Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1830-03-05
SPEECH OF MIR. WEBSTER,
fcnScLunHD.l

ton IN other schools, and under other teachers
She looks upon il with other regards, and deems
highly and rcvnrcptly, both OF it just authority
and its utility unl excellence The history OF her |
legislative proceedings may be t.uced the ephe,:le-
raj illusions OF temporary bodies called ogeer by
the excitement of tho occasion, may &c hunted up:
they have been hunted up. The opinions and votes
of lcr public men, in and of Congress, may be
nxplorcd-it will all be in vain The Carolina doc
trine can derive from her neither rountcnance nor
support She rejects il now; She always did reject
IT. and till she loses her senses, she always will reject
II. The honorable member has referred to express
sions, the subject of the cuibargo law, made i'll
this place, by honorable and venerable gent cnan
(Mr IIillhouse, now hvu,ing with his presence.
He quotes that distinguished Senator saying that
III his judgment the embargo law was unconsti,u-
tionai, ond that therefore, i'll his opinion the people
were not bound TO obey it. That sir, is perfectly
constitutional language. An Unconstitutional law is
not binding. OF tten IL docs mol rest ,ch resolution
or hi,o 81 Stale legislature 20 decide chcthcr an
act " Congress be- or be not constiiufionul An uu
constitutional oct OF Congress would not bind the
people OF this district, although they have no l.gsla
ture to Interfere in their behalf and on the other
hand, constitutional law of Congress does bind the
citizens of every State, although all their legislatures
should undertake. to 0nnul it, by resolution
The venerable C0nnccticut Senator is a consti,u-
tona lawyer, Of sound principles, and cularcc; know
ledge; statesman prac.iscd and experienced bred in
the company of w ashingt and Kidding I,st views
upon the nature OF our governments. lie believed
the embargo uncoDsii utiunal. and did OILERS but
what then! Who, did he suppose, was to decide that
question: The State legislature? Certainly not No
such sentiment ever escaped his lips. Let us follow
up sir, this New Elgant opposition to IN, emba rpo
laws let trace it, till we III cern the principle
which controlled g. governed New England, through
out the whole course Of that opposition We shall
then see what similarity there Is between the New
England school OF constitutional opinions ana this
modern Carolina school The gentleman think
read petition from single Individual addressed
to the Legislature of Massachusetts, asserting the Ca
rolIna docrinctii1 is, the right of State interior
cnce to arrest the laws Of the Union The fate of
that petition shows the sentiment of the legislature
1t met no favor The opinions OF Massachusetts were
Otherwise. They had been expressed In 1893 i, n
to the resolutions of virginia nnd she did no.
depart from them, nor bend them to the tines
hlisgoverned wrongcd, oppressed as she felt herself
60 oe she stli held fast her integrity to the Union
the gentleman may find i'll her proceedings much
evidence OF dissatisfaction w!:h the measures OF no
vernmcnt and great and deep dislike to the embargo;
n TINS makes the case so much the stronger for her;
ior notwithstanding oil this dissatisfaction and dis
Ike she claimed no right, still, asuner the
bonds of the Union. There was heat, and there was
anger III her political feeling-bc it so-cr heat or
her anger did not, nevertheless bctray her into in
city to the government. The gentleman labors TO
prove that she dsiiked the embargo as much as s
Carolina d'skcs the tariff and expressed her dislike
as strongly. lie 1t so out did she propose he Caro-
Una remedy Did sic threaten Ia inie,ye,e by Sfo,e
authority, to GnnW Ito Asos Of tic Union7 That is
the question for the gentlemans consideration.
NO DOUBT sir, great majority of the people of
NOW England conscieniousy believed the embargo
law of 1907 unconstitutional rs conscentiousv cer
tainiy as the people of South Carolina hold that opin
ION of the tarifthey reasoned thus: Congress has
power to regulate colnmerca but here is n law th,,
sald, stopping all commerce, and stopping it nlefi
ntely lac law is perpetual that is, it is net Inn
tied in point of time, and must, OF course continue
VI! II snail be repealed by some other law los as
perpetual, therefore, the law against treason or
murder. Now, is this regulating commerce. OF de-
stroyng it Is guiding, controlling giving the rule
to commerce as subsisting thing is it putting
than that majority in New England deemed this
!aw violation of the constitution. The yery case
required ts oy the gentleman to justify State nerfer
cnce, had then arisen. Massachusetts believed this
law to be So deliberate palpa5le and dlngernns e
erc.se Of pocsr not granted by Ire Constitution. -
Oeberate 1t was for it long continued palpable
se thought IT, as no words in the constitution eavc
me power. and only construction, in her opinion
most violent, raised IT. dangerous was as it threat
e!ied utter rum to her mos,important interests Here
Lhen' was Carolina case. How did Massachusetts
Geal with II! 1t was, as she thought, plain mani
fast, palPable violation of the constitution: and i
brought ruin to her doors. Thousands of families
anu hundreds of thousands of individuals were bop
CARED By it. While she saw and felt all this sS.
saw and felt Also that as measure of national MI;
cy 1t was perfectly fatie; that the country was no
way benefited by that which caused SO mach ndi
distress; that At was efficient only for the pro-
duction OF evil and all that evil inflicted on ourselves
In such case, under such circumstances. how did
Nlqssachusets dcmean herself? Sir she rcsnonstra
teo, shc memoraiized, she addressed herself to the
Eeneial government not exactly with tho concontr,
tedenergy OF PASSION but with her own stroDo sense
dnd the energy o. sober conviction But she did mot
hteIpose the arm OF her power arrest the law and
, preak the embargo Far from it. Her principles
bound her to two things; and she followed her ri
pics, lead her where they might First, TO submit,
TO every constitutional law Of Congress- and second
~ the constitutional validity of the law be doubted
70 refer that question to the decision of the pronep
tribunals. The first principle is vain and ine4so,,o
without the second. a ma iofity of us in New Eno
land believed the embargo law Unconstitutional bSt
tne great question was and always will be, in such
CAGES, who is to decide thlse Who ia 10 ind -
tween the People and the Government? And sir il
IS quite plain, that the constitution of the iJn;feJ
states coners on the government itself to be eyer
cisco 6y It's appropriate department this power of de-
Gliding ultimately and concIusvely upon the extent
OF It's own authority. this had not been done, we
SHOULD not have advanced single step beyond the
old confederation o''N '-4o
Being fully of opinion that the ernbarro law
constitutional, the People of New England were vet
equally clear of the opinion-it was matter tHe,