I 3|0 
 
 r I300 
 
CORNELL 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME 
 OF THE SAGE ENDOWMENT 
 FUND GIVEN IN 1891 BY 
 
 HENRY WILLIAMS SAGE 
 
STATE DOCUMENTS 
 
 Federal Relations: 
 
 THE STATES AND THE UNITEaSTATES. 
 
 NUVIBBR I. 
 
 IHTERPEETATIOH OF THE CONSTITUTION 
 ■" DURING' THE FIRST TWO DECADES 
 OF ITS HISTORY. 1Y89-1809. 
 
 EDITED WITH NOTES BY 
 
 HERMAN V. AMES, Ph.D. 
 
 PUBUSHED BY 
 
 THE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY, 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, 
 
 FHII^DEI.PHIA, 1900. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION 
 
 DURING THE FIRST TWO DECADES 
 
 OF ITS HISTORY. 1789-1809. 
 
 NUMBER. PAGE. 
 
 1. Rhode Island Seeks a Commercial Union, 1789. ... . . i 
 
 2. Virginia on Assumption of State Debts. 1790 2 
 
 Georgia and the Federal Judiciary. 1793. 7 
 
 3. Message of Governor Telfair 8 
 
 4. Act Declaratory of Retained Sovereignty of the State. . .... 9 
 
 New Hampshire and the Federal Judiciary. . . 11 
 
 5. First Remonstrance of the Legislature. 1794 12 
 
 6. Second Remonstrance of the Legislature. 1795. . . ■ ■ '3 
 
 Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. 1798, 1799 15 
 
 Replies of the States. 1799 16 
 
 7. Delaware to Virginia 16 
 
 8. Rhode Island to Virginia 17 
 
 9. Massachusetts to Virginia, ^ . . 18 
 
 10. The Pennsylvania House to Kentucky.' . . Vo 
 
 11. The Pennsylvania House to Virginia . . -22 
 
 12. The New York Senate to Virginia and Kentucky. . 22 
 
 1 3. Connecticut to Virginia 24 
 
 14. New Hampshire to Virginia and Kentucky. . . ... 24 
 
 15. Vermont to Virginia 25 
 
 Massachusetts on the Embargo. 1809. . ? . . . . 26 
 
 16. Answer of the Senate . 28 
 
 1 7. Answer of the House . .29 
 
 18. Resolution on the Enforcement Act. . . . . . .34 
 
 19. Delaware and the Embargo. 1809 .36 
 
 Connecticut and the Enforcement Act. 1809. ... .38 
 
 20. Speech of Governor Trumbull 39 
 
 21. Resolutions of the General Assembly 40 
 
 22. Rhode Island on the Embargo. 1809 42 
 
i^i?ll!^.^,.KY£.'<?l'rY LIBRARY 
 
 1924 092 685 415 
 
 ON 
 
 INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION 
 DURING THE FIRST TWO DECADES 
 _PF;TS HISTORY. 1789-1809 
 
 I. Memorial from the State of Rhode Island and 
 Providence Plantations. 
 
 September Session, lySg. 
 
 In June of 1 789, the Rhode Island Assembly for the sixth time defeated a 
 proposition to call a convention to consider the ratification of the Federal 
 Constitution, but hoping to avert hostile tariff legislation by Congress, it had 
 passed in May an impost law providing for the collection of the same duties on 
 imports as Congress might lay upon imports into the Union. In September, 
 after re-enacting the law passed by Congress (July 31, i U. S. Stat, at Large, 
 48), they sent the following memorial, an overture for a commercial union. 
 Congress, anticipating the receipt of the memorial, passed an act suspending 
 the iilipost law in favor of Rhode Island and North Carolina until January 15, 
 1790. (Sept. IS, I U. S. Stat, at Large, 100. Memorial received, Sept. 26, 
 Senate Journal, I Cong., 89 (ed. 1820).) Finally the Rhode Island Assem- 
 bly called a convention for March 1 , 1 790, and requested a further suspension 
 of the revenue laws. Congress granted an extension until April i. The con- 
 vention, however, adjourned without completing its work to May 24. In con- 
 sequence of its action, the Senate on May 18 passed a bill prohibiting alt 
 commercial intercourse with Rhode Island after the ist of July next, and 
 authorizing the government to demand of that State the payment of its portion; 
 of the continental debt without delay. (^Annals of Cong., i, 976; S. J., r 
 Cong., 142.) This attitude of the Senate, together with the open threats of 
 coercion in the public press, apparently had an important influence on the 
 convention. That body ratified the constitution, May 29, 1790, by a vote of 
 34 to 32, also proposing a series of amendments. 
 
 References: The text is itora Rhode Island Colonial ^««?-(&, X,'^56,'a]so 
 slightly changed in American State Papers, Miscellaneous, I, i l(^. ' For the 
 
2 STATE DOCUMENTS 
 
 history, of prime importance is F. G. Bates, Rhode Island and the Formation 
 of the Union, Chaps. V, VI (N. Y., 1898); cf. Arnold's Rhode Island, II, 
 536-564 (4th ed.); Curtis, Constitution, II, 598-604 (ed. i860), or I, 692- 
 697 (ed. 1897); Elliot's Debates, I, 336, 337. 
 
 To the President, Senate and House of Representatives of the 
 eleven United States of America, in Congress assembled: 
 The critical situation in which the people of this state are 
 placed, engage us to make these assurances, in the behalf of their 
 attachment and friendship to their sister states, and of their 
 disposition to cultivate mutual harmony and friendly intercourse. 
 They know themselves to be a handful, comparatively viewed, 
 and although they now stand as it were, alone, they have not 
 separated themselves, or departed from the principles of that 
 Confederation which was formed by the sister states, in their 
 struggle for freedom and in the hour of danger. They seek by 
 this memorial to call to your remembrance the hazard which we 
 have run, the hardships we have endured, the treasures we have 
 spent, and the blood we have lost together in one common cause, 
 and especially the object we had in view — the preservation of 
 our libert)' — wherein ability considered they may truly say, they 
 were equal in exertions with the foremost. The effects whereof 
 in great embarrassments and other distresses, consequent thereon, 
 we have since experienced with severity, which common sufferings 
 and common danger we hope and trust will yet form a bond of 
 union and friendship not easily to be broken. Our not having 
 acceded to or adopted the new system of government found and 
 adopted by most of our sister states, we doubt not have given 
 uneasiness to them. That we have not seen our way clear to do 
 it, consistent with our idea of the principle upon which we all 
 embarked together, has also given pain to us ; we have not 
 doubted but we might thereby avoid present difficulties, but we 
 have apprehended future mischief. The people of this state 
 from its first settlement have been accustomed and strongly 
 attached to a democratical form of government. They have 
 read in the constitution an approach toward that form of govern- 
 ment from which we have lately dissolved our connection at so 
 much .Ijia^^ard of expense of life and treasure, — they have seen 
 
 with pleasure the administration thereof, from the most important 
 
 ,1 ! ' 111 H ^ 
 
MEMORIAL OF RHODE ISLAND 3 
 
 trusts downward, committed to men who have highly merited, 
 and in whom the people of the United States place unbounded 
 confidence. Yet, even on this circumstance, in itself so fortunate, 
 they have apprehended danger by way of precedent. Can it be 
 thought strange then, that with these impressions, they should 
 wait to see the proposed system organized and in operation, to 
 see what further checks and securities would be agreed to, etc. 
 [and] established by way of atnendments before they would adopt 
 it as a constitution of government for themselves and their pos- 
 terity? 
 
 These amendments we believe have already afforded some 
 relief and satisfaction to the minds of the people of this state : 
 And we earnestly look for the time, when they may with clearness 
 and safety, be again united with their sister states under a con- 
 •stitution and form of government so well poised, as neither to need 
 alteration or be liable thereto by a majority only of nine states 
 out of thirteen, a circumstance which may possibly take place 
 against the sense of a majority of the people of the United States. 
 We are sensible of the extremes to which democratical govern- 
 ment is sometimes liable ; something of which we have lately 
 experienced, but we esteem them temporary and partial evils 
 compared with the loss of liberty and the rights of a free people. 
 Neither do we apprehend they will be marked with severity by 
 our sister states, when it is considered that during the late trouble, 
 the whole United States, notwithstanding their joint wisdom and 
 efforts, fell into the like misfortune. That from our extraordinary 
 exertions, this state was left in a situation nearly as embarrassing 
 at that during the war. That in the measures which were 
 adopted, government unfortunately had not the aid and support 
 from the monied interest, which our sister states of New York and 
 the Carolinas experienced under similar circumstances, and 
 especially when it is considered that upon some abatement of 
 that fermentation in the minds of the people which is so common 
 in the collision of sentiments and of parties, a disposition appears 
 to provide a remedy for the difficulties we have labored under on 
 that account. 
 
 We are induced to hope that we shall not be altogether con- 
 sidered as foreigners, having no particular affinity or connection 
 
4 STATE DOCUMENTS 
 
 with the United States. But that trade and commerce upon 
 which the prosperity of this state much depends, will be pre- 
 served as free and open between this and the Unitid States as 
 our different situations at present can possibly admit. Earnestly 
 desiring and proposing to adopt such commercial regulations on 
 our part as shall not tend to defeat the collection of the revenue 
 of the United States, but rather to act in conformity to, or cor- 
 porate [co-operate] therewith, and desiring also to give the 
 strongest assurances that we shall during our present situation use 
 our utmost endeavors to be in preparation, from time to time, to 
 answer our proportion of such part of the interest or principal of 
 the foreign and domestic debt, as the United States shall judge 
 expedient to pay and discharge. 
 
 We feel ourselves attached by the strongest ties of friendship, 
 
 kindred and of interest with our sister states, and we cannot 
 
 without the greatest reluctance look to any other quarter for those 
 
 advantages of commercial intercourse which we conceve to be 
 
 more natural and recprocal between them and us.' 
 
 1. Virginia on the Assumption of State Debts. 
 
 December 23, 1790. 
 
 Virginia especially was opposed to the act for the assumption of State debts, 
 as she had already paid off the greater portion of her revolutionary debt. 
 Jefferson, nearly a month prior to the adoption of this memorial, wrote Morris : 
 " The States of Virginia and North Carolina are peculiarly dissatisfied with 
 this measure. I believe, however, that it is harped on by many to mask their 
 disaffection to the government on other grounds. Its great foe in Virginia is 
 an implacable one." (Patrick Henry.) Jefferson's Works, (ed. 1854), III, 
 198; Writings (Ford's ed.), V, 250. 
 
 In addition to this memorial, the Legislature of Virginia also passed reso- 
 lutions, Dec. 21, 1790, one of which pronounced the law in question " repug- 
 nant to the Constitution of the United States, as it goes to the exercise of a 
 power not expressly granted to the general government." Hening's Statutes, 
 XIII, 234. As soon as this resolution had passed the House of Delegates, 
 Hamilton wrote to Chief Justice Jay: "This is the first symptom of a spirit 
 which must either be killed or will kill the Constitution of the United States. 
 
 ' The formal indorsement is omitted, which practice will be followed usually. 
 
VIRGINIA ON ASSUMPTION 5 
 
 I send the resolution to you that it may be considered what ought to be 
 done. Ought not the collective weight of the different parts of the Govern- 
 ment to be employed in exploding the principles they contain ?' ' Correspond- 
 ence and Public Papers of John Jay, III, 405. (N. Y., 1891.) Jay replied: 
 " To treat them as very important might render them more so than I think 
 they are. » » » The assumption will do its own work; it will justify 
 itself, and not want advocates. Every indecent interference of State assem- 
 blies will diminish their influence ; the national government has only to do what 
 is right and, if possible, be silent. If compelled to speak, it should be in a few 
 words strongly evinced of temper, dignity, and self-respect." Ibid., 410. 
 
 These resolutions were presented to the Senate by Monroe on January 13, 
 1 79 1, and to the House by Madison on the following day, and communicated 
 by the President on January 1 7, but Congress took no important action thereon. 
 
 In Maryland resolutions pronouncing assumption as dangerous to the inde- 
 pendent existence of the State government were defeated by the casting vote of 
 the Speaker of the House. North Carolina likewise condemned the measure 
 in vigorous language. 
 
 References: Text in Hening's Statutes, XIII, 237-239 (Phila., 1823); 
 also in Amer. State Papers, Finance, I, 90, 91. For comments, see Jefferson's 
 Works, III, 152, 166, 167, 198; Jay's Correspondence and Public Papers, 
 III, 405, 410; Hamilton's History of the Republic, IV, 479, 480; McMaster's 
 United States, I, 593. For references on the previous opposition to funding 
 in Congress, see MacDonald's Documents, 47; Channing and Hart's Guide, 
 §158. 
 
