SPEECH OF DANIEL WEBS T E 11 , IN REPLY TO MR. HAYNE, OF SOUTH CAROLINA : TfiE RESOLUTION 01- FERED BY MR. FOOT, OF CONNECTICUT, RELATIVE TO THE PUBLIC LANDS, BEING UNDER CONSIDERATION. DELIVERED IX THE SEXATE, JANUARY 26, 18)0. Mr. President : When the mariner has been tossed, for many days, in thick weather, and on an unknown sea, he naturally avails himself of the first pause in the storm, the earliest glance ot the sun, to take his latitude, and ascertain how far the elements have, driven him from his true course. Let us imitate this prudence, and, before we float farther, on the waves of this debate, re- fer to the point from which we departed, that we may, at least, be able to form some con- jecture where we now are. I ask for the reading- of the resolution. [The Secretary read the resolution as follows : "Resolved, That the Committee on Public Lauds be instructed to inquire and report the quantity of the public lands remaining unsold within each State and Territory, and whether it be expedient to limit, for a certain period, the sales of the public lands to such lands only as have heretofore been offered for.f»le, and art now subject to entry at the minimum price. And, also, whether the oHice of Surveyor-General, and some of the Land Offices, may not be abolished, without detriment to the public interest ; or whether it be expedient to adopt measures to hasten the sales, and extend more rapidly the surveys of tin- public lamb."] We have thus heard, sir, what that resolution is, which is actually submitted for our con- sideration ; and it will readily occur to every one, that it is almost the only sub ject about which something- has not Been said in the speech, running- through two days, by which the Senate has been now entertained by the gentleman from South Carolina. Every topic in the wide rang-e of our public affaire, whether past or present — every thing, general or local, whether belonging to national politics, or party politics, seems to have attracted more or less of the honorable member's attention, save only the resolution before us. He has spoken of every thing but the public lands. They have escaped his notice. To that subject, in all his ex- cursions, he has not paid even the cold respect of a passing glance. When this debate, sir, was to be resumed, on Thursday morning, it so happened that it would have been convenient for me to be elsewhere. The honorable member, however, did not incline to put off the discussion to another day. He had a shot, he said, to return, and he wished to discharge it. That shot, sir, which it was kind thus to inform us was com- ing, that we might stand out of the wa) , or prepare ourselves to fall before it, and die with decency, has now been received. Under all advantages, and with expectation awakened by the tone which preceded it, it has been discharged, and has spent its force. It may be- come me to say no more of its effect, than that, if nobody is found, after all, either killed or wounded by it, it is not the first time, in the history of human affairs, that the vigor and suc- cess of the war have not quite come up to the lofty and sounding phrase of the manifesto. » The gentleman, sir, in declining to postpone the debate, told the Senate, with the em- phasis of his hand upon his heart, that there was something rankling here, which he wished to relieve. [Mr. Hatxf. rose, and disclaimed having used the word rankling.] It would not, Mr. President, be safe for the honorable member to appeal to those around him, upon the question, whether he did, in fact, make use of that word. But he may have been un- conscious of it. At any rate, it is enough that he disclaims it. But stdl, with or without the use of that particular word, he had yet something here, he said, of which he wished to rid himself by an immediate reply. In this respect, sir, I hare"* great advantage over the honor- able gentleman. There is nothing here, sir, which gives roe the slightest uneasiness ; nei- ther fear, nor anger, nor that which is sometime more troublesome than either — the conscious- ness of having been in the wrong. There is nothing, either originating here, or now received here, by the gentleman's shot. Nothing original, for I had not the slightest feeling of disre- spect or unkindness towards the honorable fjnember. Some passages, it is true, had occur- ed since our acquaintance in this body, which I could have wished might have been other- wise ; but I had used philosophy and forgotten them. When the honorable member rose, in his first speech, I paid him the respect of attentive listening ; and when he sat down, though surprised, and, I must say, even astonished, at some of his opinions, nothing was farther from my intention than to commence any personal warfare : and through the whole otthe few remarks I made in answer, I avoided, studiously and carefully, every thing which 1 thought possible to be construed into disrespect. And, sir, while there is thus nothing originating here t which I wished, at any time, or now wish to discharge, I must repeat, also, that nothing has been received here which rankles, or, in any way, gives me annoyance. 1 2 will not accuse the honorable member of violating" the rules of civilized war. I will not say that he poisoned his arrows. But whether his shafts were, or were not, dipped in that which would have caused rankling, if they had reached, there was not, as it happened, quite strength enough in the bow to bring them to their mark. If he wishes now to gather up those shafts, he must look for them elsewhere : they will not be found fixed and quivering- in the object at which they were aimed. The honorable member complained that I had slept on his speech. Sir, I must have slept on it, or not slept at all. The moment the honorable member sat down, his friend from Mis- souri rose, and, with much honeyed commendation of the speech, suggested that the im- pressions which it had produced were too charming and delightful to be disturbed by other sentiments, or other sounds, and proposed that the Senate should adjourn. Would it have been quite amiable in me, sir, to interrupt this excellent good feeling ? Must I not have been absolutely malicious, if I could have thrust myself forward, to destroy sensations thus pleasing ? Was it not much better and kinder, both to sleep upon them mvself, and to al- low others, also, the pleasure of sleeping upon them ? But if it be meant, by sleeping upon his speech, that I took time to prepare a reply to it, it is quite a mistake : owing- to other engagements, I could not employ even the interval, between the adjournment of the Senate, and its meeting the next morning, in attention to the subject of this debate. Nevertheless, sir, the mere matter of fact is undoubtedly true — I did sleep on the gentleman's speech, and slept soundly ; and I slept equally well on his speech of yesterday, to which I am now re- plying. It is quite possible that, in this respect, also, I possess some advantage over the honorable member, attributable, doubtless, to a cooler temperament on my part : fer, in truth,! slept upon his speeches remarkably well. But the gentleman inquires why he was made the object of such a reply ? Why was he singled out } If an attack had been made on the East, he, he assures us, did not begin it — it was the gentleman from Missouri. Sir, I answered the gentleman's speech, because I happened to hear it ; and because, also, I chose to give an answer to that speech, which, if unanswered, I thought most likely to pro- duce injurious impressions. 1 did not stop to inquire who was the original drawer of the bill. I found a responsible endorser before me, and it was my purpose to hold him liable,and to bring him to his just responsibility, without delay. But, sir, this interrogatory of the hon- orable member was only introductory to another. He proceeded to ask me, whether I had turned upon him, in this debate, from the consciousness that I should find an over-match, if I ventured on a contest with his friend from Missouri. If, sir, the honorable member, ex gratia modeslise, had chosen thus to defer to his friend, and to pay him a compliment, with- out intentional disparagement to others, it would have been quite according to the friendly courtesies of debate, and not at all ungrateful to my own feelings. I am not one of those, sir, who esteem any tribute of regard, whether light and occasional, or more serious and deli- berate, which may be bestowed on others,as so much unjustly withholden from themselves. But the tone and manner of the gentleman's question, forbid me that I thus Interpret it. I am not at liberty to consider it as nothing more than a civility to his friend. It had an air of taunt and disparagement, a little of the loftiness of asserted superiority, which does not al- low me to pass it over v\ ithout notice. It was put as a question for me to answer, and so put, as if it were difficult for me to answer, whether I deemed the member from Missouri an over-match for myself, in debate here. It seems to me, sir, that this is extraordinary lan- guage, and an extraordinary tone, for the discussions of this body. Matches and over-matches ! Those terms are more applicable elsewhere than here, and , fitter for other assemblies than this. Sir, the gentleman seems to forget where, and what, we are. This is a Senate ; a Senate of equals : of men of individual honor and personal character, and of absolute independence. We know no masters : we acknowledge no dic- tators. This is a Hall for mutual consultation and discussion ; not an arena for the exhibi- tion of champions. I offer myself, sir, as a match for no man ; I throw the challenge of de- bate at no roan's feet. But, then, sir, since the honorable member has put the question, in a manner that calls for an answer, I will give him an answer ; and I tell him, that, holding myself to be the humblest of the members here, I yet know nothing in the arm of his friend from Missou- ri, either alone, or when akled by the arm of his friend from South Carolina, that need deter, even me, from espousing whatever opinions I may choose to espouse,from debating whenever I may choose to debate, or from speaking whatever I may see fit to say, on the floor of the Senate. Sir, when uttered as matter of commendation or compliment, I should dissent from nothing which the honorable member might say of his friend. Still less do I put forth any preten- sions of my own. But, when put to me as matter of taunt, I throw it back, and say to the gentleman that he could possibly have said nothing less likely than such a comparison to wound my pYide of personal character. The anger of its lone rescued the remark from intentional irony, which, otherwise, probably, would have been its general acceptation. But, sir, if it be imagined that, by this mutual quotation and commendation ; if it be supposed that, by casting the characters of the drama, assigning to each his part: to one the attaek ; to another the cry of onset; or, if it In- thought that by a loud and empty vaunt of anticipated victory, anv laurels are to be won here ; if it he imagined, especially, that any, or all these things will shake any purpose of mine, I can tell the honorable member, once for all, that he is greatly mistaken, and that he is dealing with one of whose temper and character lie has yet much to learn. Sir, I shall not allow myself, on this occasion, I hope on no occasion, to be betrayed into any loss of temper ; but, if provoked, as I trust I never shall be, into crimination and recrimination, the honorable member may, perhaps, find, that, in that con- test, there will be blows to take as well as blow s to rive | that others can state comparisons as significant, at least, as his own, and that his impunity may, perhaps, demand of him what- ever powers of taunt and sarcasm he may possess. I commend him to a prudent husbandry of his resources. But, sir, the Coalition ! The Coalition ! Ave, " the murdered Coalition!" The gentle- man asks, if I were led, or frighted, into this debate by the spectre of the Coalition — '* was it the ghost of the murdered Coalition," he exclaims, M which haunted the member from Mas- sachusetts ; and which, like the ghost of Banquo, would never down } " " The murdered Coalition!" Sir, this charge of a coalition, in reference to the late Administration, is not original with the honorable member. It did not spring up in the Senate. Whether as a fact, as an argument, or as an embellishment, it is all borrowed. He adopts it, indeed, from a very low origin, and a still lower present condition. It is one of the thousand calumnies with which the press teemed, during an excited political canvass. It was a charge, of which there was not only no proof or probability, but which was, in itself, wholly impossible to be true. No man of common information ever believed a syllable of it. Yet it was of that class of falsehoods, which, by continued repetition, through all the organs of detraction and abuse, are capable of misleading those who are already far misled, and of further fanning passions, already kindling into flame. Doubtless, it served in its day, and, in greater or less degree, the end designed by it. Having done that, it has sunk into the general mass of stale and loathed calumnies. It is the very cast-oft* slough of a polluted and shameless press. Incapable of further mischief, it lies in the sewer, lifeless and despised. It is not now, sir, in the power of the honorable member to give it dignity or decency, by attempting to elevate it, and to introduce it into the Senate. He cannot change it from what it is, an ob- ject of general disgust and scorn. On the contrary, the contact, if he choose to touch it, is more likely to drag him down, down, to the place where it lies itself. But, sir, the honorable member was not, for other reasons, entirely happy in his allusion to the story of Banquo's murder, and Banquo's ghost. It was not, I think, the friends, but the enemies of the murdered Banquo, at whose bidding his spirit would not down. The honorable gentleman is fresh in his reading of the English classics, and can put me right, if I am wrong ; but, according to my poor recollection, it was at those who had begun with caresses, and ended with foul and treacherous murder, that the gory locks were shaken! The ghost of Banquo, like that of Hamlet, was an honest ghost. It disturbed no innocent man. It knew where its appearance would strike terror, and who would cry out, a ghost ! it made itself visible in the right quarter, and compelled the guilty, and the conscience- smitten, and none others, to start, with, " Pr'ythee, see there ! behold !— look ! lo "If I stand here, I saw him !" Their eye balls were seared (was it not so, sir ?) who had thought to shield themselves, by concealing their own hand, and laying the imputation of the crime on a low and hireling agency in wickedness ; who had vainly attempted to stifle the workings of their own cow- ard consciences, by ejaculating through white lips and chattering teeth, "thou canst not say I did it !" I have misread the great poet, if it was those who had no way partaken in the deed of the death, who either found that they were, or J eared ifuit they should be, pushed from their stools by the ghost of the slain, or who exclaimed, to a spectre created by their own fears, and their own remorse, " avaunt ! and quit our sight !" There is another particular, sir, in which the honorable member's quick perception of re- semblances might, I should think, have seen something in the story of Banquo, making it not aPogether a subject of the most pleasant contemplation. Those who murdered Ban- quo, what did they win by it ? Substantial good ? Permanent power } Or disappointment rather, and sore mortification dust and ashes — the common fate of vaulting ambition, over- leaping itself ? Did not even-handed justice ere long commend the poisoned chalice to their own lips > Did they not soon find that for another they had " filed their mind ?" that their ambition, though apparently for the moment successful, had but put a barren sceptre in their grasp ? Aye, sir, "A barren sceptre in their gripe, " Thence tu be -crenched by an unlhu al hand, " .Vo tin nj t/urir't succeeding." Sir, I need pursue the allusion no farther. I leave the honorable gentleman to run it out at his leisure, and to derive from it all the gratification it is calculated to administer. If he finds himself pleased with the associations, and prepared to be quite satisfied, though the parallel should be entirely completed, I had almost said 1 am satisfied, also — but that I shall think of. Yes, sir, I will think of that. In the course of my observations, the other day, Mr. President, 1 paid a passing tribute of respect to a very worthy man, Mr. Dane, of Massachusetts. It so happened that he drew the ordinance of 1787, for the government of the Northwestern Territory. A man of so much ability, and so little pretence ; of so great a capacity to do good, and so unmixed a disposition to do it, for its own sake ; a gentleman who acted an important part, forty years ago, in a measure, the influence of which is still deeply felt in the very ^matter which was the subject of debate, might, I thought, receive from me a commendatory recognition. But the honorable member was inclined to be facetious on the subject. lie was rather disposed to make it matter of ridicule, that I had introduced into the debate the name of one Nuthan Dane, of whom, he assures us, he had never before heard. Sir, if the honorable member had never before heard of Mr. Dane, I am sorry for it It shows him less acquainted VTERY 4 with the public men of the country, than I had supposed. Let 'me tell him, however, that a sneer from him, at the mention of the name of Mr. Dane, is in bad taste. It may well be a high mark of ambition, sir, either with the honorable gentleman, or myself, to accomplish as much to make our names known to advantage, and remembered with gratitude, as Mr. Dane has accomplished. But the truth is, sir, T suspect that Mr. Dane lives a little too far North, lie is of Massachusetts, and too near the North star, to be reached by the honorable gen- tleman's telescope. If his sphere had happened to range South of Mason's and Dixon's line, he might, probably, have come within the scope of his vision ! I spoke, sir, of the ordinance of 1787, which prohibited slavery, in all future times, North- west of the Ohio, as a measure of great wisdom and foresight; and one which had been attend- ed with highly beneficialand permanent consequences. I supposed, that, on this point, no two gentlemen in the Senate could entertain different opinions. But, the simple expression of this sentiment has led the gentleman, not only into a labored defence of slavery, in the ab- stract, and on principle, but, also, into a warm accusation against me, as having attacked the system of domestic slavery, now existing in the Southern States. For all this, there was not the slightest foundation, in any thing said or intimated by me. I did not utter a single word, which any ingenuity could torture into an attack on the slavery of the South. I said, only, that it was highly wise and useful in legislating for the northwestern country, while it was yet a wilderness, to prohibit the introduction of slaves : and added, that, I presumed, in the neighboring State of Kentucky, there w r as no reflecting and intelligent gentleman, who would doubt, that if the same prohibition had been extended, at the same early period, over that commonwealth, her strength and population would, at this day, have been far greater than they are. If these opinions be thought doubtful, they are, nevertheless, I trust, neither extraordinary nor disrespectful. They attack nobody, and menace nobody. And yet, sir, the gentleman's optics have discovered, even in the mere expression of this sentiment, what he. calls the very spirit of the Missouri question ! He represents me as making an onset on the whole South, and manifesting a spirit which would interfere with, and disturb their domestic condition ! Sir, this injustice no otherwise surprises me, than as it is done here, and done without the slightest pretence of ground for it. I say it only surprises me, as being done here : for I know, full well, that it is, and has been, the settled policy of some per- sons in the South, for years, to represent the people of the North as disposed to interfere with them, in their own exclusive and peculiar concerns. This is a delicate and sensitive point, in southern feeling ; and, of late years, it has always been touched, and generally with effect, -whenever the object has been to unite the whole South against northern men, or northern measures. This feeling, always carefully kept alive, and maintained at too in- tense a heat to admit discrimination or reflection, is a lever of great power in our political machine. It moves vast bodies, and gives to them one and the same direction. But the feeling i.