The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1851-01-28

governments already referred to. Its vio,.t;oo Of
the treaty, # We remember rightly, was no, denied
1t was rather apQlogsed for. as in reality NM
important compared with the grave results that
evil. w
ana this leads us to second point OF equal im-
por'ance ana difficulty. BY this correspondence
may be raised, and probably will the complicated
question of how FAR State rights can be pleaded a.
Bar to the fulflment of international treaties
urea' Britain claims that the Imprisonment of err
subjects IN the ports of South Carolina is an IN
Engagement OF relations guaranteed by solemn
treaty with the Federal Government of the United
states The allegation is met by the plea that
oouth Carolina is sovereign State, having the
power TO regulate her own internal policy, and
that the law Of which Great Britain complains is
mere regulation of police, enacted for her own
safety, IN virtue of her inherent rights AS a sover
egn, independent State. The English govern
ineDt replies that the Federal Government made
the treaty; that II must be assumed to have had
the power TO enter into the contract, and now to
have the strength TO enforce it's terms If violated
on either side. The same reply is returned and
apparently, for the sake Of good feeling on both
sides, the question is allowed to rest.
But having been referred to South Carolina as
sovereign State and in that capacity the author Of
the alleged grievance of which she complains,
Great Britain turns to South Carolina, resolved 10
prosecute her claim through whatever channel
the friendly Government of the United States
may direct Now II Is plain that, whether Great
Britain be right or wrong as to the subject matter
OF her remonstrance, the course she has adopted
will tend TO test severely the relations of the
separate to the conederated States, and rce usrsa,
and will, should South Carolina persist in enforc-
ing the law complained Of, bring up before the
world s Judgment the real question Of the Federal
Governments responsibility as between its COM
onent par s-the ind dual States = and other
pations In this view the correspondence between
the British consul and Governor Means becomes
vastly interesting and important
| First, with implied approval, almost at the ac-
tual request of the Federal Government, Great
| Britain opens direct, official communication with
| an individual State of this Union. This is no
slight matter. Wecannot but regard it false
step on the part OF the late Secretary of State,
that, as the organ Of the Federal Government, he
made any such admission as would in the re-
hottest degree justify the belief that an individual
State could enact and sustain law at variance
with national treaty, or could be appealed to by
foreign power to remedy such an evil, did it
really exist. II Great Brtains remonstrance
was not just, or equitable, or justified by breach
OF treaty, the reply Of our Government ought to
have been to that effect, respectful but decisive
II otherwise, 1t was for the Federal Government,
as the treaty-making power, to have met the re-
sponsibllity without hesitation, to have herself
COPIED with the difficulty, of whatever magnitude;
to have said frankly to Great Britain, f" You are
right; South Carolina is wrong; and we will see
that the treaty which we made is strictly and
faithfully fulfilled
This would have shut oct Great Britain from
correspondence, from treating in any way, with
South Carolina But what now shall hinder the
British consul here il so instructed, from address
ing Governor Hunt on the subject OF the alien
| passenger tax, or some kindred topic, provided
| that his government has first correspondent with
the Federal Government upon the matter, and
even without such proviso' Then it may lead to
difficulty in another way. Arguing still upon the
assumption that e Eng ish 60 lernment is nm.
planning ofan actual violation of treaty. and is re-
solved TO resist, at all hazards the further npris
onment of its subjects at Charleston or else where,
some such sequence as this nay be anticipated
Collision of reprisas will foil, W. Against whom
shall this hostility be directed; OF course, (Grear
Britain having been virtually referred 10 the State
as the responsible party,) against South Carolina
Coping with that State alone, she must triumph
But would, could, the Federal Government
stand aloof, continue neutral? Assuredly not i,
would be as surely involved as if it had originally
retained the whole matter in lis own hands, with
this disadvantage -that it had previously pleaded
inability to compel obedience from South Caro-
lima.
Many other thoughts arise in connection will
the whole subject, but we cannot pursue then
now, and conclude by subjoining the correspon
dence