Newspaper Page Text
•&, m.
THE NEWS.
BY Will. A. MERCER,
EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR.
PUBLISHED EVERY THURSDAY,
At Three Doeeaks per annum, payable at
the time of subscribing, or ‘l'iirek Doeeakb &
Fisty -cents if not Mi<l till the end of the year.
No paper will be discontinued, unless at the
option of the publisher, without the settlement
of all arrearages.
Advertisements not exceeding one square,
first insertion, seventy-five cents ; and for
-*t~Tcr* insertion, fifty cents. lar
ger ones in proportion.
rftr Our Advertising friends are requested
to mark on their advertisements the number
of insertions they* wish us to give them—other
wise they will he published till forbid, and
charged accordingly.
| .otters on business must come post paid
to insure attention.
8111 l l I M I
Speech of .He. lit tig, of <*lyiiEi,
In the Senate es Georgia, made on Friday
November 14th 1834,0n the Citation
ol'the Supreme Court oftiie United States
and the Resolutions of the Majority of
the Committee on the Republic, and the
Substitute offered by Mr. Dawson, on
the part of th3 Minority of the same
committee.
At the conclusion of M r. Wood’s remarks,
Mr. KINC rose and addressed the Senate
fotiows. When l saw the honorable
President of the Senate get up and address
this body, l candidly confess, 1 expected
little else than a declamation about the raw
head and bloody bones of Nullification.—
I looked for nothing else, and we have had
nothing else. I regret to sec it, lor il dec
lamation without argument is to frighten
nien out of their principles, then we are
indeed in a bad way. 1 shall not attempt
to follow that gentleman in his “bloody’
course, for I will do nothing to outrage the
good feelings or the good sense ot those I
have the honor to address. 1 shall there
fore proceed to the consideration of the re
port of the majority ot the Committee on
the State of the Republic, and oiler my ob
jections to it, and the reasons why 1 prefer
-tile submit tile proposed by the-Minocity.
The majority proceed in the first place
to assert, that the Citation served on our
Governor is an attempt to abuse the pro
cess ol’the Supreme Court of the l nited
►States. ‘Phis question lias been argued by
the honorable Senator from Creene, (Mr.
Dawson,) with more ability'than 1 etui pre
tend to, but 1 may he excused for making
further .'illusion to it, since it is the main
ground on which the whole report and
resolutions seem to he bawd. Mr. Presi
dent, I deny that it is an abuse of the pro
cess of the Supreme Court; and to decide
this matter let us see what powers arc con
fided to that tribunal l>y the Federal Con
stitution. It says, “the Judicial power
shall extend to till eases in hue or equity,
arising under the Constitution, the laws ot’
the United States rind treaties made, un
der their authority.” Now,sir, what are
the laws and treaties which have been
made under their authority, on which die
action of the Supreme Court in this case
is founded ? In the first place,
tion of the Judiciary’ Act of 1781), gives
to that Court, full authority to issue writs
of error in all cases decided in the highest
Court of law or equity in any State, where
has been drawn in question the validity of
any treaty or law of the United, where the
decision has been against such validity, and
to re-examine or reverse the decision. Now
the decision in the Superior Court in the
county of Murray, does cal i in question the
validity ofall the treaties which have been
made with the Cherokee Indians, by the
General Government, so far as they con- j
firm or secure to those j>cople the right of
jurisdiction ; and, also, the constitutionali
ty of the Intercourse Act of 180*2. And,
therefore, the Court has not only a legal
right to issue a Citation, in this case, hut
to decide it, when it shall come before
them. \nd how must they dee de? Why j
according to the hues and treaties of the j
United Stall And what are those laws
and treaties, in relation to the Cherokees ? j
Sonic of those treaties secure to them not;
only the right of jurisdiction, but the right j
of soil. And, strai.ge to say, the Inter- j
course Act of 1802, sets up for the govern- j
ment of the United States, the entire right
of jurisdiction over the whole Indian coun
try. The fourth section of the Act de
clares,‘-If any citizen, or other person,
shall go into any town, settlement, orterri- i
tory, belonging, or secured, by treaty with
the United States, to any nation or tribe of
Idians, and shall there commit robery,
larceny, trespass, or other crime, against
the person or property of any friendly In
dian or Indians, which would be punisha
ble, if committed within the jurisdiction of
any State, against a citizen of the United
States; or, unauthorized by law, and with
a hostile intention, shall be found on any
Indian land, such offender shall forint a
sum not exceeding one hundred dollars,
and he imprisoned not exceeding twelve
months ; and shall, also, when property is
taken or destroyed, forfeit and pay to such
Indian or Indians, to whom the property
taken or destroyed belongs, a sum equal to
twice the just value of the property so ta
ken or destroyed : and if such offender
shall be unable to pay a sum at least equal
1 ‘ ‘ I
to the said just value, whatever such pay*
shall fall short of the said just value shall
lie paid out of the Treasury of the United
►States : But no such Indian shall be enti
tled to any payment out of the Treasury
of the United States, for any such proper
ty taken or destroyed, if he, or any of the
nation to which he belongs, shall have
sought private revenge, or attempted to ob
tain satisfaction by any force or violence.”