-s without all adequate cause, and the suspicion which exists wholly groundless. There is not, and never has been, a disposition in the North to interfere with these interests of the South. Such interference has never been supposed to be within the power of Government; nor has it been, in any way, attempted. It lias always been regarded as a mat- ter of domestic policy, left with the States themselves, and with which the Federal Govern- ment had nothing to do. Certainly, sir, I am, and ever have been of that opinion. The gentleman, indeed, argues that slavery, in the abstract, is no evil. Most assuredly, I need not say I differ with him, altogether and most widely, on that point. I regard domestic slavery as one of the greatest of evils, both moral and political. But, though it be a malady, and whether it be curable, and if so, by what means ; or, on the other hand, whether it be the vubius immedicabile of the social system, I leave it to those whose right and duty it is to inquire and to decide. And this I believe, sir, is, and uniformly has been, the sentiment of the North . Let us look a little at the history of this matter. When the present Constitution was submitted for the ratification of the People, there were those who imagined that the powers of the Government which it proposed to establish, might, perhaps, in some possible mode, be exerted in measures tending to the abolition of slavery. This suggestion would, of course, attract much attention in the Southern Conven- tions. In that of Virginia, Governor Randolph said : 11 1 hope there is none here, who, considering the subject in the calm light of philosophy, "will make an objection dishonorable to Virginia — that at the moment they are securing " the rights of their citizens, an objection is started, that there is a spark of hope, that those " unfortunate men now held in bondage, may, by the operation of the General Government, " be made free." At the very first Congress, petitions on the subject were presented, if I mistake not, from several States. The Pennsylvania Society for promoting the Abolition of Slavery, took a lead, and laid before Congress a memorial, praying Congress to promote the aboli- tion by such powers as it possessed. This memorial was referred, in the House of Repre- sentatives, to a Select Committee, consisting of Mr. Foster, of New Hampshire, Mr. Ger- ry, of Massachusetts, Mr. Huntington, of Connecticut, Mr. Lawrence, of New York, Mr. Sinnickson, of New Jersey, Mr. Hartley, of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Parker, of Virginia — all of them, sir, as you will observe, Northern men, but the last. This Committee made a report, which was committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and there considered and discussed on several days ; and being amended, although in no material respect, it was made to express three distinct propositions, on the subjects of Slavery and the Slave Trade. First, in the words of the Constitution j that Congress could not, prior to the year 1803, prohibit the migration or importation of such persons as any of the Stales, then existing, should think proper to "admit. Second, that Congress had authority to restrain the citizens of the United States from earning on the African Slave Trade, for the purpose of supply- ing foreign countries. On this proposition, dur early law * against those who engage in that traffic are founded. The third proposition, and that which bears gn the present ques- tion, w as expressed in the following terms : '< Resolved, That Congress have no authority to interfere in the emancipation of slaves, or "in the treatment of them, in any of the States ; it remaining with the several States, alone, "to provide rules and regulations therein, which humanity and true policy may require." This resolution received the sanction of the House of Representatives so early as March, 1790. And now, sir, the honorable member will allow me to remind him, that not only were the Select Committee who reported the resolution, with a single exception, all Northern men, but also that of the members then composing the House of Representatives, a large majority, I believe nearly two-thirds, were Northern men also. The House agreed to insert these resolutions in its journal ; and from tluit day to this, it has never been maintained or contended, that Congress had any authority to regulate, or interfere with, the condition of slaves, in the several States. No Northern gentleman, to my knowledge, has moved any such question in either House of Congress. The fears of the South, whatever fears they might have entertained, were allayed and quieted by this early decision; and so remained, till they were excited afresh, without cause, but for collateral and indirect purposes. When it becomes necessary, or was thought so, by some political persons, to find an unvarying ground for the exclusion of Northern men from confidence and from lead in the affairs of the Republic, then, and not till then, the cry was raised, and the feeling industriously excited, that the influence of Northern men in the public councils, would endanger the relation of master and slave. For myself, 1 claim no other merit, than that this gross and enormous injustice towards the whole North, has not wrought upon me to change mv opinions, or my political conduct. I hope I am above violating my principles, even under the smart of injury and false imputations. Unjust suspicions and undeserved reproach, whatever pain I may experience from them, will not induce me, I trust, nevertheless, to overstep the limits of constitutional duty, or to encroach on the rights of others. The domestic slavery of the South I leave where I find it — in the hands of their own Governments. It is their affair, not mine. Nor do I complain of the peculiar effect which the magnitude of that population has had in the distribution of power, under this Federal Government. We know, sir, that the representation of the States in the otl.-jr House is not equal. We know that great advantage, in that respect, is enjoyed by the slave-holding- States; and we know, too, that the intended equivalent for that advan- tage, that is to say, the imposition of direct taxes in the same ratio, has become merely nominal ; the habit of the Government being almost invariably to collect its revenues from other sources, arid in other modes. Nevertheless, I do not complain : nor would I coun- tenance any movement to alter this arrangement of representation. It is the original bar- gain— the compact— let it standi let the advantage of it be fully enjoyed. The Union itself is too full of benefit to be hazarded in propositions for changing its original basis. I go {or the Constitution as it is, and for the Union as it is. But I am resolved not to submit, in silence, to accusations, either against myself individually, or against the North, wholly unfounded and unjust : accusations which impute to us a disposition to evade the constitu- tional compact, and to extend the power of the Government over the internal laws and domestic condition of the States. All such accusations, w herever and whenever made— all insinuations of the existence of any such purposes, I know, and feel, to be groundless and injurious. And we must confide in Southern gentlemen themselves ; we must trust to those whose integrity of heart and magnanimity of feeling will lead them to a desire to maintain and disseminate truth, and who possess the means of its diffusion with the South- , em public ; we must leave it to them to disabuse that public of its prejudices. But, ih the ' mean time, for my own part, I shall continue to act justly, whether those towards whom justice is exercised receive it with candor or with contumely. Having had occasion to recur to the ordinance of 1787, in" order to defend myself against the inferences which the honorable member has chosen to draw from my former observa- tions on that subject, I am not willing, now, entirely to take leave of it, without another remark. 4t need hardly be said, that that paper expresses just sentiments on the great subject of civil and religious liberty. Such sentiments were common, and abound in all our state papers of that day. Rut this ordinance did that which w as not so common, and which is not, even now, universal ; that is, it set forth and declared, as a kigk and binding duty nf Government tit clj\ the obligation to encourage schools, and advance the means of educa- tion ; on the plain reason, that religion, morality, and know ledge, are necessary to good go- vernment, and to the happiness of mankind. One observation further. The important provi- sion incorporated into the Constitution of the United States, and seviral of those of the States, and recently, as we have seen, adopted into the reformed Constitution of Virginia, restraining legislative power, in questions of private right, and from impairing the obliga- tion of contracts, is first introduced and established, as far as I am informed, as matter of express written constitutional law, in this ordinance of 1787. And 1 must add, also, in regard to the author of the ordinance, who has not had the happiness to attract the gentle- man's notice^heretofore, nor to avoid his sarcasm now, that he was Chairman of that Select Committee of the old Congress, w hose report first expressed the strong sense of that body, 6 that the old Confederation was not adequate to the exigencies of the country, and recom- mending to the States to send Delegates to the Convention which formed the present Con- stitution. — Note 1. An attempt has been made to transfer, from the North to the South, the honor of thio- exclusion of slavery from the Northwestern territory. The journal, without argument or comment, refutes such attempt. The cession by Virginia was made, March, 1784. On the 19th of April following, a committee, consisting of Messrs. Jefferson, Chase, and Howell, reported a plan for a temporary government of the territory, in which was this article : *« That, after the year 1800, there shall be neither slavery, nor involuntary servitude in any " of the said States, otherwise than in punishment of crimes, whereof the party shaO have " been convicted." Mr. Spaight, of North Carolina, moved to strike out this paragraph . The question was put, according to the form then practised . " Shall these words stand, as ** part of the plan," &c. New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania — seven States, voted in the affirmative. Maryland.* Virginia, and South Carolina, in the negative. North Carolina was divided. As the con- 1 sent of nine States was necessary, the words could not stand, and were struck out accord- ingly. Mr. Jefferson voted for the clause, but was overruled by his colleagues. In March of the next year, (1785.) Mr. King, of Massachusetts, seconded by Mr. Ellery, of Rhode Island, proposed the formerly rejected article, with this addition — "And that this regulation shall be an article of compact, and remain a fundamental principle of the Constitu- tions between the thirteen original Slates, and each of the Slates described in thi Resolve" &c On this clause, which provided the adequate and thorough security, the eight Northern States at that time voted affirmatively, and the four Southern States negatively. The votes of nine States were not yet obtained, and thus, the provision was again rejected by the Southern States. The perseverance of the North held out, and two years afterwards the object was attained. It is no derogation from the credit, whatever that may be, of drawing the ordinance, that its principles had before been prepared and discussed, in the form of Resolutions. If one should reason in that way, what would become of the distinguished honor of the Author of the Declaration of Independence I There is not a sentiment in that paper which had not been voted and resolved in the assemblies, and other popular bodies in the country, over and over again. But the honorable member has now found out that this gentleman (Mr. Dane) was a member of the Hartford Convention. However uninformed the honorable member may be of characters and occurrences at the North, it would seem that he has at his elbow, on, this occasion, some high-minded and lofty spirit, some magnanimous and true-hearted moni- tor, possessing the means of local knowledge, and ready to supply the honorable member with every thing, down even to forgotten and moth-eaten two-penny pamphlets, which may be used to the disadvantage of his own country. But, as to the Hartford Convention, siiv allow me to say, that the proceedings of that body seem, now, to be less read and studied in New England, than farther South. They appear to be looked to, not in New England,, but elsewhere, for the purpose of seeing how far they may serve as a precedent. But they will not answer the purpose — they are quite too tame. Ifie latitude in which they origi- nated was too cold. Other conventions, of more recent existence, have gone a whole bar's, length beyond it. The learned doctors of Colleton and Abbeville have pushed their com- mentaries on the Hartford Collect so far, that the original text-writers are thrown entirely into the shade. I have nothing to do, sir, with the Hartford Convention. Its Journal, which* the gentleman has quoted, I never read. So far as the honorable member may discover iri its proceedings a spirit, in any degree resembling that which was avowed and justified in these other Conventions to which I have alluded, or so far as those proceedings can be shown to be disloyal to the Constitution, or tending to disunion, so far I shall be as ready as, any one to bestow on them reprehension and censure. Having dwelt long on this Convention, and other occurrences of that day, in the hope, probably, (which will not be gratified) that I should leave the course of this debate to follow him, at length, in those excursions, the honorable member returned, and attempted another object. He referred to a speech of mine, in the other House, the same which I had occasion to allude to myself the other day ; and has quoted a passage or two from it, with a bold, though uneasy and laboring air of confidence, as if he had detected in me an inconsistency. Judging from the gentleman's manner, a stranger to the course of the debate, and to the point in discussion, would have imagined, from so triumphant a tone, that the honorable mem- ber was about to overwhelm me with a manifest contradiction. 'Any one who heard him, and who had not heard what I had, in fact, previously ,said, must have thought me routed and discomfited, as the gentleman had promised. Sir, a breath blows all this triumph away. There is not the slightest difference in the sentiments of my remarks on the two occasions. What I said here on Wednesday, is in exact accordance with the opinions expressed by me in the other House in 1825. Though the gentleman had the metaphysics of Hudibras— though he were able « To sever and divide "A hair 'twixt North and Northwest side, 1 ' he yet could not insert his metaphysical scissors between the fair reading of my remarks in 1825, and what I said here last week. There is not only no contradiction, no difter«jice, but, in truth, too exact a similarity, both in thought and language, to be entirely in ju*t taste. I had myself quoted the same speech ; had recurred to it, and spoke with it open before me ; and much oi what I said was little more than a repetition from it. In order to make finish- 7 mg work with this alleged contradiction, permit me to recur to the origin of this debate, and review its course. This seems expedient, and may be done as well now as at any time. Well, then, its history is this : The honorable member from Connecticut, moved a resolu- tion, which constitutes the ftfst branch of that which is now before us ; that is to say, a reso- lution, instructing the Committee on Public Lands to inquire into the expediency of limiting-, for a certain period, the sales of the public lands, to such as have heretofore been offered for sale ; and whether sundry offices, connected with the sales of the lands, might not be abolished, without detriment to the public service. In the progress of the discussion which arose on this resolution, «n honorable member from New Hampshire moved to amend the resolution, so as entirely to reverse its object ; that is, to strike it all out, and insert a direction to the committee to inquire into the expediency of adopting measures to hasten the sales, and extend more rapidly the surveys of the lands. The honorable member from Maine, [Mr. Sprarue,] suggested that both those proposi- tions might well enough go, for conside-ation to the committee ; and in this state of the ques- tion the member from South Carolina addressed the Senate in his first speech. Fie rose, he said, to give us his own free thought on the public lands. I saw him rise, with pleasure, and listened with expectation, though before he concluded, I was filled with surprise. Cer- tainly, I was never more surprised, than to find him following up, to the extent he did, the sentiments and opinions, which the gentleman from Missouri had put forth, and which it is known he has long entertained. I need not repeat at large the general topics of the honorable gentleman's speech. When he said, yesterday, that he did not attack the Eastern States, he certainly must have forgotten not only particular remarks, but the whole drift and tenor of his speech ; unless he means, by not attacking, that he did not commence hostilities — but that another had preceded him in the attack. He, in the first place, disapproved of the whole course of the Government, for forty years, in regard to its dispositions of the public land ; and then turning northward and eastward, and fancying he had found a cause for alleged narrowness and niggardliness in the '* accursed policy" of the Tariff, to which he represented the people of New England as wedded, he went on, for a full hour, with remarks, the whole scope of which was to exhibit the results of this policy, in feelings and in measures unfavorable to the West. I thought his opinions unfounded and erroneous, as to the general course of the Government, and ven- tured to reply to them. The gentleman had remarked on the