cape his punishment, and the State courts and the State authority trampled on by the lawless felon. The right to transfer is preceded by no examination; the prisoner is to be judge in his own cause, and would be blind to his own prospect of escape, if he did not swear roundly where he was clearly guilty, in order to get out of the clutches of

the law.

[FEB. 11, 1833.

Mr. HOLMES here inquired when the constitution of South Carolina was adopted; whether it was not subse quent to the federal constitution?

in the world, nor either of the four quarters thereof, but in the very people who were then organizing a Government for themselves-the people of South Carolina. It does not appertain to a citizen of South Carolina to deny the authority of his Government, thus instituted. The people of South Carolina have the supreme power, so far as to govern themselves. They divested themselves Thus it appears that the States may not only lose all of this power, except when they should be called togepower to punish offenders against their laws purely local, ther by two-thirds of both branches of the Legislature. but that it is proposed actually to enact such a provision."No convention of the people shall be called, only by The Senator from Delaware, to whom I always listen with the concurrence of two-thirds of both branches of the pleasure--to none more so--in his argument against the whole representation." Having established the principle rights of the States, puts an extreme case. He says: Sup- that all power was in them, they put their Government in pose 10,000 foreigners to become naturalized, and to lo- motion, and limited their own power by a check that they cate themselves in Delaware; they would be equal to the would not resume it, except by two-thirds of the reprepresent number of votes in that State; they might nullify sentation consenting thereto. When, therefore, two-thirds a law of Congress; and that this would be an efficient agree that the power shall be resumed, which is a first means in the hands of foreigners to subvert our Govern- principle in their Government, the Government then be. ment. Sir, I admit this is an extreme case, and a violent comes a pure democracy. supposition; but I will meet it; I will never be driven from. a general rule laid down by me, by an extreme case; a principle, to be worth any thing, should be able to resist all extreme cases, Although the Senator has thought prop- Mr. MILLER answered, in 1790, subsequent to the er to disparage State rights in the person of Delaware, so federal constitution. Mr. M. said, he did not consider the ably represented by him on this floor, I will not follow Senator from Maine could make much out of the time, his example. I have known a judge refuse to let counsel since he contended that one convention was equal to anosuppose him capable of committing a fraud. I consider ther. A convention had adopted the federal constitution; it somewhat a discourteous supposition, that a concentra- a convention of the same people, after this, for themtion of foreigners in the State of Delaware might be the selves, at least, could say that all power lies with them. means of introducing foreign-influence, and injury to the selves, for their own government. Subsequent laws aboperations of our Government. My reply to this case is, rogate prior laws, if they conflict. One Congress cannot that if ten thousand foreigners are naturalized in the Unit-prevent a subsequent one from repealing a law; nor can ed States, and settle in Delaware, they will be citizens of one convention of the people of South Carolina have that State. If, by their votes, a law of Congress is ar- more power than another. Things that are equal cannot rested, no matter from what motive, you must apply the bind one another. A people that are sovereign to-day, ultimate reforming power, as was done when Burr ran for must, when assembled rightfully, be sovereign to-morrow: President against Jefferson, and Chisholm sued the State the last act of the sovereign power must govern those of Georgia. Because the State of Delaware, from her num- who are subject to it. bers, may not be able to resist the force of numbers The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. DALLAS] has obthrown upon her under the laws and constitution of the United States, it is no good reason to argue either Delaware or any other State out of her reserved sovereign powers and rights.

jected that the acts of the late convention in South Carolina were not submitted to the people. This objection proceeds upon a capital error as to the nature of a convention; they were the people themselves, and their act was If Congress were to levy an export duty, (if they can the act of the people, without any further confirmation. lay a general embargo, they can levy an export duty by The constitution of the United States was adopted by a the same reasoning-the greater power includes the mi- similar convention, and never brought before the people. nor,) in that event, ought not Delaware to disregard it, or The meaning of a convention was an assembly of every any other State? And yet any legislative declaration, sus-person having any political rights in the State, and the taining the rights of the citizen, may be met with military majority of the people to govern.

