says:

[SENATE.

Executive in the administration of the appointing power, sentiments of the Vice President elect coincide with his. and constitutes the National Judiciary in all cases of im- Mr. Van Buren, in his speech on the Judiciary in 1826, peachment. Another portion of sovereign power is in the Executive; another in the Congress and the President combined; another in the Judiciary; another in each State, which can never lose her equal representation in the Senate, without her consent; another in a majority of the people of each State; and another in three-fourths of all the States.

"It has been justly observed, that there exists not upon this earth, and there never did exist, a judicial tribunal clothed with powers so various, and so important, as the Supreme Court.

"By it treaties and laws made pursuant to the constitution are declared to be the supreme law of the land. So far at least as the acts of Congress depend upon the courts for their execution, the Supreme Court is the judge whether or no such acts are pursuant to the constitution; and from its judgment there is no appeal. Its veto, therefore, may absolutely suspend nine-tenths of the acts of the National Legislature.

The people have conferred upon the judicial department of their Government the power to settle, in the emphatic language of a resolution of the Legislature of Delaware, which I received yesterday, and which it gives me pleasure to sustain to-day, "all controversies between the United States and the respective States, and all controversies arising under the constitution itself." I view "Not only are the acts of the National Legislature subject this judicial power as a necessary incident to the right of to its review, but it stands as the umpire between the conself-preservation existing in the Government, and as being flicting powers of the General and State Governments. expressly delegated by the constitution. The gentleman But this is not all. It not only sits in final judgment upon from Virginia contends that, when Governments come our acts as the highest legislative body known to the couninto collision, the Supreme Court of the United States try; it not only claims to be the absolute arbiter between cannot decide; and the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. the Federal and State Governments; but it exercises the BIBB] takes a distinction between political and judicial same great power between the respective States forming power, and avers that the question now in agitation, this great confederacy and their own citizens. touching the constitutional power of South Carolina to "There are few States in the Union, upon whose acts nullify the laws, cannot be decided by the court, because the seal of condemnation has not, from time to time, been the decision would involve the exercise of political power. placed by the Supreme Court. The sovereign authorities When Mr. Marshall, the present illustrious president of of Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, the court, in his place as a member of the House of Re- Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Missoupresentatives, took the distinction relied upon between ri, Kentucky, and Ohio, have in turn been rebuked and judicial and political power, he clearly explained and de- silenced by the overruling authority of this court. I must fined it. I want no better authority than his to sustain not be understood, sir, as complaining of the exercise of my positions, though the adversary argument has been this jurisdiction by the Supreme Court, or to pass upon rested upon it. His conceptions, as expressed by himself in the correctness of their decisions. The authority has that debate, on the case of Jonathan Robbins, was, that been given to them, and this is not the place to question the court could decide only in cases brought before it; its exercise."