analogy of other cases, and quoted the conduct of European Governments, towards their own subjects, settling on this continent, as in point, to show, that we had been harsh and rigid in selling, when we should have given the public lands to settlers. I thpught the honorable member had suffered his judgment to be betrayed by a false analogy ; that he was struck with an appearance of resemblance, where there was no real similitude. I think so still. The first settlers of North America were enterprising spirits, engaged in private adventure, or fleeing from tyranny at home. When arrived here, they were forgotten by the mother country, or remembered only to be oppressed. Car- ried away again by the appearance of analogy, or struck with the eloquence of the passage, the honorable member yesterday observed, that the conduct of Government towards the Western emigrants, or my representation of it, brought to his mind a celebrated speech in the British Parliament. It was, sir, the speech of Col. Barre. On the question of the stamp act, or tea tax, I forget which, Col. Barre had heard a member on the Treasury Bench argue, that the people of the United States, being British colonists, planted by the maternal care, nourished by the indulgence, and protected by the arms of England, would not grudge their mite to relieve the mother country from the heavy burden under which she groaned. The language of Col. Barre, in reply to this, was — They planted by your care ! Your op- pression planted them in America. They ffed from your tyranny, and grew by your neglect of them. So soon as you began to care for them, you showed your care by sending persons to spy out their liberties, misrepresent their character, prey upon them, and eat out their substance. And now does the honorable gentleman mean to maintain, that language like this, is appli- cable to the conduct of the Government of the United States towards the Western emi- grants, or to any representation given by me of that conduct ? Were the settlers in the West driven thither by our oppression } Have they flourished only by our neglect of them ? Has the Government done nothing but to prey upon them, and cat out their substance I Sir, this fervid eloquence of the British speaker, just, when and where it was uttered, and fit to re- main an exercise for the schools, is not a little out of place, when it is brought thence to be applied l»ere, to the conduct of our own country towards her own citizens. From America to England, it may be true ; from Americans to their own Government it would be strange language. Let us leave it, to be recited and declaimed by our boys, against a foreign nation; not introduce it here, to recite and declaim ourselves against our own. Btlt I come to the point of the alleged contradiction. In my remarks on Wednesday, I con- tended that we could not give away gratuitously all the public lands ; that we held them in t rust ; that the Government had solemnly pledged itself to dispose of them as a common fund for thejeommon benefit, and to sell and settle them as its discretion should dictate. Now, sir, what contradiction does the gentleman find to this sentiment, in the speech of 1825 } He quotes me as having then said, that we ought not to hug these lands as a very great treasure. Very well, sir, supposing me to be accurately reported, in that expression, what is the contradic- tion 1 I have not now said that wc should hug these lands as a favorite source of pecuniary 8 income. No such thing, li is not my view. What I have said, and what I do say, is, thaf they are a common fund — to be disposed of for the common benefit— to be sold at low prices for the accommodation of settlers, keeping- the object of settling- the lands as much in view, as that of raising nv>ney from them. This I say now, and this I have always said. Is this hugging them as a favorite treasure ? Is there no difference between hugging and hoarding this fund, on the one hand, as a great treasure, and on the other, of disposing of it at low prices, placing the proceeds in the general treasury of the Union ? My opinion is, that as much is to be made of the land, as fairly and reasonably may be, selling it all the while at such rates as to give the fullest effect to settlement. This is not giving it all away to the States, as the gentleman would propose ; nor is it hugging the fund closely and tenaciously, as a favorite treasure ; but it is, in my judgment, a just and wise policy, perfectly according with all the various duties which rest on Government. So much for my contradiction. And what is it ? Where is the ground of the gentleman's triumph ? What inconsistency, in word or doctrine, has he been able to detect ? Sir, if this be a sample of that discomfiture, with which the honorable gentleman threatened me, commend me to the word discomfiture for the rest of my life. But, after all, this is not the point of debate ; and I must now bring the gentleman back to that which is the point. The real question between me and him is, where has the doctrine been advanced, at the South or the East, that the population of the West should be retarded, or at least need not be hastened, on account of its effect to drain off the people from the Atlantic States ? Is this doctrine, as has been alleged, of Eastern origin ? That is the question. Has the gentleman found any thing, by which he can make good his accusation ? I submit to the Senate, that he has entirely failed ; and as far as this debate has shown, the only person who has advanced such sentiments, is a gentleman from South Carolina, and a friend to the honorable member himself. The honorable gentleman has given no answer to this ; there is none which can be given. The simple fact, while it requires no comment to enforce it, defies all.argument to refute it. 1 could refer to the speeches of another Southern gentleman, in years before, of the same general character, and to the same effect, as that which has been quoted ; but I will not consume the time of the Senate by the reading of them. So then, sir, New England is guiltless of the policy of retarding Western population, and of all envy and jealousy of the growth of the new States. Whatever there be of that policy in the country, no part of it is her's. If it has a local habitation, the honorable member has probably seen, by this time, where he is to look for it ; and if it now has received a name, he has himself christened it. We approach, at length, sir, to a more important part of the honorable gentleman's obser- vation. Since it does not accord with my views of justice and policy to give away the public lands altogether, as mere matter of gratuity, I am asked by the honorable gentleman on what ground it is, that I consent to vote them away, in particular instances ? How, he inquires, do I reconcile with these professed sentiments, my support of measures appropriating portions of the lands to particular roads, particular canals, particular improvements of rivers, and parti- cular institutions of education in the West ? This leads, sir, to the real and wide difference, in political opinion, between the honorable gentleman and myself. On my part, I look upon all these objects, as connected with the common good, fairly embraced in its object and its terms ; he, on the contrary, deems them all, if good at all, only local good. This is our difference. The interrogatory which he proceeded to put, at once explains this difference. "What interest,'' asks he, " has South Carolina in a canal in Ohio ?" Sir, this very question is full of signifi- cance. It developes the gentleman's whole political system ; and its answer expounds mine. Here we differ, iota ccelo. I look upon a road over the Allegany, a canal round the Falls of the Ohio, or a canal or rail-way from the Atlantic to the Western waters, as being objects large and extensive enough to be fairly said to be for the common benefit. The g-entleman thinks otherwise, and this is the key to open his construction of the powers of the Govern- ment. He may well ask, upon his system, what interest has South Carolina in a canal in Ohio ? On that system, it is true, she has no interest. On that system, Ohio and Carolina are different Governments, and different countries, connected here, it is true, by some slight and ill-defined bond of union, but, in all main respects, separate and divers^. On that system, Carolina has no more interest in a canal in Ohio than in Mexico. The gentleman, therefore, only follows out his own principles ; he does no more than arrive at the natural conclusions of his own doctrines ; he only announces the true results of that creed, which he has adopt- ed himself, and would persuade others to adopt, when he thus declares that South Carolina has no interest in a public work in Ohio. Sir, we harrow-minded people of New Epgland do not reason thus. Our notion of things is entirely different. We look upon the States, not as separated, but as united. We love to dwell on that Union, and on the mutual happiness which it has so much promoted, and the common renown which it has so greatly contributed to acquire. In our contemplation, Carolina and Ohio are parts of the same country ; States, united under the same General Government, having interests, common, associated, inter- mingled. In whatever is within the proper sphere of the constitutional power of this Go- vernment, we look upon the Slates as one. We do not impose geographical limifs to our patriotic feeling or regard ; we do not follow rivers and mountains, and lines of latitude, to find bound uies, beyond which public improvements do not benefit us. We who come here, as agents and representatives of these narrow-minded and selfish men of New England, con- sider ourselves as bound to regard, with equal eye, the good of the whole, in whatever is 9 within the Journals, who expressed respect, gratitude, and regret, when he retired from the Chief Magistracy ; and who refused to express either respect, gratitude, or regret. I shall not open those Journals. Publications more abusive or scurrilous never saw the light, than were sent forth against Washington, and all his leading measures, from presses South of New England. But I shall not look them up. I employ no scavengers — no one is in attendance on me, tendering such means of retaliation ; and, if there were, with an ass's load of them, with a bulk as huge as that which the gentleman himself has produced, I would not touch one of them. I see enough of the violence of our own times, to be no way anxious to rescue from forgetfulness the extravagancies of times past. Besides, what is all this to the present purpose } It has nothing to do with the public lands, in regard to which the attack was begun ; and it has nothing to do with those sentiments and opinions, which, I have thought, tend to disunion, and all of which the honorable member seems to have adopted himself, and undertaken to defend. New England has, at times, so argues the gentleman, held opinions as dangerous, as thoce which he now holds. Suppose this were so ; why should he, therefore, abuse New England ? If he finds himself countenanced by acts of hers, how is it that, while he relies on these acts, he covers, or seeks to cover, their authors with reproach } But, sir, if, in the course of forty years, there have been undue effervescences of party in New England, has the same thing happened no where else ? Party animosity and party outrage, not in New England, but elsewhere, denounced President Washington, not only as a Federalist, but as a Tory, a British agent, a man, who, in his high ofhee, sanc- tioned corruption. But does the honorable member suppose, that, if 1 had a tender here, who should put such an effusion of wickedness and folly in my hand, that I would stand up and read it against the South ? Parties ran into great heats, again, in 1799 and 1800. What was said, sir, or rather what was not said, in those years, against John Adams, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and its admitted ablest defender on the floor of' Congress ? If the gentleman wishes to increase his stores of party abuse and frothy vio- lence ; if he has a determined proclivity to such pursuits, there are treasures of that sort South of the Potomac, much to his taste, yet untouched — I shall not touch them. The parties which divided the country at the commencement of the late war, were violent. But, then, there was violence on both sides, and violence iji every State. Minorities and ma- jorities were equally violent. There was no more violence against the war in New England, tha:i in other States ; nor any more appearance of violence, except that, owing to a dense population, greater facility of assembling, and more presses, there may have been more in quantity, spoken and printed there, than in some other places* In the article of sermons, too, New England is somewhat more abundant than South Carolina ; and, for that reason, the chance of finding here and there an exceptionable one, may be greater. I hope, too, there are more good ones. Opposition may have been more formidable in New England, as it embraced a larger portion of the whole population ; but it was no more unrestrained in its principles, or violent in manner. The minorities dealt quite as harshly with their own State Governments, as the majorities dealt with the Administration here There were 17 presses on both sides, popular meetings on both sides, aye, and pulpits on both sides, also. The gentleman's purveyors have only catered for him among the productions of one side. I certainly shall not supply the deficiency by furnishing samples of the other. I leave to him, and to them, the whole concern. It is enough for me to say, that if, in any part of this, their grateful occupation ; if, in all their researches, they find any thing in the history of Massachusetts, or New England, or in the proceedings of any legislature, or other public body, disloyal to the Union, speaking slightly of its value, proposing to break it up, or recommending non intercourse with neigh- boring States, on account of difference of political opinion, then, sir, I give them all up to the honorable gentleman's unrestrained rebuke ; expecting, however, that he will extend his bufletings, in like manner, to all similar proceedings, wherever else found. The gentleman, sir, has spoken, at large, of former parties, now no longer in being, by their received appellations, and has undertaken to instruct us, not only in the knowledge of their principles, but of their respective pedigrees, also. He has ascended to the origin, and run out their genealogies. With most exemplary, modesty, he jpeaks of the party to which he professes to have belonged himself, as the true Pure, the only honest, patriotic party, de- rived by regular descent, from father to son, from the time of the virtuous Romans ! Spread- ing before us the family tree of political parties, he takes especial care to show himself, snug- ly percbed on a popular bough ! He is wakeful to the expediency of adopting such rules of descent, as shall bring him in, in exclusion of others, as an heir to the iaheritance of all pub- lic virtue, and all true political principles. His party, and his opinions, are sure to be ortho- dox ; heterodoxy is confined to his opponents. He spoke, sir, of the Federalists, and I thought I saw some eyes begin to open and stare a little, when he ventured on that ground. I expected he would draw his sketches rather lightly, when he looked on the circle round him, and, especially, if he should cast his thoughts to the high places, out of the Senate. Nevertheless, he went back to Rome, ad annum urbe condita, and found the fathers of the Federalists, in the primeval aristocrats of that renowned Empire ! He traced the flow of federal blood down, through successive ages and centuries, till he brought it into the veins of the American Tories, (of whom, by the way, there were twenty in the Carolinas, for one in Massachusetts.) From the Tories, he followed it to the Federalists: and, as the Federal Party was broken up, and there was no possibility of transmitting it further on this side the Atlantic, he seems to have discovered that it has gone of, collaterally, though against all the canons of descent, into the Ultras of France, and finally become extinguished, like exploded gas, among the adherents of Don Miguel ! This, sir, is an abstract of the gentleman's histo- ry of Federalism. I am not about to controvert it. It is not, at preseri, worth the pains of refutation ; because, sir, if at this day, any one feels the sin of Federalism lying heavily on his conscience, he can easily obtain remission. He may even have an indulgence, if he be desirous of repeating the same transgression. It is an affair of no difficulty to get into this same right line of patriotic descent. A man, now-a-days, is at liberty to choose fiis political parentage. He may elect his own father. Federalist, or not, he may, if he choose, claim to belong to the favored stock, and his claim will be allowed. He may carry back his preten- sions just as far as the honorable gentleman himself ; nay, he may make himself out the hon- orable gentleman's own cousin, and prove satisfactorily, thatjhe is descended from the same political great-grandfather. All this is allowable. We all know a process, sir, by which the whole Essex Junto could, in one hour, be all washed white from their ancientFederalism, and come out, every oae of them, an original Democrat, dyed in the wool ! Some of them have ac- tually undergone the operation, and they say it is quite easy. The only inconvenience it occa- sions, as tl ey tell us, is a slight tendency of the blood to the face, a soft suffusion, which, however, is very transient, since nothing is said by those whom they join, calculated to deepen the red on the cheek, but a prudent silence observed, in regard to all the past. In- deed, sir, some smiles of approbation have been bestowed, and some crumbs of comfort have fallen, not a thousand miles from the door of the Hartford Convention itself. And if the au- thor of the ordinance of 1787 possessed the other requisite qualifications, there is no know- ing, not withstanding his Federalism, to what heights of favor he might not yet attain. Mr. President, in carrying his warfare, such as it was, into New England, the honorable gentleman all along professes to be acting on the defensive. He elects to consider me as having assailed South Carolina, and insists that he comes forth only as her champion, and in her defence. Sir, I do not admit that I made any attack whatever on South Carolina. Noth- ing like it. The honorable member, in his first speech, expressed opinions, in regard to revenue, and some other topics, which I heard both with pain and witli surprise. I told the gentleman that 1 was aware that such, sentiments were entertained out of the Covernment, but had not expected to find them advanced in it i that I knew there were persons in the South who speak of our Union with indiff erence, or doubt, taking pains to magnify its evils, and to say nothing of its benefits ; that the honoiable member himself, I was sure, could never be one of these ; and 1 regretted the expression of such opinions as he had avowed, because I thought their obvious tendency was to encourage feelings of disrespect to the Union, and to weaken its connexion. This, sir, is the sum and substance of all I said on the subject. And this constitutes the attack, which called on the chivalry of the gentleman, in his opinion, to harry us with such a foray, among the party pamphlets and party proceed- ings of Massachusetts ! If he means that I spoke with dissatisfaction or disrespect of the ebullitions of individuals in South Carolina, it is true. Rut, if he means that I had assailed the character of the State, her honor, or patriotism ; that I had reflected on her history or 2 18 her conduct, he had not the slightest ground for any such assumption, i did not even refer- 1 think, in my observations, to any collection of individuals. I said nothing of the recent. Conventions. 