Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1833-04-02
'Twenty-sccond Congress.--sess. q.
IN SENATE. Eeh ne
MIR. WEBSTER'S SPEECH, in repiy 20 Mn. ca
uoUN. on Me Reremnc CnLeciinn RM -rcnn,innn.

IN SENAIE Feb III.
MIR. WEBSTER'S SPEECH in reply 10 Mn. CAL
HouN, on the Reremue Collection BjH.-ICondnued
Indeed, sir, if we look TO all contemporary history to IN
writings OF the Fcderdlist, TO the debates I'M the conyen
Mons TO the publications of friends and foes, they all agree
'hat a change had been made from a couicderacV of States
a diherent system; they all agree, that the convention
had formed a consti ution for a National Governmont
WIN 'nis result, some were satisfied, and Sne were dis
satisfied; but all admitted that the thing had been done. |,
none oi these various productions and publications, did an,
one intimate That The new constitution was but anothc
compact between States i'm their sovereign capacities.
90 not ma such an opinion advanced in a single instance
Every where, the people were told that the old couicle
iauOh was 10 be abandoned, and a ne " system TO be tried
That a proper Government was proposed, to he founded il
tue name OF the people, and TO have a regular organiza.
uoh OF ITS own Every where, the people were told thai
- was 10 oe a government with direct powers 10 make
laws over individuals, and TO lay taxes and impot without
the consent OF the States. Every where it was understood
10 be a popular constitution. II came TO The peoplc far
'heir adoption, aud was TO rest on the same deep foundation
as The State constitutions themselves. Its most distinguish.
ed advocates, who had been themselves members of the
convention, declared that the very object OF SUBMITTING
NE constitution TO the people was, TO preclude the posi-
ohHty OF 'ts beng regarded as a mere compact. GLOW.
ever gross a heresy,' say the writer's Of the Federalist,
II may DC 10 maintain that a party TO a compact has o
right to revoke that compact, the doctIine itself has had
respectable advocates. The possibility of a question of this
nature proves the necessity OF laying the foundations OF
our National Government deeper than in the mere sane
uoh oil delegated authority. The fabric of American EN-
pre- ought to rest on the solid basis OF THE CONSENT OF
THE PEOPLE"
Such is the language, sir, addressed TO the pooplc. whilo
they yet had the constitution under consideration. The
powers conferred on the new Government were perfectly
wen understood 10 be conferred, not bv any State mr. Tho
people OF any State, but by the people of the limited
states. Virginia is more explicit, perhaps, i'm this parti.
GUAR, Than any other State. Her convention assembled
10 ra,Iy me constitution Gin the name aud behalf of the
people oil Virginia, declare and make known. that the
powers granted under the constitution, being deyfped G,o,,
ume PeoPte % me CHifed States, may be resumed by
mem whenever the same shall be perverted 10 their iniu.
ry or oppression"
Is this language which describes the formation of q
compact between States, or language describing the Grant
~ UDfcGTS 10 u netc GOreyl11suf Inn mo spbago. T. r
the United States.
Among al. the other notifications, there is not one which
speaks oil the constitution as a compact between States
nose OF Massachusetts, and new Hampshire express the
transaction, IN my opinion, with sufficient accuracy
Ihey recognise the Divine goodness "in ahording THE
PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES an opportunity of en-
tering into an explicit and solemn COMPACT with e,cb
o!her, Oy asserting to and rGtJying a neto c@onsfitu-
ION; GU VIII observe, sir, that it is the PEOPLE, and
hol states, who have entered into this compact. and IL
Is The PEOPLE OF all the United States. These conven.
IONS oy TINS form OF expression, meant merely TO saw.
tlal the people OF the United States had, bv The blessin,
o' rroVluence' enjoyed The opportunity Of establishing q
new constitution, founded in The consent Of the peo9ie.
nus consent OF the people has been called by European
writer's the social compact; and, in conformity to tins
entered into Win each Other, but IS hfeR' nie people OF me
United States had entered into.
Finally, sir, how can any man get over the words ofthe
constitution itself 1--WE, THE PEOPLE OF THE u.
STATES, DO oRDAIN AND ESTABLISH THIS CoNsTI-
These words must cease 10 be a part of the
conslituton-they must he obliterated from The paich-
mcnt on which they are written, before any human inge-
nuity or human argument can remove the popular basis
on which that constitution rests, and turn the Instrument
int a mere compact between sovereign States.
