V ^ ^ V > ^ ^°* a ^ **•«»•* £ -.. ***« .;• «?' v *+ % V W\ v * .^ » v «!Si©i'. >. ^ * '°^% V ^ ♦* % '-jm; J"\ -WW: j>\ ; .lsf. : / ••». V c°* .cat. ** +* ..j&,X -" j - tf > ^ 0° + * ^ ^ . % y«ow. sir. would it not be a distinction without a difference to allow interest in such a case. and yet refuse it in another, in which the State had not bor- rowed the money, and paid interest for it. but had raised it by taxation, or. as I believe was the case with Massachusetts, by the sale of valuable stocks, bearing interest .- Is it not, appa- rent- that in her case, as clearly as in that of a borrowing' State, she has actually lost the interest ? Can any man main- tain that, between these two :ases. there is any sound distinc- tion, in law. in equity, or in morals 1- The refusal to sign this bill has deprived Massachusetts and Maine of a very large sum of money, justly due to them. It is now fifteen or sixteen years since the money was advanced, and it was advanced for the most necessary and praiseworthy public purposes. The in- terest on the sum already refunded, and on that which may reasonably be expected to be hereafter refunded, is not less tfaanjEve hundred thousand dollars. But for the President's refusal, in this unusual mode, to give his approbation to a bill which had passed Congress almost unanimously, these two States would already have been in the receipt of a very con- siderable portion of ibis money : and made sure of the residue in due season. Mr. President. — I do not desire to raise mere pecuniary inter- ests to an undue importance, in political matters. I admit, ue principles and objects of paramount obligation and importance. I would not oppose the President, merely because he has refused to the State what I thought her entitled to. in a matter of money, provided he had made known his reasons. and ihey had appeared to be such as mi^ht fairly influence an intelligent and honest mind. But where a State has so direct heavy an interest, where the justice of the case : - n plain, that men agree in it who asrree in hardly any thing else, where her claim has passed Congress, without considerable 21 opposition in cither House, a refusal to approve the hill with- out giving the slightest reason, — the taking advantage of the rising of Congress to give it a silent go-by, is an act that may well awaken theattention of the People in the States conccriK d. It is an act, calling for close examination. It is an act, which calls loudly for justification by its author. And now, sir, I will close what 1 have to say on this particular subject by sta- ting, that on the 22d of March, 1832, the President did actual- ly approve aud sign a bill, in favor of South-Carolina, by which it was enacted that her claim for interest upon money actually expended by her for military stores, during the late war, should be settled and paid ; the money so expended hav- ing been drawn by the State from a fund upon which she was receiving interest. Now this, sir, was precisely the case of Massachusetts. Mr. President, — I now approach an inquiry of a far more deep and affecting interest. Are the principles and measures of the Administration dangerous to the Constitution, and to the Union of the States ? Sir, I believe them to be so ; and I shall state the grounds of that belief. In the first place, any Administration is dangerous fo the Constitution, and to the Union of the States, which denies the essential powers of the Constitution, and thus strips it of the capacity to do the good intended by it. The principles embraced by the Administration, and ex- pressed in the Veto Message, are evidently hostile to the whole system of protection, by duties of impost, on constitutional grounds. Here, then, is one great power struck at once out of the Constitution : and one great end of its adoption defeated. And while this power is thus struck out of the Constitution, it is clear that it exists no where else : since the Constitution ex- pressly takes it away from all the States. The Veto Message denies the constitutional power of creating or continuing such an institution a* our whole experience has approved, for maintaining a sound, uniform, national current and for the safe collection of revenue. Here is another power. long used, but now lopped off. And this power, too, thus lopped off from the Constitution, is evidently not within the power o\ any of the individual States - te ran maintain a national currency : no State Institution can render to the revenue the services performed by a National Institu- tion. It" ~:T : ~: r-3.: ->- ----- - . : ■ . ■■ ' ■>. - ■:.:>.,'. iBBC jfOK^ 2ttd t-M »iL JBB 24 cessity ; but it has now become co-extensive with the Execu- tive will, calling for no necessity, requiring no exigency, for its exercise ; but to be exercised at all times, without control, without question, without responsibility. When the question of the President's power of removal was debated in the first Congress, those who argued for it, limited it to extreme cases. Cases, they said, might arise, in which it would be absolutely necessary to remove an officer, before the Senate could be as- sembled. An officer might become insane ; he might abscond ; and from these, and other supposable cases, it was said; the public service might materially suffer, if the President could not remove the incumbent. Aud it was further said, that there was little or no danger of the power's being abused for party or personal objects. No President, it was thought, would ever commit such an outrage on public opinion. Mr. Madi- son, who thought the power ought to exist, and to be exercised in cases of high necessity, declared, nevertheless, that if a Pre- sident should exercise the power when not called for, by any public exigency, and merely for personal objects, he tcould de- serve to be impeached. By a very small majority, I think in the Senate by the casting vote of the Vice President, Con- gress decided in favor of the existing power, upon the grounds which, I have mentioned ; granting the power, in a case of clear and absolute necessity, and denying its existence every where else. Mr. President, — we should recollect that this question was discussed, and thus decided, when Washington was in the Executive Chair. Men knew, that, in his hands, the power would not be abused ; nor did they conceive it possible that any of his successors could so far depart from his great and bright example, as, by abuse of the power, and by carrying that abuse to its utmost extent, to change the essential char- acter of the Executive from that of an impartial guardian and