1 spoke in the most guarded and careful manner, and only expressed my re- gret for the publication of opinions which I presumed the honorable member disapproved as much as myself. In this, it seems, I was mistaken. 1 do not remember that the gentle- man has disclaimed any sentiment, or any opinion, of a supposed anti-union tendency, which on all, or any of the recent occasions, has been expressed. The whole drift of his speech has been rather to prove, that, in divers times and manners, sentiments equally liable to my ob- jection have been promulged in New England. And one would suppose that his object, in this reference to Massachusetts, was to find a precedent to justify proceedings in the South, were it not for the reproach and contumely with which he labors, all along, to load these, his own chosen precedents. By way of defending South Carolina from what he chooses to think an attack on her, he first quotes the example of Massachusetts, and the.i denounces that ex- ample, in good set terms. This two-fold purpose, not very consistent with itself, one would think, was exhibited more than once in the course of his speech. He referred, for instance,, to the Hartford Convention. Did he do this for authority, or for a topic of reproach ? Ap- parently for both : for he tolli us that he should find no fault with the mere fact of holding such a Convention, and considering and discussing such questions as he supposes were then and there discussed ; but what rendered it obnoxious was the time in which it was holden, and the circumstances of the country, then existing. We were in a War, he said, and the country needed all cnir aid — the hand of Government required to be strengthened, not weakened — and patriotism should have postponed such proceedings to another day. The thing itself, then, is a precedent ; the time and manner of it, only, a subject of censure. Now, sir, I go much further, on this point, than the honorable member. Supposing, as the gentleman seems to, that the Hartford Convention assembled for any such purpose as breaking up the Union, be- cause they thought unconstitutional laws had been passed, or to consult on that subject, or to calculate the value of the Union supposing this to be their purpose, or any part of it, then, I say the meeting "itself was disloyal, and was obnoxious to censure, whether held in time of peace or time of war, or under whatever circumstances. The material question is the object. Is dissolution the object ? If it be, external circumstances may make it a more or less aggra- vated case, but cannot affect the principle. 1 do not hold, therefore, sir, that the Hartford Convention was pardonable, even to the extent of the gentleman's admission, if its objects were really such as have been imputed to it. Sir, there never was a time, under any degree of excitement, in which the Hartford Convention, or any other Convention, could maintain itself one moment in New England, if assembled for any such purpose as the gentleman says would have been an allowable purpose. To hold conventions to decide questions of consti- tutional law ! — to try the binding validity of statutes, by votes in a convention ! Sir, the Hartford Convention, I presume, would not desire that the honorable gentleman should be their defender or advocate, if he puts their case upon such untenable and extravagant grounds. Tl\en, sir, the gentleman has no fault to find with these recently promulgated South Carolina opinions. And, certainly, he need have none ; for his own sentiments, as now advanced, and advanced on reflection, as far as I have been able to to comprehend them, go the full length of all these opinions. I propose, sir, to say something on these, and to consider how far they are just and constitutional. Before doing that, however, let me observe, that the eulogium pronounced on the character of the State of South Carolina, by the honorable gentleman, for her Revolutionary and other merits, meets my hearty concurrence. I shall not acknowledge that the honorable member goes before me in regard for whatever of dis- tinguished talent, or distinguished character, South Carolina has produced. I claim part of the honor, I partake in the pride, of her great names. I claim them for countrymen, one and all. The Lawrences, the Rutledges, the Binckneys, the Sumpters, the Marions — Americans, all — whose fame is no more to be hemmed in by State lines, than their talents and patriotism we're capable of being circumscribed within the same narrow limits. In their day and gen- t-ration, they served and honored the country, and the whole country ; and their renown is of the treasures of the whole country. Him, whose honored name the gentleman himself bears — does he suppose me less capable of gratitude for his patriotism, or sympathy for his sufferings, than if his eyes had first opened upon the light in Massachusetts, instead of South Carolina ? Sir, does he suppose it in his power to exhibit a Carolina name, so bright, as to produce envy in my bosom ? No, sir, increased gratification and delight, rather. Sir, I thank God, that if I am gifted with little of the spirit which is able to raise mortals to the skies, I have yet none, as 1 trust, of that other spirit, which would drag angels down. When 1 shall be found, sir, in my place, here, in the Senate, or elsewhere, to sneer at public merit, because it happened to spring up beyond the little limits of my own State, or neighborhood j when I refuse, for any such cause, or for any cause, the homage due to American talent, to elevated patriotism, to sincere devotion to liberty and the country ; or if I see an uncommon endowment of heaven — if I see extraordinary capacity and virtue in any son of the South — and if, moved by local prejudice, or gangrened by State jealousy, lget up here to abate the tithe of a hair from his just character and just fame, may my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth ! Sir, let me recur to pleasing recollections — let me indulge in refreshing remembrance of the past — let me remind you that in early times no States cherished greater harmony, both of principle and feeling, than Massachusetts and South Carolina. Would to God, that bar- 19 mony might again return ! Shoulder to shoulder they went through tlic Hevolution— hand in hand they stood round the Administration of Washington, and felt his own great arm lean on them for support. Unkind feeling, if it exist, alienation and distrust, are the growth, unnatural to such soils, of false principles since sown. They are weeds, the seeds of which that same great arm never scattered • Mr. President, I shall enter on no encomiums upon Massachusetts — she needs none There *;he is — behold her and judge for yourselves. There is her history — the world knows it by heart. The past, at least, is secure. There is Boston, and Concord, and Lexington, and Banket Hill — and there they will remain forever. The hones of her sons, felling in the great struggle for Independence, now lie mingled with the soil of every State, from New England to Georgia 5 and there they will lie forever. And, sir, where American liberty raised its in- ' fant voice ; and where its youth was nurtured and sustained, there it still lives, in the strength of its manhood, and full of its original spirit. If discord and disunion shall wound it — if party strife and blind ambition shall hawk at and tear it — if folly and madness— if uneasi- ness, under salutary and necessary restraint — shall succeed to separate it from that Union, by which alone its existence is made sure, it will stand, in the end, by the side of that cradle in which its infancy was rocked ; it will stretch forth its arm, with whatever of vigor it may still retain, over the friends who may gather remind it ; and it will fall at last, if fall it must, amidst the proudest monuments of its own glory, and on the very spot of its origin. There yet remains to be performed, Mr. President, by far the most grave and important duty, which I feel to be devolved on me, by this occasion. It is to state, and to defend, what I conceive to be the true principles of the Constitution under which we are here assembled. I might well have desired that so weighty a task should have fallen into other and abler hands. I could have wished that it should have been executed by those, whose character and ex- perience give weight and influence to their opinions, such as cannot possibly belong to mine. But, sir, 1 have met the occasion, not sought it ; and I shall proceed to state my own senti- ments, without challenging for them any particular regard, with studied plainness, and as much precision as possible. I understand the honorable gentleman from South Carolina to maintain, that it is a right ot the State Legislatures, to interfere, whenever, in their judgment, this Government trans- cends its constitutional limits, and to arrest the operation of its laws. I understand him to maintain this right, as a right existing under the Constitution \ not as a right to overthrow it, on the ground of extreme necessity, such as would justify violent re- volution. I understand him to maintain an authority, on the part of the States, thus to interfere, for the purpose of correcting the exercise of power by the General Government, of checking it, and of compelling it to conform to their opinion of the extent of its powers. 1 understand him to maintain, that the ultimate power of judging of the constitutional ex- tent of its own authority, is not lodged exclusively in the General Government, or any branch of it ; but that, on the contrary, the States may lawfully decide for themselves, and each State for itself, whether, in a given case, the act of the General Government transcends its power. I understand him to insist, that if the exigency of the case, in the opinion of any State Government, require it, such State Government may, by its own sovereign authority, annul an act of the General Government, which it deems plainly and palpably unconstitutional. This is the sum of what 1 understand from him, to be the South Carolina doctrine ; and ihe doctrine which he maintains. 1 propose to consider it, and to compare it with the Con- stitution. Allow me to say, as a preliminary remark, that I call this the. South Carolina doctrine, only because the gentleman himself has so denominated it. 1 do not feel at libcrtv to say that South Carolina, as a >tate, has ever advanced these sentiments. 1 hope she has not, and never may. That a great majority of her people are opposed to the Tariff laws, is doubtless true. That a majority, somewhat less than that just mentioned, conscientiously believe those laws unconstitutional, may probably also be true. But, that any majority hold's to the right of direct State interference, at State discretion, the right of nullify ing'acts of Congress, by acts of State legislation, is more than I know, and what I shall be slow to be- lieve. That there are individuals, besides the honorable gentleman, who do maintain these opin- ions, is quite certain. 1 recollect the recent express.on of a sentiment, which circumstances attending its utterance and publication, justify us in supposing was not unpremeditated. * The sovereignty of the State — never to be controlled, construed, or decided on, but by " her own feelings of honorable justice." [Mr. IIaynk here rose, and said, that for the purpose of being clearly understood, he would state, that his proposition was in the words of the Virginia resolution, as follows \ " That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers " of the Federal Government, as resulting from the compact, to which the States are parties, M as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact, n$ " no farther valid than they are authorized by the grants enumeraled in that compact ; and M that, in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not grant- " ed by the said compact, the States who are parties thereto have the right, and are in duty " bound to interpose, for arresting the progress of the evil, and tor maintaining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and libcrtien, appertaining to them."] 20 Mr. Webst£b resumed s I am quite aware, Mr. President, of the existence of the resolution which the gentleman read, and has now repeated, and that he relies on it as his authority. I know the source, too, from which it is understood to have proceeded. I need not say that I have much re- spect for the constitutional opinions of Mr. Madison ; they would weigh greatly with me, always. But, before the authority of his opinion be vouched for the gentleman's proposi- tion, it will be proper to consider what is the fair interpretation of that resolution, to which Mr. Madison is understood to have given his sanction. As the gentleman construes it, it is an authority for him. Possibly, he may not have adopted the right construction. That reso- lution declares, that, in the case of the dangerous exercise of powers not granted, by the Gene- ral Government, the States may interpose to arrest the progress of ihe evil. But how interpose, and what does this declaration purport ? Does it mean~no more, than that there may be ex- treme cases, in which the People, in any mode of assembling, may resist usurpation, and relieve themselves from a tyrannical government ? No one will deny this. Such resistance is not only acknowledged to be just in America, but in England, also. Blackstone admits as much, in the theory, and practice, too, of the English Constitution. We, sir, who oppose the Carolina doctrine, do not deny that the People may, if they choose, throw off any go- vernment, when it become oppressive and intolerable, and erect a better in its stead. ' "We all know that civil institutions are established for the public benefit, and that when they cease to answer the ends of their existence, they may be changed. But I do not understand the doctrine now contended for to be that which, for the sake of distinctness, we may call the right of revolution. I understand the gentleman to maintain, that, without revolution, without civil commotion, without rebellion, a remedy for supposed abuse and transgression of the powers, of the General Government lies in a direct appeal to'the interference of the State Governments. [Mr. Hatxe here rose: He did not contend, he said, for the mere right of revolution, but for the right of constitutional resistance. "What he maintained, was, that, in case of plain, palpable violation of the Constitution, by the General Govern- ment, a State may interpose ; and that this interposition is constitutional.] Mr. Wf.bsteb. re- sumed : So, sir, I understood the gentleman, and am happy to find that I did not misunder- stand him. What he contends for, is, that it is constitutional to interrupt the administration of the Constitution itself, in the hands of those who are chosen and sworn to administer it, by the direct interference, in form of law, of the States, in virtue of their sovereign capacity. The inherent right in the People to reform their government, I do not deny ; and they have another right, and that is, to resist unconstitutional laws, without overturning the Government. It is no doctrine of mine, that unconstitutional laws bind the People. The great question is, whose prerogative is it to decide on the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of the laws? On that, the main debate hinges. The proposition, that, in case of a suppos- ed violation of the Constitution by Congress, the States have a constitutional right to inter- fere, and annul the law of Congress, is the proposition of the gentleman : I do not admit it. If the gentleman had intended no more than to assert the right of revolution, for justifiable cause, he would have said only what all agree to. But I cannot conceive that there can be a middle course, between submission to the laws, when regularly pronounced constitutional, on the one hand, and open resistance, which is revolution, or rebellion, on the other. I say, the right of a State to annul a law of Congress, cannot be maintained, but on the ground of the unalienable right of man to resist oppression ; that is to say, upon the ground of revo- lution. I admit that there is an ultimate violent remedy, above the Constitution, and in defi- ance of the Constitution, which may be resorted to, when a revolution is to be justified. But I do not admit that, under the Constitution, and in conformity with it, there is any mode in which a State Government, as a member of the Union, can interfere and stop the pro gress of the General Government, by force of her own laws, under any circumstances whatever. This leads us to inquire into the origin of this Government, and the source of its power. Whose agent is it ? Is it the creature of the State Legislatures, or the creature of the People ? If the Government of the United States be the agent of the State Governments, then they may control it, provided they can agree in the manner of controlling it ; if it be the agent of the People, then the People alone can control it, restrain it, modify, or reform it. It is observable enough, that the doctrine for which the honorable gentleman contends, leads him to the necessity of maintaining, not only that this General Government is the creature of the States, but that it is the creature of each of the States severally ; so that each may assert the power, for itself, of determining whether it acts within the limits of its authority. It is the servant of four and twenty masters, of different wills and different purposes, and yet bound to obey all. This absurdity (for it seems no less) arises from a misconception as to the origin of this Government and its true character. It is, sir, the People's Constitution, the People's Government ; made for the People ; made by the People : and answerable to the People. The People of the United States have declared that this Constitution shall be the Supreme Law. We must either admit the proposition, or dispute their authority. The States are, unquestionably, sovereign, so far as their sovereignty is not affected by this supreme law. But the State Legislatures, as political bodies, however sovereign, are yet not sovereign over the People. So far as the People have given power to the General Gov- ernment, so far the grant is unquestionably good, and the Government holds of the People, and not of the State Governments. We are all agents of the same supreme power, the People. The General Government and the State Governments derive their authority from the same source. Neither can, in relation to the other, be called primary, though one ia 21 definite and restricted, and the other general and residuary. The National Government possesses those powers which it can he show n the People have conferred on it, and no more. All the rest belongs to the State Governments or to the People themselves. So far as the People have restrained State sovereignty, by the expression of their will, in the Constitution of the United States, so far, it must be admitted, State sovereignty is effectually controlled. I do not contend that it is, or ought to be, controlled farther. The sentiment