Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1833-02-07

Conclusion Of the Speech Of MIR. HOLINESS :"
the Senate. on the
REVENUE COLLECTION Bull.

REVENUE COLLEL L lO-N D'oh'
If the people made the Constitution, or 1t they
adopted 1t, the secession of State was, m his
opinion, impossible, because the iawsd the Unit
ed States, made under that Constitauon, are
bndirg on every citizen ol every state. All
owe allegiance to the United States. How was
it possible for an indi idual to 20 oft, t" scced".
He might go,snd cxpalriate himself. but he could
not 90 uff, and yet remain in the Union; he could
not remain within the jurisdiction oi the United
States, and yet be out OF the operation OF the
Federal power He might go away from the
shores of the United States, but he could not
otherwise secede. Ard tue States stood in the
same condition. Both States and individuals
stood on the same ground. II he was not right
in his conviction that the ultimate determination
of power was in the United States, he would ask
where is is Ii is some where. Where? IL
there be no power any where. why then it exist
ed nowhere. and the question could rot be derid-
ed The gentleman from Kentucky insisted thar
the power did NOT exist, although il was right be.
fore his ewes. 1t was common thing tor man
to assume dis conclusions first, and to look for
his premises afterwards. But it must have been
hard work for the gentleman to deny the exist.
ence Of a power which was staring him 10 the
face There are sectarians of all kinds, who
about for their premises TO sustain them. There
was preacher OF that kind in his section of the
country, who would always begin with his con-
illusions, and work up to his premises. On one
occasion he took for his text a sentence of Tho
mas, and endeavored TO eypound it on MS Old
principle. tie Iabored on for some time, brcom-
ing mure and more perpIexcd as he proceeded,
aud concluded in the midst OF mist and contu.
Ioay &c AN a inn N
of his meaning as he himself was. One of his
auditors, after the conclusion Of his sermon,
took occasion to speak To him, and to suggest that
lie seemed to have bOggled little in his DIS.
course, and was not quite SD lucid as usual
Why, said he, thought had made very ex-
ceent argument, very gond argument, indeed,
from nv text: but between you and me. | would
rather Thomas had never said IL So it VAS, he
presumed. with the gentleman from Kentucky:
that gentleman vas 50 perplexed by the reading
of the Constitution. that he wished the COnstitu-
ton had never said it.
Suppos. that the Federal Government were to
permit South Carolina TO carry her pnInt, and to
have things just as she desired. The principle
being extended thus far, where would the govern
ment step? South Carolina, he would suppose,
had made her regulations to admit goods into her
ports without the pa ment OF duty. In reference
to commercial advantage, this would at Oacr de-
stroy the equality between the States. South
Carolina would exclusively en- joy the benefit Of
this regulation, to the injury of all the others
On this principle. any State NAV nu!li!y the laws
Of the Uninn. Suppose that Rhode Island had
adopted provision that no law of the United
States which did not adopt the principle of the
protective system should be considered as con-
slItutonal, on the ground that the prlnci ple Of
protection Is recognized by the Constitution -
She has the same right as South Carolina to adopt
notification. And suppose that South Carolina
should declare that no law should be consttu.
tional which adopted the principle of protection.
These conflicting opinions of the States would
place the Federal Government in IA position where
its action Is sure to br wrong II law should
be passed to protect goods. South Carolina aslid
oppose il. If any such law should be repeated
the repeal would be opposed in Rhode Island
Each State would seat herself on her reserved
rights, and would set the laws OF the General Go.
vernment at defiance So, If the State of Mis-
ssspp should take 1t into her head to scat her.
self on her reserved rights in reference to the
freedom of the navigation of the Mississippi. she
might deiv the United States with the same pro-
pretty. Suppose that indiana was to adopt the
principle that had been already BY some. that she
had an exclusive right to the public lands within
her limits, and, acting on that opinion. was to
pass law declaring that none of the titles grant.
ed by the United States Government were good.
She. seating herself on her reserved rights, might
also cause some trouble and confusion.
Again: Suppose that the State OF Maine should
assert that all the fisheries on her coast belong
exclusively to her, aud that the vessel, Of no
other State have a ightto fish there; aud. further.
that the State of Pennsylvania should insist that
by the laws of Nature and of God. every man is
entitled to the privilege Of freedom. and that no
law, no provision Of the Constitution Of the u.
States could sanction slavery, and should pro-
coed accordingly to oppose the laws on this sub.
ject. He (Mf H. would ask gentlemen to ap.
ply this doctrine, that State can decide for it.
self, aud nullify law Of Congress and the Con-
stltu,ion, and leave them 10 say in what a siua.
ton they would find themselves. II was not his
intention to disturb that delicate question, nor To
provoke any discussion from gentlemen whose
situation rendered them 80 sensitive on the sub.
jet
II, indeed, we were not TO hold together, he
would ask in what condition the slave .hnldiny
States would be! II is not a very easv thin. to