that it could do nothing of its own mere motion. It has In opposition to all authorities, however, honorable genno legislative or executive power; but in every case, in tlemen quote the Virginia resolutions of 1798, and the relaw or equity, which can arise under the constitution or port on them in 1799. Mr. Madison, who has recently exlaws, it is, as the courts of the United States are now organ-plained a report, of which he was himself the author, is ized, the sole arbiter, either in the first or in the last resort. considered by them as not now correctly understanding And nothing has ever fallen from Mr. Marshall to contra- what he himself wrote; and we are told that Virginia dict this principle; on the contrary, the whole current of alone can expound what she meant by her resolutions. authorities in the court sustains it. While I utterly deny her right to expound for the rest of The true point in issue between us is therefore limited the world the constitution of the United States; while I to this: can the question as to the validity of the South hold lightly even her own resolutions, drawn and sent out, Carolina ordinance and legislation, referred to in the Ex- as I shall ever believe, chiefly for their political effect in a ecutive message, and whose sole object is to annul and pending contest for political power between herself and evade our revenue laws, arise before the court? Why another section of the country; I say to her representatives not? If it be not presented for determination there, no here, that if she meant in 1798, or in 1799, to deny the powother intelligible reason can be stated to account for the ers of the Supreme Court, and arrogate to herself the aufact, than the refusal of those who are interested in the thority to decide in the last constitutional resort on the laws matter to bring up that point. In an action for a breach of Congress or the constitution of the United States, she of our tariff laws, the citizen of South Carolina who may has repealed her resolutions by still later resolutions, in claim the benefit of this State interposition, may plead the reply to those of Pennsylvania, in regard to the Olmstead special matter in bar to the action setting forth the ordi- case. My honorable friend from New Jersey [Mr. FREnance and laws under which he demands protection. The LINGHUYSEN] has shown us that when Pennsylvania proattorney for the Government must demur to the plea, be- posed, in 1810, to amend the constitution, by appointing cause the facts contained in it are not traversable. The an arbiter between the decisions of the States and the Genjudgment of the court below and of the court in appeal eral Government, Virginia, by an almost unanimous vote of must be on the very question, whether this ordinance and her Legislature, in answer to the proposition, referred these laws are constitutional. Will any professional gen- Pennsylvania to the court as the only proper arbiter, and tleman here deny this? Will any one of them oblige us recognised the very principles against which one of the by stating what difficulty exists in this mode of present-Virginia representatives is now contending. Be it the part ing the whole question in controversy between us to this of others to attempt to exonerate her from the charge of tribunal? Sir, I defy their scrutiny. They know, as I inconsistency at these different periods--that is no task of do, that the case is one which can easily arise before the mine. I think with the Senator from Maine, [Mr. HOLMES] court, if they dare to submit its decision to that tribunal that when she has been in power, as she was in 1810, she which the constitution has designated for the purpose. has generally been a safe expounder of the constitution; The President, in his late message in reference to this but that her political expositions made when out of power, most interesting subject, has brought back the Govern- and struggling to obtain it, as she was in 1798, should form ment to the true principles of the constitution, and main- no law for others, as we know they have been disregarded tained the authority of the court as I have stated it. The by herself. The Senator from Virginia really endeavors

SENATE.]

Revenue Collection Bill.

[FEB. 7, 1833.

to nullify the resolutions of his own State in reply to the the Supreme Court was never contemplated by either parproposition of Pennsylvania. He says the last resolutions ty in that convention, as an arbiter to decide conflicting could not have been well considered, because they were claims of sovereignty between the States and Congress; unanimously adopted; and although I have on a former and the repeated rejection of all proposals to take from occasion heard the honorable member express the same the States the power of placing their own construction upsentiment, my astonishment has not been diminished by on the articles of union, evinces that the States were the repetition of it. If a unanimous vote given by Vir-resolved never to part with the right to judge whether the ginia in 1810, in support of my principles, be evidence acts of the Federal Legislature were, or were not, an inthat she at that day misunderstood the constitution, or spoke fringement of those articles." without consideration, I am at a loss to imagine how her Mr. C. also referred to a passage of the same resolutions, passed by a majority in 1798, now cited to sus-purport, in Mr. CALHOUN's letter, addressed to Governor tain other doctrines, are entitled to any weight whatever. Hamilton during the last summer. He then continued: The honorable member is himself not satisfied with the I tell the Senator from South Carolina that he cannot denunciations of the last resolutions of his own State, defend the historical statements contained in this letter. merely on account of the unanimity with which they were It shall be my business to show how erroneously the facts adopted. He seeks to reconcile them with his opinions, have been stated upon which these conclusions have been and for this purpose invents a distinction between a propo- based. The constitution declares that treason against the sition for the appointment of an arbiter between the States United States shall consist in levying war against them, or and the Federal Government, which, he says, Virginia in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. never refused to consider, and a proposition for the ap- If the people of South Carolina, when levying war against pointment of an arbiter between the courts of the States this Government, can be exempted from the operation of and the courts of the Federal Government, which last, he this clause by State interposition, it must be in consequence says, was the proposition made by Pennsylvania, and ne- of some exception contained in the instrument recognising gatived by Virginia. With all due respect for the honor-that State right. Such a right cannot exist without some able member, I must reject his distinction as a metaphysical correlative obligation on the part of the Government to refinement, and as a mere evasion of the true force of the respect it. But the constitution acknowledges no such oblanguage in which Virginia spoke in her best days. The ligation. It denounces the penalties of treason against all courts of the States and the courts of the General Gov- who levy war against the United States, without any salvo ernment are the official judicial expositors of their respec- for State nullifiers; and history tells us that a proposition tive Governments; and when the judges of the former are to save from its operation such as should levy war under compelled to bend before the superior power of the judges the authority of a State was actually voted down in the of the latter, as they were in the Olmstead case, the State convention that framed the instrument. power yields to the supremacy of the federal power, with- That proposition was made by Luther Martin, one of the its appropriate sphere of action. Through the courts delegates from Maryland, a man of distinguished ability of these respective Governments are they always properly and great legal attainments, representing one of those brought into collision; and whenever State judges, who small States, the safety of which was believed to depend are compelled to take an oath to support the federal con- on the establishment of a purely federative Government. stitution, either through State pride or prejudice, or in He opposed the adoption of the constitution, and refused obedience to State power, or from any other cause of er his signature to it. The House of Delegates of Maryland ror, fail to recognise the just superiority of this Govern- having demanded of him his reasons for refusing to sign ment, their decisions must be submitted to the supervision the constitution, he appeared before it, and assigned and control of the federal courts-peaceably, if possible; those reasons, embracing in the view he then took of the forcibly, if necessary. constitution nearly all the objections to it which have since