 In the House of Delegates, 1 
 Thursday, the i6th of December, 1790. J 
 The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia to the 
 
 United States in Congress assembled. 
 
 Represent, 
 
 That it is with great concern they find themselves compelled, 
 from a sense of duty, to call the attention of Congress to an act 
 of their last session, intitled "An act making provision for the 
 debt of the United States," which the General Assembly conceive 
 neither policy, justice nor the constitution warrants. Repubhcan 
 policy in the opinion of your memorialists could scarcely have 
 suggested those clauses in the aforesaid act, which limit the right 
 of the United States, in their redemption of the public debt. On 
 the contrary they discern a striking resemblance between this 
 system and that which was introduced into England, at the revo- 
 lution j a system which has perpetuated upon that nation an 
 enormous debt, and has moreover insinuated into the hands of 
 
6 STATE DOCUMENTS 
 
 the executive, an unbounded influence, which pervading every 
 branch of the government, bears down all opposition, and daily 
 threatens the destruction of everything that appertains to English 
 liberty. The same causes produce the same effects ! In an 
 agricultural country like this, therefore to erect, and concentrate, 
 and perpetuate a large monied interest, is a measure which your 
 memorialists apprehend must in the course of human events 
 produce one or other of two evils, the prostration of agriculture 
 at the feet of commerce, or a change in the present form of 
 foederal government, fatal to the existence of American liberty. 
 
 The General Assembly pass by various other parts of the said 
 act which they apprehend will have a dangerous and impolitic 
 tendency, and proceed to show the injustice of it as it applies to 
 this Commonwealth. * * * Your memorialists turn away from 
 the impolicy and injustice of the said act, and view it in another 
 light, in which to them it appears still more odious and deformed. 
 
 During the whole discussion of the foederal constitution by the 
 convention of Virginia, your memorialists were taught to believe 
 ' That every power not granted was retained," under this im- 
 pression and upon this positive condition, declared in the instru- 
 ment of ratification, the said government was adopted by the 
 people of this Commonwealth ; but your memoralists can find no 
 clause in the constitution authorizing Congress to assume the 
 debts of the states ! As the guardians then of the rights and 
 interests of their constituents, as sentinels placed by them over 
 the ministers of the foederal government, to shield it from their 
 encroachments, or at least to sound the alarm when it is threat- 
 ened with invasion, they can never reconcile it to their con- 
 sciences, silently to acquiesce in a measure, which violates that 
 hallowed maxim : a maxim on the truth and sacredness of which 
 the foederal government depended for its adoption in this Com- 
 monwealth. But this injudicious act not only deserves the 
 censure of the General Assembly, because it is not warranted by 
 the constitution of the United States, but because it is repugnant 
 to an express provision of that constitution ; this provision is 
 " That all debts contracted and engagements entered into, before 
 the adoption of this constitution, shall be as valid against the 
 United States under this constitution as under the confederation," 
 
GEORGIA AND THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY 7 
 
 which amounts to a constitutional ratification of the contracts 
 respecting the state debts in the situation in which they existed 
 under the confederation, and resorting to that standard there can 
 be no doubt that in the present question the rights of states as 
 contracting with the United States must be considered as sacred. 
 
 The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia con- 
 fide so fully in the justice and wisdom of Congress upon the 
 present occasion, as to hope that they will revise and amend the 
 aforesaid act generally, and repeal in particular, so much of it as 
 relates to the assumption of the state debts. 
 
 December the 23d, 1790. Agreed to by the Senate. 
 
 Georgia and the Federal Judiciary. 
 1792, 1793. 
 
 A suit instituted by Chisholm against the State of Georgia came up for a 
 hearing before the Supreme Court in the August term of 1 792, but the case 
 was postponed to the February term of the next year, in order that the State 
 of Georgia might have time to deliberate on the measures she ought to adopt. 
 A resolution was introduced into the Georgia House of Representatives, De- 
 cember 14, 1792, declaring that this suit " if acquiesced in by this State would 
 not only involve the same in numberless law-suits for papers issued from the 
 Treasury thereof to supply the armies of the United States, and perplex the 
 citizens of Georgia with perpetual taxes, in addition to those the injustice of 
 the funding system of the United States hath already imposed upon them, but 
 would effectually destroy the retained sovereignty of the States, and would 
 actually tend in its operation to annihilate the very shadow of State govern- 
 ment, and to render them but tributary corporations to the government of the 
 United States," therefore the State of Georgia would not be bound by the de- 
 cision of the Supreme Court in such cases, but would regard it "as unconsti- 
 tutional and extra-judicial." It further recommended " an explanatory amend- 
 ment " to the constitution. Apparently the resolution was not adopted, but 
 it represents the policy which the State followed. At the February term of the 
 Supreme Court a written remonstrance on behalf of the State was presented, but 
 otherwise the State declined to appear. The opinion of the Court was ren- 
 dered February 18, 1793. It was ordered that unless Georgia should appear, 
 or show cause by the 6rst day of the next term, judgment by default should be 
 entered against the State. At the opening of the next session of the Legisla- 
 ture of Georgia, in November, 1793, the Governor called attention to the case 
 in his message as given below. The House of Representatives adopted a re- 
 port authorizing the preparation of an address to the Legislatures of the several 
 
8 STATE DOCUMENTS 
 
 States, " requesting their concurrence in a proposal for an explanatory amend- 
 ment to the Constitution of the United States, in the second section of the 
 third article," and they also passed a bill, " Declaratory of the retained sov- 
 ereignty of the State," an extract from which follows. Apparently this meas- 
 ure did not pass the Senate, as the present Secretary of States writes that an 
 examination of the manuscript laws for 1793 fails to disclose it. 
 
 State sovereignty was aroused elsewhere; two days after the decision of the 
 Court was pronounced a proposed amendment, containing the exact language 
 of the present eleventh amendment, was introduced in Congress by Senator 
 Sedgwick of Massachusetts, against which State a similar suit was pending. The 
 Legislatures of Massachusetts, Connecticut and Virginia each proposed an 
 amendment; the former declaring that the power claimed by the Supreme 
 Court was " dangerous to the peace, safety and independence of the several 
 States and repugnant to the first principles of a Federal Government." Vir- 
 ginia pronounced " the decision of the Supreme Federal Court incompatible 
 with and dangerous to the Sovereignty and Independence of the Individual 
 States, as the same tends to a general consolidation of these confederated Re- 
 publicks." Congress sent the proposed amendment to the States March 5, 
 1794, and its ratification was announced by a message of the President, Jan- 
 uary 8, 1798. At the February term of the Supreme Court 1794, judgment 
 was rendered for the plaintiff, and a " Writ of Enquiry " awarded, but never 
 executed, as the adoption of the eleventh amendment prevented the threatened 
 conflict of authority. 
 
 References; The Texts are in The Augusta Chronicle and Gazette of the State, 
 December 22, 1792; November ^, 16, 23, and December •}, 1793. This paper 
 contains the House Journal.' Massachusetts resolutions, Resolves of Mass, 
 (MS.), IX, 108; Copy of Connecticut and Virginia resolutions in Massa- 
 chusetts Archives. In HoUingsworth v. Virginia (1798), 3 Dallas, 378, it was 
 held that the XI Amendment applied to prior cases. Chisholm v. Georgia, 3 
 Dallas, 419, 479, 480. For history of this case and the amendment, see 
 Cohen v. Virginia, 6 Wheaton, 406; Ames, Proposed Amendments, Amer. 
 Hist. Assoc. Report, 1896, II, 156, 157, 322; McMaster, II, 182-186; V, 402; 
 Story, Commentaries, II, 481, 482. Thorpe, Const. History I, 176-178. 
 
 3. Extracts from the Message of Governor Edward Telfair, 
 Dated November 4, 1793. 
 
 2'he Augusta Chronicle and Gazette of the State, Saturday, 
 November g, 17^3. 
 
 Notwithstanding certain amendments have taken place in the 
 JFederal Constitution, it still rests with the State Legislatures to 
 
 ' I am indebted to Mr. William Harden, Librarian Georgia Histoi:ical Society, for tran- 
 -scripts of these texts and examination of newspaper files. 
 
GEORGIA AND THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY g 
 
 act thereon as circumstances may dictate. A process from the 
 Supreme Court of the United States, at the instance of Chis- 
 holm, Executor of Farquhar, has been served on me and the 
 Attorney General. I declined entering any appearance, as this 
 would have introduced a precedent replete with danger to the 
 Republic, and would have involved this state in complicated 
 difficulties abstracted from the infractions it would have made 
 on her retained sovereignty. The singular predicament to which 
 she has been reduced by savage inroads has caused an emission 
 of paper upwards of one hundred and fifty thousand pounds since 
 the close of the late war, a considerable part of which is yet 
 outstanding, and which in good faith and upon constitutional 
 principles is the debt of the United States. I say were action 
 admissible under such grievous circumstances, an annihilation 
 of her political existence must follow. To guard against civil 
 discord as well as the impending danger, permit me most 
 ardently to request your most serious attention to the measure 
 of recommending to the Legislatures of the several States that 
 they effect a remedy in the premises by an amendment to the 
 constitution ; and that to give further weight to this matter the 
 delegation of this state in Congress be required to urge that 
 body to propose such an amendment to the said several Legis- 
 latures. • » * 
 
 4. Act Declaratory of the Retained Sovereignty of the State. 
 Extracts from the Journal of the House of Representatives, 
 Tuesday, November 19, i793- 
 
 The Augusta Chronicle and Gazette of the State, Saturday f 
 November 23, and December 7, ijg3. 
 
 The House proceeded to resolve itself into a committee of the- 
 whole, to take under consideration a bill to be entitled an act: 
 declaratory of certain parts of the retained sovereignty of the 
 State of Georgia — Mr. Speaker left the chair. 
 
 Mr. McNeil took the chair of the committee— and some time 
 being spent therein, Mr. Speaker resumed the chair, and Mr. 
 McNeil from the committee of the whole reported that the com- 
 mittee had taken the said bill under consideration, had gone 
 
10 STATE DOCUMENTS 
 
 through the same, and had made several amendments thereto, 
 which he reported. 
 
 And the bill as reported amended, being read, a motion was 
 made by Mr. Waldburger to strike out the following section 
 therein : 
 
 And be it further enacted, That any Federal Marshal, or any 
 other person or persons levying, or attempting to levy, on the 
 territory of this State, or any part thereof, or on the Treasury, or 
 any other property belonging to the said State, or on the property 
 of the Governor or Attorney- General, or any of the people 
 thereof, under or by virtue of any execution or other compulsory 
 process issuing out of or by authority of the Supreme Court of 
 the United States, or any other Court having jurisdiction under 
 their authority, or which may at any period hereafter under the 
 constitution of the said United States, as it now stands, be con- 
 stituted, for, or in behalf of the before mentioned Alexander 
 Chrisholm, Executor of Robert Farquhar, or for, or in behalf of, 
 any other person or persons whatsoever, for the payment or 
 recovery of any debt, or pretended debt, or claim, against the 
 said State of Georgia, shall be, and he or they attempting to levy 
 as aforesaid are hereby declared to be guilty of felony, and shall 
 ;suffer death, without the benefit of clergy, by being hanged. 
 
 And on the question for striking out as aloresaid, the yeas and 
 nays being required, are as follows : 
 
 Yeas. Messrs. Barnett, Burnett, Carnes, Fort, R. Jones, J. 
 Jones of Chatham, Waldburger, and Winn-8. 
 
 Nays. Messrs. Barrow, Early, Greer, Howell, Hardin, Harris, 
 J. Jones of Burke, G. Jones, Jack, Kemp, Lanier, M'Neil, 
 Rutherford, Simms, Stuart, Walker, Watkins, Worsham, and 
 Wilkinson — 19. So the motion was lost. 
 
 Ordered, That the bill be engrossed for a third reading. 
 
 Extracts from the Journal of the House of Representatives, 
 Thursday, November 21, 1793 : 
 
 * * * A bill to be entitled an act declaratory of certain 
 parts of the retained sovereignty of the state of Georgia was read 
 the third time. 
 
 And on motion made — Resolved, That the bill be inserted at 
 full length on the journals of this House. 
 
NEW HAMPSHIRE AND THE JUDICIARY 1 1 
 
 Resolved, That the bill do pass under the title of " An act 
 declaratory of certain parts of the retained sovereignty of the 
 State of Georgia." 
 
