The Rhode-Island Republican. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1809-1841, 1832-12-18
vol. rs.


application of il wElch is made IN .ac .)ld..
nance.
The preamble rests its iusrincs.icr cu
those grounds;--It assumes as a flc,. th.s-
the obnoxious lawt, although they purposr
to be laws for raising revenue, were in r..
atty intended for the protection ef manr
iactures, which purpose it asserts to be Tn
constitutional ;--that the operation ofthesc
laws is unequal THAT the amount raised
by them is greater than is required by tn
wants OF the government ;--and finally.
that the proceeds are 10 be applied 10 OBJ
jects unauthorized by the Constitution
These are the only causes alleged TO Justify
an open opposition 10 the laws ofthe coun.
try, and threat OF seeding from the union
II any attempt should be made to enforce
them. The first virtually acknowledges
that the law in question was passed under
power expressly given by the Constitution
to lay and collect imposts but ts constitu
tionality is drawn in question from the
motives of those who passed It. However
apparent this purpose may be in the pre-
sent case, nothing can be more dangerous
than to admit the position that en- unconst-
tutional purpose, entertained by tho men,
bers who assent to law enacted under
constitutional power, shall make that law
void TOR how Is that purpose to be asccr-
tanned! Who IS to make the scrutiny -
How often may bad purposes be falsely
lmputed--ln how many cases are they con-
ccaied by false professions--in how mary is
no declaration Of motive made, ADM,
this doctrine, and you give to the States an
uncontrolled right TO decide, and every law
may be annulled under this prctext. II,
therefore, the absurd and dangerous doc
trine should be admitted. that State may
annul an unconstitutional law, or one that
1t deems such, it will not apply to the pre-
sent case.
The next objection is, that the laws in
question operate unequally. This objection
may be made with truth, to every inv that
has been or can be Dusscd. The wisdom of
man never yet coDtrived a system of taxa
ton that would operate with perfect equali-
ty. 1.-THE unequal operation Of law makes
1t unconsthu utonal ,and if all laws OF that
description may be abrogated by any State
Tor that cause, then indeed is the Federal
Constitution unworthy oftho slightest effort
Tor It's preservation. We hare hitherto re-
lied on 1t as the perpetual bond ofour Union.
We have received It as the work oftbe as
semblcd wisdom Of the nation. We havo
trusted to 1t as the sheet anchor ofour safe
ty In the stormy times Of conflict with fo-
reign or domestic foe. We have looked TO
u, with sacred awe. as the palladium of our
liberties, and with all the solemnilcs of re-
ligioD, have pledged to each other our lives
and fortunes here, and our hopes ofhappi-
Eess hereafter, in its defence and support.
were we mistaken, my countrymen, in nt-
taching this Importance to the Constitution
oil our country Was our devotion paid TO
the wretched. inefficient, clumsy contrvance,
which this new doctrine would make II
Did We pledge ourselves to the support OF
AM airy nothng,a bubble that must be blown
away by the first breath of disaitcctior
Was this seli.desroying. visionary theory,
the work of the profound statesmen, the ex
alted patriots to whom the task OF constltu'
tional reform was entrusted. Did the name
of Washington sanction, did tho States de-
liberately rntify 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
its language directly contradicts the lmputa-
ton its spirit--its evident intent contra
diets. No we did not err Our ,Coustitu-
tion does not contain the absurdity ofgivlng
power TO make laws and another power to
resist them. The sages whose memory viii
always be reverence. have given us prac-
tical and as they hoped, permanent con-
s,itutional compact. The Father Of hrs
Country did not aiIix his revered namo 10 so
palpablean absu.dity. Nor did the States,
when they scveroly ratified it, do so under
the impression that a veto on the laws OF
the u. s. was reserved to thcm,or thas they
could exercise it by implication. Search
the debates in all their Conventions--ex-
anime the speeches of the most jealous op-
posers o: Federal authority--look nj tho a
mendments that were proposed; .heyar air
silent-not a syllable uttered not vote CIV
en,not motion made to correct the explicit
supremacy given t. the laws OF the
Union over those Of the Statos--or to show
that implication, as is now contcnded. couid
defeat it, Move have not erred !! The
Constitution is still the object of our reve-
renee, the bond OF our Union, our defence
ia danger, the source OF our prosperity In
peace. II shall descend as we have receiy.
ed 10, uncosYuptedb by sophistical construc-
ton, to our posterity and the sacrifice OF
local interest, OF State prejudices, Of per-
sonal animosties, that were, made to bring
it into existence, will again be epatriotically
Offered Tor its support. .p4
The two remaining objections made by
the Ordinance to these, Jaws are, that the
sums intended to be raised by them arc
greater than are required, and that the pro-
ceeds will be unconstitutionally employed.
The Constitution has given expressly to
Congress the right ofraising rsvsssa and ct
the sum the public sxigenciss will
require. The States have no csutrol over the
exercise Of this right, other thsA that which
results from the power Of fehanspg the Repre-
.eniativss who abuse il, and thus procure se-
dress. Congrsssmay undoubtedly abass this
discretionary power, but the tame may be said
ei others with which they ere vested. Yet the
discretion must exist somewhere. The Consti-
s!iou % % be. sssS a to S the R'Rssssns.s;; o..,i