Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1830-03-05

:
that III might maintain them. kIo-e than ull men,
or at least us mnch as any man, he was attached to
the General Government and to the Union Of tho
States His feeling aid opinions all in that iii
rection A question Of constitutional law, too, was,
Of all subjects that which best suited to his
talents and learning. Aloof from technically, and
une,tcrcd by artificial rule, such question gave p
porunity for that deep and clear analysis that nigh
ty grasp OF principle, which mach distinguished
ms higher ctforis HIS very statement, was argu- !
mt Mt; his inference, seemed demonstration. The /
earnes'ncss of his own, conviction, wrought convic
ton in others One was convinced, and sssented ,bc
cause 1t was gratifying, delightful to think, and feel
and believe i'll unision with an intellect of svch evil
dent superiority.
gued the Wv England cause. He put into his Of
tort his whole heart as well oil the powers Of his
understanding for Inc had avowcd, in the most pub
lie manner, his entire concurrence with his neah
bors, on tho point in dispute. He argued the cause,
1t was lost, and New England submitted The cs-
tublshcd tribunals pronounced the law constitutions
al, aud New England acquicsccd. Now, sir, is not
this the exact opposite of the doctrine of the gentle
man from South Carolina? According /: hun, in
stead of referring to the judicial tribunals we should
have broken up the embargo, by laws of our own;
we should have repealed it, quoad New England; for
we had strong, papabe, and oppressive case. Sir.
we believed the embargo unconstitutional; but still,
that was matter of opinions and who was to decide
He we thought 1T clear case; but nevertheless,
we did not take the law into hands, because
,re did nof ,ois TO bring about repoiution nor to
break up The Union; for / rlan.ain, that, between
submission to the decision of the constituted trbu-
nas, and revolution or disunon, there is middle
ground-thcrc is no ambiguous condition. half ale
GIanco and half rebellion. There is no treason made
easy And ssr, how futile, how very futile it is to
admit the right ofsatc interference and then attempt
10 1t from the character of unlawful resistance
by adding terms of qualification to the causes and oc
cas'ons, leaving all these qualifications like the Gaze
ltsci! Ill the discretion o: the State Governments
II must be clear case it is said; deliberate case;
paipablc case; dangerous case. But then the
State is still left at liberty to decide for herself
what is clear, what is deliberate, what is papablc
what is dangerous Do adeciivcs and epi,liets avail
any thins Sir, the human mind is cons ituted that
the me IT'S fboth sides Of controversy appear very
clear and very palpablc, to those who respectively
ospouse them; and both sides usually grow clearer as
tic controversy advances. South Carolina secs un
corsitutionallty i'll the Tariff; she secs oppress,on
there also; and size danger. PENNSYLVANIA with
vision no less sharp, looks at the same Tariff and
sees no such thing in tshe sees all constitutional
all useful all safe. The faith of South Carolina is
srengthed ny opposition, and she now not only sees
but Resoices that the Tariff is palpably unconsl,u
tlonal, oppressive, and dangerous: but Pennsylvania
not to be behind her neighbors, and equally wnp TO
strengthen her faith by confident assevcrat7,on
Iesoccs also and gives to every warm affirmative of
South Carolina, plain, downright PENNSYLVANIA
negative South Carolina to show the strenntb and
unity o. her opinion, brings her Assembly to a una
lmltY within seven votes. PENNSYLVANIA NOT 10 h,
ontdone in this respec, more than Others re5e hr
Il ssentient fraction to five votes. Now sir aoain
ASK the gentleman, what Is TO be done? Are these
states poth tight! Is he bound to consider them
both right? Ifnot, which is in the wronnP or r.tbs
which has the best right 10 decide? And if he and
II arc not to know what the Constitution means
ana what 1t is, till those two State Legislatures and
,ne twenty TWO Others shall agree on its consruc-
ZION, what have we sworn to, when we have sworn
to maintain it' was forcibly struck sir with ono
ireAecion, MS The gentleman went in his soeech-
lie quoted air hladlsons resolutions to prove that
olae may interfere, In case of deliberate Da]nobIo
and dangerous exercise of power moi orantpJ ~
! he honorable member suPposes the Tariff Law to
be such an exercise of power; and that, consequent
y, case has arisen in which the State NAV if;t Coo
mt, interfere by its own law. Now it so hapnens
nevertheless, that Mr.. Madison himself deems this
same Tariff law quite constitutional Instead of n
clear and palpabe violation, 1t is in his Judgment, no
violation at all. So that while thew use Lis ,u,bo
y for hypothetical case they reject it in the very
case before them. All this sir shows the inhee ont
--iutility--i had almost used stronger word--of
concedlns this power off interference to the States
ana then attempting TO secure it from abuse by i'm
posing qualifications of which the States themselves
are to Judge. One or two things is true either the
laws OF the Union are beyond the discretion and be-
constitution of General Government, and are thrus,
back again to the days of the Confsderacv
Let me mere say sir, that if the gentlemans doc
trinc lad been received and acted upon in NJ Emo
anu In the times of the embargo and
we should probably not now have heen bore
Inc government would very likely have zone to MIC
ces end crumblcd into dust. No STRONGER case c,n|
ever arise than existed under those laws; no States
can ever entertain clearer conviction than tho N
England States then entertained; and if thew had
been under the influence ofthat hcresy of opinion is
must call it, which the honorable member espouses
this Union would, in all probability have been scat
e TO the four winds | ask the gentleman there
tore, to apply his principle to that case; ask him IN
come forth & declare, whether in his opinion. he N,
England States, would have been justified in nteJfsr
ing to break up the embargo SYSTEM unt. the con-
scien'ious opinions which they held upon il, Had
they right to annu that law Does he adm, NJ
deny, If that which is thought papabIy unconstit,-
tiona lii South Carolina, justifies that State in sT
resting the progress of the law, tell me, whether
that winch was thought palpably unconstitutional
also IN Massachusetts, would have justified her in
dong the same thing? Sir, l de1y the whole doc
tnne. 1t has not foot of ground in the constitution
TO stand on NO public man of reputation ever adj !
vanced it in Massachusetts in the yyarrncs, t;n
could maintain himself upon it there at any time
. / wish now. sir, to make a remark upon the Vir
gina resolutions of 1893 cannot undertake TO saw
now tnese resolutions We're understood by those who