I359: Wu’ SE 0 OND s P E E C OF‘ “ON” DANIEL WEBSTER, EJELIVERED IN :3; THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JANUARY 26,1830. “W ITH A SKETCH OF THE PRECEDING DEBATE ONTHE % % % “my RESOLUTION OF ME. FOOT, RESPECTING THE SALE, éac, OF PUBLIC LANDS, EQSTON.‘ wJ3LI,s_z—mD BY CARTER. AND zmmnmz... ————-——m MJDCCC XXI. PRINT.ED BY ISAAC R. BUT‘1‘S.....SCHO0L STREET, BOSTOE. ORIGIN AND PROGRESS OF THE l3EBA.TE IN WHICH THIS SPEECH WAS MADE. ON TUESDAY, December 29, Mr FOOT, of Connecticut, suh-— mitted to the senate the following resolution : Resolved, That the committee on public lands be instructed to inquire into the expediency of limiting for a certain period the sales of the pub« lic lands to such lands only as have heretofore been offered for sale, and are subject to entry at the minimum price. And also, w_'hether the Oflice of’ Surveyor General may not be abolished without detriment to the pub» lic interest. . By a rule of the senate, this resolution lay one day on the table. On the 30th, it was taken up for consideration. Mr BENTON, of Missouri, declared that this was intended to prevent emigration to the "West. It was a renewed eflhrt to stran- gle the young Hercules. The same attempt had been system»- atically made for forty years. Virginia had heretofore saved the West. ‘ The attempt came from the same quarter now as for»- merly. “ Mr FOOT disclairned such intention as was imputed to him, and stated the ground of his motion to be, that a Vast quantity land, which could not, at the usual rate of sales, be disposed of in less than seventytwo years, was already surveyed and in the market. He wished to know why so much land had been sur- ” veyed, and whether the office of surveyor general were now a sinecure. % Mr N OBLE, of Indiana, Opposed the inquiry. Mr HOLMES, of Maine, then addressed the senate. He was surprised to find gentlemen Opposing inquiry so early under this administration, when an object of it was to ‘ retrench ’ and lop off useless branches. He said that the gentleman from Missouri, is Mr Benton, was chairman of a committee on the ecrecutive pa-=~ troncrge ; and Mr H. then proceeded to read from that repom Aniong other things Were these: ‘ The President has power over‘ the support of individuals ; presides over appointments, jobs, and contracts, and those who obtain them will do his bidding 3- The King of England is the fountain of honor; the President is the fountain of patronage.’ The report says, in conclusiorntliat ‘ the committee have only touched in four places the vast and pervad-=~ ing system or federal executive patronage,----the press, the post ofice, the armed force, and the appointing power .' ’ ‘ The operations ’ of the honorable gentleman were at that time very ‘ searching,’ his eagerness for ‘ reform’ great, not reforniing a good man out of office to put a bad one in, but lopping ofi‘ sine- cures. The gentleman reported six bills, one of which requires that the President should ‘ present his reasons to the senate’ for every renzonol that he might rnalte. Mr H. went on for some time in this strain. Wlien he had taken his seat, Mr BENTON said, in reply, that he had read all that had been said. by the honorable gentleman, in a newspaper, last surnrnerl that as to his sir»: hills, reported two years ago, they had not been taken up with a View to pass them, because the times were not then propitious to enlarging the rights of the people I—--- Then ad» dressiiig liintseli to Mr Holmes, he said, are from suflioieiitly an-~ swered P Mr Honstss said he was. Mr "Woo:ont:n'r earnestly advocated the continua_nee of the surveys, and opposed Mr Foods motion The resolution was finally ‘postponed until ilrlo1'iday fOi~lO‘Wlt‘1_°‘“. On the Stet oi” Deeeniher, Mr VVEBSTER, of Massacl1tisetts,' appeared in the senate and tool: his seat. The discussion of Mr Foot’s resolution was not resumed until January 13th, when, on motion of Mr Foot, the question was ordered to he taken lay year: and not/3. lh"l1‘-I‘;-ENE, of Illinois, opposed the inquiry"; and Messrs. BAR-~ TON, of Missouri, and M’l{1NL"n‘r, of Alabama, though opposed ton the ultimate ohject, had no ohjections to an inquir r. Mr Brzucron, of Mi_ssot1ri, said that he would not then, on ac» count of the lateness of the hour, enter into a statement of his reasons, but he would, on the following day, undertake to slionr the rnischievous consequences which would result from the adop» tion of this resolution, ,notwit.listamling that it only proposed an: tnqtiiijr. i V T v b 0n Monday, January 18, Mr BENTON said, that “ it could mt be right, to inquire into the expediency of doing wrong.’ i He contended that the effect of the inquiry would be, to alarm and agitate t.he ‘West, to check emigration thither, to remove the land records, and to deliver up large portions of the land to the do- minion of wild beasts. t Two great attempts had been made to prevent emigration to the VVest, besides the one now making, (Which had been openly avowed by Mr Rush, late Secretary of the Treasury) to induce the people of the East to stay at home, and work in manufac.to-- ries, instead of emigrating; to the West. The first great attempt was in 17 86; the scheme was, to give up the navigation of the Mississippi, for twentyfive or thirty years, to Spain; seven states north of Maryland voted for that surrender; six states south of It/Iarylatid, inclusive, voted against it. The motive of the Span-» ish government, as we learned from the correspondence of Gar- rlogtvi, their minister, and also from the debates in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the constitution of the United States, and from the secret journals of Congress,tvas to oheclt emigration. to the West. Mr B. read a passage in ’Ll](~3'WO1‘l{ of Mr Grayson, a_ member of the old Congress, from Virginia, in vvhich he described Massachusetts as uneasy respecting the emi- gration, and the North as opposed to it. ln this first attempt was to be discerned the germ of that policy, by which the valley of he Mississippi had been dismembered, and her rivers amputated. [This was understood to refer to supposed concessions, by Mr Adams, in the treaty with Don Unisn] The second great attempt was made by a committee of twelve in Congress, of tvhorn eight were from the north, and four from the south of the Potomac. Time committee were Messrs. Lone, of New Hampshire; R. Iinva, of Massachusetts ; I~Idtv:m:.x.., of Rhode Island ,; Jonnsotv, of Connecticut; R. R. Ltvmesron, of New Yorit; Srntmnr, of New Jersey ; GARDINER, of Pennsylvania ; HENRY, of Mary'- land; G.aArsoN, of Virginia; VV1LL1AMso'N,of North Carolina; BALL, of South. Carolina ; and HOUSTON, of Georgia. This com—- mittee reported the present plan of surveys of the public land; but they also reported a provision, which would have prevented a settlement out of sight of the Pennsylvania line. This was, that ‘ each township should be sold out complete, before any land was ofi"ered in the next one.’ This would have been fatal tothe West. By the e:-rertions of Virginia, and the whole South, aided by scattered teinforcernents from the North, the provision was stricken out, and thus ended the second great attempt to injure the West. The object, however, had never been abandoned, vi and it could be seen at intervals, in refusing troops and money to defend the frontiers of the l/Vest, and to extinguish the ~»lndian titles; and in Mr Adams’ Withdrawal from the rnarltet, in viola- tion of law, of 1000 square miles in l‘¢lissouri. The ‘Nest must still look to the solid plialans. of the South for succor, until by the quiet superiorit_v which the census of 1840 would give her, she could set all right. On the 19th of January, Mr SMITH of Maryland, esgpressed himself in favor of the inquiry, and of his personal lmotvledge denied that lldr Adams was the first to relinquish the Colorado as a boundary. Mr Adams said that must and 3/tould be our west-~ ern boundary, and this occasioned a quarrel betwiztt Mr Adams and Don Onis. Mr Homms of Maine objected to an attempt to cliaige one section with hostility to another. He had never been sectional. During the late war he had done what he could to sustain the West. The East hostile to the West 1 ‘Where? ‘When? In what act of Congress? ‘Was it in the charter of July 1787. Wes it in providing by that able state paper for new states, and re- ceiving.f them vrl1en'tl1ey possessed 60,000 inhabitants?’ The fact of purchasinfg_; lands showed that the East was not hostile to em- igration ; lilr Holmes replied to Mr Benton in detail. He stated that E-200,000,000 of acres were now ready and in the market for settlers. He said also if there had been a sectional hostility, Missouri would not have been admitted nor the honorable gen» tleman (Mr Benton) here. Mr lliloonnunr, of New Hampshire, ofFet'etl an atnendnient, which proposed an inquiry into the expediency of hastening the sales and extending more rapidly the surveys of public lands. He alluded to the bounties given to settlers in Canada. Mr Four, of Connecticut, opposed the arnendrnent. Mr BARTON, of Missouri, would votettbr the arnendtnent. Mr SMITH, of lltlaryland, could seeno occasion for the atnendm ment. He was in favor of an inquiry. The result of an in- quiry would show that no hostility existed. The senate had al-= ways been liberal to the new states and they had acltnovvledged it. l\~‘lr LIVINGSTON, of Louisiana, said there was a regular and an irregular mode of doing business. By the regular rnode res- olutions went to a committee ; by the i1‘1*egL1lar mode, rnernbers undertook to furnish information and go into subjects at length. He wished the regular mode had been preferred. He was op-» posed to the original" resolution, but in favor of the amendment. vii Mr SPRAGUE, of Maine, suggested a union of the two prom positions, and Mr Foot, of Connecticut, accepted it; so the resolution as it now stands, orders an inquiry into the expediency of hastening as well as of limiting sales ; and of extending more rapidly the surveys, as well as of abolishing the oflice of Survey- or general. Mr HAYNE, of South Carolina, now rose and said, that to oppose inquiry was not necessarily an unparliamentary course. Where information was really wanted or a policy questionable, it was proper to send the subject to a committee ; but where there was full knowledge and fixed opinions, inquiry was neither necessary or proper. There were two great systems and two great parties in relation to the settlement of the public lands. One system was that which we had pursued, of selling the land at the highest price. Another was that of Great Britain, France, and Spain, of granting their lands for a penny or a peppercorn. He described the opposite results of these systems. That of the United States produced poverty and universal distress, and took away from the settler all the profits of labor. It drained the new states of all their money in the same manner as the South, by the operation of the tariff‘, was drained to enrich more favored sections of the Union. The South could sympathize with the West. If the opposite system had been pursued, who could tell how much good, how much improvement, would have taken place, which has not, in the new states! The important question was as to the future. He did not wish for a permanent fund in the treasury, believing it would be used for corruption. If he could, with the wave of a wand, convert the capitol into gold, he would not do it. But there was another purpose to which it was supposed the public land could be applied ; viz. so as to create and preserve in certain quarters, a population suita- ble and sufficient for manufacturing establishments. alt was ne- cessary to create a manufactory of paupers, and these would supply the manufactories of rich proprietors and enable them to- amass great wealth. This doctrine was broached by the late secretary of the treasury. , t The lands were pledged for the public debt. This would be paid in three or four years. He was in favor of a system, which looked to the total relinquishment, at that time, of the lands to the states in which they lie, at prices, he would not say nominal, but certainly so moderate, as not to keep the states long in debt to the United States. In the course of his remarks, Mr Hayne appealed to the gentlemen lrom the Atlantic states, if it was not viii true that the whole of their country was parcelled out and settled V under the liberal system of Britain, instead of the hard and draining one, which we had hitherto pursued 111 regard to the West. Mr Hayne urged the necessity of distributing the lands to the states, from a regard to state sovereignty and the tendency of such a fund to produce consolidation. Mr Wnnsrnrt, of Massachusetts, rose to reply, but gave way, on motion of Mr Benton, for‘ an ad_journment. Wednesday, January 9.01211. Mr Wnnsrrza took the floor. He denied that there was any analog between the cases of the a British colonies a.nd the ‘Western States. The British colonists fled from persecution, or came and settled here at their own charge and risk. Our frontier settlers were protected, and had the Indian title extinguished for them, at a great expense both of blood and treasure. A protecting arm was ever stretched over them. They had gone forth and continued under the shadow of the arent’s win}:-*. He said that by the terms of relinquishment of the territory northwest of the Ohio, by the states of Virginia, , Connecticut, and Massachusetts, and of acceptance, on the part of the United States, Congress had no right to apply the lands, or the proceeds of them, to any other purposes, than for the common lverzefizf of all the stories ; or to relinquish the administra- tion of these lands to any other power or agent, for the compact is, that the lands shall be settlecl, at such z‘-time, cmcl in such 7’I2(il‘7Z7l67"' as Congress shall prescribe. The gentleman from South Caro- lina had admitted that the lands were pledged for the public debt; but he [Mr W.] said there was an earliermortgage, coeval with the cessions by the states. Mr Webster drew a powerful picture of what Ohio was, and of what she now is, and inferred from the contrast, that no hard and harsh system of policy had been pur- sued toward her. In regard to the danger of corruption, from considering the lands as a common fund, he said they had been appropriated for education; does , education corrupt? IS the schoolmaster an corrupter of youth? for roads and canals; do good roads and navigable waters corrupt the people? There were men, who seemed to deprecate everything which created a common interest in the states to keep together ! It was called consolidation. For his part he liked it; it was constitutional consolidation ; it was Gen. VVashington’s consolidation! In the letter, submitting the constitution, the framers of it used_these words, ‘consolidation of the Union.’ He [Mr was a unzonist, and in this sense, as national republiccm. But the tarifi", and the East, the obnoxious, the rebuked, and reproached East! The tariff‘ was not a measure of the East; ix on the contrary, until the policy was irrevocably adopted, she always opposed it. Up to the year 1824, Virginia had given more votes in favor of it than Massachusetts. Massachusetts was then blamed because she would not vote for it, and now she is blamed, because, accommodating herself to the situation into whicl.1 she wasforced, she votes for it! Mr Webster‘ adverted‘ to the ordinance of 1787, by which our present system, in regard to the settlement and admission of new states, north of the Ohio, had been established, and. to the great advantage secured to Ohio by the exclusion of slavery. 'll"l1.at "ordinance was drawn by Natliaii Dane, of Massachusetts;, and for wisdom, it was not surpassed by the legislation of N uma or Solon. This had not only etstcluded slavery, but litiggation, preventing land from being sh-izzglerl over with titles thirty deep, was the case south of the Ohio. Mr Webster here went into an analysis of votes on measures for the benefit of the West, for the 11ial+:itig and repairs of Cumberlantl Road, for l...ouisvill.e and Portland Canal, for the 'Wabash Canal, &tc., and showed that if the eastern votes were striclten out, those, and similar measures would have been lost, and the improvements never rnade. And here Mr Webster read from a report of a debate, in the house of representatives,in 18:25, in which Mr l‘.vl.’Dufiie, of South Carolina, had advanced and supported thesentiment, that it would have been better for the prosperity and wealth of the old thirteen states, if no lands had ever been sold or settled; he, [Mr ll“l’D.,] said that the whole southern country was clecttying and beiiig; deserted, by her population laeiiig absorbed in the vortezr of new states. lo the same debate, lltllr "Webster had replied to llt-lr 1‘r.l.’Dtiflfi.e, and ero- pressed his tvillin,g;t1ess that the population should go where pro- vidence and their own ideas of profit ancl liappiness led them. He said that the remarlts of the gzfentlernan from South Carolina opened to him some new View/s'of policy. lilo [Mr knevv‘ that some states had very bad roads. lie tl1ot;:gl.r1t he could now see the reason. it was that the inhabitants, rnight not be able to go awayl These extracts showed that in 18325, the leading representative from South Carolina had expressed, and the tvliole delegation of that state had acquiesced in those illiberal, narrow, and and 2.-‘tllll-(fl]]lg1‘&ti'.lC)1"l feelinggs and vievvs, which the gentleman from South Carolina had now cl1a.rg;ed upon Massachusetts and the Atlantic states of the North; and that a representative from Massaclitisetts had combatted, witli argtitiieiit and ridicule, those feelings and views, and had professed and advocated the liberal sentiments, in regard to emigration, for which the gentleman from ~t South Carolina now claimed exclusive credit. 13 X Mr ‘Webster concluded by observing, that during the whole fif- teen years that he had been a representative or senator, he had never made so many remarks of a sectional character, as he had in the present debate 3 butwhile he stood here as the representa- tive of Massachusetts, he would be her true representative, and by the blessing of God he would vindicate her character, motives, and history, from every imputation, conriizg from as vespectalile source. Mr BENTON, of Missouri, rose in reply. He said, that if it had depended on New England, ---he would proclaim it to the 'world,——--not a settlement would have been made in the West. He repeated his arguments in relation to the Spanish treaty, and r the new settlement clause; he said the motive of the North, for acceding to the surrender of the navigation of the Mississippi, was to have Spain talte train oil and codfish from us, id est, from .7\"'ew .E?lg?a'?l(Z. God save us, said Mr B., from such allies. He joined issue with the gentleman from Massachusetts, as to the benefits conlhrred by the East upon the ‘Nest. Thursday, January 321. M1‘ CHAMBERS, of Maryland, hoped that the senate would postpone the discussion until Monday, as Mr WTehste1', who had talten a part in it, and wished to be pre- sent at it, had unavoidable engagements out of the senate, and could not convenie1:itl_y attend. lltlr hlA*rNE, of South Carolina, said that some things had fallen from the gentleman from hlassaclitisetts, vcliiclnliad created sensa- tions here, [touching his hreast,] from which he would desire at once to relieve himself. The gentleman had discharged his wea- pon, and he [llvlr wished for an opportunity to return the fire I Mr W'nns'rr.a. I am ready to receive it; let the discussion proceed. Mr BENTON, of lltlissouri, then continued his retnarlts, denying that the credit of ti‘-aniing the ordinance of H87 was due to Na- than Dane; it belonged to lllr .lelii3at'soti and the South. Mr Benton said, that in New England there was a dividing line be- tween the friends of the West, and those who thought it ‘ unben coming a moral and religious people to rejoice at victory.’ yOn one side was democracy; on the other, all that was opposed to S “democracy ; the alliance of the latter party ofiiered yesterday to the Vvlest, he begged leave, in behalf of the West, to decline. On all the questions in which the West had an interest, the South had been its ‘friend ; and the North, if not all, at least its leaders, enemies! Massachusetts, Wllo now came forward to ofleran alliance, was found, on every question, opposed to generous, i.tl3f§1'1£l.nllT10tlS Virginia, t xi MrBELL, of New Hampshire, moved to postpone further dis- cussion until Monday, which was negatived, ayes 13, noes 18. Mr TTAYNE said that the gentleman from Massachusetts had chosen to change the question. He had gone from the West to the South. Had the gentleman found that the senator from Mis- souri was an overmatch for him, that he had gone over that gentleman to attack himself? Was the murder of the coalition floating before the imagination of the gentleman? But he cared not what was the motive. The gentleman had chosen his ene—~ my--—~——~he had gone into his (Mr H’s) territory, and he would go forward to meet him. " The senator from ll/Iassachusetts had said much of the pater- nal care shown by New England to the West; but when he heard that remark, he could not help remembering the course of the tory members in the British Parliament, and the remarks of the advocate of the colonies, 'Wl'1€-311 it was urged that the Brit- ish government had reared their colonies. ‘ You reared them ! They have reared themselves, in s_pit:e of you.’ Mr Hayne went briefly into the history of a certain Nathan Dane, (whom he had not heard of until this discussion,) to show that after‘ his opposition to the West in Cong1'ess, he had pursued the same course in the I';l-artforti Conre.1'1tion. ’ The senator fronfi Mz15ssncl.1t.1setts liatl, alluded to a speech of lltll‘ lltiiilihzflie on the Cumberland road, January 18, Mr ‘Ha rne read an eiatractfrom hilt‘ Wehster’s sieech on that occa- l sion, to show that llvflr id’. had uttered sentinients similar to his own. ‘With these opinions, l‘~."lIr~ Vi/. had yeste:.:day repudiated the ideas of Mr" l-lj., and consid the ‘public lands as a perpetual fund. ll.-ir H. believed that the fund ouglit to be administered for the purpose of raising great and flottrisliing communities. If it V218 to be reserved for the common benefit of all the states, how could the gentleman vote away land for co.l~ieges, schools, canals, and bridges? South Carolina had not been benefited by such votes, so much as she would have been by the building up, of great coimnunities. The gentleman had said, the East had been friends to the West, while the South had oppiosed such grants. The gentle- man had cast it as a reproach on the South, that constitutional scruples had led them to the opposition. The gentleman, had forgot to tell the when, the how, and the wherefore, the East had shown her friendship. He thought this was a new-born zeal, He believed that until the year 1825, the East had been opposed to the growth of the West. It vas a matter of history, — that sometime in the year 18935, certain gentlemen had changed I x'i opposite sentiments and conduct in 1828. On the topic of dis-— union Mr Hayne said that the gentleman from Massachusetts had crossed the southern _border', had invaded the state of South Carolina, ‘as inalting war upon her citizens, her principles and her institutions. ‘Sir’ said he ‘when the gentleman provokes me to rnake a ‘conflict I meet him upon the threshold, I will struggle while I live for our altars and our firesides, and if God gives me strength, I will drive back the invader discornfited, nor shall I stop there, if the gentleman provokes war he shall have war. He has cast the first stone, and if he find that he lives ‘in a house of glass,’ on his head he the consequences.’ Mr H. here weiit into the liistory of the embargo and war, and showed that South Carolina supported both measures, and Massa- clinsetts and the East opposed tliein. He gave all the rennarllican doctrine of ’98 ;, that it was hrst p1'o1‘1i1.ilgzttecl by the l'at.l1et‘s oi‘ the i'aith —-—th:tt' it was maintained hy'Vit',g;itiia and Kentucl«:y in the worst of times-—-——tl:1at it constituted the very pivot on which the political revolution of that da.y turned-——that it em- braces the very principles, the triunnph of which, at that time, i saved the constitution at its last gasp, and which New England statesmen were not unwilling to adopt, when they believed them- selves to be the victims of unconstitutional legislation. ‘It made little difference, whether the power to judge of the xvi extent and limitations of the federal government were in Con» gross or the Supreme Court. ‘ If,’ said .Mr Hayne, ‘ the federal government, in all or any of its departments, is to prescribe the limits of its own authority, and the states are bound to submit to the decision, and are not to be allowed to examine and decide for thernselves, 'wl1en the barriers of the constitution shall be over- leapecl, this is practically a governinent without limitation of powers.’ The states are once retlnced to more petty corpora- tions, and the people are entirely at your rnercy. I have but one word more to acid. In all the el‘iin'ts that have been made by South Carolina, to resist the unconstitntional laws which Cong1‘ess has er-{tended over tliern, she has kept steadily in View the pre- servation of the Union, by the only means by which she believes it can be loiig preserved—-a liriii, inanly, anti steady resistance against usurpation. The measures of the fetfleral government have, it is true, prostratetl her interests, and will soon involve the Whole South in irretrievable ruin. But even this evil, great as it is, is not the chief ,g;rouncl of our complaints. It is the principle involved in thecontest, a principle which, substituting the discre- tion of Congress for the limitations of the constitution, brings the ‘states and the people to the feet of the federal g;;overn1nent, and leaves them notliing they can call their own. Sir, if the mea--- . r sures of the federal government were less oppressive, we should still strive a§.;a:inst this usurpation. T he Sout.l1 is i1lCZ'lllTlg on a prin-- ciple she has altvays heltl sac.rer;l ~—-—-resistance to unautltxorizetl taxation. These, sir, are the principles wliich lnC.ltilCt3t'l the in1rnor- tel l‘la1ll13tl:@11 to resist the payment of a tan: of tvventyt shillings. "Would twi:ei'ity shillings liave ruined his iiortunei No! but the payment of half twenty sliill.i11gs, on the. principle on Wliicli it was deinan»:le‘tl, woultl have tnatle hiin a slave. Sir, if in acting on these liigli rnotives~—--—ii‘ animated by that ardent love of liberty which has always been the most proininent trait in the Southern cha.racter---vve should be hurrierl beyond the bounds of a cold and calc.L1lati11g prudence, who is there, with one noble and gene- rous sentiment his bosom, that would not be disposed, in the laiigiiage of Burke, to eaclainn, ‘ You must partlon soinetliing to the spirit of liberty.’ 7 Mr Vlfansrae. tools the floor, but gave way for a motion to ad-— journ, and the senate acljournecl. On the following.; day, January the ‘:7.’;("3tl1, Mr VVr.:es'.rnn arose, and during that and the sncceetling clay, delivered the speech which will be fouricl in the subsequent pages. xii their policy in regard to the West. If the Americantsystem had grown out of a policy, at that time adopted, of manufactures in the East, and internal improvements in the ‘West, from which the South was shut out, he thought it was not to be boasted of as friendly to the West. On the 1‘€t1‘lal‘l{S of Mr VV. on the public debt, he should wait until the senator from Massachusetts should act before he gave him entire creditfor his declarations. The gentleman had said he would pay the debt, because the government was bound to pay it. llrlr lvVE13s'rE::~:. explained that he would pay the public’ debt, because it was onerous to the industry of the country. an Harare added, the gentleman had said that, as it was the bond of Union, he should not object to have it kept on the coun- try forever. M1‘ H. repudiated such an idea. It was not a go- vernment that We Wanted, but a free government, one that should make the people independent and happy. This would bind men to the footstool of a tyrant, as much as to the constitution. It was such sentiments as those that led directly to the celebrated maxim, that a public debt was a public blessing. On motion of Mr Wlnesren, the senate adjourned to Monday. Monday, January .‘25.—~M1‘ lll:“iAYNE again occupied the floor for two hours. In reference to the supposed blessinggs secured to Ohio by excluding slavery, he said that a slave population did not render a country weak, for in all countries engaged in war, there must be much the largest portion of the inhabitants engag- ed in producing for the subsistence of those employed in the field. He said the spirit of liberty was l}i°'l‘l€1‘ and more resolute in those men who saw an example of slavery before them ; and he pronounced an eulogiurn upon the illustrious men of the ~ South, begir"u1-lug with the I~‘.~1THE‘R or BIS COUNTRY, and ending i with the DISTINGUISHED CHIEFTAIN, who has now been elevated ,, by a free people to the highest place in their gift. He quoted from i.iii3nr'l<:e the words that there was ‘a more high and Itatxglrty >spiri.t of liberty’ among slaveholding than non-slaveholding peo- Q 0 pie, the haughtiness of (lOl1}mlO1] combines with the spirit of freedom and fortifies it. Mr Hayne quoted from Matthew Ca.rey’s Olive Branch, most of the matters of party crimination, venom and fury, which had been thrown out during the contin- uance of the restrictive system, embargo and war. Mr Hayne adverted to speeches of Mr ‘Webster against the tarifi‘ in 1820 and 18%}, praised them as most able, elevated, and carrying all before them; and he then constrasted them with his REMARKS CHARACTER on THE DEBATE, &c. AND ON’ MR. WEBSTEI-PS PART IN IT. THIS debate growing out of, or rather engrafted A upon, a subject of no immediate, and of little in- trinsic importance, is unquestionably one of the most interesting and momentous, We had almost said, portentous, that ever occurred in this country. Had Mr WEBSTER been the cause of giving to it the strikingly national character which it assumed, We should not, proud as We feel of his abilities, have applauded the deed; but it is obvious from the origin and whole course of the business, that this sin lies not at his door or ours. When the resolu-- tion was submitted by Mr Foor, Mr WEBSTER had not yet taken his seat, during the present session. One day’s discussion took place while he was still absent. There was nothing sectional on that day. There was powerful retort, there "was Wit, and a stream of scorching sarcasm from [~IoLMns upon Bsncron. The latter gentleman, like Brennus see- 1 . 2 ing that he could not overthrow Mr HOLMES in his citadel, turned with fury upon the patres conscripti of the North, not the living, but dead, and laid Waste with a more than Bentonian ruthlessness to the rest of the city and the state. He charged the East with hostility to the West, not sudden and tran- sient, but deep rooted, relentless and systematic, for the space of forty years! Mr HAYNE followed in his track, not to repair the mischief, but to com- plete it; not to give sepulture to the dead, or suc- cor to the living, but to seize and slay What Mr BENTON had left, and the reinforcements which might arrive, and to carry devastation still further into the most sacred recesses of our Home. He A is the most culpable of the two, as to the substantive part of the attack, and least frank and honorable as to the manner of it. Mr BENTON was excited, and goaded by Mr HOLMES’ darts, of Which, many were sticking in hirn,but Mr HAYNE was unscathed and unprovoked ; yet he Walked deliberately, Where BENTON had fu- riously rushed, and fell to enacting on the same ground, and against the same persons and objects, the same extravagances which he had witnessed in BENTON. He recognised like him, two distinct lines of policy, and a distinct party line in reference to the care of the union, and the growth of the West- ern states. Like him, he spoke of the hardships and the exhausting of the West; like him, he spoke, ‘ of asirnilar effect in the South, intimately connect- ed vvith, that in the West, both produced by the ‘ accursed tariff policy,’ and produced for the benefit 3 cf the East--~—-like him, he spoke of thewsympathy arising thence. In fact, we can discern no other diflerencel than that BENTON commenced the battle with his pistols and scalping knife, and Harms brought up the infantry of the line; that BENTON set on With avvar-whoop, and calling his enemies by name, while HAYNE Went silently and scientifically to slay- ing them. , p The question Was, then, Whether Mr WEBSTER, a soldier of Massachusetts, should look tamely on,and tarnely take the blows 3 When he arrived, he found that BENTON had assailed our own Com- monwealth, and soon saw Harms follow up the blow ; and then he sprung like a lion, to the rescue. "We, as sons of li/lassachusetts, and lovers of the republic, applaud his manly, successful efl”ort. Too long and too patiently have We seen u and borne similar attacks on us, and that Whichwe hold sacred and dear; the time had come, and the man to meetrvith atletei*n1in<3tl and hi'istlii1g front those weal: hearted enemies of us and of themselves, W110 have -pelted and abused us just in proportion as they found resistance feeble or not tliought of. We have no doubt that this debate will have a sat. utary effect and important and periuanent conse- quences. We thinlsr; it will tend to strengthen and perpetuate the Union. We thinlt we shall hereafter see less of ‘ that high and haughty spirit of liberty,’ of which Mr HAYNE has spoken; and Wliich appears “to consist in r°educi11g liberty to something like a quintessence, and loving it so Well as to he unwill- ing that anybody else should have a share of it. 4 We think that the stern and terrible repulse, which DANIEL WEBSTER has dealt to the Hotspurs of the South, will contribute more to the safety, dig- nity, and interest of the North, than almost any event that can be imagined, unless it were a victory in a provoked and unavoidable War. Massachu— setts has borne too much, aye, a great deal too_ much; she is bearing even now to be mulcted by the general government, because she once held and asserted, erroneously we admit, these very principles which Mr HAYNE defends, and which Virginia and South Carolina annually and solemnly reassert and proclaim! It is no way to strengthen the Union for one part or state tosubmit quietly and meanly to insult or Wrong; for that will tempt to further Wrong, to wrong which would never have been done to a proud and resisting foe .; and Wrongs and insults will be accumulated until rupture and ruin are inevitable.‘ Nemo rte intpune lcrcessit, is a sound, and ham cmelniaximp in national affairs. Man spurns the worm but fears to wake , The slurnbering venom of the folded snake. -If either the centripetal or centrifugal force of any one of the Heavenly bodies be impaired or dis-— turbed, the vvhole system will fall into ‘chaos. True Wisdom and a comprehensive benevolence would preserve them both, and the safe and beautiful equilibrium, which it takes both to produce. a MR. WEBSTER’S SPEECH. _fl ‘”'~,,‘.;'.> “..';,,\‘:‘.‘:V%.,.:‘f‘, SPEECH. [Following Mn HAYNE in the debate, Ma Wzessrnn addressed the Senate as follows :] Mn Pnnsrnnm»--—VVhen 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 of 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 wefloat farther, refer to the point from which we de- parted, that we may at least be able to conjecture where we now are. I ask for the reading of the resolution. [The secretary read the resolution, as follows .2] ‘Resolved, That thefflornniittee on Public Lands be instructed to in- ' quire 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 sale, and are new subject to entry at the minimum price. And, also, Whether the oflice of Surveyor General, ‘ and some of the Land Ofiices, may not beabolished without tdetrimentl to the public interest: or whether it be expedient to adoptuneasures to hasten the sales, and extend more rapidly the surveys, of the public lands.’ a ‘ We have thus heard, sir, what the resolution is, which is actually before us for consideration ; and it will readily occur to every one that it is almost the only subject about which some- thing has not been said in the speech, running through two days, by which the senate has now been entertained by the gentle»- man from South Carolina. Every topic in the wide range of , our public affairs, whether past or present--everything, general or local, whether belonging to national politics or party politics, seemsjtoihave attracted more or less of the honorable member’s attention, saveonly the resolution before us. He has spoken of 8 everything but the public lands. They have escaped his notice. To that subject, in all his excursions, he has not paid even the cold respect of a passing glance. in Wlien this debate, sir, was to be resumed, on Thursday morn- ing, it so happened that it would have been convenient for me to be elsewhere. The honorable member, however, did not incline toput 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 coming, that We might stand out of the way, 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 become 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 thetvigor and success of the war have not quite come up to the lofty and sounding phrase of‘ the manifesto. V The gentleman, sir, in declining to postpone the debate, told the senate, with the emphasis of his hand upon his heart, that there Was something rankling here, which he wished to relieve. [Mr Hanna rose, and disclairned ever using the word rankling] It would not, Mr President, be safe for the honorable member to appeal to those around him, upon the question wltethei‘ he did, in fact, make use of that Word. But he may have been unconscious of it- At any rate, it is enough that he disclaims it. But still, with or Without the use of that~rpar- ticular word, he had yet something here, he said, of vvhiclt he wished to rid himself by an immediate reply. In this re- spect, sir, I have a great advantage over the honorable gen» tleman. There is nothing /zere, sir, which gives me the slightest uneasiness ; neither fear, nor anger, nor that, which is sometimes more troublesome than either——-—the consciousness of having beenin the Wrong. There is nothing, either ioriginating here, or now received here, by the gentleman’s shot. Nothing original, for I had not the slightest feeling of disrespect or unkindness towards the honorable member. Some passages, itis true, had occurred since our acquaintance in this body, which I could have Wished might have been otherwise ; ‘but I had used philosophy,” and forgotten them. . VVhen the honorable mem- ber rose, in his first speech, I paid him the respect of atten- tive listening; and when he sat dovvn, though surprised, and I , mustsay, even astonished, at some of his opinions, nothing was farther from my intention than to commence any personal war-— fare; and through the Whole of the few remarks I made in 9 answer, I avoided, studiouslyand carefully, everything which I thought possible to be construed into disrespect- And, sir, while there is thus "nothing originating here, which I wished, at anytime, or now wish to discharge, I must repeat, also, that nothing has been received here, which rambles, or in any way gives me an- I noyance. I 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 find 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 thatl had slept on his speech. I must have slept on it, or not slept at all. The mo» ment the honorable member sat down, his friend from Missouri rose, and with much honeyed commendation of the speech, sug- gested that the impressions 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 3’ Was it not much better and kinder, both to sleep upon them my- self, and to allow others, also, the pleasure of sleeping upon them 2‘ But if it he meant, by sleeping upon his speech, that I took time to prepare a reply to it, it is quite a mistake 3 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 isundioubtedly true---I did sleep on the gené tlen1an’sspeech, and slept soundly. Andjlslept equally well on his speech of yesterday, to which I am now replying. It is quite possible that, in this respect, also, I possess some advantage over the honorable member, attributable, doubtless, to a cooler tem- perament on my part; for, in truth,I 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 attackhad been made on the East, he, he assuresus,‘did not begin it--——it was the gentleman from Missouri. Sir, I answered the gentleman’s speech because I happened to hear it; and be» cause, also, I chose to give an answer to that speech, which, if unanswered, I thought most likely to produce injurious impres- sions- I did not stop to inquire who was the original drawer of 10 the bill. , I found a responsible aendorser before me, and it was my purpose to hold him liable, and to bring him to his just re- sponsibility without delay. But, sir, this interrogatory of the honorable member was only introductory to another. He pro- ceeded to ask me, whether I had turned upon him, in this de- bate, from the consciousness that I should find an overmatch, if I ventured on acontest with his friend from Missouri. If, sir, the honorable member, ea: gratin modestiw, had chosen thus to de- fer to his friend, and to pay him a compliment, without inten- tional disparagement to others, it would have been quite accord- ing 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 deliberate, which may be bestowed on others, as so much unjustly withholden from themselves. But the tone and manner of the gentlematfs 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 allow me to pass it over without notice. It was put as a question for me to answer, and so put, as if it were difficult for me to answer, whe- ther I deemed the member from Missouri an overmatch for my- self in debate here. It seems, to me, sir, that this is extraordi- nary language, and an extraordinary tone, for the discussions of this body. ‘ Matches and over--rnatches ! Those termsaret more applicable elsewhere than here, and fitter forotherassemblies than this. Sir, the gentleman seems to forget where and what we are. This is a senate ; a senate of equals: of men of individualhonor and personal character, and of absolute independence. We know no masters : We acknowledge no dictators. This is a hall for mu-- tual consultation and discussion ; not an arena for the exhibition of champions. I offer myself, sir, as a match for no man 3 I throw the challenge of debate at no man’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, hold—- ing myself to be the hurnblest of the members here, I yet know nothing in the arm of his friend H from Missouri, either alone, or when aided 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 floorof the senate. Sir, when uttered as matter of commenda-- tion or compliment, I should dissent from nothing which the at ~' 11 honorable member might say of his friend. Still less do I put forth any pretensions 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 say nothing less, likely than such a comparison, to wound my pride of personal character. The anger of the tone rescued the remark from intentional irony, which, otherwise’, probably, would have been its general acceptation. But, sir, if it be im- agined 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 attack; to another the cry of onset ; or, if it be thought that by a loud and empty vaunt of anticipated victory, any laurels are to be won here; if it be 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 thathe is dealing with one of whose temper and character he 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, and I trust I never shall allow myself to be, into crimination and recrimination, the honorable member may, perhaps, find, that, in that contest, there will be blows to take as well as blows to give 3 that others can state comparisons as significant, at least, as his own, and that his im- punity may perhaps, demand of him whatever powers of taunt and sarcasm he may possess. I commend. him to a prudent husbandry of his resources. But, sir, the coalition! The coalition! Aye, ‘the murdered coalition!’ _The gentleman asks, if I were led or frightened into this debate by the spectre of the coalition-———‘ was it the ghost of the murdered coalition,’ he exclaims, ‘ which haunted. the mem- ber frorn Massaclittsettsg and which, like the ghost of Banquo, would never down 3 " ‘ 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 thetliousand calumnies with which the press teemed, during an excited political canvass. It was a charge of which there was I not only no proof or probability, butwhich 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, whicli, by continued repetition, through all the organsof detrac- tion and abuse, are capable-of, misleading those who are already far misled, and of further fanning passion, already kindling into 12 flame. Doubtless, it served 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 loathsome calumnies. It is the very cast ofi‘ 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 povver 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 object 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 treache--i rous 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 l—.-mew‘ Where its appearance would St1‘il~IZ(-3 terror, and who would cry out, a ghost 2 It made itself‘ visible in the right quarter, and compelled the guilty and the conscience- smitten, and none others, to start, with i ,‘I~‘r’ythee, see there! behold!-—-—1oolr.Al lo! ‘ If Irstand here, I saw him!’ i Their eye-balls were seared, (was it not so, sir P) 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 coward 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 jearecl that they 3720-ulcl be, pushed from their stools by the ghost of the slain, or, who cried out, to a spectre created by their own fears, and their own remorse, ‘ avaunt! and quit our sight I’ , There is another particular, sir, in which the honorable mem-— ber’s quick perception of resemblances, might, I should think, have seen something in the story of Banquo, making it not alto- gether a subject of the most pleasant contemplation. Those who murdered Banquo, What did they win by it? Substantial good i‘. L Permanent power? it Or disappointment, rather, and sore morti- 13 fication --— dust and ashes-—-the common fate of vaulting ambition, overleaping itself? ‘Did not even»-handed justice, ere long, com- mend the poisoned chalice to their own lips ? Did they not soon find that for another they had ‘ filed their mind P’--~ 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 to be wrenched by an tmlineel hand, A No son of theirs stzcceeding.’ Sir, I need pursue the allusion no farther. I leave the honora- ble 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, tllouggli the parallel should be entirely completed, I had almost said, I am satisfied also-—-—-but that I shall think of. Yes, sir, I will think of that. i In the course of my observations the other day, Mr President, I 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 mat- ter which was the subject of debate, miglit, Ithought, receive from me a commendatory recognition. l But the honorable member was inclined to be facetious on the ” sttbject. He was rather disposed to make it matter of ridicule, that I had introduced into the debate the name of one Nathan Dane, of Whorn he assures ushe 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 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 marl; of ambition, sir, either with the honorable gentleman or myself, to accomplish as much to malre our names l~:I1OW11 to advantage, and remembered with gratitude, as Mr Dane has accomplished. But the truth is, sir,I suspect, that ll/Ir Dane lives a little too far north. He is of Mas- sachusetts, and too near the north star to be reached by the hone» rable gentlemarfs telescope. lf his sphere had happened to range south of lVIason’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, 3 149 in all future times, northwest of the Ohio, as a measure of great wisdom and foresight; and one which had been attended with highly beneficial and permanent consequences. I supposed, that on this point, no two gentlemen in the senate could entertain dill- ferent opinions. But the simple expression of this sentiment has led the gentleman, not only into a labored defence of slavery, in the abstract, and on principle, but, also, into a warm accusation against me, as having attaclted the system of domestic slavery, now existing in the Southern States. For all this, there was not the slightest foundation, in anything 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 introduc- tion of slaves; and added, that I presumed, in the neighboring state of Kentucky, there was no reflecting and intelligent gentle- man, who would doubt, that if the same prohibition had been ex.—— tended, 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 attaclt 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 melting an onset on the whole South, and inatiiifesting aspirit which would interfere with, and disturb their domestic condition! Sir, this injustice no other—~ wise 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 l know, full well, that it is, and has been the settled policy of some persons in the South, for years, to re-- present" 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 intense 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 three» tion. , But the feeling is without adequate cause, and the suspi- cion which eaists, wholly groundless. There is not, and never has been, a disposition in the North to interfere with these inte- rests of the South.‘ Such interference has never been supposed 15 to be within the power of government; nor has it been in any way attempted. It has‘ always been regarded as a matter cl domestic policy, left with the states themselves, and with wliich the federal government had nothing to do. Certainly, sir,l ant, and ever have been, of that opinion. The gentleman, indeed, argttes 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 whe- ther it be curable, and if so, by What means; or, on the other hand, whether it be the v-ulnus ’liTIz7?26(Z'iCali)il8 of the social system, I leave it to those whose right and duty it is to inquire and to de- cide. And this, I believe, sir, is, and unilbrrnly has been, the sentiment of the North. Let us look a little at the history of this matter. Wlieri the present constitution was submitted for the ratifica- tion or the people, there were those who ll1"}a?‘i118Cl that the povve1's of the goverutneut which it proposed to establish, 1n.if.glit:, perhaps, in some possible mode, be exerted in measures tending to the abolition of slavery. This suggestion would of course at» tract much attention in the southern conventions. In that of Virgiiiia, Governor Randolph said: ‘I hope there is none here Who, coiisitlering the subject in the calm l.igl1t of philosophy, will tnalre an objection dishonorable to Virginia——---that, at the moment they are securing the i'igl1ts of their citizens, an objection is started, that there is a sparlt of hope that those unfortunate men now held in bondage may, by the operation of the gi_;eneral government, be made free.’ At the very first Confgn-ess, petitions on the subject were pro»- sented, if I mistake not, liroro (llll'l:‘.l'G1T)iL states. The Pe111isyi:va~- nia Society for promoting the Abolition of Slavery took a. t7.:;r:-ad, and laid before Congress a memorial, praying Cong;res:a; to prio- mote the abolition by such powers as it possessed. mci;no- rial was referred, in the house of 1‘e1:»t'esentativt:;-s, to a select committee, consisting of Mr Foster of New I‘Iflt11pSl’;zit7t:t, Mi" Gerry of Massachusetts, Mr Huntington of Connecticut, lhh‘ Lawrence of New York, Mr Sinnickson of New Jersey, Mi‘ Hartley of Pennsylvania, and .M1‘Parl:er of Virginia; all of thern,sir, as you will observe, northern men, but theilast. 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, altliotigli 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, that Con» 16 gress could not, prior to the year 1808, prohibit the migration or importation of such persons as any of the states, then existing, should think proper to admit.-—Second, that Congress had au- thority to restrain the citizens of the United States from carrying on the African slave trade, for the purpose of supplying‘ foreign countries. On this proposition, our early laws against those who engage in that traffic are founded. The third proposition, and that which bears on the present question, was 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 pro- vide rules and regulations therein, which humanity and true policy may require.’ This resolution received the sanction of the house of repre- sentatives so early aslV.larch, 17 90. 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 ex- ception, all northern men, but also that, of the rnetnbers 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 that day to this, it has never been maintained or con- tended that Congress had any authority to regulate, or interfere With, the condition of slaves in the several states. N o northern gentleman, to my knowledge, has moved any such question in either house of Congress. p ‘ I t * The fears of the South, Whatever fears they rniglit have enter»- tained, 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 became necessary, or tvas 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 endan- ger the relation of master and slave. For myself, I claim no other merit, than that this gross and enormous injustice towards the Whole North, has not wrought upon me to change my opin- ions, or my political conduct. I hope I am above violating my principles, even under the smart of injury and false imputations. ‘njust 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 17 the rights of others. The domestic slavery of the South, Ileave where I find it-—-A-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-distribu- tion of power under this federal government. We know, sir, that the representation of the states in the other house, is not equal. ‘ lWe know that great advantage, in that respect, is enjoyed by the slave holding states; and we know, too, that the intended equivalent for that advantage, 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, and in other modes. Nevertheless, I do not complain: nor would I countenance any movement to alter this arrangement of representation. It is the original bar- gain, the compact——--let it stand: 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 for the Con» stitution 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 un- founded and unjust; accusations which impute to us a disposi- tion to evade the constitutional compact and to extend the power of the government over the internal laws and domes-- tic condition of the states. All such accusations, wherever 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 magnanirnity of feeling will lead them to a desire to maintain and disseminate truth, and who possess the means of its diffusion with the southern public; we must leave it to them to disabuse that public of its ‘ prejudices. But, in 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 honor- able member has chosen to draw from my former observations on that subject, I am not willing now entirely to take leave of it without another remark. It need hardly be said, that that paper expresses just ‘sentiments on the great subject of civil and reli-—— gious liberty. Such sentiments were common, and abound in all our state papers of that day. But this ordinance did that which was not so common, and which is not, even now, universal; that is, it set forth and declared, as (1 high and binding duty of go- aerwzment itself; to encourage schools, and advance the means of 18 education; on the plain reason, that religion, morality, and knowledge, are necessary to good government, and to the happi- ness of mankind. One observation further. The important provision incorporated into the constitution of the United States, and several 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 I the obligation 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 I must add, also, in regard to the author of the ordinance, who has not had the happiness to attract the gentleman’s notice, heretofore, nor to avoid his sarcasm now, that he was chairman of that select committee of the old Congress, whose report first expressed the strong sense of that body, that the old confederation was not adequate to the eXige11- cies of the country, and recommending "to the ‘states to send delegates to the convention which formed the present constitu—- tion.-——--No'rE 1. - - An attempt has been made to transfer, from the North to the South, the honor of this exclusion of slavery from the North- western 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 shall have been con- victed.’ 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,’ fstc. New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, N ew 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 consent of nine states was necessary, the words could not stand, and were struck; out accordingly.--—-M1* Jefferson voted for the clause, but was overruled by his colleagues. In March of the next year, [1785,] Mr King, of Massachu-— setts, seconded by Mr Ellery, of Rhode Island, proposed the formerly rejected article, with this addition: ‘ ./{incl that this reg- ulation shall be an article of compact, and remain a fundamental principle of the constitutions between the thirteen original states, and each of the states described in the resolve,’ (yo. On this 19 clause, which provided the adequate and thorough security, the eight Northern States at that time voted affirmattvely, and the four Southern States negatively. The votes of nine states were not yet obtained, and thus, the provision was again rejected by T the Southern States. The perseverance of the North held out, and two years afterwards the object was attained. It is no dero- gation from the credit, whatever that may be, of drawing the ordinance, that its principles had before been prepared and dis-T cussed, in the form of resolutions If one should reason in that way, what would become of the distinguished honor of the an»- thor of the declaration of independence? There is not a senti- ment 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 h'as now found out that this gen»- tleman, Mr Dane, was a member of the Hartford Convention. However uninformed the honorable member may be of charac- ters 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 monitor, possessing the means of local knowledge, and ready to supply the honorable member with everything, down even to forgotten and moth-~eaten two-—-penny pamphlets, which may be used to the disadvantage of his owncountry. But, as to the Hartford Convention, sir, 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. The latitude in which they origiynated was too cold. Other conventions, of more recent eraistence, have gone a whole bar’s length beyond it. The learned doctors of Colleton and Abbe»- ville have pushed their commentaries on the I-lartford collect so far that the original teXt—-writers are thrown entirely into the shade. Ihave 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 in its proceedings a spirit in any degree resembling that which was avowed and justified in those 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. c Having dwelt long on this convention, and other occurrences of that day, in the hope, probably, (which will not be gratified) 20 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 gentieman’s manner, a stranger to the course of the debate, and to the point in discussion, would have imagined, from so tri- umphant a tone, that the honorable member was ':.bout to over- whelm me with a manifest contradiction. Any one who heard him, and who had not heard whatl 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. Therelis not the slightest difi"erence in the sentiments of my.re-- marks on the two occasions. ‘What I said here on Wedtiesday, is in exact accordance with the opinions expressed by me in the other house in 1832.5. Though the gentleman had the meta- physics of Hudibras---—-though he were able ‘ To sever and divide A hair ’twixt North and Northwest side,’ he yet could not insert his rnetapltvsical scissors between the fair reading of my remarks in 18535, and what I said here last week. There is not only no contradiction, no difference, but in truth, too enact a similarity, both in thought and language, to be entirely in just taste. t Iliad myself quoted the same speech; had re- curred to it, and spoke with it open before me ; and much of what I said was little more than a‘ repetition from it. In order to make finishing wori: 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. VVell, then, its history is this: The honorable member from Connecticut moved a resolution, which constituted the first branch of that which is now before us; that is to say, a resolu-- tion, 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 detrirnent to the public service. In the progress of the discussion which arose on this resolu- tion, an honorable member from New Hampshire moved to amend the resolution, so as entirely to reverse itsobject; that is, strikeit all out, and insert a direction to the committee to inquire 321 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 Sprague,) suggested that both these propositions might well enough go, for considers» tion, to the committee; and, in this state of the question the member from South Carolina addressed the senate in his first speech. He rose, he said, to give us his own free thoughts on the public lands. I saw him rise, with pleasure, and listened with expectation, though before he concluded I was filled with surprise. Certainly, 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 com- mence hostilities—--—-but that another had preceded him in the at- tack. 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 un- favorable to the West. Ithought his opinions unfounded and erroneous, as to the general course of the governrnent, and ventured 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 have been harsh and rigid in selling, when we should have given the public lands to settlers. I thought 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 arri- ved here, they were forgotten by the mother country, or remem- bered only to be oppressed. Carried away again by the appear- anceotf analogy, or struck with the eloquence of the passage, the honorable member yesterday observed, that the conduct of 4 22 government, towards the western emigrants, or my representam tion of it, brought to his mind a celebrated speech in the British parliament. It Was, sir, the speech of Col. Barrie. On the question of the stamp act, or tea tax, I forget which, Col. Barrie had heard a mernber on the T_reasury 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. Barrie, in reply to this, was: They planted by your care 1 Your oppression planted them in America. They fled 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 applicable to the conduct of the government of the United States towards the ‘Western emigrants, or to any representation given by me of that conduct? ‘Were the settlers in t 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 eat out their substance? Sir, this fervid eloquence of the British speaker, just when and Where it was uttered, and fit to remain an exercise for the schools, is not a little -out of place, when it is brought thence to be applied here, to the conduct of our own country towards her own citizens. From America toEng1and, it may be true i; from Aniericans to their own government it tvouldiibe 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 our- selves against our own. But I come to the point of the alleged contradiction. In my rernarks on VVednesday, I contended that We could not give away gratuitously all the public lands ; that we held them in trust; that the government had solemnly pledged itself to dispose ofthem as a common fund for the common 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 183225? 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? I have not now said, that We should hug these lands as a favorite source of pecuniary income. No such thing. It is not my view. What I have said, and what I do say, is, that they are 23 a common f'und---—-«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 money from them. This I say now, and this I have always said. Is this hugging them as a favorite treasure? Is there no diflierence 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 itis, in my judgment, a just and wise policy, perfectly according with all the various duties which rest on government. So much for my con- tradiction. And what is it? Where is the ground of the gentle- rnan’s triumph? ‘What inconsistency, in WO1‘Cl or doctrine, has he been able to detect? Sir, if this be a sample of that discom— fiture, with which the honorable gentleman threatened me, com- mend me to the WO1‘(l discomfiture for the rest of my life. But, after all, this is not the point of the debate, and I must bring the gentleman back to that which is the point. The real question between me and him is, where has the doc- trine been advanced, at the South or at the East, that the population of the West should be retarded, or at least, need not be hastened, on account of its efl’ect to drain off the people from the Atlantic States? Is this doctrine, as has been alleged, of eastern origin? That is the question. Itlas the gentleman found anything by which he can make good his accusation? I submit to the senate, that he has entirely failetl; and as far as this debate has shovvn, 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. This simple fact, while it re- quires no comment to enforce it, defies all a1*gument to refute it. I could refer to the speeches of another southern gentleman, in years before, of the same general character, and to the same ef- fect, as that which has been quoted; but I will not consume the time of the senate by the reading of them. i So then, sir, New England is guilless of the policy of retarding Western population, and of all envy and jealousy of tliegroyvtli of the new states. VVIIEHZGVG1‘ there may be of that policy rnthe country, no part of it is hers. If it has a local habitation, the ho- norable member has probably seen, by ‘l;l11S time, where he IS to 24 look for it ; and if it has now received a name, he has himself a christened it. tWe approach, at length, sir, to a more important part of the honorable gentlernan’s observations. Since it does not accord with my views ofyustlce and policy to give away the public lands altogether, as mere matter of gratuity, I am asked by the honor- able gentleman on yvhat 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 appro- priating portions of the lands to particular roads, particular canals, articular rivers, and particular institutions of education in the est? This leads, sir, to the real and wide difference in political opinions between the honorable gentleman and myself. On my part, Ilook upon all these objects as connected with the common good, fairly embraced in its objects 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 Carolinain a Canal in Ohio?’ Sir, this very question is full of significance. It developes the gentleman’s whole political system; and its answer expounds mine. Here we difi'er, tozo ccelo. I look upon a road over the Allegheny, a canal round the Falls of the Ohio, or a canal or railway 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 gentleman thinks otherwise, and this is the key to open his construction of the powers of the government. Hegmray 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 diverse. T 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 3 he does no more than arrive at the natural con- clusions of his own doctrines; he only announces the true results of that creed which he has adopted 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 narrow minded people of New England do not reason thus. Our notion of things is entirely difierent. 