executor of the laws, into that of the chief dispenser of party rewards. Three or four instances of removal occurred, in the first twelve years of the Government. At the commencement of Mr. Jefferson's administration, he made several others, not without producing much dissatisfaction ; so much so, that he thought it expedient to give reasons to the people, in a pub- lic paper, for even the limited extent to which he had exercised the power. He placed his justification on particular circum- stances, and peculiar grounds; which, whether substantial or 25 not, showed, at least, that he did not regard the power of re- moval as an ordinary power, still less as a mere arbitrary one, to be used as he pleased, for whatever ends he pleased, and without responsibility. As far as I remember, sir, after the early part of Mr. Jefferson's administration, hardly an instance occurred for near thirty years. If there were any instances, they were few. But at the commencement of the present Administration the precedent of these previous cases was seized on, and a system, a regular plan of government, a well-con- sidered scheme for the maintenance of party power, by the patronage of office, and this patronage to be created by gen- eral removal, was adopted, and has been carried into full op- eration. Indeed, before Gen. Jackson's inauguration, the party put the system into practice. In the last session of Mr. Adams's administration, the friends of Gen. Jackson consti- tuted a majority in the Senate ; and nominations, made by him to fill vacancies, which had occurred in the ordinary way, were postpoi>ed, by this majority, beyond the third of March, for the purpose, openly avowed, of giving the nominations to Gen. Jackson. A nomination for a Judge of the Supreme Court, and many others of less magnitude, were thus dis- posed of. And what did we witness, sir, when the Administration actually commenced, in the full exercise of its authority ? One universal sweep, one undistinguishing blow, levelled against all, who were not of the successful party. No worth, public or private, no service, civil or military, was of power to resist the relentless greediness of proscription. Soldiers of the late war, soldiers of the Revolutionary war, the very contem- poraries of the liberties of the country, all lost their situations. No office was too high, and none too low ; for office was the spoil. — a nd all the spoils, it wis said, belonged to the victors ! If a man, holding an office, necessary for his daily support, had presented himself covered with the scars of wounds re- ceived in every battle, from Bunker Hill to York Town, these would not have protected him against the reckless rapacity of proscription. Nay, sir, if Warren himself had been among the living, and bad possessed any office under Government, higji or low, he would not iiavc been suffered to hold it a single hour, unless he could show that he had strictly com- plied with the party statutes, and had put a well-marked party collar round his own neck. Look, sir, to the case of the late 4 26 •ble Ma;:: Xklyiij He was a spirit of 1776 of the very firs: to venture in the cause of 1 Bf of the Tea party : one of tfa expose himself to And his w: rant with its beginning. Always ardent in the cause of Liberty, always a zealous friend to his coun:. v.uh the party which he supposed cherishe. . ubliean Spirit most fervently. al\~ and respectable in private be seemed armed against tserahte petty tyranny of party, as far as man could be. But he felt its blow, and he fell. He held an office in the Custom :id had holden it for -. h : ig coarse of ; he country which he loved, and for whose liberties, in the vigor of hi ...nhood. he had thrust himself into the very jaws of its enem ras no mis- take in the mauer. H k lis standing evolu- tional e all well known; but they were known to no purpose i not one feather against party pretensions. It cost no pains to remove him : it cc- punction to wring- his ageo" heart with this retribution from .1. and hi was nominated to S ate was told who it was that had been removed to m: for tha: nomination, members were struck with horror. nceived the Administra- tion to be cap- hey said, what can r T1 . - ed : — ire cannot recall him: pon the nomination before us ! Sir. ycu and I thought otherwise : and I rejoice that we t5d think other :ur duty I to a vaca: :eated. We thought it our duty to ~ this proscription when, and where, and as. we constitutionally could. "We besought th Sena to go with us. and to take a stand before the country on this great question. We invoked them to try the deliberate sense of the people : to trust them- selves before the tribunal of public opinion : to resist at first, to resist at last, to resist ah introduction of this unsocial, this mischievous, this dangerous this belligerent principle; into I ::nrnent. .dent. — as far as I know, there is no civilized country on earth, in which, on a change of rulers, there is such an inquisition for spoil, as we have witnessed in this free Re- public. The Inaugural Address of 1S29 spoke of a searching operation of Government. The most searching operation, sir. of the present Administration has been its search for office and place. "Whenever, sir. did any English Minister, whig or tory. take such an inquest? When did he ever go down to low-water mark ; to make an ousting of tide-waiters ? When did he ever take away the daily bread of weighers and gaugers. and measurers? Or when did he go into the villages, to disturb the little poet-offices, the mail contracts, and any thing else,, in the remotest degree connected with Govern- ment - Sir. a British Minister, who should do this, and should afterwards show his head in a British House of Commons, would !»e received by an universal 1. I have little to say. of the selections made to fill vacancies, thus created. It is true, however, and it is a natural conse- quence of the system which has been acted on. that within the last three years, more nominations have been rejected, on the ground of unfitness, than in. all the preceding forty years of the Government. And these nominations, you know. sir. could not have been rejected, but by votes of the President's own friends. The ca- - too strong to be resisted. Even party attachment could not stand them. In some, not a third of the Senate, in others not ten votes, and in others not a single vote, could be obtained ; and this, for no partic- •ular reason known only to the Senate ; but on general grounds of the want of character and qualifications ; on grounds, known to every body else, as well as to the