power. Instead of the States being sovereign, the oppo- What would the Sumters, Pinckneys, and Taylors site argument makes them slaves. The definition of a slave have thought, if, by the assertion in our State constitution, is one who holds his rights at the pleasure of another; the that all power is in the people," the basis of the acts States hold their rights at the will of Congress; ergo, the of the late convention, the Federal Executive had thereStates are slaves. Where two persons claim land under upon issued his proclamation, commanding them to redifferent grants, the correct rule is to locate in favor of assemble and snatch this heresy, this disorganizing edict, the elder grant. In doubtful cases, begin at the old well from their archives. Sir, they would have placed their known corner, which is, the States were sovereign and hands on their swords, and, like the sturdy barons of old, independent when they made the constitution, and fairly replied, we are unwilling that our constitution shall be allow to each party within their grants what the compact changed. If the position be correct, "that the aggres gives, and to the States the benefit of the above rule. In sion may be regarded as committed when it is officially aupolitics, you may as well dispute the proposition, that in thorized, and the means of enforcing fully provided," then the beginning the States were sovereign, as in religion, to the aggression now complained of was committed when dispute that in the beginning the "word was God." He this clause was introduced into the State constitution; since who does either is an infidel to the true faith of our consti- that has given the power to do what has been done, and tution and religion, and I will waste no words with him, but also the power to provide the means. proceed from premises admitted to conclusions denied. Let me ask, what is law? It is a rule of conduct preAfter the adoption of the federal constitution in a con-scribed by the supreme authority, commanding what is vention of the people, South Carolina made her own, in right, and forbidding what is wrong. If the people in which there is this article: "All power is originally South Carolina have all the powers of self-government, vested in the people, and all free Governments are found-who shall interpose? Upon what principle, human or ed on their authority, and are instituted for their peace, divine, can the General Government punish a citizen of safety, and happiness." Now, it may be asked, what South Carolina, for obeying a law emanating from the "people" is meant in this article? Surely, not the people supreme power in that State? This fundamental principle

FEB. 11, 1833.]

Revenue Collection Bill.

[SENATE.

of civil liberty has held a place in our charter for forty-to invigorate and encourage commerce, not to cripple and two years, and now we are called upon, by force, to ex- destroy it. I will not dwell on this subject. I delivered punge this article from our constitution, and substitute, my opinions at length in the debate on the passage of the "all power is in Congress; there is but one God, who is the last tariff. This subject has undergone a most thorough Federal Government; there is but one prophet, who is investigation, and the united voice of the planting States Andrew Jackson." pronounced the principle of protection unconstitutional. This is no new doctrine, for the first time broached by the convention of South Carolina. It has been pronounced from Virginia to Mississippi for the last eight years. But it has been urged that the revenue is repealed, as well as the protection; and, therefore, the ordinance is unconstitutional.

For the present, I shall assume that the article is still retained, and from it deduce the right to construe the constitution of the United States, to which they became a party.

Sir, the whole of the present bill under consideration assumes that the people of South Carolina are bound by the ordinance and the laws. If the people of South Sir, let us examine a little the validity of this objection` Carolina are bound to obey the ordinance, it follows, as to the ordinance. If it be partly contaminated, the whole a just consequence, that any effort, by force, in that State, is void. The fraudulent execution of an invalid power to compel the people to disobey their own laws, is war-makes the deed null. A dollar, part silver, part pewter, regular, legitimate war. War is the assertion of a right, is a counterfeit. Where a wrong-doer mixes his goods by force, of one nation against another nation. I deny with those of another, if there is no way to ascertain how that the United States can constitutionally carry on war much belongs to each, he who produces the difficulty against a State. If a State violates the constitution, you must lose what belongs to him. Who could expect to be must correct the error by the Supreme Court, or by a paid for sugar sold, if half were sand? It is the fault of convention of the States. It is a barbarous and tyranni-him who practises the fraud, if he loses that which might cal assumption, that this Government can, by force, over- have been valuable. turn State legislation.

Our Government being an imperium in imperio, neither power can, by force, resist the other power.

