and who, when at the head of the War Department and in expectation of the Presidency, was the zealous and uncompromising advocate of high taxes, conscription, and the most lavish expenditure of the people's money. But I will tire you no longer with a discussion so dry. Brothers of South Carolina, supporters of the Constitution, under the banner of the thirteen stripes, the sacred emblem of the Union of the twenty-four States, which waved triumphantly over Washington in our war for political independence, and over Jackson in our war for commercial independence-under those glorious stripes, which have been to our country, by sea and by land, a cloud hy day and a pillar of fire by night-under those glorious stripes, whose political influence is now operating on the continent of Europe from the Borysthenes to the Mediterranean-under those sacred stripes which floated over the dead and mangled bodies of our fathers of the Revolution we are celebrating the Fourth of July. What sentiment, in accordance with this scene, and with the feelings it calls forth, can I better give than the following:

"The Union-The Constitution-Liberty: The true and natural order of things-for without the Union we can have no Constitution, and without the Constitution no Liberty."

SPEECH OF HUGH S. LEGARE, ESQ.

The Hon. Thomas Lee offered the following volunteer toast:

"Hugh S. Legare: An enlightened jurist and sound constitutional lawyer a friend to the Union, and an able and efficient advocate of State Rights."

On which Mr. Legare rose and addressed the meeting in the subjoined admirable speech:

Mr. Legare said he was obliged to the meeting for the opportunity offered him, according to an established usage, of saying what he thought and felt upon the momentous occasion, for so it seemed to him, that had brought them together, and would gladly avail himself of it to speak very much at length, were it not physically impossible to make himself heard in so vast an assemblage. He thought it due to himself and to those who were cf the same way of thinking, that their sentiments should be fairly and fully expressed-for he had no doubt that they were such as would meet the hearty concurrence of a great majority of the people of South Carolina. He felt the less regret, however, at the self-denial he was obliged to practice, because the able speech of the orator of the day had maintained the doctrines which he (Mr. L.) professed, and for which, as the representative of the people of Charleston, he had strenuously, and he flattered himself, not unsuccessfully, contended in the Legislature of the State during several successive sessions. These doctrines they had heard expounded and enforced that morning by a man and in a manner worthy of the proudest days of

this proud city, nor did he think that any one could have listened to that discourse without being the wiser and better for it.

It has been frequently thrown out of late, in the language of complaint and censure, said Mr. L., and on a recent occasion, very emphatically, by a gentleman for whom on every account, I entertain the profoundest respect, that there is a certain party among us who seem much more intent upon 66 correcting the errors of some of our statesmen" (as they are said modestly to express it) than upon putting their shoulders to the wheel along with the rest of their fellow-citizens, in an honest and manly effort to relieve the State from the burthens under which it is thought to be sinking-in plain English, that their pretended hostility to the tariff acts is all a sham. Sir, this would be a severe rebuke, if it were deserved. I, for one, should be very sorry to think that the part I am taking in the proceedings of this day were open to that construction. God knows it was with extreme reluctance that I made up my mind to take this step. But what was I to do? What alternative has been left us by those who have the constructive majority of the State, that is to say, the majority of the Legislature at their back? They have chosen to narrow down the whole controversy concerning the American system to a single point. They have set up an issue and demand a categorical expression of opinion upon the expediency of immediately interposing the sovereign power of the State, to prevent the execution of the tariff law. That is to say, according to Mr. M’Duffie's reading (the only sensible reading) of that rather ambiguous phrase, to raise the standard of the State, and to summon her subjects, by the allegiance which they owe to her, to gather around it in order to resist a law of Congress. Sir, if I do not misunderstand all that we have recently heard from men in high places (and if I do misunderstand them, it is not because I have not most anxiously and patiently examined whatever they have said and done), this, and this alone, is the question now before us. In such a question all minor considerations are swallowed up and lost. Upon such a question, no man can, or ought to beno man in the face of a community, excited and divided as this is, dare be neutral. It is propounded to us after the fashion of the old Roman Senate: You who think thus, go thither—you who are of any other opinion stay here. The country calls upon every individual, however humble he may be, to take his post in this mighty conflict. Sir, I obey that paramount command, and be it for weal, or be it for woe, be it for glory, or be it for shame, for life and for death, here I am.

But, sir, I repeat it, I should most deeply regret that what we are now doing should be thought to give any countenance to any part of the "American system." It is known, I believe, to everybody present, from various publications which have been long before the community, that I think that system unconstitutional, unjust and inexpedient. This

opinion I did not take up hastily-for with regard to the tariff, I, in common with everybody else in the State, once thought it within the competency of Congress. But more mature inquiry has resulted in a change of my opinion upon that subject, and although I dare not express myself so confidently in respect to it as it is the habit of the times to do, I must be permitted to say that I am more and more strengthened in that conviction by every day's experience and reflection. Sir, if I had any doubt about the matter, the proceedings of this day would be sufficient to dispel it. It is melancholy to think of the change which has been made in the feelings and opinions of some of the best and ablest men among us, by this pernicious system-to reflect that alienation and distrust, nay, in some instances, perhaps, that wrath and hostility now possess those bosoms which were but a few years ago warmed with the loftiest and the holiest enthusiasm for the government of their own and their fathers' choice. The authors of this policy are indirectly responsible for this deplorable state of things, and for all the consequences that may grow out of it. They have been guilty of an inexpiable offence against their country. They found us a united, they have made us a distracted people. They found the Union of these States an object of fervent love and religious veneration; they have made even its utility a subject of controversy among very enlightened men. They have brought us not peace, but a sword. It is owing to this policy that the government has to bear the blame of whatever evils befall the people, from natural or accidental causes-that whether our misfortunes spring from the barrenness of the earth, or the inclemency of the seasons, or the revolutions of commerce, or a defective system of domestic and rural economy-or, in short, from any other source, they are all indiscriminately imputed to the tariff. The decay and desolation which are invading many parts of the lower country-the fall in the price of our great staple commodity-the comparative unproductiveness of slave labor-are confidently declared to be the effects of this odious and tyrannical monopoly. Sir, firmly convinced as I am that there is no sort of connection (or an exceedingly slight one) between these unquestionable facts and the operation of the tariff law, yet I do not wonder at the indignation which the imposition of such a burthen of taxation has excited in our people in the present unprosperous state of their affairs. I have sympathized and do sympathize with them too deeply to rebuke them for their feelings, however improper I deem it to be to act upon such feelings, as recklessly as some of their leaders would have them do.

