Resolutions, sir, have been recently passed by the legislature of South Carolina. I need not refer to them; they go no further than the honorable gentleman himself has gone-and I hope not so far. I content myself therefore, with debating the matter with him.

tutional remedy, the conservative power collision have they, in 1828, with the minof the state, which the South Carolina isters of King George the Fourth? What doctrines teach for the redress of political is there now, in the existing state of evils, real or imaginary. And its authors things, to separate Carolina from Old, further say that. appealing with confidence more, or rather less, than from New to the constitution itself to justify their England? opinions, they cannot consent to try their accuracy by the courts of justice. In one sense, indeed, sir, this is assuming an attitude of open resistance in favor of liberty. But what sort of liberty? The liberty of establishing their own opinions, in defiance of the opinions of all others; the liberty of judging and of deciding exclusively themselves, in a matter in which others have as much right to judge and decide as they; the liberty of placing their opinions above the judgment of all others, above the laws, and above the constitution. This is their liberty, and this is the fair result of the proposition contended for by the honorable gentleman. Or it may be more properly said, it is identical with it, rather than a result from it. In the same publication we find the following: "Previously to our revolution, when the arm of oppression was stretched over New England, where did our northern brethren meet with a braver sympathy than that which sprung from the bosom of Carolinians? We had no extortion, no oppression, no collision with the king's ministers, no navigation interest springing up, in envious rivalry of England."

This seems extraordinary language. South Carolina no collision with the king's ministers in 1775! no extortion! no oppression! But, sir, it is also most significant language. Does any man doubt the purpose for which it was penned? Can any one fail to see that it was designed to raise in the reader's mind the question, whether, at this time, that is to say, in 1828, South Carolina has any collision with the king's ministers, any oppression, or extortion, to fear from England? whether, in short, England is not as naturally the friend of South Carolina as New England, with her navigation interests springing up in envious rivalry of England?

Is it not strange, sir, that an intelligent man in South Carolina, in 1828, should thus labor to prove, that in 1775, there was no hostility, no cause of war, between South Carolina and England? that she had no occasion, in reference to her own interest, or from regard to her own welfare, to take up arms in the revolutionary contest? Can any one account for the expression of such strange sentiments, and their circulation through the state, otherwise than by supposing the object to be, what I have already intimated, to raise the question, if they had no "collision' (mark the expression) with the ministers of King George the Third, in 1775, what

And now, sir, what I have first to say on this subject is, that at no time, and under no circumstances, has New England, or any state in New England, or any respect able body of persons in New England, or any public man of standing in New England, put forth such a doctrine as this Carolína doctrine.

The gentleman has found no case-he can find none-to support his own opin ions by New England authority. New England has studied the constitution in other schools, and under other teachers, She looks upon it with other regards, and deems more highly and reverently, both of its just authority and its utility and excellence. The history of her legislative proceedings may be traced-the ephemeral effusions of temporary bodies, called together by the excitement of the occasion, may be hunted up-they have been hunted up. The opinions and votes of her public men, in and out of Congress, may be explored-it will all be in vain. The Carolina doctrine can derive from her neither countenance nor support. She rejects it now; she always did reject it. The honorable member has referred to expressions on the subject of the embargo law, made in this place by an honorable and venerable gentleman (MR. HILLHOUSE) now favoring us with his presence. He quotes that distinguished senator as saying, that in his judgment the embargo law was unconstitutional, and that, therefore, in his opinion, the people were not bound to obey it.

That, sir, is perfectly constitutional language. An unconstitutional law is not binding; but then it does not rest with a resolution or a law of a state legislature to decide whether an act of Congress be or be not constitutional. An unconstitutional act of Congress would not bind the people of this district although they have no legislature to interfere in their behalf; and, on the other hand, a constitutional law of Congress does bind the citizens of every state, although all their legislatures should undertake to annul it, by act or resolution. The venerable Connecticut senator is a constitutional lawyer, of sound principles and enlarged knowledge; a statesman practiced and experienced, bred in the