I shall now proceed to consider the ordinance.

The third section declares, that appeals shall not be taken from the State court. This contravenes the 25th section of the judiciary act, it is said.

It is well known that the right to take a case from the Although I have shown that the people of South Caro-State court, by an appeal to the Supreme Court, has been fina having, in their sovereign character, put their con- contested in every form, ever since the enactment of this struction on their rights, which stops all further consider-law. ation, except of an unconstitutional or belligerent nature, I will proceed to consider this question as subordinate to the constitution of the United States.

The first section declares the tariff laws null and void. The State has the right, consistent with the constitution, to make this declaration. It is the mere recital of a truth; only declaring what was originally so. But it is argued that the tariff is constitutional. If so, we are not now to decide that question; that is for another forum. not to expound and enforce our own law.

We are

"The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office."

By this clause in the constitution, it is declared that the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in Is the tariff constitutional? This question must be de-one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the cided in the affirmative, before you can enforce its provi-Congress may from time to time ordain. sions, or impugn its ordinance. The power to protect The whole of the judicial power is thus vested in the domestic manufactures is not to be found in terms in the United States court. By what authority can any power constitution. If it is to be found at all, it must be among be transferred by Congress to the State courts? There the incidental powers. Thus, under the taxing power, is no such power. "The judicial power shall extend to the right to protect is set up. But it is the opinion of the all cases in law and equity arising under this constitution, great body of the people of South Carolina, that the right the laws of the United States, and the treaties made, or to tax for revenue does not extend the right to tax for which shall be made, under their authority; to all cases protection. It is said by the President, that, as the affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and conpower to tax is in Congress, they can tax to any extent, suls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; without the right, on the part of any one, to question the to controversies to which the United States shall be a motive; this I deny, as a correct principle of constitutional party; to controversies between two or more States; beconstruction. The people have the right to examine the tween citizens of different States; between citizens of the motivé. A limited power to tax can only be properly same State claiming lands under grants of different States; restrained by looking at the motive. Congress have the and between a State, or the citizens thereof, and foreign power to fix their own compensation; they may, under States, citizens, or subjects." the taxing power, levy a tax on the people, intending to distribute the same among themselves; this could only be prevented by the people refusing to pay it, if the tax is laid with an improper motive. The true way to test this tax is to analyze the law, and then determine whether it is competent to levy a tax, to give the benefit thereof to the manufacturers. We have the treasury estimate of an extra amount of taxation, equal to six millions; take this sum, and then inquire, can Congress levy that amount, and give the same to the manufacturers? This right to levy a tax for protection is by some referred to the power to regulate commerce. By looking into the proceedings There is a subsequent clause which provides that the preliminary to the adoption of the Federal Government, State courts shall be bound by the constitution, and the to be found in the first volume of the laws of Congress, it laws made in pursuance thereof, and to treaties; this was will be there seen that this power was desired only to the only check which was intended to secure the rights protect the navigating interest; the object being clearly of persons under the constitution, laws, and treaties.

Having provided for the courts in the first clause, they have, in this one, provided for the jurisdiction, which is limited to all cases in law and equity arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. "Extend to," means, reach to, cover. These words do not give exclusive jurisdiction.

Judicial power is a generic term, including the Supreme Court, and the inferior courts of the United States.

A State court is not an inferior court of the United States, and therefore no appeal can fairly be predicated on the proceedings of the State courts.

SENATE.]

Revenue Collection Bill.

[FEB. 11, 1833.

There is no more ground to suppose State courts could taining, within their respective limits, the authorities, not be trusted to execute such cases as might be brought rights, and liberties appertaining to them.'

in State courts, where rights were secured under the Federal Government, than the Governors.

Where fugitives may be demanded, the United States cannot control this officer; he may demand, or not; so the State officers must swear to support the constitution of the United States; if they do not, there is no way for this Government to compel them, unless by a resort to force, which was not intended.