Senate. All this. sir. is perfectly natural and consistent. The same party selfiV which drives good men out of office will push bad men in. Political proscription leads necessarily to the filling of offices with incompetent persons, and to a consequent mal-execution of official duties. In my opinion, sir. it will effectually change the character of our Government, this acting upon the avowed principle of claiming office by right of conquest, unless the public shall rebuke and restrain it. It e". ibore country: it forgets the comra.n weal, in the pursuit of per- sonal emolument : it tends to form, it does form, we see that it has formed, political combinations, held together by no com- mon principles or opinioD? i - members, either upon the powers of the Government, or the true policy of the coun- ut held together simply as an association, under the charm of a popular head, seeking, to maintain possession of 23 the Government by a vigorous exercise of its patronage ; and for this purpose agitating, and alarming, and distressing social life by the exercise of a tyrannical party proscription. Sir, if this course of things cannot be checked, good men will grow tired of the exercise of political privileges. They will have nothing to do with popular elections. They will see that such elections are but a mere selfish contest for office ; and they will abandon the Government to the scramble of the bold, the daring, and the desperate. It seems. 3Ir. President, to J>e a peculiar and singular char- acteristic of the present Administration, that it came into power on a cry against abuses, which did not exist, and then, as soon as it was in. as if in mockery of the perception and in- telligence of the People, it created those very abuses, and carried them to a great length. Thus the Chief Magistrate himself, before he came into the chair, in a formal public paper, denounced the practice of appointing members of Con- gress to office. He said, that if that practice continued, cor- ruption would become the order of the day; and as if to fasten, and nail down his own consistency to that point, ho declared that it was "due to himself to practise what he recommended to others" Yet, sir, as soon as he was in power, these fastenings gave way, the" nails all flew, and the promised consistency remains, a striking proof of the manner in which political assurances are sometimes fulfilled. For,- sir, he has already appointed more members of Congress to office than any of his predecessors, in the longest period of administration. Before his time, there was no reason to com- plain of these appointments. They had not been numerous, under any Administration. Under this, they have been nu- merous, and some of them such as may well justify complaint. Another striking instance of the exhibition of the same char- acteristics, may be found in the sentiments of the Inaugural Address, and in the subsequent practice, on the subject of in- terfering with the freedom of elections. The Inaugural Address declares, that it is necessary to reform abuses which have brought the patronage of the Government into con- flict with the freedom of elections. And what has been the subsequent practice? Look to the newspapers; — look to the published letters of officers of the Government, advising, ex- horting, soliciting, friends and partizans to greater exertions, in the cnu=e of the Party; — vee all done, every where, which 29 patronage and power can do, to affect not only elections in the General Government, but also in ever}' State Government — and then say, how well this promise of reforming abuses has been kept. At what former period, under what former Admin- istration, did public officers of the United States thus interfere in electious ? Certainly, sir. never. In this respect, then, as well as in others, that which was not true, as a charge against previous Administrations, would have been true, if it had as- sumed the form of a prophecy, respecting the acts of the present. But there is another attempt to srrasp, and to wield, a power over public opinion, of a still more daring character, and far more dangerous effects. In all popular governments, a FREE PRESS is the most important of all agents and instruments. It not only ex- presses public opinion, but. to a very great degree, it contri- butes to form that opinion. It is an engiue. for good or for evil, as it may be directed ; but an engine, of which nothing can resist the force. The conductors of the press, in popular governments, occupy a place, in the social and political s\ - of the very highest consequence. They wear the character of public instructers. To matters of intelligence, they add matters of opinion. Their daily labors bear directly on the intelligence, the morals, the taste] and the public spirit of the country. Not only are they journalists, recording political occurrences, but they discuss principles, they comment on measures, they canvass characters : they hold a power over the reputation, the feelings, the happiness of individuals. The public ear is always open to their addresses, the public sympathy easily made responsite to their sentiments. It is, indeed, sir. a distinction of high honor, that theirs is the only profession expressly protected am! 'juarded by constitutional enactments. Their employment high, in it- jjeneral consequences, it i< so intimately connected with the public happiness, that its security is projrided for by the fundamental law. While it acts in a manner worthy of this distinction, the press i- a fountain of light, and a source of gladd warmth. It instructs the public mind, and animates the spirit of patriotism. It- loud voice supp - - ery thing, which would raise itself against the public liberty: and its blasting rebuke causes incipient despotism to perish in the bud. But remember, sir. that these are the attributes of a Free Press, only. And i= t pre=? that i- purchased or pensioned. 