"that a violation of some one of the articles shall not break the whole in order that one of the parties should not get rid of the engagement on account of a small offense."-See Sec. 202.

Now it would be mere cavilling to say that Vattel allows of this appeal to arms only where the party that has recourse to such measures is, in fact, injured; for the question recurs who is to judge of that? Each party judges for itself at its peril, and war alone can "arbitrate the event," or if a peaceful course be preferred, the whole compact is at an end.

Shall I be told, in answer to this reasoning and the concurring opinions of all publicists of respectability, that Mr. Madison and Mr. Jefferson did not think so in '98? Sir, if they taught any other doctrine, I leave it to those who have better understanding than mine, to explain what they meant. But if it be affirmed that the purport of their resolutions was, that by the inherent attribute of sovereignty, any single party to the Federal compact may interpose in order to prevent the execution of a law passed by the rest, and that the others may not maintain their construction of the Constitution, either by coercing that single State into acquiescence, or shutting her out of the Union altogether, at their option, then I have no hesitation in declaring it, as my opinion, that they advanced a proposition, inconsistent with every principle of public law, without a shadow of foundation in the Constitution of the United States, and utterly repugnant to the common sense of mankind. And what, if they did advance such a paradox, so novel, so singular, so incomprehensible? Are the opinions of two men-however respectable and distinguished-speculative opinions, too, for neither Virginia nor Kentucky made a case by acting upon these notions-are the adventurous and speculative opinions of two individuals, conceived and put forth in a time of great excitement, to settle the public law of this country, every thing in our Constitution, and our books, and our common sense to the contrary, notwithstanding? Why, sir, even under the feudal system-a scheme of organized anarchy, if I may use the expression the most that an injured feudatory ever claimed was the right to make war upon his lord, who denied him justice, without incurring the penalties of treason. But it was reserved for the nineteenth century to discover that great secret of international law and to deduce it, too, by abstract reasoning, upon the fitness of things-a right of war in one party out of twenty-four, whenever the mood prompts, or of doing what amounts to an act of war, accompanied by the duty of implicit acquiescence in all the rest! But the truth is, that neither Mr. Jefferson nor Mr. Madison had any such wild and chimerical conceits; as, I think, perfectly demonstrable from the very text cited, to maintain the opposite opinion.

I have had occasion, frequently, to examine this subject, and I speak with confidence upon it. And, assuredly, that confidence is not dimin

ished by the emphatic declaration of Mr. Madison himself-by the contemporaneous exposition of the resolutions in the Virginia Assembly— by the disavowal of the doctrine by all the leading members of the Democratic party, with Mr. Livingston at their head-and by the unfeigned surprise which the whole country, Virginia and Kentucky included, expressed upon the first propounding of this extraordinary proposition in 1823. The Virginia resolutions talk of the right to interpose-do they say what is to ensue upon the exercise of that right? No, sir, they thought that intelligible enough-they were asserting no more than what has been so expressively and pointedly designated as the "right to fight," and they meant, if they meant anything, no more than a declaration of opinion, to back their declarations by 100,000 militia, as I understand the phrase of the day to have been. This is the plain English of the matter and one ground of objection to the "Carolina doctrine," as it has been called (though I doubt, not very accurately), is, that it is not in plain English-that the people may be led by a fatal deception to do what they have never seriously contemplated, and what no people ought to do, without a solemn self-examination and a deliberate view to consequences.

Sir, we have heard of "nursery tales of raw head and bloody bones." I am sorry that such an expression escaped the lips of the distinguished person who uttered it, and I lament still more that he gave it to the world in print. I am sure when he comes to reconsider, he cannot approve it-unless, indeed, he means to declare that the rest of the States are too cowardly or too feeble even to attempt to enforce their construction of the compact. This may be so, but for my part, I cannot consent to act upon such a calculation. If we do what we firmly believe it is our duty to do, let us make up our minds to meet all consequences. If there is any feature of the American Revolution more admirable than another, it is that our fathers had fully counted the costs before they took a single step. The leaders of the people were at great pains to inform them of the perils and privations which they were about to encounter. They put them upon their guard against precipitate determinations. They impressed it upon their minds that a period was at hand which called for "patience and heroic martyrdom "-they had not as yet a country to save, or a government worth to be transmitted to posterity, or how much more anxious would their deliberations have been! The language of a great, popular leader at Boston, before the first overt act of resistance, has made a deep impression upon my mind, and deserves to be repeated here. "It is not the spirit that vapours within these walls (said Mr. Quincy) that must stand us instead. The exertions of this day will call forth events which will make a very different spirit necessary for our salvation. Look to the end. Whoever supposes that shouts and hosannas will terminate the trials of this day entertains a childish fancy. We must be grossly ignorant of the impor

tance and the value of the prize we are contending for; we must be equally ignorant of the power of those who are contending against us; we must be blind to that malice, inveteracy, and insatiable revenge which actuate our enemies, to hope we shall end this controversy without the sharpest, sharpest conflicts; to flatter ourselves that popular resolves, popular harangues, popular acclamations and popular vapour will vanquish our foes. Let us consider the issue. Let us weigh and consider before we advance to those measures which must bring on the most trying and terrible struggle this country ever saw."

To this complexion it must come at last, and the only question now submitted to the people of South Carolina is, Are you ready to absolve yourselves from your allegiance to the government of the United States, and to take and maintain your station as a separate commonwealth among the nations of the earth?