 Ordered, That the clerk do carry the same to the Senate and 
 desire their concurrence. 
 
 New Hampshire and the Federal Judiciary. 
 1794. 1795- 
 
 The first of the following remonstrances was due to a decision rendered by 
 the United States Circuit Court for the District of New Hampshire, October 24, 
 1793, enforcing the decree of the Court of Appeals in Cases of Capture, in a case 
 growing out of the capture of the brigantine " Susannah " by the privateer the 
 " McClary " in October, 1777. The latter vessel was owned and manned by 
 citizens of New Hampshire, but was acting under the commission and author- 
 ity of Congress. The Courts of New Hampshire condemned the " Sttsannah " 
 and her cargo as lawful prize, and refused to grant an appeal to Congress as 
 contrary to the law of the State. A petition for an appeal in this case 
 (Treadwell and Penhallow v. brig Susannah') was, however, sent to Con- 
 gress, and its prayer granted by the Court of Commissioners, June 26, 1779, by 
 virtue of the Resolves of Congress of November 25, 1 775 {Journal of Con- 
 gress [ed. 1800], I, 241, 242.) The case came up for trial before the legal 
 successors of this body, the newly erected Court of Appeals in Cases of Capture 
 (Resolves of January 15, 1780, Jour, of Cong., VI, 10) in September, 1783. 
 This Court reversed the decision of the New Hampshire Courts. Here the 
 case rested until Elisha Doane, one of the appellants, finally brought proceed- 
 ings in the Federal Circuit Court of New Hampshire in 1793, with the result as 
 indicated above. On a writ of error the case was brought before the Supreme 
 Court of the United States, and judgment was given, February 24, 1795, in 
 the case of Penhallow et al., v. Doane' s Administrators, maintaining the 
 jurisdiction of the United States Courts, and confirming the decision of the in- 
 ferior courts. The second of these remonstrances was presented to Congress 
 three days later. 
 
 References: Texts: Amer. State Papers, Misc., I, 79, 123, 124. See the 
 case of Penhallow v. Doane, 3 Dallas, 54, for full facts in the case. For his- 
 tory of the United States Courts prior to the adoption of the Constitution, and 
 incidentally of this case, see J. F. Jameson, The Predecessor of the Supreme 
 Court, in Essays in Const. History, ch. I; J. C. Bancroft Davis, Courts of 
 Appeal in Priae Cases, 131 United States Reports, Appx. xxix-xxxiv. 
 
12 STATE DOCUMENTS 
 
 5. First Remonstrance of the Legislature, February 20, 1794. 
 
 State of New Hampshire : 
 To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 
 
 in Congress assembled : The remonstrance of the Legislature 
 
 of the State of New Hampshire, showeth : — 
 
 Tiiat the citizens of the State of New Hampshire adopted the 
 federal constitution of the United States under the full conviction 
 that more extensive general powers were necessary to be vested 
 in Congress than they ever possessed or pretended that they 
 possessed, when they were entirely dependent on the good-will 
 or the resolves of the several States. But by this adoption they 
 did not then intend,-nor-does^ their Legislature now choose to 
 admit, that the confederation was in force prior to~Marchi 1-78 1, 
 or that the federal constitution existed with respect to New 
 Hampshire before June, 1788. That a question respecting 
 the powers of Congress and the powers of the several States 
 previous to the constitution or the confederation has been de- 
 termined in the circuit court for the district of New Hampshire, 
 held at Exeter on the 24th day of October, 1793, in which the 
 foundation of the action was, whether this State, prior to an ex- 
 press grant to Congress, had a right to pass a law final in every 
 way concerning the capture of vessels by this State, or citizens 
 thereof, from the British, the enemy we were then engaged with 
 in war. That the determination of this circuit court was, that 
 the State of New Hampshire had no such power; but that Con- 
 gress, or a court commissioned by them, could nullify the laws 
 of any particular State ; could control their several courts ; and 
 that in fact, the constitution of 1789 was unnecessary to be 
 adopted, as it contained no new grant of powers, but only a 
 confirmation of old ones. 
 
 The states are forbidden by the federal constitution to make 
 any retrospective laws. The Legislature conceived that Con- 
 gress was under the same obligations ; and that their courts could 
 not rejudge cases that were finally adjudged by courts existing 
 prior to its adoption. In fact, the Legislature conceive, and 
 feel no inclination to relinquish the idea, that Congress, in its 
 
NEW HAMPSHIRE AND THE JUDICIARY 1 3 
 
 origin, was merely an advisory body, chosen by the several States 
 to consult upon measures for the general good' of the whole ; 
 that the adoption of measures recommended by them was entirely 
 in the breast of the several States or their Legislatures ; that no 
 measure could be carried into effect in any State without its 
 agreement thereto; that the subsequent powers of Congress 
 entirely depended upon the express grants of the State Legisla- 
 tures j that the Legislature of this State, so far from agreeing 
 to the exercise of the power by Congress or its courts, now 
 determined by the circuit court to have belonged to them, on 
 request from Congress, did not grant, but denied it; that the 
 declaration of independence received effect from its being 
 acceded to by the Legislatures of the several States ; and that 
 the confederation was the first act binding upon the States which 
 was not expressly agreed to by them individually ; that a declara- 
 tion by any body whatever contrary thereto is subversive of the 
 principles of the revolution ; unsettling all the proceedings of the 
 State Governments prior to the existence of the constitution; 
 and will inevitably involve the States, and this State in particular, 
 in confusion, and will weaken, if not perhaps destroy, the National 
 Government; the true principles of which the State of New 
 Hampshire has, and will always endeavor to maintain. 
 
 The Legislature of New Hampshire, therefore, again protest 
 and remonstrate against the exercise of any such powers by 
 Congress, or any court or body of men appointed by them, and 
 request that measures may be taken to prevent and annihilate 
 such illegal acts of power. 
 
 6. Second Remonstrance of the Legislature, January 16, 
 
 1795- 
 To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 
 
 in Congress assembled : The Memorial of the Legislature of 
 
 New Hampshire, showeth : 
 
 That impelled by a firm attachment to the first principles of a 
 free Government, and the accumulated distresses of a number of 
 their citizens, they again remonstrate to Congress against a viola- 
 tion of State independence and an unwarrantable encroachment 
 in the courts of the United States. 
 
14 
 
 STATE DOCUMENTS 
 
 [Here follows a statement of the case as they view it.J 
 
 That this State had a right to oppose the British usurpation in 
 the way it thought best ; could make laws as it chose, with respect 
 to every transaction where it had not explicitly granted the power 
 to Congress; that the formation of courts for carrying those 
 laws into execution belonged only to the several States; that 
 Congress might advise and recommend, but the States only could 
 enact and carry into execution ; and that the attempts repeatedly 
 made to render the laws of this State in this respect null and void 
 is a flagrant insult to the principle of the revolution ; is establish- 
 ing a Government they hoped to be a blessing on the uniform plea 
 of arbitrary power, on an implication of grants of jurisdiction not 
 intended to be included, nor even in contemplation. 
 
 Can the rage for annihilating all the power of the States, and 
 reducing this extensive and flourishing country to one domination, 
 make the administrators blind to the danger of violating all the 
 principles of our former Government, to the hazard of convulsions 
 in endeavoring to eradicate every trace of State power, except in 
 the resentment of the people? Can the constitutional exercise 
 of the power of Congress in future be in no other way established 
 than by the belief that the former Congress always possessed the 
 same? Can the remembrance of the manner of our opposition 
 to tyranny, and the gradual adoption of federal ideas, be so pain- 
 ful as to exclude (unless forced into view) the knowledge that 
 Congress, in its origin, was merely an advisory body ; that it en- 
 tirely depended upon the will of the several Legislatures to en- 
 force any measure they might recommend ; that the inconveni- 
 ences of this principle produced the confederation ; and, even at 
 that late day, it was declared that powers not expressly delegated 
 to Congress are reserved to the States, or the people, respectively ; 
 that the experience of years, of the inefficacy of thirteen Legis- 
 latures to provide for the wants and to procure the happiness of 
 the American people, caused the adoption of the present constitu- 
 tion — an adoption totally unnecessary, in point of principle, if the 
 claims of former Congressional power are established. 
 
 Forced by events, the Legislature of New Hampshire have 
 made the foregoing statements ; and while they cheerfully acknow- 
 ledge the power of Congress in cases arising under the constitu- 
 
KENTUCKY AND VIRGINIA RESOLUTIONS 15 
 
 tion, they equally resolve not to submit the laws, made before the 
 existence of the present government by this (then independent 
 State) to the adjudication of any power on earth, while the free- 
 dom of the Federal Government shall afford any constitutional 
 means of redress 
 
 Impressed with the singular merits of the present case, and de- 
 precating the many and complicated evils which must be the 
 necessary consequence of establishing the power claimed by the 
 courts of the United States, and its tendency to produce disaffec- 
 tion to our Government, the Legislature of New Hampshire rest 
 assured that a speedy and just decision will be had, and that the 
 rights of State Governments and the interests of their citizens will 
 be secured against the exercise of a power of a court, or any body 
 of men under Congress, of carrying into effect an unconstitutional 
 decree of a court instituted by a former Congress, and which, in 
 its effects, would unsettle property and tear up the laws of the 
 several states. 
 
 Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. 
 1798, 1799. 
 
 It has been deemed unnecessary to reprint these resolutions in this series, as 
 this has already been done in various publications. Among the most accessible 
 and convenient of such reprints may be mentioned the following: 
 
 American History Leaflets, No. /jr. ( 10c. A. Lovell & Co., New York, 
 1894.) William MacDonald, Editor. Select Documents, illustrative of the 
 History of the United States, 148-160. (The MacmillanCo., New York, 1898.) 
 Howard W. Preston, Documents, illustrative of American History, 283-295. 
 (Putnam's, New York, 1886.) The Federalist {Yotd's ed., New York, 1898), 
 Appx. 679-686. Elliot's Debates, 528-532, 540-545 (ed. 1861). For a fac- 
 simile of a copy of the Kentucky resolutions of 1798, as -■sent to the other 
 States, cf. WriHngs of Jefferson (Ford's ed., New York, 1896), VII, inserted 
 between pages 288 and 289. Jefferson's draft is to be found in his Writings 
 (Ford's ed.), VII, 289-309; Works (ed. 1856), IX, 464-471. Also import- 
 ant portions in Am. History Leaflets, No. //, 17-21. For history of the same, 
 cf. E. D. Warfield, Kentucky Resolutions of ijgS (New York, 1887). For 
 additional bibliography, cf. Channing and Hart, Guide to American History, 
 §165- 
 
1 6 STATE DOCUMENTS 
 
 Replies of the States. 
 
 Copies of the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions were sent to the " Co- 
 States.' ' Replies were made to Virginia by the legislatures of New Hampshire, 
 Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York (different re- 
 plies from the Senate and the House), Delaware, Pennsylvania (the House) 
 and Maryland. Replies to Kentucky were adopted by the following: New 
 Hampshire (same as to Virginia), Vermont, Bhode Island (similar as to Vir- 
 ginia), Connecticut, New York (the House, same as to Virginia), Pennsylvania, 
 Delaware (similar as to Virginia), Maryland (the House). No State seems to 
 have adopted resolutions at this time approving of the Kentucky and Virginia 
 resolutions. It was in answer to these replies that the second set of Kentucky 
 resolutions (Nov. 22, 1799) and Madison's Report for the Virginia Legislature 
 (1800) were adopted. 
 
 The minority in the Virginia Legislature issued an " Address containing a 
 Vindication of the Constitutionality of the Alien and Sedition Imws." 
 
 References: The replies to Virginia from the New England States, the 
 Senate of New York, and from Delaware are in Elliot's Debates (ed. 1861), 
 IV, 532-539; also in a pamphlet entitled The Virginia and Kentucky Reso- 
 lutions, etc., published by Jonathan Elliot (Washington, May, MDCCCXXXII), 
 9-15; additional replies are in The American Historical Review , V, 244—252, 
 supplementing an important article by F. M. Anderson, on Contemporary 
 Opinion of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, ibid., 45—63, 225—244. 
 The most important of the replies from eight of the States, either because of 
 the previous or subsequent attitude of these States toward the Federal Govern- 
 ment, or because of the declaration in regard to the function of the Federal 
 Judiciary, are here re-printed. 
 
 7. Delaware to Virginia.' 
 In the House of Representatives, February 1, 1799. 
 Resolved, By the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
 state of Delaware, in General Assembly met, that theyfconsider 
 the resolutions from the state of Virginia, as a very unjustifiable 
 interference with the General Government and constituted au- 
 thorities of the United States, and of dangerous tendency, and 
 therefore not fit subject for the further consideration of the 
 General Assembly. 
 