The fifth section declares that “if any cit
izen, or other person, shall make a settle
ment on any lands belonging, or secured,
or granted, by treaty with the United States,
to any Indian tribe ; or shall survey, or at
tempt to survoyUfcdeh lands: or designate
any of the boundaries, by marking trees,
or otherwise, such offender shall forfeit a
sum not exceeding one thousand dollars,
and suffer imprisonment not exceeding
twelvemonths. The President may take
such mcasrres and employ such force as
lie may judge necessary, to remove from
lands belonging, or secured by treaty, to
any Indian tribe, any such citizen or other
person, win has made, or shall hereafter
make, tin attempt to make a settlement
thereon.” And the sixth section declares,
‘•lfany citizen or other person, shall go in
to any town, settlement, or territory, be
longing to any nation or tribe of Indians,
and shall there commit murder, by killing
any Indian or Indians, belonging to any na
tion or tribe of Indians in amity with the
United States,such offender, on being there
of convicted, shall sutler death.”
In these sections, the General Govern
ment claims wliat is tantamount to exclu
sive legislation over the whole Indian coun
try w ithin the limits of Georgia; having de
fined w hat acts shall bo crimes, and how
they shall be punished. They have de
clared the killing of an Indian by a white
man, to be murder, and made it punisha
ble with death, and thus, hv the sixth sec
tion, w hich I have just read, if the Sheriff
ofMurray should hang the Indian, Graves,
lie w ill commit murder. This is assuming
the right of jurisdiction to its fullest extent,
and is in direct violation ot the sixteenth
clause of the eighth section of the Consti
tution of the United States, which says
Congress shall have power, “to exercise
exclusive legislation, in all cases whatever,
over such district, (not exceeding ten miles
square) as may, by cession of particular
States, and the acceptance of Congress, be
come the Seat of Government of the Uni
ted States, and to exercise like authority
over all places purchased by the consent of
the Legislature of the State in which the
same shall be, for the erection of Forts,
Magazines, Arsenals, Dock-yards, & other
needful buildings.” Thus we see, sir, that
that august body, forgetting this provision
of the Constitution, which limits authority
to legislate except in the places therein
provided, has dared to pass the acts under
which the Supreme Court is now proceed
ing. And that the Court, so far from aim
sine its process, is only doing what it is,
under those acts, compelled to do. Then,
sir, let us strike at the source of the evil,
let Georgia assume the bearing which bc
comes a sovereign and independent State,
and declare in the face of Congress and of
the world, that those acts arc unconstitu
tional, null and void. And let us imme
diately pass a law which shall at once and
forever, protect her officers in the execu
tion of her laws, and relieve them and this
General Assembly from all further annoy
ance on this vexatious subject. lam not
unaware, Mr. President, of the reluctance
which is felt to give this act its honest name;
and that the doctrine of nullification has,
on a former occasion, been ‘‘abhorred”
within these walls, and by many of the
very gentlemen who are now about to
practice it. What is nullification? It is,
according to the doctrine which has been
so often called a “heresy,” the rendering
null that which is in itself void; or, in
other words, nullifying an unconstitutional
act, w hich, from the fact of its being un
constitutional, was void ab initio.
