twenty-two years before! That exposition was that the Constitution is a Compact between Sovereign States.

So, after this very long talk, wandering the while far from the point, we finally return to the same place at which we had arrived before taking up Mr. Webster's speech. We now stand just where we did then. We have gone through with his great argument and Mr. Calhoun's reply, to which no rejoinder was ever made. We have seen that the Senate, by a nearly three fourths vote of the States, in 1838, and by a vote of nearly two to one, in 1860, sustained that construction of the Constitution which was set forth in the first of Mr. Calhoun's Resolutions in 1833, and which I maintain. The decisions of the Supreme Court referred to, sustain the same view also. We have seen further, that Mr. Webster himself, in his riper years, held that the Union was "a Union of States." That it was founded upon "Compact," and that "a bargain cannot be broken on one side and still bind the other side."

Does it not, therefore, clearly appear from these high authorities, and even upon the authority of Mr. Webster himself, that the Government of the United States is a Federal Government, or as Washington styled it, a Confederated Republic? What further, if any thing, have you to say against this as an indisputably established conclusion?

COLLOQUY X.

NULLIFICATION-GENERAL JACKSON ON THE UNION-JEFFERSON ON THE UNION-KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS OF 1798-SETTLEMENT OF THE NULLIFICATION ISSUE-THE DEBATES IN THE SENATE-WILKINS, CALHOUN, GRUNDY, BIBB AND CLAY-THE COMPROMISE ON THE PROTECTIVE POLICY OF 1833-THE WORKINGS OF THE FEDERAL SYSTEM UNDER THE PRINCIPLES ON WHICH THAT COMPROMSIE WAS MADE-THE GREAT PROSPERITY THAT FOLLOWED-NO PRESIDENT FROM JEFFERSON TO LINCOLN ELECTED, WHO DID NOT HOLD THE GOVERNMENT TO BE A COMPACT BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES-MADISON, MONROE, JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, JACKSON, VAN BUREN, HARRISON, POLK, TAYLOR, PIERCE, AND BUCHANAN, ALL SO HELD IT TO BE-THE SUPREME COURT NOT THE UMPIRE BETWEEN THE STATES AND THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT-MADISON, BIBB, MARSHALL, AND LIVINGSTON ON THIS SUBJECT-GENERAL JACKSON'S EXPLANATION OF THE DOCTRINES OF THE PROCLAMATION-HE HELD THE CONSTITUTION TO BE A COMPACT BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES-HIS FAREWELL ADDRESS.

MAJOR HEISTER. I have listened with interest to this discussion as it has progressed thus far. Several new views, I candidly confess, have been presented by you. But I am not prepared to assent to your conclusion as a truth indisputably established. I was never a disciple of the school of either Story, Webster, or Calhoun. I was born, bred, and brought up a Jeffersonian Democrat. MR. STEPHENS. So was I.

MAJOR HEISTER. Well, then, Andrew Jackson was the embodiment of the principles in which I was reared. I am, therefore, a disciple of the School of the Hero of New Orleans as well as of the Sage of Monticello! I have never devoted much time to the study of the questions and principles you have been discussing, and lo not profess any very accurate acquaintance with or in

formation upon them; but I have always understood very well, that General Jackson held, that the Union must be preserved. That he put down Nullification, and the whole theory of the Government attempted to be established by Mr. Calhoun. Now, I am a Union man upon the principles of General Jackson. His proclamation against Nullification is my political text-book. Have you got that Proclamation?

MR. STEPHENS. Yes, here it is, in the Statesman's Manual, vol. 2, page 794.

MAJOR HEISTER. Well, did not General Jackson, in it, denounce the proceedings in South Carolina as treasonable, and did he not, by his Roman firmness and decision, at the time, promptly quell the Rebellion in its incipiency, then brewing in that State, and thus save the Union and maintain the Constitution?

What Story and Motley and Webster said about the Constitution has but little weight with me. If Webster did not answer Calhoun, General Jackson, at least, silenced him, and put an end to Nullification and all other attempts to overthrow the Government, for more than a quarter of a century. Here is the Proclamation, which is, as I have said, my text-book on this subject. It is too long for me to read the whole of it, nor is it necessary. I call your attention to only certain portions of it.

MR. STEPHENS. Before looking into the Proclamation I must set you right on some matters of fact.

MAJOR HEISTER. How so? What matters of fact? MR. STEPHENS. The statement by you that General Jackson put down Nullification and silenced Mr. Calhoun.

MAJOR HEISTER. Are not these statements correct? Do you join issue on them?

MR. STEPHENS. I most certainly do. Nullification in South Carolina, whether it be considered as an incipient Rebellion, or as a proper and peaceable mode of obtaining a redress of grievances as its advocates contended, was never put down or quelled by General Jackson or any body else. Its further prosecution was abandoned by those who initiated it as a mode of redress, when the wrongs and grievances complained of were redressed by Congress, and not till then.

It is not my purpose to defend the doctrine of Nullification, or to say how far General Jackson as President was right in issuing a Proclamation declaring his purpose to execute the laws in that instance. It is proper, however, to state that the primary and leading object of its advocates was not Secession or Disunion. It was just the contrary. But so subtle were the principles upon which it was founded, that it was never understood by the country. South Carolina, as well as a number of the other States, held, that the power to levy duties upon imports, not with a view to revenue, but to protect and aid particular classes, was not delegated to the Congress. Nullification, without Secession, was a remedy she resorted to, to defeat the operation of protective laws passed by the Congress. Many who believed in the perfect right of Secession, and looked upon that as the proper remedy in such cases of abuse of power as South Carolina complained of, were utterly opposed to Nullification. How a State could remain in the Union, with Senators and Representatives in Congress, and yet refuse obedience to the laws of Congress not set aside by the Judiciary as unconstitutional, was, to this class, utterly incomprehensible! But the merits of this doctrine are not now before us. Suffice it to say I was never an advocate of it. And all I mean now to say on this point is, that whether right or

wrong in principle, it was never abandoned until the protective policy, which it was resorted to to change, was abandoned by the Government. The Proclamation did not either put it down or silence its advocates or defenders. Mr. Calhoun's speech, which we have read, was made after that. The giving way was on the part of the Federal Government and not the State Government.

A brief statement of the matter is this. The Nullifi cation Ordinance of South Carolina, which was to test the question, was passed the latter part of November, 1832, to go into effect on the 1st of February, 1833. The Proclamation was issued on the 11th of December, 1832. Congress was in session: on the 21st of January, 1833, a Bill was introduced to meet the provisions of the Nullification Ordinance of the State, by counteracting Legislation and clothing the President with the necessary power to execute it, putting at his disposal the whole of the land and naval forces. This was called the Force Bill. The Constitutionality of the provisions of this Bill was denied by many who did not hold to the doctrine of Nullification. Unusual excitement prevailed. A great debate sprung up-the greatest since the formation of the Government, for then principles were discussed. The speeches of Mr. Webster and Mr. Calhoun constitute part of this debate. Mr. Calhoun offered his Resolutions the day after the Force Bill was introduced. Serious fears were entertained that if the Bill should pass, and become a law, while South Carolina held the position she did, that a collision would take place between the United States forces and the forces of the State; and that wan would ensue. For, though South Carolina did not, in her Ordinance, contemplate the use of any force in the modus operandi of her chosen remedy, yet she declared her intention to be, to repel force by force, in case the United States should resort to force.