to which I have referred, propounds that State sovereignty is only to be controlled by its own " feeling of jus- tice ;" that is to say, it is not to be controlled at all : for one who is to follow his own feelings is under no legal control. Now, however men may think this ought to be, the fact is, that the People of the United States have chosen to impose control on State sovereignties. There are those, doubtless, who wish they had been left without restraint; but the Constitution has ordered the matter differently. To make war, for instance, is an exercise of sovereignty ; but the Constitution declares that no State shall make war. To coin money is another exer- cise of sovereign power ; but no State is at liberty to coin money. Again, the Constitution says that no sovereign State shall be so sovereign as to make a treaty. Tliese prohibitions, it must be confessed, are a control on the State sovereignty of South Carolina, as well as of the other States, which does not arise '* from her own feelings of honorable justice." Such an opinion, therefore, is in defiance of the plainest provisions of the Constitution. There are other proceedings of public bodies which have already been alluded to, and to which I refer again, for the purpose of ascertaining more fully, what is the length and breadth of that doctrine, denominated the Carolina doctrine, which the honorable member has now stood up on this floor to maintain. In one of them I find it resolved, that " the Tariff of 1828, M and ever}' other Tariff designed to promote one branch of industry at the expense of •'others, is contrary to the meaning and intention of the Federal compact; and, as such, '* a dangerous, palpable, and deliberate usurpation of power, by a determined majority, *' wielding the General Government beyond the limits of its delegated powers, as calls upon " the States which compose the suffering minority, in their sovereign capacity, to exercise M the powers which, as sovereigns, necessarily devolve upon them, when their compact " is violated." Observe, sir, that this resolution holds the Tariff of 1828, and every other Tariff, designed to promote one branch of industry at the expense of another, to be such a dangerous, pal- pable.and deliberate usurpation of power, as calls upon the States, in their sovereign capacity, to interfere by their own authority. This denunciation, Mr. President, you will please to observe, includes our old Tariff, of 1816, as well as all others ; because that was established to promote the interest of the manufactures of cotton, to the manifest and admitted injury of the Calcutta cotton trade. Observe, again, that all the qualifications are here rehearsed and charged upon the Tariff, which are necessary to bring the case within the gentleman's proposi- tion. The tariff is a usurpation ; it is a dangerous usurpation ; it is a palpable usurpation ; it is a deliberate usurpation. It is such a usurpation, therefore, as calls upon the States to exercise their right of interference. Here is a case, then, within the gentleman's principles, and all his qualifications of his principles. It is a case for action. The Constitution is plainly, dangerously, palpably, and deliberately violated ; and the States must interpose their own authority to arrest the law. Let us suppose the State of South Carolina to express this same opinion, by the voice of her Legislature. That would be very imposing ^ but what then ? Is the voice of one State conclusive ? It so happens that at the very moment when South Carolina ,-esolves that the Tariff laws are unconstitutional, Pennsylvania and Kentucky resolve exactly the reverse. 17iey hold those laws to be both highly proper and strictly constitu- tional. And now, sir, how does the honorable member propose to deal with this case ? How docs he relieve us from this difficulty, upon, any principle of his ! His construction gets us into it ; how does he propose to get us out ? In Carolina, the Tariff is a palpable, deliberate usurpation ; CaroHna therefore, may nullify it, and refuse to pay the duties. In Pennsylvania, it is both clearly constitutional, and highly expedient ; anil there, the duties are to be paid. And yet, we live under a Government of uniform laws, and under a Constitution, too, which contains an express provision, as it hap- pens, that all duties shall be equal in all the Suites I Does not this approach absurdity ? If there be no power to settle such questions, independent of either of the States, is not the whole Union a rope of sand ! Are we not thrown back again, precisely, upon the old Confederation ! It is too plain to be argued. Four and twenty interpreters of constitutional law, each with a power to decide for itself, and none with authority to bind any body else, and this con- stitutional law the only bond of their union ! What is suchja state of things, but a mere connexion during pleasure, or, to use the phraseology of the times, during feeling ? And that feeling, too, not the feeling of the People, who established the Constitution, but the feeling of the State Governments. In another of the South Carolina Addresses, having premised that the crisis requires all the concentrated energy of passion," an attitude of open resistance to the laws of the Union is advised. Open resistance to the laws, then, is the constitutional remedy, the conservative power of the State, which the South Carolina doctrines teach for the redress of political evils, real or imaginary. And its authors further say, that appealing with confidence to the Constitution itself, to justify their opinions, they cannot consent to try their accuracy by the Courts of Justice. In one sense, indeed, sir, this is assuming an attitude of open resistance in favor of liberty. But what sort of liberty } The liberty of establishing their own opin- 12 ions, in defiance of the opinions of all others ; the liberty of judging and of deciding exclu- sively themselves, in a matter in which others have as much right to judge and decide as they ; the liberty of placing their own opinions above the judgment of all others, above the laws, and above the Constitution. This is their liberty, and this is the fair result of the proposition contended for by the honorable gentleman. Or it may be more properly said, it is identical with it, rather than a result from it. In the same publication, we find the following : "Previously to our Revolution, when the arm of oppression was stretched over New England, where did our Northern brethren meet with a braver sympathy than that which sprung from the bosoms of Carolinians ? We hail no extortion, no oppression, no collision with the King's Ministers, no navigation interests .springing up in envious rivalry of England." This seems extraordinary language. South Carolina no collision with the King's Minis- ters, in 1775 ! No extortion ! No oppression ! But, sir, it is, also, most significant lan- guage. Does any man doubt the purpose for which it was penned ? Can any one. fail to :^ee that it was designed to raise in the reader's mind the question, whether, at this time — that is to say, in 1828, South Carolina has any collision with, the King's ministers, any op - pression, or extortion to fear from England ? Whether, in short, England is not as naturally the friend of South Carolina, as New England, with her navigation interests springing up in envious rivalry of England ? Is it not strange, sir, that an intelligent man in South Carolina, in 1828, should thus labor to prove, that, in 1775, there was no hostility, no cause of war between South Carolina and England ? That she had no occasion, in reference to her own interest, or from a regard to her own welfare, to take up arms in the revolutionary contest ? Can any one account for the expression of such strange sentiments, and their circulation through the State, other wise than by supposing the object to be, what I have already intimated, to raise the question, if they had no "collision" (mark the expression) with the Ministers of King George the 'I bird, in 1775, what collision have they, in 1828, with the Ministers of King George the Fourth ? What is there now, in the existing state of things, to separate Carolina from Old, more, or rather, than from Neiv England ? Resolutions, sir, have been recently passed by the Legislature of South Carolina. 1 need not refer to them : they go no farther than the honorable gentleman himself has gone — and,, I hope, not so far. I content myself, therefore, with debating the matter with him. And now, sir, what I have first to say on this subject is, that at no time, and under no cir- cumstances, has New England, or any State in New England, or any respectable body of per- sons in New England, or any public man of standing in New England, put forth such a doc- trine as this Carolina doctrine. The gentleman has found no case, he can find none, to support his own opinions by New England authority. New England has studied the Constitution in other schools, and under other teachers. She looks upon it with other regards, and deems more highly and reverent- ly, both of its just authority, and its utility and excellence. The history of her legislative proceedings may be. traced — the ephemeral effusions of temporary bodies, called together by the excitement of the occasion, may be hunted up — they have been hunted up. The opinions and votes of her public men, in and out of Congress, may be explored — it will all be in vain. The Carolina doctrine can derive from her neither countenance nor support. She rejects it now : she always did reject it $ and till she loses her senses, she always will re- ject it. The honorable member has referred to expressions on the subject of the embargo law, made in this place by an honorable and venerable gentleman [Mr. IIillhoi'se] now fa- voring us with his presence. He quotes that distinguished Senator as saying, that, in hit judgment, the embargo law was unconstitutional, and that, therefore, in his opinion, the People were not bound to obey it. That, sir, is perfectly constitutional language. An un - constitutional law is not binding ; but then it does not rest with a resolution, or a law of u Mate Legislature, to decide whether an act of Congress be, or be not, constitutional. An unconstitutional act of Congress would not bind the People of this District, although they have no legislature to interfere in their behalf ; and, on the other hand, a constitutional law ol Congress does bind the citizens of every State, although all their Legislatures should undertake to annul it, by act or resolution. The venerable Connecticut Senator is a constitutional lawyer, of sound principles, and enlarged knowledge 5 a statesman, practised and experi- enced, bred in the company of Washington, and holding just views upon the nature of our Governments. He believed the embargo unconstitutional, and so did others ; but what then ? Who, did he suppose, was to decide that question } The State Legislatures > Certainly not. No such sentiment ever escaped his lips. Let us follow up, sir, this New England opposition to the Embargo laws ; let us trace it till we discern the principle which controlled and governed Nejw England, throughout the whole course of that opposition. We shall then see what, similarity there is between the New England school of constitution- al opinions, and this modern Carolina school. The gentleman, I think, read a petition from some single individual, addressed to the Legislature of Massachusetts, averting the Caro- lina doctrine— that is, the right of State interference to arrest the laws of the Union. The fate of that petition shows the sentiment of the Legislature. It met no favor. The opinions of Massachusetts were otherwise. They had been expressed in 1798, in answer to thr re- solutions of Virginia, and she did not depart from them, nor bend them to the times. Mis- governed, wronged, oppressed, as she.felt herself to be, she stiil held fast her integrity to the Union. The gentleman may find in her proceedings much evidence of dissatisfaction \wth the measures of the Government, and great and deep dislike to the Embargo ; all this makes the case so much the stronger for her I for, notwithstanding all this dissatisfaction and dislike, she claimed no right, still, to sever asunder the hondsof Union. There was heat, and there was anger, in h^r political feeling — be it so — her heat or her anger did not, nevertheless, betray her into infidelity to the Government. The gentleman labors to prove, that she disliked the Embargo, as much as South Carolina dislikes the Tariff, and expressed her dislike as strongly. lie it so ; but did she propose the Carolina remedy f — did sh> threaten, to interfere, by Stale authority, to annul f he laws of the Union ? That is the ques- tion for the gentleman's consideration. No doubt, sir, a great majority of the People of New England conscientiously believed the Embargo law of 1S07 unconstitutional ; as conscientiously, certainly, as the I'eople of South Carolina hold that opinion of the Tariff. They reasoned thus : Congress has power to regulate commerce ; but here is a law, they said, stopping all commerce, and stopping it indefinitely. The law is perpetual; that is, it is not limited in point of time, and must, of course, continue until it anal] be repealed by some other law. It is as perpetual, therefore, as the law against treason or murder. Now, is this regulating commerce, or destroying it } Is it guiding, controlling, giving the rule to commerce, as a subsisting thing ; or is it putting an end to it altogether ? Nothing is more certain, than that a majority in New England deemed this law a violation of the Constitution. The very case recpiired by the gentleman, to justify State interference, had then arisen. Massachusetts believed this law to be "a d> • liberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of u power, not granted by the Constitution." De- liberate it was, for it was long continued; palpable she thought it, as no words in the Con- •ititution gave the power, and only a construction, in her opinion most violent, raised it : dangerous it was, since it threatened utter ruin to her most important interests. Here, then, was a Carolina case. How did Massachusetts deal Vith it 5 It was, as she thought, a plain, manifest, palpable violation of the Constitution 5 and it brought ruin to her doors. Thou- vands of families, and hundreds of thousands of individuals, were beggared by it. While she saw and felt all this, she saw and felt, also, that, as a measure of national policy, it was perfectly futile ; that the country was no way benefitted by that which caused so much indi- vidual distress ; that it was efficient only for the production of evil, and all that evil inflicted on ourselves. In such a case, under such circumstances, how did Massachusetts demean herself? Sir, she remonstrated, she memorialized, she addressed herself to the General Go- vernment, not exactly " with the concentrated energy of passion," but with her own strong- sense, and the energy of sober conviction. But she did not interpose the arm of her own power to arrest the law, and break the embargo. Far from it. Her principles bound her to two things; and she followed her principles, lead where they might. First, to submit to every constitutional law of Congress, and, secondly, if the constitutional validity of the law be doubted, to refer that question to the decision of the proper tribunals. The first principle is vain and ineffectual without the second. A majority of us in New England believed the embargo law unconstitutional ; but the great question was, and always will be, in such cases, who is to decide this? Who is to judge between the People and the Government? And, sir, it is quite plain, that the Constitution of the United States confers on the Government itaolf, to be exercised by its appropriate department, and under its own responsibility to the People, this power of deciding ultimately and conclusively, upon the just extent of its own authority. If this had not been done, we should not have advanced a single step beyond the Cm federation. Being fully of opinion that the Embargo law was unconstitutional, the People of New Bngland were ye* equally clear in the opinion — it was a matter they did doubt upon— that the question} after all, must be decided by the Judicial Tribunals of the United States. Be- fore those tribunals, therefore, they brought the question. Under the provisions of the law , they had given bonds, to millions in amount, and which were alleged to be footed. They suff ered the bouds to be sued, and thus raised the question. In the old-fashioned way of settling disputes, they went to law. The case came to luring, and solemn argument; and lie who espoused their cause, and stood up for them agarm the validity of the Embargo act, .a^ none other than that great man, of whom the gentlerMn has made honorable mention, Samukl Dkxtlk. He was then, sir, in the fullness of hif knowledge, and the maturity of nil strength, lie had retired from long and distinguished public service here, to the renewed pursuit of professional duties ; carrying with him all that enlargement and expansion, all the. new strength and force, which an acquaintance with the more general subjects discussed in the national councils, is capable of adding to professional attainment, in a mind of true great- ness and comprehension. He was a lawyer, and DC was also ;i statesman. He had Studied 'he Constitution, w hen he filled public station, that he might defend it ; he had examined its principles, that he might maintain them. More than all men, or at least as much as any man, he w as attached to the General Government and to the union of the States. His feelings and opinions ail ran in that direction. A question of constitutional law, too, was, of all subjects, that one which was best suited to his telents and learning. Aloof from technicality, and un- fettered by artificial rules, such a question gave opportunity for that deep and clear analysis, that mighty grasp of principle, which so much distinguished his higher efforts. His very statement was argument ; his inference seemed demonstration. The earnestness of his own conviction, wrought conviction in others. One was convinced, and believed, and assented, because it was gratifying, delightful to think, and feel, and believe, in unison with an intel- lect of such evident superiority. 21 Mr. Dexter, sir, such as 1 have described him, argued the New England cause. He put into his effort his whole heart, as well as all the powers of his understanding ; for he had avowed, in the most public manner, his entire concurrence with his neighbors, on the point in dispute. He argued the cause ; it was lost, and New England submitted. The established tribunals pronounced the law constitutional, and New England acquiesced. Now, sir, is not this the exact opposite of the doctrine of the gentleman from South Carolina ? According to him, instead of referring to the Judicial tribunals, we should have broken up the Embargo, by laws of our own ; we should have repealed it, quoad New England ; for we had a strong, palpable, and oppressive case. Sir, we believed ti e embargo unconstitutional ; but still, that was matter of opinion, and who was to decide it ? We thought it a clear case ; but, ne- vertheless, we did not take the law into our own hands, because we did not wish to bring about a revolution, nor to break up the Union.