound! —hear it despotism, for it is the knell
! of thy departingppwer.
Overlooking an extensive variety of argil
j merit, which might he pertinently and profit
ably introduced in the discussion, 1 shall in
i vite attention to a few only, by which I hope
j toshow most conclusively,that the power thus
; claimed doth rightfully belong to the states,
and that their very existence and the 1 itic r
| ties of the people depend upon the intcrjwsi
j tion of that power on important and dange
! rous occasions. Whether the Tariff is one
j which calls for the exercise of it, is a point
; which I propose to consider in the sequel.
It is admitted, 1 believe, on all hands, that
- the citizens of a state owe no allegiance to
jan unconstitutional law. But who are to he
i the interpreters ofthc Constitution ? to w hom
(belongs the right of deciding when that in
j strument is infracted and when it is not ?
| Whatever tribunai shall be invested with this
high authority, will have absolute dominion
| over the destiny of this government: it can
j by its constructions of the national compact,
augment or diminish power—encourage or
repress ururpation and oppression at its plea
sure and discretion. Hence it becomes a
UjatOr of thg first irnnejlanro to the Vui ri
jeen people, to deliberate seriously and so
j Icnmlv upon the enquiry, “ In whom does the
I right of final decision upon all constitution
lal points, reside ?” 'The republicans of the
Jeffersonian sciiool contend that the people of
j the states separately, have this right of ulti-
I mate decision; whilst the Federalists; orcoti
jsolidation politicians, claim the prerogative
j for the Supreme Court. Either then the pow
! er resides in the states, or in the federal judi
j ciary. That it belongs not to the latter will
! appear obvious wlie'n the reader duly reflects
j—that there may he abuses of power, which
that tribunal cannot check—that many dan
gerous infractions of the constitution cannot
hill within its province to act upon—that it
may itself be guilty of usurpations as well as
other departments of government—and that
isucli jHJwer is no where found <h h eated in
I the constitution. These considerations, dis
! passionately examined, w ill serve toconvince
the candid mind, that the Federal Court is
I hoth incompetent and unauthorised to act as
j umpire between a state and any of the depart
\ ments of the general governments, in their
j conflicting interpretations of the constitution.
| Suffer me to illustrate these points by the
j statement of a few not improbable eases. Let
the judiciary decree that the Cherokees are a
sovereign and independent people, and that
[Georgia rluffl not extend her jurisdiction over
that part of their territory lying within her
j< bartered limits. The Executive of the U.
! States may view the matter in quite a differ
ent light from the Court,and not feel himself
authorised by the constitution to arrest the
state by military force, in the exercise of this
her obvious right, llnw will the Court en
! force its mandate ? It determines one way,
(the President anothcT. Who shall decide
j when doctors disagree? Does not this evi
j dently show that there are at least, some cases
! wherein the Court is not constituted the sole
! expounder and settler of the constitution ?
j Again. llow can the Court, control the
[President, when he shall place too wideacon
-1 struction upon his own powers ? Suppose !
i the President by the latitudinarv process was to 1
! construe the present excited opposition to the
| Tariff in South Carolina, into rebellion, and
prompted by a high sense ol iuipi rious duty
[should attempt to quiet the disturbance bv
'chastising the disaffected party into a peace
j able submission to the law? Though the
j step might possibly he sanctioned by a few
infatuated partizans, yet a large majority of
the State, would he apt to look upon it as a
very high-lmnded measure Here would be
!an issue at once between the Executive and
the people. Who shall be the umpire ? It
is said the Supreme Court is to settle all such
differences—ifso, it follows as a matter of
course that if the Court decide the President
to be out of the pale of the constitution, he is
immediately to desist and call oil’ his forces.
; But suppose the Court decide in favor of the
Executive, then as a matter of course the
, chastisement becomes constitutional and the
I people m vst submit to its infliction until the
President conceives he has restored order.—
‘ Surely it was never the design of the framers
! of our Government to clothe 7 federal judg
jes with such absolute power over the lives
and opinions of the people ! But let ns con
tinue the supposition- The Executive drag
ooning might he going on during the whole
time the case referred, was pentium in the
j( .’our?, without any right on the part of the
! people to resist; for all acts of the Genera!
