SENATE.]

Revenue Collection Bill.

[FEB. 8, 1833.

the attitude of a changeling. The proceedings to which Sir, I protest that, wealthy as the people of the State of he referred resulted from the deliberate, and, he might Pennsylvania may be, pouring at all times their countless say, the inflexible purpose of a highly respectable, al- thousands into the public treasury--I protest against the though, in his apprehension, misguided State. He might Congress of the United States requiring one cent from be mistaken in represera ng the attitude of the State. He the population of that State which is not fully required referred to the appearances every where existing in the from others. If you do make it a matter of equal legisla State. This attitude might possibly be very soon changed, tion, though we would cheerfully contribute millions to and, in that case, our proposed legislation in regard to it the general treasury in common with the other States, yet, must be changed. show preference, in the slightest degree, to any portion Sir, said Mr. D., I say this is a possibility, but I do not of the Union, and, as a member of that great commonsay that it is a probability. There might be gentlemen wealth, I would protest against it. Charleston cannot be at the head of this South Carolina excitement, whose in-a free port, compatibly with the constitution of the United fluence and standing in political power might be such as States. The instant that the legislation of this Congress to enable them to assume the attitude of Louis XIV., and shall proclaim it to be so, I shall likewise declare Philato say, "We are the State." Or there might be some in- delphia a free port. New York also, as well as every dividuals, who, imitating the tone of Napoleon Bonaparte, other port in the United States, will have a just right to might say, "I am for South Carolina;" whose very breath be declared free. Sir, this effect is as unavoidable in might retard the operation of this ordinance, proclamation, practice, as it is sound in constitutional theory. and laws, and these military arrangements; or whose very breath might impel those movements, as matters might be. It was not, however, a very likely supposition. We must, said Mr. D., look at the deportment of South Carolina as it is exhibited in these documents, and view it according to the spirit and letter of the ordinance, legislative enactments, and the military and executive arrangements of the State. Well, sir, following out the inquiry still further, I would ask, what is the cause for this legislative measure now before the Senate of the United States? I would ask, what we are to deduce from the legislative movements in South Carolina? In the first place, sir, there is an effort, on the part of that single State, to incorporate into the constitution of the United States two heretofore unknown, unacknowledged, and unexpressed principles--I mean nullification and secession. In the second place, viewing these documents in the manner I have stated, I consider that they involve an abrogation, positive and universal, of the revenue laws of the United States; not within the State of South Carolina merely, but, as 1 think I can show, throughout the whole of the United States. And lastly, sir, we deduce from these documents an application of the judicial and physical force--the judicial and physical force-of the powers, sentences, judgments, decrees, condemnations, confiscations, compulsory oaths, summary convictions, dungeons, and halters, to prevent the execution of the laws of the United States by the officers of the United States.

If the position now taken by South Carolina, in reference to Charleston, be sustained by the connivance of this body, your revenue is lost; not a part of the revenue, but the whole of your revenue, is gone; all that is collected by the Government of the United States by virtue of the acts which are nullified in South Carolina. How is it? I speak practically. If it be for one moment entertained that the duties collected under these laws are to be enforced in every port but the port of Charleston, and the other ports of South Carolina, will not the mercantile community throughout the whole of this country make these ports the great marts of distribution, through the coasting trade, to all the other States of the Union? As a matter of prudence, as a matter of necessity, they must do it, or they could not sustain themselves. They must direct their foreign correspondents to consign their cargoes to the port of Charleston, and other ports in South Carolina; and their ships would be employed in the whole coasting trade of the United States, to distribute their cargoes free of all duties, and exonerated from all tax throughout all the ports of the country. No merchant in Pennsylvania could bear up against such a system, and therefore must become bankrupt. He could not consent to pay the duty which is now properly levied on these goods, while, in a neighboring State, the goods came in free of charge. As a matter of necessity, as well as of sound constitutional duty, if a free port were connived at in the State of South Carolina, you must make every port free. Your Government will then be without revenue; that will be the necessary consequence. I believe, sir, that that is a Utopian creature the world has never seen or heard of. We cannot exist without a revenue; we must have it for all the great purposes of the body politic. The extinguishment of the revenue is the necessary consequence of adopting this doctrine, and is, in itself, a superabundant, a strong, if not an imperative call on those who are managing the concerns of the American people, to prevent such a contingency.