- for, I maintain, that, between submission to the decision of the constituted tribunals, and revolution, or disunion, there is no middle ground — there is no ambiguous condition, half allegiance, and half rebellion. And, sir, how futile, how very futile, it is, to admit the right of State interference, and then attempt to save it from the character of unlawful resistance, by adding terms of qualification to the causes and occasions, leaving all these qualifications, like the case itself, in the discretion of the State Governments. It must be a clear case, it is said ; a deliberate case ; a palpable case ; a dangerous case. But then the State is still left at liberty to decide for herself, what is clear, what is deliberate, what is palpable, what is dangerous. Do adjectives and epithets avail any thing ? Sir, the human mind is so constituted, that the merits of both sides of a controversy appear very clear and very palpable, to those who respectively espouse them ; and both sides usually grow clearer, as the controversy advances. South Carolina sees unconstitutionality in the Tariff ; she sees oppression there, also ; and shesee& danger. Pennsylvania, with a vision not less sharp, looks at the same Tariff, and sees no such thing in it — she sees it all constitutional, all useful, all safe.' The faith of South Caro- lina is strengthened by opposition, and she now not only sees, but Resolves, that the tariff is palpably unconstitutional, oppressive, and dangerous : but Pennsylvania, not to be behind her neighbors, and equally willing to strengthen her own faith by a confident asseveration, Resolves, also, and gives to every warm affirmative of South Carolina, a plain, downright, Pennsylvania negative. South Carolina, to show the strength and unity of her opinion, brings her Assembly to a unanimity, within seven voices ; Pennsylvania, not to be outdone in this respect more than others, reduces her dissentient fraction to a single vote. Now, sir, again I ask the gentleman, what is to be done ? Are these States both right ? Is he bound to consider them both right ? If not, which is in the wrong ? or rather, which has the best right to decide ? And if he, and if I, are not to know what the Constitution means, and what it is, till those two State Legislatures, and the twenty two others, shall agree in its con- struction, what have we sworn to, when we have sworn to maintain it ? I was forcibly struck, sir, with one reflection, as the gentleman went on in his speech. He quoted Mr. Madison's resolutions to prove that a State may interfere, in a case of deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of a power not granted. The honorable member supposes the Tariff law to be such an exercise of power ; and that, consequently, a case has. arisen in which the State may, if it see fit, interfere by its own law. Now it so happens, nevertheless, that Mr. Madison himself deems this same Tariff law quite constitutional. Instead of a clear and pal- pable violation, it is, in his judgment, no violation at all. So that, while they use his authori- ty tor a hypothetical case, they reject it in the very case before them. All this, sir, shows the inherent— futility — T had almost used a stronger word — of conceding this power of inter- ference to the States, and then attempting to secure it from abuse by imposing qualifications, of which the States themselves are to. judge. One of two things is true ; either the laws of the Union are beyond the discretion, and beyond the control of the States ; or else we have no Constitution of General Government, and are thrust back again to the days of the Con- federacy. Let me here say, sir, that if the gentleman's doctrine had been received and acted upon in New England, in the times of the embargo and non-intercourse, we should probably not now have been here. The Government would, very likely, have gone to pieces, and crumbled into dust. No stronger case can ever arise than existed Under those laws ; no States can ever entertain a clearer conviction than the New England States then entertained ; and if they had been under the influence of that heresy of opinion, as I must call it, which the ho- norable member espouses, this Union would, in all probability, have been scattered to the four winds. I ask the gentleman, therefore, to apply his principles to that case ; 1 ask him to come forth and declare, whether, in his opinion, the New England States would have been justified in interfering to break up the embargo system, under the conscientious opinions which they held upon it ? Had they a right to annul that law Does he admit or deny > If that which is thought palpably unconstitutional in South Carolina, justifies that State in arresting the progress of the law, tell me, whether that which was thought palpably uncon- stitutional also in Massachusetts, would have justified her in doing the same thing ? Sir, I deny the whole doctrine. It has not a foot of ground in the Constitution to stand on. No pub- lic man of reputation ever advanced it in Massachusetts, in the warmest times, or coukl main- tain himself upon it there at any time. I wish now, sir, to make a remark upon the Virginia Resolutions of 1798. I cannot un dertake to say how these resolutions w ere understood by those who passed them. Their lan- guage is not a little indefinite. In the case of the exercise, by Congress, of a dangerous 25 power, not granted to them, the resolutions assert the right, on the part of the State, to interfere, and arrest the progress of the evil. This is susceptible of more than one inter- pretation. It may mean no more than that the States may interfere by complaint and re- monstrance ; or by proposing to the People an alteration of the Federal Constitution. This would all be quite unobjectionable : or, it may be, that no more is meant than to assert the general right of revolution, as against all Governments, in cases of intolerable oppression. This no one doubts ; and this, in my opinion, is all that he wbo framed the resolutions could have meant by it : for I shall not readily believe, that he was ever of opinion that a State, under the Constitution, and in conformity with it, could, upon the ground of her own opinion of its unconstitutionality, however clear and palpable she might thinlc the case, annul a law of Congress, so far as it should operate on herself, by her own legislative power. I must now beg to ask, sir, whence is this supposed right of the States derived r — where do they find the power to interfere with the laws of the Union 5 Sir, the opinion winch the honorable gentleman maintains, is a notion, founded in a total misapprehension, in my judg- ment, of the origin of this Government, and of the foundation on which it stands. I hold it to be a popular Government, erected by the People ; those who administer it responsible to the People j and itself capable of being amended and modified, just as the People may choose it should be. It is as popular, just as truly emanating from the People, as the State Go- vernments. It is created for one purpose ; the State Governments for another. It has its own powers ; they have theirs. There is no more authority with them to arrest the operation of a law of Congress, than with Congress to arrest the operation of their laws. We are here to administer a Constitution emanating immediately from the People, and trusted, by them, to our administration. It is not the creature of the State Governments. It is of no moment to the argument, that certain acts of the State Legislatures are necessary to fill our seats in this body. That is not one of their original State powers, a part of the sovereignty of the State. It is a duty which the People, by the Constitution itself, have imposed on the State Legislatures ; and which they might have left to be performed elsewhere, if they had seen fit. So they have left the choice of President with electors j but all this does not affect the proposition, that this whole Government, President, Senate, and House of Representatives, is a popular Government. It leaves it still all its popular character. The Governor of a State, (in some of the States) is chosen, not directly by the People, but by those who arc chosen by the People, for the purpose of performing, among other duties, that of electing a Governor. Is the Government of a State, on that account, not a popular Government f This Government, sir, is the independent offspring of the popular will. It is not the creature of State Legislatures ; nay, more, if the whole truth must be told, the People brought it into existence, established it, and . have hitherto supported it, for the very purpose, amongst others, of imposing certain salutary restraints on State sovereignties. The States cannot now make war ; they cannot contract alliances ; they cannot make, each for itself, separate regulations of commerce ; they cannot lay imposts ; they cannot coin money. If this Con- stitution, sir, be the creature of State Legislatures, it must be admitted that it has obtained a strange control over the volitions of its-creators. The People, then, sir, erected this Government. They gave it a Constitution, and in that Constitution they have enumerated the powers which they bestow on it. They have made it a limited Government. They have defined its authority. They have restrained it to the exercise of such powers as are granted; and all others, they declare, are reserved to the States or the People. But, sir, they have not stopped here. If they had, they would have accomplished but half their work. No definition can be so clear, as to avoid possibility of doubt ; no limitation so precise, as to exclude all uncertainty. Who, then, shall construe this gi ant of the People 1 Who shall interpret their will, where it may be supposed they have left it doubtful I With whom do they repose this ultimate right of deciding on the pow- ers of the Government J Sir, they have settled all this in the fullest manner. They have left it, with the Government itself, in its appropriate branches. Sir, the very chief end, the main design, for which the whole Constitution was framed and adopted, was to establish a Government that should not be obliged to act through State agency, or depend on State opinion and State discretion. The People had had quite enough of that kind of Govern- ment, under the Confederacy. Under that system, the legal action — the application of law to individuals, belonged exclusively to the States. Congress could only recommend — their acts were not of binding force, till the States hail adopted and sanctioned them. Are we in that condition still ! Are we yet at the mercy of State discretion, and State construction I Sir, if we are, then vain will be our attempt to maintain the Constitution under which we sit. But, sir, the People have wisely provided, in the Constitution itself, a proper, suitable mode and tribunal for settling questions of constitutional law. There are, in the Constitu- tion, grants of powers to Congress ; and restrictions on these powers. There are, also, pro- hibitions on the States. Some authority must, therefore, necessarily exist, having the ulti- mate jurisdiction to fix and ascertain the interpretation of these grants, restrictions, and pro- hibitions. The Constitution has itself pointed out, ordained, and established that authority. How has it accomplished this great and essential end 1 By declaring, sir, that *• the Consti- tution and the I iws of the Cnited Stales made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land, any thing m the Constitution or laics of any State, to the contrary notwithstanding.'* This, s't, was the first great step. By this, the supremacy of the Constitution and laws of the United States is declared. The People so will it. No State law is to be valid, which cornea in conflict with the Constitution, or any law of the United States. But who shall 26 decide tills question of interference? To whom lies the last appeal ? This, sir, the Const: tution itself decides, also, by declaring 1 , "thctf the Judicial power shall extend to all cases ari- sing under the Constitution and Laws of the United Stales." These two provisions, sir, cover the whole ground. They are, in truth, the key-stone of the arch. With these, it is a Constitution ; without them, it is a Confederacy. In pursuance of these clear and express provisions, Congress established, at its very first session, in the Judicial act, a mode for carry- ing them into full effect, and for bringing all questions of constitutional power to the final decision of the Supreme Court. It then, sir, became a Government. It then had the means of self protection ; and, but for this, it would in all probability have been now among things which are past. Having constituted the Government, and declared its powers, the People have further said, that since somebody must decide on the extent of these powers, the Go- vernment shali itself decide ; subject, always, like oilier popular governments, to it*s respon - sibility to the People. And now, sir, I repeat, how is it that a State Legislature acquires any power to interfere ? Who, or what, gives them the right to say to the People, " We, who are your agents and servants for one purpose, will undertake to decide, that your other agents and servants, appointed by you for another purpose, have transcended the authority you gave them !" The reply would be, I think, not impertinent—" Who made you a judge over ano- ther's servants ? To their own masters they stand or fall." Sir, I deny this power of State Legislatures altogether. It cannot stand the test of exami- nation. Gentlemen may say, that, in an extreme case, a State Government might protect the People from intolerable oppression. Sir, in such a case, the People might protect them- selves, without the aid of the State Governments. Such a case warrants revolution. It must make, when it comes, a law for itself. A nullifying act of a State Legislature cannoj alter the case, nor make resistance any more lawful. In maintaining these sentiments, sir, lam but asserting the rights of the People. \ state what they have declared, and insist on their right to declare it. They have chosen to repose this .power in the General Government, and [ think it my duty to support it, like other constitutional powers. For myself, sir, I do not admit the jurisdiction of South Carolina, or any other State, to prescribe my constitutional duty, or to settle, between me and the People, the validity of , laws of Congress, for which I have voted. I decline her umpirage. I have not sworn to support the Constitution according to her construction of its clause*?. I have not stipulated, by my oath of office, or otherwise, to come under any responsibility, except to the People, and those whom they have appointed to pass upon the question, whether laws, supported by my votes, conform to the Constitution of the country. And, sir, if we look to the general na- ture of the case, could any thing have been more preposterous, than to make a Government for the whore Union,andyet leave its powers subject,not to one interpretation, but to thirteen, or twenty-four, interpretations ? Instead of one tribunal, established by all, responsible to all, with power to decide for all — shall constitutional questions be left to four and twenty popular bodies, each at liberty to decide for itself, and none bound to respect the decisions of others ; and each at liberty, too, to give a new construction on every new election of its own members ? Would any thing, with such a principle in it, or rather with such a destitution of all princi- ple, be fit to be called a Government ? No, sir. It should not be denominated a Constitu- tion. It should be called, rather, a collection of topics, for everlasting controversy ; heads of debate lor a disputatious People. It would not be a Government, it would not be ade- quate to any practical good, nor fit for any country to live under. To avoid all possibility of being misunderstood, allow me to repeat again, in the fullest manner, that I claim no pow- ers for the Government by forced or unfair construction. I admit, that it is a Government of strictly limited powers ; of enumerated, specified, and particularised powers ; and that what- soever is not granted, is withheld. But notwithstanding all this, and however the grant of powers may be expressed, its limit and extent may yet, in some cases, admit of doubt ; and the General Government would be good for nothing, it would be incapable of long existing, *if some mode had not been provided, in which these doubts, as they should arise, might he peaceably, but authoritatively, solved. And now, Mr. President, let me run the honorable gentleman's doctrine a little into its practical application. Let us look at his probable modus operandi. If a thing can be done, an ingenious man can tell how it is to be done. Now, I wish to be informed how this State interfere nee is to be put in practice, without violence, bloodshed, and rebellion. We will take the existing case of the Tariff law. South Carolina is said to have made up her opi- nion upon it. If we do not repeal it, (as we probably shall nofl|) she will then apply to the case the remedy of her doctrine. She will, we must suppose, pass a law of her Legislature, declaring the several acts of Congress, usually called/the Tariff haws, null and void, so far as they respect South Carolina, or the citizens thereof. So far, all is a paper transaction, and easy enough, hut the Collector at Charleston is collecting the duties imposed by these Tariff Laws— he, therefore, must be stopped. The Collector will seize the goods if the Tariff dutie s arc not paid. The State authorities will undertake their rescue : the Marshal, with his posse, will come t» the Collector's aid, and here the contest begins. The militia of the State will be called out to sustain the nullifying act. They will march, sir, under a very gallant leader: for I believe the honorable member himself commands the militia of t hat part of the Slate. He will raise the rruiArr yino act on his standard, and spread it out as his banner ! It will have a preamble, bearing, that the Tariff Laws are palpable, delibe- rate, and dangerous violations of the Constitution ! He will proceed, with this banner Hying, to the custom-house in Charleston : 27 "All the wink, " Sonorous nu tal blowing martial koiimIi." 