Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1828-1831, 1830-03-05
SPEECH OF MIR. WEBSTER,
CONCLUDED.

She looks upon il with other regards, and deems
moro highly and rcvcrcntly both OF its just authority
and tn utility and excellence. The history OF her
legislative proceedings may be traced the cpheme-
raj c1sions Of temporary bodies called together by
tho excitement of tho OCCASION may be hunted VI.
they have been hunted up: The opinions and votes
Of her public men, in and OUT of Congress, may be
axplorod-it will all be in vain. The Carolina dec
tfine can derive from her neither countcnance nor
support She rejects il now; she always did reject
IT and till she loses her senses she always will reject
II. The honorable member has referred to express
sious, on the subject of the embargo law, made in
this place. by honorable and venerable gentleman,
(Mr. IIilhouse,) now favoring with his presence.
ife quotes that distinguished Senator saying that
in his judgment the embargo law unconsti,u-
tona and that therefore, III his opinion. the people
were not bound to obey it. That sir, is perfectly
constitutional language. An unconstitutional law is
not binding; but then Il docs not rest Ui resolution
lau IF State Legislature 10 decide ,chether an
ad IF Congress be, or be not Constitutional An un.
constitutional act OF Co,a:ress would bind the
people of this district, although they have esisla-
ture to Interfere in their behalf; and, the other
hind, constitutional law of Congress does bind the
citizens Of every State, although all their legislatures
should undertake to anuut it, by act resolution
The venerable Connecticut Senator is constiiu-
tinnal lawyer, OF sound principles, and enlarged know
ledge; statesman prac!ised and experienced bred in
the company Of Washington, and holding Just views
upon tho nature Of our governments Hc believed
the embargo uucoDsi utional and did others but
what then: Who did he suppose, to decide that
question:, The State legislature? Certainly not. M
such sentiment ever escaped his lips. Let us follow
up SIR, this New England opposition TO the embargo
laws; let US trace it, till discern the principle
which controlled & governed New England, through
out the whole course Of that opposition. We shall
then see what similarity there Is between the New
England school Of constitutional opinions and this
modern Carolina school. The gentleman think,
read petition from single individual, addressed
to the legislature Of Massachusetts, asserting tho Ca
rolna doctrinethat is the right of State interior
ence to arrest tho laws Of the Union. The fate of
that shows tho ,f
1t met no favor. The opinions of Massachusetts were
otherwise. They had been expressed in 1896 in an
swer to the resolutions OF Virginia, and she did not
depart from them, bend them to the times
Misgoverned wrongcd oppressed as she fr, I,cr,eIs
to DC, she still held fast her integrity to the Union
The gentleman may find i'm her proceedings much
evidence of dissatisfaction with the measures of 20
vernment aud great and deep dislike to the cmba no:
all this makes the much the stronger for her:
Tor notwithstanding all this dissatisfaction and dis.
like, she claimed right, STILL to sever asuner the
bonds OF the Union. There was heat, and there was
anger in her political feelng-be so-hcr heat or
her anger did not nevertheless, betray her into nd
city to the government. The gentleman labors 10
prove that she dsliked the embargo as much az S.
Carolina d'slkes the tariff and expressed her dislike
ns strongly Be it so; but did she propose The Caro-
Ina remedy Did she threaten TO interfere, BIZ STATE
authority to annui the ia,os of The Union? That is
the question for the gentlcman's considerations
No doubt, sir, great majority Of the pcople of
New England conscientiousy believed the EMBARGO
law OF 1907 unconstitutional; conscientously Ger
faiuy Us the people of South Carolina hold thai opn
Ion of the tariff; they reasoned thus: Congress has
power to regulate commerce.; but here is law they
said, stopping oil commerce, and stopping it ndcfi-
niely The law is perpetual; that is, it is not I'm
tied in point of time, and must of COURSE continue
I'LL 1t shall be repealed by some other law 1t is as
psrpe' nal therefore, the law against treason or
murder. Now, is this regulating commerce, or de-
sroying IT. Is it guiding, controlling giving The rule
TO commerce, as subsisting thing or is it putting
an end TO it altogether Nothing is more certain,
hHn hat mas, ito, NJ. M
law violation of the constitution. The very case
required by the gentleman to justify State interior
chce, had then arisen. Massachusetts believed this
law to DC vi deliberate, papatie, and dangerous er-
erciseg potrer not granted by TIC Constitution -
Deliberate It was for il was long continued; palpable
she thought it, words in The constitution rayc
the power, and only construction, in her opinion
mos, violent raised IT. dangerous It it threat
cned utter rum to her mostimpor;ant interests Here
then, was Carolina case. How did Massachusetts
deal with IT. II was, as she thought, plain, mani
fest, palpabe violation of the constitutions and it
brought ruin to her doors. Thousands of familcs
and hundreds Of thousands of individuals were her,
CARED o. it. While she and felt all this. she
saw and felt also, that measure of national poli
cy It was perfectly fatc; that the country was no
way benefited by that which caused so much indi
vdua distress; that it was efficient onlv for the nro
ductfon OF evil, and all that evil inflicted on ourselves
In such case under such circumstances how did
Massachusetts demcan herself? Sir, she remonstra
ted she memorialized, she addressed herself to tho
General government mot exactly "with the concon,ro
ted energy of passioD but with her own stronr
and the energy of sober conviction. But she did NOT
ncpose The arm OF her power to arrest the iaw and
break the embargo. Far from it, Her nrincinlcs
o5und her to two things; and she followed her prnc
pies lead her where they might. First, 10 submit
20 every constitutional law of Congress; and second
~ the constitutional validity of the law be doubted
TO refer that question to the decision Of the
tribunals The first principle is vain and Intellectual
without the second. majority of us in New Enr
iand believed the embargo law unconstit utonal: but
the great question was, and always will be in snb
cases, who IS to decide this, Who is 10 Judge be-
tween the People and the Government! And. air, /,
- quite PLAIN, that the constitution of the United
states coniers on The government itself TO be eyer
ciscd by Its appropriate department. this power Of de-
ciang Ultimately and conclusiycy upon the exten,
OF IT'S own authority. II this had not boen done we
SHOULD not have advanced single step beyond the
Beng fully of opinion that the embargo law was I'm.
constitutional, the People of New England were vet
cqnahy Siear OF the opinion-it was matter tiIev
doubt nDDn-fhnf h.