AA " ZN"o$.15’a11d16. j .€~‘5e1*ia.i. 0%“xe.a:nai::mnxrL§4,«EfDam~11tri:mnm,,, %n111m1r¢I£m* wgswmm. The Price. w2ocm.A ..~.....,.........._..‘;...—m............. ‘ I1%i0n not a» VA 5 NW"- _ % ‘ VA %I.m%1t:::';);§~:* f ’%V%1?Li1%:71:r1;x‘"z~:[~.%x%"~%M ‘S: ; A * A : 11§e¢oembe.r ELEGANTPUBL1CA*1‘I0Ns FOR THE 11<:>LIDA%Ys. PAGES AND PEOTURES A % mom TI-IE WRITINGS or J". ZFENIMORIJ CO0PE?E.. V » _ A A % AED%Ij::%I+31) 1:~:Y%MIs::-; S%%trs:;ANA'F1aN1Mm3.EA A(_;‘«o0:Am.::.n,\ A A A ' % V; Illustrated WiAth% Forty Steel AEngraVings, from Original Drawings by Darley, Ha.mi1ton,__a;11d% other Eminent Artists, and one A hundred an:-.d thirty Vignettes, on Wood, ‘ A ‘ ‘ A ‘ A A A “A ....,.,,......%_a.....%,,....._....mM.‘,..f.............;. A ‘ ‘ A The Most A Magmficent Holiday Volume of the Year I A . VA ‘ A A A ‘...._..,.-.m......._....~....¢.‘g ” A ‘This brm11tAif L11 voA1unm 1m::~§_hg:a:1: £1. lvmg time; in )_.fm':~};mr:§a.t.ic:.>13, and with m;1x11e1'ous c:«::».~'stly iIi1ustAm~ % _ figng “}Am,‘g,A 1n;V;,1~¢ea a,nA(§XpGl'1S.€} of <:;vm' C[‘1a:srV'1_‘1§x0x.7sAN1> ;IL);:>1;r,AIi:a. Iits exquisite:-. il1u1str:;Ltiuns, ghezs plea;t‘ %thcAe%n:mAs1; aL(:Q1iJtab1@;i}9x'£ess\e12ta.'t;io1;1Vva:rlu1m$ tj,h<:~: yam". It czontains, in acldition to '1'AWl4:N71‘\'~19!(.:H1‘ % 1i>Af.I)a1‘1ey’£s :-zplaiirijitl ;1Aeais.}:n;s, f1‘,I-f;:~r%1m1~c15ac,:zz.pca and Ilarmirw Views, ,ng;+avi;x;1g. lVI‘i§5:?3 Ctbopm %1m.s_i'i‘%I\*1T1'A, VC(§;c:>1mA1i;' % It thcé “V1j‘::xxA'a;.:':A>Ax'1 % ‘gf ggfg, bA0()1(_§',’A”A %;mdA in emery w:1yVA:;a;+sm1%>ca111) zmcl noble: ;v'(.»Vlt12xx1%e7 % ‘ ~ 7 % VA Prixmted 011%tint.ud1:1:».pe:x',h«;n;1uc1<.inmm<.:c»sLAliaa:3tA:Bty1e mt‘ nmroésoo. A(i31'owx1 c1uaLrt0,4O013agm§;‘A 1?"1~im;A‘ ~ 2 _ in antique n1c>rm;c:c>zznc1Vg:i1t;£z:§tr:x,$11.50. « % . % - . % _ ~ C V ,*'.,“».‘," 4A"s;‘A“/ ‘M m.‘w".‘,."»,."a..*“'m“'u ."'v -.,, ‘ ‘ ‘A V wn um. A A ‘ ‘ , - .AI... nu , ‘ ‘ ‘ “ ‘ . ‘ ,‘ , ‘ m A H W ‘w,'“*vA‘.*\.,.*w.,”*«,.'\.."~\...""-m ‘ ‘ S. ,¢.~\,.-.;-RES—1—-,......,\/ M.\.%_ _ IISAY (WA.IAA1'§:1A;I2\,M C3At:t'.rA.A1t.m~': ]I31§"szAANrr. j A AwitAIA1AAA()A§rA§fiina!AADrawingsof FOrAest SceVneryA by JOHN HOAWS. AA A%fP%RIA0E,%Cloth; $%:?3Aj;.JI1a%1f%AI¥I0rou(m,%:3.éj0;AMo1'0mso plain, $65; Morocco ex%tA1§a,A $6. _ _ t1';AiAH ,}3c:»m%1»A: % to i;imAVA;t11c.r~.x*i<::at1 pAx.xb'lic,,, as-3 Ex, 1:>i*t:r%c11A1<.:At,Vciit§i1'c:2Iy and Mxuxyma,:mnmm:;m: +t.I%1;;Af.A it. can c.«ryIx*1;:mmé %wil.>1“1%t1m iywszm 5;)£:w:»i%1'1"x1i«;¢i:nA,%;A%VxA:m;'r‘m:xJ,:x.mr,” t} .1«f5,A~._ A TY_"4f.2Ax~I1~“.1,I%Zvz1A%V1L1_<;*.cA3¢;1%%-:1. nuggg-a%rm1m1»»tuau$g $pAAtSci:1~1L:riAbi’%w;)1*krxx:a;Az’xs11ip;V 7 %% ' % fig‘A"The*;IfI%ILi§sAtrixi.mi1s§Atmg it 3fAi~:ig_§,fi1x'A1:{x,IlAii;_'y*AA,A Afv{iAA~g,*<7x1rA,MA +i'c;1'<‘m, it A % .%{ehar1x1ing*'%~gra<:e iinrl .I:‘1\'1A1¢A.A~.1\Ait;y‘V%11*, zazxtxzrmj W1.1i<.:l;1 c_:cm1rrm{1%%1<:1_V‘tI;1%czxn;3t;<:>AA¢;£11 %_iu;:1Ai<:it.au$; V<“;:*iAtic.ea.?? AT}TL£%iA1f' A.x*1‘1:1i1ig this C‘onstitution., and then state what they must do if they would now undo What they then did, he will una- voidably state a case of revolution. Let us see if it be not so. He must state, in the first place, that the people of the several States adopted and ratiiied this Constitution, or t‘oru1 of government; and, in the next place, he must state that they have a 1'igl1t to undo this; that is to say, that they have a right to discard the form of government whieli they have adopted, and to break up the Con- stitution which they have ratified. Now, Sir, this is neither more nor less than saying that they have a right to make a revolution. To reject an established government, to break up a political con- stitution, is revolution. ' ‘ _ I deny that any man can state accurately what was done by the people, in establisl1i.ng the present Constitution, and then state accurately what the people, or any part of them, must now do to - getrid of its obligations, without stating an undeniable case of the overthrow of government. I admit, of course, that the people may, if they choose, overthrow the governnient. But, then, that is revolution. The doctrine novv contended for is, that, by nullifi- cat2?or2..or scccss-£072, the obligations and authority of the government may be set aside, or rejected, without revolution. But that is What I deny: and what I say is, that no man can state the case with 60 THE UNION NOT A. COMPACT. historical accuracy, and in constitutional language, Without shove- ing that the honorable gentleinarfs right, as asserted in his conclu- sion, is a revolutionary right merely; that it does not and can not erist under the Constitution, but can come into existence only when the Constitution is overthrown. This is the reason, Sir, which makes it necessary to abandon the use of constitutional lan~ guage for a new vocabulary, and to substitute, in the place of plain historical facts, a ‘series of assumptions. This is the reason why it is necessary to give new names to things, to speak of the Oonstituw tion, not as a constitution, but as a compact, and of the ratifica- tions by the people, not as ratifications, but as acts of accession. Sir, I intend to hold the gentleman to the Written record. In the discussion of a constitutional question, I intend to impose upon him the restraints of constitutional laiigiiage. The people have ordained a Constitution; can they reject it without revolution?‘ They have established a forxn of governuient; can they overthrow it without revolution? These are the true questions. ' Allow me now, Mr. President, to inquire further into the extent of the propositions contained in the resolutions and their neces- sary consequences. Where sovereign communities are parties, there is no essential diii‘erence between a coinpact, a confederation, and a league. They all equally rest on the p-li,Ol.1 this ‘I‘ln(3i".)l0 the Con- gress of the United Stdtesf in 1798, Ldeclared Ihull dud void the treaty of alliance between the United States and France, though it professed to be a perpetual alliance. If the violation of the league be accompanied with serious in- juries, the sufiiering party, being sole judge of his own mode and measure of redress,has a right to indeinniify himself by reprisals THE UNION NOT A conrnor. 61 on the offending members of the league; and reprisals, if the cir- cumstances of the case require it,, may be followed by direct, avowed, and public war. . The necessary import of the resolution, therefore, is, that the United States are connected only by a league; that it is in the good pleasure of every State to decide how‘ long she will choose to remain a member of this league; that any State may determine the extent of her own obligations under it, and accept or'reject what shall be decided by the whole; that she may also determine "whether her rights have been violated, what is the extent of the injury done her, and what mode and measure of redress her wrongs may make it fit and expedient for her to adopt. The result of the whole is, that any State may secede at pleasure; that any State mayjresist a law which she herself may choose to say exceeds the power of‘ Congress; and that, as a sovereign power, she may redress her own grievances, by her oivn arm, at her own discretion. e may make reprisals; she may cruise against the property of other members of the league; she may authorize captures and make open war. it If, Sir, this_be our political condition, it is time the people of the United States understood it. Let us look for a moment to the practical consequences of these opinions. One State, holding an embargo law unconstitutional, may declare her opinion, and with- draw from the Union. Site secedes. Another, forming and ex- pressing the. same judgment on a law laying duties on imports, may withdraw also. S/to secedes. And as, in her opinion, money has been taken out of the pockets of her citizens illegally, under pretense of this law, and as she has power to redress their wrongs, she may demand satisfaction; and, if refused, she may take it with the strong hand. The gentleman has himself pronounced the col- lection of duties, under existing laws, to be nothing but robbery. Robbers, of course, may be rightfully dispossessed of the fruits of their iflagitious crimes; and, therefore, reprisals, impositions on the commerce of other States, foreign alliances against them, or open war, are all modes of redress justly open to the discretion and choice of South Carolina; for she is to judge of her own rights, and to seek satisfaction for her own wrongs, in her own way. But, Sir, a third State is of opinion, not only that these laws of imposts are constitutional, but that it is the absolute duty of Con- gress to pass and maintain such laws; and that, by omitting to pass and maintain them, its constitutional obligations would be grossly disregarded. She herself relinquished the power of pro- ’ tcction, she might allege, and allege truly, and gave it up to Gon- . gress, on the faith that Congress would exercise it. If Gongress now refuse to exercise it, Congress does, as she may insist, break a the condition of the grant, and thus manifestly violate the Consti- tution; and for this violation of the Constitution, size may threaten to secede also. Virginia may secede, and hold the fortresses in the Chesapeake. The Western States may secede, and take to their own use the public lands. Louisiana may secede if shechoose, 63 THE UNION NOT A. COMPACT. form a foreign alliance, and hold the mouth of the Mississippi. If one State may secede, ten may do so, twenty may do so, twenty—- three may do so. Sir, as these secessions go on, one after another, what is to constitute the United States? Whose will be the army? Whcse‘ the navy? Who will paythe debts? Who fulfill the public 1;;-easiest Who perform the constitutional guarantees? Who govern this District and the Territories? Who retain the public property? ' Mr. President, every man must see that these are all questions which can arise only after at resolution. They presuppose the breaking up of the government. While the Constitution lasts, they are repressed; they spring up to annoy and startle us only from its grave. The Constitution does not provide for events which must be pre- ceded by its own destruction. Snoassxoiv, therefore, since it must bring these consequences with it, is REVOLUTIONARY, and NULT.II<‘I- U OATION is equally REVOLUTIONARY. What is «revolution? Why, Sir, that is revolution which overturns, or controls, or successfully resists the existing public authority; that which arrests the eXer—- cise of the supreme power; that which introduces a new para- mount authority into the rule of the State. New, Sir, this is the precise object of nullification. It attempts to supersede the supreme legislative authority. It arrests the arm of the executive magis- trate. It interrupts the exercise of the accustomed judicial power. Under the name of an ordinance, it declares null and void, within the State, all the revenue laws of the United States. Is not this revo- lutionary? Sir, so soon as this ordinance shall be carried into effect, a 7"6’ZJOZ’Mt'i0?'L will have commenced in South Carolina. She will have thrown oil? the authority to which her citizens have heretofore been subject. She will have declared her own opinions‘ and her own will to be above the laws»and above the power of those who are intrusted with their administration. If she makes good these declarations, she is revolutionized. As to her, it is as distinctly a change of the supreme power, as the American Revo- lution of 1776. That revolution did not subvert government in all its forms. It did not subvert local laws and municipal administra- tions. It only threw oil? the dominion of a power claiming to be superior, and to have a right, in many important respects, to exer- cise legislative authority. Thinking this authority to have been usurped orabusecl, the American Colonies, now the United States, bade itldefiauce, and freed themselves from it by means of a revo- lution. But that revolution left them with their own municipal laws still, and the forms of local government. If Carolina now shall effectually resist’ the laws of Congress; if she shall be her own judge, take the remedy into her own hands, obey the laws of the Union-when she pleases and disobey them when she pleases, , she will relieve lierself from a paramount power as distinctly as the American Colonies did the same thing in 17 7 6. In other Words, she will achieve, as to herself, a revolution. , But, Sir, while practical nullification in South Carolina would be, as to herself, actual and distinct revolution, its necessary ten» THE UNION NOT A Ui)Ml’ACT. 63 dency must also be to spread revolution, and to break up the Con. stitution, as to all the ether States. It strikes a deadly blow at the vital principle of the whole Union. To allow State resistance to the laws of Congress torbe rightful and proper, to admit nulli- fication in some States, and yet not expect to see a dismemberment of the entire government, appears to me the wildest illusion and the most extravagant folly. The gentleman seems not conscious of the direction or the rapidity of his own course. The current of his opinions sweeps him ‘along, he knows notrwhither. To begin with nullification, with the avowed intent, nevertheless, not to proceed to secession, dismemberment, and general revolution, is as if one were to take the plunge of Niagara, and cry out that he would stop half way down. In the one case, as in the other, the rash adventurer must go to the bottom of the dark abyss below, were it not that that abyss has no discovered bcttorn. Nullification, if successful, arrests the power of the law, ab- solves citizens from their duty, subverts the foundation both of protection and obedience, dispenses with oaths and obligations of allegiance, and elevates another authority to supreme command. Is notthis revolution? And it raises to supreme command four- and-twenty distinct powers, each professing to _he under a general government, and yet each setting its laws at defiance at pleasure. Is not this anarchy, as well as revolution? Sir, the Constitution of the United States was received as a whole, and for the whole T country. If it can not stand altogether, it can not stand in parts; and if the laws can not be executed ,everywhere, they can not long be ezxecuted anywhere. , The gentleman very well knows that all duties and imposts must be uniform throughout the country. He knows that we can not have one rule or one law for South Caro-— line, and another for other States. He must see, therefore, and does see, and every man sees, that the only alternative is a repeal of the laws throughout the whole Union, or their execution in Carolina as well as elsewhere. And this repeal is demanded be- cause a single State interposes her veto and threatens resistance! The result of the gentlen;1an’s opinion, or rather the very text of his doctrine, is, that no set of Congress can bind all the States, the constitutionality of which is not admitted by all; or, in other words, that no single State is bound, against its own dissent, by a law of imposts. This is precisely the evil experienced under the old Confederation, and for remedy of which this Constitution was adopted. The leading object in establishing this government, an object forced on the country by the condition of the times and the absolute necessity of the law, was to give to Congress power to lay and collect imposts ’l0’2:flL0‘ZLt the consent of pcrteiculcrr ;S’2§cttes. ‘ The Revolutionary debt remained unpaid; the national treasury was ‘ bankrupt; the country was destitute of credit; Congress issued its requisitions on the States, and the States neglected them; there was no power of coercion but war; Congress could not lay imposts, or other taxes, by its own authority; the whole general government, therefore, was little more than a“ name. The Articles 64 ‘ THE UNION NOT A COMPACT. of Confederation, as to purposes of revenue and finance, were nearly a dead letter. The country soiiglit to escape from this con- dition, at once feeble and disgraceful, by constituting a government which should have power, of itself, to laydnties and ta:s.es,vand to pay the public debt, and provide for the general Welfare; and to lay these duties and taxes in all the States, without asking the consent of the State governments. This was the very power on which the new Constitution was to depend for all its ability to do good; and without it, it can be no government, now or at any time. Yet, Sir, it is precisely against this power, so absolutely indispensable to the very being of the government, that South Carolina directs her ordinance. She attacks the government in its authority to raise revenue, the very mainspring of the Whole system; and if V she succeed, every movement of that system must inevitably cease. It is of no avail that she declares that she does not resist the law as a revenue law, but as a law for protecting inanufactures. It is a revenue law; it is the very law by force of which the revenue is collected; if it be arrested in any State, the revenue ceases in that State; it is, in a Word, the sole reliance of the government for the means of maintaining itself and perform» ing its duties. Mr. President, the alleged 1-'iglit of a State to decide constitutional questions for herself necessarily leads to force, because other States must have the same right, and because idifierent States will decide difi’erently; and when these questions arise between States, if there be no superior power, they can be decided only by the law of force. On entering into the Union, the people of each State gave up a part of their own power to Inake laws for themselves, in consider- ation that, as to comniion objects, they should have a part in mak- ing laws for other States. In other words, the people of all the States ag1'eecl to create a common government, to be conducted by common counsels. Pennsylvania, for example, yielded the right of laying imposts in her own ports, in consideration that the new government, in which she was to have a share, should pos- sess the power of laying imposts on all the States. If South Oar-— olina no W refuses to submit to this power, she breaks the condition on which other States entered into the Union. She partalazes of the common counsels, and therein assists to bind others, while she refuses to be bournl herself‘. It makes no <_l.it'l’erence in the case Whether she does all this without reason or ]_)1‘(3l}eKt, or Whether she sets up as a reason that, in her judgment, the acts complained of are unconstitutional. In the judg;ment of other States, they are not so. , It is notlihig to them tliat she oflbrs some reason or some apology for her conduct, if it be one which they do not ad- mit. -It is not to be expected that any State will violate her duty Without some plausible pretext. That would be too rash a de- fiance of the opinion of mankind. But if it be a pretext which lies in her own breast; if it be no more than an opinion which she says she has formed, how can other States he satisfied with this? How can they allow her to be judge of her own oblig-ations? Tun UNION nor A COMPACT. , 65 Or, if she may judge of her obligations, may they not judge of their rights also? May not the tWcnty~three entertain‘ an opinion as Well as the twenty-fourth? And if it be their right, in their own opinion, as expressed in the common council, to enforce the law against her, howis she to say that her right and her opinion are to be everything, and their right and their opinion nothing? Mr. President, if we areto receive the Constitution as the text, and then to lay down in its margin the contradictory commenta- ries which have been, and which may be made by diiierent States, the Whole page would be a polyglot indeed. It would speak with as many tongues as the builders of Babel, and in dialects as much confused, and mutually as unintelligible. The very instance now" before us presents a practical illustration. The law of the last ses- sion is declared unconstitutional in South Carolina, and obedience to it is refused. In other States it is admitted to be strictly consti- tutional. You Walls: over the limit of its authority, therefore, when you pass a State line. On one side it is law, on the other side a nullity; and yet it is passed by a common government, having the same authority in all the States. , Such, Sir, are the inevitable results of this doctrine. Beginning with the original error, that the Constitution of the United States‘ is nothing but a compact between sovereign States; asserting, in the next step, that each State has a right to be its own sole judge of the extent of its obligations, and consequently of the constitu- tionality of the laws of Congress; and in the next, that it may oppose whatever it sees fit to declare unconstitutional, and that it decides for itself on the mode and measure of redress—-—-the argu- ment arrives at once at the conclusion, that what a State dissents from, it may nullify; What it opposes, it may oppose by i‘o1*ce; what it decides for itself, it may execute by its own power; and that, in short, it is itself supreme over the legislation of Congress, and supreme over the decisions of the national judicature; supreme over the Constitution of the country; supreme over the supreme law of the land. However it seeks to protect itself against these plain inferences, by saying that an unconstitutional law is no law, and that it only opposes such laws as are unconstitutional, yet this does not in the slightest degree vary the result, since it insists on deciding this question for itself; and, in opposition to reason and arguments, in opposition to practice and experience, in opposition to the judgment of others, having an equal right to judge, it says only, “Such is my opinion, and my opinion shall be my law, and I Will. support it by my own strong hand. I denounce the law; I declare it unconstitutional; that is enough, it shall not be executed. Men in arms are ready to resist its execution. An attempt to en- force it shall cover the land with blood. Elsewhere it may be binding, but hereit is trampled under foot.” . This, Sir, is practical nullification. . . And now, Sir, against all these theories and opinions, I main tain--~— V . r S r 1. That the Constitution of the United States is not a league 0‘ fifj THE UNION NOT A. COMPACT. confederacy, or compact between the people of the several States in their sovereign capacities; but a government proper founded on the adoption. of the people, and creating direct; re1a1;1onS’ between itself and individuals. 2. That no State authority has power to dissolve these relations - that nothing can dissolve them but revolution; and that 001186: quently, there can "be no such thing as secession wit11ou1;’1-evolul. tion. 3. That there is a supreme law, consisting of the Constitution of the United States, and acts of Congress passed in piirsuance of it and treaties; and that, in cases not capable of assuming the char: acter of a suit in law or equity, Congress must judge of and finally interpret, this supreme law so often as it has occasion io pass acts of legislation, and in cases capable of assuming, and actually assum- ing, the character of a suit, the Supreme Court of the United States is the final interpreter. 