Government, (according to the consolidation
| doctrine,) arc to he held as constitutional un
til otherwise determined by the Federal ju
j tliciary. And when the decision of the Court
■ shall be obtained, if adverse to the latitudi-
I nary notions of the President, his oath of of
| (ice and other considerations “ higher than
j human authority” might not allow him to
j obey tiie decision. Where then is the power
jof the Court to enforce respect ? and what
! becomes of the liberty and lives of the pco
jple? Can any thing more be wanting to
! establish the absurdity and danger of the
! Federal doctrine! It calls upon the people,
t writhing under the inflictions of the greatest
[despotism, to await patiently the tardy move
; ments of a tribunal whose decree, if even
I favorable to their rights, can promise no cer
! tain security. How insulting to freemen!
how baneful to liberty ! And the case is not
altogether an Improbable one. Once at least
has a pusillanimous Despot at the head of
j our nation, threatened Georgia w ith military
j chastisement because her Governor would
} not suffer him and his partizans to defraud
[ the state of a portion of its territory. And
! suppose this Crononhotonthologos of war—
this terrific wiehler of the sword and purse of
Government, had actually have attempted to
put his threat into execution? Is it pro
bable that Georgia would have patiently
[ ly submitted to the phlebotomizing operation, un
j til its constitutionality could be adjudicated by
I the Supreme Court ? No—the voice of the peo
ple would have been
) “ Lot us rise at once, gird on our swords,
“ Attack the foe; break thro’ the thick array
“ Of their thronged legions, and charge home
upon them.”
A dif! erent language to this, would be very de
cent and becoming in the advocates of passive
obedience and non-resistance ; but never may
j lawless invaders hope to find such submission in
j a people, with wisdom to discern and firmness
*to defend their rights. Georgia in her sovereign
! capacity will lie herself the judge of the Consti
j tution in all such like cases—and declaring them
j to be out of the pale of that instrument, she will
I nullify them accordingly,
j Tints We discover that the Federal Judges
j from the nature of our Government cannot be
j the exclusive interpreters of the articles of our
j Union ; neither can they arrest Executive
: usurpations. Though they may decide par
! ticular acts to be unconstitutional yet they
an wanting in the mentis toclieck the evils.
What signifies their decreeing against op
pression unless they have the ability to ox
! tend protection ?—it is the substantial protcc
j tion against wrongs, not paper decisions a
j gainst them, that arc wanting,
I have said there may he legislative viola
tions of the Constitution which the Court
j cannot take coniznnee of, and of course can
not arrest. Surely if it he the oi!v tribunal
! to check federal usurpation, it ought to have
j competent authority to protect the national
oompact from every species of dangerous in
fraction—insidious as well as open, lias it
; Hiis authority ? Certainly not, A power
delegated for one end may he perverted to
ann<(ter, and yet the court cannot tj.p
j power is not a valid one, neither can it sit in
(judgement upon an indiscreet exercise of it.
jit has no supervisory right over the legisla
tion of the country. If Congress openly as
j sumes a power not named in the constitu
j tion, the court may nullify all laws passed un
der that power; hut it cannot nullify a law
pas.si (1 under a power clearly granted &elotli
ed in a legal garb, although the law may be
intended by its operation to accomplish an
I unconstitutional end. The court cannot
reach this perversion of power. Its powers
j are exclusively judicial and not political; so
[that when it has to decide on the constitu
' tionalitv ofanv legislative enactment, it can
only turn to the constitution and sed whether
j the power under which the law was passed
;be granted or rot —if granted it cannot deter
mine tlie law to be out of the pale of the coin
i pact, merely because the court may depre
cate its policy and tendency, for this would
be exercising political and not judicial vow
i er. Hence Congress by artfully conforming
ja law r to the letter and forms of the constitu
tion, may essentially violate its spirit and
| still keep without the jurisdiction of the court.