Now welcome to the point, who is to
I judge, in the last resort, whether an act of
| the General Government be constitutional
| or unconstitutional? The State Bights par
ity of Georgia claim this right of judge
• ment for the State; their opponents claim
I it for that very Court whose mandate we
j are now about to treat with contempt, and
I deny that the State can, in any case, judge
authoritatively for herself. To prove that
tins is their creed, we have onlv to refer
to the secoud resolution adopted, “at a
meeting of the Union-Democratic-Republi
can party of Georgia,” in Milledgevilie,
29th November, 1893, which is as fol
lows:
l ' Resolved, That the exercise of any
power by the General Government, not
delegated in the Constitution, is an act of
usurpation; but individual members of the
j confederacy cannot , while continuing their
j adherence, to it, determine the question,
! whether a disputed power has really been
| delegated or not. The.theorv ofnullifica
! tion, which supposes that any State may
■ remain in the Union, and yet w ith unlimi
| ted discretion decide for itself, w hether it
| will or will not respect the acts of the Ge
| neral Government, is in flagrant opposition
!to all sound polities. The very essence of
| a common government, is conformity to
] the same prescribed rules, by all those over
I w hom such government is established. —
!If ever v State may determine for itselt,
I
Tlic Union of tlic States is the only true Basis of their Individual Prosperity and Happiness.
©a. t'jltosdats ©aragsEßm® as* mm.
how far the enactments of the Genernal
Government are valid, it is evident, that
the same act ‘may be fully enforced in
Massachusetts, may be only half obeyed in
New York, still less in Virginia, and in
Louisiana he regarded as an absolute nul
lity. Whenever such a state of things is
suffered to exist, there is no longer a com
mon government: the Union is virtually
dissolved.”
And their leading organ, the Federal
Union, of Oct. Ist 1834, in an editorial
article, reviewing the principles of the two
parties, says, “the first ground of the charge
against the Union party is, their denial that
each separate tSiate, has a right ’ojws at*
authoritative judgement on the constitution
ality of a law of the United States. The
States have not reserved this right to them
selves; in the Federal Constitution, they
have delegated it to the Courts of the Uni
ted States.” I have made these references
to show that 1 do that party no injustice,
when I assert that they deny the right of a
State to judge authoritatively for herself;
and that they claimed that right of judg
ment for the Supreme Court.
The committee proceed to say in their
report that “The right to enforce the
criminal law's of a State, within her own
limits, is one of local character, essential
to the preservation of peace and good or
der within her borders, clearly belonging
to that ‘residuary mass of Sovereignty,’
which is inherent in each State.” They
say first this is a local matter, operating,
only within tlic limits of this State, and on
that ground they hope to justify themselves
for their disobedience! Sir, I should like
to be informed what laws or acts of the
General Government do affect us, which
do not operate within the limits of the
State? The acts in question, to wit, the
Intercourse Act and the Judiciary Act, arc
as general in their terms as the Tariffacts,
or any other act of the Federal Govern
ment. And it is not because they are lo
cal in their operation, but because they are
unconstitutional, that we treat them as
null and void.
They next assert that it is a right be
longing to that “ residuary mass of Sove
reignty,” inherent in each State. AY hat
do the committee mean by this expression ?
l)o they mean to say that the State has
given up and transferred irrevocably to
the Federal Government, a part of her
Sovereignty ? Most assuredly they do,
or they would not speak of the residuary
mass. And the Hon. President, has just
told us, that “the peojde have given up a
part of their Sovereignty to the General
Government, and that they cannot take
back what they have given away.” This
is the doctrine too that has been promulga
ted by the dominant party of the people of
Georgia, and which they have apparently
been induced to recognize as the orthodox
republican creed. ‘Phis was the doctrine
of the Federalists of 1798. That party con
tended that the jieople had given up a part
of their Sovereignty, to the Federal Gov
ernment, which necessarily invested that
Government, with the right to judge of its
own acts; for sovereignty is inseparably
connected with the right to judge authori
tatively of the acts of the Sovereign. Sove
reignty cannot exist where there is a pow
er above it to judge of its acts. The high
er* pow'er being the judge, necessarily be
comes the sovereign. This, Sir, is the
monarchical doctrine. This is the doc
trine against which the Republicans of
1798 contended, and in their struggle
brought Mr. Jefferson into power in 1801.