 Isaac Davis, Speaker of the Senate. 
 Stephen Lewis, Speaker of the House of Representatives. 
 Test, John Fisher, C. S. John Caldwell, C. H. R? 
 
 [Elliot's Va. and Ky. Res., etc., 9]. 
 • Similar reply sent to Kentucky. 
 ^ The formal indorsements are omitted in the other cases. 
 
REPLIES OF THE STATES 1 7 
 
 8. The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations to 
 
 Virginia.' 
 In General Assembly, February, A. D. 1799. 
 Certain resolutions of the Legislature of Virginia, passed on the 
 2 1 St of December last, beiiig communicated to the Assembly, — 
 
 1. Resolved, That,Hn the opinion of this legislature, the second 
 section of the third article of the Constitution of the United 
 States, in these words, to wit, — " The judicial power shall extend 
 to all cases arising under the laws of the United States," — vests 
 in the Federal Courts', exclusively, and in the Supreme Court of 
 the United States, ultimately, the authority of deciding on the con- 
 stitutionality of any act or law of the Congress of the United States, 
 
 2. Resohied, That for any state legislature to assume that au- 
 thority would be — 
 
 I St. Blending together legislative and judicial powers; 
 
 2d. Hazarding an interruption of the peace of the states by 
 civil discord, in case of a diversity of opinions among the state 
 legislatures ; each state having, in that case, no resort, for vindi- 
 cating its own opinions, but the strength of its own arm ; 
 
 3d. Submitting most important questions of law to less com- 
 petent tribunals ; and, 
 
 4th. An infraction of the Constitution of the United States, 
 expressed in plain terms. 
 
 3. Resolved, That, although, for the above reasons, this legis- 
 lature, in their public capacity, do not feel themselves authorized 
 to consider and decide on the constitutionality of the Sedition 
 and Alien laws, (so called,) yet they are called upon, by the ex- 
 igency of this occasion, to declare that, in their private opinions, 
 these laws are within the powers delegated to Congress, and pro- 
 motive of the welfare of the United States. 
 
 4. Resolved, That the governor communicate these resolutions 
 to the supreme executive of the state of Virginia, and at the same 
 time express to him that this legislature cannot contemplate, with- 
 out extreme concern and regret, the many evil and fatal conse- 
 quences which may flow from the very unwarrantable resolutions 
 aforesaid, of the legislature of Virginia, passed on the twenty-first 
 
 day of December last. 
 
 [Elliot's Va. and Ky. Rts., 9, 10. ] 
 
 > Rimilar renlv sent to Kentucky. 
 
% 
 
 1 8 STATE DOCUMENTS 
 
 g. Massachusetts to Virginia. 
 
 In Senate, February 9, 1799. 
 
 The legislature of Massachusetts, having taken into serious con- 
 sideration the resolutions of the state of Virginia, passed the 21st 
 day of December last, and communicated by his excellency the 
 governor, relative to certain supposed infractions of the Constitu- 
 tion of the United States, by the government thereof ; and being 
 convinced that the Federal Constitution is calculated to promote 
 the happiness, prosperity, and safety, of the people of these 
 United States, and to maintain that union of the several states, so 
 essential to the welfare of the whole ; and being bound by solemn 
 oath to support and defend that Constitution, feel it unnecessary 
 to make any professions of their attachment to it, or of their firm 
 determination to support it against every aggression, foreign or 
 domestic. 
 
 But they deem it their duty solemnly to declare that, while 
 they hold sacred the principle, that consent of the people is the 
 only pure source of just and legitimate power, they cannot admit 
 ithe right of the state legislatures to denounce the administration 
 !of that government to which the people themselves, by a solemn 
 compact, have exclusively committed their national concerns. 
 That, although a liberal and enlightened vigilance among the 
 people is always to be cherished, yet an unreasonable jealousy of 
 the men of their choice, and a recurrence to measures of ex- 
 tremity, upon groundless or trivial pretexts, have a strong ten- 
 dency to destroy all rational liberty at home, and to deprive the 
 United States of the most essential advantages in relations abroad. 
 That this legislature are persuaded that the decision of all cases 
 in law and equity arising under the Constitution of the United 
 States, and the construction of all laws made in pursuance thereof, 
 are exclusively vested by the people in the judicial courts of the 
 United States. 
 
 That the people, in the solemn compact, which is declared to 
 be the supreme law of the land, have not constituted the state 
 legislatures the judges of the acts or measures of the Federal Gov 
 ernment, but have confided to them, the power of proposing such 
 amendments of the Constitution, as shall appear to them necessary 
 
REPLIES OF THE STATES 1 9 
 
 to the interests, or conformable to the wishes, of the people 
 whom they represent. 
 
 That, by this construction of the Constitution, an amicable and 
 dispassionate remedy is pointed out for any evil which experience 
 may prove to exist, and the peace and prosperity of the United 
 States may be preserved without interruption. 
 
 But, should the respectable state of Virginia persist in the as- 
 sumption of the right to declare the acts of the National Govern- 
 ment unconstitutional, and should she oppose successfully her 
 force and will to those of the nation, the Constitution would be 
 reduced to a mere cypher, to the form and pageantry of authority, 
 without the energy of power. Every act of the Federal Govern- 
 ment which thwarted the views or checked the ambitious projects 
 of a particular state, or of its leading and influential members, 
 would be the object of opposition and of remonstrance ; while 
 the people, convulsed and confused by the conflict between two 
 hostile jurisdictions, enjoying the protection of neither, would be 
 wearied into a submission to some bold leader, who would estab- 
 lish himself on the ruins of both. 
 
 The legislature of Massachusetts, although they do not them- 
 selves claim the right, nor admit the authority, of any of the state 
 governments, to decide upon the constitutionality of the acts of the 
 Federal Government, still, lest their silence should be construed 
 into disapprobation, or at best into a doubt as to the constitu- 
 tionality of the acts referred to by the state of Virginia ; and as 
 the General Assembly of Virginia has called for an expression of 
 their sentiments, do explicitly declare, that they consider the 
 acts of Congress, commonly called " the Alien and Seditioji 
 Acts," not only constitutional, but expedient and necessary. 
 [Here follows a discussion of these acts.] * * * 
 
 The legislature further declare, that in the foregoing sentiments 
 they have expressed the general opinion of their constituents, 
 who have not only acquiesced wthoul complaint in those particular 
 measures of the Federal Government, but have given their explicit 
 approbation by re-electing those men who voted for the adoption 
 of them. Nor is it apprehended, that the citizens of this state 
 will be accused of supineness, or of an indifference to their con- 
 stitutional rights ; for while, on the one hand, they regard with 
 
20 STATE DOCUMENTS 
 
 due vigilance the conduct of the government, on the other, their 
 freedom, safety, and happiness require that they should defend 
 that government and its constitutional measures against the open 
 or insidious attacks of any foe, whether foreign or domestic. 
 
 And, lastly, that the legislature of Massachusetts feel a strong 
 conviction that the several United States are connected by a 
 common interest, which ought to render their union indissoluble ; 
 and that this state will always cooperate with its confederate states 
 in rendering that union productive of mutual security, freedom, 
 and happiness. 
 
 In the House of Representatives, February 13,1799. Read 
 and concurred. 
 
 [Elliot's Va. and Ky. Res., 10-13.] 
 
 10. Resolutions of the House of Representatives of Penn- 
 sylvania to Kentucky, February 9, 1799. 
 
 Resolved, That in the opinion of this House the people of the 
 United States have vested in their President and Congress, as 
 well the right and power of determining on the intent and con- 
 struction of the constitution, as on the ordinary subjects of legis- 
 lation, and the defence of the Union ; and have committed to 
 the supreme judiciary of the nation the high authority of ulti- 
 mately and conclusively deciding upon the constitutionality of all 
 legislative acts. The constitution does not contemplate, as vested 
 or residing in the Legislatures of the several states, any right or 
 power of declaring that any act of the general government " is 
 not law, but is altogether void, and of no effect ;" and this House 
 considers such declaration as a revolutionary measure, destructive 
 of the purest principles of our State and national compacts. 
 
 That it is with deep concern this House observes, in any section 
 of our country, a disposition so hostile to her peace and dignity, 
 as that which appears to have dictated the resolutions of the 
 Legislature of Kentucky. Questions of so much delicacy and 
 magnitude might have been agitated in a manner more conform- 
 able to the character of an enlightened people, flourishing under 
 a government adopted by themselves, and administered by the 
 men of their choice. 
 
 That this House view, as particularly inauspicious to the general 
 
REPLIES OF THE STATES 21 
 
 principles of liberty and good government, the formal declaratioij 
 by a legislative body, " that confidence is everywhere the parent 
 of despotism, and that free governments are founded in jealousy." 
 The prevalence of such an opinion cuts asunder all the endearing 
 relations in life, and renews, in the field of science and amity, 
 the savage scenes of darker ages. Governments truly republican 
 and free are eminently founded on opinion and confidence ; their 
 execution is committed to representatives, selected by voluntary 
 preference, and exalted by a knowledge of their virtues and their 
 talents. No portion of the people can assume the province of 
 the whole, nor resist the expression of its combined will. This 
 House therefore protests against principles, calculated only to 
 check the spirit of confidence, and overwhelm with dismay the 
 lovers of peace, liberty and order. 
 
 That this House consider the laws of the United States, which 
 are the subjects of so much complaint, as just rules of civil con- 
 duct, and as component parts of a system of defence against the 
 aggressions of a nation, aiming at the dominion of the world — 
 conducting her attacks more by the arts of intrigue, than by her 
 skill in arms — never striking, until she has deeply wounded or 
 destroyed the confidence of the people in their government — 
 and, in fact, subduing more by the infamous aids of seduction, 
 than by the strength of her numerous legions. The sedition and 
 alien acts this House conceive contain nothing terrifying, but to 
 the flagitious and designing. Under the former, no criminality 
 can be infered or punishment inflicted, but for writing, printing, 
 uttering, or publishing false, scandalous and malicious aspersions 
 against the government, either House of Congress, or the Presi- 
 dent of the United States, with an intent to defame and bring 
 them into contempt. Under the latter, the citizens of the United 
 States have not anything more to fear, inasmuch as its operation 
 will only remove foreigners, whose views and conduct are inimical 
 to a government, instituted only for the protection and benefit of 
 the citizens of the United States, and others, whose quiet and 
 submission give them some claim to the blessing. Yet these 
 laws are subjects of loud complaint. But this House forbears an 
 examination into the cause, and only expresses its surprise that 
 such an opposition to them exists ! Our country's dearest interest 
 
22 STATE -DOCUMENTS 
 
 demands everywhere unanimity and harmony in her councils, and 
 this House is unable to discover any means more favourable to 
 those important objects, than confidence in the wise and honest 
 labours of those, in whose hands is reposed the sacred charge of 
 preserving her peace and independence. The voice of the 
 greater number the constitution declares shall pronounce the 
 national will ; but in the opinion of this House the provision is 
 vain, unless it be followed by the unfeigned and practical acqui- 
 escence of the minor part. Loud and concerted appeals to the 
 passions of the community are calculated to produce discussions 
 more boisterous than wise, and effects more violent than useful. 
 Our prayer therefore is, that our country may be saved from 
 foreign war and domestic strife. 
 
 That it is the opinion of this House, that it ought not to concur 
 
 in the design of the resolutions of the Legislature of Kentucky. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Strickler, 
 
 Resolved, That the foregoing resolution be signed by the 
 
 Speaker, and that the Governor be requested to transmit the same 
 
 to the Governor of Kentucky. 
 
 [Journal of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Pennsyl- 
 vania, ix, 198-200. (Philadelphia, 1799.)] 
 
 II. Resolutions of the House of Representatives of Penn- 
 sylvania to Virginia, March ii, 1799. 
 
 Resolved, That as it is the opinion of this House that the prin- 
 ciples contained in the resolutions of the Legislature of Virginia, 
 relative to certain measures of the general government, are 
 calculated to excite unwarrantable discontents, and to destroy the 
 very existence of our government, they ought to be, and are 
 hereby, rejected. 
 
 [Journal of House of Representatives, ix, 289.] 
 
 12. Senate of New York to Virginia and Kentucky.' 
 
 In Senate, March 5, 1799. 
 Whereas, the people of the United States have established for 
 themselves a free and independent national government : And 
 
 'For reply of the House of Representatives, cf. Amer. Hist, Review, v, 
 248, 249. 
 