In relation, Mr. President, to nullification and secession, the question is, have we the constitutional power to pass this bill? In reference to the abrogation of the revenue laws by the State of South Carolina, I say that, as a matter of equal constitutional justice, the abrogation of those laws, according to the ordinance of South Carolina, abrogates them throughout the whole country. I say it is the necessary consequence of annulling them in that State. We are bound by our oaths, as Senators of the United States, not to acquiesce in or sanction such proceedings. We have no right to give a preference to the If the legislation which provides our revenue be counports of one State over the ports of another. Sir, I put teracted, we must, said Mr. D., (I speak it with all the it to the honorable Senators present, whether a tacit ac- strength of language of which I am master,) we mustquiescence on the part of this body ought to be given to morally must, enforce the laws. But the abrogation of a regulation in South Carolina, which establishes free the revenue laws, and the necessary consequence of that trade in the port of Charleston, thereby giving it a pre- abrogation in drying up all the sources of revenue, is not ference over any port in the United States. Would not a alone the cause on which the present measure is recomtacit acquiescence be a violation of our oaths as Senators? mended to the consideration of Congress. Look at the Let us look to the principle of morality as connected with elaborated details by which this fit end is to be accomthis subject. There are sins of omission as well as sins of plished; I mean those contained in the ordinance and laws, commission. He who is not prepared to do his duty, or and the military arrangements which have been commurefrains from it from a fear of consequences, acts in viola-nicated by the Executive. Look at these, which I say, tion of it. No single State, no several States of this Union, and will prove, strike conclusively, directly, and, totidem can be expected to furnish all the revenue which the Gov-verbis, at some of the most important provisions of the conernment requires-the entire consumption of the country stitution.

upon which the taxes are laid; these imposts should be They expel the judicial power of the United States out borne equally by the entire mass of the American people. of the limits of the State of South Carolina; or, what is tan

FEB. 8, 1833.]

Revenue Collection Bill.

[SENATE.

tamount, pursue a course by which those laws are made ual so accused of this right, would go far towards the estabimperative, and inapplicable as far as regards the citizens lishment of arbitrary rule. Give me the trial by jury in of South Carolina. I will go still farther. They break all its fairness, purity, and sanctity. We know, that in in with a strong hand on the sanctity of personal rights, the formation of the constitution, the trial by jury was reon the privilege of personal freedom, and on the liberty garded as a subject deserving the most serious consideraof conscience. Having duly weighed the phrases, I will tion of our greatest statesmen. It had always been conshow that they inflict disfranchisement, degradation, exile, sidered as one of the most sacred order of privileges. or vassalage, indiscriminately, on all who dare to perform Now what says the ordinance of South Carolina? That their duty as citizens of the United States, by enforcing the accused shall not have it. It provides that the jury and sustaining the laws. shall be sworn in advance. To do what? To hear and

He had heard often on this floor, and elsewhere, of that decide according to the evidence? No. To do impartial juswhich had been characterized a despotic majority, and of tice between the people and the accused? No. They systems of oppression resulting from the tyranny of mem- were to be sworn in advance to convict the prisoner at the bers. But, in this country, he had never known an exhi-bar.

