Herald of the times. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1830-1846, 1832-12-20
man Of plain, ,unsophistieated understanding,
who hears the question, will give such an
answer as will preserve the Union. Meta

cable theory. could alone have devised one
that is calcilaledto destroy IT.
consider then that the power to annul a
law OF the United States, assumed by one
State. INCOMPATIBLE wirH rIiE EXIST ENCE
Oh rnE CNio>, cO>TRADicrfD EXrRiss,i
NY THE LErTtR or THE CONSTITUTION
UNAUTHORIZED by IT'S SPIRIT, i>coNsisr-
ENT wITH EvtRY rRiHCipLE IN WbicH II
WAS foUADEp, AND DESTRUCTIVE OF THE
lGREAToRJEcT FOR wnIcH Ir WAS FORMED.
| Afcr tins general view OF the lending
principle, we must examine the particulai
application OF II which is made III The Ora.
nance.
The preamble rests its justification on
these pruunds:--lt assumes as fact, that
the obnoxious laws, although they purpori
To be laws for raising revenue, were III re-
ality intended for the ,"".2ciioh oil tnnhh-
iacturcs, which puip' Sc IL asserts to re- ~.
constitutional THAT the operation OF these
laws is unequal that the afeount raised
by them l. greater than is required by the
wants OF the government ;--and finally
that the proceeds are TO be applied to OBJ
iccts unauthorized by the Constitution
These are the only causes alleged to justify
an open opposition TO the laws dtlic coun'
try, and tlreut OF seeding from the union
if any attempt should be made to enforce
them. The first virtually acknowledges,
thai the law in question was passed under
a power expressly given by the Constitution
to lay and collect imposts; but ITS consiitr-
tionaliiy is drawn III question from the
nOtires of those who passed 1t. However
apparent this purpose may be in the pro-
sent case, nothing can be more dangerous
than to admit the position that an unconsii-
tutional purpose, entertained by the mem
bcrs who assent to law enacted under n
constitutional power, shall make that law
void for how r. that purpose, to be uscor.
tainedI Who is to make the scrutiny -
How often may bad parposcs be falsely
imputed--n how many cases arc they con-
cealcd by false proiessions--n how many Is
no declaration Of motive mad e. Admit
this doctrine, and you give to the States an
uncontrolled right to decide, and every law
NAV be annulled under this preteXt. Il,
therefore. the absurd and dangerous doc
trine should bc admitted. that Il State may
annul an unconstitutional law, or one that
it deems such, it will not apply to the pre-
sent case.
/ The next objection is, that the laws IN
question operate aDcqually. This objection
may be made with truth, to every law that
has been or can be passed. The wisdom of
man never yet contrved a system taxa
ton that would operate with perfect equali-
ty. II the unequal operation of law makes
it unconstitutional, and if all laws Of thn,
description may be abrogated by any State
for that cause, then indeed is the Fedora
Constitution unworthy ofthc slightest effort
A.. :, n sxn ~
lied onit as the pc rpctual bond ofour Union
We have received it as the work OF the as
sembled wisdom Of the nation. We have
trusted to it as the sheet anchor ofour safe
ty in the stormy times of conflict with 10
reign or domestic foe. We have looked t'
it with sacred awe, as the palladium of ou
liberties, and with all the solcmnitics OF re
ligion have pledged to each other our live
and fortunes here, and our hopes ofharpl
Eess hereafter, in its defence and support
Were we mistaken, my countrymcn, IL at
taching this Importance to the Constitution
of our country Was cur devotion paid tC
the wretched. inefficient clumsy contrvance
which this new doctrine would make it
Did VIC pledge ourselves to the support oI
an airy nothing,a bubble that must be blown
away by the first breath of disaticction
Was this selfdestroyng, visionary theory
the work of the profound statesmen, the cx.
altcd patriots to whom the task OF constitu'
tional reform was entrusted. Did the name
of Washington sanction, did the States de-
lbcrately ralify such an anomaly in the his
tory OF fundamental legislation No. We
were not mistaken. The letter OF this great
instrument is free from this radical fault
10 III La Al fc M "A.
ton its spirit--its evident intent contra
diets it. NO we did not err! Our Cons,ltu
ton does not contain the absurdty of giving
power % mako laws and another power tc
resist them. The soges whose memory wlll
always be revorenced, have given us prac
tical, and as they hoped, permanent con
sttutiona compact. The Father Of In
Country did not ailix his revered name TO sc
palpable an absurdity. Nor did the States
when they severally ratified it, do so undc
the impression that veto on the laws o.
the u. s. was reserved TO them, or that the,
could exercise it by implication. Searcl
the debates in all their Conveniions--ex
anime the speeches of the most jealous Op
poscrs o: Federal authority--look at the a
mendmcnts that were proposed; they are al
si.ent-not syllable uttered mot vote Civ.
en- not q motion made to correct the explicit
supremacy given to the laws of the
Union over those Of the States--or to show
that Implication, as is now ccntended, could
defeat it. Move have not erred Th,
Constitution is still the object of our reve.
renee, the bond of our Union, our defence
in danger, the source of our prosperity in
peace. 1t shall descend us we have receiv-
cd it, unco.rupted by sophistical construc-
ton, to our posterity and the sacrifice Of
local interest. Of State prejudices, of per-
sonal animosities, that were made to bring
it into existence, will again be patriotically
offered for its support.
The two remaining objections made
by the Ordinance to these laws are that
the sums intended TO be raised by them