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

aphether an .act Of Congress be, or be not con-
stitutiondl An unconstitutional act of Con-
gress would not bind the people of this Dis
trict, although they have no Legislature to
interfere in their behalf; and OH the other
hand, constitutional law of Congress does
bind the citizens of every State, although
all their Legislatures should undertake to
annu it, by act or resolution. The venera-
BILE Connecticut Senator is d constitutional
lawyer, of sound principles, and enlarged
knowledge; a statesman practised and ex-
Iperienced, bred in the company of Wash
|ington, and holding just views upon the ma
ture of our Governments. He believed the
embargo unconstitutional, and so did others ;
but what then? Who, die he suppose, was
TO decide that question? The State Legis-
latures? Certainly not. No such senti-
ment ever escaped his lips. Let US follow
up, sir, this New. England opposition to the
embargo laws let US trace IT'LL we discern
the principle which controlled and governed
New Eng land throughout the whole course
of that opposition. We shall then see what
similarity there is between the New-Eng-
land school of constitutional opinions and
this modern Carolina school.
The gentleman | think, read petition
from some individual, addressed to the Lee
gislature of Massachusetts, asserting the
Carolina doctrine-that is the right of State
interference to arrest the laws of the Union.
The fate of that petition shows the sentiment
of the Legislature. 1t met no favour. The
opinions Of Massachusetts were otherwise.
They had been expressed, in 1898, in.answer
to the resolutions Of Virginia, and she did
not depart from them, nor bend them TO the
times. Misgoverned, wronged, oppressed,
as she felt herself to be, she still held fast
her integrity to the Union. The gentleman
may find in her proceedings much evidence
of dissatisfaction with the measures of Gov
eminent, and great and deep dislike to the
embargo; all this makes the case so much
the stronger for her; for notwithstanding all
this dissatisfaction and dislike, she claimed
no right still to sever asunder the bonds of
the Union. There was heat, and there was
anger, in her political feeling it So
her heat or her anger did not, nevertheless,
betray her into nidelty to the Government.
The gentleman labours to prove that she
disliked the embargo as much as South
Carolina dislikes the tariff, and expressed
her dislike as strongly. Be it so but did
she propose the Carolina remedy did she
threaten to interfere, by State authority, to
ammut the Laacs ofthe Union !? That is the
question for the gentleman's consideration.
No doubt,a great majority of the people of
New England conscientiously believed the
embargo law of 1907 unconstitutional; as
conscientiousy, certainly, as the people Of
South Carolina hold that opinion of the tar
if; they reasoned thus. Congress has pow
er to regulate commerce but here is,a law,
they said, stopping all commerce, and stop
ping it indefinitely. The law is perpetual :;
that is. it is not limited in point of time, and
must, of course, continue, till it shall be re-
pealed by some other law. 1t is perpetual,
therefore, as the law against treason or MUIR
der. Now, is this regulating commerce, or
destroying it? Is it guiding, controlling,
giving the rule to commerce, as subsisting
thing, or is it putting an end to it altogeth-
err? Nothing is more certain than that a ma
Jofity in New-England, deemed this law
violation of the constitution. The very
case required by the gentleman, to justify
State interference. had then arisen. Mas
sachusetts believed this law to be "a de-
liberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of
power, not granted by the Constitution"
Deliberate it was, for it was long continu-
ed; palpable, she thought it, as no words
in the Constitution gave the power, and on
ly a construction, in her opinion, most vio-
lent, raised it; dangerous it was, since it
threatened utter ruin to her most important
interests. Here then, was Carolina case.
How did Massachusetts deal with it 1t
was, as she thought. plain. manifest, pal
pable violation of the Constitution and it
families, and hundreds of thousands of indi-
viduals, were beggared by it. While she
saw and felt all this, she saw and felt also,
that as measure Of national policy, it was
perfectly futile that the country was no
way benefited by that which caused so
much individual distress that it was eff
cient only for the production of evil, and all
that evil inflicted on ourselves.
In such case, under all such circum-
stances, how did Massachusetts demean her
self !? Sir, she demonstrated, she memorial
lied, she addressed herself to the General
Government, not exactly "with the concen-
trated energy of passion" but with her own
strong sense, and the energy of sober con-
FSbiOhs Out SuC oLu uOt pOSC IlIC di
of her own power to arrest the law, and
break the embargo. Far from it. Her
principles bound her to two things: and
she followed her principles, lead where they
might First, to submit to every constitu-
tional law of Congress, and secondly, if the
constitutional validity of the law be doubt
ed, to refer that question to the decision of
the proper tribunals. The first principle is
vain and Intellectual without the second. A
majority of MS in NewEngland believed the
embargo law unconstitutional but the
great question was, and always will be, in
such cases, who is to decide this ? Who is
to Judge between the People and the Gov
eminent? And, sir, it is quite plain, that the
Constitution of the United States confers On
the Government itself, to be ascertained by
its appropriate Department, this power Of
deciding ultimately and conclusvely, upon
the just extent of its own authority. IF this
had not been done, we should not have ad-
vanced single step beyond the Old Con-
federation.