diction, that the members of the National Legislature-a majority of them at least, did act on the conviction that the Constitution had invested them with discretionary powers: that they adopted, in short, the very same principles of construction, generally, for which I now contend. On the other hand, there is not the slightest intimation, that these principles were regarded either as dangerous or erroneous, previously to the introduction of the above mentioned bill. Down to this period, I can find no reason to believe, that this questio vexata was ever raised. Why was it moved now? The answer is obvious. The subject was of a nature to rouse local jealousy, and to touch the sensitive chords of individual interest; and the combatants in this unholy strife, from that day to this, have ever, with instinctive sagacity, endeavoured to entrench themselves behind the ramparts of the Constitution. Men like an honorable and well sounding watch-word; and accordingly, from that day to this, whenever any subject has been under discussion, of a nature deeply to stir the public mind, and awaken party feelings, the minority, when pressed for arguments drawn from other topics, have found here an inexhaustible store. True, they have seldom been effectual to stay the course of the dominant party, when in the hot pursuit of a favourite measure. Still, the cry that the "Constitution is in danger," is one of terrific import to the timid and unthinking, even now. We have seen how early and how ineffectually it was raised. The principle of strict interpretation, was, as I have stated, first set up in regard to the assumption of the State debts; and after an earnest and full debate, was declared practically, by the constituted authorities, not to be a sound one.

The same principle was again brought forward, successively, and with the same results, in regard to the Bank Acts--to the Alien and Sedition Laws-to the purchase of Louisiana-to the various Embargo and non-intercourse Acts--and to every successive modification of the Tariff Laws, down to the present moment. Yet you represent it as substantially--in its alarming features at least--a new principle. It is amusing, by the way, to look back along the line of our history, and see how uniformly a change of position has wrought a change of opinion, in this regard, in every successive party, and modification of party, that has checkered our political scene-how Greeks and Trojans have exchanged armour, and what confusion and cross-firing have sometimes ensued.

What, then, is my inference from all these political phenomena? Merely this: That a principle which has never been employed, but for the purpose of embarrassment; and which its warmest champions have found themselves compelled to abandon, whenever, in their turn, they became the actors, can hardly be considered a practical one. return to my subject.

I have dwelt longer on this point than may, perhaps, be deemed necessary-this is not my opinion. In one point of view, at least, I regard it as very important. If the course of legislation you denounce so loudly, is not, as you maintain, a recent innovation; if it has obtained from the first, and been resorted to by every administration, and every political sect, that has successively gained the ascendancy; then, certainly, you must admit, that, so far at least, as principle is concerned, there is no adequate cause for the outcry that is

raised among us for the clamours that are ringing in our ears-for the bitter denunciations uttered with so much violence. Be these principles as unsound as they may, they are no new thing--the public mind has been familiar with them these forty years. Why start up in such convulsive terrors now, as if some new and prodigious portents had just burst upon the political concave, shaking pestilence and war from their horrid hair?" It suits the purposes of your argument, doubtless, to present the subject in this light; but surely it is not the true one. If there be any faith to be reposed in the evidence of facts, such as I have described has been the course of our government from the first; and such the practical testimony it has borne to the principles I maintain.

The Bank Act, passed in 1791, you admit, was a clear and unequivocal exercise of constructive powers; a solemn and deliberate assertion, by the Government, of rights, for which no specific warrant could be found in the Constitution. Of this admission I propose to avail myself hereafter. At present I will only refer you, as further evidence of the correctness of my positions, to the act of Congress passed in March, 1791, granting lands to settlers in Vincennes, &c.

