Litchfield enquirer., 1832-12-20


WHEREAs, a Convention asseSs6led in the
State Of South Caroli0a, have passed an Or
dinance by which they declare. there the
President reeapitulaies the principal features
Of the Ordinance, published In our last paper.
and proceeds
Co the people Of Suuth CarOlina q course of
conduct in direct violation Of their duty as
citizens Of the United States. contrary to the
laws 0f their country, subversise OF its Con-
stitntion, and having Eorits object the destruc-
ton of the Union--that Union which, c0eyaI
withsOpr political existence, Ted our fathers,
wilh0sitauy Othertiesto unite them than those
Of patriotism and a common cause, through
sane mary struggle to a glorious independence
thai sacred Union, hitherto inviolate, which,
perfected by our happy Constitution, has
brought Us by the favor Of Heaven to state
Of prosperity at home, and ahigh considera-
zion abroad, rarely. If ever, equalled ~ the
history Of nations. To preserve this bond Of
our political existence from destruction, 10
maintain inviolate this state Of national honor
and prosperity, and to justifythe confidence.
myfell0w. citize1s have repnsed IN me, l. An
drew Jackson, President Of the United States,
have thought proper to issue thisa my PRO
CLAMATION, stating my viewsO Of the Con-
siitution and Laws applicable 10 tho measures
aaopted by the Convention Of South CarOli-
ua, and TO the reasons they have put forth to
sustain them, declaring the course which du-
~ will require me TO pursue, and, appealing
to the understanding and patriotism Of the
people, warn them Of the consequences that
must inevitably result from an observance of
the dictates Of the Convention.
Strict duty would require Of me nothing
more than the exercise Of those powers with
which am now, or may hereafter be invest
ed, for preserving the peace OF the Union and
for the execution Ofthe laws. But the impo-
sing aspect which opposition has assumed IN
this case, by clothing itself with State authori-
ty, and the deep interest which the people oil
the United States must all feel 10 preventing a
resort to stronger measures, while there is a
ghopethat any thing will be yieldedto reason
ing and rem0nstrance, perhaps demand, and
will certainly justify full exposition 70 South
Carolina and the nation of the views u enter
tain ofthis important question, as well 40 dis
tinct ennnciation Of the course which my
sense of,duty win require me to pursue.
The Ordinance is founded, not on the in
defeasible right OF resisting acts which are
p!ainly unconstitutional and too oppressive to
he endured; but ON the strange position that
any one State may not only declare 40 Act of
Congress void. but prohibit its execution
thaf they may do this consistently with the
CoDsiitution-that the true construction of
that Instrument permits a state 10 retain it's
place in the Union, and yet be bound by no
other of its laws than Those it may choose Co
consider as constitutional. IL 10 true. they
add, that to justify this abrogation ola law, It
must be palpably contrary to the Constitu-
ton; but il is evident. that to give the right
Of resisting laws Of that description. coupled
with the uncontrolled right to decide what
laws deserve that character, 10 to give the
power Of resisting all laws. For, as by the
theory, there isuO appeal, the reasons alleged
by the State, good Or bad, must prevail. II
il should be said that public opinion is a SUITE
eient check against the abuse Of this power, it
may be asked why it is not deemed a suti.
cieRt guard against the passage Of an unc0D-
stitntional act by Congress. There 10. how
ever, . restraint in this last case. which makes
the assumed power Of State more inGefen-
aible, and which does not EXIT in the other.
there are two appeals from an unconstitution-
al Act passed by Congress-one to the Judi
Aeiary, the othsr toll People and the States.
H'here il no appeal from State decision in the
Cry, and the practical Illustration shows that
the conrts are closed against an application to
review II, both judges and jurors being sworn
to decide in it's favor. But reasoning on this
subject Is superiiu0us when our social COM
pact ia express terms declares, that the laws
Ofthe United States, its Constitution and trea-
ties made under It, are the supreme law Of
iha lansl-s~and for greater caution adds. that
the Judges ins every State. shall be bound
thereby. any thing in the Constitution or laws J
sOf any State to the contrary aotwithstand- !
ing. And it may be asserted without fear
OF realization, that no Federatiye Government
could exist without a..similar provision. Look
for moment 10 the consequence. II South
Carolina considers the revenue laws unc0n-
stitutional, and has right to prevent their
execution 10 the port Ut Charleston. there
would be clear constitutional ohjection to
their collection in every other port, aud no
revenue could be collected any where for NIL
imposts must be equal. II is no answer to
feneat.that an unconstitutional law is no law,
sOslous a. the question of it, legality is to be
decided " the State itself; for every law OPP
Grating injuriously upon any local intetest.will
De psFhaps thought, and certainly represented
Is Unconstitutional, and. as has been shown,
there i no appeal. M M
lf this doctrine had been established at IN
earlier day, the Union would have been dis.
solved ia It's infancy. The excise law ii Penn
sylyania, The embargo and non-intercouse law
III the Eastern States, the carriage tax Ia Vir-
ginia. were all deemed Unconstitutional, and
were more unequal In their operation than
any Of the laws n0w complained Of; bat for
sunately none Of those States discovered that