9 Arrived at the custom-house, lie will teli the Collector that he must collect no more dutie:; under any of the Tariff laws. This, he will be somewhat puzzled to say, by the way, with a grave countenance, considering what hand South Carolina herself had in tlrat of 181f>. But, sir, the Collector would, probably, not desist at his bidding — here would ensue a pause; for they say, that a certain stillness precedes the tempest. Before this mili% ry array should fall on the customhouse, collector, clerks, and all, it is very probable some of those com- posing- it, would request of their gallant commander-in-chief, to be informed a little upon the point of law ; for they have, doubtless, a just respect for his opinions as a lawyer, as well as for his bravery as a soldier. They know he has read Blackstone and the Constitution, as well as Turrene and Vauban. They would ask him, therefore, something concerning their rights in this matter. They would inquire, whether it was not somewhat dangerous to resist a law of the United States. What would be the nature of their offence, they would wish to learn, if they, by military force and array, resisted the execution, in Carolina, of a law of the United States, and it should turn out, after all, that the law was constitutional ? lie would answer, of course, treason. No lawyer could give any other answer. John Fries, he would tell them, had learned that some years ago. How, then, they Would ask, do you pre.pose to defend us? We are not afraid of bullets, but treason has a way of taking people ofr, that we do not much relish. How do you propose to defend us } "Look at my floating bur- ner," he would reply ; " see there the nullifying law /" Is it your opinion, gallant com - mander, they would then say, that if we should be indicted for treason, that same floating banner of your's would make a good plea in bar ? "South Carolina is a sovereign State," lie would reply. That is true— but would the Judge admit our plea ? " These Tariff laws," he would repeat, "are unconstitutional, palpably, deliberately, dangerously." That all may be so ; but if the tribunals should not happen to be of that opinion, shall we swing for it ? We are ready to die for our country, but it is rather an awkward business, this dying without touching the ground ! Alter all, that is a sort of hernp-Vxx, worse than anv part of the Tariff*. Mr. President, the honorable gentleman would be in a dilemma, like that of another great General. He would have a knot before him which he could not untie : he must cut it with his sword. He must say to his followers, defend yourselves with your bayonets : and this is war — civil war. Direct collision, therefoie, between force and force, is the unavoidable result of that remedy for the revision of unconstitutional laws, which the gentleman contends for. It must happen in the very first case to which it is applied. Is net this the plain result ? To resist, by force, the execution of a law, generally, is treason. Can the Courts of the United States take notice of the indulgence of a Stato to commit treason 1 The common saying, that a Slate cannot commit treason herself, is nothing to the purpose. Can she authorize others to do it 3 If John Fries had produced an act of Pennsylvania, annulling the law of Congress, would it have helped his case ? Talk about it as we will, these doctrines go the length of revolution. They are incompatible with any peaceable administration of the Government. They lead directly to disunion and civil commotion^ and therefore, it is, that at their commencement, when they arc first found to be maintained by respectable men, and in a tangible form, I enter my public protest against them all. The 1. Miorable gentleman argues, that if this Government be the sole judge of the ex- tent of its own powers, whether that right of judging be in Congress, or the Supreme Court, it equally subverts State sovereignty. This the gentleman sees, or thinks he sees, although he cannot perceive how the right of judging, in this matter, if left to the exercise of State Legislatures, has any tendency to subvert the Government of the Union. The gentleman's opinion may be, that the right oug.'tf not to have been lodged with the General Government ; he may like better such a Constitution, as we should have Under the right of State interfe- rence ; but I ask him to meet me on the plain matter of fact — I ask him to meet me on the Constitution itself" — I ask him if the power is not found there — clearly and visibly found there } — Notk .>. Hut, sir, what is this danger, and what the grounds of it ? Let it be remembered, that the Constitution of the United States is not unalterable. It is to continue in its present form no longer than the 1'eople, who established it, shall chuse to continue it. If they shall become convinced that they have made an injudicious or inexpedient partition and distribution of power, between the State Governments and the General Government', they can alter thai distribution at will. If any thing be found in the National Constitution, either by original provision, or fubsei quant interpretation, w hich ought not" to be in it, the People know how to get rid of it. If any construction be established, unacceptable to them, so as to become, practically, I part of the Constitution, the}' will amend it at their own sovereign pleasure. Rut while the People chase to maintain it, a9 it is ; while they arc satisfied with it, and refuse to change it ; who has given, or % bo ran give, to the State Legislatures a right to alter it, either by inter- ference, construction, or otherwise? Gentlemen do not seem to recollect that the People have any power to do any thing for themselves; they imagine there is no safety for them, any longer than they are under the close guardianship of the State Legislature*. Sir, the "eople have not trusted their safety, in regard to the General Constitution, to these hand.-. They have required other security, and taken other bonds. They have chosen to trust 28 themselves, first, to the plain words of the instrument, and to such construction as the Gov. ernment itself, in doubtful cases, should put on its own powers, under their oaths of office, and subject to'their responsibility to them ; just as the People of a State trust their own State Governments with a similar power. Secondly, they have reposed their trust in the efficacy of frequent elections, and in their own power to remove their own servants and agents, whenever they see cause. Thirdly, they have reposed trust in the Judicial power, which, in order that it might be trust-worthy, they have made as respectable, as disinte- rested, and as independent as was practicable. Fourthly, they have seen fit to rely, in case of necessity, or high expediency, on their known and admitted power, to alter or amend the Constitution, peaceably and quietly, whenever experience shall point out defects or imper- fections, And, finally, the People of the United States have, at no time, in no way, directly or indirectly, authorized any State Legislature to construe or interpret their high instrument of Government : much less to interfere, by their own power, to arrest its course and ope- ration. If, sir, the People, in these respects, had done otherwise than they have done, their Constitution could neither have been preserved, nor would it have been worth preserving. And, if its plain provisions shall now be disregarded, and these new doctrines interpolated in it, it will become as feeble and helpless a being as its enemies, whether early or more recent, could possibly desire. It will exist in every State, but as a poor dependent on State permission. It must borrow leave to be ; and will be, no longer than State pleasure, or State discretion, sees fit to grant the indulgence, and to prolong its poor existence. But, sir, although there are fears, there are hopes also. The People have preserved this, theip own chosen Constitution, for forty years, and have seen their happiness, prospe- rity, and renown, grow with its growth, and strengthen with its strength. They are now, generally, strongly attached to it. Overthrown by direct a'ssault, it cannot be ; evaded, undermined, nullified, it will not be, if we, and those who shall succeed us here, as agents and representatives of the People, shall conscientiously and vigilantly discharge the two great branches of our public trust — faithfully to preserve, and wisely to administer it. Mr. President, I have thus stated the reasons of my dissent to the doctrines which have been advanced and maintained. I am conscious of having detained you and the Senate much too long. I was drawn into the debate, with no previous deliberation, such as 13 suited to the discussion of so grave and important a subject. But it is a subject of which my heart is full, and I have not been willing to suppress the utterance of its spontaneous sentiments. I cannot, even now, persuade myself to relinquish it, without expressing, once more,' my deep conviction, that, since it respects nothing less than the Union of the States, it is of most vital and essential importance to the public happiness. I profess, sir, in my career, hitherto, to have kept steadily in view the prosperity and honor of the whole coun- try, and the preservation of our Federal Union. It is to that Union we owe our safety at home, and our consideration and dignity abroad. It is to that Union that we are chiefly in- debted for whatever makes us most proud of our country. That Union we reached only by the discipline of our virtues in the severe school of adversity. It had its origin in the necessities of disordered finance, prostrate commerce, and ruined credit. Under its benign influences, these great interests immediately awoke, as from the dead, and sprang forth with newness of life, ilvery year of its duration has teemed with fresh proofs ai' its utility and its blessings ; and, although our territory has stretched out wider and wider, and our population spread farther and farther, they have not outrun its protection or its benefits. • It has been to us all a copious fountain of national, social, and personal happiness. I have not allowed myself, sir, to look beyond the Union, to see what might lie hidden in the dark re- cess behind, I have not coolly weighed the chances of preserving liberty, when the bonds that unite us together shall be broken asunder. I have not accustomed myself to hang over the precipice of disunion, to see whether, with my short sight, I cjvn fathom the depth of the abyss below; nor could I regard him as a safe counsellor in the affairs of this Govern, ment, whose thoughts should be mainly bent on considering, not how the Union should be beat preserv ed, but how tolerable might be the condition of the People when it shall be broken up and destroyed. While the Union lasts, we have high, exciting, gratifying pros- pects spread out before us, for us and our children. Beyond that I seek not to penetrate the veil. God grant that, in my day at least, that curtain may not rise. God grant that on my vision never may be opened what lies behind. When my eyes shall be turned to behold, for the last time, the sun in Heaven, "may I not see him shining on the broken and dishonored fragments of a once glorious Union \ on States dissevered, discordant, bellige- rent ; on a land rent with civil feuds, or drenched, it may be, in fraternal blood ! Let their last feeble and lingering glance rather behold the gorgeous Ensign of the Republic, now known and honored throughout the earth, still full high advanced, its arms and trophies streaming in their original lustre, not a stripe erased or polluted, nor a single star obscured, bearing for its motto no such miserable interrogatory as, What is all this worth ? Nor those other words of delusion and folly, Liberty first, and Union afterwards; but every where, spread all over in characters of living light, blazing on all its ample folds, as they float over the sea and over the land, and in every wind under the whole Heavens, that other senti- ment, dear to every true American heart— Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable ! • 29 NOTES. Note 1 . Wednesday, February 21, 1787. Congress assembled : Present, as before. The report of a grand Committee,, consisting or Mr. Dane, Mr. Varnnm, Mr. S. M. Mitchell, Mr. Smith, Mr. Cadwallader, Mr. Irvine, Mr. N.Mitchell, Mr. Forrest, Mr. Grayson, Mr. Blount, Mr. Hull, and Mr. Few : to whom was referred ■ letter of 14th September, 1786, from J. Dickinson, written at the request of Commissioner* from the States of Virginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, assembled at the city of Anna- polis, together with a copy of a report of said Commissioners to the Legislatures of the States by whom they were appointed, being an order of the day, was called up, and which is contained in the following resolution, vis :— " Congress having had under consideration the letter of John Dickinson, F.sq , Chairman of the Commissioners, K Wn o assembled at Annapolis during the last year; also, the proceedings of the said Commissioners, and entirely "coinciding with them, as to the inefficiency of the Federal Government, and the necessity of devising such fur- M ther provisions, as shall render the same adequate to the exigencies of the Union, do strongly recommend to the " different Legislatures to send forward Delegates, to meet the proposed Convention, on the second Monday in May "next, at the city of Philadelphia.*' Note 2. Extracts from Mr. Calhoun's Speech, on Mr. Randolph's motion to strike out the minimum valuation on Cotton Goods, in the House of Representatives, April, 1816. 11 The debate, heretofore, on this subject, has been on the degree of protection which ought to be afforded to out- cotton and woollen manufactures ; all professing to be friendly to those infant establishments, and to be willing to extend to them adequate encouragement. The present motion assumes a new aspect. It is introduced, professedly, on the ground that manufactures ought not to receive any encouragement ; and will, in its operation, leave our cotton establishments exposed to the competition of the cotton goods of the East Indies, which, it is acknowledged on all sides, they are not capable of meeting with success, without the proviso proposed to be stricken out by the motion now under discussion. Till the debate assumed this new form, he determined to be silent ; participating, as he largely did, in that general anxiety which is felt, after so long and laborious a session, to return to the bo- som of our families. But on a subject of so much vital importance, touching as it does, the security and perma- nent prosperity of our country, he hoped that the House would indulge him in a few observations." "To give perfection to this statu of things, it will be necessary to add, as soon as possible, a system of Internal Improvements, and, at least, such an extension of our navy, as will prevent the cutting off' our coasting trade. The advantage of each is so striking, as not to require illustration, especially after the experience of the late war.'' " He firmly believed, that the country is prepared, eren to maturity, for the introduction of manufactures. We have abundance of resources, and things naturally tend at this moment, in that direction. A prosperous commerce has poured an immense amount of commercial capital into this country. This capital has, till lately, found occu- pation in commerce ; but that state of the world which transferred it to this country, and gave it active employ- ment, has passed away, never to return. Where shall we now find full employment for (Air prodigious amount of tonnage' Where markets for the numerous and abundant products of our country i This great body of active capital, which, for the moment, has found sufficient employment in supplying our markets, exhausted by the war, and measures preceding it, must find a new direction : it w ill not be idle. What channel can it take, but that of manufactures r This, if things continue as they are, will be its direction. It will introduce an era in our affairs, in many respects highly advantageous, and ought to be countenanced by the Government. Besides, we have already surmounted the greatest difficulty that has ever been found in undertakings of this kind. The cotton and woollen manufactures are not to be introduced— they are already introduced to a great extent ; freeing us entirely from the hazards, and, in a great measure, the sacrifices experienced in giving the capital of the country a new direc- tion. The restrictive measures, anu the war, though not intended for that purpose, have, by the necessary ope- ration of things, turned a large amount of capital to this new branch of industry. He had often heard it said, both in and out of Congtess, that this effect alone would indemnify the country for all its losses. So high was this tone of feeling, w hen the want of these establishments was practically felt, that he remembered, during the war, when some question was agitated respecting the introduction of foreign goods, that many then opposed it on the grounds of injuring our manufactures. He then said, that war alone furnished sufficient stimulus, and perhaps too much, as it would make their growth unnaturally rapid ; but that, on the return of peace, it would then be time to show our affection forthem. He, at that time, did not expect an apathy and aversion to the extent which is now seen. But it will,no doubt, be said, if they are so far established, and if the situation of the country is 30 favorable to their growth, where is the necessity of affording them protection ? It is to put them beyond the reach of contingency." " It has been further asserted that manufactures are the fruitful cause Off pauperism ; and England has been referred to. as furnishing conclusive evidence of its truth. For his part, lie could perceive no such tendency in them, but the exact contrary, as they furnished new stimulus and means of subsistence to the laboring classes of the community. We ought not to look at the cotton and woollen establishments of Great Britain for the prodigious numbers of poor with which her population was disgraced ; causes much more efficient exist. Her poor laws and statutes regulating the prices of labor, with taxes, were the real causes. But if it must be so ; it ihe mere' fact that England manufactured more than any other Country, explained the cause of her having more beggars, it is just as reasonable to refer her courage, spirit, and all her masculine virtues, in which she excels all other nations with a single exception— he meant our ow n— in which we might, without vanity, challenge a pte-eminence. Ano- ther objection had been, which fie mutt acknow ledge was be tter founded, that capital employed Mi manufactur- ing produced a greater dependence on the part of the employed, than in commerce, navigation, or agriculture It is certainly an evil, and to be regretted ; but he did not think it a decisive objection to the system ; especially when it had incidental political advantages which, in his opinion, more th.m counterpoised it. It produced an in- terest strictly American, as much so as agriculture, ki which it had the decided advantage of commerce or navi- gation. The coiwitry w ill, (rum this, derive much advantage. Again: it u calculatt d to bind together more closely our widely sprcaded Republic. It will greatly increase our mutual dc]>ciidcuce and intercourse; and will, as a necessary consequence, excite mi increased attention to internal improvements, a subject every way to intimately connected with the ultimate attainment of national strength, and the perfection of our political insti- tutions." Extracts from the Speech of Mr. Calhoun, April, 181ft— On the Direct Tax. " In regard to the question, how far manufactures ought to be fostered, Mr. C. said, it was the duty of this country', as a means of defence, to encourage the domestic industry of the country, more especially that part of it which provides the necessary materials for clothing and defence. Let us look to the nature of the war most likely to occur. England is in the possession of the ocean. No man, however sanguine can believe that we can deprive her, soon, of her predominance there. That control deprives us of the means of maintaining our army and navy cheaply clad. The question relating to manufactures must not depend »n the abstract principle, that industry left to pursue its own course, will find in its own interest all the encouragement that is necessary. I lay the claims of the manufacturers entire ly out of view, <»aid Mr. C. ; but, on general prin- ciples, without regard to their interest, a certain encouragement should be extended, at least to our w oollen and cottoo manufactures. " This nation," Mr. C. said, " was rapidly changing the character of its industry. When a nation is agricul- tural, depending for supply on foreign markets, its people may be taxed through its imports, almost to the amount «f its capacity. The nation was, howevar, rapidly becoming to a considerable extent a manufacturing nation." 