REPLIES OF IHE STATES 
 
 23 
 
 whereas it is essential to the existence of every government, that 
 it have authority to defend and preserve its constitutional powers 
 inviolate, inasmuch as every infringement thereof tends to its 
 subversion : And whereas the judicial power extends expressly to 
 all cases of law and equity arising under the Constitution and the 
 laws of the United States, whereby the interference of the 
 legislatures of the particular states in those cases is manifestly 
 excluded : And, whereas, our peace, prosperity, and happiness, 
 eminently depend upon the preservation of the Union, in order 
 to which a reasonable confidence in the constituted authorities 
 and chosen representatives of the people is indispensable : And, 
 whereas, every measure calculated to weaken that confidence has 
 a tendency to destroy the usefulness of our public functionaries, 
 and to excite jealousies equally hostile to. rational liberty, and the 
 principles of a good republican government : And, whereas, the 
 Senate, not perceiving that the rights of the particular states have 
 been violated, nor any unconstitutional powers assumed by the 
 general government, cannot forbear to express the anxiety and 
 regret with which they observe the inflammatory and pernicious 
 sentiments and doctrines which are contained in the resolutions 
 of the legislatures of Virginia and Kentucky — sentiments and 
 doctrines no less repugnant to the Constitution of the United 
 States, and the principles of their union, than destructive to the 
 Federal Government, and unjust to those whom the people have 
 elected to administer it ; wherefore. 
 
 Resolved, That while the Senate fee) themselves constrained 
 to bear unequivocal testimony against such sentiments and doc- 
 trines, they deem it a duty no less indispensable, explicitly to 
 declare their incompetency, as a branch of the legislature of this 
 state, to supervise the acts of the General Government. 
 
 Resolved, That his excellency, the governor, be, and he is 
 
 hereby requested to transmit a copy of the foregoing resolution 
 
 to the executives of the states of Viringia and Kentucky, to the 
 
 end that the same may be communicated to the legislatures. 
 
 thereof. 
 
 [Elliot's Va. and Ky. Res., 13, 14. 1 
 
24 
 
 STATE DOCUMENTS 
 
 13. Connecticut to Virginia/ May, 1799. 
 
 At a General Assembly of the State of Connecticut, holden at 
 Hartford, in the said State, on the second Thursday of May, Anno 
 Domini 1799, his excellency, the Governor, having communicated 
 to this Assembly sundry resolutions of the Legislature of Virginia, 
 adopted in December, 1798, which relate to the measures of the 
 general government, and the said resolutions having been consid- 
 ered, it is 
 
 Resolved, That this Assembly views with deep regret, and 
 explicitly disavows, the principles contained in the aforesaid reso- 
 lutions, and particularly the opposition to the "Alien and Sedition 
 Acts " — acts which the Constitution authorized, which the 
 exigency of the country rendered necessary, which the constituted 
 authorities have enacted, and which merit the entire approbation 
 of this Assembly. They, therefore, decidedly refuse to concur 
 with the legislature of Virginia in promoting any of the objects 
 attempted in the aforesaid resolutions. 
 
 And it is further resolved, That his excellency, the Governor, 
 be requested to transmit a copy of the foregoing resolutions to 
 the Governor of Virginia, that it may be communicated to the 
 Legislature of that State. 
 
 [Passed both branches unanimously; Elliot's Va. and Ky. Res., 14.] 
 
 14. New Hampshire to Virginia and Kentucky, June 15, 
 
 1799. 
 In the House of Representatives, yune 14, 1799. 
 
 The committee to take into consideration the resolutions of 
 the General Assembly of Virginia, dated December 21, 1798; 
 also certain resolutions of the Legislature of Kentucky, of the 
 loth November, 1798, report as follows : 
 
 The Legislature of New Hampshire, having taken into consider- 
 ation certain resolutions of the General Assembly of Virginia, 
 dated December 21, 1798; also certain resolutions of the Legis- 
 lature of Kentucky, of the loth of November, 1798 ; 
 
 Resolved, That the Legislature of New Hampshire unequivocally 
 express a firm resolution to maintain and defend the Constitution 
 of the United States, and the Constitution of this State, against 
 
 ' For reply to Kentucky, cf. Anier. Hist. Review, v, 247, 248. 
 
REPLIES OF THE STATES 
 
 25 
 
 every aggression, either foreign or domestic, and that they will 
 support the government of the United States in all measures 
 warranted by the former. 
 
 That the State Legislatures are not the proper tribunals to deter- 
 mine the constitutionality of the laws of the general government ; 
 that the duty of such decision is properly and exclusively confided 
 to the judicial department. 
 
 That, if the Legislature of New Hampshire, for mere speculative 
 purposes, were to express an opinion on the acts of the general 
 government, commonly called " the Alien and Sedition Bills," 
 that opinion would unreservedly be, .that those acts are constitu- 
 tional, and, in the present critical situation of our country, highly 
 expedient. 
 
 That the constitutionality and expediency of the acts aforesaid, 
 have been very ably advocated and clearly demonstrated by 
 many citizens of the United States, more especially by the minority 
 of the General Assembly of Virginia. The Legislature of New 
 Hampshire, therefore, deem it unnecessary, by any train of 
 arguments, to attempt further illustration of the propositions, 
 the truth of which, it is confidently believed, at this day, is very 
 generally seen and acknowledged. 
 
 Which report, being read and considered, was unanimously 
 received and accepted, one hundred and thirty-seven members 
 being present. 
 
 In Senate, same day, read and concurred unanimously. 
 
 [Elliot's Va. and Ky. Jies., 14, 15. j 
 
 ij. Vermont to Virginia,' October 50, 1799. 
 
 In the House of Representatives, October 30, A. D. 1799. 
 
 The House proceeded to take under their consideration the 
 resolutions of the General Assembly of Virginia, relative to certain 
 measures of the general government, transmitted to the Legislature 
 of this State, for their consideration : Whereupon, 
 
 Resolved, That the General Assembly of the State of Vermont 
 do highly disapprove of the resolutions of the General Assembly 
 of Virginia, as being unconstitutional in their nature, and dan- 
 
 ' For protest of the minority, cf. Amer. Hist. Rwiew, V, 24^252. 
 
26 STATE DOCUMENTS 
 
 gerous in their tendency. It belongs not to State Legislatures to 
 decide on the constitutionality of laws made by the general gov- 
 ernment; this power being exclusively vested in the judiciary 
 courts of the Union. That his excellency, the governor, be 
 requested to transmit a copy of this resolution to the executive 
 of Virginia, to be communicated to the General Assembly of that 
 State : And that the same be sent to the Governor and Council 
 for their concurrence. 
 
 In Council, October 30, 1799. Read and concurred unani- 
 mously. 
 
 [Elliot's Va. andKy. Res., 15.] 
 
 The General Court of Massachusetts on the Embargo. 
 
 180S, i8og. 
 
 The embargo act, passed December 22, 1807 ( U. S. Siat. at Large, II, 451- 
 453), was at first acquiesced in by the majority of the people in New England, 
 and the Democratic- Republican party being in control of the State government 
 of Massachusetts, the General Court passed a. resolution, February 8, 1808, 
 declaring that " we consider the imposing of embargo a wise and highly ex- 
 pedient measure, and from its impartial nature calculated to secure to us the 
 blessings of peace." (^Resolves of Mass., 1808, 89, 90.) As the distress re- 
 sulting from the embargo increased, resistance began to show itself, and grad- 
 ually political power returned to the party in opposition. The Federalists car- 
 ried both branches of the legislature by a small majority in the spring of 1808, 
 although the Republican Governor, James Sullivan, was re-elected. The 
 change in the legislature is at once apparent in their " Answers " to the Gov- 
 ernor's " Speech," June 9, 1808, in which the embargo is denounced and its 
 constitutionality questioned. {Resolves of Mass., 1808, 164-173; see also 
 Barry's Mass., Ill, 359, 360, note.) A similar spirit is shown in the Novem- 
 ber session {Ibid., 207), and on November 18, 1808, the legislature instructed 
 the State's delegation in Congress to procure the repeal of the embargo laws. 
 (^Amer. State Papers, Commerce and Navii^ation, I, 728-729. ) But Congress, 
 instead of repealing the obnoxious laws, passed a stringent enforcement act, 
 which became a law January 9, 1809. ( U. S. Stat, at Large, II, 506-511.) 
 This called forth the pent-up anger and indignation of the Federalists. The 
 protests and resolutions of the various towns in the State vied with each other 
 in their vehemence, and there were ominous whisperings of secession. 
 (Adams, United States, IV, 408-419.) Such was the situation when the Gen- 
 eral Court re-assembled, January 26, 1809. The Lieutenant-Governor, Levi 
 Lincoln, an ardent supporter of Jefferson, succeeded to the duties of the 
 
MASSACHUSETTS ON THE EMBARGO 
 
 27 
 
 executive office, owing to the death of the Governor. In his "Speech " to 
 the legislature, he deprecated the agitation against the laws of the land, con- 
 demned the action of the tovra meetings as seditious and uncalled for, and 
 suggested further restraints upon the licentiousness of the press as desirable. 
 {Rtsolves of Mass., 1809, 221-229.) Both branches of the legislature 
 " answered " with spirit, as the extracts given below show. They also adopted 
 a Report and Resolutions on the petitions of the town-meetings, extracts from 
 which follow; dispatched a Memorial and Remonstrance to Congress (^Amer. 
 State Papers, Commerce, etc., I, 776-778) issued an Address to the People of 
 the Commonwealth, suggesting as " indispensable amendments" to the Fed- 
 eral Constitution, one abolishing the three-fifths representation for slaves,' and 
 another "to secure commerce and navigation from a repetition of destructive 
 and insidious theories," and declaring that " nothing less than a perfect union 
 and intelligence among the Eastern States can preserve to them any share of 
 influence in the national government " {Patriotic Proceedings, 126-130; 
 Hildreth, VI, 151— 154); denounced the acts of the Lieutenant-Governor in 
 detaching State militia to aid in cariying out the Enforcement Act " as irregu- 
 lar, illegal and inconsistent with the principles of the constitution ; ' ' passed a 
 bill " agatnst unreasonable, arbitrary and unconstitutional searches," which 
 was intended to prevent the execution of the Enforcement Act, but which was 
 vetoed by the Governor; and finally, set apart a " Day of Humiliation and 
 Prayer." 
 
 The threatening attitude of Massachusetts and several of the other New Eng- 
 land States led the federal administration to consent to the repeal of the Em- 
 bargo, and the substitution of a non-intercourse act. (March 1 , 1809, U. S. Slat, 
 at Large, 11, 528-533.) The recent experience of the State led Governor Gore 
 to suggest, and the Legislature to propose, June 20, 1809, an amendment to 
 the Constitution, placing a limit on the duration of an embargo to " thirty days 
 from the commencement of the session of Congress next succeeding that session 
 in which said law shall have been enacted." {Resolves of Mass., 1809, 312, 
 3'3> 35^> 357-) This recommendation appears to have received only the ap- 
 proval of Connecticut, but was disapproved of by the legislatures of at least 
 eight States. (Ames, Proposed Amendments, 264, 329.) 
 
 References : In addition to the above, the texts of the important measures 
 are given in The Patriotick Proceedings of the Legislature of Massachusetts, 
 [Boston, 1809]; several are found in The American Register, 1809, Part II, 
 183-209 [Phila., 1809]; The Memorial to Congress is also given in Amer. 
 State Papers, Commerce, etc., I, 776-778; Annals of Congress, 10 Cong., 2 
 Sess., 444-450; for debate on same and refusal to print in House of Rep., 
 Annals, 538, 539; for history, see Adams, United States, IV, esp. 398-453; 
 Hildreth, VI, esp. 75-79, 108-117,^151-154; McMaster, III, esp. 321-331; 
 Barry, Massachusetts, III, 352-364; Adams, New Eng. Federalism, esp. 
 
 ■ Such an amendment had heen proposed by the Legislature in 1804 as a protest against 
 the annexation of Loubiana; for this, and the replies of the other States, see McMaster, III, 
 44-47; Amei, Profosed Amendments, 45, 46, 326. 
 
28 STATE DOCUMENTS 
 
 372-379; Lodge, Cabot, 366-407 in passim; Quincy, Life of yosiah Quincy, 
 120-130, 138-165, 171-186; Writings of Jefferson [Ford's ed.]. IX, 202, 
 227, 235-239, 244, 248-250; X, 352-354, 356; consult Channing and Hart's 
 Guide, § 171; 'iA'izYioTaSA's Documents, 176, 177. 
 