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 com- mon renown which it has so greatly contributed to acquire. In 25 our contemplation, Carolina and Ohio are parts of the same country; States, united under the same General Government, having interestscomrnon, associated, intermingled. In whatever is within the proper sphere of the constitutional power of this government, we look upon the States as one. We do not impose geographical limits, to our patriotic feeling or regard ; we do not follow rivers and mountains, and lines of latitude, to find bonn- daries beyond which public improvements do not benefit us. We who come here as agents and representatives of those narrow minded and selfish men of New England, consider ourselves as bound to regard, with equal eye, the good of the whole, in what- ever is within our power of legislation. Sir, if a railroad or a canal, beginning in South Carolina, and ending in South Carolina, appeared to me to be of national importance and national mag» nitude, (believing, as I do, that the power of government extends to the encouragement of works of that description,) if I were to stand up here, and ask, what interest has Massachusetts in a rail road in South Carolina, Ishould not be willing to face my con- stituents. These same narrow minded men would tell me, that they had sent me to act for the whole country, and that one who possessed too little comprehension, either of intellect or feeling, one who was not large enough, in mind and heart, to embrace the whole, was not fit to be entrusted with the interest of any part. Sir, I do not desire to enlarge the powers of the govern- ment, by unjustifiable construction ; nor to exercise any not within a fair interpretation. But when it is believed that a power does exist, then it is, in my judgment, to be exercised for the general benefit of the whole : so far as respects the exercise of such a power, the states are one. It was the very object of the constitution to create unity of interests to the extent of the powers of the general government. In war and peace, weare one; in commerce one; because the authorityrof the general government reaches to war and peace, and to the regulation of commerce. I have never seen any more difficulty in erecting light--houses on the lakes, than on the ocean ; in improving the harbors of inland seas, than if they were within the ebb and. flow of the tide ; or of removing obstructions in the vast streams of the West, more than in any Work to facilitate commerce on the Atlantic coast. If there be power for one, there is power also for the other; and they are all and equally for the country. There are other objects apparently more local, or the benefit of which is less general, towards which, nevertheless,I have concurred with others to give aid, by donations of land. It is proposedto construct a road in or through one of the new states 26 ‘in which this government possesses large quantities of land. -Hive the United States no right, as a great and untaxed prop ri- etor 3 are they under no obligation to contribute to an object thus wcaflculated to promote the common good of all the proprietors, the-Tmselves included? And even with respect to education, which is the extreme case, let the question he considered. In the first place, as we have seen, it was made matter of compact with these states, that they should do their part to promote edu- cation. In the next place, our whole system of land laws pro- ceeds on the idea that education is for the common good; be—- cause, in every division, a certain portion is uniformly reserved and appropriated for the use of schools. And, finally, have not these new states singularly strong claims, founded on the ground already stated, that the government is a great uiitaxed proprie- tor in the ownership of the soil. It is a consideration of great importance, that probably there is in no part of the country or of the world, so great a call for the means of education as in those new states; owing to the vast number of persons within those ages, in which education and instruction are usually re- ceived, if received at all. This is the natural consequence of recency of settlement and rapid increase. The census of these states shows how great a proportion of the whole population oc- cupies the classes between infancy and manhood. These are the wide fields, and here is the deep and quick soil for the seeds of knowledge and virtue 5 and this is the favored season, the spring time for sowing them. Let them be disseminated without stint. Let them be scattered, with a bountiful broad cast. What- ever the government can fairly do towards these objects, in my opinion, ought to be done. i t j ‘ These, sir, are the grounds, succinctly stated, on which my votes for grants of lands for particular objects rest; while 1 main- tain at the same time, that it is all a common fund, for the com- mon benefit. And reasons like these, I presume, have influ-- enced the votes of other gentlemen from New England. Those who have a different view of the powers of the government, of course, come to different conclusions, on these, as on other ques- tions. I observed, when speaking on this subject before, that if we looked to any measure,‘ whether for a road, a canal, or any- thing else, intended for the improvement of the West, itwould be found, that if the New England eyes were struck out of the list of votes, the southern noes would always have rejected the measure. The truth of this has not been denied and cannot be denied. In stating this I thought it just to ascribe it to the con- stitutional scruples of the South, rather than to any other less 27 favorable or less charitable cause. But,no sooner had I done this, than the honorable" gentleman asks, if I reproach him and his friends with their constitutional scruples? Sir, I reproach nobody. Istated a fact, and gave the most respectful reason for it that occurred to me; The gentleman cannot deny the fact ;. he may, if he choose, disclaim the reason. It is not long since I I had occasion, in presenting; a petition from his own state, to account for its being entrusted to my hands, by saying, that the constitutional opinions of the gentleman and his worthy colleague prevented them from supporting it. Sir, didI state this as a matter of reproach P Far from it. Did I attempt to find any other cause than an honest one for these scruples? Sir, I did not. It did not become me to doubt or to insinuate that the gentleman had either changed his sentiments, or that he had made up a set of constitutional opinions, accommodated to any particular combination of political occurrences. Had I done so, I should have felt, that while I was entitled to little respect in thus questioning other people’s motives, I justified the whole world in suspecting my own. But how has the gentleman returned this respect for others’ opinions? His own candor and justice, how have they been exlribited towards the motives of others while he has been at so much pains to maintain, what nobody has disputed, the purity of his own? Why, sir, he has asked when, and how, and why, New England votes were found going for measures favorable to the West; he has demanded to be informed Whether all this did not begin in 1825, and while the election of Preside-nt was still penclmg ‘.3 Sir, to these questions retort would be justified; and it is both cogent, and at hand. Nevertheless, I will ansvvertl'1e in- quiry not by retort, but by facts. ‘ I will tell the gentleman wizen, andhow, and win/, New England hassupported measures favo:ra- ble to the "West. I have already referred to the early history of the government»--—to the first acquisition of the lands---to the original laws for disposing of them and for governing the territo- ries where they lie 3 and have shewn the influence of N ew Eng- land men and New England principles in all these leading mea- sures. I should not he pardoned were I to go over that ground again. Coming to more recent times and to measures of a less general character, I have endeavored to prove that everything of this ltind designed for western improvement, has depended on the votes of Neiv England; all this is true beyond the povverfof contradiction. I And now, sir, there are two measures to Wlllcll I will refer, not so ancient as to belong to the early history of the public lands, 28 and not so recent as to be on this side of the period when the gentleman charitably imagines a new direction may have been given to New England feeling, and New England votes. These measures, and the New England votes in support of them, may be taken as samples and specimens of all the rest. In 18.920, (ohm serve Mr President,) in 1820, the people of the West besought Congress for a reduction in the price of lands. ..In favor of that reduction, New England with a delegation of forty members in the other house, gave thirtythree votes, and one only against it. The four Southern States, with fifty members, gave thirtytwo votes for it, and seven against it. Again, in 1821, (observe again, sir, the time,) the law passed for the relief of the purchasers of the public lands. This was a measure of vital importance to the West, and more especially to the South West. It authorised the relinquishment of contracts for lands, which had been entered into at high prices, and a reduction in other cases, of not less than 37 1-92 per cent. on the purchase money. Many millions of dollars, six: or seven, I believe, at least, probably much more, were relinquished by this law. On this bill New England, with her forty members, gave more aflirmative votes than the four Southern States, with their fiftytwo or three members. These two are far the most important measures, respecting the public lands, which have been adopted within the last twenty years. They took place in 189.0 and 189.21. That is the time when. And as to the manner how, the gentleman already sees that it was by voting, in solid column, for the required relief; and lastly, as to the cause why,I tell the gentleman, it was because the members from New England thought the measures just and salutary; because they entertained towards the West neither envy, hatred, nor malice ; because they deemed it becoming them, as just and enlightened public men, to meet the exigency which had arisen in the West, with the appropriate measure of relief; because they felt it due to their own characters, and the characters of their New Eng» land predecessors in this government, to act towards the new states in the spirit of a liberal, patronising, magnanimous policy. So much, sir, for the cause why ; and I hope that by this time, sir, the honorable gentleman is satisfied; if not, 1 do not know when, or how, or why, he ever will be. r Having recurred to these two important measures, in answer to the gentleman’s inquiries,I must now beg permission to go back to a period still something earlier, for the purpose still fur-- ther of shewing how much, or rather, how little reason there is for the gentlemanfs insinuation that political hopes, or fears, or party associations, were the grounds of these New England 29 votes. And after what has been said, I hope it may be forgiven me, if I allude to some political opinions and votes of my own, of very little public importance, certainly, but which, from tl1e time at which they were given and expressed, may pass for good witnesses on this occasion. a f This government, Mr President, from its origin to the peace of 1815, had been too much engrossed with various other important concerns, to be able to turn its thoughts inward, and look to the developement of its vast internal resources. In the early part of President Wasl1ington’s administration, it was fully occupied with organizing the government, providing for the public debt, defend- ing the frontiers, and maintaining domestic peace. Before the termination of that administration, the tires of the French Revolum tion blazed forth, as from a new opened volcano, and the whole breadth of the ocean did not entirely secure us from its effects. The smoke and the cinders reached us, though not the burning lava. Diflicult and agitating questions, embarrassing to govern- ment, and dividing public opinion, sprung out of the new state of our foreign relations, and were succeeded by others, and yet again by others, equally embarrassing, and equally exciting divi- sion and discord, through the long series of twenty years, till they . finally issued in the war with England. Down to the close of that war, no distinct, marlted and deliberate attention had been given, or could have been given, to the internal condition of the country, its capacities of improvement, or the constitutional power of the government, in regard to objects connected with such improvement. The peace, Mr President, l3I‘0ll{§l:1l2 about an entirely new, and a most interesting state of things; it opened to us other prospects, and suggested other duties ; we ,ourselves were changed, and the whole world was changed. The paciiication of Europe, after June 1815, assumed a firm and permanent aspect. The nations ,evi:.ien‘tly In anifested that they were disposed for peace; some oi‘ the waves might be expected, , even after the storm had an but the tendency was, strongly and rapidly, towards i.~e;:mse. cw ifiappeiretl, sir, that I was at that time a member of :5 .5 I.‘ Con{~;::":;::s1, ::t=v.":-:l, like others, naturally turned my attention to- thc ation of the newly altered condition of the coun-- try and oi the world. It appeared plainly enough to me, as well has to wiser and more experienced men, that the policy of the government would necessarily take a start in a new direction; because new directions wbuld necessarily be given to the pursuits and occupations of the people. We had push- C. 30 ed our commerce far and fast, under the advantage of a neu- tral flag. But there were now no longer flags, either neutral or belligerent. The harvest of neutrahty had been great, but we had gathered it all. VVith the peace of Europe, it was obvious there would spring up, in her circle of nations, a revived and in- vigorated spirit of trade, and a new activity in all the business and objects of civilized life. Hereafter, our cornrnercial gains were to be earned only by success in a close and intense competition. Other nations would produce for thernselves, and carry for them- selves, and manufacture for themselves, to the full extent of their abilities. The crops of our plains would no longer sustain Euro- pean armies, nor our ships longer supply those, whom war had rendered unable to supply thernselves. It was obvious, that, un- der these circurnstances, the country would begin to survey itself, and to estimate its own capacity of improvement. And this im- provement, how was it to be accomplished, and who was to ac- complish it? We were ten or twelve millions of people, spread over almost half a world. We were twentyfour states, some stretching along the same seaboard, some along the same line of inland frontier, and others on opposite banks of the same vast rivers. Two con- siderations at once presented thernselves, in loolting at this state of things, with great force. One was, that that great branch of im- provement, which consisted in furnishing new facilities of inter- course, tnecessarily ran into difiier-ent states, in every leading in- stance, and would benefit the citizens of all such states. N 0 one state, therefore, in such cases, would assume the whole expense, nor was the cooperation of several states to be expected. Take the instance of the Delaware breakwater. It will cost several millions of money. VVould Pennsylvania alone have ever con-— structed it? Certainly never, while this Union lasts, because it is not for her sole benefit. ‘Would Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware have united to accomplish it, at their joint expense? Certainly not, for the same reason. It could not be done, there- fore, but by the general government. The same may be said of the large inland undertakings, except that, in them, govern- ment, instead of bearing the whole expense, cooperates with others who bear apart. The other consideration is, that the United States have the means. They enjoy the revenues derived from commerce, and the states have no abundant and easy sources of public income. The custom-houses fill the general treasury, while the states have scanty resources, except by resort to heavy direct taxes. . Under this view of things, I thought it necessary to settle, at least for myself, some definite notions, with respect to the pew- 31 ers of government, in regard to internal aflairs. It may not savor tootmuch of self-commendation to remark, that with this object, I consideredthe Constitution, its judicial construction," its cofemporaneous exposition, and the whole history of the legisla- tion of Congress under it; and I arrived at the conclusion, that government had power to accomplish sundry objects, or aid, in their accomplishment, which are now commonly spoken of as INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS. That conclusion, sir, may have been right, or it may have been wrong. I am not about to argue the grounds of it at large. I say only, that it was adopted, and acted on, even so early as 1816. Yes, Mr President, I made up my opinion, and determined on my intended course of «political conduct on these subjects, in the 14th Congress, in 1816. And‘ now, Mr President, I have further to say, that I made up these opinions, and entered on this course of political conduct, Teucro Dace. Yes, sir, I pursued, in all this, a South Carolina track. On the doctrines of internal improvement, South Carolina, as she was then represented in the other house, set forth, in 1816, under a fresh and leading breeze ; and I was among the follow- ers. But if my leader sees new lights, and turns a sharp corner, unless I see new lights also, Ilteep straight on in the same path. I repeat, that leading gentlemen from South Carolina were first and foremost in behalf of the doctrines of internal improve- ments, when those doctrines first came to he considered and act—- ed upoh,inrCongress.v The debate on the bank question, on the tariff of 1816 and on the direct tax, will show who was Who, and what was what, at that time. The tariff of 1816, one of the plain cases of oppression and usurpation, from which, if the government does not recede, individual states may justly secede from the government, is, sir,in truth a "South Carolina tariff’, supported by South Carolina votes. But for those votes, it could not have passed in the form in whiohit did pass; where- as if it had cleperided on Massachusetts votes, it would have been lost. Does not the honorable gentleman well know all this? There are certainly those who do full well know it all. ~I‘ do not say this to reproach South Carolina; I only state_rthe fact, and I think it will appear to be true, that among the earliest and boldest advocates of the tariff, as a. measure of protection, and on the express ground of protection, were leading gentlemen of Eioutli Carolina in Congress. a I did not then, and caninot now, under-‘ stand their language in any other sense. While tariiiiof 1816 was under discussion in the house of rej:ireserttal*tives, an honorahlel gentleman from Georgia, now of this house,irr(Mr Ii_'or- syth,) moved to reduce the proposed duty on cotton. He failed“ 32 by four votes, South Carolina giving three votes, (enough to have turned the scale) against his motion. The act, sir, then passed, and received on its passage the support of a majorit.§r of the representatives of South Carolina present and voting. Tliis act is the first, in the order of those now denounced as plain usurpations. I/Ve see it daily in the list by the side of those of 189.4, and 1828, as a. case of manifest oppression, justifying dis- union. lput it home to the honorable member from South Carolina, that his own State was not only ‘art and part’ in this measure, but the cause causans. Without her aid, this seminal principle of mischief, this root of Upas, could not have been planted. I have already said, and it is true, that this act pro» ceeded on the ground of protection. It interfered directly, with existing interests of great value and amount. It cut up the Cal- cutta cotton trade by the roots. But it passed, nevertheless, and it passed on the principle of protecting manufactures, on the principle against free trade, on the principle opposed to that tvhick lets us alone.-—-Nome 9. Such, Mr President, were the opinions of important and lead- ing gentlemen from South Carolina, on the subject of internal improvement, in 1815. I Went out of Congress the next year, and returning again in 189.3, thought I found South Carolina Where I had left her. I really supposed that all things remained as they Were, and that the South Carolina doctrine of internal improvements would be defended by the same eloquent voices, and the same strong arms, as formerly. In the lapse of these SIX years, it is true, political associations had assumed a new aspect and new divisions. A party had arisen in the South, hostile to the doctrine of internal improvements, and had vigo- rously attacked that doctrine. Anti-consolidation was the flag under which this party fouglit, and its supporters inveighed against internal improvements, much after the manner in which the honorable gentleman has now inveighed against them as part and parcel of the system of consolidation. , , VVhether this party arose in South Carolina herself, or in her, neighborhood, is more than I l«:noW. I think the latter. . I-IoW--- , ever that may have been, there were those found in South. Carolina ready to make War upon it, and who did malte intrepid war uponit. Names being regarded as things, in such controver- sies, they bestowed on the anti~—improve1nent gentlemen, the appel- lation of radicals. Yes, sir, the name of radicals, as a term of dis- tinction, applicable and applied to those who denied the liberal doctrines of internal improvernents, originated, according to the W heat of my recollection, somewhere between North Carolina and 33 Georgia. Well, sir, these mischievous radicals were to be put down, and the strong arm of South Carolina was stretched out to put them A down. About this time, sir, I returned to Congress. The battle with the radicals had been fought, and our South Carolina cham- pions of the doctrines of internal improvements had nobly main- tained their ground, and were understood to haveachieved a vic- tory. They had driven back the enemy with discornfiture; a thing by the way, sir, which is not always performed when it is promised. A A gentleman, to Whom I have already referred, in this debate, had come into Congress during my absence from it, from South Carolina, and had brought with him a high reputation for ability. He came from a school, with which we had been acquainted, et noscitur ct sociis. I hold in my hand, sir, a printed speech of this distinguislied gentleman, (Mr MoDu1vr1E,) ‘ on INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS,’ delivered about the period to which I now refer, and printed witli a few introductory remarks upon consolidation ; in which, sir, I think he quite consolidated the arguments of his opponents, the radicals, if to crush be to consolidate. I give you a short but substantive quotation from these remarks. He is SpG3.l{l1”1g of a pamphlet then recently published, entitled ‘ Conso- lidation 5’ and havinfsg alluded. to the question of recharteiing the former Bank of the United States, he says : ‘ Moreover, in the early history of parties, and when Mr Crawford advocated the renewal of the old charter, it was considered a federal measure, which internal improvements never was, as this author errone- ously states. This latter measure originated in the administration of Mr J efierson, with the appropriation for the Cumberland Road : and was first proposed, as or system, by Mr Calhoun, and carried through the house of representatives, by a lz11'ge majority of the republicans, iitclticling almost every one of the leading Inert vvho carried us through the late War.’ a So then, internal irnprovexnent is notone of the federal here-«I sies. ‘ v \ I I One paragraph more, sir-- ‘The author in question, not content with denouncing as Federalists, General Jackson, Mr Adams, Mr Calhoun, and the majority of the South Carolina delegation in Congress, modestly extends the denunciation to Mr Monroe, and the whole republican party.’ Here are his words. ‘ During the administration of’ Mr Monroe, much had passed which the republican party would be glad to approve, if they could 2! But the principal feature, and that which has chiefly elicited these observations, 1s the renewal of the SYS'J?EI\I,0I*‘ IN'l"ERNAL IMIi.0VEM1~.‘.NT,S.’ Now this measure was adopted by a vote of 115 to 86, of a republican Congress, and sanctioned by a republican president. Who, then, is this author, who assumes the high prerogative of denouncing, in the name of 34 the republican party, the republican administration of the country; a denunciation including within its sweep, Calhoun, Lowndes, and Cheves; men who Wlll be regarded as the brightest ornaments of South Carolina, and the strongest pillars of the republican party, as long as the late war shall be remembered, and talents and patriotism shall be regarded as the proper objects of the admiration and gratitude of a free people I 1’ Such are the opinions, sir, which were maintained by South parolina gentlemen in the house of representatives, on the sub- _]€‘Cl2 of internal improvement, when I took my seat there as a member from Massachusetts, in 1823. But this is not all: we had a bill before us, and passed it in that house, entitled ‘ An act to procure theinecessary surveys, plans, and estimates, upon the subject of roads and canals.’ It authorised the President to cause such survejzjs and estimates to he made of the routes of such T061613 angel canals as he might deem of natiorzal vmporzfarzce, in on commerczal or military point of view, or for the tramsportation of the mail ; and appropriated thirty thousand dollars, out of the treasury, to defray the expense. This act, though preliminary ‘in its nature, covered the whole ground. It tool: for granted the complete power of internal improvement, as far as any of its ad- vocates have ever contended for it. Having passed the other house, the bill came up to the senate, and was here considered g and debated in April, 1824. The honorable member from South Carolina was a member of the senate at that time. Wliile the bill was under consideration here, a motion was made to add the following proviso: . ‘Provicled, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to affirrn or odmtt a poWer'.rn_Congress on their own authority, to males roads or canals, within any of the states of the Union.’ The yeas and nays were taken on this proviso, and the honor-— able member voted in. the negatzve. The proviso failed. A motion was then made to add this proviso, viz. ‘ Provided, That the faith of the United States is hereby pledged, that no money shall ever be expended for roads or ca- " shall be among the several states, and in thesame nals, except 112 _ proportion as direct taxes are l‘d.1Cl and assessed by the PI‘OVlSlO1‘1S of the constitution.’ The honorable member voted against this proviso also, and it failed. . p i i p t The bill was then put on its passage, and the honorable mem- ber voted for -it, and it passed, and became a law. p ‘ Now, it strikesjme,, sir, that tlrereisinoimaintaining these votes, but upon the power of internal improvement, in its broadest sense. 35 In truth, these bills tor surveys and estimates have always been considered as test questions. I They show who is for, and who against internal improvement. This law itself went the whole length, and assumed the full and complete power. I The gen- tlernan’s votes sustained that power,‘ in every form, in which the various propositions to amend presented it. He went for the entire and unrestrained authority, without consulting the states, and Without agreeing to any proportionate distribution. And now, suffer me to remind you, Mr President, that it is this very same power, thus sanctioned, in every form, by the gentleman’s ownopinion, that is so plain and manifest a usurpation, that the state of South Carolina is supposed to be justified in refusing submission to any laws carrying the power into effect. Truly, sir, is not this a little too hard? May we not crave some mercy, under favor and protection of the gentleinan’s own authority? Admitting that a road ora canal must be written down flat usur- pation as ever was committed, may we find no mitigation in our respect for his place, and his vote, as one that knows the law? The tariff, which South Carolina had an efficient hand in esta- hlishitig, in 1816, and this asserted power of internal improve-»~ ment, advanced hy her in the same year, and as we have now seen approved and sanctioned by her representatives in 1824,. these two measures are the great grounds on which she is now i thought torbe justified in breaking up the Union, if she sees fit to break it up ! I t I I may now safely say, I think, that we have had the authority of leading and distinguished gentlemen from South Carolina in support of the doctrine of internal improvement. I repeat, that, up to 18.9.4, I, for one, followed South Carolina; but when that star inits ascension, veered off in an unrexjpectecl direction, I re» lied on its light noilonger. I [Here the Vice President said---s does the Chair understand tliegentlernan from Massachusetts, to say, that the person now occupying theChair of the Senate, has changed his opinions on the subject of -internal improvements F] From nothing ever said to me, sir, have I had reason to know of any change in the opinions of the person filling the Chair of the senate. If such change has taken place, Iregret it; I speak generally of the State of South Carolina. Individuals we know there are, who hold opinions favorable to the power. An appli- cation for its exercise, in behalf of at public work in South Car-~ olina itself, is now pending, I believe, in the other house, pre-- sented by rnernbers from that state. V I have thus, sir, perhaps not without some tediousness of de- tail, shown, that if I am in error, on the subjects of internal irn- A. 4 W 86 rovements, how, and in what company, I fell into that error. f I am wrong, it is apparent who misled me. . I go to other remarlfzs of the honorable member-—--and I have to complain of an_ entire misapprehension of what I said on the subject of the national debt-—-—though I can hardly perceive how any one could misunderstand me. Wliat I said was, not that I wished to put off the payment of the debt, but, on the contrary, thatl had always voted for every measure for its reduction, as uniformly as the gentleman himself. He seems to claim the 8X.- clusive merit of a disposition to reduce the public charge ; I do not allow it to him. As a debt, I was, I am, for paying it; be- cause it is a charge on our finances, and on the industry of the country. But, I observed, that I thought I perceived a morbid fervor on that subject; an excessive anzsziety to pay off‘ the debt; not so much because it is a debt simply, as because, while it lasts, it furnishes one objection to disunion. It is a tie of com»- mon interest while it lasts. I did not impute such motive to the honorable member himself; but that there is such a feeling in existence, I have not a particle of doubt. The most I said was, that if one effect of the debt was to strengthen our Union, that effect, itself, was not regretted by me, however much others might regret it. The gentleman has not seen how to reply to this, otherwise than by supposing me to have advanced the doc- trine, that a national debt is a national blessing. Others, I must hope, will find less difliculty in understanding me. I distinctly and pointedly cautioned the honorable member not to understand me as expressing an opinion favorable to the continuance of the . debt. I repeated this caution, and repeated it more than once-—- but it was thrown away. On yet another point, I was still more unaccountably misunder- stood. The gentleman had harangued against ‘ consolidation.’ I told him, in reply, that there was one kind of consolidation to which I was attached, and that was, the CONSOLIDATION or one UNION 3 and that this was precisely that consolidation to which I feared others were not attached. That such consolidation was the very end of the constitution-—--the leading object, as they had "informed us themselves, which its framers had kept in view. turned to their communication, and read their very words——-—‘ the consolidation of the Union’——-- and estpressed my devotion to this sort of consolidation. I said, in terms, that I wished not in the slightest degree, to augment the powers of this government; that my object was to preserve, not to enlarge 5 and that by con- solidatipjg the Union, I understood no more than the strengthening of the nion, and perpetuating it.----Having been thus explicit; 37 having thus read from the printed book, the precise words which I adopted, as expressing my own sentiments, it passes corn- prehension, how any man could understand me as contending for an extension of the powers of the government, or for consolidation, In that odious sense, in which it means an accnmulationin the Fed- eral Government, of the powers properly beloiigitig to the States. I repeat, sir, that, in adopting the sentiments of the framers of‘ the Constitution, Iread their laiignage audibly, and word for word: and I pointed out the distinction, just as fully as I have now done, between the consolidation of the Union and that other obnoxious consolidation, which I disclaimed. And yet the honorable member misunderstood me. The gentleman had said that he wished for no fixed revenue---not a shilling.’ If, by a word,~~l1e could convert the Capitol into gold, he would not do it. VVhy all this fear of revenue 9 Why, sir, because, as the gentle- man told us, it tends to consolidation. Now, this can mean neither more nor less than that a common revenue is a common interest, and that all common interests tend to hold the union of the States together. Ieonfess llike that tendency; if the gen- tleman clislikes it, he is right in deprecating a sl'1illing’s fixed rev» enue. So much, sir, for consolidation. As well as I recollect the course of his remarks, the honorable gentleman next recurred to the subject of the ~ta1'i:tl"I. He did not doubt the word must be of unpleasant sound to me, and proceeded, with an effort neither new, nor attended with new success, to involve me and my votes in inconsistency and contra- diction. I am happy the honorable gG11il.l@111‘£'.l.1 has furnished me an opportunity of atinnely 1"(~‘:1'1‘l€11‘ls’. or two on that snbject. I was glad he approached it, for it is a question I enter upon without fear from anybody. The strenuoustoil of the gentleman has been to raise an in.consistency between my dissent to the t.a'rifl" inv1824 and my vote in 18238. It is labor lost. He pays undeserved compliment to my speech in 18524 ; but this is to raise me liigli, that my fall, as he would have it, in 1828, may be the more sig- nal. Sir, there was no fall at all. Bettveen the ground..I stood on in 1.83%, and that I tools: in 1828, there was not only no preci- pice, but no declivity. It was a change of position to meet new circumstances, but on the same level. A plain tale explains the whole matter. In 1816, I had not acquiesced in the tarifi’, then supported by South Carolina. To some parts of it, especially, I felt and expressed great 1'epugna.1iee. I held the same opinions ,in,1€-32.1 at the meeting in Faneuil Hall, to which the gentleman it-as allttded. I said then, and say now, that, as an original ques- tion, the authority of Congress to exercise the revenue power, with 6 38 direct reference to the protection of manufactures, is a questiona- ble authority, far more questionable, in my judgment, than the power of internal improvements. I must confess, sir, that in one respect, some impression has been made on my opinions lately. Mr Madison’s publication has put the power in a very strong light. He has placed it, I must acltnowledge, upon grounds of construc-— tion and argument, which seem itnpregnable. But even if the power were doubtful on the face of the constittttioii itself, it had been assumed and asserted in the first revenue law ever passed under that same constitution; and, on this ground, as a matter settled by cotemporaneous practice, I had refrained from express- ing the opinion that the tariff laws transcended constitutional limits, as the gentleman supposes. What I did say at Faneuil Hall, as far as I now remember, was, that this was originally mat- ter of doubtful construction. The gentleman himself, I suppose, thinks there is no doubt about it, and that the laws are plainly against the constitution. l\Ir Madison’s letters, already referred to, contain, in my judgment, by far the most able exposition ex»- tant of this part of the constitution. He has satisfied me, so far as the practice of the government had left it an open question. With a great majority of the representatives of Massachusetts, I voted against the Tariffof 1824. My reasons were then given, and Iwill not now repeat them. But, notwithstanding our dis- sent, the great States of New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Kentucky Went for the bill, in almost unbroken column, and it passed. Congress and the President sanctioned it, and it be- came the law of the land. Wliat, then, were we to do? Our only option’ was either to fall in with this” settled course of public policy, and accommodate ourselves to it as well as We could, or to embrace the South Carolina doctrine, and talk of nullifying the statute by state interference. This last alternative did not suit our principles, and, of course, we adopted the former. In 18.37, the subject came again before Congress, on a proposition favorable to wool and Woollens. We looked upon the system of protection as being fixed and settled. The law of18E24 remained. it had gone into full operation, and in regard to some objects intended by it, perhaps most of them had produced all its expected effects. No man proposed to re-- peal it, no man attempted to renew the general contest on its principle. But, owing to subsequent and unforeseen occurrences, the benefitintended by it to wool and woollen fabrics, had not been realized. ‘ Events, not known here when the law passed, had taken place, which defeated its object in that particular respect. A measure was accordingly brought forward to meet as this precise deficiency, to remedy this particular defect. It was limited to wool and woollens. Was ever anything more reasons able? If the policy of the tariff laws had become established in principle, as the permanent policy of the government, should they not be revised and amended, and made equal, like other laws, as exigencies should arise, or justice require? Because we had doubted about adopting the system, were we to refuse to cure its manifest defects, after it become adopted, and when no one at- tempted its repeal? And this, sir, is the inconsistency so much bruited. I had voted against the tar'ifl‘ol"18’:24—-but it passed ; and in 1827 and 1828, I voted to amend it in a point essential ‘to the interest of my constituents. Where is the inconsistency i’ Could I do otherwise? Sir, does political consistency consist in always giving nega- tive votes? Does it require of a public man to refuse to concur in amending laws, because they passed against his consent? Having voted against the tariff‘ originally, does consistency de- mand that I should do all in my power to maintain an unequal tariff, burdensome to my own constituents, in lnztny respects, fa» vorable to none? To consistency of that sort, I lay no.claim-—-- and there is another sort to which I lay as little—---and that is, a kind of consistency, by which persons feel themselves as much bound to oppose a proposition after it has become a law of the land, as before. i I The bill of 18.%’7, limited, as I have said, to the single object in p which the tarifl” of 1824-, had rnanifestly failed in its efi’ect,passed the house of representatives, but was lost here. We had then the act of 18528. I need not recur to the history of a measure so recent. Its enemies spiced it with whatsoever they thought would render it distasteful; its friends took it, drugged as itwas. Vast amounts of property, many millions, had been invested in manufactures, under the inducements of 1824.-. Events called loudly, as I thought, for further regulation to secure the degree of protection intended bythat act. I was disposed to vote for such regula- tion, and desired nothing more; but certainly was not to be ban- tered out of my purpose by a threatened augmentation of duty on molasses put into the bill for the avowed purpose of making it obnoxious. The vote may have been right or wrong, wise or un- wise; but it is little less than absurd to allege against it an incon- sistency with opposition to the former law. I Sir, as to the general subject, of the tariff‘ I have little now to say. Another opportunity rnay,be presented. I remarked the other day, that "this policy did not begin with us in New England; and yet sir, New England is charged with vehemence, as being 40 favorable or charged with equal vehemence, as being unfavorable to the tarifi" policy, just as best suits the time, place, and occasion for making some charge against her. The credulity of the pub- lic has been put to its extreme capacity of false impression, rela-~ tive to her conduct, in this particular. Through all the South, during the late contest, it was New England policy and a New England administration, that was afliicting the country with a ta- riff policy beyond all endurance, while on the other side of the Al-— , legany, even the act of 18528 itself, the very sublimated essence of oppression according to Southern opinions, was pronounced to be one of those blessings, for which the West was indebted to the ‘ generous South.’ Witli large investments, in manufacturing establishments and many and various interests connected with and dependent on them, it is not to be expected that New England, any more than other portions of the country, will now consent to any measure, destructive or highly dangerous. The duty of the government, at the present moment, would seem to be to preserve, not to destroy ; to main- tain the position which it has assumed ; and for one, I shall feel it an indispensable obligation to hold it steady, as far as in my power, to that degree of protection which it has undertaken to bestow. N o more of the tariff’. T Professing to be provoked, by what he chose to consider a charge made by me against South Carolina, the honorable mern~.- her, Mr President, has taken up a new crusade against New England, Leaving altogether the subject of the public lands, in which this success, perhaps, had been neither distinguished, nor satisfactory, and letting go, also, of the ‘topic of the tariff‘, he sallied forth in a general assault, on the opinions, politics, and parties of New England, as they have been exhibited in the last thirty years. This is natural. The ‘narrow policy’ of the public lands, had proved a legal settlement in South Carolina, and was not to be removed. The ‘accursed policy’ of the tariff‘, also, had established the fact of its birth and parentage, in the same state. No wonder, therefore, the gentleman wished to carry the war, as he expressed it, into the enemy’s country. Prudently willing to quit these subjects, he was doubtless desirous of fastening on others, which could not be transferred south of Mason and Dixon’s line. The politics of New England became his theme; and it was in this part of his speech,,I think, that he menaced me withsuch sore discomfiture. Discomfiture! why, sir, when he attacks anything which I maintain, and overthrows it; when he turns the right. or left of any position which I take up ; when he drives me from any ground I choose to occupy, he maythen 11.1 talk of discomfiture, but not till that distant day. What hashe done? Has he maintained his own charges! Has he proved what he alleged? V Has he sustained hirnself, in his attack on the government, and on A‘ the history of the North in the matter of the public lands? Has he disproved a fact, refuted a proposition, weakw ened tpn argument, maintained by me? Has he come within beat of drum of any position of mine? Oh, no, but he has ‘carried the war into the enemy’s country 1’ Carried the war into the enemy’s country! Yes, sir, and what sort of a war has he made of it? Why, sir, he has stretched a drag net over the whole surface of perished pamphlets, indiscreet sermons, frothy paragraphs, and fuming popular addresses; over whatever the pulpit, in its moments of alarm, the press in its heats, and parties in their extravagance, have severally thrown off, in times of general excitement and violence. He has thus swept together a mass of such things, as but that they are new old, the public health would have required him rather to leave in their state of dispersion. For a good long hour or two, we had the unbroken pleasure of listening to the henor'able member, while he recited, with his usual grace and spirit, and with evident high gusto, speeches, pamphlets, addresses, and all the at cetems of the political press, such as warm heads produce in warm times 5 and such as it would be ‘discomfiture’ indeed, for any one, whose taste did not delight in that sort of reading, to be obliged to peruse. That is his war. This 1_t is to carry the war into the enemy’s country. It is in an invasion of this sort, that he flatters himself with the expectation of gaining laurels, fit to adorn a senator’s brow. Mr President, I shall not, it will, I trust, not be expected that I should, either now, or at any time, a separate this farrago into parts,and answer and examine its components. I shall hardly bestow upon it all, a general remark or two. Intherun of forty years, sir, under this constitution, we have experienced sundry successive violent party contests. Party arose, indeed, with the constitution itself, and, in some form or other, has attended it through the greater part of its history. Wlletllel‘ any other constitution than the old articles of confederation, was desirable, was, itself, a question on which parties formed; if a new con» stitution were framed, what powers should be given to it, was another question ; and, when it had been formed, what was, in fact, the just extent of the powers actually conferred, was a third. Parties, as we know, existed, under the first administration, as distinctly marked, as those which manifested themselves at any subsequent period. The contest immediately preceding the poli-- 42 tical change in 1801, and that, again, which existed at the cont- mencement of the late war, are other instances of party excite- ment, of something more than usual strength and intensity. In all these conflicts there was, no doubt, much violence on both and all sides. It would be impossible, if one had a fancy for such employment, to adjust the relative guanltunt of violence between these contending parties. There was enough in each, as must always be expected in popular governments. With a great deal of proper and decorous discussion, there was mingled a great deal, also, of declamation, virulence, crimination, and abuse. In regard to any party, probably, in one of the leading epochs in the history of parties, enough may be found to make out an- other equally inflamed exhibition, as that with which the honora- ble member has edified us. For myself, sir, I shall not rake among the rubbish of by gone times, to see what I can find, or whether I cannot find something, by which I can fix a blotton the «escutcheon of any state,any party, or any part of the country. GeneralVVasl1ington’s administration was steadily and zealously maintained, as we all know, by New England. It was violently opposed elsewhere. VVe know in what quarter he had the most earnest, constant, and persevering support, in all his great and ieading measures. VVe know where his private and personal character were held in the highest degree of attachment and veneration; and we know, too, where his measures were opposed, his services slighted, and his character vilified. VVe know, or we might know, if we turned to 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 VVash- ington, and all his leading measures, from presses south of New England. But I shall not look them up. I employ no scaven- gers—-—no one is in attendance on me, tendering such means of retaliation; and if there were, with an ass’s load of them, with 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 Et]'Z1‘S_.'