company of Washington, and holding just had then arisen. Massachusetts believed views upon the nature of our governments. this law to be a deliberate, palpable, and He believed the embargo unconstitutional, dangerous exercise of a power not granted and so did others; but what then? Who by the constitution." Deliberate it was, did he suppose was to decide that ques- for it was long continued; palpable she tion? The state legislature? Certainly thought it, as no words in the constitution not. No such sentiment ever escaped his gave the power, and only a construction, lips. Let us follow up, sir, this New Eng-in her opinion most violent, raised it; danland opposition to the embargo laws; let gerous it was, since it threatened utter ruin us trace it, till we discern the principle to her most important interests. Here, which controlled and governed New Eng-then, was a Carolina case. How did Masland throughout the whole course of that sachusetts deal with it? It was, as she opposition. We shall then see what simi- thought, a plain, manifest, palpable violalarity there is between the New England tion of the constitution; and it brought school of constitutional opinions and this ruin to her doors. Thousands of families, modern Carolina school. The gentleman, and hundreds of thousands of individuals, I think, read a petition from some single were beggared by it. While she saw and individual, addressed to the legislature of felt all this, she saw and felt, also, that as Massachusetts, asserting the Carolina doc- a measure of national policy, it was pertrine-that is, the right of state interfer-fectly futile; that the country was no way ence to arrest the laws of the Union. The benefited by that which caused so much fate of that petition shows the sentiment individual distress; that it was efficient of the legislature. It met no favor. The only for the production of evil, and all that opinions of Massachusetts were otherwise. evil inflicted on ourselves. In such a case, They had been expressed in 1798, in an- under such circumstances, how did Masswer to the resolutions of Virginia, and sachusetts demean herself? Sir, she reshe did not depart from them, nor bend monstrated, she memorialized, she addressthem to the times. Misgoverned, wronged, ed herself to the general government, not oppressed, as she felt herself to be, she exactly "with the concentrated energy of still held fast her integrity to the Union. passion," but with her strong sense, and the The gentleman may find in her proceed- energy of sober conviction. But she did ings much evidence of dissatisfaction with not interpose the arm of her power to arthe measures of government, and great rest the law, and break the embargo. Far and deep dislike, she claimed no right from it. Her principles bound her to two still to sever asunder the bonds of the things; and she followed her principles, Union. There was heat, and there was lead where they might. First, to submit anger in her political feeling. Be it so. to every constitutional law of Congress; Her heat or her anger did not, neverthe- and secondly, if the constitutional validity less, betray her into infidelity to the gov-of the law be doubted, to refer that quesernment. The gentleman labors to prove that she disliked the embargo as much as South Carolina dislikes the tariff, and expressed her dislike as strongly. Be it so; but did she propose the Carolina remedy? Did she threaten to interfere, by state authority, to annul the laws of the Union? That is the question for the gentleman's consideration.

No doubt, sir, a great majority of the people of New England conscientiously believe the embargo law of 1807 unconstitutional-as conscientiously, certainly, as the people of South Carolina hold that opinion of the tariff.-They reasoned thus: Congress has power to regulate commerce; but here is a law, they said, stopping all commerce, and stopping it indefinitely. The law is perpetual, therefore, as the law against treason or murder. Now, is this regulating commerce, or destroying it? Is it guiding, controlling, giving the rule to commerce, as a subsisting thing, or is it putting an end to it altogether? Nothing is more certain than that a majority in New England deemed this law a violation of the constitution. This very case required by the gentleman to justify state interference

tion to the decision of the proper tribunals. The first principle is vain and ineffectual without the second. A majority of us in New England believe the embargo law unconstitutional; but the great question was, and always will be in such cases, Who is to decide this? Who is to judge between the people and the government? And, sir, it is quite plain, that the constitution of the United States confers on the government itself, to be exercised by its appropriate department, this power of deciding, ultimately and conclusively, upon the just extent of its own authority. If this had not been done, we should not have advanced a single step beyond the old confederation.