Nothing appears to me more absurd than that eternal de-been urged by others. He objected especially to the powclaration daily ringing in our ears, that a Government which ers given to the Supreme Court, and to the clause providhas the right to decide on the extent of its own powers, is ing for the punishment of treason. These powers, he a Government without limitation of powers-a consolidat- contended, consolidated the Government; and he wished ed empire, and an absolute despotism. Yet we not only to reserve to the States the right of resisting them when hear this declaration made with a view to break down the arbitrarily exercised. He thought the time might come courts, which form the best bulwark of our republic, but when the safety of a State might render it necessary to rewe also hear arguments adduced to attain the object in sort to the sword; in which case, as he complained, the view, from the history of the constitution itself. Witness constitution provided that every one of her citizens rethe following statement in support of the right of nullifi- sisting the laws of the Federal Government should be cation, extracted from the same address of the South Caro dealt with as traitors. I refer you to his own language: lina convention to which I have already referred:

"It is declared that treason against the United States shall consist in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort.

"It is fortunate for the view which we have just taken, that the history of the constitution, as traced through the journals of the convention which framed that instrument, "By the principles of the American revolution, arbitraplaces the right contended for upon the same sure founda- ry power may and ought to be resisted, even by arms, if netion. These journals furnish abundant proof that no line cessary. The time may come when it shall be the duty of of jurisdiction between the States and Federal Govern- a State, in order to preserve itself from the oppression of ment, in doubtful cases,' could be agreed on. It was con- the General Government, to have recourse to the sword; ceded by Mr. Madison and Mr. Randolph, the most promi- in which case, the proposed form of Government declares nent advocates for a supreme Government, that it was im- that the State, and every one of its citizens who act under possible to draw this line, because no tribunal sufficiently its authority, are guilty of a direct act of treason," &c. impartial, as they conceived, could be found; and that "To save the citizens of the respective States from there was no alternative but to make the Federal Govern- this disagreeable dilemma, and to secure them from being ment supreme, by giving it, in all such cases, a negative on punishable as traitors to the United States, when acting the acts of the State Legislatures. The pertinacity with expressly in obedience to the authority of their own State, which this negative power was insisted on by the advocates of I wished to have obtained as an amendment to the third a National Government, even after all the important provi- section of this article the following clause: 'Provided, sions of the judiciary or third article of the constitution that no act or acts done by one or more of the States were arranged and agreed to, proves, beyond doubt, that against the United States, or by any citizen of one of the

FEB. 7, 1833.]

Revenue Collection Bill.

[SENATE.

United States, under the authority of one or more of the however inconvenient to the parties, and however trifling said States, shall be deemed treason, or punished as such; the subject of dispute." but, in case of war being levied by one or more of the States against the United States, the conduct of each party towards the other, and their adherents, respectively, shall be regulated by the laws of war and of nations.' "But this provision was not adopted, being too much opposed to the great object of many of the leading members of the convention, which was by all means to leave the States at the mercy of the General Government, since gentleman from South Carolina to answer me, with what they could not succeed in their immediate and entire abolition."