.l.—O'L1S to rescue from forgetfulness the extravagances of times past. Besides, what isall this to the present purpose? It has nothing to do with the public lands, in regard to whichthe attackwas 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, 43 at times, so argues the gentleman, held opinions as dangerous, as those which he now holds. Be it so. But why, therefore, does he 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 hap- pened nowhere 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 oflice, sanctioned corruption. But does the honorable member suppose, that if Ihad a tender here, who should put such can 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 inde-— pendence, and its admitted ablest defender on the floor of Con- gress? If the gentleman wishes to increase his stores of party abuse and frothy violence 3 if he has a determined proclivity to such pursuits, there are treasures of that sort south of the Poto» mac, 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 in every state. Minorities and majorities- were equally violent. There was no more V10l€l.’1C8 against» the war in New England than in other states ; nor any more appea~r- ance 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 serrnons, too, New England is some... what 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 un- restrained 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 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. a r ‘ Mt it is enough for 1_ne_to say, that if, in any part of this, their grateful ‘occupation, if, in all their researches, they find anything In the history of Massachusetts, or New Etiglatid, or 111 the pro. ceedtngs of any legislative, or other public body, disloyal to the Union, speaktng slightly of its value, proposing to brgalt it up, or recommending non-1nterc_o_urse vtuth neighboring haftates, on account of difference of political opinion, then, sir, I give them all up to the honorable gentleman’s ttnrestrained rebuke; ex- pecting, liotyever, that l'18.W1ll extend l11S butiettngs, in like man- ner, to all similar proceedvmgs, w/zerever else found. a V The gentleman, S11‘, 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 as-— cended to the origin, and run out their genealogies. With most exemplary modesty, he speaks of the party to which he professes to have belonged himself, as the true pure, the only honest, paw triotic party, derived by regular descent, from father to son from ‘ the time of the virtuous Romans! Spreading before us the family tree of political parties, he takes especial care to show himself, snugly perched on a popular bough 1 He is walteful to the expediency of adopting such rules of descent, for political parties, as shall bring him in, in exclusion of others, as an heir to the inheritance of all public virtue, and all true political prin- ciple. His doxy is always orthodoxy. 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 ven- tured on that ground. I ezstpected he would draw his sketches rather lightly, when he looked on the circle round him, and es- pecially, if he should cast his thoughts to the high places out of the senate. Nevertheless he Went back to Home, at! mmum twee conclim, and found the fathers of the federalists, in the pri- meval aristocrats of that renowned empire ! He traced the flow of federal blood down through successive ages and centuries, till he got it into the veins of the American tories, (of whom, by the way, there were twenty in the Carolinas, for one in Massa- chusetts.) From the tories, he followed it to the federalists ; and as the federal party was broken. up, and there was no possi- bility of transmitting it further on this side the Atlantic, he seems to have discovered that it has gone off’, collaterally though against all the canons of descent, into the Ultras of France, and finally becaniegextinguislted like exploded gas, among the adherents of Don Miguel. lThis, sir, is an abstract of the gentlernarfs history of federalism. I am not about to controvert it. It is not, at 45 present, worth the pains of refutation, because, sir, if at thisday any one feels the sin of federalism lying heavily on his conscience, he can easily obtain remission. tHei may even have an indul- gence, if he is desirous of repeating the same transgression. It is an affair of no difficulty to get into this same right line_ of pa»- triotic descent. man, now--a-days, is at liberty to choose his 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 pretensions just as far as the honorable gentleman himself; nay, he may make himself out the honorable gentleman’s cousin, and prove, satisfactorily, that he is descended from the same political great grandfather. All this is allowable. We all know a pro» cess, sir, by which the whole Essex J unto could, in one hour, be all washed white from their ancient federalism, and come out, every one of them, an original democrat, dyed in the wool! Some of them have actually undergone the operation, and they say it is quite easy. The only inconvenience it occasions, as they tell us, is a slight tendency of the blood to the face, a soft sufliision, which, however, is very transient, since nothing is said. calculated to deepen the red on the check, but a prudent silence observed, in regard to all the past. Indeed, sir, some smiles of approbation have been bestowed, and some crumbs of comfort have fallen, not a thousand miles irom the door of the Hat't:fc>r'd Convention itself. ' And if the author of the ordinance of 1787, possessed the other requisite qualifications, there is no knowing, notwithstanding his federali.srn, to what heights of favor he might not yet attain. Mr President, in carrying his warfare, such as it was, into N ew England, thehonorable gentleman all along.professes to be acting on the defensive. He desires to consider me as having assailed South Carolina, and insists that he comes forth only as t her champion, and in her defence. V Sir,1 donor admit that I made any attack whatever on South Carolina. Nothing 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 with surprise. I told the gentleman that I was aware that such sentirnents were enter- tained out of the government, but had not expected to find them advanced in it ; that I knew there were persons in the South, who speak of our Union with indifference, or doubt, takingpains to magnify its evils, and to say nothing of its benefits; that the honorable member hirnself, I was sure, could never be one of these; and I regretted the expression of such opinions as he had 7 ~16 avowed, because I thought their obvious tendency was to encou- rage feelings of disrespect to the Union, and to weaken its con- nexion. 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 proceedings of Mas- sachusetts ! If he means that I spoke with dissatisfaction or dis- respect of the ebulitions of individuals in South Carolina, it is true. But, if he means that I had assailed the character of the state, her honor or patriotism, that I had reflected on her history or her conduct, he had not the slightest ground for any such as- sumption. I did not even refer, I think, in my observations, to any collection of individuals. I said nothing of the recent con-— ventions. I spoke in the most guarded and careful manner, and only expressed my regret for the publication of opinions which I presumed the honorable member disapproved as much as myself. In this, it seems, I was mistaken. I do not remember that the gentleman has disclaimed any sentiment, or any opinion, of a sup-— posed anti:-union tendency, which on all or any ‘of the recent oc- “r casions has been expressed. The whole drift of his speech has been rather to prove, that, in divers times and manners, senti- ments equally liable to my objection have been promulgated in New England. And one would suppose that his object, in this reference._to Massachusetts, was to find a precedent to jus- tify proceedings in the South, were it not for the reproach and contumely with which he labors, all along, to load his precedents. By way of defending South Carolina from what he chooses to think an attack on her, he first quotes the example of Massachu- setts, and then denounces that ”example, 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 I'Iartford Convention. Did he do this for authority, or for a topic of reproach? Apparently for both; for he told 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 it was holden, and the circumstances of the country, then existing. We were in a War, he said, and the country needed all our aid ; the hand of government required to be strengthened, not weakened ; and pa- triotism should have postponed such proceedings to another day. The thing itself, then, is a prececientg, the time and manner of it, only, subject of censure. Now, sir, I go much farther, on this ‘ point, than the honorable member. Supposing, as the gentleman 47 seems to, that the Hartford Convention assembled for any such purpose as breaking up the Union, because they thought uncon- stitutional laws had been passed, or to concert on that subject, or to calculate the value of zf’/re Union ; supposing this to be their purpose, or any part of it, then I say the meeting itself was dis- loyal, and was obnoxious to censure, whether held in time of peace or time of war, or under whatever circumstances. The material matter is the object. Is dissolution the object’? If it be, external circumstances may make it a more or less aggravated case, but cannot affect the principle. I do not hold, therefore, sir, that the Hartford Conventi.on was pardonable, even to the ex- tent of the gentlernarfs 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 conven- tions to decide questions of constitutional law ! ~—-——to try the bind-- ing validity of statutes, by votes in a convention! Sir, the Hart- ford 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. , I Then, Sir, the gentleman has no fault to find with these re- cently promulgated South Carolina opinions. And, certainly, he need have none ; for his own sentiments, as new advanced, and advanced on reflection,, as far as I have been able to comprehend them, go the full length of all these opinions. I propose, sir, to say sotnething on these, and to consider how far they are just and constiuuiional. 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 revo- lutionary and other merits, meets my hearty concurrence. I shall not acknowletlge, that the ltoiiorglgle member goes before me in regard for whatever of clistinguishecl talent, or distinguished cha-— racter, 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 Laurens, Rutledges, the Pinch- neys, the Sunfipters, the Marions ———-Americans all—-——Whose fame is no more to be hemmed in by state lines, than their talents and patriotism were capable of being circumscribed within the same narrow limits. In. their day and generation, they served and honored the country, and the whole country, and their renovvn is of the treasures of the whole country.” Hun, Whose honored name the gentleman himself bears--—-does he suppose me less «$8 capable of gratitude for his patriotism, or sympathy for his sufi°er-- ings, than if his eyes had first opened upon the light in lVIassachu-- setts, 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? N o, sir---—increased gratification and delight, rather. Sir, I thank God, that ifl am gifted with little of the spirit which issaid to be able to raise mortals to the slties, I have yet none, as I trust, of that other spirit, which would drag angels down. Wlten I 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 3 when I refuse, for any such cause, or for any cause, the ltotnage due to American talent, to elevated patriotism, to sincere devotion to liberty and the country ; or if I see an uncommon endowment of heat:*en----if I see extraordinary capacity anduvirtue in any son of the South-—~T-and if, moved by local prejudice, or gangrened by state jealousy, I get up here to abate the tithe of a hair froin 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 1°efr'esl1irig remembrance of the past-—let me re- mind you that in early times no states cherished greater harmony, both of principle and of feeling, than Massachusetts and South Carolina. Vlfotiltl to God, that harmony rnight again return. Shoulder to shoulder they went ll11'Ol]gl’1 the revolution--—l‘1and in hand they stood round the administration of WttSl]ll1gtO1], and felt his own great arm lean on them for support. I 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 encomium upon Massachu- setts—-—she needs none. There she 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 Bunker Hill; and there they will remain forever. The bones of her sons, fallen in the great struggle for independence, now lie mingled with the soil of every state, from New England to G»eorgi.a; and there they will lie forever. And, sir, where American liberty raised its first voice, and where its youth was nurtured and sustained, there it still lives, in the Strellgtll 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 teariit; if folly and madness, if an- easiness, under salutary and necessary restraint, shall succeed to separate it from that union, by which alone its existence is made 49 sure, it will stand, in the end, by the side of that cradle in which :its inta‘nc,y was rocked; it will stretch forth its arm with whatever of vigor‘ it may still retain, over the friends who gather around it; and it will fall at last, if fall it must, amidst the proudest rnointnrients of its own glory, and on the very spot of its origin. There yet remains to be perforrned, 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 whatl eon-« ceive to be the true principles of the Constitution under which we are here assembled. I might well have desired that so weig.;hty 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 experience give weight and influence to their opinions, such as cannot possibly belong to mine. But, sir, I have met the occasion, not sottglit it; and l shall proceed to state my own senthnents, without cl1allen,;iiig for them any par- ticular i.'egartl, with studied plainness, and as niuch precision as possible. I understand the honorable §,’_fC‘lTl.l(I)'m2~”\.1'"1 ti'om South Carolina to Inaintain, that it a 1r*i,e;l,1t of the State »l,.ie,;‘_;isla.t1_11'es to interlere, r whenever, in l.l1(£‘;l1'_ll't(.l§.§tTlQ1']l, this Government transcends its Constitutional limits, and to arrest the operation of its laws. ll understand lfiitn to rnaintain this 1‘lgpl‘)l', as a t'igl'1t e.xistin.g wider the Constitution; not as a t'ig;l::it to overthrow it,on the g;1'<3t1ntfl of e"s;treme necessity, such as would justify violent revo- lution. l Lm(:lerstant'l him to maintain an authority on the part, of the States, thus to int.er,l'erc, for tlie_pu.rpt:‘;>se oi‘ (i(?)l'l'€2(.iilll“l§‘,‘ the ex» ercise of power by the General Govcrntnentz, c)l'cl,1ccll\'s.A'«.-;:.a' ; l'l.W.l1 n -1‘) f:1ll1'l.l;l;‘;‘4 at: lll".)€)I'll_Y to Coin l‘l‘~,l.Oll'll’l.‘.y. £lk.{;’_;:?l.li'l, lglm C(_'lll"lf5lll",1.jI‘ll(“l_i.‘T£ :-l4»;:vo.,xlv11ll3e«1:llill.‘1;g2;s oi’ l.1ooom.'lll.o jusstioo.’ Soc-[ll an opinion, *z;l‘1o:rol7(.>3.?e, in t.1lE3Il"l:?uT1C€3 o if 1;h+:~:—: }[l:;>.l::h1es:.t p1‘O‘V'lS'lOl1FS of tho Consl;i.tmion.. T.ll€l‘€3 mre: olhor ‘pt'oc/oocliliggs of pulfllo l)Olll(;:S Wl'll£ill hcwo z1l~ romily lfloon allmlocll to, aml to Wlll(Jl.lll ll r<::ll'l31* :l1.gg;:ll1ia1 my the pur- pose of z1.soe1'talir1il1g more "fully, wlmt is tlm .lm1y;tla zmetl hrem;ll:h oftl‘1atcloot1'im-2, (l.E£+nOI‘1lll"l€ll€53(ll‘ll'1€'3 Cawolimz clooh'ioo, Wl'2lCl'1 flue l10110l'£1l)lG n1e1nhe:r l.;]ElS now stood up on this floor to mairxmln. lo one ol'tl1om l. final it; resolved, tlml‘. ‘ the ';l.‘zu;'illil"ol‘ 18:38, zmd every o1,l3ol* Ta1"oifl’ clossiggnocl to prom.oto one ‘l:;mm::l"1 of im:lus't3.'y, at the EEXPC-.l“lS€3 of Ol‘.ll,1E3l.'S, is co_rm':1ry to the U”1€§Iil,l7lllE§; ancl imam»- tion of tho lllocleml compact; z1m_l as ssooll, :1 clan;_~;oroL1s, palm» .. hle, and dolilhemte usurcp::1tio'o of power, by El c:l-otorminocl m:1;;o- rity, wielding; the General Ghovornmont. l:aoyom_l the limits of its cloleggatod powers, as malls; upo~n llxo States whicl1 oozmfloso ‘£.l'M'3 suffering minority, in tlxeir soV'm:oigj11 capacity, to o:<;or«:;iso the powers; Vfl"llCl"l, 2-as so\'¢eroij.;;ns, m~3oossm“lly <.{lon:«*olvo alpoh ‘them, when their oompaczt is violatlecl.’ V V Observe, sir, tlmt this 1‘osol.mlon llolcflls ll‘?-.o '.l'o.1‘ifi’ol’ lSQ8, anrl ovary other T-aorizfl"; closlg;nec“l to 1'.m‘omr_mi-2 om-2: l;w:-:z,12«::l“a of ion- 8 53$ dustry at the expense of another, to be such a dangerous, palpaw ble, and deliberate usurpation of power, as calls upon the States, in their sovereign capacity, to interfere by their own power. This denunciation, Mr President, you will please to observe, in—- cludes our old Tariff of H316, as Well as all others; because that was established to promote the interest of the manufacturers of cotton, to the manifest and admitted injury of the Calcutta cot- ton trade. Observe, again, that all the qualifications are here re- hearsed and~r.l1a1'gerl upon the tarifl’, which are necessary to bt-ing the case within the gentlernatfs proposition. The tariff is a usur- pation 3 it is a dangerous usurpation 3 it is a palpable usurpation; it is a deliberate usurpation. It is such a usurpation as calls upon the States to exercise their right of interference. Here is a case, then, within the gentletnanfs principles, and all his qualifi- cations of his principles. It is a case for action. The Constitu-~ tion 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 con- clusive? It so happens, that at the very inornent when South Carolina resolves that the tarif laws are unconstitutional, Penn- sylvania, and Kentucky, resolve exactly the reverse. They hold these laws to be both higjlily proper, and strictly constitutional. And now, sir, how does the honorable member propose to deal with this case ? How does he get out of this difificulty, upon any principle of his? His construction gets us into it; ltow does he propose to get us out? p In Carolina, the tarifi' is a palpable, deliberate usurpation; Carolina, therefore, may nu!Zg'fy it, and refuse to pay the duties. In Pennsylvania, it is both clearly constitutional, and highly ex- pedient ; and 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 happens, that all duties shallbe equal in all the States ! Does not this approach absurdity ? If there be no pottter to settle such questions, independent of either of the States, is not the whole Union a rope of sand? Are we not thrown baclt again, precisely, upon the old Confedera- tion ? a 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 anybody else, and this constitutional law the only bond of their union I What is such a state of thitigs, but 55 a mere connexion during pleasure, or, to use the phraseology of the times, during feeling i3 And that feeling, too,not the feeling of the people, who established the constitution, but the feeling of the state governments. t ‘S i V 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. Upon 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 coniiclence 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 establish- ing their own opinions, in defiance of the opinions of all others ; the liberty of judging and of deciding ertclusively themselves, in a matter in which others have as much right to judge and decide as they ; the liberty of placingtheir own opinions above the judg- ment 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 gentlernan. 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 bosom of Car- olinians. 1% Item’ no extortion, no ogrp-2'esaio9t,, no collision toitlt the Ki2'2,g"s nriiristers, no nctvigotiort interests spr“i~2z,g'i72g tip, in en-— oious rivalry ofEngIand.’ i ~ V .This seems entraordina.ry language. South Carolina no col» lision with the King’s ministers, in 1775 I no extortion! no ep- pressionl But, sir, it is also met "gnificant language. Does any man doubt the purpose for whict- it was penned? , Can any one fail to see that it was designed to raise in the reader’s mind the question, whether, at this zri-m.e--—tltat is to say in l8:’2.8----South Carolina has any collision with the King’s ministers, any oppres- sion, 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? a a Is it not strange, sir, that an imelligent man in South Carolina, in 18528, should thus labor to prove, that, in 1775, there was no hostility, no cause of war, between South Carolina and England E’ 56 Tliat she had no occasion, in reference to her owninterest, or from a regard to her own welfare, to talte up arms in the revoluw tionary contest? Can any one account for the expression of such strangle sentirnents, and their circulation througli the State, other» wise than by supposing the object to be, What I have already intimated, to raise the question, if they had no ‘rolZ:is~2'.on’ (mark the expression) with the ministers of King George the Third, in 1775, what rollisiovz have they in 1828, witli 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 {roan ./Vet-.0 England P Resolutions, sir, have been recentiy passed by the Legislature of South Carolina. Ineed not refer to thetn,-. they go no fan- ther than the honorable gentleman hinnself has gone——----and lhope not so far. i content myself, therefore, with debating the matter with him. i r r And now, sir, what I have first to say on this subject is, that, at no time, and under no circumstances, has New England, or any State in New England, or any respectable body of persons in Next’ Enaglanti, or stay public man of standing in New Eng- land, put lil3.'i.'tlL1 such a doctrine as this Carolina doctrine. Tire §_§C::‘}ilt3i1i8l"1 has found no case, he can find no r e, to sup- port his earn opinions New Engleiid authority. Netv Etig» land has stutlieti toe constitution in other schools, and under other teachet's. Site loolts upon it with other t'e§«;at*ds, and deetns l1101‘Billg_l"ll§" end. rererently, hoth of its just authority, and its utility and eitcellenee. The history of her legislative proceed- li.‘.!§f;S may be tracedm-—~tli.e ephemeral tefihsions , of temporary hodies, calied toejetlier by the exciteinent of the occasion, may behunteti tip»---they have heen hunteci up. The opinions anti notes of her public men, in and out of Congress niay he e:tplo1'ecl ~«---it will all be in rain. The Caroli:na tlootrine can ed rive '.