Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1830-12-03
oeuu ExaDta.
FRIDAY MoRNING, DEcEMnER >. Isao.

ter OF the venerable General Sumter, on the nuii
cation docirine-extorted from HIM, no doubt-if not
dictated to bim-by those who propose 10 grace and
strengthen desperate and odious cause by the au-
thority of his name.
tits instructive to witness the progress of human
opinion Until Mr. P. Barbour few years ngo
ventured, in the plenitnde of his hair splitting pro-
pensy, to question the consitutionaity of the Tariff
such an idea had probably entered dozen heads
1t however was adopted by many, who wished it to
be true, and in few has ripened into an incon
trovertible axiom! No man who respects his popu-
larlty thinks of calling it in question.
The multiplying doctrine started in the same
accidental way. and found favor from the same eau
SEES, until when only few years old, we find such
Gen Sumter holding the following Ian
guage:
s'That the Legislature (says the CieneraO as
sovereign power nuly the unconstitutional acts
of the General Government is the primary and prir
cipaI doctrine of the State Rights Party"
So we CO. That which is speculation t, law
becomes doctrine tomorrow. What saw our States
Rights gentlemrn-par,icularly our Barbour, our
Rtchie and the rest of the real Simon Pures-io
this unconditional, unqualified, position Of General
Sumter! They do not approve tive know they
do not, caunot-hut why do they not attack it,
They. who so beabored Massachusetts in 1915 for
similar heresy--whose keen and sagacions noses,
scent danger to the Constitution and States lights
in every breeze that comes from Kentucky, or Bos-
ton-how is it, that this stitutional doctrine so
new, absurd, msnstrous, SO Overwhelmingly
dangerous that if it prevail Union and Constitution
are gone together-has failed to provoke than
the gentest and mildest Specification of dissent
Had Massachusetts, set up such pretension. what
would his Honour Judge 'rbour, have said to it, in
that late va edicory in which he took occasion to
treat Of federal politics. Were Henry Ciay the
advocate of such doctrine, would he be stud;ouslv
sparedr Judge Barbour's farewell address, was par
ticuarly devoted to the consideration of State and
Federal relations: is it not subject of amaZement
that in treatise such subject-wrtten at such
time-with such nominal intentons-he should
wholly, and absolutely, pretcrmit the question of
nulfcation, remarkable in its nature so threaten
ing 10 its consequences, occupying much Of public
attention, and supported by considerable for
reputation and talent? The honorable gentleman is
panic struck at the symptoms of consoliatiou-he is
horribly alarmed and agitated by the Tarif,-(which
by the bye, he helped to establish, whether good or
bad) and roads and canals freeze him with conserna-
tion-but upon this doctrine of nnication-this
monstrous prctension of one State to annul law of
Congress-which does not merely ann dagger at
the Union, but plunges it up to the hit in its heart
upon this the gentleman, f he does not survey ii
with favor looks with the most philosophc tranquil
ty! In professsed treatise nationa! politics he
does not consider it Of consequence enough to merit
one single word of remark! All the patriotic fears
and ,remblngs, and horrors, and night mares, thai
shake him and ride him cruelty, inspired by the
Tariff and Roads and Canals Strange that one
whose nerves are unsirung by the COMPUTATIONS o
his own brain, by spectres and COLLINS that exist nc
where else-should stand composed and unmoved ir
the presence of armed assassns
There must be for this wonderful incon-
gruity, if it worth ones while to look for it,