30 more free than a press that is fettered ? Can the People look for truths to partial sources, whether rendered partial through fear, or through favor '? Why shall not a manacled press be trusted with the maintenance and defence of popular rights ? Because it is supposed to be under the influence of a power, which may prove greater than the love of truth. Such a press may screen abuses in Government, or be silent. It may fear to speak. And ma} r it not fear to speak, too, when its con- ductors, if tbey speak in any but one way, may lose their means of livelihood ? Is dependence on Government for bread no temptation to screen its abuses? Will the Press always speak the truth, though the truth, if spoken, may be the means of silencing it for the future ? Is the truth in no danger, is the watchman under no temptation, when he can neither pro- claim the approach of national evils, nor seem to descry them, without the loss of his place 1 Mr. President, — an open attempt to secure the aid and friend- ship of the public press, by bestowing the emoluments of office on its active conductors, seems to me, of every thing we have witnessed, to be the most reprehensible. It degrades both the Government and the press. As far as its natural effect extends, it turns the palladium of liberty into an engine of party. It brings the agency, activity, energy and patronage of Govern- ment, all to bear, with united force, on the means of general intelligence, and on the adoption or rejection of political opin- ions. It so completely perverts the true object of Govern- ment, it so entirely revolutionizes our whole system, that the chief business of those in power is directed rather to the propa- gation of opinions, favorable to themselves, than to the execu- tion of the laws. This propagation of opinions, through the press, becomes the main administrative duty. Some lifty or sixty editors of leading journals have been appointed to office by the present Executive. A stand has been made against this proceeding, in the Senate, with partial success; but by means of appointments, which do not come before the Senate, or other means, the number has been carried to the extent I have men- tioned. Certainly, sir, the editors of the public journals are not. to be disfranchised. Certainly, they are fair candidates either for popular elections, or a just participation in office. Certainly, they reckon, in their number, some of the first ge- niuses, the best scholars, and the most honest and well princi- pled men, in the country. But the complaint is against the 31 system, against the practice, against the undisguised attempt to secure the favor of the press, by means addressed to its pe- cuniary interest. And these means, too, drawn from the pub- lic treasury ; being no other than the appointed compensations for the performance of official duties. Sir, the press itself should resent this. Its own character for purity and indepen- dence is at stake. It. should resist a connexion, rendering it obnoxious to so many imputations. It should point to its honorable denomination, in our Constitutions of Government, and it should maintain the character there ascribed to it, of a FREE PRESS. There can, sir, be no objection to the appointment of an Editor to office, if he is the fittest man. There can be no ob- jection to considering the services, which, in that, or any other capacity, he may have rendered his country. He may have done much to maintain her rights against foreign aggression, and her character against insult. He may have honored, as well as defended her ; and may, therefore, be justly regarded and selected, in the choice of faithful public agents. But the ground of complaint is, that the aiding, by the press, of the election of an individual, is rewarded, by that same indi- vidual, with the gift of monied offices. Men are turned out of office, and others put in, and receive salaries from the public treasury, on the ground, cither openly avowed, or falsely deni- ed, that they had rendered service in the election of the very individual, who makes this removal, and makes this appoint- ment. Every man, sir, must see that this is a vital stab at the purity of the press. And it is not only attempting the independence of the press, by addressing sinister motives, but is furnishing the means of exciting these motives from the public treasury. It extends the Executive power over the press, in a most daring manner. It operates to give a direction to opinion, not favorable to the Government, in thi ite, not favorable to the Constitution and laws, not favorable to the Legislature, but favorable to the Executive alone. The con- sequence often is, just what might be looked for, that the por- tion of the press, thus made fast to the Executive interest, de- nounces Congress, denounces the Judiciary, complains ol the laws, and quarrels with the Constitution. This exercise of ll right of appointment, to this end, is an augmentation, anil avast one, of the Executive power, singly and alone. It uses that power, strongly against all other branches of the Government, and it 32 uses it strongly, too, for any struggle which it may be called on to make with general public opinion. Mr. President, I will quit this topic. There is much in it, in my judgment, affecting, not only the purity and independence of the press, but also the character and honor, the peace and security of the Government. I leave it, in all its bearings, to the consideration of the people. Mr. President, — among the novelties introduced into the Government, by the present Administration, is the frequent use of the President's negative, on acts of Congress. Under former Presidents, this power has been deemed an extraordinary one, to be exercised only in peculiar and marked cases. It was vested in the President, doubtless, as a guard against hasty or inconsiderate legislation, and against any act, inadvertently passed, which might seem to encroach on the just authority of other branches of the Government. 1 do not recollect that, by all General Jackson's predecessors, this power was exercised more than four or five times. Not having recurred to the Journals, I cannot, of course, be sure that I am numerically accurate in this particular ; but such is my belief. I recollect no instance in the lime of Mr. John Adams, Mr. Jefferson, or Mr. John Q,uincy Adams. The only cases which occur to "me are, two in General Washington's administration, two in Mr. Madison's, and one in Mr. Munroe's. There may be some others ; but we all know that it is a power which has been . very sparingly and reluctantly used, from the beginning of the Government. The cases, sir, to which 1 have now re- ferred, were cases, in which the President, returned the Bill with objections. The silent Veto is, I believe, the exclusive adoption of the present Administration. I think that some years ago, a bill, by inadvertence or accident, failed to receive the President's signature, and so did not become a law. But I am not aware of any instance, before the present Adminis- tration, in which the President has, by design, omitted to sign a bill, and yet has not returned it to Congress. But since the present Administration came into power, the Veto, in both kinds, has been repeatedly applied. In the