{'rorn he‘r,,neitiiet' «z;-onntenance I101‘ supp_ort.:. She rejects it now; she airrays did reject it ; and till she loses her senses, she always wiil reject it, The ooitnralale member has referred to e.:spressions, A on the subject of the et11barg,o law, made in this place,by>an honorable anti venerable gentleman, (Mr H1LLn:0nsn,) now fa» voring us with his ,presence. He quotes that distinguished Senator as sayiiiig, that in a his jutlgtnertt the embargo law was nnconstitu- tionahantl tl‘1at,t"=e;refo1'e, in his opinion, the people were not bound to obey it. a That, sir, is perfectly constitutional language. An unconstitutional law is not ljflnitug ; but than it does not rest ttfiitit at -2r'esel‘3nt?'io=rt, or as law of (Z State Legislature to dec-ide tnhstlter' cm ,/slczr‘ of Crirzgress be, or he not, c0ttst‘ii.ttZio5*zctl. An 57' uiieonstittitional act of Congress would not bind the people of i this clistrict, although they have no legisletme to interl'e1‘e in their behalf 3 end, on the other hand, a constitutional law of Congress does bind the citizens of every State, altliiough all their Legisla- tures should undertake to annul it, hy eat or resolution. The venerable Connecticut Senator is a constitutional lattvyer, of sounti principles, and enlarged ltnowletlge ; e. statesman practised and experienced, htetl in the company of lwasltington, and l10lCllt”1g just views upon the nature of our governments. He helievetl the embargo uttczonstitutionel, and so did others; hut valiant then? ~ lil/ho, did he suppose, was to decide that question? The State Legislattiresl Certainly not. No such sentiment ever escapecl his lips. Let us follow up, sit, this New Eitgland opposition to the et“nhei*go lows; let us trace it, till We discern the principle, which eontrollecl and governed New Engglatid, ’[l11"'OLlgllOUl the Wl”JUil€< course of that opposition. We shall then see wltet sitni—- letity there is hetween the l‘*lew England school oi" eonrstittitionztl opinions, and this motleicn Ce:t'oline. school. The gG1”lllt3*:"£l2Et17t, i; think, reetl e. petition ll'OI.t'l some single ititlividtiel, ecltl1'essetl to the l.ieg;islattn:e of Maesecli'usetts, asserting the Carolina doctrine --that is, the 1‘i§;lit of State intei"l'et'enee to arrest the laws of the Union. The fate of that petition, shows the sentiment of the Legisla‘tm‘e. lt tnetho favor. The opinions of hlasseohusetts were otherwise. They had been expressed, in 1798, in answer to the re-solutions of Virginia, end she did not depart front tltem, I101‘ heed tliem to the times. .hl.isgottet“ned, 'Wl‘Oi’tg€Cl, opmessed, as she lielthetself to he, she still held lost her in'teg1‘ity to the ‘Union. ’lCl“1e g.;ent'letnen tittiy titnl in her p:t'oeeetlitigs tnoeli evi- tlehee of tlissetislhetioh t-t7it'l‘i the measures of G'OV'E¥t‘t1ll16tT1l, anti great and deep clislilte to the emhetgo_; all this tnel-tes the case so nnneh the stronger lht‘l1et' ; for, 110tIV'lll1Sl'EinCllt!g all this tlisset» isfeetion entl dislilte, she eleinietl no riglit, still, to sever asunder the bonds of the Union. There Wes heat, and there '-’2tS etigei‘, in her political feeli11g-whe it SC)-~llt?t‘ lieet or her anger tlitl riot, nevertlieless, betray‘ her into intitlelity to the G~overninent. The gentletnen labors to prove that she CllSlll~IGCl the embargo, as much as South Cemoliim dislikes the tet°itl', zttitl expressed her clislilte as strongly. Be it so; but (lid she propose the CtI7'0Zi'71(t 7-eiitziedy? did she titreet‘e7z to -inteijZ2t'e, by State a'utfz0~rily, to aimzttl the lcmss of" the l:ll'Z’?iO'72-Q That is the question for the g;entlenien’s con- sicletetion. hi’ o clottht, sit, at great tnejotity of the people of New Eiiglentl eonsei.ehtiotiely helievecl. the embargo law of 180*?’ unconstitutional; es eonse.ie1itiotisl_y, C«€1‘t€lll‘1ly, as the people of South CE!1‘0llt’t3l10ltl 58 that opinion of the tariff‘, they reasoned thus. Corigess has power to regulate commerce , but here is a law, they said, stop- ping all con1n1erc_e,_ and stoppnig it indefinitely. The law is per- petual; that is, 1t1S not limited in point of time, and must, of course, continue, till it shall be repealed by some other law. It is as perpetual, therefore, as the law against treason or murder. N ow, is this regulating commerce, or destroying it? Is it guiding, conti'olli11g, giving the rule to comtnerce, as a subsisting thing, or is it putting an end to it altogether P N otliing is more certain, than that a majority in N ew England, deemed this law a violation of the Constitution. The very case required by the gentleman, to jttstify State interference, had then arisen. Massaclittsetts believ- ed this law to be ‘ ct (Eel/iberate, pai’pa.?)Ze, anti’ dange7'o'us ewercise of (1 power, not granted by the Cortstitutioot.’ Deliberate it was, for it was long continued; palpable she thought it, as no words i.n the Constitution gave the power, and only a construction, in her opinion most violent, raised it; dangerous it was, since it threat- ened utter ruin to her most important interests. Here, then, was a Carolina case. a How did Massachusetts deal withit? It was, as she tliottglit, a plain, manifest, palpable violation of the Constitu- tion; and it b1'ouglit ruin to her doors. Thousands 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 coun- try was no way benefited by that whicli caused so much indivi- dual distress ; that it was eflicient only for the production of evil, and all that evil inflicted on to ourselves. In such a case, under such circumstances, how did Massachusetts detnean herself? Sir, she renionstrated, she rnernorialized, she addressed herself to the General Government, not exactly ‘ with the concentrated energy of passion,’ but with her own st1'ong; sense, and the energy of so- ber conviction. But she did not interpose the aim of her own power to arrest the law, and break the embargo. Far from it. idiot‘ principles bound her to two things; and she followed her principles, lead where they might. First, to submit to every con- stitutional law of Co11gi*ess, and secondly, if the constitutional vali- dity of the law be doubted, to refer that question to the decision of the proper tribunals. The first principle is vain and ineflectual without the second. A majority of us in New England believed the ernbarggo law unconstitutional; but the great question was, and always will be, in such cases, who is to decide this? VVho 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 itself, to be exercised by its appropriate Depart-» 59 ment, this power of deciding ultimately and conclusively, upon the just extent of itsown authority. If this had not been done, we should not have advanced a single step beyond the old Con» federation. Being fully of opinion that the embargo law was unconstitu- tional, the people of New England were yet equally clear in the opinion-—~—-it was a matter they did doubt upon--—that the ques- tion, after all, must be decided by the Judicial tribunals of the United States. Before 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 for- feited. They suffered the bonds to be sued, and thus raised the question. In the old fashioned way of settling disputes, they went to law. The case came to hearing, and solemn argument; and he who espoused their cause, and stood up for them against the validity of the act, was none other than that great man, of whom. the gentleman has made honorable mention, SAMUEL DEXTER. He was then, sir, in the fulness of his knowledge and the maturity of his strength. He 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 greatness and comprehension. He was a lawyer, and he was also a statesman. He had studied the Constitution, when 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 was attached to the General Government and to the Union of r the States. His feelings and opinions all ranin that direction. A question of Constitutional Law, too, was, of all subjects, that one, which was best suited to his talents and learning. t Aloof from technicality, and unfettered by artificial rule, 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 as- sented, because it was gratifying, delightful to think, and feel, and believe, in unison with an intellect of such evident superiority. Mr Dexter, sir, such as I have described him, arguedthe New England cause. i He put into his effort his whole heart, as well "as all the powersof his understanding ; for he had avowed, in the most public manner, his entire concurrence with his neigh-2 60 bets, on the point in dispute. He argued the cause, it was lost, and New England submitted. The established tribunals pro- nounced 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, gztoacl New England; for we had a strong, palpable, and op- pressive case. Sir, We believed the embargo unconstitutional; but still, that was matter of opinion, and who was to decide it? Vie thought it a clear case; but, nevertheless, We did not take the law into our own hands, because we did not wish to b)"i'?’Lg about as revolution, nor to break up the Union ; forl maintain, that, between submission to the decision of the constituted tribu- male, and revolution, or disunion, there is no middle ground------- there is no ambiguous condition, half allegiance and half treb-el~ lion. There is no treason, maclcosy. 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 deli- berate oase; 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 ad- jectives and epithets avail anything? 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 5 and both sides usually ‘grow clearer, as the controversy advances. South Carolina sees unconstitutionality in the Tariff; she sees oppression there also ; and she sees danger. Pennsyl- vania, with a vision not less sharp, looks at the same Tariff, and sees no such thing in it-———--slie sees it all constitutional, all useful, all safe. The faith of South Carolina is strengthened by oppo- sition, and she now not only sees, but Resolves, that the Tariff is palpably unconstitutional, oppressive, and dangerous; but .’_Penn- sylvania, not to be behind her neighbors, and equally Willing to strengthen her own faith by a confident asservation, Resolves also, and gives to every warm atfirmative of Soutl1‘Carolina, a lain, tdovmright, Pennsylvania negative. South Carolina, to show the strength and unity of her opinion, brings her assembly to a iunanimity, within seven votes; Pennsylvania, not to be out- done in this respect more than others, reducesher dissentient fraction to five votes. Now, sir, again I ask the gentleman, what Bl is to be done? Are these States both right? Is be bound to consider them both 1°ig;lit? If not, which is the wrong? or rather, which has the best right to decide 3‘ And if he, and if l, are not to know what the Constitution means, and what it is, till those two State Legislatures, and the twentytwo others, shall agree in its construction, 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 re- solutions to prove that a State may interfere, in a case of delibe—- rate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of a power not granted. The honorable member supposes the tarifl’ law to be such an ex- ercise of power; and that, consequently, a case has arisen, in wliich the State may, if it see fit, interfere by its own law. Now it so happens, nevertheless, that Mr Madison himself deems this same Tarifl" law quite constitutional. lnstead of a clear and pal-« pable violation, it is, in his judginent, no violation all. So that, while they use his authority for a hypothetical case, they reject it in the Very case before them, All this, sir, shows the inherent futility —-—-I had almost used. a stronger word ---~ of conced- ing this power of interference to the States, and then attemjptiing, to secure it from abuse by imposing qualifications, of which the States themselves are to ‘judge. One of two tliings 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,__tl1a.t: if the gentleman’s doctrine had been received and. acted upon in New Eiigltiiicil, in. the ‘times of the enr- bargo and inon-intercourse, we should, probably not now have been here. The Government would very lili:el_.y have goiie to pieces and crumbled into dust. N o stronger case can ever arise than e:r;isted under those laws; no States can ever entertain a. clearer conVic- tion than the New Eiiglaticl States then entertained ; and if they had been under the influence of that heresy of opinion, asl must call. it, which the honorable 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; I ash: him to come forth and declare, whether, in his opinion, the New E1igl.a1icl States would have been justified in interfering to break up the €ml3€L';‘C"O system, under the conscientious opinions which they held upon it? Had they a right to annul that law? Does he admit or deny E’ If that which is tliouglit palpably unconstitutional in South Carolina, justifies that State in a1'1*estiiig the profgress of the law, tell me, whether that which was tliotiglit palpably uncon- 9 62 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 public man of rep- utation ever advanced it in Massachusetts, in the warmest times, or could maintain himself upon it there at any time. Iwish now, sir, to make a remark upon the Virginia resolutions of 1'7 98. I cannot undertake to say how these resolutions were understood by those who passed them. Their language is not a little indefinite. In the case of the exercise, by Congress, of a dangerous 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 interpretatlon. It may mean no more than that the States may interfere by complaint and remonstrance ; or, by proposing to the People an alteration of the Federal constitution. This would all be quite unobjectiona- ble ; or it may be, that no more is meant than to assert the general right of revolution, as against all Governments, in cases of intoler- able oppression. This no one doubts 3 and this, in my opinion, is allthat he who framed the resolutions could have meant by it 3 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 think the case, annul a law of Con- gress, 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 2. where do they get the power to interfere with the laws of the Union? Sir, "the opinion, which the honorable gentleman maintains, is a notion, founded in a total misapprehen- sion, in my judgment, 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 re» sponsible to the People; 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 Governments. It is created for one purpose; the State Govern- ments 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 admin-- istration. It is not the creature of the State Governments. It is r of no moment to the argument, that certain acts of the State Legislatures are necessary to fill our seats in this body. That is 63 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 Pres1dent_w1th electors; but all this does not afiect the proposition, that [1113 Whole Government, President, Senate, and House of Representatives, is apopular Government. It leaves it still all its popular character. it The Governor of a State, (in some of the States) is chosen, not directly by the People, but by those who are chosen by the People, for the purpose of performing among other dunes, that of electing :3. Governor. is the Government of the State on that account, not a popular Government ? This Government, sir, is the inde- pendent offspring of the popular W111. 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 hith- erto supported it, for the very purpose, amongst others, of imposw ing 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 irnposts, they cannot coin money. If this constitution, sir, be the creature of State Legislatures, it must he 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 lim-- ited Government. They have defined its authority. They have restrained it, to the exercise of such powers as are granted 3 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 me» cise, as to exclude all uncertainty. W110, then, shall construe this grant of the People? W110 shall interpret their will, where it may be supposed they have left it doubtful? With whom do they leave this ultimate right of deciding on the powers of the Government? Sir, they have settled all this in the fullest man- ner. They have left it with the Government itself, in its appro- priate hranches. 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 Government, tinder the Confederacy. Under that system the legal action-—- 64 the application of law to individuals, belonged exclusively to the States. Congress could only recomrnend—-their acts were not of binding force, till the States had‘ adopted and sanctioned them. Are We in that condition still? Are We yet at the mercy of State discretion, and State construction? Sir, if we are, then train 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 Constitution, grants of powers to Congress 3 and restrictions on these powers. There are also prohibitions on the States. Some authority must there» fore necessarily exist, having the ultimate 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? By declaring,” sir, that ‘the Constitution and the laws of the United States, made in pursuance thereof; shall he the supreme law of the land, anything in the Covtstitztt-ion. or laws of any State to the co~n.t7'm'y notzu-ithstanding.’ This, sir, 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 comes in conflict with the constitution, or any law of the United States. But who shall decide this question of interference? To vrhorn lies the last appeal ? This, sir, the constitution itself decides, also, by declaring, ‘ that the Judicial power shall extend to all cases rzrisitzg under the Constituttiotz and Laws of the Unitecl States.’ These two provisions, ‘sir, cover the whole ground. They are, in truth, the key-stone of the arch. VVith these, it is a constitun tion, 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 carrying them into full efiect, and for bringing all questions of constitutional power to the final decision of the Supreme Court. it then, sir, became a go- vernment. It then had the means of self-protection ; and but for this, it would, in all probability, have been new 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 government shall itself decide; subject always, like other popular governments, to» its responsibility to the People, And now, sir, I repeat, how is it, that a state legislature acquires any right to interfere? Who, or what, gives them the right to say to the People, we, who are 65 your agents and servants for one purpose, will undertake to de- cide, 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 madeyou a judge over another’s servants? To their own mastersthey stand or fall.’ Sir, I deny this power of state legislatures altogether. It can- not stand the test of examination. 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 themselves, without the aid of the state governments. Sacha case warrants revolution. It must make, when it comes, a law for itself. A nullifying act of a state legislature cannot alter the case, nor make resistance any xnore.lawful. In maintaining these sentiments, sir, I am but asserting the rights of the people. I state what they have declared, and insist on their right to de- clare it. They have chosen to repose this power in the general government, and I think it my duty to support it, like other com- stitutional powers. ~ For myself, sir, I doubt 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 lawsof Congress, for which I have voted. I decline her umpirage. I have not sworn to support the Constitution according to her construction of its clauses.‘ I have not stipulated, by my oath of otlice 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 nature of the case, could anything have been more preposterous, than to have made I a GOV€31‘1'11'I1(3I113fO1‘ the whole Union, and yet left its powers subject, not to one interpretation, but to thirteen, or ttventyfour interpre- tations? 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 de- cide for itself, and none bound to respect the decisions of others 3, and each at liberty, too, to give a new construction, on every new election of its own members i’ Would anything, with such a prin- ciple in it, or rather with such a destitution of all principle, be fit to be called a Government? N o, sir. It should not be denomi- nated a Constitution. It should be called, rather, a collection of topics for everlasting controversy ; heads of debate, for a disputa- , tious people. It would not be a Government. It would not be adequate to any practical good, nor fit for any country to live un- 66 der. To avoid all possibility of being misunderstood, allow _me to repeat again, in the fullest manner, that I claim no powers for the Government by forced or unfair construction. I admit that it is a Government of strictly limited powers; of enumerated, speci- fied, and particularized powers; and that whatsoever is not grant- ed, 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 those doubts, as they should arise, might be peaceably, but authoritatively, solved. And now, Mr President, let me run the honorable gentlernan’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 interference is to be put in practice. We will take the existing case of the tariff law. South Carolina is said to have made up her opinion upon it. If we do not repeal it (as we probably shall not) she will then apply to the case the remedy of her doctrine. The will, we must suppose, pass a law of her Legislature, declaring the several acts of Congress, usually called the Tarn? Laws, null and void, so far as they respect South Carolina, or the citizens thereof. So far, all is a paper transaction, and easy enough. But the collector at Charleston, is collecting the duties imposed by these tariff‘ 1aws---—-he,there- fore, must be stopped. The collector will seize the goods if the tariff duties are not paid. The State authorities will undertake their rescue; the Marshal, with his posse, will come to the col- lector’s aid, and here the contest begins. a 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 honor- able member himself commands the militia of that part of the State. He will raise the NULLIFYING G ACT on his standard, and spread it out as his banner. It will have a preamble, bearing that the tariff laws are palpable, deliberate, and dangerous violav tions of the Constitution I He will proceed, with his banner fly- ing, to the custom-house in Charleston ; ‘ All the While, Sonorous metal -blowing martial sounds.’ Arrived at the custom-house, he will tell the collector that he must collect no more duties under any of the tariff laws. This, The will be somewhat puzzled to say, by the way, with a grave countenance, considering what hand South Carolina herself had 67 in that of 1816. 