I have confined myself, in the discussion of this subject, to a single point in one branch of it. I have said nothing about the extent of our grievances, so enormously exaggerated by the Exposition. Even in regard to the proposed remedy by nullification, I have chosen to take up the question as it is presented by the warmest advocates of that doctrine and I submit that I have made it plain that, even on their own showing, it is necessarily an act of war-a revolutionary measure. But in doing so I have conceded a great deal too much—I have allowed them to treat our elaborate and peculiar polity, which we have been taught to regard as one of the master-pieces of human invention—as if it were the coarsest and loosest of those occasional expedients to preserve peace among foreign powers, leagues, offensive and defensive. If their argument is wholly inconclusive, and indeed manifestly incongruous and absurd even in this point of view, what shall be said of it when it is thoroughly and critically examined with reference to a true state of the case? Sir, I have no language to express my astonishment that such a doctrine should have found any countenance from the able and enlightened men who have given in their adhesion to it.

We have been taunted as submissionists-I am not afraid of a nickname "Tis the eye of childhood that fears a painted devil." It would be easy-very, very easy to retort-but I prefer accepting our own denomination and putting my own interpretation upon it. I give you,

sir

"The Submission Men of South Carolina:

'They dare do all that may become a man,
Who dares do more is none." 929

SPEECH OF JAMES L. PETIGRU, Esq.

By James Adger, Esq., one of the Vice-Presidents:

"James L. Petigru: Enlightened-able-faithful-fearless. His country looks to him in the hour of need-and she will not be disappointed." This toast was most cordially received.

Mr. Petigru rose and addressed the meeting in an eloquent, patriotic and fearless speech, and was frequently interrupted by the cheering enthusiasm of the company. The following is the speech:

Fellow-Citizens, -I receive with deep sensibility this expression of your approbation, perfectly conscious that the sentiment is due not to any merit of mine, but to the cause in which I am devoutly engaged with so many better and abler men. In defence of the Union, Constitution and Liberties of the country, my fellow-citizens may indeed count upon me to the full measure of all the aid that I can bring. I will be excused for saying a few words on the subjects connected with our party. To love our country in the most extended acceptation of the word, and to honor her free institutions, was till very lately the character of every one aspiring to the praise of a good citizen. Those institutions are now the subjects of reproach and obloquy to that degree that we are from certain quarters daily urged as a matter of duty to resist the laws of the Union.

And why should we resist? Because, it is said, that the tariff of protecting duties is unconstitutional and ruinous to the South. These are grave charges; but we ought to be clear in our own minds that we proceed on sure grounds before we take a step by which we put at stake our honor and the peace and happiness of our country. That the tariff of protecting duties ought never to have been passed-that it is contrary to the spirit of amity and mutual concession in which the Constitution was conceived, and in which the government ought to be executed, I freely admit-that it is injurious to the South I firmly believe; but, that it is unconstitutional, I wholly deny; and that it is ruinous in its operation on the South is no more than a rhetorical flourish. In such an address a very brief view is all that can be attempted.

Passing over the power of imposing duties, which is granted exclusively to Congress-though I never can concede that the enumerated objects of this power refer to anything more than the purposes to which the revenue arising from these duties is to be applied-or that Congress have no discretion to make a difference between the objects of taxation on account of the resulting and incidental effects of imposts in their operation on the country, I will place the question on the power to regulate commerce. This power is given exclusively and absolutely. Now, although we may justly condemn the mode and manner in which it has been done, all my dislike to the measure itself, all my unfeigned deference for the opinions of some who think differently, cannot shake me in declaring as my settled conviction that the obnoxious laws are to all intents and purposes regulations of commerce, and such regulations, too, as all commercial nations have invariably made. Let it be admitted that these regulations were made expressly with a view to their effect on manufactures. The resulting and incidental effect of such regulations is within the discretion of Congress. The intent of commercial

regulations is not to benefit the merchant only, but to consult the interests of all, and the lawgiver must take into consideration the resulting consequences as well as the direct effect of the law. Where there is discretion, it may, from the nature of things, it must be frequently badly exercised; and in the late revenue laws I firmly believe that it has been much abused. But take away the supposed inequality of these laws, in the unequal burthen imposed on the South, and the constitutional objection vanishes. Suppose the benefits of them to be equally felt in this and in every other State, and it is incredible that any man would believe they were not within the province of the general government.

Then, admitting that the tariff presses unequally on the States, and imposes a greater burthen on the South than on the rest of the country, will this prove it unconstitutional? Such a state of things is highly improper; but the constitutionality of a law cannot possibly be determined on this ground. We can draw no other line than the Constitution has drawn: that imposts shall be equal in all the States, and no preference given to the ports of one State over those of another. If from extrinsic causes some States pay more than others, or pay with less facility, it is a difficulty, in a great measure, inseparable from the nature of the thing; and a risk of which our forefathers were neither ignorant nor regardless when they entered into the Federal compact. While we take the benefits of that compact, we must stand to its terms and abide by it like men. I have great repugnance to the idea of construing a written instrument one way to-day and another way to-morrow, as interest predominates. The construction, I maintain, is not new; it is the same that was placed on the instrument by those who made it, and was sanctioned again and again, and even recently by the voice of South Carolina. It is certainly an unpleasant thing, after giving a deliberate opinion in a matter, in which one either is or thinks himself disinterested, to find that with the discovery of his interest comes the discovery of new light, and a total change of opinion. Let us place our opposition on the true ground, on the excess and impolicy of the protecting duties, and abide by our bargain. When the evil becomes enormous, the remedy lies in the principle of self-preservation, and the resort to revolutionary force.

But is the evil of that magnitude as to induce us to give up all the advantages of a stable government-all the ennobling associations of our common history, and the endearing ties of blood, as the price of relief from its pressure? On this point I appeal with confidence to the true sons of America, native and adopted. They will not weigh their allegiance against dross, nor calculate for how much money their country may be sold. The monstrous exaggerations of the State Rights and Free Trade Party have been exposed to-day by a master's hand.