30 To the quotations from the speeches and proceedings of the Representatives of South Carolina, in Congress, dur- ing Mr. Monroe's Administration, may be added the following extract from Mr. Calhoun's Report on Roads and C:i- nais, submitted to Congress on 7th of January, 1819, tram the Department of War: "A judicious system of Roads and Canals, constructed forthe convenience of commerce, and the transportation of tie mail only, without any reference to military operations, is itself among the most efficient means for 'the more complete defence of the United States.' Withoutadverting to the fact that the roads and canals which such a sys- tem would require, are. With few exceptions, precisely those which would be required for the operations of war ; such a system, by consolidating our Union, increasing our wealth and fiscal capacity, would add greatly to our re- sources "in war. It is in a state of war when a nation is compelled to put all its resources, ia men, money, skill, and devotion to country, into requisition, that its Government realizes, in its security, the beneficial effects from a People made prosperous and happy by a wise direction cf its resources in peace. " Should Congress think proper to commence a system t>f roads and canals for ' the more complete defence of the United States,' the disbursements of the sum appropriated forthe purpose might be made by the Department of War, under the direction of the President. Where incorporate companies already formed, o"r the road or canal commenced, under the superintendence of a State, it perhaps would be advisable to direct a subscription on the part of the United States, on such terms and conditions as might be thought proper." Note 5. The follow ing resolutions of the Legislatureof Virginia, bear so pertinently and so strongly on this point of the debate, that they are thought worthy of being inserted in a note, especially as other resolutions' of the same body are referred to in the discussion. It w ill be observed that these resolutions w'ereuiHUiimously adopted in each House. VIRGINIA LEGISLATURE. Extract from the Message of Governor Tyler, of Virginia, December 4, 1809. " A proposition from the State of Pennsylvania is herewith submitted, with Governor Snyder's letter accompany- ing the same, in w hich is suggested the propriety of amending the Constitution of the United States, so as to pi\> vent collisions between the Government of the Union and the State Governments." House of Delegates, Friday, December 15, 1809. On motion, Ordered, That so much of the Governor's communication as relates to the communication from the Governor ef Pennsylvania, on the subject of an amendment, proposed by the Legislature of that State, to the Constitution of the United States, be referred to Messrs. Peyton, Otey, Cabell, Walker, Madison, Holt, Newton, Parker, Stevenson, Randolph, [of Amelia,"] Cocke, Wyatt, and Ritchie.— Page 25 of the Journal. Thursday, January 11, 1810. Mr. Peyton, from. the committee to whom was referred that part of the Governor's communication which relates to the amendment proposed by the State of Pennsylvania to the Constitution of the United States, made the fol- lowing Report : The committee to w hom was referred the communication of the Governor of Pennsylvania, covering certain resolutions of the Legislature of that State, proposing an amendment of the Constitution of the United Stites, by the appointment of an impartial tribunal to decide disputes between the States and Federal Judiciary, have had the same under their consideration, and are of opinion, that a tribunal is already provided by the Constitution of the United States, to wit : the Supreme Court, more eminently qualified, from their habits and duties, from the mode of their selection, and from the tenure of their offices, to decide the disputes a'oresaid, in an elightened and impartial manner, than any other tribunal which could be created. The members of the Supreme Court are selected from those in the United States who are most celebrated for virtue and legal learning, not at the will of a single individual, but by the concurrent wishes of the President and Senate of the United States : they will, therefore, have no local prejudices and partialities. The duties they have to perform lead them, necessarily, to the most enlarged and accurate acquaintance with the jurisdiction Of the Federal and State Courts together, and with the admirable symmetry of our Government. The tenure «t their offices enables them to pronounce the sound and correct opinions they may have formed, w ithout fear, favor, or partiality. 't he amendment to the Constitution, proposed by Pennsylvania, seem3 to he founded upon the idea that (he Federal Judiciary will, from a lust of power, enlarge their jurisdiction, to the total annihilation of the jurisdic- tion of the State Courts ; that they will exercise their will, instead of the law and the Constitution. This argument if it proves any thing, would operate more strongly against the tribunal proposed to be created, whifcb promised so little, than against the Supreme Court, which, tor the reasons given before, have every tiling connected with their appointment calculated to ensure confidence. What security have we, were the proposed amendment adopted, that this tribunal would not substitute their will and their pleasure in place of the law? The Judiciary are the weakest of the three Departments of Government, and least dangeious to the political rights of the Constitution ; they hold neither the purse nor the sword ; and, even to enforce tin ir own j udgments and de- cisions^ must ultimately depend upon the Executive arm. Should the Federal Judiciary, however, unmindful ot their weakness, unmindful of i lie duty which they owe to themselves and their country, become corrupt, and transcend the limits oi their jurisdiction, would the proposed amendment oppose even a probable barrier in such an improbable state of things ? The creation of a tribunal, such as is proposed by Pennsylvania, so far as we are able to form an idea of it from the description given in the resolutions of the Legislature of that State, would, in the opinion of your Committee, tend rather to invite, than to prevent, collision between the Federal and State Courts. It might 'also become, in process of time, a serious and dangerous embarrassment to the operations of the General Government. Resolved, therefore, '1 hat the Legislature of this State do disapprove of the amendment to the Constitution of the United States, proposed by the Legislature of Pennsylvania. Resolved, also, '1 hat his" Excellency the Governor, be, and fie is hereby, requested to transmit forthwith, a copy of the foregoing preamble and resolutions, to each of the Senator* and Representatives of this State in Congress, and to the Executive of the several States in the Union, with a request that the same be laid before the Legislatures thereof. - The said resolutions being read a second time, were, on motion, ordered to be referred to a Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Commonwealth. Tuesday, January 23, 1810. The House, according to the order of the day, resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Commonwealth, and after some time spent therein, Mr. Speaker resumed the Chair, and Mr. Stanard, of Spottsylvania, reported that the Committee had, according to order, had under consideration the preamble, ami resolutions of the Select Committee, to whom was referred that part of the Governor's communication which re- lates to the amendment proposed to the Constitution of the United States, by the Legislature of Pennsylvania, had gone through with the same, and directed him to report them to the House without amendment ; which he handed i n at the Clerk's table. And the question being put on agreeing to the said preamble and resolutions, they were agreed to by the House unanimously. ' " Ordered, That the Clerk carry the said preamble and resolutions to the Senate, and desire their concurrence. In Senate— Wednesday, January 24, 1810. The preamble and resolutions on the amendment to thi Constitution of the United States, proposed by the Le- gislature ot Pennsylvania, by the appointment of an impartial tribunal to decide disputes between the State and Federal Judiciary, being also delivered in and twice read, on motion, was ordered to be committed to Messrs: Nelson, Currie, Campbell, Upshur, and Wolfe. Friday, January 26. Mr. Nelson reported, from the committee to whom was committed the preamble and resolutions on the am<«id- me nt proposed by the Legislature of Pennsylvania, &c. &c. that the committee had, according to order, taken the f aid preamble, &c. under their consideration, and directed him to report them without any amendment, And OB the question being put thereupon, the same was agreed to unanimously. 31 MR, WEBSTER'S LAST REMARKS. Mr. IIaynk having rejoined to Mr. Wkbstku, especially on the constitutional question-— Mr. WEBSTER rose, and in conclusion, said i A few w ords, Mr. President, on this constitutional argument, which the honorable gentle- man has labored to reconstruct. His argument consists of two propositions, and an inference. His propositions are — 1. That the Constitution is a compact hetween the States. '2. That a compact between two, with authority reserved to one to interpret its terms, would he a surrender to that one, of* all power whatever. 3. Therefore, (such is his inference) the General Government does not possess the authority to construe its own powers. Now, sir, who does not see, without the aid of exposition or detection, the utter confusion of ideas, involved in this, so elaborate and systematic argument? The Constitution, it is said, is a compact "between States the States, then, and the States only, are parties to the compact, flow comes the General Government itself a parti/ ? Upon the honorable gentleman's hypothesis, the General Government is the result of the compact, the creature of the compact, not one of the parties to it. Yet the argument, as the gentle- man has now stated it, makes the Government itself one of its own creators. It makes it a party to that compact to which it owes its own existence. For the purpose of erecting the Constitution on the basis of a compact, the gentleman considers the States as parties to that compact ; but as soon as his compact is made, then he chooses to consider the General Government, which is the offspring of that compact, not its offspring, but one of its parties ; and so, being a party, has not the power of judging on the terms of compact. Pray, sir, in what school is such reasoning as this taught ? If the whole of the gentleman's main proposition were conceded to him, that is to say — if I admit for the sake of the argument, that the Constitution is a compact between States, the inferences, which he draws from that proposition, are warranted by no just reason. Hecause, if the Constitution be a compact between States, still, that Constitution, or that compact, has established a Government, with certain powers ; and whether it be one of those powers, that it shall construe and interpret for itself, the terms of the compact, in doubtful cases, can only be decided, by looking to the compact, and inquiring what provi- sions it contains on this point. Without any inconsistency with natural reason, the Govern- ment, even thus created, might be trusted with this power of construction. The extent of its powers, therefore, must still be sought for in the instrument itself. If the old Confederation had contained a clause, declaring that resolutions of the Congress should be the supreme law of the land, any State law or constitution to the contrary not- withstanding, and that a committeee of Congress, or any other body created by it, should possess Judicial powers, extending to all cases arising under resolutions of Congress, then the power o\ ultimate decision would have been vested in Congress, under the Confeder- ation, although that Confederation was a compact between States ; and, for this plain reason : that it would have been competent to the States, who alone were parties to the compact, to agree, who should decide, in cases of dispute arising on the construction of the compact. For the same reason, sir, if I were now to concede to the gentleman his principal proposi- tions, viz. that the Constitution is a compact between States, the question would still be, What provision is made, in this compact, to settle points of disputed construction, or con- tested po ,,r er, that shall come into controversy ? and this question would still be answered, and conclusively answered, by the Constitution itself. While the gentleman is contending against construction, he himself is setting up the most loose and dangerous construction. The Constitution declares, that the laws of Congress .shall be the supriiue law of the land. No construction is necessary here. It declares, also, with equal plainness and precision, the! the Judiciul power of the United States shall extend to every case arising under the laws of Congress. Tnis needs no construction. Here is a law, then, which is declared to be supreme ; and here is a power established, which is to interpret that law. Now, sir, how has the gentleman met this ? Suppose the Constitution to be a compact, yet here 6Te its terms :ind how does the gentleman get rid of them ' He cannot argue the seal off the bond, no<- the words out of the instrument. Here they are — what answer does he give to them None in the world, sir, except, that the effect of this would be to place the States in a condi- * tion of inferiority ; and because it results, from the very nature of things, there being DO superior, that the parties must be their own judges ! Tims closely and cogently does the honorable gentleman reason on the words of the Constitution. The gentleman say, it there be such a power of final decision in the General Government, he asks for the grant of that power. Well, sir, I show him the grant — 1 turn him to the very words — I show him that the laws of Congress are made supreme; and that the Judicial power extends, by express words, to the interpretation of these laws. Instead of answering this, he retreats into the general reflection, that it must result from the nature of things, that the States, being parties, must judge for themselves. I have admitted, that, if the Constitution were to be considered as the creature of the State Governments, it might be modified, interpreted, or construed, according to their pleasure. But, even in that case, it would be necessary that they should agree. One, alone, could n( t 32 interpret it conclusively ; one, alone, could not construe it ; one, alone, could not modify it. Yet the gentleman's doctrine is, that Carolina, alone, may construe and interpret that com- pact which equally binds all, and gives equal rights to all. So then, sir, even supposing the Constitution to be a compact between the States, the gentleman's doctrine, nevertheless, is not maintainable ; because, first, the General Govern- ment is not a party to that compact, but a Government established by it, and vested by it with the powers of trying and deciding doubtful questions ; and, secondly, because, if the Constitution be regarded as a compact, not one State only, but all the States, are parties to that compact, and one can have no right to fix upon it her own peculiar construction. So much, sir, for the argument, even if the premises of the gentleman were granted, or could be proved*. But, sir, the gentleman has failed to maintain his leading proposition. He has not shown, it cannot be shown, that the Constitution is a compact between State Go- vernments. The Constitution itself, in its very front, refutes thatproposition : it declares that it is ordiined and established by the People of the United States. So far from sa ving that it is es- tablished by the Governments of the several States, it does not even say that it is established by the People of the several States but it pronounces that it is established by the People of the United Stv.tes, in the aggregate. The gentleman says, it must mean no more than that the People of the several States, taken collectively, constitute the People of the United States ; be it so, but it is in this, their collective capacity, it is as all the People of the United States, that they establish the Constitution. So they declare; and words cannot be plainer than the words used. When the gentleman says, the Constitution is a compact between the States, he uses lan- guage exactly applicable to the old Confederation. He speaks as if he were in Congress before 1789. He describes fully that old state of things then existing. The Confederation was, in strictness, a compact ; the States, as States, were parties to it. We had no other General Government. But that was found insufficient, and inadequate to the public exigen- cies. The People were not satisfied with it, and underto'ok to establish a better. They undertook to form a General Government, which should stand on a new basis — not a con- federacy, not a league, not a compact between States, but a Constitution ; a Popular Gov- ernment, founded in popular election, directly responsible to the People themselves, and divided into branches, with prescribed limits of power, and prescribed duties. They ordained such a Government ; they gave it the name of a Constitution, and therein they es- tablished a distribution of powers between this, their General Government, and their several State Governments. When they shall become dissatisfied with this distribution, they can alter it. Their own power over their own instrument remains. But until they shall alter it, it must stand as their will, and is equally binding on the General Government and on the States. The gentleman, sir, finds analogy, where T see none. He likens it to the case of a treaty, in which, there being no common superior, each party must interpret for itself, under its own obligation of good faith. But this is not a treaty, but a Constitution of Government, with powers to execute itself, and fulfil its duties. I admit, sir, that this Government is a Government of checks and balances ; that is, the House of Representees is a check on the Senate, and the Senate is a check on the House, and the President is a check on both. But I cannot comprehend him, or, if I do, I totally differ from him, when he applies the- notion of checks and balances to the interference of dif- ferent Governments. He argues, that if we transgress, each State, as a State, has a right to check us. Does he admit the converse of the proposition, that we have a right to check the States ? The gentleman's doctrines would give us a strange jumble of authorities and pow- ers, instead of Governments of separate and defined powers. It is the part of wisdom, I think, to avoid this ; and to keep the General Government and the State Governments, each in its proper sphere, avoiding, as carefully as possible, every kind of interference. Finally, sir, the honorable gentleman says, that the States will only interfere, by their power, to preserve the Constitution. They will not destroy it, they will not impair it — they will only save, they will only preserve, they will only strengthen it ! Ah, sir, this is but the old story. All regulated Governments, all free Governments, have been broken up by similar disinterested and well disposed interference ! It is the common pretence. But I take leave of the subject.