4. That an attempt by a State to abrogate, annul, or niillify an act of Congress, or to arrest its operation Within her limits, on the ground that, in her opinion, such law is unconstitutional, is a direct usurpation on the just powers of the general government and on the equal rights of other States; a plain violation of the Constitu- tion, and a proceeding essentially revolutionary in its character and tendency. ' T Whether the Constitution be _a conip_act between States in their sovereign capacities, is ‘a question Which. must be mainly’ argued iroin what is contained in the instrument itself. We all agree that it is an instrument wliicli has been in some way clothed with pow- e}i:'l. We all adtnit that it spealis with authority. _The first question 11;) en is, what_ (: oes it say of itself 3 What does it purport to bet’ oes it style itself a leagiie, confederacy, or compact between sove- ieign States’? It is to beieineiiibered, Sir, that the Constitution egan to speak only after its adoption. Until it was ratified by nine States, it was but a proposal, the mere draught of an instru- iijiienti dltfjavas like a deed drawn, but not executed. _ The Conven- 1011? via ‘ ianuecl it; sent it to Congress, then sitting under the Coniedeiaticng CO11g'I‘GSS.l1£l.d,, tra_nsin1tted it to the State legisla- tures; aiidpby l3l1G[5(3ilt1Si}‘1i3 was laid be_fore the conveiition of the people in the several States. All this while it was iiioperative paper. It had received no stamp ct authority, no sanction; it spokes no language. , But ivlien ratiii_ed by the people in their respective ctonventions, then it had a voice, and spoke authentically. Eve: y word in it had then received the sanction of the popular iv11l,.«anc1' vvas to be received as the eXp_i'ess1on of that Will. What the C»OI1.$i3li3l1iL1C)Il says of itself, tlierefore, is as conclusive as What it sayson any other point. Does it call itself a “ compact 8” Certainly ploti tillt uges the Word coinpact but once, and that is when it declares “Ila 0‘ e ” tates‘ shall enter into no coni_pa_ct. Does it call itself a S eaflée; at coniederacy, a_ “subsisting treaty between the tatcs : Cei'tainly not. There is not a particle of such language in all its pages. but it declares itself a Consrirurion. What is a con- THE UNION NOT A. COMPACT. 67 8i7:?5'lLl'«Z'072 .9 Certainly not a league, compact, or confederacy, but 0:, fer/‘zcZamcntocZi law. The fundamental regulation which determines the manner in which the public authority is to be executed, is what forms the co72«stz'.25utz'0n of a State. Those primary rules which concern the body itself, and the very being'of the political society, the form of government, and the manner in which power is to be exercised-———all, in a Word, which form together the constrltutricn of (Z gS'z‘c-,te~—tl1ese are the fundamental laws. This, Sir, is the language of the public ‘writers. But we do not need to be informed, in this country, what a constritzufirioaz is? Is it not an idea perfectly familiar, definite, and Well settled. We are at no loss to understand what is meant by the constitution of one of the States; and the Constitu- tion. of the United States speaks of itself as being an instrument of the same nature. It says, this Oonstetutrio-72, shall be the law of the land, anything in the State co72.sz5itatz'on to the contrary notwith- standing. And it speaks of itself, too, in plain contradistinction from a confederation; for it says that all debts contracted, and all engagements entered into, by the United States, shall be as valid under this Ocvzstrzituzfiorz. as under the 0m2_.f'ccZcrat-ion. It does not say as valid under this compo-ct, or this league, or this confedera- tion, as under the former confed.eration, but as valid under this C’o72,.s't73tut2I09t. This, then, Sir, is declared to “be a co72.ste'tut2Io72.. A constitution is the fundariiental law of the State; and this is expressly declared to be the supreme law. It is as if the people had said, “We pre- scribe this fundamental Iaw,” or “this supreme law,” for they do say that they establish this Constitution, and that it shall be the supreme law. They say that they or-clam and cstczplisfi it. Now, Sir, what is the common application of these "Words? We do not speak of 07"'cZ(:r'i7tt'72.g' leagues and compacts. If this was intended to be a compact or league, and the States to be parties to it, why was it not so said? Why is there found no one expression in the Whole instrument indicating such an intent? The old Confedera- tion was expressly called a league ; and into this league it was de- clared that the States, as States, severally entered. Why was not similar lriiig-iiage used in the Constitution, if a similar intention had existed? Why vvas it not said, “ the States enter into this new lea,g;ue,” “the States form this new confederation,” or “the States agree to this new compact?” Or vhy was it not said, in the lan- p;11a,g~e of the gcntle1na11’s resolution, that the people of the several States acceded to this compact in their sovereign capacities? What reason is there for Sl11?)pOSi1lgtll£Ll3 the framers of the Constitution rejecteclenp1'essicns appropriate to their own meaning, and adopted others wholly at war with that meaning? Again, Sir, the Constitution speaks of that political system which is established as “the government of the United States.” Is it not doing strange violence to language to call a league or a compact between sovereign powers a goccrmncnt? The government of a State is that organization in which the political power resides. It is the political being created by the constitution or fundamental 63 THE UNION NOT A COMPACT. law. The broad and clear dit’E‘erence between a government and a league or compact is, that a government is abody politic; it has a will of its own; and it possesses powers and faculties to execute its own purposes. Every compact looks to some power to enforce its stipulations. Even in a comp_aet between sovereign communi- ties, there always exists this ultimate reference to a power to in- sure its execution; although, in such case, this power is but the force of one party against the force of another; that is to say, the power of war. But a go-2>e2=m7ze7zt executes 1tS d_ec1sions_by its own supreme authority. Its use of force in compelling obedience to its own enactments is not war. It contemplates no opposing party having a right of resistance. It rests on its own power to enforce its own will; and when it ceases to possess this power, it is no longer a government. Mr. President, I concur so generally in the Very able speech of the gentleman from Virginia near me, that it is not without diffi- denoe and regret that I venture to differ with him on any point. I-Iis opinions, Sir, are redolent of the doctrines of a very distin- guished school, for which I have the highest regard, of whose doe- trines I can say, what I can also say of the gentleman’s speech, that, while I concur in the results, I must be permitted to hesitate about some of the premises. _I do not agree that the Constitution is a_ compact between States in their “sovereign capacities. I do not agree, that, in strictncss of language, it is a ‘compact at all. But I do agree that it is founded on consent or agreement, or on com-- pact, if the gentleman prefers that word, and means no more by it than voluntai" consent or agreement. The Constitution, Sir, is not a contract, but the result of a contract; meaning by contract no more than assent. Founded on consent, it is a government proper. Adopted by the agreement of the people of the United States, when adopted, it has become a Constitution. The people have agreed to males a Constitution; but when made, that Consti- tution becomes what its narne imports. It is no longer a mere agreement. Our laws, Sir, have their foundation in tlieagreexnent or consent of the two Houses of Congress.’ We say, habitually, that one I-louse proposes a bill, and the other agrees to it; but the result of this agreement is not a compact, but a law. The law, the statute, is’ not the agreement, but something created by the agree" ment; and something which, when created, has a new character, and acts by its own authority. So the Constitution of the United States, founded in or on the consent of the people, may be said to rest on conipact or consent; but it is not itself the compact,» but its result. When the people agree to erect a government, and actually erect it, the thing is done, and the agreement is at an end. The compact is executed, and the end designed by it attained. I:Ienceforth, the fruit of the agreement exists, but the agreement itself is merged in its own accoinplishment; since there can he no longer a subsisting agreement or compact tojbrm a constitution or government, after that constitution or government has been actually formed and established. . I THE UNION NOT A COMPACT. 69 It appears to me, Mr. President, that the plainest account of the establishment of this government presents the most just and philo- sophical View of its foundation. The people of the several States had their separate State governments; and between the States there also existed a Confederation. With that condition of things the people were not satisfied, as the Confederation had been found not to fulfill its intended objects. It was 29-roposed, therefore, to erect a new, common government, which should possess certain definite powers, such as regarded the prosperity oi the people of all the States, and to be formed upon the general model of American constitutions. This proposal was assented to, and an instrument was presented to the people of the several States for their con» sideration. They approved it, and agreed to adopt it, as a Consti- tution. They executed that agreement; they adopted the Consti- tution as a Constitution, and henceforth it must stand as a Con»- stitution until it shall be altogether destroyed. NOW, Sir, is not this the truth of the whole matter? And is not all that we have heard of compact between sovereign States the mere effect of a theoretical and artificial mode of reasoning upon the subject? A mode of reasoning vvhich disregards plain facts for the sake of hypothesis? Mr. ‘President, the nature of sovereignty or sovereign power has been extensively discussed by gentlemen on this occasion, as it generally is when the origin of our government is debated. But I confess myself not entirely satisfied with arguments and illustrations drawn from that topic. ’I‘he sovereignty of government is an idea belonging to the other side of the Atlantic. No such thingis known in North America. Our governments are all limited. In Europe, sovereignty is of feudal origin, and imports no more than the state of the sovereign. lt compri.ses his rights, duties, eXe.mp- tions, prerogatives, and povvers. But with us, all power is with the people. They alone are sovereign; and they erect what gov- ernments they please, and confer on them such povver as they please. None of these governments is sovereign, in the European sense of the word, all being restrained by Written constitutions. It seems to me, therefore, that We only perplen ourselves when We attempt to explain the relations existing between the general gov- ernment and the several State governments, according to those ideas of sovereignty which prevail under systems essentially differ‘- ent from our own. But, Sir, to return to the Constitution itself; let me inquire What it relies upon for its own continuance and support. I hear it often suggested that the States, by refusing to appoint Senators and Electors, might bring this government to an end.- Perhaps that is true; but the same maybe said of the State governments them- selves. " Suppose the Legislature of a State, having power to ap- pointithe governor and the judges, should omit that duty, would not the State government remain unorganized? N o doubt all elec- tive governments may be broken up by a general abandonment, on the part of those intrusted with political powers, of their appro- priate duties. But one popular government has. in this respect, as 7() THE UNION NOT A. COMPACT. much security as another. The maintenance of this Constitution does not depend on the plighted faith of the States, as States, to support it; and this again shows that it is not a league. It relies on individual duty and obligations. -. The Constitution of the United States creates direct relations between this government and individuals. This government may punish individuals for treason, and all other crimes in the code, when committed against the United States. It has power, also, to tax individuals, in any mode, and to any extent; and it possesses the further power of demanding from individuals military service. Nothing certainly can more clearly distinguish a government from a confederation of States than the possession of these powers. No closer relations can exist between individuals and any govern- ment. _ On the other hand, the government, owes high and solemn duties to every citizen of the country. It is bound to protect him in his most important rights and interests. It makes War for his protec- tion, and no other government in the country can make War. It - makes peace for his protection, and no other government can make peace. It ‘maintains armies and navies for his defense and security, and no other government is allowed to maintain them. He goes abroad beneath its flag, and carries over all the. earth a national character, imparted to him by this government, and which no other government can impart. In Whatever relates to war, to peace, to commerce, he knows no other government. All these, Sir, are connections as dear and as sacred as can bind individuals to any government on earth. It is not, therefore, a compact between States, but a government proper, operating directly upon individ- uals, yielding to them protection on the one hand, and demanding from them obedience on the other. - i There is no language in the whole Constitution applicable to a confederation of States. If the States be parties, as States, what are their rights, and what their respective covenants and stipula- tions? And where ire their rights, covenants, and stipulations ' expressed? The States engage for nothing, they promise nothing. In the articles of Confederation, they did niiake promises, and did enter into engagements, and did plight the faith of each State for their fulfillment; but in the Constitution there is Iiothiiig of that kind. The reason is, that, in the Constitution, it is the people who speak, and not theStates. The people ordain the Constitution, and therein address themselves to the States, and to the Legisla- tures of the States, in thevlanguage of injunction and prohibition. The Constitution utters its behests in the name and by the author- ity of the people, and it does not exact from States any plighted public faith to maintain it. On the contrary, it makes its own preservation depend on individual duty and individual obligation. Sir, the States can not omit to appoint Senators and Electors. It is not a matter resting in State discretion or State pleasure. The Constitution has taken better care of its own preservation. It lays its hand on individual conscience and individual duty. It incapa- THE UNION NOT A COMPACT. 171 eitates any man to sit in the legislature of a State, who shall not first have taken his solemn oath to support the Constitution of the United States. From. the ol)ligation of this oath no State power can discharge him. All the members of all the State legislatures are as religiously bound to support the Constitution of the United States as they are to support their own State Constitution. Nay, Sir, they are as solemnly sworn to support it as We ourselves are, who are members of Congress. N 0 member of a‘State legislature can refuse to proceed, at the ‘ proper time, to elect Senators to Congress, or to provide for the choice of Electors of President and Vice-President, any more than the members of this Senate can refuse, when the appointed day arrives, to meet the members of the other house, to count the votes of those oiiicers, and ascertain who are chosen. In both cases the duty binds, and with equal strength, the conscience of the individual member, and it is imposed on all by an oath in the same words. Let it then never be said, Sir, that it is a matter of discretion with the States whether they will. continue the ,g;overn- ment, or break it up by 1'ei'z1sinp; to appoint Senators and to elect _ Electors. They have no discretion in the matter. The members of their legislatures can not IlV’C)'ld-(lOlI‘l,.‘.j,‘ either, so often the time arrives, without a direct violation of their dutyanc'l their oaths; such a violation as would break up any other g;ove1'm:nent. Loc>l«;ing‘ still further to the provisions of the Constitution. itself, in order to lear.n its true character, we find its great apparent pur- pose to be, to unite the people of’ all the States under one general government, for certain dciinite objects, and, to the extent of this union, to restrain the se.pa.rate authority of the States. Clongi-ess only can declare War; there:f’ore, when one State is at war with a fo1'ei.g;1'1 nation, all must be at war. The President and the Senate can only make peace; when peace is made for one State, tlierefore, it must be made for all. Can ill‘lytllllll§.f be conceived more preposterous than that any State should have power to nullify the proceedings of the general governrnent 1-espect'ing,~ peace and war? When war is declared by a law of Congwess, can a s'i1:v1,g'l.e State nullify that law", and remain at peace? And yet she may nullify that law as well as any other. If the President and Senate make peace, may one State, neverth.e—- less, continue the war? And yet, if she can nulli1*'y a law, she may quite as Well nullify a treaty. The truth is, Mr. President, and no in;_;_»;en.uity of 8.1‘{_.,"LlI]fleI1t, no subtility of distinction can evade it, that as to certain purposes, the people of the United States are one people. They are one in male ing War, and one in inaking peace; they are one in regiilating; com-. merce, and one in laying,‘ duties of iruposts. The very end and purpose of the Constitution was, to make them one people in these particulars; and it has efliectually acco1:npilishe.d. its object. All this is apparent on the face of the Constitution itself. I have already said, Sir, that to obtain apower of direct leg;islatio11r over the people, especially in 1'egard to imposts, was always prominent 72 THE UNION NOT A COMPACT. as a reason for getting rid of the Coiifedei'ation,_ and forming a new Constitution. Among innunierable proofs of this, before the asseni- bling of the Convention, allow me to refer onl.y to the report of the committee of the old Congress, July, 1785: But, Sir, let us go tp tlt3e1ac’t(:ial forpuation pg the Constitution; let us open the journa 0 tie onven ion itse , and we shall see that the very first resolution which the Convention adopted was, “rnarr A. NATIONAL GOVERNMENT onencr fro nu ESTABLISHED, con- sisrine or A SUPREME Lnoi:sLs.ru_n:s, Juniomnv, AND EXECUTIVE.” This itself completely pegatives idea of lfieagiie, and com- pact, and confederation. erxns con i not be c osen more fit to express an intention to establish a national government, and to banish forever all notion of a compact between sovereign States. This resolution Was] adopted pr} the 30%} gf_May, 1787. After. Ward, the style was a terec, aiici, instea o eing called a national government, it was called the goyernnient of the United States; but the substance of this resolution was retained, and was at the head of that list of resolutions which was afterward sent to the committee who were to fiaine the instriiment. . It is true, there were gentleineii in the Convention who were for retaining the Confederation, and amending its articles; but the ma-- jority were against this, and were for a national government. Mr. Patterson’s propositions, yvhich were for continuing the Articles of Confederation With additional powers, Were submitted to the Con- vention on the 15th of June, fulfil referred to the.committee of the ‘Whole. The resolution forniing tie basis of a national government, which had once been agreed to in the coininittee of the whole, and reported, were recoinineiided to the same committee, on the same day. The Convention, then, in coinniittee of the Whole, on the 19t-li da of J une had both these lans be.f'orc them; that is to sa 3’ 9 Y: the plan of a confedei'acy, or compact, between States, and the " plan of a national governinent. BOhl.1 these plans were considered and debated, and the cornniittee reported, “ That they do not agree to the propositions ofliered by the llonorable Mr. Patterson, but that they again subniit the resolutions formerly reported.” It‘, Sir, any historical fact in the World be plain and undeniable, it is that the Convention deliberated on the expediency of’ continiiing the Confederation, with some ainendine.nts, and rejected that scheine, and adopted the plan of a national government, with a legislature, an executive, and a judiciary of its own. They were asked’ to preserve the leagiie; they rejected the proposition. They were asked to continue the existing compact between States; they re- jected it. They rejected compact, league, and confederation, and set themselves about framing the constitution of a national govern- ment, and they accomplished what they undertook. If men will open their eyes fairly to the lights of history, it is impossible to be deceived on this point. The great objectwas to supersede the Confederation by a regular governinent; because, under the Confederation, Congress had power only to niake requi- sitions on States, and if States declined compliance, as they did, THE UNION NOT A COMPACT. _ 73 there was no remedy but war against such delinquent States. It would seem, from Mr. J efi"erson’s correspondence, in 1786 and 1787, that he was of opinion that even this remedy ought to be tried. “There will be no money in the treasury,” said he, “till the con- federacy shows its teeth;” and he suggests that a single frigate would soon levy, on the commerce of a delinquent State, the defi— ciency of its contribution. But this would be War; and it Was evident that a confederacy could not long hold together, which should be at War with its members. The Constitution was adopted to avoid this necessity. It was adopted that there might be a gov— . ernment which should act directly on individuals, Without borroW- ing aid from the State governments. This is clear. as light itself on the very face of the provisions of the Constitution, and its Whole history tends to the same conclusion. Its framers gave this very reason for their Work in the most distinct terms. Allow me to quote but one or two proofs, out of hundreds. That State, so small in