Such was the language of one of the delegates that framed the constitution, while standing before the Legislature of the State for which he had acted, and endeavoring to dissuade her people from ratifying this constitution. He tells them that he had offered an amendment to authorize resistance to the laws of the Federal Government by the States; that this amendment was rejected; and that the consequence of that rejection is such, that, should the people of the State of Maryland adopt the instrument, she can never after resist the laws of the General Government, without incurring for all her citizens employed in such resistance the pains and penalties of treason.

Mr. CALHOUN: If the authority of Mr. Martin be good, it ought to be taken on both sides; and if the Senafor from Delaware will read further on, he will find that a proposition to protect manufactures was voted down.

Mr. CLAYTON proceeded to follow his argument on the single question before him. When the other question suggested by the gentleman from South Carolina, touching the protection of domestic manufactures, shall arise, it will be time to show him that no motion, either of Mr. Martin, or of any other delegate, reserving to the General Government the power of protecting domestic manufactures, was ever rejected by the convention, though the same power was expressly taken from the States; and the motion to which the gentleman has referred, was a motion to confer the power of protection, not on the General Government, but on the States.

I view this as historical authority, coming from the highest source. It was not, like some things we have heard on this subject, coined for this occasion. It was given to the world at a time when the constitution was under consideration before the people. It ought, sir, to be respected by our opponents, for the author was himself, as appears by his views, a distinguished nullifier. I put it now to the propriety could the State of Maryland, whose people adopted this constitution, with a full knowledge of all these facts, under the solemn assurance from her own delegate that no power was reserved in her to decide upon or abrogate the laws of the Union, maintain or defend the right of State nullification or State secession? If she could not, neither can South Carolina.

Let us next examine the history of the constitution, as traced through the journals of the convention, relied upon, as we have seen, by South Carolina statesmen, in support of this pretended right of nullification. On the 31st of May, 1787, "it was resolved, that the National Legisla ture ought to be empowered to enjoy the legislative rights vested in Congress by the confederation, and moreover to legislate in all cases to which the separate States are incompetent, or in which the harmony of the United States may be interrupted by the exercise of individual legislation; and to negative all laws passed by the several States, contravening, in the opinion of the National Legislature, the articles of the Union, or any treaties subsisting under the authority of the Union."

It does not appear that there was any division of sentiment on the adoption of this resolution. At that early period of the convention, it was thought proper to check State legislation by national legislation: the propriety of checking it by the National Judiciary was not yet determined upon. On the 8th of June Mr. Pinckney moved, seconded by Mr. Madison, to extend this power in the National Legislature, so far as to authorize them "to negative all laws which shall appear to them improper;" The same distinguished delegate from Maryland is but this motion, which would have effectually consolidatequally explicit as to the true meaning of that part of the ed the Government, failed by a vote of seven States constitution creating the judicial power. His statement to against three. The resolution of the 31st of May, vesting the people of Maryland on that subject thus proceeds: in the National Legislature the judicial power of deter"By the third article, the judicial power of the United mining what State laws contravened the articles of union, States is vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferi- or treaties under the authority of the Union, appears to or courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain have remained the sentiment of the convention until the and establish. These courts, and these only, will have a 17th July, when, by a vote of seven States against three, right to decide upon the laws of the United States, and all it was stricken out, and it was unanimously resolved, questions arising upon their construction, and in a judicial that the legislative acts of the United States made manner to carry those laws into execution, to which the by virtue and in pursuance of the articles of union, and courts, both superior and inferior, of the respective States, all treaties made and ratified under the authority of the and their judges, and other magistrates, are rendered in- United States, shall be the supreme law of the respective competent. To the courts of the General Government States, as far as those acts or treaties shall relate to the are also confided all cases in law or equity, arising under said States, or their citizens and inhabitants; and that the the proposed constitution, and treaties made under the au- judiciaries of the several States shall be bound thereby thority of the United States; all cases affecting ambassa- in their decisions: any thing in the respective laws of the dors or other public ministers, and consuls; all cases of individual States to the contrary notwithstanding.' admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; all controversies to The gentleman from South Carolina, in his letter to which the United States are a party; all controversies be- Governor Hamilton, relies on the vote of the 17th July, tween two or more States; between citizens of the same which negatives the resolution of the 31st of May, to State, claiming lands under grants of different States; and prove that the sentiment of the convention at that time between a State or the citizens thereof, and foreign States, was, that no power should be vested in the General Govcitizens, or subjects. Whether, therefore, any laws or ernment to contravene the acts of the States. Yet, on that regulations of the Congress, or any acts of its President, same day, and immediately before the passage of that or other officers, are contrary to, or not warranted by, the vote, it was "Resolved, on the motion of Mr. Bedford, constitution, rests only with the judges who are appointed of Delaware, That Congress should legislate, in all cases, by Congress to determine; by whose determinations every for the general interest of the Union; and also in those State must be bound. Should any question arise between to which the States are separately incompetent, or in a foreign consul and any of the citizens of the United which the harmony of the United States may be interStates, however remote from the seat of empire, it is to rupted by the exercise of individual legislation." Why, be heard before the Judiciary of the General Government, then, was the resolution of the 31st of May repealed on and in the first instance to be heard in the Supreme Court, the 17th of July? Evidently, not as the gentleman from