His elevation to the Presidency was a tri
umph of the Republican doctrine which has
obtained in all Republics, from that of
Florence down to the present day, viz.
that the peojde are the Sovereign, and the
Government, the organ of the Sovereignty.
Thus we see that the Monarchists and
Federalists, of 1798, whose doctrines'were
so odious and obnoxious, to true Republi
can principles, are imitated, and revived
by the new tangled Democratic Republi
cans of 1834. Sir, this is as clear as light,
and I can prove to any man in this house,
or out of it, who will not place himself be
yond the pale of argumentative reason,
that the doctrines advocated by the pre
sent Union Democratic Republican party
of Georgia, are identically the same that
were entertained by the Federalists, in the
days of the Elder Adams, and against
which the Republican party, led on by the
immortal Jefferson, obtained so signal a
victory. Little could I have expected to
have heard the the old Federal doctrine of
1798 advocated in the Senate of Georgia
in 1834.
Mr. WOOD, here exclaimed. —It is an
old habit of mine, Sir.
Mr. KING, proceeded. The Federal
party of that day, intoxicated with power,
w ere led on to the enactment of the Alien
and Sedition laws. Our modern Union
Democratic Republicans, have worthily
imitated the example by their adherence,
to the doctrines of the Proclamation, and
the passage ot the Force Bill. Ihe ser-
I vile Congress of that day conferred upon
the President, the power, to transfer ali
en friends without the limits of the United
States, and to imprison our ow n citizens,
for the free expression ot their opinions,
’ of the acts of the Executive: —the Congress
of 1832, blind to all experience and defif
to all argument, conferred upon the des
| pot of the present day, not only the pow-
er to imprison, hut tWitcher, those whose ‘
free suffrages had hint to the Pre
sidency.
V
\\ hat was the Rcptnlican doctrine of
the immortal Jeffersoi,?and those who so
nobly sustained him ik the hour of trial ?
ft was, Sir, that the j;ople of the several
States, acting as free,Sovereign, and in
dependent States, enjrfcd into a compact,
under the style and tite of a Constitution,
by which they created the Government of
the United Stales, aruiin which, they del
egated do dint Government, certain speci
fic tjtfai jpfined powers. Sir, the word
Sorfn ig.rty is not mentioned in the Con
d;\V4*d);2; U&Tecare
fully qr*jinffes the powers, which affi
delegf ! % l each department oft lie Fede
ral <fj 0 (ment, and asserts that “tbe
poweh notjdelegated to the U. States by
the Ciustijjlition, nor prohibited by it to the
are reserved to the States respec
tively. or to the people.” This show's
most clearly, that the framers of the Fede
ral qpnpact, so far from designing to bar
ter ajvay the Sovereignty of the States,
most carefully avoided all expressions
whidfi could even by implication, be con
st rull to confer upon that Government,
any |k rtion of their Sovereignty.
Mr. President, the expression “residua
ry mass of Sovereignty,” is in my opinion
an flosurdity in itself, if it is intended to
convey the idea that the jieople have given
away any of their Sovereignty. Sove
reign:)’ is that paramount authority which
is inherent and inalienable in the people,
and by virtue of which they call into ex
istence, establish and clothe with certain
defined powers, a government for their
common benefit and protection; and which
has at all times the right to amend, abolish, !
or renew that Government, at pleasure.—
Sovereignty is a unit; and like truth is
indivisible. It is inalienable, because one
generation has not the right to part with
that which by nature belongs to their suc
cessors. And it is precisely because it is
inalienable, that it in indivisible, if Sov
ereignty cannot be alienated, it of course,
cannot be divided. If one generation
could of right part with any portion of
their Sovereignty, they could alienate the
whole , and make slaves of their posterity.