"It appears to your committee to be a plain principle, founded in common sense, illustrated by common practice, and essential to the nature of compacts, that, where resort can be had to no tribunal superior to the authority of the parties, the parties themselves must be the rightful judges in the last resort, whether the bargain made has been pursued or violated. The constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the States, given by The President relies on this clause: "This constitution, each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to the stability and and the laws of the United States which shall be made in dignity, as well as to the authority of the constitution, that pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall it rests on this legitimate and solid foundation. The be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be States, then, being the parties to the constitutional comthe supreme law,of the land; and the judges in every pact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows, of necesState shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution sity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding," to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made to prove the State courts bound to sustain the United by them be violated; and, consequently, that, as the parStates laws. This is not denied; but not when those laws ties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, are in violation of the constitution; and it was not intended such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to rethat the State judges should have their decisions ques-quire their interposition.

tioned any more by federal judges, than federal judges| "It does not follow, however, because the States, should have their opinions questioned by State judges; as sovereign parties to their constitutional compact, must both were to be final in their sphere. State courts are of ultimately decide whether it has been violated, that such general jurisdiction, nothing presumed out of their juris- a decision ought to be interposed, either in a hasty mandiction; federal courts limited. Every thing must be proven to give jurisdiction. Upon general principles, there would be more propriety in the State courts reversing the federal decisions, than the converse, because all courts of limited jurisdiction may be kept within their province by courts of general jurisdiction.

The President, in his proclamation, says, the laws, constitution, and treaties, are the supreme law of the land. This is not a correct view of the constitution. The President seems to consider a law above the constitution, and the treaties subject to it; now, I understand it to be exactly different. The treaties are not required to be made in pursuance of the constitution, but the laws are.

ner, or on doubtful and inferior occasions. Even in the case of ordinary conventions between different nations, where, by the strict rule of interpretation, a breach of a part may be deemed a breach of the whole, every part being deemed a condition of every other part, and of the whole, it is always laid down that the breach must be both wilful and material, to justify an application of the rule. But, in the case of an intimate and constitutional union, like that of the United States, it is evident that the interposition of the parties, in their sovereign capacity, can be called for by occasions only deeply and essentially affecting the vital principles of their political system.

"The resolution has accordingly guarded against any A treaty may become necessary, impairing, in some misapprehension of its object, by expressly requiring for instance, the constitution; and it is incident to the war such an interposition the case of a deliberate, palpable, power. The treaty-making power may fairly be con- and dangerous breach of the constitution, by the exercise sidered as an independent substantive one, involving the of powers not granted by it.' It must be a case, not of a highest political rights; and, when sanctioned by two- light and transient nature, but of a nature dangerous to thirds of the Senate, binding on the constituted authorities the great purposes for which the constitution was estabof the United States and the States. And here I will re-lished. It must be a case, moreover, not obscure or mark, there seems no ground to suppose that the terms doubtful in its construction, but plain and palpable. "law of the land," mean any thing more than that the Lastly, it must be a case not resulting from a partial conconstitution, and laws of the United States made in pur-sideration, or hasty determination, but a case stamped suance thereof, and treaties, are, by this clause, made the with a final consideration and deliberate adherence. It law of the land of the States, not of the United States; is not necessary, because the resolution does not require they have no land but the public land; the lex terræ re- that the question should be discussed how far the exerferred to here is the local law; and the federal laws are cise of any particular power, ungranted by the constitumade a part of the local law, and to be locally adminis- tion, would justify the interposition of the parties to it. tered. So much for the argument of the Senator from As cases might easily be stated, which none would conPennsylvania, who seeks to enlarge the powers of the tend ought to fall within that description-cases, on the United States by this clause. other hand, might with equal ease be stated, so flagrant and so fatal, as to unite every opinion in placing them within the description.

Luther Martin has been referred to, on the other side, as authority. In his report of what was done in the convention, to the Maryland Legislature, he says, the convention expressly refused to trust the State courts to be the agents of the United States, so far as to try cases in the first instance; and confirms precisely my construction of the judicial clauses.*

I will read a part of Madison's report on this subject, which I shall consider a part of my argument.