: But because the court cannot take cognizance
jof the infraction are the people willing for
Congress to triumph in the usurpation ! Tne
} Tariff is based upon this system of pervert
ing a constitutional right to an unconstitu
tional purpose. Congress lias no power to
! grant bounties to domestic manufactures, arid
| yet this object, unknown to the constitution
I is accomplished under a false color of enact
i ing revenue laws. In common morality, 1
would say, that so to use a power as to effect
a design, foreign to the purpose for which
the power was delegated, is, in private trans-!
(actions, villainy—in public affairs, whatever
1 gentlemen may please to make it. But if
Congress in passing the Tariff” was acting in
; good faith, with a perfect confidence iri the
justice and constitutionality of the design,
1 and with no wish to exercise undelegated
power, why did it so pertinaciously refuse to
style the law in conformity with its spirit and
intention ? Why entitle it an Act to raise
revenue, when that was not the object of it ?
Why not call it a law to encourage manufac- j
tures by giving bounties, such being its de-j
sign and intended effect? Then might the
constitutionality of the measure—the princi
ple upon which it is based he brought
within tii jurisdiction of the Court, and as
' little confidence as I have in that tribunal in
all questions involving Federal supremacy,
yet nr so obvious a matter as this, I would not
utterly despair of a fair decision, for I cannot
i readily conceive how a set of Judges in the
' least degree mindful of character as men or
: tenacious of reputation as jurists, could so
'far sacrifice both and prostitute the Bench
; as to sustain the usurpation of a power so
hostile to justice and so foreign to the con
-1 stitution. Congress scents to have had a sim
ilar belief. Though, the court has always
( kept pace w ith that body in the enlargement
; of its powers, yet in so manifest and palpable
. violation, it was doubted whether the consci
! enec of the court might he sufficiently pliable
to suit the case, and apprehensive of a right
eous verdict, its jurisdiction was very pru
dently evaded. Framed es the Tariff’act is,
| no set of Judges could do otherwise than dc
[ termine that it was a revenue law. Passed
| under a power clearl v granted and hedged in
; w ith all the requisite formalities of the con
[ stitution, they could not avoid tins decision,
yet it is very evident that the law was never
i intended for revenue purposes. What then
t was the object of its passage?—it was to opc
-1 rate as bounties to domestic manufactures.—
But tl lis latent design of Congress cannot I
( come before the court—the court can attri
-1 bntc no other design than what is disclosed
!in the act itself, neither can it sit in judge
ment upon the excess of the duties and scale
them down to the necessities of government.
To vlo either of these the court w ould he
stretching its authority and travelling out of
! its judicial character; And yet without tak
ing cognizance of the real A: true intention of
the'Tariff, or without exercising the power of
( reducing the duties, l know of no way that
the court can check this abuse of legislative
( power—arrest the practice of perverting a
j constitutional right to an unconstitutional
end, and shield the people from the manifold
oppressions arising from this corrupt system
of legislation. And because the court is
wanting in authority adequate to the evil, do
| the abuses become legitimatized? I would
j earnestly enquire of the national politicians,
w hat remedy do they propose for all such
(like violations of the spirit of the compact?
I allude to those abuses so artfully contrived
!as above described, as to evade the jurisdic
tion ot the court. This species of infraction
lisas fatal to liberty as any other kind—ns
! fruitful a source of oppression as the open ex
ercise of urtdelegated powers—and since the
[court by reason of its organization cannot
reach the evil, to what tribunal will they re
j fer the people for redress? They are surely
1 entitled to redress and if it cannot he obtain
ed through any of the departments of the
! General Government, I contend they have
! the right toseek it in (heir sovereign capacity.