territory, but so distinguished for learning and talent, Con- necticut, had sent to the general Convention, among other mem- hers, Samuel Johnston and Oliver Ellsworth. The Constitution having been framed, it was submitted to a convention of the people of Connecticut for ratification on the part of that State, and Mr. Johnston and Mr. Ellsworth were also members ‘of this conven- tion. On the first day of the debates, being called on to explain the reasons which led the Convention at Philadelphia to recom- mend such a Constitution, after showing the insufiiciencyof the existing confederacy, inasmuch as it applied to States, as States, Mr. Johnston proceeded to say: ' . i i r “ The Convention saw this imperfection in attempting to legis- late for States in their political capacity, that the coercion of law can be exercised by nothing but a military force. They have, there» fore, gone upon entirely new ground. They have formed one new nation out of the individual States. The Constitution vests in the general legislature a power to make laws in matters of national con- cern; to appointjudges to decide upon these laws; and to appoint officers to carry them into execution. This excludes the idea of an armed force. The power vvliich is to enforce these laws is to be a legal power, vested in proper magistrates. The force which is to be employed is the energy of law; and this force is to operate only upon individuals who fail in their duty to their country. This is the peculiar glory of the Constitution, that it depends upon the guild and equal energy of the mag-istracy for the execution of the avvs.” In the further course of the debate, Mr. Ellsworth said--— “ In republics it is a fundamental principle that the majority gov- ern, and that the minority comply with the general voice. ‘How contrary, then, to republican principles, how humiliating, is our present situation! A single State can rise up and put a oeto upon the most important public measures. We have seen this ‘actually take place; a single State has controlled the general voice of the Union; a minority, a very small minority, has 3 governed r us. a So 74‘ A ‘THE UNION NOT A COMPACT. far is this froin being consistent with republican principles, that it is, in efliect, the Worst species of monarchy. “Hence We see how necessary for the Union is a coercive prin- ciple. N 0 man pretends fithecontrary. We all see and feel this necessity. The only question is, shall it be a coercion of law, or a i coercion of arms? There is no other possible alternative. Where will these who oppose a coercion of law come out? Where will they end? A. necessary consequence oi‘ their principle is a war of the States, one against another. am for coercion by law; that coercion which acts only upon delinquent individuals. This Con— stitution does not attempt to coercesovereign bodies, States in their political capacities. No coercion 1s applicable to such bodies, but that of an armed force. If We should attempt, to execute the laws of the Union by sending an armed force against a delinquent State, it Would involve the good and bad, the innocent and guilty, in the same calamity. But this legal coercion singles out the guilty in- dividual, and punishes him for breaking,‘ the laws of the Union.” " - Indeed, Sir, if We look to all coternporary history, to the num-- bers of the .Z=7’ccZe2*arZ~2".st, to the debates in conventions, to the pub- lications of friends and foes, they all agree that a change had been made from a coni'ederacy of States to a different system ; they all agree that the Convention had formed a Constitution for a national government. With this result some were satisfied and some Were dissatisfied; but all admitted that the thing had been done. In none of these various productions and publications did any one intimate that the new Constitution was but another compact between States in their sovereign capacities. I do not find such an opinion ad- vanced in a single instance. Everywhere the people were told that the old Confederation Was to be abandoned, and a new system to be tried; that a proper government was proposed, to he founded in the name of the people, and to have a 1*ep;iila1' organization of its own. Everywhere the people were told that it was to be a governnient with direct powers to iznake laws over individuals, and to lay taxes and imposts without the consent of the States. Every- where it Was understood to be a popular Constitution. It came to the people for their adoption, and was to rest on the same deep foundations as the State constitutions themselves. Its most distin- guished advocates, who had been thernselves meinbers of the Con— veution, declared that the very object of subniittirig the Constitu- tion to the people was, to preclude the possibility of its being 1'ega1*decl as a more compact. “ However‘ gross a heresy,” say the Writers of the Federalist, “ it may be to maintain that a party to a compact has a right to_ revoke that compact, the doctrine itself has had respectable advocates. The possibility of a question of this nature proves the necessity of laying the foundations of our na- tional government deeper than in the mere sanction of delegated authority. The fabric of Aznerican Empire ought to rest on the solid basis of res eonsnnr or run rno1>Lr..” Such is the language, Sir, addressed to the people, While they yet had the Constitution under consideration. The powers conferred TM UNION nor A conracr. 75 on the new government were perfectly well understood to be con- ferred, not by any State, or the people of any State, but by the people of the United States. Virginia is more explicit, perhaps, in this particular than any other State. Her convention, assembled to ratify the Constitution, “ in the name and behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known, that the powers granted under the Constitution, lzeing clerieeclfrom the people of the United States, may be resumed by them whenever the same shall be per- verted to their injury or oppression. _ Is this language which describes the formation of a compact be- tween States, or language describing the grant of powers to a new government, by the whole people of the United States ? Among all the other ratifications, there is not one which speaks of the Constitution as a compact between States. Those of Massa- chusetts and New Hampshire express the transaction, in my opinion, with sufficient accuracy. They recognize the Divine goodness “in afibrdiug THE PEOPLE on THE UNITED Srnrns an opportunity of entering into an explicit and solemn compact with each other, by essenttrzg to anal mt2_Ify'ing at new 0072l8$'?:l’ll-'5‘2:0?2~.” You will observe, Sir, that it is the PEOPLE, and not the States, who have entered into this compact; and it is the PEOPLE of all the United States. These conventions, by this form of expression, meant merely to say, that the people of the United States had, by the blessing of Providence, enjoyed the opportunities of establishing a new Con- stitution, fozmcleol in the co’/*2..s=e92,t of the people. This consent of the people has been called, by European writers, the social cost- pcct ; and, in conforinity to this common mode of expression, these conventions speak of that assent, on which the new Constitution was to rest, as an explicit and solemn compact, not which the States had entered into with each other, but which the people of the United States had entered into. i U Finally, Sir, how can any man get over the words of the Con- stitution itself?’---“ WE, run rEorLE or CI.‘I~IE UNITED STATES, no ORDAIN AND ESTABLISI-I arms Cons'rrrucrIoN.” These words must cease to be a part of the Constitution, they must be obliterated from the parchment on which they are written, before any human ingenuity or human argument can remove the popular basis on which that Constitution rests, and turn the instrument into a mere compact between sovereign States. it The second proposition, Sir, which I propose to maintain, is, that no State authority can dissolve the relations subsisting be- tween the government of the United States and individuals; that nothing, can dissolve these relations but revolution; and that, therefore, there can be no such thing as seee.9s'z'on without revolu- tion. All this follows, it seems to me, as a just consequence, if it be fiI'Sl3 proved that the Constitution of the United States is a gov- ernment proper, owing protection to individuals, and entitled to their obedience. E l E V, M? w The people, Sir, in every State, live under two governments. They owe obedience to both. These governments, though distinct, 76 run UNION NOT A COMPACT. are not adverse. Each has its separate sphere, and its peculiar powers and duties. It is not a contest between two sovereigns for the same power, like the wars of the rival houses in England; nor is it a dispute between a government dc fr-cto and a govern- ment ole jars. It is the case of a division of powers between two governments, made by the people, to whom both are responsible. Neither can dispense with the duty which individuals owe to the other; neither can call itself master of the other; the people are masters of both. The division of power, it is true, is, in a great measure, unknown in Europe.’ It 1s the peculiar system of America; and, though new and singular, it is not incomprehensible. The State constitutions are established by the people of the States. This Constitution is established by the people of all the States. How, then, can a State secede? How can a. State undo what the whole people have done? How can she absolve her citizens from their obedience to the laws of the United States? How can she annul their obligations and oaths? How can the members of her legislatui'e renounce their own oaths? Sir, secession, as a revo- lutionary right, is intelligible; as a right to be proclaimed in the midst of civil cornmotions, and asserted at the head of armies, I can understand it. But as a practical right, existing under the Constitution, and in conformity with its provisions, it seems to me to be nothing but a plain absurdity; for it supposes resistance to government, under the authority of government itself; it supposes dismeinbernuent, without ViOlé?Li3il1g the principles of union; it sup- poses opposition to law, without crime; it‘ supposes the violation of oaths, without responsibility; it supposes the total overthrow of ,g‘O‘V€31'I1I1"1€Bllt, without revolution. The Oonstitution, Sir, 1'egxa1*Lls itself as perpetual and immortal. It seeks to establish a union among the people of the States, which shall last tl.11'o11,gl:1 all time. Or, if the common fate of thing;s hu- man must be expected at some period to happen to it, yet that catastrophe not anticipated. The instrument contains ample provisions for its amendments at all times; none for its abaudonnient, at any time. It declares that new States may come into the Union, but it does not declare that old States may go out. The Union is not a temporary partnership of States. It is the association of the people, under a constitution of government, uniting their power, joining._:; together their l'1i,«ghest interests, cexnenting their present enj oyments, and blending in one indivisible mass all their hopes for the future. Whatsoever is steadfast in just political principles; whatsoever is permanent in the structure of human society; wliatsoever there is which can de- rive an enduring character from being founded on deep--laid princi- ples of constitutional liberty and on the broad foundations of public will—--—all these unite to entitle this instrument to be 1'egg;'arded as a permanent constitution of government. , ' In the next place, Mr. President, I contend that there is a su- preme law of the land, consisting of the Gonstitution, acts of Con-A gress passedin pursuance of it, and the public treaties. This will rntn UNION NOT A oonzraor. 77 not be denied, because such are the very words of the Constitu-I tion. But I contend, further, that it rightfully belongs to Congress, and to the courts of the United States, to settle the construction of this supreme law, in doubtful cases. This is denied; and here arises a great practical question: W720 is to co72.strae flvizally the the Oonstatation of the Umltecl States ? We all agree that the Constitution is the supreme law; but ‘who shall interpret that law? In our system of the division of powers between diti‘e1‘ent govern- ments, controversie-s will necessarily sometimes arise, respecting the extent of the powers of each. Who shall decide these contro- versies? Does it rest with the general government, in all or any of its departments, to exercise the office of final interpreter? Or may each of the States, as Well" as the general government, claim this right of ultimate decision? The practical result of this whole debate turns on this point.. The gentleman contends that each State may judge for itself of any alleged violation of the Consti- _ tution, and may finally decide for itself, and may execute its own decisions by its own power. All the recent proceedings in South Carolina are founded on this claim of right. Her convention has pronounced the revenue laws of the. United States unconstitutional: and this decision she does not allow “any authority of the United States to overrule or reverse. Of course she rejects the authority of Congress, because the very object of the ordinance is to reverse the decision of Congress; and she rejects, too, the authority of the courts of the United States, because she expressly prohibits all ap- peal to those courts. It is in order to sustain this asserted right of being her own judge, that she pronounces the Constitution of the United States to be but a compact, to which she is a party, and- a sovereign party. If ‘ this he established, then the inierence is supposed to follow, that, being sovereign, there is no power to con- - trol her decision; and her own judgment on her own compact is, and must be, conclusive. * l I have already endeavored, Sir, to point out the practical conse- quences of this doctrine, and to show how utterly inconsistent it is with all ideas of regular government, and how soon its adoption would involve the whole country in revolution and absolute anarchy. I hope it is easy now to show, Sir, that a doctrine bringing such consequences with it is not well founded; that it has nothing to stand on but theory and assumption; and that it is refuted by plain and express constitutional provisions. I think the government of the United States does possess, in its appropriate departments, the authority of final decision on questions of disputed power. I think it possesses this authority, both by necessary implication and by express grant. It will not be denied, Sir, that this authority naturally belongs to all_ governments. They all exercise it from necessity, and as a con—- sequence of the exercise of other powers. Tlie State governments themselves possess it, except in that class of questions which may arise between them and the general government, and in regard to‘ which they have surrendered it, as well by the nature of the case 78 THE UNION NOT A. COMPACT. as by clear constitutional provisions. In other and ordinary cases, whether a particular law be in conformity to the Constitution of the State is a question which the State legislature or the State judiciary must determine. We all know that these questions arise daily in the State governments, and are decided by those govern- ments; and I know no government which does not exercise a similar power. _ Upon general principles,_ then, the government of the United States possesses this authority; and this would hardly be denied were it not that there are other governments. But since there are State governments, and since these, like other governments, or- dinarily construe their own powers, if the government of the United States construes its own powers, also, which construction is to prevail in the case of opposite constructions? And again, as in the case now actually before us, the State governments may under- take, not only to construe their own powers, but to decide directly on the extent of- the powers of Congress. Congress has passed a law as being within its just powers; South Carolina denies that this law is within its just powers, and insists that she has a right to decide this point, and that her decision is final. How are these questions to be settled? In my opinion, Sir, even if the Constitution of the United States had made no express provision for such cases, it would yet be diifi- eult to maintain that, in a Constitution existing over ‘ four-and- twenty States, with equal authority over all, one could claim a right of construing it for the whole. This would seem a manifest impropriety; indeed, an absurdity. If the Constitution is a gov- ernment existing over all the States, though with limited powers, it necessarily follows that, to the extent of those powers, it must be supreme. If it be not superior to the authority of a particular State, it is not a national government. But as it is a government, as it has a legislative power of its own, and a judicial power co- ‘ extensive with the legislative, the inference is irresistible that this government, thus created by the whole, and for the whole, must have an authority superior tothat of the particular government of any one part. Congress is the legislature of all the people of the United States; the judiciary of the general government is the judiciary of all the people of the United States. To hold, there» fore, that this legislature and this judiciary are subordinate in authority to the legislature and judiciary of a single State, is doing violence to all common sense, and overturning all established prin—- ciples. Congress must judge of" the extent of its “own powers so often as it is called on to exercise them, or it can not act at all; and it mustalso act independent of State control, or itcan not act at all. The rightof State interposition strikes at the very foundation of the legislative powers of Congress. It possesses no effective legis- lative power, if such right of State interposition exists; because it can pass no law not subject to abrogation. It can not make laws for the Union, if any part of the Union may pronounce its enactments void and of no ieifect. C Its formsof legislation would be an idle Q TIIE UNION NOT A COMPACT. '79 ceremony, if, after all, any one of four—and-twenty States might bid defiance to its authority. Without express provision in the Consti- tution, therefore, Sir, this whole question is necessarily decided by those provisions which create a legislative power and a judicial power. If these exist in a government intended for the whole, the inevitable consequence is that the laws of this legislative power, and the decisions of this judicial power must be bindingon and over the whole. No man can form the conception of a government existing over four-and-twenty States, with a regular legislative and judicial power, and of the existence at the sametime of an author- ity, residing elsewhere, to resist, at pleasure or dlscretion, the enact- ments and the decisions of such government. I maintain, there- fore, Sir, that from the nature of the case, and as an inference wholly unavoidable, the acts of Congress and the decisions of the national courts must be of higher authority than State laws and State decisions. If this be not so, there is, there can be, no gen- eral government. ' But, Mr. President, the Constitution has not left this cardinal point without full and explicit provisions. First, as to the authority of Congress. Having enumerated the specific powers conferred on Congress, the Constitution adds, as a distinct and substantive clause, the following, VlZ;: “To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.” If this means anything, it means that Congress may judge of the true ex- tent and just interpretation of the specific "powers granted to it, and may judge also of what isnecessary and proper for executing those powers. If Congress is to judge of what is necessary for the execution of its powers, it must of necessity judge of the ex- tent and interpretation of those powers. C And in regard, Sir, to the judiciary, the Constitution is still more express and emphatic. It declares that the judicial power shall extend to all cases in law or equity arising under the Constitution, laws, of the United States, and treaties; that there shall be one Supreme Court, and that this Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction of all these cases, subject to such exceptions as Con- gress may make. It is impossible to escape from the generality of these words. If a case arises under the Constitution, that is, if a case arises depending on the construction of the Constitution, the judicial power of the United States extends to it. It reaches the case, the question ; it attaches the power of the national judica- ture to the case itself, in whatever court it may arise or exist; and in this case the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over all Courts whatever. No language could provide with more efliect and precision than is here done, for subjecting constitutional ques- tions to the ultimate decision of the Supreme Court. And, Sir, this is exactly what the Convention found it necessary to provide for, and intended to provide for. It is, too, exactly what the people were universally told was done when they adopted r the Constitu- 30 THE UNION NOT A COMPACT. tion. One of the first resolutions adopted by the Convention was in these words, viz.: “ That the jurisdiction of the national judiciary shall extend to cases which respect the collection of the mtte'0naZ reoenue, and questions which involve the national peace and liar»- Inony.” Now, Sir, this either had no sensible meaning at all, or else it meant that the jurisdiction of the national judiciary should, extend to these questions with apcmtmomtt amt72.o7"it;e/. It is not to be supposed that the Convention intended that the power of the national judiciary should extend to these questions, and that the power of the judicatures of the States should also extend to them, with equal power cffiaal decz's~io7z. This would be to defeat the whole object of the provision. There were thirteen judicatures already in ex- istence. The evil complained of,_ or the danger to be guarded against, was contradiction and repugnance in the decisions of these judicatures. If the framers of the Constitution meant to create a fourteenth, and yet not to give it power to revise and control the decisions of the existing thirteen, then they only intended to aug- ment the existing evil and the apprehended danger by increasing still further the chances of discordant _judg1:nents. Why, Sir, has it become a settled axiom in politics that every judgment has a judicial power coextensive with its legislative power? Certainly, there is only this reason, namely, that the laws may receive a uni- form interpretation and a uniform execution. This object can not be otherwise attained. A statute is what it is judicially inter- preted to be; and if it be constructed one Way in New Iilarnpshire, and another Way in Georgia, there is no uniform law. One Supreme Court, With appellate and final jurisdiction, is the natural and only adequate means, in any government, to secure this uniformity. The Convention saw all this clearly; and the resolution which I have quoted, never afterward rescinded, passed through various modifi- cations, till it finally received the form which the article now bears in the Constitution. , It is undeniably true, then, that the framers of the Constitution intended to create a national judicial power, which should be paramount on national subjects. And after the Constitution was framed, and While the whole country was engaged in discussing its merits, one of its most distinguished advocates, Mr. Madison, told the people that it was true that, Iain coatroeeirsies 9"eZat~23ag to the hoavzilclary between the two _7'm"z'sd’z'ct9I0ns, the t'rz3h'ze'/zeal which is ultimately to decide is to he established emcler the general govern»- ment. Mr. Martin, who had been a member of the Convention, asserted the same thing to the legislature of Maryland, and urged it as a reason for rejecting the Constitution. Mr. Pinckney, him- self also a leading member of the Convention, declared it to the people of South Carolina. Everywhere it was admitted, by friends and foes, that this power was in the Constitution. By some it was thought dangerous, by most it was thought necessary; but by all it was agreed to be a power actually ‘contained in the instrument. The Convention saw the absolute necessity of some control in the national government over State laws. Different modes of estab- THE UNION NOT A oonracr. 