"But the resolution has done more than guard against misconstruction, by expressly referring to cases of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous nature. It specifies the object of the interposition which it contemplates, to be solely that of arresting the progress of the evil of usurpation, and of maintaining the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to the States, as parties to the constitution.

"The resolution having taken this view of the federal compact, proceeds to infer, that, in case of a deliberate, "But it is objected, that the judicial authority is to be palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not regarded as the sole expositor of the constitution, in the granted by the said compact, the States, who are parties last resort; and it may be asked, for what reason the dethereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to inter-claration of the General Assembly, supposing it to be the pose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for main- oretically true, could be required at the present day, and in so solemn a manner?

See his opinion, 33d page, in Elliott's Debates.

"On this objection, it might be observed, first, that

FEB. 11, 1833.]

Revenue Collection Bill.

[SENATE

there may be instances of usurped power, which the "The States and the people recognised and affirmed forms of the constitution would never draw within the the doctrines of Kentucky and Virginia, by effecting a control of the judicial department; secondly, that if the total change in the administration of the Federal Governdecision of the judicial be raised above the authority of ment. In the pardon of Calender, convicted under the the sovereign parties of the constitution, the decisions of sedition law, and in the remittance of his fine, the new the other departments, not carried by the forms of the administration unequivocally recognised the decision and constitution before the Judiciary, must be equally author- the authority of the States and of the people. Thus has itative and final with the decisions of that department. the question, whether the federal courts are the sole exBut the proper answer to the objection is, that the reso-positors of the constitution of the United States, in the lution of the General Assembly relates to those great and last resort, or whether the States, "as in all other cases extraordinary cases, in which all the forms of the consti- of compact among parties having no common judge," tution may prove ineffectual against infractions dangerous have an equal right to interpret the constitution for themto the essential right of the parties to it. The resolution selves, where their sovereign rights are involved, been supposes that dangerous powers, not delegated, may not decided against the pretension of the federal judges, by only be usurped and executed by the other departments, the people themselves, the true source of legitimate but that the judicial department, also, may exercise or power."

sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the con- Resolutions against the jurisdiction of the United States stitution; and, consequently, that the ultimate right of court in the case of the Bank, and all cases involving pothe parties to the constitution to judge whether the com-litical rights; and against the powers of the General Govpact has been dangerously violated, must extend to viola- ernment, establishing the Bank, in these words: tions by one delegated authority, as well as by another; by the Judiciary as well as by the Executive, or the Legislature.

"Resolved further, That this General Assembly do protest against the doctrines of the federal circuit court, sitting in this State, avowed and maintained in their pro"However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial ceedings against the officers of the State, upon account department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of their official acts, as being in direct violation of the of the constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort eleventh amendment of the constitution of the United must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the au- States. thorities of the other departments of the Government; "Resolved, further, That this General Assembly do pronot in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitu- test against the doctrine that the political rights of the tional compact, from which the judicial, as well as the separate States that compose the American Union, and other departments, hold their delegated trusts. On any their power as sovereign States, may be settled and deterother hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would mined in the Supreme Court of the United States, so as annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of to conclude and bind them in cases contrived between inthis department with the others in usurped powers, might dividuals, and who are, no one of them, parties direct." subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any So in his letter to Judge Johnson, in answer to the arrightful remedy, the very constitution which all were in-gument "that there must be an arbiter somewhere," Mr. stituted to preserve. Jefferson says, "True; but this does not prove that it must be in either party. The ultimate arbiter is the people, assembled by their deputies in convention. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their agencies."

