Litchfield enquirer., 1832-12-20

nation had Il been proposed To form Il feature
in our Government.
Ia our colonial state. although dependent
on another power, we very eally considered
ourselves rs connected by cammen' Interest
with each other. Leagues were formed for
common defence, and before the Declaration
of, Independence we were known in our ag-
gregate character as the Unifed Colonies Of
AmericG. That decisive and important step was
taken jointly. We declared ourselves n nation
by Joint, notify several acts, and uher the
terms ut our confederation were reduced t.
f0rxE', II was in that OF solemn league ofsev-
eral States, by which, they agreed that they
would collectively form one nation for The
purpose Of conducting some certain domestic
concerns and all foreign relations. In the in
strument forming that union is found an arti-
Gle which declares that every State shall
abide by the determinations Of Congress on
all questions which by that confederation
should be Submitted to them"
Under the confederation then, no State
could legally annul decision ORTIZ Congress,
or refuse TO submit to its execution; hut no
l,prOgisiOn was made TO enforce these decis-
ions. Congress made acquisitions. hut they
| were not complied with. The Government
could not operate on individuals. They had
no Judiciary. no means Of collecting revenue.
But the defects Of the confederation need
not be detailed. Under. its Operations we
could scarcely Be called a nation We had
neither prosperity at home nor consideration
abroad. This state Of things could not be- en-
dured, and our present happy Constitution
! was formed. hut formed in VAIN IL this fatal
doctrine prevails. 1t was formed for impOr.
tant objects that are announced in the pream-
bls made 10 the name and by the authority
Of the people Of the United States, whose
1 f1Ann
proved it. The most important among these
objects, that which is placed 6rst in rank, ON
which all the others rest. j., Ito form more
perfect union." Now, is it possible that even
! II there were no express provision giving su-
premacy to the Constitution and laws Of the
United States over those Of the States--can
It be conceived, that an instrument made for
the purpose Of forming more perfect union,"
than that Of the confederation, could be SO
constructed by the assembled wisdom of our
country as to substitute for that confederation
( form Of government dependent for its exis-
| tence on the local interest, the party spirit Of
q State. or OF a prevailing faction ia State a
Every man Of plain, unsophisiicated ander-
standing, who hears the question. will give
such an answer as will preserve the Uni0D.-
Metaphysical subtlety. 10 pursuit Of an i'm
practicable theory, could alone have devised
one that is calculated to destroy it.
i consider then the power Ia annul a law of
the U. States. assumed by one State, incompat-
.ftte with the existence Of che Union, conadicted
erpressty By the letter Of the Consultation unGu-
M0rlzed 6y ITS spirit, Inconsistent With every prin-
cipe sUhich Il soas founded, and destructive of
the great object for .chish it soGs formed.
After this general view Of the leading prin-
ciple, we must examine the particular april.
catiOn Of which Is madein the Ordinance.
The preamble rests it's Justification on these
grounds sit assumes as 4 fact. that the OBJ
noxious laws, although they purport to be
laws for raising revenue, were ia reality inten-
dsd for the protection ofmanufactures. which
purpose It asserts to be Observation-Disclosures
the operation Of these laws 10 uneaual.-that.I
the amount raised by them is greater than is |
required by the wants Of the government |
and finally that the proceeds are 10 be appli- |
ed to objects unauthOrized by the Cons,itu- \
ton. These are the only causes alleged 10
justify an open opposition to the laws Of the
J country. and threats0f seeding from the
Union, if any attempt should BE- made TO en-
force them. The 6rst virtually acknowledg- |
es. that the law in question was passed under
to lay and collect imposts hut its constitu-
tionality 10 drawn in question from the motiurs
of those who passed it. However apparent
this purpose may be in the present case. moth
ing can bs more dangerous than To admit the
position that an unconstitutional purpose, en-
tertained by the members who assent toa law
enacted under a constitutional power, shalt
make that law void for how 10 that porpose
to be ascertained? Who isto make the scru.
tiny How often may had purposes be false
ly imputed-in how many cases are they
concealed by false professionalism how many
10 no declaration Of motive made Admit |
this doctrine, and you give to the state an IN,
controlled right 10 decide, and every law may
he annulled under this pretext. II, therefore,
the absurd and dangerous doctrine should be |
admitted, that State may annnl an uncon-
stitutional law, or one that It deems such, it
will not apply to the present case.
The next objection is. that the laws in ques-
ton operate unequally. This objection may
be made with truth, to every law that has
been or can be passed. The wisdom of man I
never yet conirived system Of taxation that /
would operate with perfect equality. If the |
unequal operation of n law makes il unconsti-
th.ional and if all laws o ihat description NAV |
be abrogated by any State for that ca,,se. then |
indeed 10 the Federal Consultation unworthy
ofthe slightest effort for ts preservation. We |
have hitherto relied ON it rs the perpetual bond
Of our Union. We have received il as the
work of the assembled wisdom of the nation. |
We have trusted 10 1t rs 20 the sheet anchor |
Ut our safety in the stormy times OF conflict |