The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-06-22
DANIEL WEBSTER AND STATES
 RIGHTS.


 Daniel Webster. on June 2s. 1851, says The Raleigh. (N. C.,) Evening Times, delivered a speech at Capon Springs. Va. which is not to be found in any of the published editions of the speeches of Daniel Webster. It was printed in pamphlet form at the time. but an effort was made to get all the copies out of circulation, and so far as Is known to us, only one of those copies is in existence. We are indebted to MT. W. P. Mangum Turner. our city editor. for the loan of this copy, which he found among the papers of his grandfather. Senator Willie P. Mangum of North Carolina.
 Parts of this speech make mighty interesting reading. It, too, was made at a banquet. MT. Webster responded to a toast on the union of states, and later in the same evening was called upon for second speech. It was in this second speech, which was probab- ly impromptu more or less. that he gave utterance to the sentiments that were considered so impolitic as coming from a whig presidential possibility. It seems that these further remarks were called forth by the words of a Demo- cratic gentleman who mad publicly ex- pressed his sanction of MT. Webster's previous speech, though he acknow- ledged that he had long held widely different opinions from that gentleman. The Interesting parts of MT. Webster's speech follow:
 Tt would be absurd to suppose that by whole states and large portions of the country, either the north or the south has the power or the right to violate any part of that constitution, directly and of purpose. and still claim from the other observance of its pro- visions. If the south were to violate any part of the constitution intention ally and systematically, and persist in so doing year after year. and no rem- edy could be had, would the north be any longer bound by the rest of it? And if the north were deliberately, habitually and of fixed purpose to dis regard one part of 1t, would the south be bound any longer to observe its other obligations? . What I mean to say is that if the public men of large portion of the country, and espec- ially their representatives in congress, labor to prevent and do permanently prevent the passage of laws necessary to carry into effect a provision of the constitution particularly intended for the benefit of another part of the country, and which is of the highest importance to it. 1t cannot be expect ed that that part of the country will long continue to observe other consti- tutional provisions made in. favor of the rest of the country; because. gen tlemen, a disregard of constitutional duty in such a case cannot be brought within the corrective authority of the judicial power. Suppose the north to have decided majorities in congress. and suppose these majorities persist in refusing to pass laws for carrying into effect the clause of the constitution which decIales that fugi- tive slaves shall be restored, 1t would be evident that no judicial process and what remedy would the south have? : have not hesitated to say and repeat. that if the northern states refuse wilfully and deliberate ly to carry into effect that part of the constitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, and congress provide no remedy, the south would no longer be bound to observe the compact. A bargain cannot broken on one side and still bind the other side"