1 , „Va!i now Sir, proceed to the next
partur.ighj of the report, leaving some
matters in:the one under consideration, to
be teftteheov upon hereafter. They say
“your committee briefly remark, that by
reason of the government under which w'e
live being, partly federal and partly nation
al, two distinct classes of cases arise; and
that a just appreciation of the difference’
which exists between them will lead to a
maintenance of the just rights of each
State; while a due observance of those
which belong to the United States, will be
preserved.” This is a reiteration of the
doctrine of the old federalists who wished
to establish a splendid national government.
They claimed, that the government of the
L-c-hed States, was formed by the people
of the Ucited States, en masse ; that they
conferred upon it a part of their sovereign
ty ; and that this, the government, instead
of being purely federal, was, in its forma
tion, national ; asd consequently that the
States had not reserved to themselves their
entire sovereignty, freedom and indejien
dence. While the Republicans of that day
maintained, that the government of the
United States was created an<U called into
existence by the States, feting as free, sov
ereign and independent States, each sepa
rately, and for itself acceding to the com
pact, without regard to time or population ;
and the government thus formed became
the delegated organ of the old thirteen
Republics, limited in its powers by the plain
sense and meaning of the Federal Consti
tution. To shew that the government of
the United States was formed bv the States,
acting in their separate sovereign capaci
tiesywe need only briefly refer to histori
cal facts. The second article of the old
confederation declares that, “each State
retains its sovereignly, freedom and inde
pendence, and jurisdiction
and right, which is rot by this confedera
tion expressly delegated to the United States
in Congress assembled ; and the third de
clares that “the said States severally enter”
into the league, &c. Under the articles
of confederation, the government proceed
ed through the revolutionary struggle, and
until the 21st February, 17*87, when Con
gress passed the folio-ring resolution :
’ Resolved, That in the opinion of Con
gress, it is expedient that, on the second
Monday in May next, a convention of del
egates,^\vbo shaH have been appointed by
the several Shies, be held at Philadelphia,
for the sole add express purpose of revising
the articles of confederation and reporting
to Congress and the several legislatures,
K ueh alterations and provisions therein, as
agreed to in Congress, and
rjnfirmed by the States, render the federal
;on Rtution adequate to the exigencies of
p-nment, and the preservation of the
on.”
y,e follow ing facts appear in the reso
by Congress when the de!e
----r s had assembled : First, that the dele
’ s were to be chosen by the several
“Stops —Secondly, that the convocation of
tbrproposed convention was, “ for the sole j
pi pose of revising the articles ofconfede-
I a on,” then subsisting between the thir
teen sovereign, free and independent States,
which by them were united, and not for the
purpose of forming any new government,
to be composed of’ the whole people of the
thirteen States, as an aggregate mass. — J
Thirdly, that the alterations and provisions
should have no tendency to destroy “ the
Federal Constitution,” that is, the articles,
constitution, or compact, at that time sub
sisting ; but, on the contrary, should be a
dapted to render it “ adequate to the exi
gencies of the government, and the preser
vation of the Union,” viz : the Union then
subsisting between the thirteen States,each
of which was in full possession of its sove
reignty, freedom and independence, and
ibv Quiy l ■non to >vh*;h these tefms could j
have applied/ It thus appears that the
Convention assembled for the sole purpose
of revising the “ articles of the confedera
tion,” and not in any manner to change the
form of government. The delegates who
assembled for this purpose were all chosen
by their respective State Legislatures, as
representatives of their respective States,
and of those States alone. That they were
not appointed to form anew government,
but simply to revise the “ articles of con
federation.” In the Convention they voted
by States. The Constitution carries on its
face the declaration that it was formed by
States, The title of government given in
that instrument the “ United States,” im
plies individuality in the States, and means
the States at that time united. The State
of Rhode Island, was not represented in
the Convention which framed the Federal
Constitution, and did not accede to it, until
nearly three years after its formation ; and
at the time of her accession, she had only
68,825 people within her limits, while that
of Virginia amounted to 858,078, each
‘‘State has an equal number of Representa
tives in the Senate of the United States ;
and in the House of Representatives ac
cording to the number of its representative
population, without regard to the popula
tion of the other States.