case of the Mays- ville Road, the Montgomery Road, and the Bank, we have had the Veto, with reasons. In an internal improvement • bill of a former session, in a similar bill at the late session, and in the State interest bill, we have had the silent. Veto ; or refusal without reasons. Now, sir, it is to be considered, that the President has the 33 power of recommending measures to Congress. Through his friends, he may and does oppose, also, any legislative move- ment, which he does not approve. If, in addition to this, he may exercise a silent Veto, at his pleasure, on all the bills pre- sented to him during the last ten days of the session ; if he may refuse assent to them all, without being called upon to assign any reasons whatever, it will certainly be a great prac- tical augmentation of his power. Any one who looks at a volume of the Statutes, will see that a great portion of all the laws are actually passed within the last ten days of each ses- sion. If the President is at liberty to negative any, or all, of these laws, at pleasure, or rather, to refuse to render the bills laws, by approving them, and still may neglect to return them to Congress, for renewed action, he will hold a very important control over the legislation of this country. The day of ad- journment is usually fixed, some weeks in advance. This being fixed, a little activity and perseverance may easily, in most cases, and perhaps in all, where no alarm has been ex- cited, postpone important pending measures to a period within ten days of the close of the session : and this operation leaves all such measures at the pleasure of the President to sign the bills or not, without being obliged to state his reasons publicly. A silent Yeto, on the Bank Bill, would have been the in- evitable fate of that Bill, if its friends had not refused to fix on any term for adjournment before the President should have had the Bill so long as to be required, by constitutional pro- visions, to sign it, or to send it back with his reasons for not signing it. The two Houses did not agree, and would not agree, to fix a day for adjournment, until the Bill was sent to the President, and then care was taken to fix on such a day as should allow him the whole constitutional period. This seasonable presentment rescued the Bill from the power of the silent negative. This practical innovation on the mode of administering the Government, so much at variance with its general principles, and so capable of defeating the most useful acts, deserves public consideration. It- tendency is, to disturb the harmony, which ought always to exist between Congress and the Executive, and to turn that, which the Constitution intended only as an extraordinary remedy, for extraordinary cases, into a common means of making Executive discretion paramount to the dis- cretion of Congress, in the enactineut of laws. 34 Mr. President, — the Executive has not only used these unaccustomed means, to prevent the passage of laws, but it has also refused to enforce the execution of laws actually passed. An eminent instance of this, is found in the course adopted relative to the Indian Intercourse Law of 1802. Upon being applied to, in behalf of the Missionaries, to ex- ecute that law, for their relief and protection, the President replied, that the State of Georgia having extended her laios over the Indian territory, the laios of Congress had thereby been superseded. This is the substance of his answer, as communicated through the Secretary of War. He holds, then, that the law of the State is paramount to the law of Con- gress. The Supreme Court has adjudged this act of Georgia to be void, as being repugnant to a constitutional law of the United States. But the President pays no more regard to this decision, than to the act of Congress itself. The Mission- aries remain in prison, held there by a condemnation, under a law of a State, which the Supreme Judicial Tribunal has pronounced to be null and void. The Supreme Court have decided that the act of Congress is constitutional, that it is a binding statute, that it has the same force as other laws, and is as much entitled to be obeyed and executed as other laws. The President, on the contrary, declares that the law of Congress has been superseded, by the law of the State, and therefore he will not carry its provisions into effect. Now we know, sir, that the Constitution of the United States declares, that that Constitution, and, all acts of Congress passed in pursuance of it, shall be the supreme law of the land, any thing in any State law to the contrary notwithstand- ing. This would seem to be a plain case, then, in which the law should be executed. It has been solemnly decided to be in actual force, by the highest judicial authority ; its execu- tion is demanded for the relief of free citizens, now suffering the pains of unjust and unlawful imprisonment ; yet the Pre- dent refuses to execute it. In the case of the Chicago Road, some sessions ago, the President approved the Bill, but accompanied his approval by a Message, saying how far he deemed it a propter law, and how far, therefore, it ought to be carried into execution. In the case of the Harbor Bill of the late session, being ap- plied to, by a member of Congress for directions for carrying parts of the law into effeet, ha declined giving them, and 33 made a distinction between such purt.\ of the law as he shoidd cause to be executed, and such as he should not ; and his right to make this distinction has heen openly main- tained, by those who habitually defend his measures. Indeed, sir, these, and other instances of liberties taken with plain statute laws, flow, naturally, from the principles expressly avowed by the President, under his own hand. In that im- portant document, sir, upon which it seems to behis fate to stand, or to fall, before the American People, the Veto Mes- sage, he holds the following language. " Each public officer, who takes an oath to support the Constitution, swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others.' 1 Mr. President, the gene- ral adoption of the sentiments, expressed in this sentence, would dissolve our Government. It would raise every man's private opinions into a standard for his own conduct ; and there certainly is, there can be, no government, where every man is to judge, for himself, of his own rights, and his own obligations. Where every one is his own arbiter, force, and not law, is the governing power. He who may judge for him- self, and decide for himself, must execute his own decisions ; and this is the law of force. I confess, sir, it strikes me with astonishment, that so wild, so disorganizing a sentiment should be uttered by a President of the United States. 