The Massachusetts spy, and Worcester County advertiser. [volume] ([Worcester, Mass.]) 1825-1831, 1830-03-17

Of the opinions of all others the liberty of
j.dging and o! deciding exclusively themselves,
IN ? matter in which others have as much rieht
to ridge and decide as they the liberty of
placing their own opinions above the Judgment
Of all others, above tho laws, and above the
Constitution. This is their liberty, and this is
The FAIR result of the proposition commended fo,
by The honorable gentleman. Or it may be
more properly said, it is identical with it, rather
than result from it. In the same publication
we ind the following: g Previously to our Rev.
olution, when the arm of oppression was
stretched over New England, where did our
northern brethren meet with Drawer sympa-
thy than that which sprung from the bosom of
CaroliniaHs. We had no sriortion, no opDres
SION, no collision, aoith the Kings ministers, no
na 1tgatton interests springiRg up, IN encious
ricatgy Of England"
Hhls seems extraerdiuTy language South
Carolina no collision with the Kings ministers,
ia lffo! no extortion no oppression But, sir,
1t is also most significant language Does any
man doubt the purpose for which it was penned?
Can any one fail to see that it was designed to
raise in the readers mind the question, weether,
Ut thtS time--that is to say in lS2S-South Car
DINA has any collision with the Kings minis
tiers, any oppression, or extortion, to fear from
England? Whether, in short, England is not as
naturally the friend of South Carolina as New
England, with her navigation interests SPRING
ing up in envious rivalry of England
is |: not strange, sir, that an intelligent man
IN South Carolina, in 1923, should thus labor to
prove, that, in ITS, there was no hostility, no
cause of war, between South Carolina and Eng
land That she had no occasion, in reference
TO her own interest, or from regard to her own
welfare, to take up arms in the revolutionary
contest Can any one account for the express
ion Of such strange sentiments and their circu-
lation through the State, otherwise than by
supposing the object to be, what have already
intnnated. TO raise the question if they had no
" collision" (mark the expression) with the
ministers of King George the Third, in 1775,
what collision have they in 1923, with the min
listers of King George the Fourth What is
there now. in the existing state of things, to
separate Carolina from Old, more, OF rather,
than from Neao England
Resolutions, sir, have been recently passed
By the Legislature of South Carolina. / need
not refer to them: they 90 no farther than the
honorable gentleman himself has gone-aad
hope not so far. | content myself, therefore,
with debating the matter with him.
And now, sir, what have first to say on this
subject is. that, at no time, and under no cir
cumstances, has New England, or any State in
New England, or any respectable body of per-
sons in New England, or any public man Of
standing in New England, put forth such doc
trine as this Carolina doctrine
The gentleman has found no case, he can
lind none, to support his own opinions by New
England authority. New England has studied
the constitution in other schools, and under
other teachers. She looks upon it with other
regards, and deems more highly and reverently,
both of its just authority, and its utility and
excellence. The history of her legislative pro-
ceedlngs may be traced-the ephemeral effu.
sion OF temporary bodies, called together by
the excitement of the occasion, may be hunted
up-they have been hunted up. The opinions
and votes of her public men, in and out of Con-
gress may be explored-it will all be in vain.
The Carolina doctrine can derive from her nei-
Their countenance nor support. She rejects it
now; she always did reset it and till she loses
her senses, she always will reject it. The hon.
orable member has referred to expressions, on
the subject of the embargo law, made in this
place, by an honorable and venerable gentle
man, Mr.. Hillhouse) now favoring us with his
presence. He quotes that distinguished Sena-
tor as saying, that in his Judgment the enbar-
go law was unconstitutional, and that there
fore, in his opinion, the people were not bound
TO obey it. That, sir, is perfectly constitution
al language. An unconstitutional law is not
binding; but then It does not rest Nth a reSo-
luton or a Ian Of a State legislature to decide
iohcther an let Of Congress be, or be not con-
stttuti0Rai. An unconstitutional act Of Con-
grcss would not bind the people of this district,
although they have no legislature TO Interfere
in their behalf; and, on the other hand, a consti-
tutional law Of Congress does bind the citizens
Of every Safe, although all their legislatures
should undertake TO annul it, by an act or res
0ution. The venerable Connecticut Senator
is constitutional lawyer Of sound principles,
and ealarged knowledge; a statesman practis-
ed and experienced, bred in the company of
Washington, and holding just views upon the
nature Of our Governments. He believed the
embargo unconstitutional, and so did others !;
but what then? Who, did he suppose, was to
decide that question The State Legislatures :
Certainly not. no such sentiment ever escap-
,ed bis lips
Let us follow up, sir, this New England OPP
position to the Embar 90 laws; let us trace it
Till wa discern fbe principle, which controlled
and governed New England, throughout 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 gentle
man, | think, read a petition from some single
individual, addressed 10 the Legislature of Mas
sachusetts, asserting the Carolina doctrine
that is, the right of Stale interference to ar
rest the laws Of the Union. The fate OF that
petition shows the sentiment of the Legislature
1t met no favor The opinions OF Massachu'
sets were otherwise. They had been expires.
sed, in 1893, in answer to the resolutions oil
Virginia, and she did not depart from them,
nor bend them to the times D. isgov erned,
wronged, oppressed, as she felt hel sell IN be,
she still held fast her integrityt the IN ion the
gentleman may find in her proceeding much
evidence Of dissatisfaction with the ne 1sures
Of Government, and great and deep disiL e -
the embargo; all this makes the case so M, 1ch
the stronger for her; for, notwithstanding III
this dissatisfaction and dislike, she claimed II,
right. still, to sever asunder the bonds of the
Union. There was heat, and there was anger,
in her political feeling-be it so-her heat or
her anger did not, nevertheless, betray her
into ini9ety to the Government The gen.
tieman labofs TO prove that she disliked the
embargo, as much as South Carolina disIikes
the tariff, and expresses her dislike as strong