The term Congress is alone applied to an
assemblage of nations, in the persons of
their sovereigns or their representatives.
Hence the proceedings of the federal gov
ernment are always styled the proceedings
of the “ United States in Congress assem
bled,” and not the proceedings of the peo
ple. All amendments to the federal con
st itutkm must be ratified by the legislatures
of three fourths of the several States, “ or
by Conventions in three fourths thereof.”
So that if seventeen of the largest States
desired to obtain an alteration of the Con
stitution, it would be in the power of the
seven smallest States, containing less than
one twelfth part of the population of the
whole country to prevent it. Will any one
pretend to say, with these facts staring us
in the lace, that the government was form
ed by the people as an aggregate mass,
and consequently “ national,” or “ partly
national ?” No, Sir, it is as clear as light
that the government of the United States,
is purely federal, or a confederation of free,
sovereign, and independent Republics, and
that the government which, ihyy have form
ed is one of limited powers, possessing not
one particle of sovereignty, and is not the
judge of its own powers. This right of
judgment necessarily” remaining with the
sovereignty, is therefore reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people of the
several States. Now, Sir, I should like
to he informed by the honorable trainer of
that report, what is here meant by the go
vernment being “ partly national, and part
ly federal ?” And if he expects to per
suade the people of Georgia, that we ate
now living under a form of government
entirely different from that which is crea
ted bythe Constitution of the U. States?
Sir, this doctrine, that the government un
der which we live is “national” or “partly
national,” is one against which it behoves
the people of the South, to guard with tne
most enlightened energy. It inevitably
tends to merge the sovereignty and inde
jxytdence of the States, into one consolida
ted mass, and to elevate upon the ruins of
our present federal system, a splendid des
potism with the power to legislate upon our
farms and at our firesides, and which will
place within the scope of its action our
persons and our property, without regard
to the Constitution. This, as I have said
before, was the doctrine of the federalists
of 1798; and which has been most indus
triously propagated throughout the North
ern and Eastern States ol this Union, and
is the foundation upon which has been ba
sed the stupendous and iniquitous American
system. It is the doctrine of the Procla
mation of Andrew Jackson, and of the
Bloody Bill of the Congress of 1832, which
was designed to engage, at the point of tiie
bayonet, an unjust system of taxation, for
the purpose of enriching one portion of the
Union, to the impoverishment of another;
which erected the manufacturers of the
north into a lordly, unyielding moneyed
aristocracy, and enabled hern through the
legerdemain of the tarifFacts, to transfer
the wealth of the South info tffeir owfi cof
fers, or into the treasury of the General
Government, and enabled the majority in
Congress to squander the public treasure to
increase and perpetuate their own power.
This brings us hack, Mr. President, to
I that part of the report, we bad just left,and
j which speaks of our acting in thiscasebe-
J cause it “ does not interfere with the essen
tial rights or interests of other States in
i the confederacy So, Sir, it appears that
if the legislation of Congress, whether con
stitutional or not, had made it the interest
of any of the other States, that we should
notact in this case, we should therefore
have no right to act. This is precisely the
doctrine which induced the tariff* people of
the north to believe, that as their interests
were so deeply involved, in the continuance
of the American system, and the ramifica
tions of that system so extensive as to ren
der it utterly impossible for any Btate to
throw it off*, without interfering with, and
prostrating those interests that consequent
ly no State, would have the right to resist,
however unconstitutional the tariff* acts
were in their operation, or however op
pressively they might operate upon any—
particular portion or portions of the Union,
yet must they be submitted to, because to
resist them would interfere with the “ in
terests” which they themselves had been
made to rear up ! This is another avowal
of the “ national” doctrines of the old fed
eralists, and stops nothing short of making
it the duty of every State, passively to sub
mit to the unconstitutional acts of the Gen
eral Government, where resistance would
in any manner interfere with the interests,
real or supposed, of those States, which
had the influence and power to pass them.