Being fully of opinion that the embargo law was unconstitutional, the people of New England were yet equally clear in the opinion-it was a matter they did not doubt upon-that the question, after all, must be decided by the judicial tribunals of the United States. Before those tribunals, therefore, they brought the question. Under the provisions of the law, they had given bonds, to millions in amount, and which were alleged to be forfeited. They suffered the bonds to be sued, and thus raised the

submission to the decision of the constituted tribunals, and revolution, or disunion, there is no middle ground-there is no ambiguous condition, half allegiance and half rebellion. There is no treason, madcosy. And, sir, how futile, how very futile it is, to admit the right of state interference, and then to attempt to save it from the character of unlawful resistance, by adding terms of qualification to the causes and occasions, leaving all the qualifications, like the case itself in the discretion of the state governments. It must be a clear case, it is said; a deliberate case; a palpable case; a dangerous case. But, then, the state is still left at liberty to decide for herself what is clear, what is deliberate, what is palpable, what is dangerous.

question. In the old-fashioned way of set- | bring about a revolution, nor to break up tling disputes, they went to law. The case the Union; for I maintain, that, between came to hearing and solemn argument; and he who espoused their cause and stood up for them against the validity of the act, was none other than that great man, of whom the gentleman has made honorable mention, SAMUEL DEXTER. He was then, sir, in the fulness of his knowledge and the maturity of his strength. He had retired from long and distinguished public service here, to the renewed pursuit of professional duties; carrying with him all that enlargement and expansion, all the new strength and force, which an acquaintance with the more general subjects discussed in the national councils is capable of adding to professional attainment, in a mind of true greatness and comprehension. He was a fawyer, and he was also a statesman. He had studied the constitution, when he filled Do adjectives and epithets avail any public station, that he might defend it; he thing? Sir, the human mind is so constihad examined its principles, that he might tuted, that the merits of both sides of a maintain them. More than all men, or at controversy appear very clear, and very least as much as any man, he was attached palpable, to those who respectively espouse to the general government, and to the them, and both sides usually grow clearer, union of the states. His feelings and as the controversy advances. South Caroopinions all ran in that direction. A ques- lina sees unconstitutionality in the tarifftion of constitutional law, too, was, of all she sees oppression there, also, and she sees subjects, that one which was best suited to danger. Pennsylvania, with a vision not his talents and learning. Aloof from tech-less sharp, looks at the same tariff, and nicality, and unfettered by artificial rule, sees no such thing in it-she sees it all such a question gave opportunity for that constitutional, all useful, all safe. deep and clear analysis, that mighty grasp of principle, which so much distinguished his higher efforts. His very statement was argument; his inference seemed dem-stitutional, oppressive, and dangerous; but onstration. The earnestness of his own Pennsylvania, not to be behind her neighconviction wrought conviction in others. bors, and equally willing to strengthen her One was convinced, and believed, and con- own faith by a confident asseveration, resented, because it was gratifying, delightful, solves also, and gives to every warm affirmto think, and feel, and believe, in unison ative of South Carolina, a plain downright with an intellect of such evident superiority. Pennsylvania negative. South Carolina Mr. Dexter, sir, such as I have described to show the strength and unity of her opinhim, argued the New England cause. He ions, brings her assembly to a unanimity, put into his effort his whole heart, as well within seven votes; Pennsylvania, not to as all the powers of his understanding; for be outdone in this respect more than he had avowed, in the most public manner, others, reduces her dissentient fraction to his entire concurrence with his neighbors, one vote. Now, sir, again I ask the genon the point in dispute. He argued the tleman, what is to be done? Are these cause; it was lost, and New England sub-states both right? Is he bound to conmitted. The established tribunals pro-sider them both right? If not, which is nounced the law constitutional, and New in the wrong? or, rather, which has the England acquiesced. Now, sir, is not this best right to decide? the exact opposite of the doctrine of the gentleman from South Carolina? According to him, instead of referring to the judicial tribunals, we should have broken up the embargo, by laws of our own; we should have repealed it, quoad New England; for we had a strong, palpable, and oppressive case. Sir, we believe the embargo unconstitutional; but still, that was matter of opinion, and who was to decide it?