! Those who deny this right, in effect say to
[the people, that for wrongs openly committed
by Congress, you may obtain redress; hut
1 !or those insidiously inflicted you are left
without remedy. This is the kind of gov
ernment contended for by the advocates of
the 1 nrift. Against this obnoxious moas
\ (ire, 1 make no argument at present—its un-
I just and ruinous operation on the South lias
been fully developed; yet never would a
I murmur be heard from this quarter against
[any duties, how ever great, which public ex
igencies might require. I firmly believe,
that in war or any of flic legitimate objects o(
Government, their patriotism would sustain
burdens fourfold greater than would he
I borne bv any other people of the union *
but they cannot consent that a pow er wbr’*
was inti tided to enable Congress to ,t .■
[ pnhlic expenses and imct the exige •” 1
i Government, should ho exercie °
v iew ot extorting tribute from ' \\, *, "
private purposeofbuildiwr „ p the fortunes of
manufacturing This is their
complaint. And vh , n tllpy nsik for rc<!rrs ,
| a . ey iux ‘ vt feri ><l *o a tribunal which canilrt ,
hue eognuaiicc of the ease. Do they talk
ot taking cognizanoc themselves? they are
immediately threatened as traitors and reh
bcls, and by whom?—the very people who I
‘■’ ■" " v ”ongs. T’ut o’-'t v.r„M t..
tiie language of tie so p opl e q- Ui f. t '
reversed ? Jet Congress, i n u
ot the indispnted right to regulate coi
among the several States,'“pass a i’ T
each State should consume its own m ! , :
tured articles. This would be
tornal commerce instead of r di 1 n ‘ , - u ltl "
it would not he a greater abuse, u Uu t ’ T
stroy foreign commerce under the "now '
regulate it. But who can suppose
merit, that the iminuiaeturinn- St-t, ■ '
submit to have, a pow er gnu,ted clearly
particular purpose, abased ina manner '***
verwheliimiiig to their into rests! 'fh fv v °
not hear it a single day—they would T'\
oil' the oppression “liko dew drops f rom ~e
on's mane.” That which they will not*.!
low us to do lor the io\e of libfrhi \C„
would do for the love of gain. [!
matter stands however, it is their bull 4/
goading our ox, and when we knock n'tV
door of their infallible tribunal to ulrieh *
are directed for redress, we find that there,
no admittance.
Eet us proceed to another point. But fin
I w isli the reader to hear in mind that the,,
aerved rights of the States and the people it
to be secured only by adhering strictlv to tin
Constitution. Every violation of that instru
ment is a trespass upon thostcrights, and ev
ery infringement of those rights is a violation
ot the compact. Hence the tribunal invested
with exclusive or final interjiretatisa of the
Constitution becomes the only guardian and
protector of the reserved rights.
°f those rights will always be in proportion
to the fidelity with which the Contditulrtn jl
j adhered to. 'Therefore when the Cou.t i
j spoken of as the final expounder of tint
instrument, and when it is called the soil
judge of the reserved rights, one and the seme.