 16. Extract from the Answer of the Senate, January, 1809. 
 
 Resolves of Massachusetts (1809), 231-235. 
 May it please Your Honour, 
 
 Tf: "1^ "9^ "if: if: tS ^ 
 
 The people of New England perfectly understand the distinc- 
 tion between the Constitution and the Administration. They are 
 as sincerely attached to the former as any section of the United 
 States. They may be put under the ban of the empire, but they 
 have no intention of abandoning the Union. And we have the 
 pleasure explicitly to declare our full concurrence with your 
 Honour, " that such suggestions are not less a libel upon the 
 great body of the New England people, than on their patriotism." 
 
 As the government of the Union is a confederation of equal 
 and independent states with limited powers, we agree with your 
 Honour " that it is not unbecoming any member of the Union 
 with firmness and moderation to question the justness or policy 
 of measures while they are pending and ripening for adoption," 
 and we learn with concern from your Honour, " that there are 
 stages when questions " — without even excepting questions 
 involving unalienable rights — " can be no longer open to con- 
 troversy and opposition " — " stages when an end must be put to 
 debate and a decision thence resulting be respected by its prompt 
 and faithful execution, or government loses its existence and the 
 people are ruined." * « » We owe it to ourselves and to 
 the people distinctly to deny this doctrine, at once novel and 
 pernicious. 
 
 We beg leave to observe, that those rights, which the people 
 have not chosen to part with, should be exercised by them with 
 delicacy — only in times of great danger — not with " distraction 
 and confusion" — not to oppose the laws, but to prevent, acts 
 being respected as laws, which are unwarranted by the commis- 
 sion given to their rulers. On such occasions, passive submission, 
 
MASSACHUSETTS ON THE EMBARGO 29 
 
 would, on the part of the people, be a breach of their allegiance, 
 and on our part treachery and perjury. For the people are 
 bound by their allegiance, and we are additionally bound by our 
 oaths to support the Constitution of the State — and we are 
 responsible to the people, and to our God, for the faithful execu- 
 tion of the trust. 
 
 But your Honour is pleased to observe, that " the union have 
 their favorite projects — states, towns and individuals have theirs " 
 and to inquire whether " thus jarring with augmented resentments 
 we are to rush together in ruinous collisions." 
 
 Can it be necessary to remind your Honour that the aggressor 
 is responsible for all the consequences, which you have been 
 pleased so pathetically to describe? That the people have not 
 sent us here to surrender their rights but to maintain and defend 
 them? — and, that we have no authority to dispense with the 
 duties thus solemnly imposed : 
 
 We most heartily concur with your Honour, " that there is a 
 point in national sensibility, as in the feelings of men, where 
 patience and submission end." And when that crisis shall arrive 
 your Honour may rest assured that the people of New England 
 " will (as you have been pleased to say) rally round the national 
 constitution." But, Sir they will not " cling "to an administra- 
 tion which has brought them to the brink of destruction — they 
 will not " keep their hold in the extremity of its exit," nor " sink 
 with it into the frightful abyss." No, Sir ! The people of Massa- 
 chusetts will not willingly become the victims of fruitless experi- 
 ment. 
 
 17. Extracts from the Answer of the House. 
 Resolves of Massachusetts (1809), 236-242, 
 May it please Your Honour, 
 
 TP Tf! V^ V V 'P 'fr 
 
 We are unwilling to believe that any division of sentiment can 
 exist among the New England States or their inhabitants as to 
 the obvious iivfringement of rights secured to them by the Con- 
 stitution of the United States ; and still more so that any man 
 can be weak or wicked enough to construe a disposition to 
 
30 STATE DOCUMENTS 
 
 support that Constitution and preserve the union by a temperate 
 and firm opposition to acts which are repugnant to the first 
 principles and purposes of both, into a wish to recede from the 
 other states. If a secession has been conceived by the states or 
 people referred to in your Honour's communication, it is unknown 
 to the House of Representatives, who absolutely disclaim any 
 participation therein, or having afforded the least colour for such 
 a charge. If ever such suspicions existed they can have arisen 
 only in the minds of those who must be sensible that they had 
 adopted and were persisting in, measures which had driven the 
 people to desperation, by infringing rights which the citizens of 
 Massachusetts conceive to be unalienable, and which they fondly 
 hoped had been inviolably secured to them by the federal com- 
 pact. 
 
 The Legislature and people of Massachusetts ever have been 
 and now are firmly and sincerely attached to the union of the 
 States, and .there is no sacrifice they have not been, and are not 
 now, willing to submit to, in order to preserve the same, accord- 
 ing to its original purpose. Of this truth your Honour must 
 be conceived. 
 
 That the regulation of our commercial intercourse and our 
 national defence, is most wisely confided to the general govern- 
 ment, is a truth so plain and palpable, that we should hold it 
 unnecessary to be repeated here, were it not for the purpose of 
 concurring with your Honour in the justice of the sentiment; but 
 the liberty of discussing the measures of our general government 
 with freedom and firmness, though with fairness and moderation, 
 is a right the House of Representatives never will relinquish. 
 
 We cannot agree with your Honour that in a free country there 
 is any stage at which the constitutionality of an act may no longer 
 be open to discussion and debate ; at least it is only upon the 
 high road to despotism that such stages can be found. 
 
 At such a point the Government undertaking to extend its 
 powers beyond the limits of the constitution, degenerates into 
 tyranny. The people, if temperate and firm, will, we confidently 
 rely, eventually triumph over such usurpations. 
 
 Were it true, that the measures of government once passed into 
 
MASSACHUSETTS ON THE EMBARGO 31 
 
 an act, the constitutionality of that act is stamped with the seal 
 of infallibility, and is no longer a subject for the deliberation or 
 remonstrance of the citizen, to what monstrous lengths might 
 not an arbitrary and tyrannical administration carry its power. 
 It has only to pass through rapid readings and mid-night sessions, 
 without allowing time for reflection and debate to the final 
 enacting of a bill and before the people are even informed of the 
 intentions of their rulers, their claims are riveted, and the right 
 of complaint denied them. Were such doctrine sound, what 
 species of oppression might not be inflicted on the prostrate 
 liberties of our country. If such a doctrine were true, our con- 
 stitution would be nothing but a name — nay worse, a fatal instru- 
 ment to sanctify oppression, and legalize the tyranny which 
 inflicts it. 
 
 Nothing but madness or imbecility could put at hazard the 
 existence of a " balanced government, capable of operating and 
 providing for the public good," unless the administration of that 
 Government, by its arbitrary impositions had endangered or 
 destroyed the very objects for the protection of whch it had 
 been instituted. 
 
 Should such a case ever occur, on the administration who 
 should usurp powers and violate such sacred obligations, must 
 rest the odium of having ha/arded a government " so safe, so 
 reasonable and so beyond everything else essential to the liberty 
 
 and happiness of our fellow cti",ens." 
 
 ******* 
 
 It cannot be denied, that jealousy and distrust have arisen 
 among the people of Massachusetts, and much it is to be regretted, 
 that they have been so well founded. A system of policy ruinous 
 to their interests, and uncongenial to their enterprising spirit — 
 a system for which the adrainstration has yet, in our opinion, 
 assigned no adequate reason, has borne most heavily and unequally 
 on the northern and commercial States. For relief from this 
 oppression the people fondly looked to the meeting of Congress — 
 but alas ! how fatally have their hopes been blasted : Their 
 humble prayers have been answered by an act so arbitrary and 
 oppressive, that it violates the first principles of civil liberty, and 
 the fundamental provisions of the Constitution. At such a 
 
32 
 
 STATE DOCUMENTS 
 
 moment and under such a pressure, when everything which free- 
 men hold dear, is at stake it cannot be expected and it ought 
 not to be wished, that they should suffer in silence. The House 
 of Representatives cannot admit that laws which operate un- 
 equally are unavoidable. The government, in their opinion, has 
 no right to sacrifice the interests of one section of the Union to 
 the prejudices, partialities, or convenience, of another. 
 
 We perfectly agree with your Honour in the general principle 
 that, in a free government, the majority must determine and 
 decide upon all existing or projected measures. But it will be 
 recollected, that the decision of that majority, to be binding, 
 must be constitutional and just. Government is formed for the 
 security of the citizen, and the protection of its rights. When- 
 ever his liberty is infringed, his rights violated or unprotected, if 
 not absolved from his allegiance, he may demand redress, and 
 take all lawful measures to obtain it. 
 
 The early habits and constant practice of our fathers and 
 ourselves have led us, on every great emergency, and on the 
 pressure of political calamities, to resort to town meetings, 
 wherein the general sense of the people might be collected. 
 This practice, so wholesome and salutary, was one of the most 
 influential means employed in bringing about the glorious 
 revolution which established our independence. It was against 
 these meetings, therefore, that the strong arm of royal power 
 was elevated, in the year seventeen hundred and seventy-four, 
 and they were prohibited under severe penalties. Had the 
 British ministry of that day attended to the voice of the people 
 so expressed, they would have avoided the evils which they had 
 afterwards so much reason to deplore. The expression of the 
 publick sentiment has become necessary to counteract the 
 errours and misrepresentations of those who have falsely incul- 
 cated upon the administration of the General Government a 
 belief, that the measures they were pursuing were satisfactory 
 to the people. From the suppression of these meetings would 
 liberty have more to apprehend than from any other cause 
 whatever. From such a cause should we most dread " the 
 overturning the splendid edifice erected by the wisdom and 
 
MASSACHUSETTS ON THE EMBARGO 33 
 
 valour of our fathers." A privilege so wisely secured by our 
 constitution, we cannot hesitate to declare, the citizens of 
 Massachusetts will never resign. 
 
 In the description which your Honour has drawn of the 
 situation of our country previous to the adoption of the federal 
 constitution, we cannot but observe the very strong resemblance 
 which it bears to the picture of the present times. " Our gov- 
 ernment humbled and inefficient, our Union a thread, our 
 commerce unprotected, our revenue nothing, individuals embar- 
 rassed, grievances complained of, our rulers censured, town and 
 county resolutions published, combinations formed, non-compli- 
 ance with the laws announced, property sold for one-third its 
 value, the insolvent imprisoned, and the courts of justice stopped ;" 
 that this description applies to the present state of parts, if not 
 the whole, of our country, we believe will not be denied. 
 
 Whence comes it that from a state of the most flourishing 
 prosperity a few months should have produced a change so truly 
 astonishing? It is not in the restless and unsteady habits of the 
 people, till lately contented and happy, that we must look for the 
 causes of these frightful calamities; it is in the pernicious and 
 dreadful consequences of this shallow system of Embargo and 
 Non Intercourse, that we shall find the fruitful sources of our 
 country's ruin. We do most sincerely hope that neither Virginia 
 or any other state may ever succeed in " dictating measures to 
 Congress and by a convulsed state of things force their adoption." 
 However, such an usurpation might from various causes endure 
 for a time, the returning good sense of the people would event- 
 ually restore the equilibrium and effectually prevent those tem- 
 pestuous scenes which your Honour has so eloquently described. 
 " The importance and the interesting and perilous nature of the 
 crisis," have excited the most alarming reflections in our minds, 
 and we doubt not that every member of the Legislature will 
 devote himself to the arduous yet necessary duty of " devising 
 some reconciling expedient to quiet the agitated minds of our 
 citizens," and relieve them from the weight of these unconstitu- 
 tional restrictions. 
 
34 
 
 STATE DOCUMENTS 
 
 i8. Resolutions of the Enforcement Act, February 15, 1809. 
 
 The report and resolutions of the joint committee on petitions from the town 
 meetings was made February i, 1809. The same were adopted by the Senate, 
 on the nth inst, by a vote of 19 to 18. {MS. Senate Journal, 1808-09, vol. 
 29, pp. 196-209.) The House concurred, on the 15th inst., by a vote of 205 
 to 139. {MS. House Journal, May, 1808-March, 1809, pp. 278-282. The 
 Report and Resolutions are also given in Patriotick Proceedings, pp. 41—53. 
 
 On viewing these provisions of the act under consideration, 
 the committee do unequivocally declare their solemn conviction, 
 that it is in many particulars, unjust, oppressive, and unconstitu- 
 tional. They would by no means contend that this opinion, if 
 confirmed and adopted by the legislature, would be decisive of 
 the question. While the laws continue to have their free course, 
 the judicial courts are competent to decide this question, and to 
 them every citizen, when aggrieved, ought to apply for redress. 
 It would be derogatory to the honour of the commonwealth to 
 presume that it is unable to protect its subjects against all viola- 
 tions of their rights, by peaceable and legal remedies. While 
 this state maintains its sovereignty and independence, all the 
 citizens can find protection against outrage and injustice in the 
 strong arm of the state government. 
 