Mr. CALHOUN: If the gentleman will refer to the journals, he will find, that in August after this, the convention refused to give this Government any power to negative State laws interfering with the general interests and harmony of the Union.

[FEB. 7, 1833.

South Carolina has supposed, for the purpose of deter- advert to the fact, that the second section of the third mining that the General Government should not check article expressly extends the judicial power to all "conState legislation when contrary to its own, but because troversies to which the United States shall be a party;" they had, at that time, seen the impropriety of conferring and ordains that, in those cases in which a State shall be judicial power on a legislative body; and, accordingly, a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdicon the very next day, being the 18th of July, they "unani- tion. A prevailing error of the gentleman from South mously resolved, that the jurisdiction of the National Carolina, in all his expositions of the constitution, in relaJudiciary shall extend to cases arising under laws passed tion to this subject, appears to me to consist in this: that by the General Legislature, and to such other questions he supposes this Government, in order to enforce its laws, as involve the national peace and harmony." in defiance of the ordinance of South Carolina, must be first driven into a law-suit with that State as a State; but no such suit is necessary or would now be proper. The object of the bill before us is to enforce obedience from the citizens of South Carolina, as American citizens, not to punish the State, or to declare "war against her for Mr. CLAYTON: True, sir. On the 23d of August, hef unjustifiable ordinance." We do not recognise her after the important provisions of the judiciary or third right to assume the attitude of a belligerent nation towards article of the constitution were arranged and agreed to, this Government, or any of her sister States; and we claim it was moved and seconded to agree to the following pro- no right to make war upon her as a sovereign and indeposition, as an additional power to be vested in the Legis-pendent State. On the contrary, we expressly repudiate lature of the United States: "To negative all laws pass-the whole doctrine which holds her up as a foreign nation: ed by the several States, interfering, in the opinion of the we concur with Luther Martin, that allegiance is due from Legislature, with the general interests and harmony of her citizens to the United States, and that, if they levy the Union, provided two-thirds of the members of each war against this Government, they incur, by that act, all House assent to the same." And, after an unsuccessful the pains and penalties of treason. Nevertheless, I will effort to commit this proposition, it was withdrawn. It take the pains to refute the argument drawn by the genwas not adopted, clearly because it was a new proposition tleman from South Carolina, in his letter to Governor to confer judicial power on the National Legislature after Hamilton, from the journals of the convention, touching the convention had resolved to confer all the power ne- the power of the Supreme Court to decide a controversy cessary for checking State legislation on the National Ju- between the United States and one of the States. It diciary. No body of men ever was more sensible of the is truly stated in that letter, that, on the 20th of August, necessity of keeping separate the judicial, the legislative, 1787, the following, among other propositions, was reand the executive power, than that which framed the ferred to the committee of five: "The jurisdiction of the American constitution was at this period; and yet, their Supreme Court shall be extended to all controversies bedetermination to separate these different departments of tween the United States and an individual State, or the the Government, is the very circumstance relied upon on United States and the citizens of an individual State;" the part of South Carolina to demonstrate the want of any but the historical information given by the gentleman in judicial control over her State legislation. Proposals to that letter is essentially erroneous; for the writer supposes blend judicial with legislative power, rejected, as they that the subject was never moved in convention again. were, by the convention, are construed into propositions So far from this being true, it appears from the journals, to take from the States the power of placing their own that, on the 22d of August, the honorable Mr. Rutledge, construction upon the articles of union; and we are from South Carolina, chairman of the committee to whom gravely told by the South Carolina convention, and by her this and other propositions were referred, reported in Senator here, that these votes evince the determination favor of it. The last sentence of the report is in the folof the States never to part with the right to judge whe-lowing words: Between the fourth and fifth lines of the ther the acts of the Federal Legislature were, or were third section of the eleventh article, after the word ' connot, an infringement of these articles. troversies,' insert between the United States and an individual person.'