I have it not in my power at this moment, to point out with precision, the objects of this law; and hold myself liable to correction, if any mis-statement shall escape me. So far as my memory serves me, one ostensible object was, to promote the culture of the vine in that region. However this may have been, it is, I take it, quite obvious, that on your principles, no grant of the kind, either to individuals or to corporate bodies, unless in payment of legal claims against the United States, could be constitutionally made. On the same principles, every subsequent grant or reservation of lands made by the Government in the Western States and in Florida, or elsewhere, for the promotion of the general interests of education, morals or religion, is clearly and undeniably unconstitutional. In every such act, and they are numerous, Congress has overstepped the limits assigned to its operations, and been guilty of a flagrant usurpation. Strange that such a course of measures, so long and perseveringly pursued, should have excited no apprehension, and called forth no animadversion in any quarter. For I do not find that even the argus eyes of Brutus, have been directed to this quarter of the political map. Yet I know not any act of the Government, not to say any series of measures, more evidently without the range of specific power than this. On what ground have these grants been made? Manifestly on this: The Government supposed itself empowered to make appropriations to promote the general welfare; and it had the simplicity to believe that the general weal would be promoted, by provision made for promoting the education, the moral and religious instruction of the young, in any part of the republic. It evidently deemed that there was a community of interests, a sympathy of feeling, between the respective members of the commonwealth, out of which the Union grew, and on which it rested; so that "if one member suffered, all would suffer with it; or if one were honoured, all would rejoice with it." You had not yet come forth to show us how fallacious is this opinion.

NO. VII.

If I thought there could remain the shadow of a doubt, as to the correctness of the proposition, that the principle of constructive and implied powers is as old as the Government, I might easily extend the line of inductive proofs. For I have, in truth only enumerated, or alluded to, a part. But I cannot perceive there is any occasion to proceed further. Whatever may be the value of this part of the argument, its conclusiveness, you cannot but admit. I have instituted it, as already remarked, for the purpose of showing, in the first place, that there is no peculiar reason, at this particular time, for the excitement that exists, with regard to the measures of the Government. So far, at least, as principles are concerned, the alarm comes too late. They have been fixed and settled long since; and if no political party can be allowed to "throw a stone, "but one that "is without sin" in this respect, the Government will be likely to escape unscathed. Yet you would fain make it appear, that the opposition now made to the measures of the Administration, in this section of the Union, is the result of principle alone; while the consideration of " sordid interest," is confined to the North. And this, too, while your numbers are absolutely overflowing with invectives against the policy of the Government, as destructive to Southern interests. "Non nostrum est tantas componere lites." You must reconcile such conflicting views as you best may.

mean,

This exclusive claim to high principle, as it will hardly be accorded, might as well not have been made. I am not satisfied, either with the complexion of your essays, in another respect. Though you are evidently embarrassed with some prominent instances of Southern Statesmen, who have been advocates of these principles, yet you plainly wish to leave the impression on the minds of your readers, that they are of Northern origin; that they proceed from the same quarter with our September gales, the native "hive" of all that is base, and all that is dangerous. You would fain have it believed, that they have been generally adopted, and uniformly supported there; and as generally resisted at the South. Is it possible you can so deceive yourself?-So close your eyes to the evidence of history? The truth is, that the warm advecates, as well as opponents, of these principles, have been found, at all times, in every section of the country. Several of the most eminent Statesmen South-Carolina has ever produced, have been found among the former; and many eminent individuals in the Northern and Middle States, have been, and still are reckoned among the latter. No; if there is any peculiar cause of alarm at the present time, it is not on the ground of principle-for no new principle has been advanced. It must be on the ground of interest alone. And this ground is sufficient, too. Show that the measures of the Government are systematically hostile to the interests of any section of the country, and no matter whether they are constitutional or not--they are wrong," ipso facto; "and ought to be resisted in every fair and constitutional method. But this must be shown, and by something more than bold assertion and inflammatory appeals to popular passions, before a wise and good man will feel himself called upon to join in opposing them.

