Southern planter., 1832-12-22

naiurei and a dispute between thcm concerning
The Interpretation Of contract or treaty would
be governed by the same principles, and attended
by the same consequences Suppose at the end Of
war between the United States and Great Brit.
ain, that the American post Of Niagara should be
IN possession Of the British, and the Canadian post
OF Maiden, in possession of the Americans Sup.
pose that the Americans, understanding by the
treaty OF peace, that the posts were to be mutually
restored, should deliver Maiden to its former mas.
iers If the British assorted, that according to
Their Interpretation Of the treaty, they were not
bound TO restore Niagara, and should finally refuse
to evacuao that post; would the Americans ac.
qulescef Assuredly not. They would claim the
night OF interpreting both sides Of the treaty of
Judging how much they ought 10 regain as we'll as
now much they ought TO restore; and If Niagara
were not surrendered, they would, either by d.
rect attack OF some other means, very speedily re-
commence hOsillitles.
Thus far It is apparent, that full exercise Of
the right OF each party TO Judge for ITSELF results
m neither more nor less, than decision by force .
Let US see, whether the exercise Of an equal right
oi Interpretation, among all the parties to the fed
eIal conpaci, would not tend 10 similar issue -
Every state ON entering the Union, delegated por.
uoh oil us original sovereign power, and, thereby,
suolccied Ilscli TO the legislation of the general
government, To the extent Of the power cedod -
But this delegation was not made without an equiv
alent The state, at the same time, acquired a
share Of the legislative power Of the general gov
ernmenl; e, she acquired the right IN coniunc
ton with her conledemies, to enact laws operating
ON all the other states, 10 the yerv same extent
'ha' she had conceded the right, to enact, laws OPP
Grating ON herself THIS was the consideration,
m an ha r a..
10 exercise over state any power which she did
not delegate, Is violation Of the compaci--to re-
slsl delegated power of the general government,
which she has exercised conformity with Others, by
act Of Congress, rs equally a violation of the com
pact. She Is as much wrongcd, when her Just
power OF egIsatng over others is obslructed, as
when The UNJUST power Of legislailng over herself
Is usurPed. She possesses an equal right TO Judge
whether she has suffered the one wrong OF the 9th.
er-or, IN different words, If state IN the minor
~ has right to Judge, that an act Of Congress is
not constitutional, a state IN the majority has an
equal right to judge, that II Is constitutional
Since both parties, according to the fundamental
principle assumed, would possess also an equal
nght 10 Judge OF "the mode aud measure Of re-
dressi" the one might select It's own means of re
sslingi the other IT'S own means Of enforcing law
whose consuiulionaity was disputed Parties IN
THIS position, are evidently arrayed against each
other, with the unqualified llcence of mutual hostll.
ity. II both parties have free choice of "the mode
and measure OF redress" states IN the minority,
without doubt, may nulily the law whose consti.
tutlonaly they deny, and as clearly states IN the
majority, may cndeavor TO enforce It, by whatever
means are considered most expedlent lf neither
party recedes, and gentle measures are Intellectual
tho next resort will be to those which are violent d'
civil war IS the inevitable result.
The nulllheTs indeed contend, that if law were
nulllhed, presumption would be created against
ITS consutuuonalily; and that the majority would
be bound, # It did not yield by repeating il, to call
convention OF states, and solicit n formal grant
OF the power TO pass such law, in order that the
question might be tested This motion is utterly
nniounded. In the first place, if the majority OF
the states believes law TO be constitutional, and
persists IN maintaining II TO be so; the contrary
opinion OF the minority cannot create presump-
ton OF IT'S unconstltutonalty unless we adopt the
very extraordinary supposlliOa, that a smaller num-
Der Is more likely to be right than a greater. In
the second place, the act Of nullhcaton itself rs
justified only on tho ground that all the PARTIES
have an equal right TO interpret the Federal Com
pact, and 10 select their own mode and measure Ol
redress, when they believe that violation Of It has
occurred The right of the parties must be the
same, whether the violation is supposed TO consist,
IN exercising power which has not been confer
red, or IN resisting one which has actually been del
egaied An attempt therefore by the minority Of
states, to prescribe any particular mode of procoe
ding to the majority, would be wholly absurd-il
would be debating the mode and measure Of re-
dress to their opponents, who possess, by their own
acknowledgment, the full priyiledgo of choosing
for themselves. The very first principles of nuli-
hcalion would justify the majority, in the immedi.
ate employment of such means, as were deemed
most conducive, TO the accomplishment of their
purpose
But LEI US suppose that the majority, suspending
all measures of coercion, should graiuitously con.
sent TO call convention, for proposing amend
menls to the constitution: and that the parties were
accordingly assembled. The null ifers would say
TO the majority: ave deny that Congress possess.
os the power which it has assumed. in passing the
nullllied act--Propose TO the states an amendment
granting that power, and we shall aee whether Con
gress is 10 acquire il or not" To this the maiori.
~ would ofcourse reply: ave assert that Congress
does possess the power which il has exercised, in
passing the nuilied act. Propose to the states an
amendment taking away that power, and we shall
see whether Congress is to lose il or not" What
then would have been gainedS The votes Of a
majority OF the convention, must necessarily con
stitute the acts of that body. and no amendment