The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1911-08-08

49, RON~I 1919 III III H6 Union.
The Union never had a more ardent
friend than he was and if his poll
cies u have been carried out there
would never have been any war. Soon
after his entrance into the Senate a
force bill was introduced which ex-
tended the jurisdiction of the Federal
Courts arising under the revenue
laws, and clothing the President with
arbitrary powers SO he could enforce
the collection of the revenues in
South Carolina. He introduced a Sc
rles Of resolutions based upon the
kentucky and Virginia resolutions and
ms resolutions declared that the Con-
stltut1on was a compact. He intro
duced the resolutions with the view
10 provoke debate upon the nature
and theory Of our Government Cal
houn made. an elaborate speech on the
force bill. but did not discuss the
theory of Government as expressed
in his resolutions for he expected
Webster to reply to him and he wish
ed to deprive him of the advantage of
attacking him when he would be pre-
cluded from a reply. Mr.. Webster fol-
lowed Calhoun in the debate on the
force bill, and instead of combining
himself to the merits of the question,
involved in the force bill, he went in
to an elaborate discussion Of the prin-
ciples of Government as he under
stood them and attacked with vehe-
mence and ability the positions as
sumed by Calhoun in his resolutions.
Calhoun asserted in his first resolu-
ton that the Constitution was a COM
pact. webster saw that this was the
strong point in the resolution and that
if it were true then Calhoun's theory
of Government would be estab lished,
SO he directed his whole argument to
overthrow this position. He admitted
then his darling derivatives, secession
and notification, would follow as a
necessary corollary. Calhoun replied
to Webster and completely answered
his arguments and thoroughly routed
him in the debate. Everybody ought
TO read the speeches of those great
men. Webster after hearing Calhoun's
argument made no reply and IN after
years he modified his position as is
shown in his argument in the Su-
preme Court in the case Of Bank OF
Augusta VS.. Earle. In this case the
nature of the General Government
and the State Governments in their
relation to each other came up for
adjudication. This was in 1899. six
years after the discussion with Cal
houn in the Senate. In this argument
he takes the position that the pow
ers delegated to the United States in
h Constitution are specific and lin-
tied and that all not delegated are
reserved to the States. In the debate
with Calhoun he admitted the States
were sovereign before the Constitution
was adopted. In the argument before
the court he says the Constitution
treats States as States. Mr.. Calhoun
never tool a stronger position for
State sovereignty. In his, letter to the
Barring Brothers of London, who
asked him the question as a lawyer if
a State could contract loans at home
and hrno6 no oncUarpH that fhaN had
such a power, that eac State is an in
dependent sovereign, political COM
munity, except suck powers which had
been conferred on the General Gov
eminent. In June, 1851, he made a
speech at Capon Springs, Virginia.
Several of the New England States
passed personal liberty bills prohibit
ing the execution Of the fugitive slave
law within their borders, which was
passed il 1850 as part Of the cOmprO
mise measures Of Mr.. Clay. The rendi-
ton of fugitive slaves is provided for
in the Constitution and Webster said
it was as much a part Of the Constltu-
ton as any other. He says IF the
Northern States refuse to carry into
effect hat part Of the Constitution
which respects the restoration Of fu-
gitive slaves, the South would no long
er be bound to observe the compact
"A bargain cannot be broken on one
side and still bind the other side In
the debate with Calhoun, as / have
stated. he denied that the Constitution
was a compact, but in his CapOn
Springs speech he say it is a compact.
Webster was a great lOgician and
could appreciate an and
When he heard Calhoun's argument
and he could not answer it like an
honest man he changed his view on
theory of the Government. Until his
discussion with Calhoun he did not
understand our theory of Government,
because he had not studied it as Cal
houn had. Like Paul on the way to Da-
mascus, when smitten by God, he saw
the truth and he was too great a man
and too honest and patriotic not to ad-
NIT it. You can convince a man Of
intellect but not a fool. The CONVEX
sion of Webster shows what a grears