81 lishing this control were suggested and considered. At one time it was proposed that the laws of the States should, from time to time, be laid before Congress, and that Congress should possess a negative over them. But this was thought Inexpedrent and in- admissible; and in its place, and expressly as a substitute i:o_r_1t, the existing provision Wasintroduced; that 15 to say, a pI‘OV1S10I1 by which the federal courts should have authority to overrule such State laws as might be in manifest contrave_nt_ion of the Constitu- tion. The Writers of the Feclemlzst, in explaining theConst1tut1on, While it was yet pending before the people, and still unadopted, give this account of the matter in terms, andassign this reason for the article as it now stands. By this pI‘OV1S101'.l. Congress escaped the necessity of any revision of State laws, left the whole sphere of State legislation quite untouched, and yet obtained a security against any infringement of the constitutional power of the general government. Indeed, Sir, allow me to ask again, if the national judiciary was not to exercise a power of revision on constitutional questions over the judiciaries oi’ the States, Why was any national judicature erected at all? Can any man give a sensible reason for liaviug a judicial power in this governr_nent, unless be for the sake of maintaining a unifomnity of decision on q_nest1ons_ai-isinp; under the Constitution and laws of Congress, and insuring It's me- cution? And does not this _vcry idea of uniformity necessarily imply that the construction given by the national courts is to be thefprevailing constructing; How else, Sir, is it possible that uni orrnity can be preserve I I Grentlenien appear to rue, Sir, to look at but one side of the question. They 1'e,«;§a1*(l only the supposed danger of trusting a government with the interpretation of its own powers. But will they view the qiiestiioii in its other aspect? Will they show us how it is possible for a government to get along; with four-and~ twenty interpreters of its laws and powers? Gentlemen argue, too, as if, in these cases, the State would he always rig;l'*1t, and the general %‘1(i>VOl}:‘;lil;ll%0nt al'w'a;5(rs (xlzvrong. flliiit s&i£})ose the rigvgrse; suppose "e L ale wronrr an since “I9” 1 or some 0 “rem rnust be xv1'ong) ; are iJl'l0b1l1OSi3 airnportant ind essential opeations of‘ the govern1.nen.t to he erubar 'assed and arrested because one Stlatelholds the contrary 0pi1.‘l.l(‘1)I1? Mr. I’resident, every 2i.1‘§g,‘llTI1€3I1'l3 W no.1 re "era 1: ie constitutions ity of acts of Conrv-rcss to State de- cision, appeals fronu tli1e‘majori.ty to the niinorityng it appeals i:‘rou1 the connnon interest to a particular interest; froin the counsels of all to the counsel of one; and endeavors to supersede the judg- ment of the whole hy the jticlgiiieiit of a part. _,I think. it is clear, Sir, that the Constitution, by express pro» fusion, definite and unequivocal words, as Well as by necessary nnplication, has constituted the Supreme Court of the United States the appellate tribunal in all cases of a constitutional nature which assume the shape of a suit, in law or equity. And I think I can not do betterthan to leave this part of the subject by reading the remarlzs made upon it in the convention of Connecticut by 82 run UNION NOT A. eonracr. Ellsworth-—--a gentleman, Sir, who has left behind him, on the records of the government of his country, proofs of the clearest intelligence and of the deepest sagacity, as well as of the utmost purity and integrity of character. “This Constitution,” says he, “defines the extent of the powers of the general government. If the general legislature should, at any time, cverleap their limits, the judicial department is a constitutional check. If the United States go beyond their powers, if they make a law which the Con- stitution does not authorize, it is void; and the judiciary power, the national judges, who, to secure their impartiality, are to be made independent, will declare it to be void. On the other hand, if the States go beyond their limits, if they make a law which is a usurpation upon the general government, the law is void; and upright, independent judges will declare it to be so.” Nor did this remain merely matter of private opinion. In the very first session of the first Congress, with all these wellwknown objects, both of the Convention and the people,_ful1 and fresh in his mind, Mr. Ellsworth, as is generally understood, reported the bill for the organization of the judicial department, and in that bill made pro- vision for the exercise of this appellate power of the Supreme Court, in all the proper cases, in whatsoever court arising; and this appellate power has now been exercised for more than forty years, without interruption, and without doubt. As to the cases, Sir, which do not come before the courts, these political questions which terminate with the enactments of Con-; gress, it is of necessity that these should be ultimately decided by Congress itself. Like other legislatures, it must be trusted with this power. Themembers of Congress are chosen by the people, and they are answerable to the people; like other public agents, they are bound by oath to support the Constitution. These are the securities that they will not violate their duty, nor transcend their powers. They are the same securities that prevail in other popular governments; nor is it easy to see how grants of power can be more safely guarded, without rendering them nugatory. If the case can not come before the courts, and if Congress be not trusted with its decision, who shall decide it? The gentleman says, each State is to decide it for herself. If so, then, as I have already urged, what is law in one State is not law in another. Or, if the resistance of one State compels an entire repeal of the law, then a minority, and that a small one, governs the whole country. Sir, those who espouse the doctrines of nullification reject, as it seems to me, the first great principle of all republican liberty; that is, that the majority must govern. In matters of common concern, the judgment of a majority must stand as the judgment of the whole. This is a law imposed on us by the absolute necessity of v the case; and if we do not act upon it, there is no possibility of maintaining any government but despotism. We hear loud and repeated denunciations against What is called cacjeriity government. It is declared. with much warmth, that a majority government can THE UNION nor A ooMrAo'r. 83 not be maintained in the United States. What, then, do gentlemen wish? Do they wish to establish a raziazority government? Do they wish to subject the will of the Inany_to the will of the few? The honorable gentleman from South Carolina has spoken of abso- lute majorities, and majorities concurrent; language wholly un- known to our Constitution, and to which it is not easy to aflix defi- nite ideas. As far as I understand it, it would teach us that the abso- lute majority may be found in Congress, but the majo_rity concurrent must be looked for in the States; that is to say, stripping the mat- ter of this novelty of‘ phrase, that the dissent of one or more States, as States, renders void the decision of a nr_1ajor1ty_of 0011- gress, so far as that State is concerned. And so this doctrine, run»- ning but a short career," like other dogmas of the day, terminates in nullification. If this vehement invective against aazajoritics meant no more than that, in the construction of government, it is wise to provide checks and balances, so that there should be various limitations on the power of the mere majority, it would only mean what the Oon_sti- tution of the United States has already abundantly provided. It is full of such checks and balances. In its very organization it adopts a broad and most effective principle in the restraint of the power of mere majorities. A majority of the people elects the House of Representatives, but it does not elect the Senate. Tlie Senate is elected by the States, each State having, in this respect, an equal power. No law, therefore, can pass without the assent of the representatives of the people, and ‘a majority of the representa- tives of the States also. A majority of the representatives of the people must concur, and a majority of the States must concur, in every act of Congress; and the President is elected on a plan com—- pound of both these principles. lint having composed one house of representatives chosen by the people in each State, according to their numbers, and the other of an equal number of members from every State, whether larger or smaller, the Cionstitution gives to majorities in these houses thus constituted, the full and entire pow- S or of passing laws, subject always to the constitutional restrictions and to the approval of the President. To subject them to any other power is clear usurpation, "l‘he majority of one house may be controlled by the majority of the other, and both may be re- strained by the Presidents negative. These are ihecks and bal- ances provided by the Constitution, existing in the government itself’, and wisely intended to secure delil.,)eration and caution in legislative proceedings. But to resist the will of the majority in both houses, thus constitutionally exercised; to insist on the law- fulness of interposition by an extraneous power; to claim the riglit of -defeating the will of Congress, by setting up against it the will of a single State--—is neithermore nor less, as it strikes me, than a plain attempt to overthrow the government. The constituted au- thorities of the United States are no longer a government, if they b—e not masters of their own will; they are no,1onger a government, if an external power may arrest their proceedings; they are ‘no 84 THE UNION NOT A COMPACT. longer a government, if acts passed by both houses, and approved by the President, may be nullified by State vetoes or State ordi- nances. Does any one suppose it could make any difference, as to the binding authority of an act of Congress, and of the duty of a State to respect it, whether it passed by a mere majority of both houses, or by three fourths of each, or the unanimous vote of each 27’ Within the limits and restrictions of the Constitution, the govern- ment of the United States, lil«:.e'al'l other popular governments, acts, a by majorities. It can act no otherwise. Whoever, therefore, de- nounces the government of majorities, denounces the government of his own countr , and denounces all free governments. And Whoever would restrain these majorities, While acting within their constitutional limits, by an external power, whatever he may in- tend, asserts principles which, if adopted, can lead to nothing else than the destruction of the government itself. Does not the gentleman perceive, Sir, how his argument against majorities might here be retorted upon him-? Does he not see how oogently he might be asked, whether it be the character of nullifi- cation to practice what it preaches? Look to South Carolina at the present moment. How far are the rights of minorities there respected? I confess, Sir, I have not known, in peaceable times, thepower of the majority carried with a higher hand, or upheld with more relentless disregard of the rights, feelings, and principles of the minority--a minority embracing, as the gentleman himself will admit, a large portion of the Worth and respectability of the State, a minority, ooniprehendiug in its numbers men who have been associated with him, and with us, in these halls of legislation; men who have served their country at home and honored it abroad ; men who Would cheerfully lay down their lives for their native State, in any cause which they could regard as the cause of honor and duty; men above fear and above reproach; whose deepest grief and distress spring from the conviction that the present pro- ceedings of the State must ultimately reflect discredit upon her. How is this minority, how are these men regarded? They are enthralled and di.sfra.ncl’1ised by ordinances and acts of legislation; subjected to tests and oaths, incompatible, as they conscientiously think, with oaths already taken, and obligations already assumecl; they are proscribed and denounced as recreants to duty and patriot- ism, and slaves to a foreign power. Both the spirit which pursues them, and the positive lneasures which emanate from that spirit, are harsh and prescriptive beyond all precedent Within my knowl edge, except in periods of professed revolution. It is not, Sir, one would think, for those who approve these pro- ceedings, to complain of the power of majorities. Mr. President, all popular governments rest on two principles, or two assumptions: First. That there is so far a common interest among those over "Whom the government extends, as that it may provide for the de- fense, protection, and good government of the whole, Without linjusa tice or oppression to ‘parts; and r THE UNION NOT A, COMPACT. 85 Secondly. That the representatives of the people, and espe— cially the people themselves, aresecure agai.n.st general corruption, and may be trusted, therefore, with the exercise of power. Whoever argues against these principles argues against the prac- ticability of all free governments. And whoever admits these, must admit, or can not deny, that power is as safe in the hands of Congress as in those of other representative bodies. Congress is . not irresponsible. Its members are agents of the people, elected by them, answerable to them, and liable to be displaced or super- seded, at their pleasure; and they possess as fair a claim to the confidence of the people, whi.le they continue to deserve it, as any other public political agents. If then, Sir, the manifest intention of the Convention, and the cotemporary admission of both friends and foes, prove anything; if the plain text of the instrument itself, as well as the necessary implication from other provisions, prove anything; if the early legislation of Congress, the course of judicial decisions, acquiesced in by all the States for forty years, prove ariytliing---tlien it is proved that there is a supreme law and a final interpreter. My fourth and last proposition, Mr. 1’resident, was, that any attempt by a State to abrogate or nullify acts of Congress, is a usurpation on the powers of the general government, and on the equal rights of other States, a violation of the Constitution, and a proceeding essentially revolutionary. This is undoubtedly true, if the preceding propositions be regarded as proved. If the govern- ment of the United States be trusted with the duty, in any depart- ment, of declaring the extent of its own powers, then a State ordi-- nance, or act of legislatiori, authorizing resistance to an act of Congress, on the alleged ground of its unconstitutionality, is mani- festly a usurpation upon its powers. If the States have equal rights in matters concerning the Whole, then for one State to set up her judgment against the judgment of the rest, and to insist on execut- ing that ju(.lg'Inent by force, also a manifest usurpation on the rights of other tbltates. If the Constitution of the United States be a government proper, with authority to pass laws, and to give them a uniform interpretati<:>n and execution, then the interpretation of a State, to enforce her own construction, and to resist, as to her- self, that law which binds the other States, is a violation of the Constitution. If that be revolutionary which arrests the legislative, execu- tive, and judicial power of governrnernt, dispenses with existing aths and obligatioris of obedience, and elevates another power to supreme dominion, then nulliiication is revolutionar . Or if that he revolutionary, the natural tendency and practical effect of which are to break the Union into fragrnents, to sever all connec- tion among the people of the respective States, and to prostrate this general government in the dust, then nullification is revo1u- tionary. ' N ullification, Sir, is as distinctly revolutionary as secession; but I can not say that the revolution which it seeks is one of so respect- 86 THE UNION NOT A COMPACT. able a character. Secession would, _it is true, abandon the Consti- tution altogether; but then it would profess to abandon it. What- ever other inconsistencies it might run into, one, at least, it would avoid. It would not belong to a government, while it rejected its authority. It would not repel the burden, and continue to enjoy the benefits. It would not aid in passing laws which others are to obey, and yet reject their authority as to itself. It would not un- dertake to reconcile obedience to public authority with an asserted right of command over that same authority. It would not be in the government, and above the government, at the same time. But though secession may be a more respectable mode of attaining the object than nullification, it is not more truly revolutionary. Each and both resist the constitutional authorities; each and both would sever the Union and subvert the government. Mr. President, having detained the Senate so long already, I will not now examine at length the ordinance and laws of South Caro- lina. These papers are Well drawn for their" purpose. Their authors understood their own objects. They are called a peaceful remedy, -and we have been told that South Carolina, after all, intends notliiiig but a lawsuit. A very few words, Sir, will show the nature of this peaceful remedy, and of the lawsuit which South Carolina contem- ‘lates. P In the first place, the ordinance declares the law of last July, and all other laws of the United States laying duties, to be absolutely null and void, and makes it unlawful for the constituted authorities of the United States to enforce the payment of such duties. It is therefore, Sir, an indictable offense, at this moment, in South Car- olina, for any person to be concerned in collecting revenue under the laws of the United States. It being declared, by What is con- sidered a fundamental law of the State, unlawful to collect these T duties, an indictment lies, of course, against any one concerned in such collection; and he is, on general principles, liable to be pun- ished by fine and imprisonment. The terms, it is true, are, that it is unlawful “ to enforce the payment of duties ;” but every custom- house omcer enforces payment While he detains the goods in order to obtain such payment. The ordinance, therefore, reaches every- body concerned in the collection of the duties.- This is the first step in the prosecution of the pcaoeable remedy. The second is more decisive. By the not commonly called the re- pleovin law, any person, whose goods are seized or detained by the collector for the payment’ of duties, may sue out a writ of replevin, and by virtue of that writ the goods are to be restored to him. A Writ of replevin is a writ which the sheriff’ is bound to execute, and for the execution of which he is bound to employ force, if necessary. He may call out the posse, and must do so, if resistance be made. This posse may be armed or unarmed. It may come forth with military array, and under the lead of military men. Whatever number of troops may be assembled in Charleston, they may be summoned, with the governor, or commander-in-chief at their head, to come in aid of the slieriff. It is evident, then, Sir, TIIE UNION NOT A COMPACT. 817’ that the whole military power of the State is to be employed, if necessary, in dispossessing the custom-house oflicers, and in seizing and holding the goods without paying; the duties. This is the second step in the peaceable remedy. _ Sir, whatever pretenses may be set up to the contrary, this is the direct application of force, and of military force. It is unlawful, in itself, to replevy goods in the custody of the collectors. But this unlawful act is to be done, and it is to be done by power. Here is a plain interposition, by physical ‘force, to resist the laws of the Union. The legal mode of collecting duties is to detain the goods till such duties are paid or secured. But force comes, and overpowers the collector and his assistants, and takes away the goods, leaving the duties unpaid. There can not be a clearer case of forcible resistance to law. And i.t is provided that the goods thus seized shall be held against any attempt to retake them, by the same force which seized them. Having thus dispossessed the oflicers of the government of the goods, without payment of duties, and seized and secured them by the strong arm of the State, only one tlring‘ more remains to be done, and that is, to cut ofi‘ all possibility of legal 1"edress; and that, too, is accomplished, or thought to be accomplished. The ordinance declares, that all jmlicictl procccerlmgs, jim.n.rZctZ on the r-comma laws (including, of course, }j)1‘()G00(l‘ll1,g‘,"S in the courts of the United States), sltctll be mtllicmcl acid. ~This nullifies the judicial power of the United States. Then comes the h@St;*OfLtl1 act. This requires all State judges and jurors" in the State courts to swear that they will execute the ordinance, and all acts of the leg;islature passed in pursuance thereof‘. Tl".lC:) ordinance cleclares, that no ap- peal shall be allowed from the decision of the State courts to the Supreme Court of the United States; and the rcplevin act makes it an indictable offense for any clerk to furnisli a copy of the record, for the purpose of such appeal. a . The two principal divisions on which South Carolina relies, to resist the laws of the United States, and nnlliiy the authority of this government, are, tl:1erel*'ore, the:-re: U 1. A iorcilile se’z‘n-e of goods, before duties are paid or secured, by the power of the State, civil and military. 