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- tary array should fall on the custom-house, collector, clerks, and all, it is very probable some of those composing 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, some-— thing concerning their rights in this matter. They would inquire, whether it were 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? He would answer, of course, treason. No lawyer could give any other answer. John Fries, he would tell them, had learnedthat some years ago. How, then, they would ask, do you propose to defend us? We are not afraid of bullets, but treason has a way of taking people off, that we do not much relish. How do you propose to defend us? ‘Look at my floating banner,’ he would reply; ‘see there the nullzfying law ! ’ ls it your opin- ion, gallant commander, they would then say, that if we should be indicted for treason, that same floating banner of yours would make a good plea in bar?‘ South Carolina is a sovereign State,’ he 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 i 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. After all, that is a sort of hemp—taX, worse than any part of the tarifil 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 bayo- . nets; and this is war--—civil war. Direct collision, therefore, between force and force, is the unavoidable result of that remedy for the revision of unconstitu- tional laws which the gentleman contends for. It must happen in the very first case to which it is applied. Is not this the plain result? To resist, by force, the execution of a law generally, is 68 treason. Can the courts of ” the United States take notice of - the indulgence of a State to commit treason? The common saying, that a State cannot commit treason herself is nothing to the pur- pose. Can it authorize others to do it? If John Fries had produced an act of Pennsylvania, annulling the law of Congress, would it have helped his case? Tall: 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 are first found to be maintai ..1€Cl by respectable men, and in a tangible form, that I enter my public protest against them all. The honorable gentleman argues, that if this Government be the sole judge of the extent of its OWI1 powers, whether that right of judging be in Congress, or the Supreme Court, it equally sub-e verts 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 theeitercise of State Legislatures, has any ten- dency to subvert the Government of the Union. The gentlem an’s opinion maybe that tie right 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 interference; but I aslt him to meet me on the plain matter of fact——--I ask him to meet me on the constitution itself -——-l ask him if the power is not tbund there---clearly and visibly found there?——No:rE 3. But, 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 People who established it shall choose to continue it. If they shall become convinced that they have made an injudicious or ine.r«:pedient partition and distribution of power, between the State Governments and the General Government, they can alter that distribution at will. If anything be found in the National Constitution, either by original provision, or subsequent interpretation, which ought not to be in it, the people know how to get rid of it. If any construc- tion be established, unacceptable to them, so as to become, prac- tically, ».a part of the Constitution, they will amend it at their own sovereign pleasure. But While the people choose to maintain it as itiis ; While they are satisfied with it, and rel'use to change it 3 who has given, or who can give, to the State Legislatures, a right to alter it, either by interference, construction, or otherwise 3’ Gentlemen do notseem to recollect that the people have any pow- er to do anything for themselves; they imagine there is no safety 69 for them, any longer than they are under the close guardianship of the State Legislatures. Sir, the people have not trusted their safety, in regard to the general constitution, to these hands. They have required other security, and taken other bonds. They have chosen to trust themselves first, to the plain words of the instru- ment, and to such construction as the Government itself, in doubt- ful cases, should put on its own powers, under their oaths of oflice, and subject to their responsibility to them 5 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. Tliirdly, they havetreposu ed trust in the judicial power, which, in order that it might be trustworthy, they have made as respectable, as disinterested, and as independent, as waspracticable. 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, peacea- bly and quietly, whenever experience shall point out defects or imperfections. 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 operation. If, sir, the people, in «these respects, had done otherwise than they have done, their Constitution could neither have been pre- served, nor would it have been worth preservincr. And if its lantly“ discharge the two 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, whethei' early or more recent, could possibly desire. lt_will exist in everyState, but as a poor dependant on State per- mission. i It must borrow leave to be, and will be, no longer than ‘Stgte pleaslure, or State discretion, sees fit to grant the indulgence, an to pro ong its poor ezstistence. But, sir, although there are fears, there are hopes also. The people have preserved this, their own chosen Constitution, for forty years, and have seen their happiness, prosperity, and re- nown, grow with its growth, and strengthen with its strength. They are now, generally, strongly attached to it. Overthrownby direct assault, it cannot be ; evaded, undermined, NULLIFIEZD, it will not -be, if we, and those who shall succeed us here, as agents and representatives of the people, shall conscientiously and vigin great branches of our public trust-------- faithfully to preserve, and wisely to administer it. ' Mr President, Ihavethus stated the reasons of my dissent 10 "F0 to the doctrines which have been advanced and maintained. i am conscious of having detained you, and the Senate, much too lone“. I was drarvn into the debate, with no previous delibera-— tiori such as is suited to the discussion of so grave and important a subject. But it is a subject of Wllicll my heart is full, and I have not been willing to suppress the utterance of its spontane- ous sentiments. I cannot,even now, persuade inyselt" to relin—~ quish 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 country, and the preserva- tion 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 indebted for whatever makes us most proud of our country. That Union we reached, only by the dis- cipline of our virtues, in the severe school of adversity. It had its origin in the necessities of disordered finance, prostrate com- merce, and ruined credit. Under its benign influences, these great interests immediately awoke, as from the dead, and sprang; t forth with newness of life. Every year of its duration has teemed with fresh proofs of its utility and its blessitigs ; 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 recess behind. I have not coolly vveighed the chances of preserving liberty, when the bonds that unite us together shall be broken asunder. I have not accustomed rnyselfto hang over the precipice of disunion, to see whether, with my short sight, l can fatliorn the depth of the abyss below; nor could I regard him as a safe counsellor in the affairs of this Government, whose thoughts should be mainly bent on considering, not how the Union should be best preserved, but how tolerable might be the condition of the people when it shall be broken upand destroyed. a While the Union lasts, We have high, exciting, gratifying prospects spread out before us, for us and our children. Beyond thatl 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 fragrnetits of a once glo- rious Union ; on States dissevered, discordant, belligerent; on a '7l 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 tro- phies streaming in their original lustre, not a stripe erased or pol- 1uted,_nor a single star obscured ---—bearing for its motto, no such miserable interrogatory as —--- W7zat is all this worth ‘.3 or those other words of delusion and folly-—Li7)e7'ty first, and Union cf- te7'worrcls—-— but everywhere, spread all over in characters of liv- ing 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 sentiment, dear to every true American heart ---- Lib- berty and Union, new and forever, one and inseparable! ed in the following resolution, viz : ‘Noun 1. Wedrzesday, February 21, 178?. Congress assembled ; present as before. i The report of a Grand Committee, consisting of Mr Dane, Mr Varnum, ll/Ir‘ S. M. Mitchell, Mr Smith, Mr Cadwallader, Mr Irvine, Mr N. Mitchell, Mr Forrest, Mr Grayson, Mr Blount, Mr Bull, and Mr Few, to Whom was referred a letter of 14th September, 1786, from J. Dickinson, written at the request of Commissioners from the States of Virginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New Yorlr, assembled at the City of Annapolis, together with a copy of the report of the 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 contain- ‘ Congress having had under consideration the letter of John Dickinson, Esq. Chairman of the Commissioners who assembled at Annapolis during the last year; also, the proceedings of said Commissioners, and entirely coinciding with them, as to the inefliciency of the Federal Government, and the necessity of devising such further provisions as shall render the same adequate to the exi- gencies 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 Jlfr C'aZhou-n’.s Speech on .7l:t'r RcmdoZ;oh’s _moti'0n to striice out the r:-minimum valuation on Cotton Goods, in the House of Rep7*esentaittoes, ..£lpril 1816. . i l t ‘C The debate heretofore on this subject, has been on the degree of protection which ought to be afforded to our 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 establisliments 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; participat-~ ing, as he largely did, in that general anxiety which is felt, after so long and laborious a session, to return to the bosom of our families. But on a subject of such vital importance, touching as it does, the security and permanent prosperity of our country, he hoped that the House would indulge him in a few observa- tions.’ , - ‘ To give perfection to this state 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 oil" our coasting trade. The advantage of each is so striking, as not to require illustration, especially after the experience ‘ of the late war.’ '73‘ ‘ He firmly believed that the country is prepared, even to maturity, for the introduction of manufactures. ‘We have abundant of resources, and things naturally tend, at this moment, in that direction. A prosperous commerce has poured an iinmense amount of commercial capital intothis country.-— This capital has, till lately, found occupati.on‘in commerce 3 but that state of the world which transferred it to this country, and gave it active employment has ?passed away never to return. 'Where shall we now find full efllpioy. i merit, for our prodigious amount of tonnage 3 where markets for the numerw ous and abundant products of our country 9 This great body of active capi- tal, 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 will not be idle. "What channel can it take but that of manufactures? This, if things continue as they are, will be its direction.-- It will introduce an era in our aifairs, in many respects, highly advantage- ous, and ought to be countenanced by the Government. Besides, we have already surmounted the greatest difficulty that has ever been found in un- dertakings of this kind. The cotton and woollen manufactures are not to be introduced-—-they are already introduced to a great extent; freeing us en- tirely from the hazards, and, in a great measure the sacrifices experienced in giving the capital of the country a new direction. The restrictive measures and the war, though not intended for that purpose, have, by the necessary operation 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 Congress, that this effect alone would indemnify the country for all its losses. So high was this tone of feeling, when the want of these establishments was practi-sally felt, that he remembered, during the war, when some question was agitated res- pecting the introduction of foreign goods, that many then opposed it on the grounds of injuring our manufactures. He then said that war alone furnish- ed sufiicient 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 for tliern. 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 so favorable to their growth, where is the necessity of afibrding them protection? It is to put them beyond the reach of contingency.’ ‘ It has been further asserted, that manufactures are the fruitful cause of pauperisrn; and England has been referred to as furnishing conclusive evi- dence of its truth. For his part, he could perceive no such tendency in them, but the exact contrary, as they furnished new stirrmlus and means of subsistence to the laboring classes of the coininunity. 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 la» bor with taxes, were the real causes. But if it must be so, if the 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 cour- age, spirit, and all her masculine virtues, in which she excels all other na- tions, with a single exception ; he meant our own; in which we might, without vanity, challenge a preeminence. Another objection had been, which he must acknowledge was better founded, that capital employed in manufacturing 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; es- pecially, when it hadincidental political advantages which, in his opinion, more than counterpoised it. It produced an interest strictly American, as much so as agriculture, in which it had the decided advantage of comrnerce or navigation. The country will from this derive much advantage. ,.Again, it is calculated to bind together more closely our widely spreading _;B.epu.blic. It will greatly increase our mutual dependence and intercourse; and will, id as a necessary consequence, excite aninci-eased attention to internal im» rovements, asubject every way so intimately connected with the ultimate attainment of national strength, and the perfection of our political institu- tions.’ .715‘ Calhozm, .dpril 1816--— On the Direct Tar. ‘ 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 en- courage the dornesticindustry of the country, more especially that part ofit 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 pos- session 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 on the abstract principle, that in- dustry, left to pursue its own course, will find in its own interest all the en- couragement that is necessary. I lay the claims of the manufacturers en»- tirely out of view, said Mr 0., but on general principles, without regard to their interest, a certain encouragement should be extended at least to our woollen and cotton manufactures. . ‘ This nation, Mr. C. said, was rapidly changing the character of its indus- try. When a nation is agricultural, depending for supply on foreign mar- kets, its people may be taxed through its imports almost to the amount of its capacity. The Nation was, however, rapidly becoming, to a considerable extent, a manufacturing nation.’ , To the quotations from the speeches and proceedings of the Representatives of South Carolina in Congress, during Mr Monroe’s administration, may be added the following extract from Mr Calhoun’s Report on Roads and Can- als, submitted to Congress on 7th January, 1819, from the Department of ‘War : ‘ A judicious system of roads and canals, constructed for the convenience of commerce, and the transportation of the mail only, without any reference to military operations, is itself among the most efficient means for “ the more complete defence of the U. States.” Without adverting to the fact, that the roads and canals which such a system would require, are, with few excep- tions, precisely those which would he required for the operations of war; such tar system, by consolidating our union, increasing our wealth and fiscal capacity ,. would add greatly to our resourcesin war. It is in a state of war wlien a Nation is compelled to put all its resources, in men, money,sl~:ill, and devotion to country, into requisition, that its governnient realizes, in its security, the beneficial eifects from a people made prosperous and happy by a wise direction ofits resources in peace. ‘ Should Congress thinlt proper to commence a system of roads and canals for “ the more complete defence of the United States,” the disbursements of the sum appropriated for the purpose, might be made by the Department of 'War under the direction of the President. Wliere incorporate companies are already formed or the road or canal commenced under the superinten- donce 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 3. The following resolutions of the Legislature of Virginia hear so perti- nently, and so strictly, 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 will be observed, that these ‘ resolutions were nuanimouslyvv adopted in each Hons e. '75 1 vxnexrtza LEGISLATURE. 1 Extmctflom the Jvfessage of Goo. Tyler, of Vefrgimia, Dec. 4, 1809. = A proposition from the State of Pennsylvania is herewith submitted, with Governor Snyder’:-3 letter accompanying the same, in which is suggested the propriety of amending the Constitution of the United States, so as to pre~ vent collision betwen the Government of the Union and the State Govern- ments.’ House or nnanearns. » Friday, December 15, 1809. On motion, Ordered, That so much of the Governor’s communication as relates to the communication from the Governor of Pennsylvania, on the subject of an amendment proposed by the Legislature of that State to the Constitution of the United States, he referred to Messrs Peyton, Otey, Ca- bell, \Valk.er, l\Iadison, i-lolt, Newton, Parker, Stevenson, Randolph, (of Amelia,) Cooke, Wyatt, and Ritchie.—-Page 25 of the J0 urnal. Tlzurstlrl?/a Jamtary 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 tbllowilig report : The committee to whom was referred the communication of the Govern- or of Pennsylvania, covering certain resolutions of the Legislature of that State, proposing an amendment of the Constitution of the United States, 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 oflices, to decide the disputes aforesaid in an enliglitened and impartial manner, than any other tribunal tvhiclt 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 partiall- ties. 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 togetliei-, and with the admirable symmetry of our Government. The tenure of their offices enables them to pronounce the sound and correct opinions they may have formed without fear, favor, or partiality. The amendment to the constitution proposed by Pennsylvania, seems to be founded upon the idea that the federal judiciary will, from a lust of power, on- large their jurisdiction to the total annihilation of the jurisdiction of the State Courts, that they will exercise their will, instead of the law and the Constitution. This argument, if it proves anythiueg, would operate more strongly against the tribunal proposed to be created, which promised so little, than against the Supreme Court, which, for the reasons given before, have everything connect» ed 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 3 The Judiciary are the Weakest of the three Departments of Government, and least dan- gerous to the political rights of the Constitution; they hold neither the purse nor the sword; and even to enforce their own judgments and decisions, must ultimately depend upon the Executive arm. Should the federal judiciary, how- ever iunmindful of their weakness, unmindful of the duty which they owe to themselves and their country, become corrupt, and transcend the limits of their jurisdiction, would the proposed amendment oppose even a probable barrier in such an improbable state of things 2 The creation of a tribunal, such as is proposed by Pennsylvania, so far as 76 We are able to form an idea of it from the description given in the resolutions of the Le§;'islatu1'e of that State, would in the opinion of your committee, tend ra- ther to_invite than to prevent, collisions between the Federal and State Courts. Itlmight also become, in process of time, a serious and dangerous ‘embarrass- ment to the operations of the General Government.~ ‘ C?‘ ' - -1 Resolved, therefore, that the Legislature of thls estate do disapprove ofiithe amenzhnsnt to the Constitution of the United States, proposed by the Legisla-, ture of Pennsylvania. Resolved, ./£150, That his excellency the Governor, be, and he is hereby re- quested to transmit forthwith, a copy of the foregoing preamble and resolutions, to each of the Senators and Representatives of this State in Congress, and to the erszecutive of the several Stafes infthe Union, with a request that the same be laid before the Legislatures tiereo . 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 Common- Wealth. ' Tuesday, .Ta«nu.ary 23rd, 1810. The House, according; to the order of the day, resolved itself into :1 Com- C mittee of the ‘Whole House on the state of the conlniomvealth, and after some time spent therein, Mr Speaker resumed the Chair, and Mr Stanard (of Spottsylvania,) reported, that the Cornrnittee had, according to order, under consideration the preamble and resolutions of the Select ‘I Committee to whom was referred that part of the Governor’s communication, which relates 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 ainendmentg which he handed in at the Clerk’s table. .*i'*11Ci the question being put on agreeing to the said preamble and resolu- tions; they were agreed to by the House unanimously. Ordelretl, That the Clerk carry the said preamble and resolutions to the Senate and desire their concurrence. . IN sesars. , T“V'ed:i2eszZoy, January 2.—1t}’z., 1810. t The preamble and resolutions on the amendment to the Constitution of the United States, proposed by the Legislature of Pennsylvania, by the appoint- ment of an inipartial triburrcrl to decide disputes between the State and Fed- eral judiciary, being also delivered in and twice read, on motion, was or- dered to be committed to Messrs Nelson, Currie, Campbell, Upshur, and Wolfe. Fr2'.day, Jamm.ry 2&3. Mr Nelson reported, from the Committee to Whom was committed the preamble and resolutions on the amendment proposed by the Legislature of Pennsylvania, doc, doc, that the Committee had according to order, taken the said preamble, &c, under their consideration, and directed him to report them without ally amendment. And on the question being put thereupon the same was agreed to unani- mously. C Digitization information for the Daniel Webster Pamphlet Project University Libraries University of Missouri——Columbia Local identifier web000 Digitization work performed by the University of Missouri Library Systems Office Capture information Date captured Scanner manufacturer Scanner model Optical resolution Color settings File types Source information Format Content type Derivatives — Access copy Compression Editing software Editing characteristics Resolution Color File types Notes 2004-2005 Minolta PS7000 600 dpi Unknown tiff Pamphlets Text with some images Uncompressed Adobe Photoshop 600 dpi Bitonal; images grayscale tiff Pages cropped and brightened Blank pages removed Property marks removed