bition, except that which he now witnessed, and which Am I right in this? Am I correct in that view of the he hoped the virtue of the people of South Carolina would question? An officer of the United States, executing the remove, where the fundamental principles of life, liberty, laws, renders himself amenable to the criminal law of and law, were absolutely abrogated. He had said that South Carolina under this ordinance. He is taken before there were positive, direct violations of the constitution, one of the State courts, where he is indicted for the ofinvolved in the measures of South Carolina. Yet it was fence. He gives the court and the prosecuting counsel to alleged, on the face of those measures, that they were understand that he stands there as a citizen of the United perfectly conformable to the constitution. If nullification States, and, as such, he claims, as a privilege given to him be perfectly conformable to the constitution, we shall see by the constitution and the principles of eternal and imthat hereafter. If secession be conformable to the consti- mutable justice, to challenge the constitutionality of the tution, we shall see that hereafter. But even supposing law. Can he do so? No. The ordinance is despotic. these doctrines were in conformity with the constitution, The jurymen are sworn, under that ordinance, and in the still would they find no favor, if, in their progress, they presence of the prisoner, to convict him. trample on those rights which are recognised in the letter In the course of my entire experience as a criminal of the constitution. We know that there is an express counsel, (said Mr. D.) and I have practised at the bar provision in the constitution, that no State shall pass any from early youth, I have never known any right so conlaw, fundamental or otherwise (and this ordinance of South stantly appealed to in criminal cases as the constitutionality Carolina is called by the head of the military power of of the law. Yet this ordinance says, you shall not have that State, a fundamental law) impairing the obligation of this right in South Carolina. contracts. What says the ordinance of South Carolina? Here is involved a direct violation of the constitution. That all contracts which are now existing, or which may There were other parts of the constitution which were hereafter exist, for the purpose of carrying into effect the either in their spirit or their terms directly violated. This law providing for the collection of the duties on imports, ordinance violated almost every contract or compact inshall be null and void, now and forever. Is that a viola- volved in that constitution. That instrument is full of mution of the constitution, or not? If this ordinance had tual contracts between the States. Almost every provision confined itself to such contracts as might hereafter be implies, if it does not express, the compliance on the parts formed, and had simply pronounced the law on which of the States with some contract. This ordinance withthey might be based null and void, that would have been draws them from the performance of these obligations. one thing. There might have been an argument founded He would refer to one. The whole of these free, soveon that subject. But it was not so; the ordinance declares reign, and independent States had incorporated into their that all contracts which have been or may be entered constitution a provision, from which no one can fly, to into, shall be considered null and void. Did that comport guaranty to every State a republican form of Government. with the provisions of the constitution to which he had re- That provision is openly violated by this ordinance. What ferred? He had a dislike to all refinements on the con- does the provision import? Look at it with the eye of comstitution. He belonged to that admirable class of politi-mon sense, and not through the medium of refinement; cians who adhered to the plain meaning of its phraseology; with the eye of those who framed the constitution, and of and when the constitution declared that no State should the people who ratified its provisions. "We, the people, pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts, what agree to guaranty to the whole of this confederacy, and could be said of a law of the State of South Carolina de- to all the States, a republican form of Government." The claring existing contracts to be null and void? If the Senate would see that if the ordinance of South Carolina framers of the law relied upon the end to justify the means, were to prevail, this provision would be defeated, and renthey would find their reliance a bad one; for no end which dered a mere nullity. Can we (said Mr. D.) guaranty a was contemplated by them would justify such means. republican form of Government to a State which disclaims But that which to him constituted another plain violation our right to do so, which puts herself upon her sovereignof the constitution, was accompanied by a direct encroach-ty, and sets up for herself? If she does this, the constitution ment on the sanctity of private rights, the sanctity of pri- is worse than a farce. If South Carolina should desire to vate property, and the sanctity of the courts of justice. We establish a monarchy, if a majority of the people of the have a provision in the constitution which declares that States should so decide, and secede, we might the very every individual accused of crime "shall enjoy the right next day see a dictator there instead of a republican form to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the of Government. Thus, it would be shown that we had State and district wherein the crime shall have been com- guarantied a form of Government, which any State in the mitted." What was the meaning of this provision? That Union would have the power to abolish and abandon. In every individual juror shall be charged on his oath consci- carrying out the ordinance of South Carolina, intended to entiously to determine between the people and the party. nullify the revenue laws alone, the Legislature of the It was a sound, settled, and unalienable right, which every State had practically nullified an immense body of laws; individual so accused possessed, to have an impartial jury and this mode of obtaining their object had been agreed to try him. I ask (said Mr. D.) that there shall be an im- to be constitutional and right. partial jury in all criminal cases, let the matter of accusa- They had nullified that important provision which setion be what it may; and they who would deprive an individ- cures the right of trial by an impartial jury.

VOL. IX.-27

SENATE.]

Revenue Collection Bill.

[FEB. 8, 1833.

Mr. MILLER desired to be informed if the gentleman from North Carolina, whether, if the doctrine of parameant to say that provision in the constitution was appli-mount allegiance to a State should prevail, all the persons cable to the State courts, as well as to the United States thus naturalized by the law of the United States would courts?

Mr. DALLAS said that he pressed the argument in the first place, not merely on the constitution of the United States, but on the principles of eternal and immutable justice.