2. The taking away, by the most effectual means in her power, of all legal redress in the courts of the United States; the confining of judicial proceedings to her own State tribunals; and the com- pelling of hcrjudges and jurors of these her own courts to take an oath, beforehand, that they will decide all cases according to the ordinance, and the acts passed under it; that is, that they will decide the cause one way. They do not swear to try it on its own merits; they only swear to decide it as nulliiication requires. The character, Sir, of these provisions defies comment. Their object is as plain as their means are extraordinary. They propose , direct resistance, by the whole power of the State, to laws of Lien- gress, and cut off, by methods deemed adequate, any redress by legal and judicial. authority. They arrest. legislation,. defy the en- I 88 THE UNION NOT A. COMPACT. eentive, and banish the judicial power of this government. They authorize and command acts to be done, and done by force, both of numbers and of arms, Which, if done, and done by force, are clearly acts of rebellion and treason. __ p _ _ Such, Sir, are the laws of SOlltl1.sO$l1‘Ol1Il&; such, S11‘, is the peace- able remedy of nullificatron. lies not nu111'fioat1on_recched, S11‘, even thus early, that point of direct and forcible resistance to law to which I intimated, three years‘ ago, it plainly tended? And now, Mr. President, What is the reason for passing laws like these? What are the oppressions experienced under the Union, calling for measures which thus threaten to sever and destroy it? What invasions of_publ1c_ liberty, What ruin to private happiness, What long list of nghts violated, or wrongs unreclressed, 1S to Jus- tify to the country, to poster1ty,. and to the World, this assault upon the free Constitution of the United States, this great and glorious work: of our fathers? At this very moment, Sir, the whole land smiles in peace and rejoices in plenty. A general and a high pros- perity pervades the country; and, judging by_the_comm.on stand- ard, by increase of population and Wealth, or Judging by the Op1lf1- ions of that portion of her people not einbarlzed in these dangerous and desperate measures, this prosperity overspreads South Caro- lina lzrerself. ' Thus happy at home, our country, at the same time, holds high the character of her institutions, her power, her rapid growth, and her future destiny, in the eyes of all forei,r,.,>*n states. One danger only creates hesitation, one doubt only exists to darken the other- wise unclouded b1*i,g'htI1ess of that aspect which she exhibits to the view and to the admiration of the world. Need I say that that doubt respects the permanency of our Union? And need I say that that doubt is now caused, more than anything else, by these very proceedings of South Carolina? Sir, all Europe is, at this moment, beholding us, and looking _for the issue oi‘ this contro- versy; those who hate free institutions, 1'-v1tl_1 n1_al1gnant hope; those who love them, with deep anxiety and shivering fear. The cause, then, Sir, the caéisei Leiln thtcjz World ]¢IkI)1(E)1W the cause which has thus induced one is tate of tie nion to i" defiance to the power of the whole, and openly to talk of secession. Sir, the world will scarcely believe that this Whole controversy, and all the desperate measures which its support requires, have no other foun— ‘ dation than a difi‘erence of opinion upon a provision of the Consti- tution, between a rna,jority of the people of South Carolina, on one side, and a vast majority of the Whole people of the United States, on the other. It will not credit the fact, it will not admit the pos- sibility, that, in an enlightened age, in a free, popular republic, under a constitution where the people govern, as they must always govern under such systems, by majorities, at a time of unprece~ dented prosperity, Without practical oppression, Without evils such as may not only be pretended, but felt and €3.X'pGl'lE3l1Ce(1—--GVl1S not slight or temporary, but deep, permanent, and intolerable¢--a single ’ State should rush into oonflict with all the rest, attempt to put THE UNION NOT A COMPACT. 89 down the power of the Union by her own laws, and to support those laws by her military power, and thus break up and destroy the world’s last hope. And well the world may be incredulous. We, who see and hear it; can ourselves hardly yet believe it. Even after all that had preceded it,this ordinance struck the country with amazement. It was incredible and inconceivable that South Carolina should plunge headlong into resistance to the laws on a matter of opinion, and on a question in which the preponderance of opinion, both of the present day and of all past time, was so overwhelmingly against her. The ordinance declares that Con- gress has exceeded its just power by laying duties on imports, in- tended for the protection of 1nanufactu1'es. This is the opinion of South Carolina; and on the strength of that opinion she nullifies the laws. Yet has the rest of the country no right to its opinion also? Is one State to sit sole arbitress? She maintains that those laws are plain, deliberate, and palpable violations of the lonstitution; that she has a sovereign right to decide this rnatter; and that, liaving so decided, she is authorized to resist their execution by her own sovereign power; and -she declares that she will resist it, though such resistance should shatter the Union into atoms. Mr. President, I do not intend to discuss the propriety of these laws at large; but I will ask, How are they shown to be thus. plainly and palpably unconstitutional? Ilfave they no countenance at all in the Constitution itself? Are they quite new in the history of the goverinnenti Are they a sudden and violent usurpation on the rights of the States? Sir, what will the civilized world say, what will posterity say, when they learn that similar laws have existed ii-o1'n the very fmpindatioii of the governrnent, that for thirty years the power was never questioned, and that no State in the Union has 1norci'reely and unequivocally admitted it than South Carolina l'flCll'SGlf?. To lay and collect duties and innposts is an e2a°press power granted by the Constitution to Congress. It is, also, an ea:cZas~ioe power; for the Constitution as expressly prohibits all the States from exer- cising it theinselves. This express and exclusive power is unlim- ited in the terms of the grant, but is “attended with two specific restrictions: first, that all duties and iinposts shall be equal in all the States; second, that no duties shall be laid on exp<:>rts. The power, then, being granted, and being attended with these two restrictions, and no more, who is to impose a third restriction on the general words of the grant? If the power to lay duties, as lrnown among all other nations, and as known in all our histor , and as it was perfectly understood when the Constitution was adopted, includes a right of discrirninating while exercising the power, and of laying some duties heavier and some lighter, for the sake of GI100l1l‘{1g‘lI1g our own domestic products, what author— ity is there for giving to the words used in the Constitution a new, narrow, and unusual meaning? All the limitations which the Constitution intended, it has expressed‘; and what it has left 'un- 90, THE UNION NOT A. COMPACT. restricted is as much a part of its will as the restraints which it has imposed. - But these laws, it is said, are unconstitutional on account of the emotive. How, Sir, can a law be examined on any such ground? How is the motive to be ascertained? One house, or one member, may have one motive; the other house, or another member, an- other. One motive may operate today, and another to-morrow. Upon any such mode of reasoning as this, one law might be un—- constitutional now, and another law, in exactly the same words, perfectly constitutional next year. Besides, articles may not only be taxed for the purpose of protecting home products, but other articles may be left free, for the same purpose and with the same motive. A law, therefore, would become unconstitutional from what it omitted, as well as from what it contained. Mr. Presi- dent, it is a settled principle, acknowledgecl in all legislative halls, recognized before all tribunals, sanctioned by the general sense and understanding of mankind, that there can be no inquiry into the motives of those who pass laws, for the purpose of determining on their validity. If the law be within the fair meaning of the words in the grant of the power, its authority must be admitted until it is repealed. This rule, everywhere acknowledged, everywhere admitted, is so universal and so completely without exception, that even an allegation of fraud, in the ‘majority of la legislature, is not allowed as a ground to set aside a law. I But, Sir, is it true that the motive for these laws is such as is stated? I think not. The great object of all these laws is, un- questionably, revenue. If there were no occasion for revenue, the laws would not have been passed ; and it is notorious that almost the entire revenue of the country is derived from them. And as yet we have collected none too much revenue. The treasury has not been more reduced for many years than it is at the present moment. All that South Carolina can say is, that, in passing the laws which she now undertakes to nullify, particular imported articles were tamed, from a regard to the proteetiovz of eertam armi- eles qf“ domestic manajaeture, higizer than they would have been had no such regard been entertaviaed. And she insists that, ac- cording to the Oonstitution, no such discrimination can be allowed; that duties should be laid for revenue, and revenue only; and that it is unlawful tohave reference, in any case, to protection. In other words, she denies the power of nrsonmruarrou. She does not, and can not, complain of excessive taxation; on the contrary, she professes to be willing to pay any amount of revenue, merely . as revenue * and u to the resent moment there is no sur lus of 2 P P revenue. Her grievance, then, that plain and palpable violation of the Constitution, which she insists has taken place, is simply the exercise of the power of DISCRIMINATION. Now, Sir, is the exercise of this power of discrimination plainly and palpably un- constitutional? I . T i T l ‘_ I have alreadysaid, the power to lay duties is given by the _Gon-- stitution in -broad and general terms. There is also conferred on Tun UNION NOT A conrxor. .91 Congress the whole power of regulating commerce, in another dis- tinct provision. i It is clear and palpable, Sir, can any man say it is a case beyond doubt, that, under these two powers, Congress may not justly discriminate, in laying duties, for the purpose of cozcvzterocziltiozg the policy of forceign nations, or 0_]"_j'cw07“7}ng our oum. home productions ? Sir, what ought to conclude this question forever, as it would seem to me, is that the regulation of commerce and the imposition of duties are, in all commercial nations, powers avowedly and constantly exercised for this very end. That unde- niable truth ought to settle the question; because the Constitution ought to be considered, when it uses well-known language, as using it in its well~known sense. But it is equally undeniable that it has been, from the very first, fully believed that this power of discrim- ination was conferred on Congress; and the Constitution was it- self recommended, urged upon the people, and enthusiastically insisted on in some of the States, for that very reason. Not that, at that time, the countrywas extensively engaged in manufactures, especially of the kinds now existing. But the trades and crafts of the seaport towns, the business of the artisans and manual laborers---«those employments, the work in which supplies so great a portion of the daily wants of all c1asses——-all these 100ke(.l to the new Constitution as a source of relief from the severe distress which followed the war. It would, Sir, be unpardonable, at so late an hour, to go into details on this point; but the truth is as I have stated. The papers of the day, the resolutions of public meetings, the debates in the conventions, all that we ‘open our eyes upon in the history of the times, prove it. ‘‘ Sir, the honorable gentleman from South Carolina has referred to two incidents connected with the proceedings of the Convention at Philadelphia, which he thinks are evidence to show that the power of protecting manufactures by laying duties,‘and by com- mercial regulations, was not intended to be given to Congress. The first is, as he says, that a power to protect manufactures was expressly proposed, but not granted. I think, Sir, the gentleman is quite mistaken in relation to this part of the proceedings of the Convention. The whole history of the occurrence to which he alludes is simply this. Toward the conclusion of the Convention, a after the provisions of the Constitution had been mainly agreed upon, after the power to lay duties and the power to regulate commerce had both. been granted, a long listof propositions was made and referred to the committee, containing various miscel- laneous powers, some or all of which it was thought might be properly vested in Congress. Among these was a power to estab- lish a university ;: to grant charters of incorporation; to regulate C stage-coaches on the post-roads; and also the power to which the gentleman refers, and which. is expressed in these words: “ To establish -public institutions, rewards, and immunities, for the pro- motion of agriculture, commerce, trades, and manufactures.” The ‘ committee made no report onthis or various other propositions in the same list. But the only inference from this omission is, that 92 , T12-IE UNION NOT A. COMPACT. neither the Committee nor the Convention thought it proper to authorize Congress “to establish public institutions, rewards, and immunities,” for the promotion of manu.factures and other inter- ests. The Convention supposed it had done enough---at any rate, it had ‘done all it intende'd—when it had given to Congress, in general terms, the power to lay imp'osts_ and the power to regn- late trade. It is not to be argued, from its omission to give more, that it meant to take back what it had already given. It had given the irnpost power; it had given the regulation of trade; and it did not deem it necessary to give the further and distinct power of establishing public institutions. The other fact, Sir, on which the gentleman relies is the declara- tion of Mr." Martin to the legislature of Maryland. The gentleman supposes Mr. Martin to have urged.against the Constitution, that it ' - did not contain the power of protection. . But if the gentleman will look again at what Mr. Martin said, he will find, I think, that what Mr. Martincomplained of was, that the Constitution, by its pro- hibitions on the States, had taken away from the States themselves the power of protecting their own manufactures by duties on im- ports. This is undoubtedly true; but I find no e:s:pr'ession of Mr. Martin intimating that the Constitution had not conferred on Songress the same power which it had thus taken from the ‘tates. l But, Sir, let us go to the first Congress; let us look in upon this and the other house, at the first session of their organization. We see, in both ‘houses, men distinguished among the framers, friends, and advocates of the Constitution. We see in both, those who had drawn, discussed, and matured thetinstrument in the r Convention, explained and defended it before the people, and were now elected members of Congress, to put the new government into motion, and to carry the powers of the Constitution into benefi- cial execution. At the head of the government was Wasnrneron himself, who had been l?resident of the Convention; and in his cabinet were others most thoroughly acquainted with the history of the Constitution, and distinguished for the part taken in its dis- cussion. If these persons were not acquainted with the meaning of the Constitution, if they did not understand the work of their ‘own hands, who can understand it, or who shall now interpret it to us its a i l . . Sir, the volume which records the proceedings and debates of the first session of the House of Representatives lies before me. I open it, and I find that‘,having provided for the administration of the neces- sary oaths, the very first measure proposed for consideration is, the layin of imposts; , and in the very first committee of the whole into which the House of Representatives ever resolved itself, on this its earliest subj ect, and in this its very first debate, the duty of so laying. the irnposts as to encourage manufactures was advanced and enlarged 1 "upon by almost every speaker, and doubted or denied by none. The first gentlleman who suggests this as the clear duty of Con» gress, and as an object necessary to be attended to, is Mr. lI+‘itzsim-— TIIE UNION NOT A COMPACT. . 93 mons, of Pennsylvania; the second, Mr. White, of VIRGINIA; the third, Mr. Tucker, of Soucrlx CAROLINA. But the great leader, Sir, on this occasion, was Mr. Madison. Was he likely to know the intentions of the Convention and the people? Was he likely to understand the Constitution? At the second sitting of the committee, Mr. Madison explained his own opinions of the duty of Congress, fully and explicitly. I must not detain you, Sir, with more than a few short extracts from these opinions, but they are such as are clear, intelligible, and decisive. “ The States,” says he, “ that are most advanced in population, and ripe for manuf'actures, ought to have their particular interest at- tended to, in some degree. While these States retained the power of Inakinpg regulations of trade, they had the power to cherish such institutions. By adopting the present Constitution, they have thrown the exercise of this power into other hands; they must have done this with an expectation that those interested would not be 1se,gl.ectecl here.” In another report of the same speech, Mr. Madi- son is represented as Iisinp; still stronger laxigiiage; as saying that, the Constitution liaviiig taken this power away from the States a.nd coni'erred it on Co11g~1'ess, it would be afrcmcl on the States and on I the people were Cong1'ess to refuse to exercise it. ‘ Mr. Madison argues, Sir, on this ‘early and interesting occasion, very justly and liberally, in favor of the general principles of unre- stricted eommerce. But he argues, also, with equal force and clearness, for certain important exceptions to the general principle. ‘ The first, Sir, respects those manrrfactures which had bee.n bro11,g;ht forward under, e11cou1'agernepp py the“State governments. d“It would be orue ” says Mr. acison, to -neglect them, an“ to divert their industry i._nto other channels; for it is not possible for the hand of man to shift from one employment to another without l.‘)€’.l1l,g," injured by the clr1:‘tnge.” Again: “There may be some n:ianm‘.'actures Which, be_in,g>; once foritned, can advance toward per- fection without any adventitious aid; while others, for want of the fc)ste1';i11g' hand of ,g;overn1"ncnt, will be unable to go on at all. Le,{g;isl.a.tive provision, therefore, will be necessary to collect the proper objects for this purpose; and this will form another GXOG1)~ tion to my general p1'iI1ciple:” And again: -“The next exception that occurs is one on which great stress we is laid by some well- inii:>rmed men, and this with great plausibility; that each nation should have, within itself; the means of defense, independent of ibreign supplies; that, in whatever relates to the operations of war, no State c>u,g'l=i1a to depend upon a precarious supply from any part of the world. There may be some truth in this rernark; and therefore it isproper for legislative attention.” In the same debate, Sir, Mr. Burk, from Soutrn CAROLINA, sup— ported a duty on hemp for the express purpose of eneou1'a,g,rix1g,_1ts growth on the strong_ lands of South Carolina. “Cotton,” he said, “ was also in contemplation among them, and, if good seed could be procured, he hoped might succeed.” Afterward, Sir, the cot- ton was obtained, its culture was protected, and it did succeed. I‘ 94 THE UNION NOT A COMPACT. Mr. Smith, a very distinguished member from the same STATE, observed: “It has been said, and justly, that the States which - adopted this Constitution expected its administration would be conducted with a favorable hand. The manufacturing States wished the encouragement of manufactures, the maritime States the encouragemept of sl1i1p—bui7l,ding, and the agricultural States the encoura ement o agricu ture. Sir, Igwill detain the Senate by reading no more extracts from these debates. I have already shown a majority of the members of Sonrrrr CAROLINA, in this very first session, acknowledging this -'power of protection, voting for Its exercise, and proposing its ex- tension to their own products. Similar propositions came from Virginia; and, indeed, Sir, in the whole debate, at whatever page you open the volume, you find the power admitted, and you find it applied to the protection of particular articles, or not applied, according to the discretion of Congress. No man denied the pow- er, no man doubted it; the only questions were, in regard to the several articles proposed to be taxed, whether they were fit sub- jects for protection, and what the amount of that protection ought to be. Will gentlemen, Sir, now answer the argument drawn from these proceedings of the first Congress? Will they undertake to 1 deny that that Congress did act on the avowed principle of protec- tion? Or, if they admit it, will they tell us how those who framed the Constitution fell, thus early, into this great mistake about its meaning? Will they tell us how it should happen that they had so soon forgotten their own sentiments and their own purposes? I confess I have seen no answer to this argument, nor any respect- able attempt to answer it. And, Sir, how did this debate termin- ate? What law was passed? There it stands, Sir, among the statutes, the second law in the book. It has-a preamble, and that preamble expressly recites, that the duties which it imposes are laid “for the support of government for the discharge of the debts of the United States, and the encomragevozertt and protectvlo-72, of mom.»- 'u,]“actm~es.” Until, Sir, this early legislation, thus coeval with the Constitution itself, thus full and explicit, can be e:.