thing is necessarily meant. This short ex
planation is offered only lor the convenience
of plain and unostentatious minds, Vikc*mv
own, a till doubtless many of my readers hare
discerned from my. manner,that it is to minds
of that character, that I particularly address
myself. I have already shewn the insufficien
cy of the Court as a shield to the reserved
j rights, by pointing out its inability to arrest
(some of the most flagrant abuses of the Con
stitution. 1 w ould now inquire where is the
shield of the people against judicial abuses
V, hilst the Supreme Court is impotent is a
check ti) on other Departments of the Govern
ment it may itself be guilty of usurpations of
themost fatal character to liberty. Likea faith,
less centinel on the watch-tower, it may in
vade those very rights which it is appointed
to defend ; and who are to arrest its encroach
merits upon the rights of the people ? It the
people in their sovereign capacity have no
right to question the acts and opinions of the
Court, then they have no safety against iis
selfishness and ambition ; let its decrees be
ever so ruinous am! unjust, yet the peopit
must submit, for the Court, being tiie para
mount authority ix judge of its own acts! Such
a doctrine is at variance with reason, and hot
tile to the principles of freedom. The people
ol the State ot Georgia never consented that
the Federal Judiciary should he the sole de
pository of their rights—they never yicldedto
that'Tribunal the power to say what, degree®;
liberty they are entitled to, what rights tiny
may he permitted to enjoy, and what rights it
is prudent lor the Court to withhold from
them. This is not the nature of our govern- I
merit. The people of the several and sepa
rate Stales know w hat rights they have vo- ,
lunturily parted with, and w hat they have re
tained to themselves. Deny them the right
to judge in the matter, and at once are they
stripped of every privilege, except such as
the Court in its abundant liberality anil mod
eration may deem judicious and safe to in
dulge tin in in. Now' if the people, tired of
having their liberties in their own safe kill
ing, may think proper, to surrender them into
the custody of the Court, to he dealt out by
that tribunal at its own discretion, I say I t
them do it, for have the unquestioned light to j
act. But I assert, that they have never aado
such a total and foolish surrender ; I contend
that they have parted with a few only of their
rights, which they have distinctly eunnieratid,ri
serving all others in their own hands. Does tin 1
reader want evidence of this ? Let him look to tiie
Constitution where the rights parted with an spe
cifically set forth, £? where it is expressly declared
that all others not named are retained by the peo
ple and the States. Now, I put the question,
when the Federal Judiciary shall trespass ups
these reserved and undelegated rights, who shall
arrest the progress of the usurpation ! If the pet
pie arc not allowed to do it themselves then they
are destitute of remedy—despotism becomes It*
galized, and they the victims.
Congress is not allowed to extend its power*®
the limits of its discretion ; why then make dis
cretion the only bounds of another department
which is equally obnoxious to the influence of in
terest ] \\ hat is the reason for this distinction.
Is it not as important to the people to have redress
of grievances inflicted by one branch of Govern
ment, as those committed by another! It Con
gress pass a law confiscating the property of the
South,it is said that the people would find protec
tion in the Supreme Court,which would certainly
decide ihe law to be unconstitutional; tlik it might
or might not do ; but suppose the Court itself by
its decrees open the door of emancipation to or
black population, where then is our redress,
the Federal Judges, and not the people them
selves, are the final and sovereign arbiters upo®'
the reserved And undelegated rights? Arc the
Judges “ more w ise, more learned, mere cvwj
thing,” than the members of Congress. ihatvd'iW
the latter is to be restricted, the others are t 0
unlimited in power? Are they r_,it composed c
the same materials and nature, having like p'^ - '
sions, moved by similar motives, “subjectto u ,( "
same skyey inlb’.encesj ?” And may not their
usurpations be dangerous to libcr‘7 23 31,1
which Cop grass may be gir/.ty of? Afore s'-
lor Coit in its inv breaks hoiat; ;
1 '? ,c of a „d may üBtW
peop <to it" defence, but the Court soaks 1 "
•' jipart-. with a noiseless movement, cxciUtg
| no f u ’t'teion or alarm, until secured in (VjWor,
an< ■ Hien like a successful Sparta In pudoinfr,'
.eceivQs npplaune for the adroitness of the **•' ll
j leaving the people without a remedy frr '-k. 1 ;
pduudered rights. Now what signihos all w l3
j pretended barring of the front portal of the l :in '
i pie < | Liberty whilst tlm hack door is thrown
to the more insidious and dangerous foe! ip '[
do federal politicians answer tliesa things • ‘‘f
efficient security against judicial usurpation
they propose. 1 Their inability to meet this 1 '
hcmlty not unlroquently drives them to 4y s P f>r ''
expedient of defending the Court upon the tff" l j n '
of its infallibility. It is impossible sa;. tin'' ,['
such higliminded gentlemen as thp federal Ju ,! V'
can ever profane the rights cf their folk 1
j turns —their profound attainments, moinl *
hmeo and honorable f-/jinn's rh’indantlv * • ■