Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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 * • ■