Lancaster gazette. [volume] (Lancaster, Mass.) 1828-1830, 1830-03-23

:, the very moment when South Carolina re-
solves that the Tariff laws are demonstrations
al, Pennsylvania and Kentucky resolve
exactly the reverse..- They hold these laws
to be both highly proper, and strictly con-
stitutional. And now, sir how does the
|honourable member propose to deal with
this case? How does he get out of this
difficulty, upon any principle of his? His
construction gets us into u; how does he
propose to get us out
/ In Carolina, the Tariff is palpable, DELHI
crate usurpation; Carolina, therefore. may
|nullify it, and refuse to pay the duties. In
Pennsylvania, it is both clearly constitutional
and highly expedient; and there, the duties
are to be paid. And yet, we live under a
government of uniform laws, and under a
constitution, too, which contains an express
provision, as it happens, that all duties shall
be equal in all the States? Does not this
approach absurdity?
1 IF there be no power to settle such ques-
tions, independent of either of the states, is
not the whole Union rope of sand Are
we not thrown back again, precisely, upon
the old Confederation?
4 It is too plain to be argued. Four and
twenty interpreters of constitutional law.
each with power to decide for itself, and
none with authority to bind any body else,
and this constitutional law the only bond of
their Union What is such state ofthings,
but mere connexion during pleasure, or,
to use the phraseology of the times, daring
feeling? And that feeling, too, not the
feeling of the people, who established the
constitution, but the feeling of the State
Governments.
In another of the South Carolina Address
ses, having promised that the crisis requires
" all the concentrated energy of passion
the Union is advised. Open resistance to
the laws, then, is the constitutional remedy,
the conservative power of the State, which
South Carolina doctrines teach for the re-
dress of political evils, real or imaginary.
And its authors further say, appealing with
confidence to the Constitution itselfto justify
their 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 favour of ber-
ty. But what sort of liberty? The liberty
of establishing their own opinions, in def
ance of the opinions. of all others; the liberty
Of judging and of deciding exclusively them
selves, in matter in which others have as
much right to judge and decide as they |;
the liberty of placing their own opinions
above the judgement 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 re-
suit 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 Drawer sympathy than
that which sprung from the bosom of Caro-
linnns.s We had no srtortion, no oppression,
no collision soith the Kings ministers. no
navigation interests springing up, IN enuaons
rivalry Of England"
This seems extraordinary language.
South Carolina no collision with the Kings
ministers in 1775! no extortiou no opprvs-
sion But, sir, it is almost 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 readers mind the question, whether, at
this time-that is to say in lS2S-South
Carolina has any collision with the Kings
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 1923, should thus
labour to prove, that, in l775, 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 sup
posing the object to be what have already
intimated, to r aise the question, if they had
no collision" mark the expression) with
4 the ministers of King George the Third in
l775, what collision have they, in 1923, with
the ministers of King George the Fourth
What is there now, in the existing state of
things, TO separate Corolina from Old, more,
or rather, than from .New- England?
Resolutions, sir, have beenrecently passed
by the Legislature of South Carolina. l
need not refer to them; they 60 no farther
than the honorable gentleman himself has
gone--and hope not so far. | content
myself therefore, with debating the matter
with him.
4 And now, sir, what | have first to say on
this subject is, that at no time, and under no
circumstances, has New-Engiand, or any
State in New-England, or any respectable
body of persons in New-England, or any
public man of standing in N. England put forth
such doctrine as this Carolina doctrine.
The gentleman has found no case, he can
find none, TO support his opinions by New
England authority. New-England has stud
led 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 illusions Of temporary bod
les, called together by the excitement of the