1 should think it must have escaped from its author, through want of reflec- tion, or from the habit of little reflection, on such subjects, if I could suppose it possible, that, on a question exciting so much public attention, and of so much national importance, any such extraordinary doctrine could f nd its way through inadvertence, into a formal and solemn public act. Standing as it does, it affirms a proposition which would effectually re- peal all Constitutional and all legal obligations. The Consti- tution declares, that every public officer, in the State Govern- ment, as well as in the General Government, shall take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States. This is all. Would it not have cast an air of ridicule on the whole provision, if the Constitution had gone on to add the words, " as he understands it ? ' : What could come nearer to a sol- emn farce, than to bind a man, by oath, and ?iill leave him to be his own interpreter of his own obligation ? Sir, those who arc to execute the laws have no more a license to construe them, for themselves, than (hose whose only duty is to obey 36 them. Public officers are bound to support the Constitution ; private citizens are bound to obey it ; and there is no more in- dulgence, granted to the public officer, to support the Constitu- tion only as he understands it, than to a private citizen to obey it only as he understands it ; and what is true of the Constitution, in this respect, is equally true of any law. Laws are to be executed, and to be obeyed, not as individuals may interpret them, but according to public, authoritative interpreta- tion and adjudication. The sentiment of the message would abrogate the obligation of the whole criminal code. If every man is to judge of the Constitution and the laws for himself, if he is to obey, and support them, only as he may say he understands them, a revolution, I think, would take place in the administration of justice ; and discussions about the law of treason, murder and arson, should be addressed, not to the judicial bench, but to those who might stand charged with such offences. The object of discussion should be, if we run out this notion to its natural extent, to convince the culprit himself how he ought to understand the law. Mr. President, — how is it possible, that a sentiment so wild, and so dangerous, so encouraging to all who feel a desire to oppose the laws, and to impair the Constitution, should have been uttered by the President of the United States, at this eventful and critical moment 1 Are we not threatened with dissolution of the Union 1 Are we not told that the laws of the Government shall be openly and directly resisted ? Is not the whole Country looking, with the utmost anxiety, to what may be the result of these threatened courses 1 And, at this very moment, so full of peril to the State, the Chief Magistrate puts forth opinions and sentiments as truly subversive of all Government, as absolutely in conflict with the authority of the Constitution, as the wildest theories of Nullification. Mr. Pre- sident, I have very little regard for the law, or the logic, of Nullification. But there is not an individual in its ranks, ca- pable of putting two ideas together, who, if you will grant him the principles of the Veto Message, cannot defend all that Nullification has ever threatened. To make this assertion good, sir, let us see how the case stands. The Legislature of South-Carolina, it is said, will nullify the late Revenue, or Tariff law, because, they say, it is not warranted by the Con- stitution of the United States, as they understand the Con- stitution. They, as well as the President of the United 37 States, have sworn to support the Constitution. Both he and they have taken the same oath, in the same words. Now, sir, since he claims the right to interpret the Consti- tution as he pleases, how can he deny the same right to them'} Is his oath less stringent than theirs? Has he a prerogative of dispensation, which they do not possess? How can he answer them, when they tell him, that the Revenue laws arc unconstitutional, as they understand the Constitution, and that, therefore, they will nullify them I WilMic reply to them, according to the doctrines of his annual Message in 1830, that precedent has settled the question, if it was ever doubtful 1 They will answer him in his own words, in the Veto Mes- sage, that in such a case precedent is not binding. Will he say to them, that the Revenue law is a law of Congress, which must be executed, until it shall be declared void ? They will answer him, that, in other cases, he has himself refused to execute laws of Congress which had not been declared void, but which had been, on the contrary, declared valid. Will he urge the force of judicial decision ? They will an- swer, that he himself does not admit the binding obligations of such decisions. Sir, the President of the United States is of opinion, that an individual, called on to execute a law, may, himself, judge of its constitutional validity. Has Nulli- ification any thing more revolutionary than that ? The Presi- dent is of opinion that judicial interpretations of the Constitution and the laws, do not bind the consciences, and ought not to bind the conduct, of men. Has Nullification any thing more disorganizing than that ? The President is of opinion, that, every officer is bound to support the Constitution only accord- ing to what ought to be, in his private opinion, its construction. Has Nullification, in its widest night, ever reached to an ex- travagance like that? No, sir, never. The doctrine of \ul lification, in my judgment a most false, dangerous, ami revo- lutionary doctrine, is this ; that the State, or a State, may declare the extent of the obligations which its citizens are un- der to the United States ; in other words, that a State, by State laws, and State judicatures, may conclusively construe the Constitution, for its own citizens. But that every indi\ id ual may construe it for himself, is a refinement on the theory of resistance to constitutional power, a sublimation of the right of be ; ig disloyal to the Union, a lice, charter for the elevation of private opinion above the authority of the fundamental law 33 of the State, Much as was never presented to the public view, and the public astonishment, even by Nullification itself. — Its first appearance is in the Veto Message. Melancholy, lamentable, indeed, sir, is our condition, when at a moment of serious danger and wide-spread alarm, such sentiments are found to proceed from the Chief Magistrate of the Govern- ment. Sir, I cannot feel that the Constitution is safe in such hands. 