Mr. CALHOUN. What I have denied is, that that report was ever adopted by the convention.

There is one class of cases in which the National Legislature exercises the power of revision and control over State legislation. The States are prohibited, without the consent of Congress, to lay any imposts or duties on imports Mr. CLAYTON: Then the gentleman is entirely misor exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for taken; for as appears by the journal of the convention of executing their inspection laws; and it is provided that the 27th of August, just five days after the report was all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control made, while the convention was engaged in considering of Congress. On the 15th September, 1787, it was moved the draught of the constitution, reported on the 6th of in convention, to strike out this proviso, the effect of August by the committee of five, the 3d section of the which motion, if successful, would have been to subject 11th article in that draught came before the House, which these State inspection laws to the supervision of the Na- was in the following words: "Article eleventh, section tional Judiciary, but not of the National Legislature. The third. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court shall exmotion failed, and the retention of this power of revision tend to all cases arising under laws passed by the Legisand control in Congress clearly exhibits the exceeding lature of the United States; to all cases affecting ambasjealousy, on the part of the convention, of any State interference on the great subject of imports and duties, over which South Carolina has recklessly extended her State ordinance and State legislation.

The action of the Federal Judiciary, and, indeed, of the Federal Government, generally, is not upon States, but upon individuals. A law-suit can hardly arise between a State and the United States. It would seem needless to discuss the question, whether the Supreme Court of the United States could entertain jurisdiction of a case between this Government and one of the States. Yet, as this jurisdiction has been denied, it may not be amiss to

sadors, other public ministers and consuls; to the trial of impeachments of officers of the United States; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies between two or more States, except such as shall regard territory or jurisdiction; between a State and citizens of another State; between citizens of different States; and between a State or the citizens thereof, and foreign States, citizens, or subjects. In cases of impeachment, cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a State shall be a party, the jurisdiction shall be original."

It was then moved and seconded to add the following

FEB. 7, 1833.]

Revenue Collection Bill.

[SENATE.

words after the word "controversies," third section, who consults it will be astonished that South Carolina eleventh article-"to which the United States shall be a party;" which passed in the affirmative.

It was also moved and seconded to insert the word "controversies" before the words "between two or," passed in the affirmative.

It was moved and seconded to insert the words "the United States or" before the words "a State shall be a party," which passed in the affirmative.

should have appealed to it to support her. Vain, vain, indeed, sir, was that boast of the gentleman from Virginia, that "the nationals were routed in that day." No, thank God! however they may have been of late years thrown into the shade by the false glare of that burning heresy which holds out this Government as a mere confederation of States, we know that theirs were the principles of the fathers of the constitution, and that they gloriously triumphed when that sacred ordinance rose upon the ruins of a helpless league and a state of unbridled anarchy.

Thus we see, sir, that, on the 27th of August, 1787, the convention did in fact adopt the whole of this part of Mr. Rutledge's report, by extending the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to all controversies whatsoever to which The honorable member from Kentucky [Mr. BIBB] the United States shall be a party. The amendments has stated, with great ingenuity, some cases in which made that day now stand incorporated in the constitution, the Supreme Court may abuse its powers while exerand posterity will recur to them only for the purpose of cising its appellate jurisdiction. In his view, the feashowing that a special vote was taken in convention on the tures of this great tribunal are essentially monarchical, very question, whether the court should have jurisdiction because the judges are appointed virtually for life; and, over all possible cases in which the United States may be being liable to no other responsibility than the nominal interested, whether against a State or private individuals. power of impeachment, may, he thinks, at any time esMr. CALHOUN: But will the gentleman contend that tablish the most despotic principle, without any possible a State may be sued since the adoption of the eleventh control, save that of revolutionary resistance to their deamendment?

