Litchfield enquirer., 1830-03-18

were n0t bound 10 OOey N' A' WY W -. ! frctlv constitutional language. An uncOnstl- tut;onaI law is not binding bWt then H does .,of rept ,v;th q resolution or c stGte LegIsG0- ture te decide sohetker GW Act ef Congress be, nr he mi. constitutional. An unconstitutional aet nY Congress would not binc the people of fhis district, although they have no legislature to interfere in their behalf; and, on the Oth- er hand, cOnstititutiOnal law of Congress does bind the citizens Ofevery State, although alI their Legislatures should undertake to an rul if. hv act or resolution. The venerable Connecticut Senator is constitutional law yer. of sound principles, and enlarged knOwI- edge: statesman practised and experienced, bred in .he 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 es' caped his lips. Let us follow uP, sir this New England opposition Io the embargo laws let us trace it, till we discern the prin- ciple, which controlled and governed New England, throughout the whole course of that opposition. We shall then see what siml. larity there is between the New England school of constitutional opinions, and th's modern Carolina school. The gentleman, think, read petition from some single indi- vidual, addressed to the Legislature Of Mas sachusetts, asserting the Carolina doctrine that is, the right of State interfsrence, to ar rest the laws of the Union. The fate of that pe,iton shows the sentiment of the Legisla
 ture. It met no favor. The opinions of Massachusetts were otherwise. They had been expressed, in 1798, in answer to inc resolutions of Virginia, and she did not de- part from them, nor bend them to the times.
 Missoverned, wronged. oppressed a. she te't herself to be, she still held fast her integrity to the Union. The gentleman may find in her proceedings much evidence of dissatis- faction with the measures of Government. and great and deep dislike to the embargo; ; all this makes the case sO much the stronger for her; for notwithstanding all this dIssatis- faction and dislike. she claimed no right. still, to sever asunder the bonds ofthe Union. There was heat, and there was anger, in her political feeling-be it s'--her heat OF her anger did not, nevertheless, betray her int"
 nfidelity to the Government. The gentle
 man labors to prove that she disliked the em. bargo, as much as South Carolina dislikes the tariff, and expressed her dislike as strongly. Be it SO; but d,d she propose the Caro!inG ren- edy /? did she threnten to interfere, by State a.sthoritu, to nnnul the la,cs ef the Union That is the question for the gentleman's con
 sderatiOn.
 No doubt, sir, great majority of the peo-
 pie of New England cOnseienti0usly believed
 the embargo law of 1907 nnconstitutlona'; 1;
 as conscientiousiy. certainly. ss the peo-
 ole of South Carolina hold that opinion of the tariff; they reasoned thus. Congress has
 power t6 regulate commerGW; but here is q
 law, they said. stopping all commerce. and stopping it indefinitely. The law ia perpetu-
 al: that is, it is not limited in point of time,
 and must. of course. continue, till it shall he repealed by some other law. It is as perpet- u,i. therefore, as the law against treason or
 murder. Now. is this regulating commerce.
 or destroying it Y? Is it guiding. controlling, giving the rule to commerce, as a subsisting thing, or is it putting an end to it altogether Nothing is more certain, than that a majority in New England deemed this law a violation ofthe Constitution. The very case required by the gentleman, to justify State interftr- ence, had then arisen. Massachusetts believ- ed this law to be |" deliberate, paipabie, and dangerous exercise cf q PoVsr' not granted 6y the Consti stisution."-Deliberate it was, for it l was long continued; palpsble, she thought it, as no words in the Consultation gave the power, and only a construction, in her opin- ion. most violent, raised it.; dangerous it was, since if threatened utter rum to her most inn portaut interests. Here, then, was a Caroli- m case. How did Massachusetts deai with it? It was. as she thought, plain, manifest. Dalpable violation of the Constitution; and it brought ruin to her doors. Thousands of families, and hundreds of thousands of indi. yiduals. were beggared by it. While she saw and felt ali this. she saw and felt also, that as measure of national policy, it was perfectly futile; that the country was no way benefit ted by that which caused so much individual distress; that it was efficient only for the pro- duction of evil. and all that evil inflicted on ourselves. In such a case. under such cir. cumstancecs, how did Massachusetts demean herself? Sir, she rcmNnstrated. she memo rialized, she addressed herselftO the General Government, not exactly "with the concern trated. energy of passiou," hut with her own strong sense, and the energy of sober convic- ton. But she did not interpose the arm of her own power to arrest the law, and break the embargo. Far from it. Her principles bound her to two things and she followed her principles. lead where they might. First, to submit to every constitutional law of Congress, and secondly, if the constitutional validity of the law be doubted, to refer that question to the decision Of the proper trihu- nals. The first principle is vain and inefftc- tuai without the second. A majority of us in New England believed the embargo law unconstitutional; hut the great question was. and always will be, in such cases, who is to decide this ? Who is to judge between the