1 cannot feel that the present administration is its fit and proper guardian. But let me ask, sir, what evidence there is, that the Presi- dent is himself opposed to the doctrines of Nullification ? I do not say to the political party, which now pushes these doctrines, but to the doctrines themselves. Has he any where rebuked them ? Has he any where discouraged them ? Has his influence been exerted to inspire respect for the Constitu- tion, and to produce obedience to the laws? Has he followed the bright example of his predecessors, has he held fast by the institutions of the Country, has he summoned the good and the wise around him, has he admonished the Country that the Union is in danger, and called on all the patriotic to come out in its support? Alas ! Sir, we have seen nothing, no- thing, of all this. Mr. President, — I shall not discuss the doctrine of Nullifica- tion. I am sure it can have no friends here. Gloss it and disguise it as we may, it is a pretence incompatible with the authority of the Constitution. If direct separation be not its only mode of operation, separation is, nevertheless, its di- rect consequence. That a State may nullify a law of the Union, and still remain in the Union ; that she may have Senators and Representatives in the Government, and yet be at liberty to disobey and resist that Government ; that she may partake in the common councils, and yet not be bound by their results ; that she may control a law of Congress, so that it shall be one thing, with her, while it is another thing with the rest of the States ; all these propositions seem to be so absolutely at war with common sense and reason, that I do not understand how any intelligent person can yield the slightest assent to them. Nullification, it is in vain to attempt to conceal it, is disssolution ; it is dismemberment ; it is the breaking up of the Union. If it shall practically succeed, in any one State, from that moment there are twenty-four States in the Union no longer. Now, sir, I think it exceedingly proba- 39 ble that the President may come to an open rupture with that portion of his original party, which now constitutes what is called the Nullification party. I think it likely he will oppose the proceedings of that party, if they shall adopt measures, coming directly in conllict with the laws of the United States. But how will he oppose ? What will be his course of rem- edy ? Sir, I wish to call the attention of the meeting, and of the people, earnestly to this question, how ivill the President attempt to put down Nullification, if he shall attempt it at all. Sir, for one, I protest in advance against such remedies as I have heard hinted. The administration itself keeps a pro- found silence, but its friends have spcken for it. We are told, sir, that the President will immediately employ the military force, and at once blockade Charleston! A mili- tary remedy, a remedy by direct belligerent operation, has been thus suggested, and nothing else has been suggested, as the intended means of preserving the Union. Sir, there is no little reason to think, that this suggestion is true. We can- not be altogether unmindful of the past ; and therefore we cannot be altogether unapprehensive for the future. For one, sir, I raise my voice beforehand, against the unauthorized employment of military power, and against superseding the authority of the laws, by an armed force, under pretence of putting down Nullification. The President has no authority to blockade Charleston ; the President has no authority to employ military force, till he stall be duly required so to do, by law, and by the civil authorities. His duty is, to cause the laws to be executed. His duty is to support the civil au- thority. His duty is, if the laws be resisted, to employ the military force of the country, if necessary, for their support and execution ; but to do all this in compliance only with law, and with decisions of the tribunals. If, by any ingenious devices, those who resist the laws escape from the reach of judicial authority, as it is now provided to be exercised, it is entirely competent to Congress to make such new provisions as the exigency of the case may demand. These provisions undoubtedly will be made. With a constitutional and effi- cient head of the Government, with an Administration really and truly in favor of the Constitution, the country can grapple with Nullification. By the force v( reason, by the progress of enlightened opinion, by the natural, geuuino patriotism of the 40 country,, and by the steady and well sustained operations of law, the progress of disorganization may be successfully checked, and the Union maintained. Let it be remembered that where Nullification is most powerful, it is not unopposed. Let it be remembered that they who would break up the Union by force, have to march toward that object through thick ranks of as brave and good men as the country can show ; men, strong in character, strong in intelligence, strong in the purity of their own motives, and ready, always ready, to sacrifice their fortunes and their lives to the preservation of the Con- stitutional Union of the States. If we can relieve the country from an administration, which denies to the Constitution those powers which are the breath of its life, if we can place the Government in the hands of its friends, if we can secure it against the dangers of irregular and unlawful and military force, if it can be under the lead of an administration, whose moderation, firmness, and wisdom shall inspire confidence and command respect, we may yet surmount the dangers, nu- merous and formidable as they are, which surround us. And, sir, I see little prospect of overcoming these dangers, without a change of men. After all that has passed, the re- election of the present Executive will give the national sanc- tion to sentiments, and to measures, which will effectually change the government ; which, in short, must destroy the government. If the President be re-elected, with concurrent and co-operating majorities in both Houses of Congress, I do not see, that in four years more, all the power, which is suf- fered to remain in the Government, will not be holden by the Executive hand. Nullification will proceed, or will be put down by a power as unconstitutional as itself. The revenues will be managed by a Treasury Bank. The use of the Veto will be