Mr. CLAYTON: The eleventh amendment prevents any suit against a State by citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign State; but does not in any way impair the right of the United States to sue a State. It was never designed to impair that right.

cision. Were all this true, the argument which demonstrates the possibility of abusing power does not disprove the existence of the power in the court to decide, in the last resort, on all cases arising under the constitution and the laws. But it is not true. By the constitution the appellate jurisdiction of the court is expressly made liable The historical evidence of the intentions of the framers to such exceptions, and placed under such regulations, and friends of the constitution does not stop with the as Congress shall establish. Should an extreme case, journal. Their cotemporaneous expositions in "the Fe- such as the Senator from Kentucky has supposed, ever deralist," and the debates in the conventions of the peo- occur, the remedy is not revolution, or war on the Govple for adopting the constitution, all show the fatal error ernment, but a discreet and cautious exercise of the into which the South Carolina convention has fallen. Mr. power of Congress to curtail the appellate jurisdiction of Madison, in the Virginia convention, said, "It may be a the court. For any other purpose, save that of preventmisfortune that in organizing any Government, the ex-ing the destruction of the Government itself, the appelplication of its authority should be left to any of its co- late powers of the court should never be essentially ordinate branches. There is no example in any country changed.

where it is otherwise. There is a new policy in submit- Having thus far, Mr. President, developed my views ting it to the Judiciary of the United States." Mr. of the character of this Government, I return to the point Stillman, in the convention of Massachusetts, said, "The from which I departed, to answer the interrogatory of very term 'Government' implies a supreme controlling the gentleman from Virginia--can there be such a thing power somewhere: a power to coerce, whenever coer- as a citizen of the United States? There are some thircion shall be necessary; of which necessity Government teen millions of human beings within their limits, who are, must be the judge." A complete answer to all that part as we have seen, liable to the punishment of treason when of the address which denies the power of the court, and levying war against them; all bound to consider their asserts the right of a State to decide for itself as one of laws and their constitution as supreme; all indebted to the parties to a compact, was given by Mr. Wilson, in the their Government for protection; all contributing to the convention of Pennsylvania, about forty-five years ago. support of that Government, and compelled to obey it, "I cannot," says he, "discover the least trace of a com- both in peace and in war; forming, together, for all the pact in the system. The State Governments made a great purposes enumerated in their constitution, one peobargain with one another: that is the doctrine that is en- ple and a single nation. The allegiance of the people deavored to be established by gentlemen in opposition; is rightfully due, because it has been freely given to the their State sovereignties wish to be represented. But United States; and its duties can, and ought to be, strictly far other were the ideas of the convention, and far other enforced by the severest-of all penalties when traitorously are those conveyed in the system itself. I know very withheld. The laws of this Government, and the various well all the commonplace rant of State sovereignties, and treaties it has made, recognise the character of citizen, in that Government is founded in original compact. This its broadest signification, as properly belonging to every does not suit the language or genius of the system before free man born and residing within its limits, or naturalus. It is not a contract or compact; the system itself tells ized by means of its legislation. Can the gentleman from you what it is. It is an ordinance, an establishment of the Virginia still deny that he is a citizen of the United States? people."

Mr. TYLER: I deny that I am a citizen of the Government of the United States. I do not deny that I am a citizen of the United States.

Governor Johnston, in the convention of North Carolina, said, "The constitution must be the supreme law of the land; otherwise it will be in the power of any one State Mr. CLAYTON: It is no part of my purpose to bandy to counteract the other States, and withdraw itself from useless metaphysical distinctions with any member here. the Union. The laws made in pursuance thereof by Con- He is as much a citizen of this Government, as a Frenchgress ought to be the supreme law of the land; otherwise, man is a citizen of the Government of France, or an Engany one State might repeal the laws of the Union at large. lishman of the Government of his country. But all the Every treaty should be the supreme law of the land; acknowledgment that I desire of the honorable gentlewithout this, any one State might involve the whole man, in order to compel him to admit the justice of the Union in war." Sir, I will trouble you with no further principles upon which this bill is founded, is, that he, and quotations. The history of 1787 is full of them, and he all those upon whom the bill is intended to operate, are