Sir, it is not only as a Southern man that I protest against the tariff law. The doctrine of free trade is a great fundamental doctrine of civilization. The world must come to it at last if the visions of improvement in which we love to indulge are ever to be realized. It has been justly remarked that most of the wars which have, for the last two cen

turies, desolated Europe, and stained the land and sea with blood, originated in the lust of colonial empire or commercial monopoly. Great nations cannot be held together under a united government by any thing short of despotic power; if any one part of a country is to be arrayed against another in a perpetual scramble for privilege and protection, under any system of protection, they must fall to pieces, and if the same blind selfishness and rapacity animate the fragments which had occasioned the disunion of the whole, there will be no end to the strife of conflicting interests. When you add to the calamities of public wars and civil dissensions, the crimes created by tyrannical revenue laws, and the bloody penalties necessary to enforce them, the injustice done to many branches of industry, to promote the success of others, the pauperism, the misery, the discontent, the despair, and the thousand social disorders which such a violation of the laws of nature never fails to engender, you will admit, I think, that the cause of free trade is the great cause of human improvement. Sir, I can never sufficiently deplore the infatuation which has brought such a scourge upon this favored land-which has entailed, so to speak, the curse of an original sin upon a new world, and upon the continually multiplying millions that are to inhabit it. Most heartily shall I co-operate in any measure, not revolutionary, to do away with the system which has already become a fountain of bitter waters to us-which threatens to become to another generation a source of blood and tears-and I heartily rejoice at the dawn of hope which has opened upon us in the proposed convention at Philadelphia. Not that I am sanguine as to the immediate results of such a meeting; but if it be filled, as it ought to be, with leading and enlightened men from all parts of the country, which think as we do upon this great subject, it will awaken the attention of the people, it will lead to general discussion, it will give scope, if I may so express it, for the operation of those momentous truths on which we rely, and I cannot, and will not despair of the Republic, as it came down to us from the most venerable band of sages and heroes that ever laid the foundation of a great empire, until I become satisfied by much better evidence than any I have yet seen, that it is in vain to appeal to the good sense and kindly feelings of the American people. Meanwhile, to the measure which is now under consideration, and which, by whatever name it may be called, is, in my opinion, essentially revolutionary, I am, as I ever have been, decidedly opposed. I regarded it, when it was first mentioned in 1828, as an ill-omened and disastrous project-calculated to divide us among ourselves, to alienate from us the minds of our natural allies in such a struggle, the agricultural States in our neighborhood, and to involve us in difficulties from which we should not be able to retreat without dishonor, and in which we could not persevere without inevitable and irretrievable ruin-I might have been wrong, but I

acted upon deep and solemn conviction, and I thank God, from the bottom of my heart, for being permitted to indulge in the consoling persuasion, that my humble labors on that memorable occasion did contribute in some degree to avert these calamities.

Sir, this is no occasion for going into a detailed analysis of the doctrine of nullification, a doctrine which, as taught in The Exposition, I undertake to say, involves just as many paradoxes and contradictions as there are topies relied on to maintain it-but I cannot refrain from presenting a single view of it, which is of itself entirely conclusive. You will observe, Mr. President, that the difference between us and the advocates of this doctrine, is not as to the question how far a State is bound to acquiesce in an unconstitutional act of Congress; or (which is the same thing) how far it has a right "to interpose to arrest the progress" of such legislation. We admit this right in the most unqualified manner; for if the law be unconstitutional, it is no law at all. So far there is no difference and can be no difference between us. The question is not as to the right, nor even as to the remedy, but as to what shall ensue upon the exercise of the right, or the application of the remedy. The advocates of nullification insist upon it, that the interference of the States in such a case would be a peaceful act-we say it would be, even upon their own showing, an act of war-a revolutionary measure-a remedy derived from a source above all law, and an authority which bows to no arbiter but the sword-and this is susceptible of as rigorous demonstration as any point within the whole compass of public law.

For the sake of argument, I concede all that the most extravagant writers in our newspapers have ever assumed, and a great deal more than the most able of them can prove-I will grant that the government of the United States is no government at all-that it is not only a compact between independent States, but that it is a compact of no peculiar solemnity or efficacy-conveying no powers not usually granted by international treaties, establishing no intimate relations between the different parts of the country, not subjecting the citizen, in the least, to the jurisdiction of the federal courts, not binding upon his conscience, not imposing upon him the obligations of allegiance, not making him liable in any case to the penalties of treason. I will put the case as strongly as possible for the advocates of the doctrine. I will suppose that this constitution, of which we have been boasting so much for near half a century, is found out to be a league between foreign powers, and that every question that can arise under it, is in the strictest sense of the word, a merely political question. What then, sir? Did you ever hear of one party to a league having a right-not to judge for himself of its meaning, mark the distinction; but to bind the other party by his judgment? I admit that there is no common arbiter-that each of