We thought it a clear case; but, nevertheless, we did not take the laws into our hands, because we did not wish to

The faith of South Carolina is strengthened by opposition, and she now not only sees, but resolves, that the tariff is palpably uncon

And if he, and if I, are not to know what the constitution means, and what it is, till those two state legislatures, and the twenty-two others, shall agree in its construction what have we sworn to, when we have sworn to maintain it? I was forcibly struck, sir, with one reflection, as the gentleman went on with his speech. He quoted Mr. Madison's resolutions to prove that a state may inter fere, in a case of deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of a power not granted. The honorable member supposes the tariff law to

be such an exercise of power, and that consequently, a case has risen in which the state may, if it see fit, interfere by its own law. Now, it so happens, nevertheless, that Madison himself deems this same tariff law quite constitutional. Instead of a clear and palpable violation, it is, in his judgment, no violation at all. So that, while they use his authority for a hypothetical case, they reject it in the very case before them. All this, sir, shows the inherent futility. I had almost used a stronger word-of conceding this power of interference to the states, and then attempting to secure it from abuse by imposing qualifications of which the states themselves are to judge. One of two things is true; either the laws of the Union are beyond the control of the states, or else we have no constitution of general government, and are thrust back again to the days of the confederacy.

Let me here say, sir, that if the gentleman's doctrine had been received and acted upon in New England, in the times of the embargo and non-intercourse, we should probably not now have been here. The government would very likely have gone to pieces and crumbled into dust. No stronger case can ever arise than existed under those laws; no states can ever entertain a clearer conviction than the New England States then entertained; and if they had been under the influence of that heresy of opinion, as I must call it, which the honorable member espouses, this Union would, in all probability have been scattered to the four winds. I ask the gentleman, therefore, to apply his principles to that case; I ask him to come forth and declare whether, in his opinion, the New England States would have been justified in interfering to break up the embargo system, under the conscientious opinions which he held upon it. Had they a right to annul that law? Does he admit, or deny? If that which is thought palpably unconstitutional in South Carolina justifies that state in arresting the progress of the law, tell me whether that which was thought palpably unconstitutional also in Massachusetts would have justified her in doing the same thing. Sir, I deny the whole doctrine. It has not a foot of ground in the constitution to stand on. No public man of reputation ever advanced it in Massachusetts, in the warmest times, or could maintain himself upon it there at any time.

on the part of the state to interfere, and arrest the progress of the evil. This is susceptible of more than one interpretation. It may mean no more than that the states may interfere by complaint and remonstrance, or by proposing to the people an alteration of the federal constitution. This would all be quite unobjectionable; or it may be that no more is meant than to assert the general right of revolution, as against all governments, in cases of intolerable oppression. This no one doubts; and this, in my opinion, is all that he who framed these resolutions could have meant by it; for I shall not readily believe that he was ever of opinion that a state, under the constitution, and in conformity with it, could, upon the ground of her own opinion of its unconstitutionality, however clear and palpable she might think the case, annul a law of Congress, so far as it should operate on herself, by her own legislative power.

I must now beg to ask, sir, Whence is this supposed right of the states derived? Where do they get the power to interfere with the laws of the Union? Sir, the opinion which the honorable gentleman maintains is a notion founded in a total misapprehension, in my judgment, of the origin of this government, and of the foundation on which it stands. I hold it to be a popular government, erected by the people, those who administer it responsible to the people, and itself capable of being amended and modified, just as the people may choose it should be. It is as popular, just as truly emanating from the people, as the state governments. It is created for one purpose; the state governments for another. It has its own powers; they have theirs. There is no more authority with them to arrest the operation of a law of Congress, than with Congress to arrest the operation of their laws. We are here to administer a constitution emanating immediately from the people, and trusted by them to our administration. It is not the creature of the state governments. It is of no moment to the argument that certain acts of the state legislatures are necessary to fill our seats in this body. That is not one of their original state powers, a part of the sovereignty of the state. It is a duty which the people, by the constitution itself, have imposed on the state legislatures, and which they might have left to be performed elsewhere, if they had seen fit. So they have left the I wish now, sir, to make a remark upon choice of president with electors; but all the Virginia resolutions of 1798. I cannot this does not affect the proposition that undertake to say how these resolutions this whole government-President, Senate were understood by those who passed and House of Representatives-is a poputhem. Their language is not a little in-lar government. It leaves it still all its definite. In the case of the exercise, by popular character. The governor of a Congress, of a dangerous power, not granted state (in some of the states) is chosen not to them, the resolutions assert the right, directly by thle for the purpose of

bring about a revolution, nor to break up the Union; for I maintain, that, between submission to the decision of the constituted tribunals, and revolution, or disunion, there is no middle ground-there is no ambiguous condition, half allegiance and half rebellion. There is no treason, madcosy. And, sir, how futile, how very futile it is, to admit the right of state interference, and then to attempt to save it from the character of unlawful resistance, by adding terms of qualification to the causes and occasions, leaving all the qualifications, like the case itself in the discretion of the state governments. It must be a clear case, it is said; a deliberate case; a palpable case; a dangerous case. But, then, the state is still left at liberty to decide for herself what is clear, what is deliberate, what is palpable, what is dangerous.