[Mr. MILLER: That is another thing.]

not be denaturalized and outcasts? There could be no doubt, therefore, that this principle was in violation of the constitution. These foreigners were sworn to support the constitution of the United States; but we were now told of an allegiance paramount in its character, and which they never heard of before, to which they were required to submit. This was not only an abrogation of the prevision in the constitution which authorizes Congress to form rules of naturalization, but it was a violation of the personal rights of all those foreigners who had thrown themselves on the hospitality of our country. The consti. tution required no test but the oath of one who had arrived at full age, and who had come here of his own accord; when he wished to become a citizen, the oath was administered, and he was admitted to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship in every State. After taking that oath, he might go to any part of the United States wherever his disposition might lead him, for he had passed the Rubicon, and entered the temple of Liberty with us; and whether he became a resident of South Carolina, or any other State, he was entitled to the community of privileges.

But he (Mr. D.) would show, also, that the constitutional clause was directly applicable to this point. The criminal jurisdiction of the State courts was extended to officers of the United States engaged in the execution of the laws. An act performed in the exercise of his duty by an officer of the army or navy, renders him amenable to the State tribunals, and he is punishable by them. The ordinance says, in effect, although you may be a military, or naval, or civil officer of the United States, and engaged in the performance of your official duties, we will drag you into the State courts, and, when there, we will preclude your appealing to the constitution and laws under which you acted, and we will try you by a jury sworn to convict you, out and out. That provision of the constitution, therefore, was entirely applicable to this case. If there was any heart and head on which the injustice of this course was indelibly engraved, he was sure it was on the heart and I, (said Mr. D.) who have these rights, value as highly as head of the gentleman from South Carolina. any of her sons the citizenship of Pennsylvania. The He was going on to say, that the State of South Caroli-privileges in that State were equal to those of any State. na, in nullifying the revenue laws, had nullified also an But he valued much more that privilege which, while it immense body of other laws. She had annulled the pro- retained to him the reality of the citizenship of Pennsyl visions of the judiciary act, prescribing the mode of ap-vania, gave him also the title of citizen of twenty-three pealing from the State tribunals to the federal courts, in other equally respectable States. The title of citizen of all cases of law and equity arising under the constitution the United States superadded loftiness and dignity of chaand laws of the United States. racter to the other. It did not extinguish local pride and local affections; they ought to be cherished and preserved. But he did not consider that a common attachment to the other States diminished or interfered with those feelings.

But he would go farther. Not by the ordinance of South Carolina, but by the military arrangements of the Executive of the State, was that provision of the constitution which takes away from a State the power "to keep troops" signally violated. I take (said Mr. D.) these documents to mean fairly and candidly what they express. 1 take their meaning in their fair and candid spirit. They who framed the ordinance and laws are entitled to this construction. They mean what they speak, and perhaps something more than they speak. And when we see the Executive of the State keeping troops in Charleston, it is obvious that this provision of the constitution is violated. Again: These laws of the State of South Carolina contain principles which are subversive of those of the United States. Not only is the supremacy of our laws whistled to the wind, but the paramount character of our national allegiance is denied and overthrown.