Sir, it is the right of Georgia, or of any
other State, of this union to resist, in her
Sovereign character, any unconstitution
al act of the Federal Government, how
ever it might be to the interest of any oth
er State that she should submit. The acts
of the General Government, are in all
cases cither constitutional or unconstitu
tional. (If constitutional, they” are legal
and binding upon all the States.) If uncon
stitutional, they are a nullity, and not bind
ing upon any of them; and we resist them,
as I before said, because they are uncon
stitutional, and not because our acts may
conflict with the “interests” of any other
State. Sir, the people of the north sup
posed, or acted as though they supposed,
that it was vastly to their interest, and
even that they had a right, to protect the
Cherokees, in the occupancy of the Indian
country within the limitsof Georgia, And
every honorable gentleman, upon this floor
must he aware that the people of the north
or a large portion of them, agitated and
entertained this question as one of vital
importance, amfwbkMi tta* io test the
power of the Supreme Court to pass upon
the political rights of a Sovereign State. If
Georgia had submitted, or if she should now
submit, to or in any manner recognize,
however obliquely, the right of Congress
to pass the 25th section of the Judiciary
act of 1789, and the Intercourse act of
1802, and the right of the Supreme court
to pass judgment in cases which may’ oc
cur within the limits of Georgia, by vir
tue of the authority, which that court de
rives from those acts, then, Sir, will this
proud State, recognize the doctrine that
an unconstitutional act of the General Go
vernment, is of binding force and ought to
he obeyed as the supreme law of the land.
,Suppose any other State, having an Indi
an tribe within her limits, should choose -
to submit, that all the acts of the General
Government are to bo obeyed, until pro
nounced unconstitutional by the Supreme
court; and should permit those Indians to
organize an independent government with
in her limits, and stand in patient awe
of that tribunal clothed, as it undoubtedly
is, with the authority of the Judiciary and
Intercourse acts, because, other states
might say it was to their interest she should
do so, would that he any reason why Geor
gia should pursue such a servile course!
1 think not. And say what gentlemen will,
the principle on which we are now about
to act is the very principle on which South
Carolina acted when she nullified the tariff*.
She declared those acts unconstitutional.
Georgia has made the same-declaration,
and if she shrinking beneath the frowns of
the General Government, choose to sub
mit, it did not in the least interfere with
the right of South Carolina to resist. But
if was said, Hat it was not right to resist
the tariff nets because it would inteiferc
with the “interests” of other States. Sir,
those States never would have passed those
acts, had it not been their exclusive inter
est to do so, and they did it not only re
gardless of the provisions of the Federal
Constitution, but in direct violation of the
plain sense and meaning of that instrument.
Let us for a moment cast our eyes north of
the Maryland line, and what do we seel A
dense white population, extending from the
Passamaquody to tlio Mississippi, whose hab
its and pursuits are similar; inhabiting a coun
try sending forth the same products from one
extreme to the other; with a population increa
sing without a parallel; who have one commu
nity of feeling and of interest, and whose
wealth and prosperity are based upon free
white labour. The products of the North, with
few exceptions, are sent to countries to which
none of the produce of the Sou this ever sent.~~
The labor and the products of the South, are
entirely different from thoseof the North. Our
cotton, rice and tobacco, are sent to the ports
of Europe, to which very little, or none of the
produce or manufactures of the North, are
shipped. This it was which enabled them, by
the operation of the tariff'acts, to place a tariff
of duties or tax upon articles received in ex
change for the produce of the South, amount
ing in some instances to prohibition; while the
products of the North were enjoying almost
the benefits of a free trade system, by being
exchanged in foreign ports for articles which
were received on their arrival here, almostpr
quite free of duty. Thus, while the a.gi*uT-
24