Delaware gazette and American watchman. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1828-1837, 1832-12-14


ion Of manufactures, which purpose ii asserts to
be unconstitutional that the operation of these
laws is unequal that the amount raised by them
is greater than is required by the wants Of the gov
eminent land finally, that the proceeds are to be
applied to objects unauthorized by the Constitu-
ton. These are the only causes aledged to jus. |
tiy an open opposition TO the laws of the country,
and a threat of seeding from the Union, if any
attempt should be made 10 enforce them. The
first virtually acknowledges that the law in ques-
ton was passed under power expressly given by
the Constitution to lay and collect imposts; but
its consttutionality is drawn in question from the
motives Of those who passed it. However appar-
ent this purpose may be in the present case, no.
thing can be more dangerous than TO admit the
position that an unconstitutional purpose entertain
ed by the members who assent to law enacted
under u constitutional power, shall make the law
void: for how is that purpose to be ascertainedl r
Who is to make the scrutinyl How often may
bad purposes be falsly imputed-in how many cases
are they concealed by false professions--in how
many is no declaration Of motive smade1 Admit
this doctrine, and you give to the States an uncon
trolled right TO decide, and every law may be an
nuled under this protext. IL, therefore, the alb
sud and dangerous doctrine should be admitted,
that State may annul an Unconstitutional law, or
one that it deems such, it will not apply to the
present case.
The next objection is, that the laws in question
operate unequaly. This objection may be made
with truth, to every law that has been or can be
passed. The wisdom OF man never yet contrived
system of taxation that would operate with per-
feet equality If the unequal operation of the law
makes il unconstitutional, and if all laws of that
description may be abrogated by any State for that
cause then indeed is the Federal Constitution un-
worthy of the slightest effort for its preservation.
We have hitherto relied on it as the perpetual
| bond of our Union. We have received it as the
work of the assembled wisdom Of the nation. We
have trusted TO it as TO the sheet anchor of our
| safety in the stormy time Of conflict with foreign
or domestic foe. We have looked to it with sa-
cred AVG as the palladium Of our liberties and with
all the s6lemnties of our religion have pledged to
each other our lives and fortunes here, aud our
| hopes Of happiness hereafter, in its defence and
support. Were we mistaken, my countrymen, in
attaching this importance to the Constitution of
our country2 Was our devotion paid to the wretch
ed, inefficient, clumsy contriyance, which this new
doctrine would make i'll Did we pledge ourselves
to the support of an airy nothing, bubble that
must be blown away by the first breath Of disafiec-
ton? Was this self-destroying, visionary theory,
| the work Of the profound statesmen, the exalted
patriots TO whom the task Of constitutional reform
was entrustedl Did the name of Washington
sanction, did the States deliberately raify such
anomaly in the history of fundamental Legislation !?
No. We were not mistaken. The letter of this
great instrument is free from this radical fault its
language directly contradicts the imputation: its
spiEit-its evident intent contradicts il. No we do
not err! Our Constitution does not contain the
absurdity of giving power to make laws and anoth-
or power to resist them. The sages whose mem.
DRY will always be reverenced have given us a
practical, and as they hoped, permanent consti.
tutional compact. The father Of this country did
not afiix his ievered name to papable an absur-
dty. Nor did the States, when they severally rat
flied it, do so under the impression that veto on
the laws Of the United States was reserved to them;
or that they could exercise it by implication.
Search the debates in all their Conventions-ex-
anime the speeches Of the most jealous opposers
Of Federal authority-look at the amendments that
we're proposed-thoy are all sient-not syllable
uttered, not vote given, not a motion made TO
correct the explicit supremacy given to the laws
Of the Union over those Of the Statcs-or TO show
that implication, is now contended, could defeat
| it. Move have not erred The Constitution is
still the object of our reverence, the bond of our
Union, our defence in danger, the source of our
prosperity in peace. II shall descend as we have
received il uncorrupted by sophstical construc-
ton, to prosperity and the sacrifices of local
interest, of State preiudices, of Personal anmosi-
ties, that were made TO bring it into existence,
will again be periodically offered for its support
| The two remaining objections made by the Or.
dinance 10 these laws arc that the sums intended
TO be raised by them greater than are required
and that the proceeds will be uncOnsttutionally
employed.
The Constitution has given expressly to Con-
gress the right of raising revenue and of deter
mining the sum the public exigencies will re-
qu're. The States have control over the ex-
ercise of this right other than that which results
from the power of changing the Representatives
who abuse it, and thus procure redress. Congress
may undoubtedly abuse this discretionary powor,
but the same may be said of others with which
they ATE vested. Yet the discretion must exist
somewhere. The Constitution has given it to the
Representatives of all the people checked by the
Representatives of the States, and by the Execu.
tive power. The South Carolina construction
gives it to the Legislature or the Convention of a
single State where neither the people of the diff.
ferent States, nor the States in their separate ca
pacity, nor the Chief Magistrate elected by the
people have any representation. Which is the
most discreet disposition of the powerl do moi
ask you, fellow citizens, which is the constitution
al disposition-that instrument speaks language
not to be misunderstood. But if you were assem-
. kIoI. II -