The Bamberg herald. [volume] (Bamberg, S.C.) 1891-1972, 1920-01-08
South Carolina and New jersey
1882 and 1919.

History repats itself. New Jersey
threatens an act of notification OF
federal legislation through bill or
joint resolution to be introduced in
the senate of that State by Senator
Thomas Brown, setting as de the Vol
stead prohibition act and providing
for enforc ement of legislation to re-
place it which shall be supreme
within the limits of the State of New
jersey" Naturally this proposition
at once recalls the famous proceeding
of South Carol ma in 1882. The tariff
of 1928 was highly obnoxious to the
people>of South Carol na. They want
ed to import products freely which
were somewhat highly taxed by that
tariff. After three or four years of
| agitation, and under the influence of
the extreme State rights doctrine of
John c. Calhoun, the legislature of
the State, 1882, called a constituent
| convention, known as the "nullifica-
tion eonvent;on,' which met in
Charleston on November 10 of that
year and, after recit:ng the grievance
of the State in the matter of the acts
of Congress in imposing the obnoxious
duties, declared:
These acts are unauthorized by
the Constitution of the United States
and violate the true meaning and in
tent thereof, and are null and vo:d
and no law, nor binding upon this
State or it's officers or citizens"
The proposed measure to set aside
the Volstead act in New Jersey and
replace it with a State enactment is
not characterized by the fine laconic-
ism of the ordinance framed by the
old South Carolina statesman, but in
roundabout and guarded way it pro-
poses to do about the same thing. It
says:
"Whereas the eighteenth amend
ment has not been ratified by the
State of New Jersey, and whereas it
is doubted by the State whether the
amendment was passed in const.tu-
tioal manner, and since, further, the
State of New Jersey is about to test
the vadits of the Volstead enforce
ment act passed pursuant to the eigh-
teenth amendment, and since the
State government considers that it
has concurrent power under the
amendment, even if it is held valid, to
pass an enforc ement act of it's own,
it intends to disregard the Volsteau
act and pass a new enforcement law
which will be supreme within the linn.
it's of the State of New jersey"
Now the word qualification" was
made od:ous by the proclamation
which President Andrew Jackson
hurled against the recalcitrant South
Carolin:ans, but the fact is neverthe-
less to be observed that the tariff o.
1928 was indeed successfully NULL
fed in South Carolina as long as 1t
remained on the statute book. South
Carolina has always mainta ned that
it won out in that controversy. There
was a great display: of activity IN
congress; Webster's famous reply to
Hayne was directed against null.fca-
ton. A force bill to authorize the
president to employ the armed forces
of the United States in compelling the
South Carolinians to pay the duties
was introduced in the senate, but it
was never passed. Under the influence
of Clay a compromise was adopted. A
new tariff bill, which practically re-
moved all South Carolina's grievance
es, was passed by compress, and &C
cepted by the people of that State.
But the ordinance of null :fication was
never withdrawn.
South Carolina, by the way, is not
the only State that has nullitled fed
eral enactments. The governor OF
PENNSYLVANIA in 1909 resisted the en-
forcement of a decree of a United
States court with the militia of the
State. And in 1SO9-1S15 Massachu-
setts nul!ified the embargo.-Boston