~:plained away, no man can doubt of the meaning of that instrument, in this respect. Mr. President, this power of rliscriaminctiooz, thus admitted, avowed, and practiced upon in the first revepue act, has never been denied or doubted until within a few years past. It was not at all doubtedinl1816, when it became necessary to adjust the revenue to a state of peace. On the contrary, the power was then exer- cised, not without opposition as to its expediency, but, as far as I remember or have understood, without the slightest opposition founded on any supposed want of constitutional authority. Cer- tainly, Soutrn CAROLINA did not doubt it.. The tariff of 1816 was introduced, carried through, and established, under the lead of South Carolina. Even the minimum policy is of South Carolina origin. The honorable gentleman himself supported, and ably supported, the tariff of 1816. He, has informed us, Sir, that his speech on that occasion was sudden and ofi‘-hand, he being called THE UNION NOT A COMPACT. 95 up by the request of a friend. I am sure the gentleman so remem- bers it, and that it was so; but there is, nevertheless, much method, arrangement, and clear exposition in that exteinpore speech. It is very able, very, very much to the point, and very decisive. And in another speech, delivered two months earlier, on the proposition to repeal the internal taxes, the honorable gentleman had touched the same subject, and had declared, “ that at certain oozoourcgemont ought to be ezrtomled at least to our woolen and cotton mamgfo:ctu7°es.” I do not quote these speeches, Sir, for the purpose of showing that the honorable gentleman has changed his opinion; my object is other and higher. I do it for the sake of saying‘ that that can not be so plainly and palpably un- constitutional as to warrant resistance to law, nullilication, and revolution, which the honorable gcntlenian and his friends have heretofore agreed to and acted upon without doubt and without hesitation. Sir, it is no answer to say that the tariff‘ of 1816 was a revenue bill. So are they all revenue bills. The point is, and the truth is, that the tarifl’ of 1816, like the rest, c.‘l’t'cZ cZ2'sor2'.m2'n.cte ; . it did dist'i1i,guisl1 one article from another; it did lay duties for protection. Look to the case of coarse cottons under the minimum calculation: the duty on these was froni sixty to eighty per cent. Sometliing besides revenue, certainly, was intended in this; and, in fact, the law cut up our whole connnerce with India in that article. It is, Sir, only within a few years that Oaroliua has denied the constitutionality of‘ these protective laws. The gentleman himself has narrated to us the true history of her proceedings on this point. lie says, that, after the passing of the law of 1828, despairin,o; then of being; able to €1.l)()l‘l.*T..~’l1 the system of protection, political men went forth arriong; the people, and set up the doctrine that the sys- tem was unconstitutional. “And the people,” says the honorable gentleman, “o°oce*2IoccZ the cZootr~i~2zo.” This, I believe, is true, Sir. The people didlthen receive the doctrine; they had never enter- tained it l:>ef'ore. Down to that period, the constitutionality of these laws had been no more doubted in Eiouth Cla1'olir1a than else» where. And I suspect it is true, Sir, and I deem it a great misfor- tune, that, to the present moment, agreat portion of the people of the State l[l€l.VO never yet seen more than one side of the argiiiiieiit. I believe that thousands of honest men are involved in scenes new passing, led away by one-sided views of the question, and following their leaders by the impulses of an unlimited cmiflidence. Depend upon it, Sir, if we can avoid the shock of arms, a day for recon~ sideration and reflection will come; truth and reason will act with their. accustomed force, and the public opinion of South Oar-oliha will be restored to its usual constitutional and patriotic tone. But, Sir, I hold South Carolina to her ancient, her cool, her un- influenced, her deliberate opinions. I hold her to her own admis- sions, nay, to her own claims and pretensions, in 1789, in the first Gorigress, and to her acknovvledgments and avowed sentiments througli a long series of succeeding years. I hold herto the prin- ciples on which she led Oongress to act in 1816; or, if she have 96 THE UNION N OT A COMPACT. changed her own opinions, I claim some respect for those who still retain the same opinions. I say she is precluded from assertinn- that doctrines, which she has herself so long and so ably sustained: are plain, palpable, and dangerous violations of the Constitution. Mr. President, if the friends of the nullification should be able to propagate their opinions, and give them practical effect, they Would, in my judgment, prove themselves the most skillful “architects of ruin,” the most successful extinguishers of high-raised expectation, the greatest blasters of human hopes, that any age has produced. They would stand up to proclaim, in tones which would pierce the ears of half the human race, that the last great experiment of representative government had failed. They would send forth sounds, at the hearing of which the doctrine of the divine right of kings would feel, even in its grave, a returning sensation of vitality and resuscitation. Millions of eyes, of those who now feed their in- herent ,love of liberty on the success of the American example, would turn away from beholdingour dismemberment, and find no place on earth whereon to rest their gratified sight. Amid the incantations and orgies of nullification, secession, disunion, and revolution, would be celebrated the funeral rites of constitutional and republican liberty. . ‘ ' , But, Sir, if the government do its duty, if it act with firmness and with moderation, these opinions can not prevail. Be assured, Sir, be assured, that among the political sentiments of this people, the love of union is still uppermost. They will stand fast by the Oonstitution, and by those who defend it. I rely on no temporary expedients, on no political combination; but I rely on the true American feeling, the genuine patriotism of the people, and the im- perative decision of the public voice. Disorder and confusion, in- deed, may arise; scenes of commotion and contest are threatened, and perhaps may come. With my Whole heart, I pray for the con- tinuance of the domestic peace and quiet of the country. I desire, most ardently, the restoration of ai:l’ection and harmony to all its parts. I desire that every citizen of the whole country may look to this government witli no other sentiments than those of grateful respect and atta.clnnent. But I can not yield even to kind feelings the cause of the Constitution, the true glory of the country, and the great trust which we hold’ in our hands for succeeding ages. If the Constitution can not be1nainta'i.ned Without meeting these scenes of commotion and contest, however unwelcome, they must come. We cannot, we must not, we dare not, omit to do that "which, in our judgment, the safety of the Union requires. Not regardless of consequences, we must yet meet consequences;, see- ing the hazards which surround the discharge of public duty, it must yet be discharged. For myself, Sir, I shun no responsibility justly devolving on me, here or elsewhere, in attempting to main-— tain the cause. I ‘am bound to it by indissoluble ties of affection and duty, and I shall cheerfully partake in its fortunes and its fate. I am ready to perform 1ny own appropriate part, Whenever and ‘Wherever the occasion may call on me, and to take my chance Jaonsonis PROOLAMATION INl1882. 97 among those upon Whom blows may fall first and fall thiclrest. I shall exert every faculty I possess in aiding to prevent the Constitution from being nullified, destroyed, or impaired; and even should I see it fall, I will still, with a voice feeble perhaps, but earnest as ever issued from human lips, and with fidelity and zeal which nothing shall extinguish, call on the PEOPLE to come to its rescue. PRESIDENI‘ JACKSON’S PROCLAMATION, Issued in 1832, when South Carolina zmclcartoolc to Amml the Jrlzclerallllfcvcrzuc Law. Wunnnas a convention, assembled. in the State of South Clarolina, have passed an ordinance, by vvhich they declare “that the several acts and parts of acts of the Congress of the United States, pur- porting to be laws for the ixiiposirig of duties and irnposts on the importation of foreign commodities, and now having actual opera» tion and eiiect Within the United States, and more especially ‘two acts for the same purposes, passed on the 29th of May, 1828, and on the 14th of July, T1832,’ are unautliorized by the Constitution of the United States, and violate the true Irieariiiig and intent thereof, andrare null and void, and no law,” nor liiiidiiig on the citizens of that State or its otlicers; and by the said ordinance it is further declared to be unlawful for any of the constituted authori- ties of the State, or of the United States, to enforce the payment of the duties irnposed by the said acts Within the samefitate, and that it is the duty of the legislature to pass such laws as may be necessary to give full effect to the said ordinances: ‘ And wliereas, by the said ordinance it is further ordained, that, in no case of law or equity, decided in the courts of said State, wherein shall be drawn in question the validity of the said ordi~ nance, or of the acts of the legislature that may be passed to give it effect, or of the said laws of the United States, no appeal shall be allowed to the Supreme Court of the United States, nor shall any copylof the record be permitted or allowed for that purpose; and that any person attempting to take such appeal, shall be punished as for a contempt of court: a ‘ ‘ 98 I JA.C'.KSON’S PROCLAMATION IN 1832. And, finally, the said ordinance declares that the people of South Carolina will maintain the said ordinance at every hazard; and that they will consider the passage of any act by Congress abolishing or closing the ports of the said State, or otherwise obstructing the free ingress or egress of vessels to and from the said ports, or any other act of the Federal Government to coerce theState, shut up her ports, destroy or harass her commerce, or to enforce the said acts otherwise than through the civil tribunals of the country, as inconsistent with the longer continuance of South Caro~ lina in the Union; and that the people of the said State will thence- forth hold themselves absolved from all further obligation to main- tain or preserve their political connection with the people of the other States, and will forthwith proceed to organize a separate government, and do all other acts and things which sovereign and independent States may of right do: And whereas the said ordinance prescribes to the people of South Carolina a course of conduct in direct violation of their duty as citizens of the United States, contrary to the laws of their country, subversive of its Constitution, and“ having for its object the destruction of the Union---that Union, which, coeval with our political existence, led our fathers, without any other ties to unite them than those of patriotism and common cause, through a sanguinary struggle to a glorious independence--—that sacred’Union, hitherto inviolate, which, perfected by our happy Constitution, has brought us, by the favor of Heaven, to a state of prosperity at home, and high consideration abroad, rarely, if ever, equaled in the history of nations; to preserve this bond of our political existence from destruction, to maintain inviolate this state of na- tional honor and prosperity, and to justify the confidence my fel- low»-citizcns have reposed in me, I, Andrew Jackson, President of the United States, have thought proper to issue this I11y'PRO0LAMA.- TION, stating my views of the Constitution and laws applicable to i the measuresadepted by the Convention of South Carolina, and to the reasons they have put t'o'rth to sustain them, declaring the course which duty will require me to pursue, and, appealing to the under- standing and patriotism of the people, warn them of the conse- quences that must inevitably result from an observance of the dictates of the Convention. Strict duty would require of me nothing more than the exercise C of those powers with which I am now, or may hereafter be, in- vested, for preserving the Union, and for the execution of the laws. JACKSOl.\T’S PROCLAMATION IN 1832. 99 But the imposing aspect which oppositionhas assumed in this case, by clothing itself with State authority, and the deep interest which the people of the United States must all feel in preventing a "resort tostronger measures, while there is a hope that anything will be yielded to reasoning and remonstrances, perhaps demand, and will certainly justify, a full exposition to South Carolina and the nation of the views I entertain of this important question, as well as a distinct enunciation of the course which my sense of duty will re- quire me to pursue. The ordinance is founded, not on the indefeasible right of re- sisting acts which are plainly unconstitutional, and too oppressive to be endured, but on the strange position that any one State may not only declare an act of Congress void, but prohibit its execu- tion--that they may do this consistently with the Constitution--- that the true construction of that instrument permits aState to retain its place in the Union, and yet bebound by no other of its laws than those it may choose to consider as constitutional. It is true they add, that, to justify this abrogation of a law, it must be palpably con- trary to the Constitution; but it is evident, that to give the right of resisting laws of that description, coupled with the uncontrolled right to decide What laws deserve that character, is to give the power of resisting all laws. For, as by the theory, there is no appeal, the reasons alleged by the State, good or bad, must prevail. If it should be said that public opinion is a suflicient check against the abuse of this power, it may be asked why it is not deemed a suffi- cient guard against the passage of an unconstitutional act by Con- gress. There is, however, a restraint in this last case, which makes the assumed power of a State more indefensible, and plwhich does not exist in the other. There are two appeals from anunconstitu— tional act passed by Congress---one to the judiciary, the other tothe people and the States. There is no appeal lfromther State decision in theory; and the practical illustration shows that the courts are closed against an application to review it, both judges and jurors being sworn to decide in its favor. But reasoning on this subject is superfluous, when our social compact in express terms declares, that the laws of the United States, its Constitution, and treaties a made under it, are the supreme law of the land; and for greater ~ caution adds, “that the judges in every State shall be bound there- by, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the con- trary notwithstanding.” And itimay be asserted, without fear of refutation, that no ‘ federative government could exist without a IOO J.A.CKSON’S PROOLAMATION IN 1882. similar provision. Look, for a moment, to the consequence. If South Carolina considers the revenue laws unconstitutional, and has a right to prevent their execution in the port of Charleston, there would be a clear constitutional objection to their collection in every other port, and no revenue could be collected anywhere; for all imposts must be equal. It is no answer to repeat that an unconstitutional law is no law, so long as the question of its legal- ity is to be decided by the State itself; for every law operating injui-iously upon any local interest will be perhaps thought, and certainly represented, as unconstitutional, and, as has been shown, there is no appeal. “If this doctrine had been established at an earlier day, the Union would have been dissolved in its infancy. The excise law in Penn- sylvania, the embargo and non-intercourse law in the Eastern States, the carriage tax inVirginia, were all deemed unconstitu- tional, and were more unequal in their operation than any of the laws now complained of; but, fortunately, none of those States discovered that they had the right now claimed by South Carolina. The war into which we were forced, to support the dignity of the nation and the rights of our citizens, might have ended in defeat and disgrace, instead of victory and honor, if the States, who sup- posed it a ruin.ous and unconstitutional measure, had thought they possessed the right of nullifying the act by which it was declared, » and denying supplies for its prosecution. Hardly and unequally as these measures b'ore upon several members of the Union, to the legislatures of none did this efficient and peaceable remedy, as it is called, suggest itself. The discoveryof this important feature in our Constitution was reserved to the present day. To the states- men of South Carolina belongs the invention, and upon the citizens of that State will, unfortunately, fall the evils of reducing it to practice. ‘ i If the doctrine of a State veto upon the laws of the Union car- ries with it internal evidence of its impracticable absurdity, our eonstitutional history will also afford abundant proof that it would have been repudiated with indignation had it been proposed to ‘form a feature in our government. ‘ . In our colonial state, although dependent on another power, we very early considered ourselves as connected by common interest with each‘ other. Leagues were formed for common defense, and before. the Declaration of Independence, we were known in our aggregate character as the United Colonies of America. That de- Jacnsotrs PROCLAMATION IN 1332. 101 cisive and iniportant step was taken jointly. We declared our- selves a nation by a joint, not by several acts; and when the terms " of our confederation were reduced to form, it was in that of a solemn league of several States, by which they agreed that they Would, col- lectively, form one nation, for the purpose of conducting some cer- tain domestic concerns, and all foreign relations. In the instrument - forming that Union, is found an article which declares that “every State shall abide by the determinations of Congress on all ques- tions vvhich by that Confederation should be submitted to them.” Under the Confederation, then, no State could legally annul a decision of the Congress, or refuse to submit to its execution; but no provision was made to enforce these decisions. Congress made requisitions, but they Were not complied with. The government could not operate on individuals. They had no judiciary, no means of collecting revenue. ‘ But the defects of the Confederation need not be detailed. Under its operation We could scarcely be called a nation. We had neither prosperity at home nor consideration abroad. This state of things could not be endured, and our present happy Constitution was formed, but formed in vain, if this fatal doctrine prevails. It was formed for important objects that are announced in the preaxnble made in the name and by the authority of the people of the United States, Whose delegates framed,_ and Whose conventions approved, it. it The most important among these objects, that which is placed first in rank, on which all the others rest, is “ to form ct more per- fect Um'on.” Now, it is possible that, even if there were no ex- press provision giving supremacy to the Constitution and laws of the United States over those of the States, it can be conceived that an instrument made for the purpose of “fo¢*m£72.g at more per- feet lfmion” than that of the confederation, could be so constructed by the assembled wisdom of our country as to substitute for that _ confederation a form of government, dependent for its existence on the local interest, the party spirit of a State, or of a prevailing faction in a State? Every man, of plain, unsophisticated under- standing, Who hears the question, will give such an answer as will preserve the Union. Metaphysical subtlety, in pursuit of an _im-- practicable theory, could alone have devised one that is calculated to destroy it. , I consider, then, the power to annul a law of the United States, “assumed by one State, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the '0oe.zst7Itutto7z, unauthow 102 i Jacnsorrs rnoonanarxon IN 1832. iced by its wirit, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded, and clestructioc of the great object for which it wars/‘armed. After this general view of the leading principle, we must examine the particular application of it which is made in the ordinance. The preamble rests its justification on these grounds: It assumes as a fact, that the obnoxious laws, although they purport to be laws for raising revenue, were in reality intended for the protection of manufactures, which purpose it asserts to be unconstitutional; that the operation of these laws is unequal; that the amount raised by them is greater than is required by the wants of the govern» ment; and, finally, that the proceeds are to be applied to objects unauthorized by the Constitution. These are the only causes alleged to justify an open opposition to the laws of the country, and a threat of seceding from the Union, if any attempt should be made to enforce them. The fix-st virtually acknowledges that the law in question was passed under a power expressly given by the Con- stitution, to lay and collect imposts; but its constitutionality is drawn in question from the motives of those who passed it. How- ever apparent this purpose may be in the present case, nothing can be more dangerous than to admit the position that an uncon- stitutional purpose, entertained by the members who assent to a law enacted under a constitutional power, shall make that law void; for how is that purpose to be ascertained? Who is to ‘make the scrutiny? How often may bad purposes be falsely imputed? In how many cases are they concealed by false professions? In how many is no declaration of motive made? Admit this doctrine, and you give to the States an uncontrolled right to decide, and every, law may be annulled under this pretext. If, therefore, the absurd . and dangerous doctrine should be admitted, that a State may annul an unconstitutional law, or one that it deems such, it will not apply to the present case. The next objection is, that the laws in question operate une- qually. This objection may be made with truth to every law that has been or can be passed. The Wisdom of man never yet con- trived a system of taxation that would operate with perfect equal- ity. If the unequal operation of a law makes it unconstitutional, and if all laws of that description may be abrogated by any State for that cause, then, indeed, is the federal Constitution unworthy of the slightest eiibrt for its preservation. We have hitherto relied on it as the perpetual bond of our Union. We have received it as the work of the assembled wisdom of the nation. We have Jaonsows rnoonanarron IN 1332. 