Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1830-03-02
SECOND SPEECH OF MR.. WEBSTER
ON MR. F0oT'S observation-disclosures J

Mr., Dsx;er, sir, such as nave aescrioeo
him, argued the New England cause. He
pu, into his effort his Whole heart, as well as
all the powers Of his understanding; Tor ne
had avowed, in the most public manner, MS
entire concurrence with his neighoors, on ihe
point in dispute. He argued the cause, II was
lost. aud New England submitted. The es'
,,hI;.h.d tribunals pronounced the law consti-
,u,ionsI, and New England acquieseed. Now,
Sir is no, this ,he exact opposite OF the doc
,ripe of The gentleman from South Carolina !!
According 10 him, instead Of referring 10 The
;.djcisl tribunals, we should have broken up
he embargo, by laws Of oul own; we should
have repealed it, guosd New England; Tor we
had a strong, palpabls, and oppressive case
Sir. we believed the embargo uncons'iiu'lon-
al bn, still, that was matter Of opinion, aud
Who WAS to decide il? We thought II clear
case but, nevertheless We did not lake the law
into our own hands, because tCs did not ,s'sh 10
bring about revolution nor TO break up the Union;
for msinlain, that, between submission 20
The constituted tribunals, and evolution, or
disupion. there is no middle ground-there is
no ambiguous condition, half allegiance and
bsls rebellion There is no treason, made desy.
And, sir, how, futile, how very futile 1t is to
admit the right of State Interference, and then
ATTEMPT 10 save il from ;he character OF uulaS :
full resistance. by adding terms Of qualification
TO the causes and occasions, leaving all these
qualification like the case itself ia the discre-
lion Of the STATE Governments. II must be a
clear case, i; is said ; deliberate case, pal>
nabl, case: a dangerous case. But then the state
- sill lrf at liberty TO decide for herself what
is clear. what il deliberate, what is palpable,
VIA, is dangerous. Do adjeciiyes and cpl
ihe,s avail any thieg? Sir, the human mind is
so constituted, that the merits Of both sides OF
a controversy az pear very clear, and very pail
nab,.. 10 those who r, speouvely spouse them;
and both sides usually grow clrarer, as the
controversy advances. South Carolina sees
unrons,itutionahty IN the Tariff; she sees OPP
nression ,here also; and she Sees danger
PENNSYLVANIA, with vision not less sharp,
looks a, the same Tariff and sees no such
thing in i,-she sees it all Constitutional, all
useful. all safe. The faith OF South Carolina is
s,rene .hened by opposition, and she nov not
only sees, but Resolves, that the Tariff IS palpa.
bly, uncons ,i;uiional, oppressive, and danger
Gus. but Pennsylvania, not 10 be behind her
nriphbors, and equally willing to s,reng hen
her own faith by co61ent asseveration, he
solves also and gives 10 every warm affirmative
Of South Carolina, a plain, downright Penn
sylvania negative. South Carolina, 10 shew
the strength and unity Of her opinion, brings
her Assembly TO a unsnimity, within seven
yotss: Peunsylvan not 10 be ou,6one in this
respec, more than Others, reduces her dissen,i-
ra, fraction to FIVE woes. Now, sir, again |
ask The gentleman, wha, is 10 be done ? Are
these States both right! Is he bound 10 con.
slider then, both right! lfno', which is the
wrong or rather, which has the best right 10
decide! And il he, and ii j, are not TO
know what the Constitu ion means, and what
4 H..
twenty-five others, shall agree in its cons'ruc-
ton, what have we sworn TO, when we have
sworn to maintain it! l was forcibly struck,
sir, with one re lection, as the gentleman went
on in MS speech, He quoted Mr.. Mad'son's
resolutions TO prove that State may interfere,
in a case Of deliberate, palpable, and danger
Gus exercise Of power no, grained. The hon
orable member supposss the tariff law 10 be
such an exercise of power; and that, conse-
auen,ly,a case mas arisen in which ,helstaie may,
II il see ht, interfere by It's own law. Now it
so happens, nevertheless, thar MIR. Madison
himself deems this same Tariff law quite con-
s,itu,iouai. Instead Of clear and palpsble vi
ola,iou, il is, in his Judgment, no violation AT
ulI. So that, while they use his authority for
a Hypothetical case. they reject i, in the very
case before them. All this, sir, shows the In
heren,--futili,y-I bad almost used strong
er word-of coHceding this power Of in,erfer-
euce to the States, and then attempting 10 Sc
cure i, from abuse by imposing qualifications,
Of which the States themselves are to Judge
One Of TWO things is true; either the laws Of
the Union are beyond the discretion and beyond
the control Of the States, or else We have no
constitution Of General Government, and are
thrust back again to the days Of The Confedera-
ey.
Let me here say, sir, tina, if the gentle man.
doctrine had been received and acted upon in
New England, IN the times Of the embargo and
pos-iotercourse, We should probably not now
have been here. The Government would very
likely have zone to pieces and crumblea into
dual. No stronger case can ever arise than sx-
listed under those laws; no States Can ever ep'
,ert,in clearer conviction than the New Eng
land States thes entertained; and it they had
been under the influence Of that heresy Of OPT
nioa ~ mus,tr all IL. which the honorable MEM
Der espau,es, this Union would, in all prob,bi>
li,y, hare been scattered 10 the four winds. !