Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1830-05-25


ms consideration alone IL apps me, should make
us most remblingly apprehensive Of intoxicating any
new doctrine oil this characerI and il has made me
scan WIN greater attention, those which have been Of
Tered IN this important branch Of the debate. But
with becoming di.irust OF my own iudgriesit and a
proper respect for that OF the Senator'S who have pre-
coded me, cannot but in the doctrues of all ex.
ceping only those of my friend from New Hampshire
(Mr Woodbury. dangers of the gravcst cast. Thus
have endeavored respectfully, but decidedly point
out, and to state what are my own views on the sub
ject, that they may be weighed and compared. tre-
sumo them.
think that the Constitution is the result of com.
pact entered into by the several States by which they
surrendered part of their sovereignty to the Union
and vested the part endered in General Govern
ment.
That this Government is partly popular, acting d.
recty on the citizens Of the several States; partly fed
eratve, depending Tor its existence and action on the
existence and action Of the several States.
That, by the institution Of this Government, the
states have uneqnivocally surrendered every consu
uonal right OF impeding or resisting the execution Of
any decree or judgment of the Supreme Court in any
case OF law or equity. between persons matters.
OF whom which, that Court has jurisdic on even
II such decree judgment should in the opinion Of the
SALES, be unconstitutional.
That in cases in which a law OF the United States
may infringe the constitutional right of State, hut
which, in its operation, cannot be brought before the
supreme Court, under the terms OF the urisdcton ex
pressy given to to II over particular persons matters,
that Court is not created the umpire between State
that may deem itself aggrievsd, and the General Gov
eminent.
That. among the attributes of sovereignty retained
oy me States that OF watching the operations
oil the General Government, and protecting its citizens
against their unconstitutional abuse; and that this can
be legally done
First, in the of act, in the opinion Of the
state, palpaby unconstitutional, but affirmed i'm the
supreme Cour, in the legal xercise of its funchons
by demonstrating against it TO Congress;
by an address to the People. in their elective func
lions, to change or instruct their Representatives..
BY similar address to the other States, in which they
will have right to declare, that they consider the act
as unconstitutional, and, therefore. void;
By proposing amendments TO the Constitution in the
manner pointed out by that instrument.
And, bnaly il the act be intoleraby oppr essve, and
.hey ma the General Government in enforc
ing it, by resort TO the natural right which every peo-
pie nave 10 resist extreme oppression.
Secondly, II the act be Of those few which in lis
operation, cannot b. submitted TO the Supreme Court
and be one that WILL in the opinion of The State usi-
~ the rsque oil withdrawal from the Onion that this
las, extreme remedy may at once be resorted to-
mat the right OF resistance TO the operation OF an
act Congress in the extreme above alluded TO-
not right derived fran the Constitution, but can be
JUSTIFIED only on the supposon that the Constitution
has been broken and the State sbsoved from ts obiga
uon; and that whenever resorted to- must be the
risk o! all the penalties attached to an re-
slstance TO established authority.
That the alleged right Of state to put peto the
execution o. law OF the United States, which such
State may declare to be unconstitutional attended Gs
IL exist, 1t must be) with correlave obligation on
the part of the General Government to refrain from
executing IT. and the further alleged obligation the
part OF that Government, TO submit the question the
States by proposing amendments given by the
Constitution, do they grow of any of the re-
served powers.
That the exercise of the powers last mentioned,
would introduce feature in Government, not ex
pressed in the Constitution, not implied from any riph
oil sovereignty reserved 10 the States
exist ny the friends or enemies OF the Constitution
when II was framed adopted, not warranted by prac
tice or cotemporansou, exposition nor implied bv the
true construction OF The Virginia resolutions in '9S
mat The Introduction of this feature in our Govern
ment would totally change its nature make il icent
invite TO disseniion, and end, di.tnt period in
separaton and that it had been proposed in the form
oil an explicit provision in the Constitution i, would
nave been unanimously rejected both "a the Conven
lon winch framed that instrument, and i'm those which
adoptedit.
That the theory Of the Federal government. being
the result oil the general will of the People of the Unit
ed States in their aggregate capacity, and founded in
no degree, on compact between tn States wou cd TO
the most disastrous practical results that II would placa
OF the States at the mercy Of fourth
and lead inevitably to consolidated Governments and
finally 10 monarchy, If the doctrine were yeneralv adj
mtted; ard II partially so, and opposed, to civil dssen
ton.
These being my deliberate opinions on the ns,urs
anu consequences OF the constructions hitherto given
oil the Federal compact, and the obligations and rights
OF the States under il deeming those constructions err
roneons and IN The highest degree dangerous to the
mon, iei " duty to my place and 10 my country to
say so. Having done this, ought perhaps TO sion
But, Sir, dare not dare not sne the expression Of
approximations, which have fastened upon my mind.
IL would be useless aectation to pretend ignorance
OF the discontenf that prevails in important section
OF the Unicn its language is too loud too decisive too
menacing, not 10 have been heard and heard with the
decpest concern. has already been more than once all
iuded TO IN This debate in terms Of censure
not assume that tone although cannot but depreca ne
the light manner In which the greatest evil In can be
fi us IL spoken Of, if il were an every day occur
renee Arguments for and against the dissolution of
the Union are canvassed IN the public papers; form the
topic OF dinner speeches. condensed into oass and
treated in every respect as lift knot of policy
that might be unoosed familiar az a garter" Sir il l.
Gordidn knot, that can he severed only by the sword
The band cannot be unoosed until it Is we with the
blood OF brothers. cannot, therefore, conscientious
ly, be silent: and, humbly think Of my inlaence
or powers Of persuaon, should feel myself guilty If
they were not exered in admoniion to both parties in hi
even'ful controversy. The tariff is the prominent grey.
ance That exces the dscontents in some OF the South
ern States, and particularly in South Carolina IL IL
denounced as UNCONSTITUTIONAL injurious the whole
country ruinous 10 the South and beneficial only 70 a
particular interest in the North and East. Nv send
fnents on this subject may be expressed in very few
words. decided CONVEX, 10 the free trade system I
think II may be departed from in the few cases in which
stiictons nay be used, with the hope Of producing
relaxation OF simiar restrictions by foreign Power
therefore believe the present tariff unwse UNEQUAL
and oppressive in lie ions, but cannot think il I'M
constitutional. And consider one Of i's wors, eonse
quences 10 be, that when has been long ress,sd in
and con'de'ed AZ the settled policy of tho nation so
much of the capital and popula lon Of the county ny
be employed, in the manufactures protected by a. ss
TO make 1t a matter Of serious calculation whether a
sudden and total Abandonment Of the Dniicy may not
produce greater evil 10 the whole nation than the bene
ht 10 be expected from throwing open the trade With
these opinions the subject Of tie Southern
meeting policy which operates 50 disressingly on
their prosperity.