103 trusted to it as to the sheet—anchor of our safety, in the stormy times of conflictwith a foreign or domestic foe. We have looked to it with sacred awe as the palladium of our liberties, and with all the solemnities of religion have pledged to each other our lives and fortunes here, and our hopes of happiness hereafter, in its defense and support. ‘Were We mistaken, my countrymen, in attaching this importance to the Constitution of our country? Was our de- votion paidto the wretched, inefficient, clumsy contrivanoe, which i this new doctrine would make it? Did We pledge ourselves to the support of an airy nothing---a bubble that must be blown away by the fl1‘Sl3 breath of disaifection? Was this self-destroying, visionary theory the Work of the profound statesmen, the exalted patriots, to whom the task of constitutional reform was intrusted? Did the name of Washington sanction, did the States deliberately ratify, such an anomaly in the history of fundamental legislation? No. We were not mistaken. The letter of this great instrument is free from this radical fault; its language directly contradicts the impu- tation; its spirit, its evident intent, contradicts it. No, We did not err. Our Constitution does not contain the absurdity of giv- ing power to make laws, and another power to resist them. The sages, whose memory will always be reverenced, have given us a practical, and, as they hoped, a permanent constitutional compact. The Father of his Country did not affix his revered name to so pal- pable an absurdity. Nor did the States, when they severally rati- fied it, do so under the impression that a veto on the laws of the United States was reserved to them, or that they could exercise it by application. Search the debates in all their conventions---exante me the speeches of the most zealous opposers of federal author-~ ity——~look at the amendments that were proposed. They arerall silent--not a syllable uttered, not a vote given, not a motion made, to correct the explicit supremacy given , to thejlavvs of the Union over those of the States, or to show that implication, as is now contended, could defeat it. No, We have not erred! The Consti- tution is still the object of our reverence, the bond of our union, our defenseiin danger, the source of our prosperity in peace. It shall descend, as We have received it, uncorrupted by sophistical construction,!to our posterity; and the sacrifices of local interest, of State prejudices, of personal animosities, that were made to bring it ‘ into existence, will again be patriotically olfered for its support. , i p ‘ p The two remaininggobjeotions made by the ordinance to these 104 JA.CKSON’S PROCLAMATION IN 1332. laws are, that the sums intended to be raised by them are greater than are required, and that the proceeds will be unconstitutionally employed. The Constitution has given expressly to Congress the right of raising revenue, and of determining the sum the public exigences will require. The States have no control over the exer— cise of this right other than that which results from the power of changing the representatives who abuse it, and thus procure redress, Congress may undoubtedly abuse this discretionary power, but the same may be said of others with Which they are vested. Yet the discretion must exist somewhere. The Constitution has given it to the representatives of all the people, checked by the representatives of the States, and by the executive power. The South Carolina construction gives it to the legislature,» or the convention of a single State, where neither the people of the different States, nor the States in their separate capacity, nor the chief magistrate elected by the people, have any representation. Which is the most dis- creet disposition of the power? I do not ask you, fel1oW—citizens, C which is the constitutional disposition—--that instrument speaks a language not to be misunderstood. But if you were assembled in general convention, which would you think the safest depository of this discretionary power in the last resort? ~ Would you add a clause giving it to each of the States, or would you sanction the wise provisions already made by your Constitution? If this should be the result of your deliberations when providing for the future, are . you—~---can you—-be ready to risk all that We hold dear, to establish, for a temporary and a local purpose, that which you must acl:nowl- edge to be destructive, and event absurd, ‘as a general provision? Carry out the consequences of this right vested in the difibrent States, and you must perceive that the crisis your conduct presents at this day Would recur Whenever any law of the United States displeased any of the States, and that «-we should soon cease to be a nation. . r The ordinance, with the same knowledge of the future that char- acterizesa former objection, tells you that the proceeds of the tax will be unconstitutionally applied. If this could be ascertained with certainty, the obj ection Would, with more propriety, be re- served for the law so applying the proceeds, but surely can not be urged against the laws levying the duty. These are the allegations contained in the ordinance. Examine them seriously, my fellow-citizens——judge for yourselves. I appeal to you to determinewhether they are so_ clear, so convincing, as to JACKSON’S PROCLAMATION IN 1832. 105 leave no doubt of their correctness; and even if you should come to this conclusion, how far they justify the reckless, destructive course Which you are directed to pursue. Review these objections, S and the conclusions drawn from them once more. What are they? Every law, then, for raising revenue, according to the South Caro- lina ordinance, may be rightfiilly annulled, unless it be so framed as no law ever will or can be framed. Congress have a right to pass laws for raising revenue, and each Statehas a right to oppose their execution—--two rights directly opposed to eachother; and yet - is this absurdity supposed to be contained in an instrument drawn for the express purpose of avoiding collisions between the States and the general government, by an assembly of the most enlight- ened statesmen and purest patriots ever embodied for a similar pur- pose. .. In vain have these sages declared that Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and ezrcises--—-in vain have they provided that they shall have power to pass laws which shall be necessary and proper to carry those powers into execution, that those laws and that Constitution shall be the “ supremelaw of the land; and that the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” In vain have the people of the several States solemnly sanctioned these provisions, made them, their paramount law, and individually sworn to support them whenever they were called on to execute any office. i Vain provisions! Ineffectual-restrictionsI Vile profanation of ‘ oaths! Miserable mockery of legislation! S If a bare majority of the voters in any one State may, on a real or supposed knowledge of the intent with which a law has been passed, declarethernselves free from its operation——-say here it gives too little, there too much, and operates unequally——-hereit suffers articles to be free that ought to be taxed, there it tastes thosethat ought to be free-—-—in this case the proceeds are intended to be applied to purposes which we do not approve, in that the amount raised is more than is wanted. Congress, it is true, are invested by the Constitution with the right of deciding these questions according to their sound discretion. Congress is composed of the representatives of all theStates, and oi‘ all the people of all the States; but we, part of the people of i one State, to whom the Constitution has given no power on the subject, from whom it has expressly taken it away-—wc; who have solemnly agreed that this Constitutionshall be our rlaw—i—-we, most 106 J.A.CKSON’S rnolcnmarron IN 1332. of whom have sworn to support it——we now abrogate this law, and swear, and force others to swear, that it shall not be obeyed—- and We do this, not because Congress have no right tb pass such laws; this we do not allege; but because they have passed them with improper views. They are unconstitutional from the motives of those who passed them, which We can never with certainty know, from their unequal operation; although it is impossible from the nature of things that they should be equal-—and from the dis- position which We presume may be made of their proceeds, although that disposition has not been declared. This is the plain meaning of the ordinance in relation to laws which it abrogates for alleged '*unconstitutionality. But it does not stop here. It repeals, in ex- press terms, an important part of‘ the Constitution itself, and of laws passed to give it efifect, which have never been alleged to be unconstitutional. The Constitution declares that the judicial powers of the United States extend to cases arising under the laws of the United States, and that such laws the Constitution and treaties shall be paramount to the State constitutions and laws. The judi- ciary act prescribes the mode by which“ the case may be brought before a court of the United States, by appeal, when a State tribunal shall decide against this provision of the Constitution. The ordi- nance declares there shall be no appeal; makes the State law para-U , mount to the Constitution and laws of the United States; forces judges and jurors to swear that they will disregard their provisions; and even makes it penal in a suitor to attempt relief by appeal. It further declares that it shall not be lawful for the authorities of the United States, or of that State, to enforce the payment of duties imposed by the revenue laws within its limits. ' Here is a law of the United States, not even pretended to be un- constitutional, repealed by the authority of a small majority of the voters of a single State. Here is a provision of the Constitu- tion which is solemnly abrogated by the same authority. On such expositions and reasonings, the ordinance grounds not only an assertion of the right to annul the laws of which it 00111- plains, but to enforce it by a threat of seceding from the Union, if any attempt is made to execute them. This right to secede isdeduced from the nature of the Constitu- tion, which they say isa compact between sovereign States, who have preserved their whole sovereignty, and therefore are subject to no ‘superior; that because they made the con:1pact,.they can break it when in their opinion it has been departed from by the J'ACKSON’S PROCLAMATION IN 2832. 107 other States. Fallacious as this course of reasoning is, it enlists State pride, and finds advocates in the honest prejudices of those who have not studied the nature of our government snfiieiently to see the radical error on which it rests. The people of the United States formed the Constitution, acting through the State legislatures, in making the compact, to meet and discuss its provisions, and acting in separate conventions when they ratified those provisions; but the terms used in its construction show it to be a government in which the people of all the States collectively are represented. We are our. rnornn in the choice of the President and Vice-President. Here the States have no other :age‘ncy than to direct the mode in which the votes shall be given. The candidates having the majority of all the votes are chosen. The electors of a majority of States may have given their votes for ‘ one candidate, and yet another may be chosen. The people, then, and not the States, are represented in the executive branch. In the House of Representatives there is this difference, that the people of one State do not, as in the case of President and Vice- President, all vote for all the members, each State electing only its own representatives. But this creates no material distinction. When chosen, they are all representatives of the United States, not representatives of the particular State from which they come. They are paid by the United States, not by the State; nor are they accountable to it for any act done in performance of their legisla- tive functions; and however they may in practice, as it is their duty to do, consult and prefer the interests of their particular con- stituents when they come in conflict with any other partial or local interest, yet it is their first and higliest duty, as representatives of the United States, to promote the general good. ‘ The Gen-stitution of the United States, then, forms a govmzment, not a league, and whether it he formed by compact between the States, or in any other manner, its character is the same. It is a government in which all the people are represented, which operates directly on the people individually, not- upon the States; they re- tained all the power they did not grant. But each State liaviiig expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute jointly with the other States a single nation,'can not from that period possess any right to secede, becausesuch secession does not break a league, but ~ destroys the unity of a nation, and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a corn- pact, but it is an offense against the whole Union. To say that any 1Q8 JACKSOIWS PROGLAMATION IN 1832. State may at pleasure secede from the Union, is to say that the United States are not a nation; because it would be a solecisrn to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve its connection with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, Without committing any ofi"ense. Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right, is confoiindiiig the meaning of terms, and can only be done through gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution, or incur the penalties consecpieiit upon a failure. Because the Union was formed by compact, it is said the parties to that compact may, when they feel tliemselves aggi-ievecl, depart from it; but it is precisely because it is a compact that they can not. A compact is a11iap;1~eement or binding obligation. It may by its terms have a sanction or penalty for its breach, or it may not. If it contains no sanction, it may be broken with no other conse- quence than moral guilt; if it have a sanction, then the breach incurs the designated or implied penalty. A league between inde- pendent nations, ge11e1~ally, has no sanction other than a moral one; or if it should contain a penalty, as there is no common superior, it can not be enforced. A government, on the contrary, always has a sanction, express or implied;, and, in our case, itis both necessarily implied and expressly given. An attempt by force of arms to dc» stroy a government is an oiE'f'e11se, by Whatever means the constitu- tional compact may have been for-need; and such government has the 1'ig;l1t, by the law of self-defense, to pass acts for punishing the offender, unless that 1*ight is modified, restrained, or resumed by the constitutional act. In our system, altliough it is modified in the case of treason, yet authority is expressly given to pass all laws necessary to carry its powers into eiiect, and under this grant pro»- vision has been made for punishing acts which obstruct the due administration of the laws. , It vvould seem superfluous to add anything to show the nature of that union which connectsus; but as erroneous. opinions on this subject are the foundation of doctrines the most destructive to our peace, I must give some further development to my views on this subject. No one, fellovv- citizens, has a higher reverence for the reserved rights of the States than the magistrate who now addresses you. No one would make greater personal sacrifices, or official exertions, to defend them from violation; but equal care must be taken to prevent, on their part, an improper inter- Jaorzsoivs rnoonamarron IN 1332. 109 ference with, or resumption of, the rights they have vested in the nation. The line has not been so distinctly drawn as to avoid doubts in some cases of the exercise of power. Men of the best‘ intentions and soundest views may difiier in their construction of some parts of the Constitution; but there are others on which dispassionate reflection can leave no doubt. Of this nature ap- pears to be the assumed right of secession. It rests, as We have seen, on the alleged undivided sovereignty of the States, and of their having formed in this sovereign capacity a compact which is called the Constitution, from which, because they made it, they have the right to secede. Both of these positions are erroneous, and some of the arguments to prove them so have been antici- pated. The States severally have not retained their entire sovereignty. It has been shown that in becoming parts of a nation, not mem- bers of a league, they surrendered many of their essential parts of sovereignty. The right to rnalze treaties, declare War, levy taxes, exercise exclusive judicial and legislative powers, were all functions of sovereign power. The States, then, for. all these im- portant purposes, were no longer sovereign. The allegiance of their citizens was transferred in the first instance to the govern- ment of the United States; they became American citizens, and cured obedience to the Constitution of the United States, and to laws made in conforrnity with the powers vested in Congress. This last position has not been, and can not be, denied. How, then, can that State be said to be sovereign and independent whose citizens‘ owe obedience to laws not made by it, and Whose magistrates are sworn to disregard those laws, when they come in-confiict with those passed by another? What shows conclu- sively that the States can not be said to hav_e reserved an un- divided sovereignty, is that they expressly ceded the right to pun- ish treason—-not treason against their separate power, but treason against the United States. Treason is an otfense against sovereignty, and sovereignty must reside with the povverto punish it. But the reserved rights of the States are not less sacred because they have for their common interest made the general government the de- , pository of these powers. The unity of our political character (as has been shown for another purpose) commenced with its very existence. Under the royal government we had no separate char- acter; our opposition to its oppression began as UNITED oororntas. We were the Uivnrzen Srnrns under the Confederation, and the .t in 110 JAOKSOl.\T’B rnoonanzarrronr IN 1832. name was perpetuated and the Union rendered more perfect by the federal Constitution. In none of these stages did we consider r ourselves in any other light than as forming one nation. Treaties and alliances were made in the name of all. Troops were raised for__the joint defense. How, then, with all these proofs, that under all changes of our position we had, for designated purposes and with defined powers, created national governments-9--how is it that the most perfect of these several modes of union should now be considered as a mere league that may be dissolved at pleasure? It is from an abuse of terms. Compact is used as synonymous with league, although the true term is not employed, because it would at once show the fallacy of the reasoning. It would not do to say that our Constitution was only a league, but it is labored to prove it a compact (which, in one sense, it is), and then to argue that as a league is a compact, every compact between nations must, of course, be a league, and that from such an engagement every sovereign power has a right to recede. But it has been shown that in this sense the States are not sovereign, and that even if they were, and the national Constitution had been formed by com- pact, there would be no right in any one State to exonerate itself from the obligation. " ' ” So obvious are the .reasons which forbid this secession, that it is necessary only to allude to them. The Union was formed for the benefit of all. It was produced by mutual sacrifice of interest and opinions. Can those sacrifices be recalled? Can the States, who magnanimonsly surrendered their title to the territories of the West, recall the grant? Will the inhabitants of the inland States agree to pay the duties that may be imposed Without their assent by those on the Atlantic or the Gulf, for their own benefit? Shall there be a free port in one State, and enormous duties in another? No one believes that any right exists in a single State to involve all the others in these and countless other evils, contrary to engagements solemnly made. Every one must see that the other States, in self- defense, must oppose it at all hazards. These arethe alternatives that are presented by the convention :' A repeal of all the acts for raising revenue, leaving the govern- ment without the means of support; or an acquiesce in the disso— lution of our Union by the secession of one of its members. When the first was proposed, it was known that it could not be listened. to for a moment. It was known if force was applied to oppose the execution of the laws, that it must be repelled by force-——that Con» JACKSOWS PROCLAMATION IN 1832. 