Lancaster gazette. [volume] (Lancaster, Mass.) 1828-1830, 1830-03-23
MR.wEBsrER,s SECOND SPEECH

ner own Feelings Oh nonouraOie JUSTICE.
Mr.. Hayne here rose, and said, tina
for the purpose of being clearly understood
he would state, that his proposition was il
words of the Virginia resolution as fol
lows.
.sThat this assembly doth explicitly and
peremptoriy declare, that it views he pow
ers of Federal Government as resulting from
the compact to which the States are parties.
as limited by the plain sense and intention
of the instrument constituting that compact,
as no farther valid than they are authorised
by the grants enumerated in that compact
and that, in case of deliberate, palpable
and dangerous exercise of other powers, not
granted by said compact, the States who
are parties thereto have the right, and are
in duty bound to interpose for arresting the
progress of evil, and for maintaining, within
their espective limits, the authorities, rights
and liberties appertaining to thsm."l
Mr.. Webster, resumed:
/ am quite aware Mr.. President, of the
exiatence of the resolutions which the gen.
tleman read and has now repeated. and
that he relies upon it as his authority. l
know the source, too, from which it is un-
derstood to have proceeded. need not
say, that | have much respect for the
constitutional opinions of Mr.. Madison
they would weigh greatly with me, always.
But before the authority of his opinions be
vouched for the gentlemans proposition,
it will be proper to consider what is the
fair Interpretation of that resolution, to
MI, Mol.a1, ,,,,1aratool hos
given his sanction. As the gentleman
constrnes it, it is an authority for him.
Possibly, he may not have adopted the
right construction. That resolution de-
clares, that in the case of the dangerous
exercise of poa0ers, not granted By the
General Government. the States may III
terpose to arrest the progress of the emil.
But how interpose, an dwhat does this dec
laration purport Does it mean no more,
than there may be extreme cases in which
the people, in any mode of assembling,
may resist usurpation, and relieve them.
selves froma tyranical government No
one will deny this. Such resistance is
not only acknowledged to be- just in Amer
lea, but in England also. Blackstone ad-
mits as much, in the theory and practice
too. of the English constitution. We,
sir. who oppose the Carolina doctrine, do
not deny, that the people may, if they
choose, throw off any government, when
it becomes oppressive and intolerable, and
erect better in its stead. We all know
that civil institutions are established for
the publick benefit, and that when they
cease to answer the ends of their existence
they may be changed. But do not un-
derstand the doctrine now contended for
to be that which, for the sake of distinct
ness, we may call the right of revolution.
/ understand the gentleman to maintain
that without revolution. without civil COM
motion, without rebellion, a remedy for
supposed abuse and transgression of the
powers Of the General Government, lies
in direct appeal to the interference Of
the State Governments. Mr.. Hayne here
rose He did not contend, he said, for
the mere right of revolution, but for the
right of constitutional resistance. What
he maintained was. that in case of plain
palpa5le violation Of the constitution by
the General Government, State may in
terpose; and that this interposition is con-
stitutional.
MIR. Webster resumed -
So, sir. | understood the gentleman
and am happy to find that | did not mis-
understand him. What he contends for
IS, that it is constitutional to interrupt the
administration Of the constitution ITSELF
an the hands of those who are chosen and
sworn TO administer il, by the direct in.
reference, in form of law, of the States
in virtue oftheir sovereign capacity. The
inherent right in the people TO reform
their government, | do not deny; and
they have another right, and that is, TIC
resist unconstitutional laws, without over.
turning the Government. 1t is no doc.
trine of mine, that unconstitutional laws
bind the people. The great question is
aohose prerogatire is 1t to decide on tile an
constitutionakity of the taos ? On that
the main debate hinges. The proposition
that in case ola supposed violation of the
constitution by Congress, the States have
constitutional right to interfere, and an
nuai the law of Congress, is the PROPOSE
ton Of the gentleman do not admit it
If the gentleman had intended no more
than TO assert the right Of revolution, fo
JustifiabIe cause he would have said onlv
what all agree to. But cannot conceive
that there can be middle course, between
submission TO the laws. when regularl,
pronounced constitutional, on the on,
hand. and open resistance, which is reyo
luton or rebellion. on the other. | say
the right of state to annul law of Con
gress, cannot be maintained but upon tn,
ground of the unalienable right of man t,
resist oppression; that is to say, upon tn,
ground of revolution. / admit. that Their,
is an ultimate violent remedy, above tn,
constitution, and in defiance of the con
stitution, which may be resorted to, wheu
a revolution is to be justified. But d,