Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1828-1831, 1830-03-05


at least much rs any man, he was attached to
the General Government and to the Union of the
States. His feeling AID opinions all in that di
rcctiou question Of constitutional law, too, was,
Of all subjects, that which best suited to his
talents and learning. Aloof from technically, and
unfettcrcd by artificial rule such question gave op.
portunity for that deep and clear analysis that nigh
ty grasp of principle, which SO much distinguished
his higher efforts. HIS very statement, was nrgu-
me mt; his Inference, seemed demonstration. The
carnestncss of his conviction, wrought convic-
ton in Others One was convinced, and assented be-
cause it gratifying delightful to think, and feel
and believe, in Unison with intellect Of such evil
dent superiority.
Mr.. Dexter, sir, such as I have described him,
gucd the New England cause. He put into his ef-
fort his whole heart, well all the powers Of his
understanding; for he had uvowcd, in tho most pub
lie manner, his entire concurrence with his neigh
bors, tho point in dispute. He argued the cause,
it was lost, and New England submitted The cs-
tabshcd tribunals pronounced the law constitution
al, ind New England acquiesccd Now, sir, is not
this the exact opposite Of the doctrine of the gentle
man from South Carolina? According TO HIM, in
stead Of referring tho judicial tribunals, we should
have broken up the embargo, by laws Of our own;
we should have repealed 1t, quoad New England for
We had strong, palpabc, and oppressive case Sir,
we believed the embargo unconstitutional; but still,
that was matter of opinion, and who was to decide
1t? We thought it clear case; but, nevertheless,
we did not take the law into our own hands, because
'ce did not oish to bring about reroiution nor to
break up The Union; for maintain, that, between
submission to the decision Of the constituted tribu
nails, and revolution, dsunion, there is no middle
ground-therc il no ambiguous condition, half alle-
glance and half rebellion. There is no treason m aSe
easy Aud Sir how futile, how very futile is to
admit tho right Of state interference and then attempt
to save 1t from tho character Of unlawful resistance,
by adding terms of qualification to the causes and &C.
cas,ons, leaving oil these qualifications like the Gaze
itself in the discretion of the State Governments
II must be clear case, it is said; deliberate case
aa,Papablc case; dangerous case. But then the
hh0yftr To ,,,
what is clear, what is deliberate, what is palpab!c,
what is dangerous. DO adjecvcs and opithe,s avail
any thing? Sir, the human mind is 30 constituted that
the me ITS ctboth sides of controversy appear very
clear, md very papable 20 those who respectively
cspousc them; and both sides usually grow clearer as
the controversy advances South Carolina secs un.
constitutonalty in the Tariff; she secs oppression
there also; and she secs danger PENNSYLVANIA with
vision no less sharp, looks ut the same Tariff, and
secs no such thing i'll sic secs it all constitutional
all useful, all safe The faith of South Carolina is
strcnShed by opposition, and she now not ONLY sees
hut Resolves, that the Tariff papably unconstu-
tona oppressive, and dangerous: but Pennsylvania,
not to be behind her neighbors, and equally willing to
strengthen her own faith by confident asseveration
fesorcs also and gives to every affirmative of
South Carolina, plain, downright Pennsylvania
negative. South Carolina, to show the strength and
unity her opinion, brings her Assembly to una
nimlly within seven votes. Pennsylvania not TO be
outdone IN this respect more than others reduces her
descntent fraction to five votes. Now sir, again I
=
States both rght' Is he bound to consider them
Doth right IL not, which in the wronU, or rather
which has the best right TO decidc' And if he and
IT J, are not to know what the Constitution means,
and what 1t Is, till those two State Legislatures and
the twenty two others, shall agree on its construc
ton, what have we sworn to, when we have sworn
to maintain it, | was fJrcbly struck sir, with one
reflection, MS the gentleman went on in his speech
he quoted Mr.. MadisunS resolutions to prove that n
State may interfere, in of deliberate, palpabc
and dangerous exercise of power mol grantcd -
The honorable member sufposcs the Tariff Law to
be such an exercise of power and that conse1Icnt-
", case has arisen in which the State may if IL see
ft interfere wits own law. Now it SO happens,
nevertheless that Mr. Madison himsc elf deems This
same Tariff law quite constitutional. Instead of
clear and papable violation, II is in bis Judgment no
violation at all. So that, while they his author
y for hypothetical case, they reject it in the very
case before tem All this sir, shows the Inherent
I-futliity-l had almost used stronger word-of
concedng this power of interference to the States
and then attempting TO secure it from abuse by i'm
posing qualifications, of which the States themselves
are to Judge Ono or two things is truc either the
laws of the Union arc beyond the discretion and be-
yond the control of the States, or else have no
constitution of General Government, and are thrust
back again to the days of The CoDfederacy
Let Inc here say, sir, that If the genteman's doc
trine had been received and acted upon in n. Eng
land in the times ofthe embargo and intercourse
we should probably not now have heen here
The government would very likely have gone to pie
ccs and crunblcd into dust. No stronger case can
ever arise than existed under those laws; no States
can ever entertain clearer conviction than the NJ
England States then entertained; and if they had
been under the influence ofthat hcrcsy ofopinon as
must call it, which the honorable member espouses,
this Union wousd, in all probability, have been scat
tered to the four Winds / ask the gentleman there
fore, to apply hisprincplc 10 that case ask him TO
come forth 81 declare, whether in his opinion the n
England States, would have been justified in nterfer
ing to break up the embargo system, under the CON
scionious opinions which they held upon io Had
they right to anDu that law? Does he admit or
deny! If that which is thought palpabIy unconsi,u
tonal IN South Carolina, justifcs that State in ar
resting the progress of the law, tell me, whether
that which was thought palpably unconstitutional
also IN Massachusetts, would have justified her in
dong the same thing Sir I deny the whole doc
trne. II has not foot ground in the constitution
70 stand on DO public man Of reputation ever adj
vanced 1t IN Massachusetts, in the warmcst times or
could maintain himself upon it there at any time
wish now. sir, TO make a remark upon the Viz
gina resolutions Of 1885, cannot undertake To saw
how these resolutions were understood by those who
passed them Their languagei is not little inde6.