Such were the extraordinary circumstances which constituted the cause of this bill being presented for the con. sideration of the Senate. Having reviewed these considerations, he could not help asking the Senators from South Carolina what was the actual condition of that State? What was her social and political condition? Those who were involved in the warmth of her local exasperations could not be aware of it. If they could withdraw their hearts and their minds for a moment from the sphere of that burning excitement, and view her condition with the eye of a stranger, they could not help deducing some inferences of a most lamentable character. What constitutes a republican form of Government? It was a broad quesIt had been asserted that the allegiance of the citizen is tion, and he would not pretend to answer it. But he due only to the State to which he belongs. The principle might safely say that was not a republican Government which claims this allegiance for the United States was to where one man, or any combination of men, possessed be found interwoven in many of our laws. Congress is lastingly, uncontrolled and unchecked, the entire powers authorized to establish rules of naturalization-for what? of sovereignty. What is the definition of the Govern Why, to convert an alien-a foreigner-into a citizen of ment now exercised in South Carolina? There is a conthe United States; to give to an Irishman, an Englishman, stitutional Legislature in the State, but there is another a Frenchman, or any other foreigner, the privileges of a power, not at this moment in actual session, which holds in native. How had Congress carried out this principle of na- its discretion all the right and the whole sovereignty of turalization? In reference to this established rule, (said Mr. the people. This body was not restricted to any limits in D.) there is no test, no standard, which applied to native action. Its power was indefinite, unbounded, and incalcucitizens. The individual who is born in Charleston, unless lable. It was not in session, but it appeared that the he quits the ranks of private life, and takes a public office, breath of a single man was sufficient to counteract or susis never subjected to the obligation of an oath. But it is pend their measures. Highly as he respected the people not so with the foreigner. We put a test to his lips the of South Carolina, possessing as they did all the rights inmoment he desires to enter the sanctuary of our citizen-herent in a people, he could not but observe that their ship. What is it? He abjures all allegiance to a foreign sovereign power was, in this instance, but an instrument sovereign-to the King of England, the King of France, in the hands of an individual, or a few individuals. or whoever it may be, and swears, not to support the con- Every one knew what was the operation and meaning stitution of any particular State, but the constitution of of a convention. A convention usually assembled for a the United States. This, time out of mind, has been act-special purpose. When they had completed the work ed on as a constitutional law. He would ask the gentleman for which they had convened, what followed? That which

Revenue Collection Bill.

was done in the case of the constitution of the United tion is secession in disguise, with a constitutional mask, States--the result was submitted to the people for their partial in its pretensions, and covert in its operation. It ratification. Was that done in South Carolina? The peo- is admitted that both put the State out of the Union; the ple had in contemplation nullification, not secession, and one to the extent of its own rule, the other unqualifiedly. that peacefully. The ordinance of South Carolina pro- They are essentially dependent upon the same constituvides for secession, and leads of necessity to force, and tional reasoning and principles; and what I have to say as contemplates a conflict. Why had not that ordinance to either will equally apply to both. been submitted to the people for their ratification? The convention, whose duration may be prolonged at its own pleasure, holds the life of every man in South Carolina, his liberty, and his entire property, at its mercy. It was a standing revolutionary convention, untrammelled, in a republican country. These also were considerations which caused the present legislative measure to be submitted for adoption.

tains no express recognition of either asserted right, nullification or secession. But they are both said to be implied, in the nature of our good political organization, and to be among the reserved rights of State sovereignty.

[FEB. 8, 1833.

1. The composition of the Congress of 1774 was governed by no uniform principle. Its delegates, or deputies, or representatives, were appointed and assembled without reference to any basis either of federation or consoliLet us, said Mr. D., inquire into the nature of our po- dation. It may, without any want of respect to the great litical structure. What is this political being-the Union, spirits and patriots who constituted it, be described as a commonly styled "the United States?" A consolidated scrambling Congress; one raked together irregularly and multitude? Certainly not. A federation merely of totally confusedly from all parts of the country; whose constitudistinct masses of people? Certainly not. It is something ents disregarded, or were ignorant of, the jealous refinethen of a complicated character, between these two, or ments of distinct territorial sovereignty; and got together, combining them both. To be justly appreciated, it must and kept together, under the influence of a common symbe well understood, and not flimsily considered. Gene-pathy, of common wrongs, and of common purposes. It ralization and vague abstractions delude us, and neces- was certainly an assemblage more national, or popular, in sarily lead to false conclusions. No one denies or doubts its apparent origin and influence, than federative. It was that the constitution was formed by the people of the designated the Congress of the United Colonies, notwithUnited States; and no one denies or doubts that it acts standing the looseness of its formation. Confidence supdirectly upon the people. Its origin and action are there- plied the place of preconcerted system. I hold in my fore popular or national. But was it not formed by the hand, said Mr. D., an analysis of the proceedings in each people as distinct aggregates called States, in their sove- of the colonies, by which the members of this celebrated reign capacities? Clearly it was. And is it not carried Congress were selected and empowered to consult and on, through some of its essential processes, by the sepa- act for the common good. It may not be useless briefly rate States, as sovereigns? Clearly it is. Its origin and to refer to it. The members who came from New Hamp action are then federative. Thus it is both popular and shire were chosen on the 21st of July, 1774, at a meeting federative; or, in other words, it is an entire National of deputies of several towns. Those from Massachusetts Government, of which both the Union and the distinctive-Bay were appointed by the House of Representatives of ness of the sovereign States are fundamental and inherent that province in June, 1774. In August, 1774, the Genequalities. ral Assembly of Rhode Island chose delegates, who were