111 ' gross could not, without involving itself in disgrace and the country in ruin, accede to the proposition; and yet if this is not done in a given day, or if any attempt is made to execute the laws, the State‘ is, by the ordinance, declared to be out of the Union. The major- ity of a convention assembled for the purpose have dictated these _ terms, or rather this rejection of all terms, in the name of the people of South Carolina. It is true that the governor of the State speaks of the submission of their grievances to a convention of all the States; which, he says, they “sincerely and anxiously seek and desire.” Yet this obvious and constitutional mode of obtaining the sense of the other States on the construction of the federal compact, and amending it, if necessary, has never been attempted by those who have urged the State on to this destructive measure. The State might have proposed a call for a general convention to the other States, and Congress, if a suflicient number of them concurred, must have called it. But the first magistrate of South Carolina, ‘when he expressed a hope tha, “on a review by Congress and the functionaries of the general government of the merits of the controversy,” such a convention will be accorded to them, must have known that neither Congress, nor any functionary in the general government, has authority to call such a convention, unless it he demanded by two thirds of the States. This suggestion, then, is another instance of the reckless inattention to the provisi- ions of the Constitution with which this crisis has been madly hur- ried on; or of the attempt to persuade the people that a constituu tional remedy has been sought and refused. If the legislature of South Carolina “anxiously desire” a general convention to con- sider their eomplaints, why have they not made application for it in the way the Constitution points out? The assertion that they “earnestly seek” it is completely negatived by the omission. This, then, is the position in which we stand. Asrnall niajority of the citizens of one State in the Union have elected delegates to a State convention: that convention has ordained that all the revenue laws of the United States must be repealed, or that they are no longer a member of the Union. The governor of that State has recommended to the legislature the raising of an army to carry the secession into efiect, and that he maybe empowered to give clearances to vessels in the name of the State. No act of violent opposition to the laws has yet been committed, but such a state of things is hourly apprehended, find it is the intent of this instrument to PROOLAIM, not only that the duty imposed on me by the Consti- 112 JACKSONS PROCLAMATION IN 1832. tution, “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” shall be performed to the extent of the powers already vested in rue by law, or of such o-thers as the wisdom of Congress shall devise and intrust to me for that purpose ; but to warn the citizens of South Carolina, who have been deluded into an opposition to the laws, of the danger they will incur by obedience to the illegal and disor- ganizing ordinance of the convention-—to exhort those who have‘ refused to support it to persevere in their deterrnination to uphold the Constitution and laws of their country, and to point out to all the perilous situation into which the good people of that State have been led, and that the course they are urged to pursue is one of ruin and disgrace to the very State Whose rig,rhts they afiect to support. Fellow—citizens of my native State I let me not only admonish you, as the first magistrate of our common country, not to incur the pen- alty of its laws, but use the influence that a father would over his children whom he saw r11sl"ii,11g to a certain ruin. In that paternal laugiiage, with that paternal feel.ii1g, l.et me tell you, my country-— men, that you are deluded by men who are either deceived them» selves or Wish to deceive you. Marla: under "What pretenses you have been. led on to the brink of insurrection and treason on which you stand! First a diininution of the value of our staple commod- ity, lowered by over—-production in other quarters and the conse- quent diminution in the value of your lands, were the sole effect of the tariff laws. The effect of those laws was confessedly injuri- ous, but the evil was greatly ex:igge1'atecl by the unfounded theory you were taiiglit to believe, that its burdens were in proportion to your exports, not to your consuniption of imported articles. Your pride was roused by the assertions that a submission to these laws was a state of vassalage, and that resistance to them was equal, in patriotic ntierit, to the opposition our fathers ofi‘ered to the op- pressive laws of C~lreat l3ritain. You were told that this opposition might be peace.-:1.bly—1iii,s,;;l“it be constitutionally made»-—that you niiglit enjoy all the advailitages of the Union and hear none of its burdens. Eloqueut appe. ls to your passions, to your State pride, to your native courage, to your sense of real injury, were used to prepare you for the period when the rnasl; which concealed the hideous features of nrsumou should be l3£tl{e11 ofi‘. It fell, and you Were made to look with complacency on objects which not long since you would have regarded with horror. Look back to the arts which have brought you to this State-—-look forward to the J.A.OKSON’S PROGLAMLATION IN 1882. 113 consequences to which it must inevitably lead! Look back to What was first told you as an inducement to enter into this dan- gerous course. The great political truth was repeated to you that you had therevolutionary right of resisting all laws that were pal- pably unconstitutional and intolerably oppressive—it was added that the right to nullify alawv rested on the same principle, but i that it was a peaceable remedy! This character which was given to it, made you receive with too much confidence the assertions that were made of the unconstitutionality of the law and its oppress- ive efi"ects. Mark, my felloW—citizens, that by the admission of your leaders the unconstitutionality must be palpable, or it will justify either resistance or nullification! What is the meaning of the Word palpa-ble in the sense in which it is here used ?~—-that which is apparent to every one, that which no man of ordinary intellect will fail to ‘perceive. Is the unconstituticnality of these laws of that description? Let those among your leaders who once approved and advocated the principles of protective duties, answer the ques- tion; and let them choose whether they will be considered as in- capable, then, of perceiving that which must have been apparent to every man of common understanding, or as imposing upon our confidence and endeavcring to mislead you now. In either case, they are unsafe guides in the perilous path they urge you to tread. Ponder Well on this circumstance, and you will know how to ap- preciate the exaggerated language they address to you. They are not cliaznpions of liberty emulating the fame of our Revolutionary fathers, nor are you an oppressed people, contending, as they repeat to you, against worse than colonial vassalage. You are free mem- bers of a iiourishing and happy Union. There is no settled design to oppress you. You have, indeed, felt the unequal operation of laws which may have beenunwisely, not nnconstitutionally passed ; but that inequality must necessarily be removed. At the very mo» ment when you were madly urged on to the unfortunate course you have begun, a change in public opinion has commenced. The nearly approaching payment of the public debt, and the consequent necessity of a diniinution of duties, had already caused a consider- able reduction, and that, too, on some articles of general consump- tion in your State. The importance of this change was underrated, and you were authoritatively told that no further alleviation of your burdens was to be expected, at the very time when the con- dition of the country iniperiously deinanded such a modification of the duties as should reduce them to a just and equitable scale. 114 i , JAGKSONS PROCLAMATION IN 1882. But, as apprehensive of the effect of this change in allaying your discontents, you were precipitated into a fearful state in which you now find yourselves. I have urged you to look back to the means that were used to hurry you on to the position you have now assumed, and forward to the consequences it will produce. Something more is necessary. Oontemplate the condition of that country of which you still form an important part; consider its government uniting in one bond of common interest and general protection so many different States ---giving to all their inhabitants the proud title of AMERICAN CITI- znn---protecting their commerce—-securing their literature and arts --—facilitating their intercommunicationwdefending their frontiers--- and making their name respected in the remotest parts of the earth! Consider the extent of its territory, its increasing and happy popu- lation, its advance in arts, which render life agreeable, and the sciences which elevate the mind! See education spreading the lights of religion, morality, and general information into every cottage in this wide extent of our Territories and States! Belipld it as the asylum Where the wretched and the oppressed find a refuge and support! Look on this picture of happiness and honor, and say, WE, T00, ans cnrrzmvs or Amnmoa--m-Ca1‘olina is one of these proud States her arms have defended—--her best blood has cemented this happy Union! And then add, if you can, without horror and remorse, this happy Union We will dissolvemthis picture of peace and prosperity we will deface--this free intercourse We will inter»- rupt-—--these fertile fields We will deluge with hlood—-—the protec- tion of that glorious flag we renounce——--the very name of Ameri- cans we discard. And for what, mistaken men I o For what do you throw away these inestimable blessings-—for What Would you ex- change your share in the advantages and honor of the Union? For the dream of a separate independence---a dream interrup'ted by bloody conflicts with your neighbors, and a vile dependence on a foreign power. Self your leaders could succeed in establishing a separation, What would be your situation? Are you united at home-—-are you free from the apprehension of civil discord, with all its fearful consequences? Do our neighboring republics, every day suffering somenew revolution or contending With some new insur:rection—do they excite your envy? But the dictates of a. high duty oblige me solemnly to announce that you can not succeed. The laws of the United States must be executed. I have no dis— cretionary power on the subj_ect—-—-my duty is emphatically pro- JAOKSOl\T’S PROCLAMATION IN 1882. 115 i nounced in the Constitution. Those who told you that you might peaceably prevent their execution, deceived you--—they could not have been deceived themselves. They know that a forcible op- position could alone prevent the execution of the laws, and they know that such opposition must be repelled. Their object is dis- union; but be not deceived by names; disunion, by armed force, is rnnason. Are you really ready to incur its guiltiw If you are, on the head of the instigators of the act be the dreadful conse- quences»-—~on their heads be the dishonor, but on yours may fall the punishment-—-on your unhappy State will inevitably fall all the evils of the conflict you force upon the government of your country. It ‘can not accede to the mad project of disunion of which you would he the first victims---—its first magistrate can not, if he would avoid the performance of his duty—-—-«the consequence must be fearful for you, distressing to your fellow-citizens here, and to the friends of good government throughout the world. Its enemies have beheld our prosperity with a vexation they could not conceal——it was a standing refutation of ' their slavish doctrines, and they will point to our discord with the triumph of malignant joy. It is yet in your powerto disappoint them. There is yet time to show that the descendants of the Pinckneys, the Sumpters, the Rutledges, and of the thousand other names which adorn the pages of your revo- lutionary history, will not abandon that Union to support which so many of them fought and bled and died. I adjure you, as you honor their xnemory——-as you love the cause of freedom, to which they dedicated their lives--—-as you prize the peace of your country, the lives of its best citizens, and your own fair fame, to retrace your steps. Snatch from the archives of your State the disorgan-~ izipg edict of its convientionm-bid its members to reassemble and promulgate the decided expressions of your will to remain in the path which alone can conduct you to safety, prosperity, and honor ----tell them that compared to disunion, all other evils are light, be- cause that brings with it an accumulation of all?-—declare that you will never take the field unless the star-spangled banner of your country shall float over you---that you will not be stigmatized when dead, and dishonored and scorned while you live, as the authors of the first attack on the Constitution of your country 1-——-its cle- stroyers you can not be. You may disturb its peace—--you may in- terrupt the course of its prosperity--you may cloud its reputa- tion for stability--but its tranquillity will be restored, its prosperity Will return, and the stain upon its national character will be trans- 116 JA.0I*ISOl.\T’S PROGLAMATION IN 1882. ferred and remain an eternal blot on the memory of those who caused the disorder. a Fellow-citizens of the United States! the threat of unhallowed disunion---the names of those, once respected, by whom it is ut- tered—-—the array of military force to support it--denote the ap~ preach of a crisis in our affairs on which the continuance of our unexampled prosperity, our political existence, and perhaps that of all free governments, may depend. The conjuneture demanded a free, a full, and explicit enunciation, not only of my intentions, but of my principles of action; and as the claim was asserted of a right by a State to annul the laws of the Union, and even to secede from it at pleasure, a frank exposition of my opinions in relation to the origin and form of our government, and the construction I give to the instrument by which it was created, seemed to be proper. Having the fullest confidence in the justness of the legal and constitutional opinion of my duties which has been expressed, I, rely with equal confidence on your undivided support in my i determination to ezvrecute the laws-—-to preserve the Union by all constitutional means---«to arrest, if possible, by moderate but firm measures, the necessity of a recourse to force; and, if it be the will of Heaven that the recurrence of its primeval curse on man for the shedding of a brother’s blood should fall upon our land, that it be not called down by any offensive act on the part of the United States; ‘Fellow-citizens! the momentous case is before you. On your undivided support of your government depends the decision of the great question it involves, whether your sacred Union will be preserved, and the blessing it secures to us as one people shall be perpetuated. No one can doubt that the unanimity w'th which that decision will be expressed, will be such as to inspire new confidence in republican institutions, and that the pru- dence, , the fwisdom, and the con1~age which it will bring to theirpdefense, will transmit them unimpaired and invigorated to our children. s ‘ May the Great Ruler of nations grant that the signal bless» ings with which He has favored ours may not, by the madness of party, or personal ambition, be disregarded and lost, and may His Wise providence bring those who have produced this crisis to see the folly, before they feel the misery, of civil strife, and inspire a returning veneration ibr that Union which, if We may dare to penetrate llis desigiis, He has chosen, as the only JACKSOIWS PROCLAMATION IN 1832. 117 means of attaining the high destiniestto which We may reason- ably aspire. In testimony whereof, I h:.we caused the seal of the United States to be hereunto affixed, having signed the same with my hand. Done at the City of Washington, this 10th. day of December, in ‘ the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty-two, and of the independence of the United States the fifty-seventh. ANDREW JACKSON. By the President. "Emv. Lxvmeson, Secretary of State. HUME INSURANGE EUMPANY OF NEVV YORK. OFFICE, 112 & 114» BROADWAY. This Company continues to insure Buildings, Fufniture, etc., against Loss or Damage by Fire, on favorable terms. Cash Capital . . . . . . . . . ..One Million D011,-3,1-5<,_ Assets, July 1, 1860 .......... . $1,481,819.27 Liabi1ities.. ................ .. 54,058.67 DIRECTORS. WILLIAM G. L.A.1\II3IDR'I‘, GEORG~E C. COLLINS, DANFORD N. BARNEY, Imroxus I{oI>IIINs, THOMIAS MI:ssIIIIc:~IIII, WILLIAM H. MELLEN, CHARLES J. MA.R'L‘IN', CHARLES B. I'IA’1.‘C}1-I, B. WA'DSON BULL, Homm Moncmx, LEVI P. Szvoma, J AMES HUMPIIREY, Grxaono-In PEARCE, WARD A. Womc, JAMES Low, A. J. WILLS, WILLIAM H. TowNsIINI), I. II. FROTIIINGIIAM, CHARLES A. BULKLEY, RICHARD BIcIIILoW,% GEORGE D. LIOIICILN, TIIIJO. MONAMEE, GIIpII_A.s H. N omen, OLIVER E. W001), ALFRED S. BARNES, GIIOIICIL BLISS, Rom Looxwoon, LEVI P. MOB/I‘O1\T, CURTIS NOBLE, J oxm B. 1?IU'IoIIII~Iso1~I, SAMUEL B. CALDWELL, 014I.A.RLT3S P. BALDWIN, Amos D. DWIGLIT, H. A. I-IUIILIIUI, Jmssn Hoycv, WILLIAM STURGIS, JR. J OIIN R.Fo1m, Gmonssra T. STEDMAN, SIDNEY MASON? A. F. WILMARTH, CYRUS YALE, J11, F. II. Cossms, W. R. FOSIDIOK, DAVID I. Born, Lmwrs Roxmms. CHARLES ‘J. MARTIN, P're.9I'dent. A. F. WILMARTH, T77£ce—P9*e.sI'dent. J. MILTON SMITH, Secretary. JOHN MOGIIE, Assistant Secmtarj. Atses CATHABTIC PILLS, FOR. THE CURE OF‘ Costiveness, Jeundiee, Dyspepsia, Indigestion, Dysentery, Foul Stomach, Erysipe1a.s,_I+Ieag1aehe, Piles, Rheuma- tism, Eruptions and Skm D1seases, Liver Gem- plaint, Dropsy, Tetter, Tumors and Salt Rheum, Worms, Gout, N enre.1g1a., as a Dinner Fill, and for Purifyi-ng‘ the Blood. ._..._....... ..... .._.fi....¢_“g Are you sick, feeble, and cox:np1:Lin_in_:_,r? A re you out oI"o1°de1', with your system deranged, end 3_ro111' fee1j‘ngs nnc()1n1o1'tob1e ?_ These _symptoms are often the pre. Jude to serneus 1l1ness. home I1t_ of sxelmess 1s creep1ngnpo11 you, and should be everted by it mmely use of the 1'1,r_,rI_1t reznedy. "l‘nke AS Inlt’S 1_’ILLS, end cleanse out the clisordered hnmors, pu1'1tyt11eb1omf1, and let the fluids move on nn0b- strueted in health oggmxl. They stunulete the funetaons of the body into vigorous activity, pumty the system from the ohst1'uet1ons wlneh xnnke dxseose. A cold set- tles somewhere in the hotly. end obst1'nets 1ts xmturol functions. 'l‘hese, if not re- lieved, react upon themselves and the s111'rcn1m1in;,_.2; (e>1'g:L11s, producins: general nggx'nvnti<'>x1, s11fi‘e1'ix1;:, end glisense. While in this condition, oppressed by the de- rmngexnents, take AY]+31t‘t% [’ILLii3, and see how (.Iix'eet1y'they 1'estore the 1mt.1.n'e1 notion of the system, and with _1t‘ the buoyant fecaling; ot.11c-.a.1th uggein. What is true and so :t1)pm'e1‘1t in thus trlvmlé _nnd £‘:(')Il‘.)I110r1'1‘ eomplolnt, 13 also trn__e In many of the deep-seated end tlstxwgex-1)<>s(e«.1 they eould reneh, hftvu been e111_'w,1 by the x'eno\'nt11'1;*_.,»' netxon of these I. 1113 }J_‘[')('.)I_1 the whole system, nod the1'esnse1tat1on thoyofio1'c1 to the ;_,rene1'n1 heallth. 1he11'"v1rtues penetmte to the t‘onnto.1ns oi’ the blood, mid thus e‘1:'t'c-.(;'.t: euros whxeh could nothe. be1ieve_L1 If they had not been }')1'ovm.1. All who use them extn see they have en_rnt1ve quell- ties equaled by n(>tIx1ng which has been known l.)el'o1‘e, end ere nstnnlslled to find §t1_'rLx]n]e§lL;x;:§11$Vttfnsaialixxfixiinilerful power over C1lS0:l.‘:‘»t3', wlneh 153 hzu'1r1less~—-pe1'fect1y n rm», ‘ ‘a mo . They are not only the best, but they are the erxnnnnsm‘ PILL there 15 told, be- cause in them the eons11me1' gc:tset11e most1'or his money. I.T_nprincip1ec1 cleztlers moy_t1'y to L11'g._re Itpcyrl y_<311 othmj Pitlhz t11ey1jnny1nnke more prolit on; but do not be nnsled. Ask for .A.&.l4.‘..I:t.‘:~$ UA'i‘lIA1:t'l‘1U J.’.1I.«Lt3, and take no others. Price £355 ca11t:=.:-3 per 1303:, on Five 13032953 for $31. From eta: _~p72x;./sic-tans Q/“ grerphice1 Sketch. 4N0. 5.-——Th.e great Sermon of Rev. A. KINGMAN N err (recently, deceased), on JESUS AND THE RESURRECTION, delivered in the Academy of Music, New , York, Februe.ry 18, 1859. No. 6.~——THE TRIBUTE TO I-IUMBOLDT. Addresses on the career of the great Cosmopolitan, by Hon. Cine. Ifimsorrorr, Rev. Dr. Trromrson, Profs. Acmssrz, Llnnnn, BACIIE ancl Grgoror. No. 7.—-—COMING‘r TO CHRIST. By Rev. HENRY 1lHIARfI.‘IN Sconnnn, M.D., D.D., Missionary to India. . No. 8.—-—EDWARD EVERETI"S ORATION at the Inarrgumtion of the Statue of Daniel Webster, at Boston, Sept. 17, 1859. No. 9.-—--A CHEERI4"‘UL TEMPER ; - a. 'l‘l1a.n1:sgiving Discourse by Rev. WM. ADAMS, I of Madison Square Olmrclx, N. Y. No. 10.-——~EDWARD Ev1mnrr’s Address, and Rev. JOHN A. 'I‘o:o:e’s Sermon on the Death of WASI-IINC~?r’.1‘ON IRVING. No. 11.-—-HON. T1"-IOMAS S. l:‘>0OOCI{’S ORATION, Address of Cosmic Mrms, Esq., Artist, and Prayer of Rev. B. H. NADAL, D.D., on the occasion of the inm1g111~etion of the Mills Statue of Washington, in the City of W’s.shing.to11, February 253., 1860. No. l:7..~—-TRAVEL, I’l‘$ PLEASUl‘tES, AD’VANTAGrES AND REQUIREMENTS. A Lecture by J (H. Srzonons, the distinguished English Lectuier. _No. 13.~—4——ITALIAN INDEPENDENCJE; Addresses by Rev. I-Inzsmv WARD Bnncrrnn, Rev. HENRY W. Bnntows, I).D., Rev. Joe. P. TI-IOMPSON, D.D., and Prof. O. M. Mrrcrrstt. Delivered in New York, Feb. 17, 1860. No. 14.-—-—~EDWARD EVERE’I"1"S FOURTH OF JULY ORATION at Boston, 1860, on “ The Success of our Republic.” . p . Beck or current numbers are promptly mailed from the office, on receipt of the price. Also, THE WONDER O13‘ MAN’S CONSTITUTION, 3. very valuable Sermon by Rev. SAM’ L T. Srmn, I).D., before the Brooklyn Young Men’s Christian Association, Feb., 1859. Price, 10 cents, pcstpaid. I-I. H. LLOYD 8: 00., Publishers, A I 1 215 HOWARD s'.r., 1-new Y.0RK; - 3,, , i S7p@@m U ,B1'c» % "§;£»""/fi Wnlhg 0 * % 6¢e‘en%wood QBV‘ *%°- 8. O ~<>. :4 Rev. 27 V $6, V W U Q~%..."___‘_ "W%};v % \ (3 pm” " #2, M V'\‘ " A »v,: 4 % w~ 3 11% J Gk .«—- ‘4 A" EW5%z5A%-MR V“ ‘T hnBi‘ge10W° 6 4 j VHear‘?*° ; A °““":*%U3 ‘A é melt“ $6 50. A V 1 11£i11d%$€511T_1é;%¢0py nf DICTIONARY, 1’W101‘i1l1% % 7; I;31ditlio:1,? V Aop:~.umuin%gA%%;,;F1:mE%1a::N % HUND1gEDA‘VA1aNG-%Imv1aD ILLUSTL1A'1‘IONE$,‘“will he ; pres%enté_%d ? m %;%a11y .p¢5I‘:s‘m:1i.%%wh0% .%wi11%?sc».mV1 t o »’1‘m: INDEPEND1;CZ\"1‘ the %n:.1:rtmsa “of _«th'1%«:u2:}uew4%%% -;Si:ér;% Do11.cm:.‘ The prior: ‘r:;f_a. ya:m' ’;~3 s11bss%cxiip%tjioz1 to , ;j f 13 1.1i; if zi1.nyfpm's;.p11%% will fake: the t1*01%zb_1 ;;3 ;t_im‘enc1;~tha%«%n:mrn£:s%%‘of W '§131*e‘:-:,+;1;3&v%*Cs1:i15s§ci%ibé;cs;75w%?tI1,1.he%f‘ii10%n. M % ‘ % jw1:ma 1:~trI31*.1sI1 - ‘=3 _ 1:; A 1" "5 “ .:.i 5 ‘ ‘I: . ‘<4 V. ,4“ M JAc»soN, A BY Af.M;.M1EE§§ %%1>A 1a.'1*<:>N.A: % A A A A A ”'1‘2xIu§:.1::%Voxn:JM1ass,% %'.;{*<*) 733% %l5’.mxcs V1«:.;w1=.1: ;; w;r.!.1r.1-I ;‘.~3'm«:xa.:A1A.:'P(§14m*:zm.1':rs; % % AA Txmlm I+I11):m(;;z~r, G1‘<:>wAnA 8V0. - I%”<~;:1'JA %v0111:tm-2, Ac:1<:>t11A%Aextm, %$1..%(f:}?A' ; I:i}._>1*a:n.1:'y s5}i£3.cm, * Sl.‘IB SC}RII1EIiS' EDITION : Sold’ Any Agmzis 092.23; (:mAd new *reacI;g/Aj"b2'A% deliwrgj 1?m),*zm1 8V0. V ‘"1381. W;,1u_me, c:l<:>th e:«ztm., £%32‘.€>Q; 1i1A;>ra_,ry $}1ee:p,_‘$8%.00; half calf, S£34;O0%; f1.11%l.czx1f,% "$35.00; fu11:x1mr0ccc>, ‘extra, a,:nf;1q11¢;+,g11t%43<1g«e:e:3, $6.00. % % A 3 % A % Th.i:~; ’VVO1‘ky}‘1{1S zxlx-early %%11:.-M1 1e2.rga Asszmlve. by :;1.1bsc:1-.i1_37éi<:;1"1, %Awhic:}:1:,_ “am: p11"li>1i$;1,m~s_:; me confident,‘ Awjlfl be mum ex:he1ide%{:1AbyI:t1me txmie edi_At%Aicsn. A113“ 1’}£1§53VA71§)€§(5:I'1 1‘eceaiwrc1%%%V1;iy % ;j1thq3.%pre:~:.s% and t]1eA\%jp111;u11<: wmh ,g*.1'(:a.t f..'-2.‘vm:_,% a. v§1g‘c:»1*‘.%1r-a, %f:éut1j;.A1:%1:11AA, a,tt1*zAL<3tA1:v<;e f1;)i<:yg*1‘a-i~A%%j%A%i%A% mm A w»m-..»¢«y\ouu-unuaanuuuu mu» mm Mar 1 ‘ FA, % ’m{;IAsI:1NA§30N J‘ L(i>S$IN(}3%. A ;A A x v A : Vo1‘;‘ 1, A dA;::~mn.A4gw;; +1.s;sa~pagm.5. :_ Awim .fi%t§::e1%iPrn;1~bmitra. 4<.::1g.W.th, 531.50. A gf 7 --,i I , 3 Ftif1*Ajf£11¢!:fi:fst%fbi:1iA4:5?;1;%g;t:mi:1,ji:1e1;;i.;twg;'1fz:q:>%1i;,r%~:;>f €§s¢;eItx%.% $1*£21~fm" mu‘ Uo“m:1t1*y‘, €1fi7W(%n.A A£iLE5131’1€: és5t£Lb1.is3h€er1 \“"E“‘.£"$3u“‘tv&'.!-iflfi{:’}’}-r?\ bf . .a,§15% %'%%:;1.%A%%%AvAvr_itg:e}1* «gym 7}~:%i13.¢:m3d; A tm1)icr-3,: §.?;iAve: .t<:> ‘t‘h%,€;% Ah(‘.):(f)k§ fitaxfifj SA1T%1fdi%¥‘m»1?5T‘Ailltflrfifit i%11;<11VA;V¥i?«1%‘1¥3aA%%%%% n AA " Al‘ * % % A 2A » V AA 3 % % A ‘A % j V M _ % fl M % H A _ _ % %A%i¥E{13"é7%$‘0”E+ %49f:%l,Whi‘?3~1‘A44?"m‘¥"?5¥3¥%? *‘“91%A"W‘%$3MAf1”1‘*’»7‘W I7’A1"3’¥‘¥‘3’1*5513’ ?j‘f“7‘%'*I"1‘;’;’<‘-”=%‘i7*%"F%"W“ ' '1 ‘ AA THEW0RKWILLfnE4 0%M~‘WTE INAT‘W0~¢V°%UMEs. ‘ It “ ” Ai%A4m{'A%‘%%M:s; :%¢;;».?»;1:;*1;:»%<&;at:t:A:3~.~; D ‘ BR0T“ER$,P*Ib1i$herS 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