"The truth declared in the resolution being established, the expediency of making the declaration at the present day may safely be left to the temperate consideration and candid judgment of the American public. It will be remembered, that a frequent recurrence to fundamental | And, again: "With respect to our State and Federal principles is solemnly enjoined by most of the State con- Governments, (says Thomas Jefferson,) I do not think their stitutions, and particularly by our own, as a necessary relations are correctly understood by foreigners. They safeguard against the danger of degeneracy to which re- suppose the former subordinate to the latter. This is not publics are liable, as well as other Governments, although the case. They are co-ordinate departments of one simin a less degree than others. And a fair comparison of the ple and integral whole. But you may ask, if the two depolitical doctrines, not unfrequent at the present day, partments should claim each the same subject of power, with those which characterized the epoch of our revolu- where is the umpire to decide between them? In cases tion, and which form the basis of our republican constitu- of little urgency or importance, the prudence of both tions, will best determine whether the declaratory recur- parties will keep them aloof from the questionable ground; rence here made to those principles ought to be viewed but if it can neither be avoided nor compromised, a as unreasonable and improper, or as a vigilant discharge convention of the State must be called to ascribe the of an important duty. The authority of constitutions doubtful power to that department which they may think over Governments, and of the sovereignty of the people best." over constitutions, are truths which are at all times necessary to be kept in mind; and at no time, perhaps, more necessary than at present."

Mr. M. further read from the proceedings of the Ohio Legislature, in 1820, against the Bank of the United States, to prevent its establishment in that State.

Hear Mr. Jefferson's opinions:

"That the principle and construction contended for by sundry of the State Legislatures, that the General Government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism; since the discretion of those who administer the Government, and not the constitution, would be the measure of their powers.

"Resolved, by the General Assembly of the State of Ohio, That in respect to the powers of the Governments of the Several States, which compose the American Union, and "That the several States who formed that instrument, the powers of the Federal Government, this General As-being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionSembly do recognise and approve the doctrines asserted able right to judge of its infraction; and that a nullificaby the Legislatures of Virginia and Kentucky, in their tion by those sovereignties of all unauthorized acts done resolutions of November and December, 1798, and Janu- under the color of that instrument, is the rightful rery, 1800; and do consider that their principles have been medy." recognised and adopted by a majority of the American people."

On this subject, the report which precedes the resolution contains the following words:

The Senator from Delaware has gone into an argument to prove that Congress can control the federal courts, if, by corruption or otherwise, they should decide against the Federal Government.

SENATE.]

Revenue Collection Bill.

[FEB. 11, 1833.

Mr. CLAYTON here said, he used this argument in re-conviction, viz: that the Supreme Court is not the arbiter. ply to the Senator from Kentucky. He referred to the At that time, I admit, she was found sleeping at her post, jurisdiction of the inferior courts, but did not intend to and has suffered her authority fairly to be quoted against say that Congress should, in any event, interpose with the the then opinions of Pennsylvania. Having attempted to Supreme Court. prove the Supreme Court has no right to notice the tribunals of the State court, and, therefore, that this clause in the ordinance is not a violation of the constitution, I will proceed to consider the test oath clause, as it is called. This has been inveighed against both by the Executive and the honorable gentlemen who have preceded me, in terms of unmerited reproach.

Mr. MILLER resumed. He understood the Senator perfectly, he said, and concurred entirely in the position, that Congress could, by its legislation, make the federal courts speak what they please.. The question is not, what security the Federal Government has against the bias, the prejudice, or corruption of the federal courts, when they incline to State authority; but what security the States have against their bias or corruption? The point in debate is, where is the conservative principle of State rights? All admit the States to have certain rights. When we inquire, where is their guaranty? our adversaries tell us the Supreme Court; and yet, the Senator from Delaware undertakes to prove, and does prove, that Congress can take care of federal rights against the usurpation or corruption of the federal courts; but he does not tell us who takes care of State rights, when invaded by these tribunals. Those gentlemen who talk about State rights, and yet leave those rights at the mercy of the party having an interest to invade them, remind us of the Indian philosopher, who supposed the globe rested on a terrapin; but when asked what that rested on, not knowing, he could not say.

The authorities adverted to show that South Carolina is not an inventor of the doctrine we now contend for; on the contrary, she has followed in the footsteps of other distinguished members of the Union, in sustaining the true principles of the Jefferson or democratic school. In this faith she has been a constant believer ever since 1798, with but occasional aberrations, not varying more, or vibrating further from this creed, than the magnetic needle from the pole.