 Any forcible resistance, therefore, by individuals, to the execu- 
 tion of this act of Congress, is not only unnecessary, but would 
 be highly inexpedient and improper; it would endanger the 
 public peace and tranquility, and tend essentially to injure and 
 put at hazard that cause, on which nearly the whole people are 
 now so zealously united. The committee are deeply sensible of 
 the accumulated distress which has so long oppressed the whole 
 community, and borne with aggravation on some particular parts 
 of it. They cannot too highly applaud the unexampled patience 
 and forbearance which has been already exhibited under this 
 pressure of undeserved calamities. And they would earnestly 
 recommend the exercise of the same forbearance, until all those 
 peaceable and orderly means which the constitution and laws of 
 our country will permit, and all those political expedients, which 
 our habits and usages can suggest, shall have been exhausted in 
 vain. 
 
MASSACHUSETTS ON THE EMBARGO 
 
 35 
 
 It is to be regretted that no immediate and efficacious remedy 
 can now be proposed for these numerous and aggravated evils. 
 The committee, however, consider it their duty to recommend, 
 ■without loss of time, all such measures as have appeared to them 
 to be now practicable, and calculated to remove or alleviate the 
 publick distress ; they therefore ask leave to 
 
 Report in part, A bill to secure the people of this common- 
 wealth against unreasonable, arbitrary and unconstitutional 
 searches in their dwelling houses — and also the following 
 
 Resolutions. 
 
 Resolved, That the act of the Congress of the United States 
 passed on the ninth day of January in the present year, for 
 enforcing the act laying an embargo, and the several acts supple- 
 mentary thereto, is, in the opinion of the legislature, in many 
 respects, unjust, oppressive and unconstitutional, and not legally 
 binding on the citizens of this state. But notwithstanding this 
 opinion, in order finally to secure a certain and permanent relief, 
 it is earnestly recommended to all parties aggrieved by the oper- 
 ation of this act, to abstain from forcible resistance, and to apply 
 for their remedy in a peaceable manner to the laws of the com- 
 monwealth. 
 
 Resolved, That a suitable remonstrance be prepared, and 
 immediately forwarded to the Congress of the United States, from 
 this legislature, expressing their opinions and feelings on the 
 several subjects of complaint contained in the said petitions, and 
 particularly urging the repeal of the said act of Congress, passed 
 on the ninth of January last. 
 
 Resolved, That the legislature of this commonwealth will zeal- 
 ously co-operate with any of the other states, in all legal and 
 constitutional measures, for procuring such amendments to the 
 constitution of the United States, as shall be judged necessary to 
 obtain protection and defence for commerce, and to give to the 
 commercial states their fair and just consideration in the govern- 
 ment of the Union; and for affording permanent security, as 
 well as present relief, from the oppressive measures under which 
 they now suffer. 
 
 Resolved, That the honourable the president of the Senate, 
 
36 STATE DOCUMENTS 
 
 and the honourable the speaker of the House of Representatives, 
 be requested to transmit a copy of this report, and the resolutions 
 thereon, to the legislatures of such of our sister states, as manifest 
 a disposition to concur with us in measures to rescue our com- 
 mon country from impending ruin, and to preserve inviolate the 
 union of the states. 
 
 19. Delaware and the Embargo. 
 
 January 30, i8og. 
 
 Delaware, the only Federalist State outside of New England, next showed 
 its opposition to the embargo policy of the administration, through the adop- 
 tion of the following resolutions by the House of Representatives. When 
 these resolutions were presented to the Senate, February i, a systematic 
 attempt was made to defeat them, by motions to postpone, or to substitute 
 other resolutions strongly indorsing the policy of the administration. These, 
 however, were defeated, but several amendments modifying the language of 
 the resolutions were agreed to, as follows: i) Striking out the words in the 
 the third resolution, " as a war measure worse than futile." 2) Striking out 
 the fifth resolution. 3) Striking out the words " unwise and arbitrary laws " 
 in the seventh resolution, and inserting in lieu therefor the words "laws how- 
 ever oppressive." 4) Causing the last part of the eighth resolution to read, 
 " and that they will defend their country, when necessary, from the aggression 
 of every foreign or domestic foe." Thus amended the resolutions were con- 
 curred in by the Senate by a vote of 5 yeas to 3 nays, but the House imme- 
 diately refused to accept the Senate's amendments. The Senate thereupon 
 reconsidered their amendments, adhering to all, except the one striking out the 
 fifth resolution, from which it receded. Thus the two houses failed to agree. 
 But in December the Legislature passed resolutions disapproving of the amend- 
 ment to the Federal Constitution, proposed by Massachusetts, limiting the 
 duration of an embargo. 
 
 References: Text: — Journal of the House of Representatives, 1808-1809, 
 January 27 and 30, 1809, pp. 62, 63; Journal of the Senate, 1808-1809, 
 January 31, and February i, 1809, pp. 64, 65, 74-81. Dover, 1809. 
 Resolutions disapproving amendment, Annals, 11 Congress, Part I, 658. 
 
 In the House of Representatives, January 30, 1809. 
 
 Whereas, the measures pursued by the government of the United 
 States, have justly excited considerable interest in the United 
 States, and silence on our part might be construed into an ap- 
 probation of those measures — 
 
 Therefore, 
 
DELAWARE AND THE EMBARGO 
 
 37 
 
 1. Resolved. By the Senate and House of Representatives of 
 the State of Delaware, in General Assembly met, That we cannot 
 approve the policy of those measures that have annihilated the 
 commerce of the United States, and brought distress and ruin on 
 our citizens, while at the same time they have done no injury to 
 the enemies of our country ; that we cannot approve the policy 
 of an administration that does not act with impartiality and sin- 
 cerity towards all foreign nations. 
 
 2. Resolved, That the people of the United States have a right 
 freely to navigate the ocean, and to carry on a fair and honest 
 commerce, and that we highly disapprove a policy that relin- 
 quishes those rights, or dares not defend them. 
 
 3. Resolved, That we consider the embargo, as a war measure, 
 worse than futile, as a measure injurious to ourselves, destructive 
 to the best interests of the country, and evidently intended to be 
 partial in its operations against the belligerent nations ; and that 
 it becomes the United States, a great and gallant nation, to defend 
 its rights in a irianly, open, and efificient manner. 
 
 4. Resolved, That we consider the act to enforce, and make 
 more effectual, an act, entitled, "An act laying an embargo on all 
 ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States," 
 and the several acts supplementary thereto, approved on the ninth 
 of January, one thousand eight hundred and nine, by the Presi- 
 dent of the United States, as an invasion of the liberty of the 
 people, and the constitutional sovereignty of the State govern- 
 ments. 
 
 5 . Resolved, That it will be dangerous to the freedom of these 
 States, to place at the disposal of the President of the United 
 States a standing army of fifty thousand volunteers. 
 
 6. Resolved, That, in our opinion, the present embarrassed and 
 unhappy situation of our country might have been avoided, if the 
 administration had pursued the wise and prudent policy of the 
 immortal Washington. 
 
 7. ^^j-^/w^ nevertheless, that we have the fullest confidence, 
 that the patriotism of the good people of the United States will 
 induce them to submit to unwise and arbitrary laws, rather than 
 resort to violence ; and that they will use the remedy pointed out 
 by the constitution for the evils under which they suffer, rather 
 
28 STATE DOCUMENTS 
 
 than jeopardize the union of the States, and the independence of 
 their country, by an open opposition to the laws. 
 
 8. Resolved also, That the legislature and people of the State 
 of Delaware feel no foreign partiality, and that they will defend 
 their country from the aggression of every foreign foe. 
 
 Connecticut and the Enforcement Act. 
 
 February, 1809. 
 
 In Connecticut the Federalists had retained unbroken control of all depart- 
 ments of the State government, and the great majority of the people sympa- 
 thized with Massachusetts in its opposition to the embargo. Naturally, there- 
 fore, upon receipt of the circular letter from the Secretary of War of January 
 18, 1809, requesting the governors to designate special officers of the militia, 
 " of known respect for the laws," to aid in the enforcement of the embargo, 
 Governor Trumbull replied, February 4, 1809, declining to take the " respon- 
 sibility " of complying with the request, on the ground " that neither the con- 
 stitution nor the statutes of this State," nor "the constitution or laws of the 
 United States," authorized such an act, and also stating that "the great mass 
 of the citizens of this State " regarded the enforcement act as "unconstitu- 
 tional in many of its provisions, interfering with the Slate sovereignties, and 
 subversive of the guaranteed rights, privileges and immunities of the citizens of 
 the United States." The Governor then called a special session of the Gen- 
 eral Assembly, and addressed it in the famous speech given below. The legis- 
 lature at once responded, passing, first, a resolution approving the action of 
 the Governor in calling it together; next, a series of Resolves condemning the 
 enforcement act and the attempts to carry it out, and finally issued an Address 
 to the People in justification of the action taken. 
 
 Resolves: The texts of the Resolutions and the Address of the General 
 Assembly were officially published. A rare pamphlet (16 pages, 8°) without 
 title page or imprint, but containing the above-mentioned documents, as well 
 as the Enforcement Act, is in the Libraryof the Connecticut Historical Society, 
 Hartford;' the Governor's Speech, the Correspondence of the Secretary of 
 War and the Governor, and the Report and Resolutions proposed by the Com- 
 mittee of the House of Representatives (nearly the same as later passed) are in 
 The American Register for z8og (Phila., 1809), Part II, 176-181. The 
 circular letter of the Secretary of War is also given in the Writings of Jefferson 
 {Ford's ed.'), IX, 237, 238. Consult the following general histories: Adams, 
 IV, 417, 418, 455, 456; Hildreth, VI, 120, I2l; McMaster, III, 331, 332; 
 Schouler, II, 173, 193. See also references under Massachusetts and the 
 Embargo. 
 
 ' I am indebted to Mr. Albert C. Bates, Librarian, for directing my atten- 
 tion to this pamphlet. 
 
CONNECTICUT AND THE ENFORCEMENT ACT 39 
 
 20. Speech of Governor Jonathan Trumhull at the Opening 
 
 of the Special Session of the Legislature, February 
 
 23, 1809. 
 
 Gentlemen of the Council, Mr. Speaker, and Gentlemen of the 
 
 House of Representatives. 
 
 Impressed with the importance of the communications which 
 I have now to lay before you — prompted also by the concurrent 
 petitions of a number of the citizens of this State, conveyed to 
 me with their resolutions adopted in their several town meetings, 
 convoked for the purpose ; and having had under my own con- 
 sideration, the very alarming crisis of our national affairs, arising 
 from a variety of measures adopted and contemplated by our 
 national legislature, more especially from the permanency of the 
 embargo, with the means resorted to for its more rigorous en- 
 forcement, and particularly the late law of Congress, passed on 
 the 9th day of January last, containing many very extraordinary, 
 not to say unconstitutional provisions for its execution : I have 
 viewed the prospect so momentous and threatening, that I have 
 not hesitated to convene the Legislature of the State, at this un- 
 usual time, in order that they may have an opportunity to con- 
 sider and deliberate on the extraordinary situation into which our 
 country seems about to be plunged, if not speedily prevented : 
 and to devise such constitutional measures as in their wisdom 
 may be judged proper to avert the threatening evil. 
 
 It will be useful for the legislature to take a view of the various 
 measures of the national legislature, during their present and 
 preceding sessions, not only those which have immediate relation 
 to the embargo, but other acts which have been and are under 
 their consideration, affecting the rights, interests, welfare, and 
 even the peace of the Union. Indeed, it would be useful foi the 
 general good, if the State Legislatures were often to cast a watch- 
 ful eye towards the general government, with a view, candidly to 
 consider, and judiciously discern, whether the powers delegated 
 to the United States are not exceeded, or are so exercised as not 
 to interfere with or counteract those which are reserved by the 
 people for their own management. When under the direction of 
 a wise and prudent discernment, a temperate caution —not an 
 
40 
 
 STATE DOCUMENTS 
 
 over jealous disposition, such an examination will always prove a 
 wholesome measure. 
 