question. In the old-fashioned way of settling disputes, they went to law. The case came to hearing and solemn argument; and he who espoused their cause and stood up for them against the validity of the act, was none other than that great man, of whom the gentleman has made honorable mention, SAMUEL DEXTER. He was then, sir, in the fulness of his knowledge and the maturity of his strength. He had retired from long and distinguished public service here, to the renewed pursuit of professional duties; carrying with him all that enlargement and expansion, all the new strength and force, which an acquaintance with the more general subjects discussed in the national councils is capable of adding to professional attainment, in a mind of true greatness and comprehension. He was a fawyer, and he was also a statesman. He had studied the constitution, when he filled Do adjectives and epithets avail any public station, that he might defend it; he thing? Sir, the human mind is so constihad examined its principles, that he might tuted, that the merits of both sides of a maintain them. More than all men, or at controversy appear very clear, and very least as much as any man, he was attached palpable, to those who respectively espouse to the general government, and to the them, and both sides usually grow clearer, union of the states. His feelings and as the controversy advances. South Caro opinions all ran in that direction. A ques- lina sees unconstitutionality in the tarifftion of constitutional law, too, was, of all she sees oppression there, also, and she sees subjects, that one which was best suited to danger. Pennsylvania, with a vision not his talents and learning, Aloof from tech-less sharp, looks at the same tariff, and nicality, and unfettered by artificial rule, sees no such thing in it-she sees it all such a question gave opportunity for that constitutional, all useful, all safe. The deep and clear analysis, that mighty grasp faith of South Carolina is strengthened by of principle, which so much distinguished opposition, and she now not only sees, but his higher efforts. His very statement resolves, that the tariff is palpably unconwas argument; his inference seemed dem-stitutional, oppressive, and dangerous; but onstration. The earnestness of his own Pennsylvania, not to be behind her neighconviction wrought conviction in others. bors, and equally willing to strengthen her One was convinced, and believed, and con- own faith by a confident asseveration, resented, because it was gratifying, delightful, solves also, and gives to every warm affirmto think, and feel, and believe, in unison ative of South Carolina, a plain downright with an intellect of such evident superiority. Pennsylvania negative. South Carolina Mr. Dexter, sir, such as I have described to show the strength and unity of her opinhim, argued the New England cause. He ions, brings her assembly to a unanimity, put into his effort his whole heart, as well within seven votes; Pennsylvania, not to as all the powers of his understanding; for be outdone in this respect more than he had avowed, in the most public manner, others, reduces her dissentient fraction to his entire concurrence with his neighbors, one vote. Now, sir, again I ask the genon the point in dispute. He argued the tleman, what is to be done? Are these cause; it was lost, and New England sub-states both right? Is he bound to conmitted. The established tribunals pro-sider them both right? If not, which is nounced the law constitutional, and New in the wrong? or, rather, which has the England acquiesced. Now, sir, is not this best right to decide? the exact opposite of the doctrine of the gentleman from South Carolina? According to him, instead of referring to the judicial tribunals, we should have broken up the embargo, by laws of our own; we should have repealed it, quoad New England; for we had a strong, palpable, and oppressive case. Sir, we believe the embargo unconstitutional; but still, that was matter of opinion, and who was to decide it? We thought it a clear case; but, nevertheless, we did not take the laws into our hands, because we did not wish to

And if he, and if I, are not to know what the constitution means, and what it is, till those two state legislatures, and the twenty-two others, shall agree in its construction what have we sworn to, when we have sworn to maintain it? I was forcibly struck, sir, with one reflection, as the gentleman went on with his speech. He quoted Mr. Madison's resolutions to prove that a state may inter fere, in a case of deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of a power not granted. The honorable member supposes the tariff law to