The practice of requiring officers to support the law of the land, whether fundamental or merely legislative, is almost universal. There is not a State in the Union which does not make its citizens, when they take office under the same, swear to support the constitution of the State. The State of South Carolina requires every officer, who takes a commission from her, to swear to support the constitution; it forms a condition precedent to taking of. fice in that State. If the constitution should be altered or changed according to the terms thereof, the supreme power altering the constitution may make it the duty, as well of all in office, as those afterwards appointed, to conform to the universal custom of swearing to support the highest known law, the will of the sovereign in whose employ they are. Without any express requisition in the ordinance to that effect, the oath administered to support the constitution of South Carolina would incorporate, within the sanction thereof, this ordinance, since it is the constitution, abrogating and cancelling every thing in that instrument to the contrary thereof. The objection is a most novel and singular one, that an officer has a right to take or hold office without swearing to sustain the constitution of the State appointing him. It is a most degrading, a most humiliating reflection, to impeach so far the State sovereignties, as not to allow them the scant power How these authorities referred to can be said to ex- of determining on what terms they shall employ and pay clude the construction put on them by South Carolina, Itheir own servants. Here is a great civil contest, foundam at a total loss to conceive. Human language cannot ed on adverse views of the theory of our political institube adapted more precisely to any purpose, than these au- tions; and South Carolina does not propose by the sword thorities to the entire support of the South Carolina con- to decide the question, but by her civil institutions. With struction. It surely cannot be contended that the elaborate a view to counteract the usurpations of the agents of the argument of Mr. Madison was intended only to establish Federal Government, she arms herself with all her moral the right of revolution. The Virginia resolutions of 1798 strength, and calls into existence the most incontestable and 1799 establish, as the true theory of our Government powers to sustain what are the disputed ones. the one indicated by Mr. Jefferson in his letter to Mr. these most indubitable powers is, to exact obedience of Cartwright, and in the Kentucky resolutions. There are her own citizens to the supreme power of that State, and no two ways about it; you cannot resolve this vexed ques-more particularly to require her public officers to reflect tion into any thing but what we contend for, or what the her opinions on the contested questions. old federalists do. So far as the reasoning of the report However weak she may be against the General Govgoes, the States have the right, when they think the com.ernment, she has the power left her to make those who pact violated, to put their construction on the constitu- feed upon her bounty either to leave her service, or fulfil tion, and that, having done so, the Federal Government the dutics which she enjoins. The exercise of her high must rightfully acquiesce in this construction; and, to avoid sovereign powers to effect this purpose must depend on the inconvenience, they must call a convention of all the States, to settle the question. "The right to fight" is a codification of international law, not predicated on the reasoning or theory recognised in the above authorities. If the principles of Virginia in 1809 underwent an obscuration, as they have been quoted by the Senator from New Jersey, they have been restored by the resolutions of 1828; and, so far as the opinions of that State can go, we have her in 1798 against herself in 1809. When the Senator from New Jersey appeals to Virginia authority, let him abide by the appeal. I cannot say altogether what produced that impression, but the fact is, I always and vigor. have considered the years of the embargo and non-inter- The Federal Government usurps the powers of the course covering what may be called the dark era of our States, appoints its agents with a view to sustain its usurhistory. Hence, I do not give much weight to the Vir-pation, and yet is loud in complaint that South Carolina ginia sentiments of 1809, on the subject of the Supreme will not permit that Government to plough with her heifer; Court being the proper arbiter. She did not express the she must consent to repose her strength in the hands of sentiments which, through a current of years, at various faithless Delilahs, or subject herself to the imputation of and repeated times, she has acknowledged as her settled tyranny and oppression on her own citizens.

One of

her will; and she must be the judge of the necessity which forces the resort to powers deemed by others arbitrary. Power must be met by power. We see in the physical system, when one sense is destroyed, nature restores the defect often, by giving a greater perfection to the reserved senses. When one limb is amputated, the other corresponding is always invigorated; hence, in this controversy, if we were to follow the analogies of the providence of Heaven, it would be requisite that the mutilated limbs of our State Government should be compensated, by infusing into the reserved ones great strength