The frame of our Government would seem to have two commissioned by the Governor. In Connecticut, the Coaspects; and all disputations arise from the common pro-lonial Committee of Correspondence appointed persons pensity to insist that it has but one. The hardy champions to consult and advise with the commissioners or commitof what is called consolidation, and the jealous guardians tees of the several English colonies in America, in July, of State rights, adhere obstinately to their respective 1774. In New York, the members were elected by comtheories; keep at a stern and steady distance from each mittees from the city and county, and from other districts. other; and, like parallel lines, never can approach or unite. In New Jersey, deputies to represent the colony in ConThey reminded him, said Mr. D., of the trite old tale of gress were appointed by committees convened in the sevethe two travelling knights, who, passing on different sides ral counties. The province of Pennsylvania was provided of a sculptured image in the road, began to debate about with a committee, to meet the committees or delegates it; the one insisting that its color was white, and the other from the other colonies, by the Assembly, on the 22d of asserting it to be black; an humble friar whom they met, July, 1774. In the three counties of Newcastle, Kent, and to whom they submitted their controversy, adjudged and Sussex, in Delaware, delegates were appointed by the the image to be both black and white, and proved it so, Assembly, on the 1st of August, 1774, to a general conby making each of the knights examine the side which tinental Congress, to determine on such measures as ought before had been seen by his opponent only. Let the con- to be immediately and unitedly adopted by the colonies. stitution of our Government undergo a similar trial by the In Maryland, a general meeting of delegates from different partisans of the respective opposing theories, and the re- counties appointed deputies to attend a general Congress sult will be similar; they would ultimately agree that it is of deputies from the colonies, to effect one general plan not wholly what either represents it to be, and yet that it of conduct. In Virginia, the same course was pursued as possesses the properties which both ascribe to it. in Maryland. In South Carolina, deputics were nominated I am apprehensive, said Mr. D., that historical references at a general meeting of the inhabitants of the colony, can throw but little light on the true nature of our con- which the Commons House of Assembly confirmed. The stitution. It must be its own best expounder. It is meeting of these delegates, thus variously designated written. Its features are strongly delineated and power- and authorized at Philadelphia, on the 5th of September, fully expressive. It was designed to last for ages; and 1774, was by themselves, in one of their earliest and was intended to be, in word and spirit, just as compre- ablest documents, an address to the inhabitants of hensible and clear to the eleven new State sovereignties Quebec, delineated as "a bright and strong chain of by which it has been embraced since 1787, and to count-union."

less future ones, as to the original thirteen. Historical Mr. D. begged pardon for entering into these detailed narrative is often contradictory, often imperfect, and very statements. They served to show, however, that union rarely within the reach of that great mass by whom this preceded independence. Independence, indeed, and the instrument was meant to be understood. Upon the lead- sovereignty wrested with it from the crown of Great Briing point, the popular or federative character of our po-tain, were achievements of union, and were wholly unlitical institutions, we might be fatally misled, according attainable without it. The Senator from Virginia [Mr. as our attention was more or less turned to the circum- TYLER] was historically inaccurate when he conceived instances of four striking periods of our annals. He would dependence to have been declared by any single State. advert to them for a moment; more in dread of the maxim North Carolina and Virginia spoke the word earliest; but "qui hæret in litera hæret in cortice," than from a belief only in resolutions recommendatory of its declaration by that any but the last could be usefully dwelt upon. These the general Congress for the United Colonies. It would epochs were those of, 1st. The General Congress which have savored of folly or madness for any one of the colomet at Philadelphia on the 5th of September, 1774; 2d. nies to have contemplated or attempted its detached indeThe declaration of independence, of the 4th of July, pendence. So far, indeed, were they from any thing of 1776; 3d. The articles of confederation, of the 9th of the sort, that an idea of subordinate dependence upon the July, 1778; and, 4th. The present constitution, of the Congress seems to have actuated Massachusetts, Virginia, 17th of September, 1787. Pennsylvania, and other colonies, when they in succession