 On the present occasion, it will be unnecessary for me to enter 
 into any particular statement of our private sufferings, or the 
 threatening aspect of our public situation, in relation to the un- 
 precedented acts of our General Government which are accumu- 
 lating upon us. The individual feelings and experience of the 
 members of this Legislature, now convened from all parts of the 
 State, will speak the private distresses which have been produced 
 by these acts : and your general information will give you, gentle- 
 men, a correct view of the dangers which impend our public in- 
 terests, liberty, rights and property, arising from the same source. 
 Despairing of substantial relief from any other quarter, the people 
 are now looking with anxious solicitude and hope, to the wisdom 
 and direction of the Legislature of their own choice ; and seem 
 confident that some mode may be devised to remove the pressure 
 under which they are at present suffering. To your collected 
 wisdom and prudence they submit the task. And may it not be 
 hoped, that, with our united efforts under a temperate, discreet 
 and firm consideration of our situation and circumstances, we may 
 be able by the influence of divine aid, to fulfil the just and reason- 
 able expectations of our fellow citizens? JVhenever our national 
 legislature is led to overleap the prescribed bounds of their con- 
 stitutional powers, on the State Legislatures, in great emergencies, 
 devolves the arduous task- — it is their right — it becomes their 
 duty, to interpose their protecting shield between the right and 
 liberty of the people, and the assumed power of the General 
 Government. ******* 
 
 [American Register, 1809, Pt. II, 176, 177.] 
 
 21. Resolutions of the General Assembly. 
 
 At a special session of the General Assembly of the State of Con- 
 necticut, held at Hartford, on the twenty-third day of February, 
 A. D. i8og. 
 
 This Assembly have attended with anxious concern, to the 
 several acts of Congress interdicting foreign commerce, and more 
 especially to an act, approved on the 9th day of January last, by 
 the President of the United States, under the title of "An Act, to 
 
CONNECTICUT AND THE ENFORCEMENT ACT 41 
 
 enforce and make more effectual an act laying an embargo on all 
 ships and vessels in the ports and harbours of the United States." 
 
 After solemn deliberation and advisement thereori, the General 
 Assembly are decided in the opinion, and do Resolve, that the 
 acts aforesaid are a permanent system of measures, abandoning 
 undeniable rights; interdicting the exercise of constitutional 
 privileges, and unprecedented in the annals of nations ; and do 
 contain provisions for exercising arbitrary powers, grievous to the 
 good people of this State, dangerous to their common liberties, 
 incompatible with the constitution of the United States, and en- 
 croaching upon the immunities of this State. 
 
 Resolved, That to preserve the Union, and support the consti- 
 tution of the United States, it becomes the duty of the Legisla- 
 tures of the States, in such a crisis of affairs, vigilantly to watch 
 over, and vigorously to maintain, the powers not delegated to the 
 United States, but reserved to the States respectively, or to the 
 people ; and that a due regard to this duty, will not permit this 
 Assembly to assist, or concur in giving effect to the aforesaid un- 
 constitutional act, passed, to enforce the Embargo. 
 
 Resolved, That this Assembly highly approve of the conduct 
 of his Excellency the Governor, in declining to designate persons 
 to carry into effect, by the aid of military power, the act of the 
 United States, enforcing the Embargo, and that his letter ad- 
 dressed to the Secretary for the Department of War, containing 
 his refusal, to make such designation, be recorded in the public 
 records of this State, as an example to persons, who may hold 
 places of distinguished trust, in this free and independent republic. 
 
 Resolved, That the persons holding executive offices under this 
 State, are restrained by the duties which they owe this State, 
 from affording any official aid or co-operation in the execution of 
 the act aforesaid : and that his Excellency the Governor be re- 
 quested, as commander in chief of the mihtary force of this State, 
 to cause these resolutions to be published in general orders : And 
 that the secretary of this State be and he is hereby directed to 
 transmit copies of the same to the several sheriffs and town clerks. 
 
 Resolved, That his Excellency the Governor be requested to 
 communicate the foregoing resolutions to the President of the 
 United States, with an assurance that this Assembly regret that 
 
42 
 
 STATE DOCUMENTS 
 
 they are thus obliged under a sense of paramount public duty to 
 assert the unquestionable right of this State to abstain from any 
 agency in the execution of measures, which are unconstitutional 
 and despotic. 
 
 Resolved, That this Assembly accord in sentiment, with the 
 Senate and House of Representatives, of the commonwealth of 
 Massachusetts, that it is expedient to effect certain alterations in 
 the constitution of the United States ; and will zealously co- 
 operate with that commonwealth and any other of the States, in 
 all legal and constitutional measures for procuring such amend- 
 ments to the constitution of the United States as shall be judged 
 necessary to obtain more effectual protection and defence for 
 commerce ; and to give to the commercial States their fair and 
 just consideration in the Union, and for affording permanent 
 security, as well as present relief, from the oppressive measures, 
 under which they now suffer. 
 
 Resolved, That his Excellency the Governor be requested to 
 transmit copies of the foregoing resolutions to the President of 
 the Senate, and Speaker of the House of Representatives, in the 
 commonwealth of Massachusetts, and to the Legislatures of such 
 of our sister States, as manifest a disposition to concur, in restor- 
 ing to commerce its former activity, and preventing the repetition 
 of measures which have a tendency, not only to destroy it, but 
 to dissolve the Union, which ought to be inviolate. 
 
 General Assembly, special session, February, 1809. 
 John Cotton Smith, 
 Speaker of the House of Representatives. 
 Jonathan Trumbull, Governor. 
 Attest, Samuel Wyllys, Secretary. 
 
 [Pamphlet containing Resolves, etc., 7, 8.] 
 
 11. Report and Resolutions of Rhode Island 
 on the Embargo. 
 
 March 4, i8og. 
 The following resolutions were adopted by both branches of the General 
 Assembly on March 4, 1809; in the Senate by a vote of 7 to 4, in the House, 
 35 to 28. Extracts from the report of the Committee which submitted the 
 
RHODE ISLAND ON THE EMBARGO 43 
 
 resolutions are also given. Rhode Island appears to have been the last State 
 to take action condemning the embargo. In New Hampshire resolutions 
 against the embargo v^ere rejected by the House, December 23, 1808, by a 
 vote of 25 to 101. {NaHonal Intelligencer, Jan. 6, 1809.) Many of the 
 other States passed resolutions approving the policy of the administration, those 
 of North Carolina, of December 5, 1808 (^Amer. State Papers, Misc., I, 944, 
 945), and of Virginia, of February 7, 1S09 {Acts of the General Assembly of 
 Virginia, 1808-09, 99-I04). may be taken as typical. The report accom- 
 panying the resolutions of Virginia is of considerable interest, as containing a 
 reason for the failure of the embargo. It says: "If it has failed, in any 
 degree, as a measure of constraint, your committee believe that it is not because 
 our enemies have not felt its force, but because they believe we have felt it too 
 sensibly; because the unfortunate opposition which the measure has met in 
 some parts of the union, has inspired them with a fallacious hope, that we, our- 
 selves, either could not or would not bear its privations." 
 
 The text of the resolutions of Rhode Island is from Acts and Resolves of 
 Rhode Island General Assembly held at E. Greenwich on the fourth Monday 
 of February, 1809, 32, 33.' 
 
 The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. 
 
 The Committee to whom were referred the memorials, petitions 
 and resolutions of the towns [here follow the names of twelve 
 towns], beg leave to report * * * that it would be a paradox 
 in the history of the human mind, if a people, who from the 
 foundation of their government have ever manifested the most 
 warm and zealous attachment to civil liberty, should regard with 
 indifference its extinguishment. It would betray an ignorance 
 of their true interests, if they did not esteem it the " more per- 
 fect union of these States," as it is declared and provided for in 
 the federal constitution as the parent and perpetuator of their 
 political prosperity. 
 
 That it would be a reflection on their discernment and sagacity, 
 if they did not foresee that the dissolution of the Union may be 
 more surely, and as speedily effected by the systematick oppression 
 of the government, as by the inconsiderate disobedience of the 
 people. That the people of this State, as one of the parties to 
 the Federal compact, have a right to express their sense of any 
 violation of its provisions and that it is the duty of this General 
 Assembly as the organ of their sentiments and the depository of 
 
 ' I am indebted to Mr. Clarence S. Brigham, Librarian of the Rhode Island 
 Historical Society, for verifying the text of these resolutions. 
 
44 
 
 STATE DOCUMENTS 
 
 their authority, to interpose for the purpose of protecting them 
 from the ruinous inflictions of usurped and uncbilstitutional 
 
 nOW^PT ^^ ^ 7^ T^ ^ V y^ V 
 
 Resolved, That the several acts of the Congress of the United 
 States laying an embargo, by the permanent interdiction of for- 
 eign commerce, and by the numerous and vexatious restrictions 
 upon the coasting trade, do, in the opinion of this General As- 
 sembly, infringe upon the undeniable rights and privileges of the 
 good people of this State. 
 
 Resolved, That the act of Congress of the gth of January last, 
 enforcing the several embargo acts, is in many of its provisions 
 unjust, oppressive, tyrannical and unconstitutional. 
 
 Resolved, That to preserve the Union and to support the con- 
 stitution of the United States, it becomes the duty of this General 
 Assembly, while it is cautious not to infringe upon the constitu- 
 tion and delegated powers and rights of the General Government, 
 to be vigilant in guarding from usurpation and violation, those 
 powers and rights which the good people of this State have ex- 
 pressly reserved to themselves, and have ever refused to delegate. 
 
 Resolved, That a committee be appointed and instructed to 
 prepare a suitable remonstrance, addressed to the Congress of 
 the United States, expressive of the feelings and opinions of this 
 General Assembly on the several subjects of complaint in the 
 aforesaid petitions, memorials and resolves ; and praying the re- 
 peal of the aforesaid obnoxious and oppressive laws, and that 
 Congress will in their wisdom devise efficacious measures for the 
 preservation of the peace -of the United States; and that said 
 committee report the same at the next session of the General 
 Assembly. 
 
 Resolved, That his Excellency the Governor be requested to 
 transmit copies of the foregoing report and resolutions to the 
 President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Repre- 
 sentatives of the State of Massachusetts, and to the Governor of 
 the State of Connecticut, and to the Legislatures of such other 
 States as have manifested or may manifest a disposition to concur 
 with us in the adoption of constitutional measures for the preser- 
 vation of the Union of the States, and for the removal of the 
 political evils under which we are now suffering. 
 
ANNOUNCEMENT. 
 ! STATE DOCUMENTS 
 
 ON 
 
 FEDERAL RELATIONS: 
 
 The States and the United States. 
 
 EDITED BY 
 
 HERMAN V.AMES, Ph.D. 
 
 "Almost every State in the Union in turn declared its own sovereignty, and denounced 
 as almost treasonable, similar declarations in other cases by other States.'' 
 
 Alexander Johnston. 
 
 In view of the fact that so few of the resolutions of Slate Legislatures, and 
 other ofhcial documents of the various States illustrative of their relations with 
 the Federal Goveininent, are accessible to the general reader, it is believed that 
 the publication of a series of selections from these important but Httle used doc- 
 uments will be a welcome addition to the illustrative material upon the History 
 of the United States. 
 
 The series will comprise typical documents coveting the official action of 
 various States in different sections of the country relative to the chief political 
 and constitutional issues in our history, with especial reference to the doctrine 
 of ■' State Rights." 
 
 Nearly all ilie documents selected are at present to be found only in the 
 official publications of the States or Federal Government, and therefore have 
 been available hitherto only to a few. It is proposed to publish these selections, 
 arranged chron'tlogically, in a series of numbers of about 40 pages each, 
 paged continuously, so that when completed the several numbers may be bound 
 in one volume. 
 
 I. Interpretation of the Constitution during the first Two Decades of 
 its History. 1789 iSog. 
 
 z. The Reserved Rights of the States. 1809-1832. 
 
 CONTENTS : The Olmstead Case, Pennsylvania's Resolutions and Replies 
 of other States ; Anti-bank Resolutions ; New England and the War ; Replies of 
 other States to the Hartford Convention Proposals ; Jurisdiction of the Federal 
 Courts, Ohio, Virginia, and Kentucky, 1821-1825 : Broad versus Strict Construc- 
 tion, the Bank, Tariff and Internal Improvements; etc. 
 
 To bo ^eady shortly. 
 3. Nullification. ' Resolutions of South Carolina an." .lie Replies of 
 
 4. Slavery and the Constitution. Resolutions of the States repre- 
 senting various phases of the Controversy. Ready in the Fall. 
 
 New numbers are subject to modification, and additional numbers may be 
 added. Price, 30 cents a number, or subscription for four numbers, $1.00. 
 Address, 
 
 THE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY, 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, 
 
 PHILADELPHIA, PA. 
 
'Mm