But further--I am not disposed to rest this argument here. I had an ulterior purpose in instituting it, and think myself entitled to draw from it a broader inference still. It has, I think, an important bearing on the general question at issue. The Constitution was not intended to be a mere text book for political lecturers, or to furnish topics for erudite and ingenious speculations. It was made for use. It was intended to be applied to the exigencies of a great and growing nation; and it results from its very nature and purpose, that it was to be tested by experiment, and subjected to a practical construction. No commentary, I maintain, is to be regarded as possessing equal authority with the settled practice of the Government; no canon of interpretation, that contravenes this, is to be admitted as sound. On this firm and elevated table land of common sense, and common prudence, I might fairly take my stand, and insist on trying conclusions' here. What avails it to prove, by an elaborate course of metaphysical special pleading, that a certain clause of the Constitution ought to have been interpreted in a particular manner? I answer, it has not been so interpreted, by those whose business it has been to apply its provisions to the great affairs of the nation. And this answer, I submit, is conclusive. At any rate, I am entitled to say, that such a course of constructive legislation as I have proved the Government has pursued, affords a powerful presumption, that the principle a sound one-a presumption much too powerful, in the minds of practical men, to be set aside by minute and elaborate reasonings, on incidental and collateral topics. Surely a principle in the application of which those have agreed, who would agree in nothing else; a principle to which every suċcessive Administration has found itself compelled, in its turn, to resort; a principle that has never been opposed but by the minority, and so long as they were the minority-such a principle can hardly be otherwise than correct. To you, however, this array of stubborn facts will, I suppose, present but little difficulty. You have an open sesame, that unlocks all intricacies in your way. Your explanation may be found in two words usurpation and corruption. The General Government seems to present itself perpetually to your imagination, as a tremendous power, drawn up and intrenched on its own domains, eager and rapacious to seize on every opportunity of pushing its conquests in every direction. One would suppose it was made up of a separate and hostile caste, as remote and distinct, from the mass of the people, in their interests, feelings and habits, as were the Patricians of Rome, or the Aristocracy of Venice. This radical fallacy in your conceptions, has communicated a colouring to all your speculations on this subject. Let me request you to look a little more intimately into this matter. Who and what is the General Government? Of what elements is it composed? It has no permanent substantive existence. The individuals who, at any time discharge its duties-who are they? Mere agents, to execute the orders of the people. The mere organs of the public will, pranked in a little brief authority, attached to their stations, not to their persons, and sitting so loosely, that it is stripped off by the first breath of popular disapprobation-mere puppets, who dare not give a vote, nor utter a speech, which is not thought to be in accordance with the wishes of their constituents. Such are the elements of which the National Government is moulded. And yet these epheme

ral existences, these minute political entities, you represent as unceasingly engaged-for no earthly reason, that I can see, but the pure disinterested love of mischief in the foul work of encroachment and usurpation. What possible motive can impel them to such a course? They are integral parts of the General Administration to-day, it is true. But what will they be to-morrow? Citizens of Virginia, of SouthCarolina, of Massachusetts, or Kentucky. And where, in the mean time, are their property, their families, their connexions, and associates -all the intimacies, and all the pursuits of their previous, and of their future years? By what sort of fascinating influence is a man, on becoming a member of Congress, to cease, at once, to be influenced by local feelings, interests, attachments, and jealousies? To lose all memory of the past, and all regard for the future? Are the sweets of power, thus circumscribed and transient, as oblivious in their effect on those who taste them, as the fruit of the Lotus, causing them to forget, at once, their country and their friends? No, Sir, there is not a man among them, whose state partialities, allowing only for differences of individual temperament, and mental habitudes, are not as strong as yours, or mine. The contrary supposition is inconsistent with the very elements of human nature. It is so absurd, that it cannot be believed, excepting by one to whose arguments such belief is necessary. We must then search for some other cause of this practical tendency in the Government to constructive legislation; and I confess I can find none either more philosophical or more satisfactory, than I have already assigned:-An honest belief, that the Constitution confers this power, and the experience of its necessity to the discharge of its duties.

NO. VIII.

There are two measures of Government, bearing directly on the question between us; which, on account of their intrinsic importance, and the striking circumstances connected with them, I have reserved for a separate consideration. These are, the establishment of the National Bank, and the purchase of Louisiana. The former of these you distinctly pronounce to have been unconstitutional, an act of usurpation on the part of Congress. Your principles compel you to do this; else, I am inclined to think, you would gladly have evaded it-for it is certainly a case presenting no little difficulty. A champion less resolute than yourself, would have shrunk from it. But, with the spirit of old CATO, you seem to have adopted his maxim:- Delenda est Carthago.? The General Government must be proved to be usurping and tyrannical. No matter what obstacles may be encountered; what solemn decisions must be set aside; what settled principles must be broken up, the argument must cut its way through dense and rare' alike. I applaud your courage, certainly; but I cannot compliment your discretion. One would think that a law, passed thirty-six years ago, even though unattended by any peculiar circumstances, and a law, too, touching on such varied and mighty interests as this, might be permitted to pass now, without further question-that it might almost be allowed us to plead prescription in its favour. One would be ready to