considered as sanctioned by the public voice. The Senate, if not "cut down," will be bound down; and the President, commanding the Army and the Navy, and holding all places of trust to be party property, what will then be left, sir, for Constitutional reliance t Sir, we have been accustomed to venerate the Judiciary, and to repose hopes of safety on that branch of the Govern- ment. But let us not deceive ourselves. The Judicial power cannot stand, for a long time, against the Executive power. The Judges, it is true, hold their places by an independent tenure ; but they are mortal. That, which is the common 41 lot of humanity, must make it necessary to renew the benches of justice. And how will they be filled ? Doubtless, sir, they will be filled by incumbents, agreeing- with the President, in his constitutional opinions. If the Court is felt as an obstacle, doubtless the first opportunity, and every opportunity; will be embraced, to give it less and less the character of an obstacle. Sir, without pursuing these suggestions, I only say that the country must prepare itself for any change in the Judicial Department, such as it shall deliberately sanction, in other departments. But, sir, what is the prospect of change ? Is there any hope, that the national sentiment will recover its accustomed tone, and restore to the Government a just and efficient ad- ministration ? Sir, if there be something of doubt on this point, there is also something, perhaps much, of hope. The popularity of the present Chief Magistrate, springing from causes not con- nected with his administration of the Government, has been great. Public gratitude for military service has remained fast to him, in defiance of many things, in his civil administration, calculated to weaken its hold. At length, there are indications, not to be denied, of new sentiments, and new impressions. At length, a conviction of danger to important interests, and to the security of the Government, has made its lodgement, in the public mind. At length, public sentiment begins to have its free course, and to produce its just effects. I fully believe, sir, that a great majority of the nation desire a change in the administration ; and that it will be difficult for party organization, or party denunciation to suppress the effective utterance of that general wish. There are unhappy differ- ences, it is true, about the fit person to be successor to the present incumbent, in the Chief Magistracy. And it is pos- sible, that this disunion, may, in the end, defeat the will of the majority. But so far as we agree together, let us uct to- gether. Wherever our sentiments concur, let our hands co- operate. If we cannot, at present, agree, who should be President, we are at least agreed who ought not to be. I ful- ly believe, sir, that gratifying intelligence is already on the wing. While we are yet deliberating, in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania is voting. This week, she elects her members to the next Congress. I doubt not, the result of that election will show an important change in public sentiment, in that 6 42 State. I cannot doubt that the great States adjoining her, holding similar constitutional principles, and having similar interests, will feel the impulse of the same causes which affect her. The people of the United States, by a vast and count- less majority, are attached to the Constitution. If they shall be convinced that it is in danger, they will come to its rescue, and will save it. It cannot be destroyed, even now, if they will undertake its guardianship and protection. But suppose, sir, there was less hope than there is, would that consideration weaken the force of our obligations ? Are we at a post, which we are at liberty to abandon, when it becomes difficult to hold it ? May we fly at the approach of danger 7 Does our fidelity to the Constitution require no mere of us than to enjoy its blessings, to bask in the prosperity which it has shed around us, and our fathers, and are we at liberty to abandon it, in the hour of its peril, or to make for it but a faint and heartless struggle, for the want of encouragement, and the want of hope / Sir, if no State come to our succor, if every where else the contest should be given up, here let it be protracted, to the last moment. Here, where the first blood of the Revolution was shed, let the last effort for that which is the greatest blessing obtained by the Revolution, a free and united Government, be made. Sir, in our endeavors to maintain our existing forms of Government, n r e are acting not for ourselves alone, but for the great cause of Constitutional liberty all over the globe. We are trustees, holding a sacred treasure, in which all the lovers of freedom have a stake. Not only in Revolu- tionized France, where there are no longer subjects, where the monarch can no longer say, he is the State, not only in reformed England, where our principles, our institutions, our practice of free Government are now daily quoted and com- mended ; but in the depths of Germany, also, and among the desolated fields, and the still smoking ashes of Poland, prayers are uttered for the preservation of our Union and happiness. We are surrounded, sir, by a cloud of witnesses. The gaze of the sons of liberty, every where, is anxiously, intently, upon us. They may see us fall in the struggle for our Con- stitution and Government, but Heaven forbid that they should see us recreant. At least, sir, let the Star of Massachusetts be the last which shall be seen to fall from heaven, and to plunge into the utter darkness of disunion. Let her shrink baek t let her hold 43 others back, if she can ; at any rate, let her keep herself back, from this gulf, full, at once, of lire, and of blackness ; yes, sir, as far as human foresight can scan, or human imagination fath- om, full of the fire, and the blood, of civil war, and of the thick darkness of general political disgrace, ignominy, and ruin. Though the worst may happen that can happen, and though she may not be able to prevent the catastrophe, yet, let her maintain her own integrity, her own high honor, her own unwavering fidelity, so that with respect and decency, though with a broken and a bleeding heart, she may pay the last tribute to a glorious, departed, free Constitution. W 80 ••*" c ° " " • ^ 1*^ O* * -X "o V 0° , •^.^ % G* *o o > V «l!!rCw% c '<&,<* * vP V A <. *~7T' ,G V *o, '•..* A * ^ '.' • . o .0 "*$> ■ , y • A^ L-- «> «.£ •isS^.*. ** ,** Sate: * & A **7VV* .G v ^> '» • » * A * r oK v-tf 5 •- ****** '*j£8&- "^ v-cr "oK A ^ s '* :'«'• *-^ :*^: **-»** :' °*c v