The second proposition, sir, which | propose to main
tain il, that no State authority can dissolve the relations
subsisting between the Government OF the United States
and individuals; that nothing can dissolve these relations
but revolutions; and tha', therefore, there can be no such
thing as secession without revolution. All Ibis follows, as
1t seems 10 me, as a just consequence, lift be first proved
that the constitution of the United States isa Government
proper, owing protection TO individuals, and entitled to
their obedience.
The people, sir, in every State, live under two Govern
ments. They owe obedience 10 both. These Govern
1nents, though distinct, are not adverse. Each has is Sc
kparAte sphere, and its peculiar powers and duties. 1t Is
not a contest between two sovereigns Tor the same power,
like the wars of the rival Houses in England; nor is il a
dispute between a government de (dctO, and government
de jHe. IL is the case OF a division OF powers, between
two governments, made 10y the people, to which both are
responsible. Neither can dispense with The duty which
Individuals owe to the other; neither can call itself mas
ter: the people are masters of both. This division Of pow
er it is true, is in a great measure unknown in Europe
IL is the peculiar system of America and, though neW
and singular, it is not ncomprehensibIe. The State Con
stitutcns are established by the people OF the States. Thi.
Constitution is established by the people OF oil the States
How, then, can a State sccede /? How can a State undo
what the whole people have done How can she absolvc
her citizens from their obedience to the laws OF the Unite,
States 4? How can she annul their obligations and Oatiis
How can the members OF her Legislature renouncc theil
own oaths? Sir, secession as a revolutionary right, is in
%telhgible as a right to be proclaimed in the midst Of civil
commoions, and asserted at the head Of armies, I can uu,
dcrstand ii. But, as a practical right, existing under the
Constitution, and in conformity with its provisions, II scemi
to me to be nothing but a plain absurlity Tor, il supposei
resistance TO government, under the authority OF Govern
ment itself; it suppoSes dismemberInont, without violating
the principles OF union 1t supposes opposition to law
without crime it supposes the violation of oaths, withou
responsibility il supposes tile total overthrow of Govern
ment, without revolution.
The Constitution, sir, regards itself as perpetual an,
immortal. II seeks to establish a union among the peopl,
OF the States, which shall last through all time. Or, j
the common tate of things human must be expected, a
some period, to happen 10 It, yet that catastrophe is not an
ucipatcd.
The instrument contains ample provisions for its amend
ment, at all times, none for its Abandonment, at any lime
IL declares that new States may come into the Uriou, bu
IL does not declare that old states may 60 out. The CHiO
is not a temporary partnership OF States. Itis the associa
ton OF the people, under a constitution OF Government
uniting theirpower, joining together their highest interests
cementing their present niOyments and blending, ia on
indivisibc mass, all their hopes for the future. Whatsoe
yer is stcadlast IN Just, political principles-whatsocyor
permanent In the structure OF human ociey-whatsoev
there H. which can derive an enduring character from be
ing founded on deep laid principles of constitutional lihrI
~, and OH the broad foundations Of he public will, al thcs
unite to eniue Ibis instrument TO be regarded as q perina
ncnt constitution Of Government.
In the next place, Mr.. President. / contend that tber
is supreme law Of the land, consisting Of the constitution
acts Of Congress passed 10 pursuance Of o., and the publ.
treaties. This will not be denied, because such are DO
very words Of the Constitution. But contend further, thi
IL %ughUully belongs to Congress, and TO the Courts OF tl
United States, 20 settle the construction Of Ibis suprcm
law, in doubtful cases. This is denied: and here arise
the great practical question, WIN is tD COHsbUe hHuI
the Constitution of Me Uujtcd Siafcs7 We All agre
i that the Constitution is the supreme law; but who sh'lu
tcrprct that law? IN our system Of the division OF power
between different Governments, controversies will uccc.
sarily sometimes arise. respecting the eXtcnt of 'he power
OF each.-Who shall decide these controversial Does
rest with the General Government, 100 al or auy 9i d. dc
parimcnls, TO exercise the office Of final utcipra.er: g
i may each Of the STATES, as well as the General Govern
Imont, claim this night Of ultimate decision; The prdcic