others, if not speedily corrected, it would interpose powerful and almost insuperable obstacles to throwing off the burden under which the south had been so long labouring. The disposition of the surplus would become a subject of violent and corrupt struggle, and could not fail to rear up new and powerful interests in support of the existing system; not only in those sections which have been heretofore benefited by it, but even in the south itself. He could not but trace to the anticipation of this state of the treasury, the sudden and extraordinary movements which had taken place at the last session in the Virginia legislature, in which the whole south was vitally interested. It was impossible for any rational man to believe that that state could seriously have thought of effecting the scheme to which he alluded, by her own resources, without powerful aid from the general government.

It was next objected, that the enforcing acts have legislated the United States out of South Carolina. They had been legislated out only to the extent that they had no right to enter. The constitution had admitted the jurisdiction of the United States within the limits of the several states, only so far as the delegated powers authorized; beyond that they were intruders, and might rightfully be expelled; and that they had been efficiently expelled by the legislation of the state through her civil process, as has been acknowledged on all sides in the debate, is only a con

firmation of the truth of the doctrine for which the majority in Carolina had contended.

The very point at issue between the two parties there was, whether nullification was a peaceable and an efficient remedy against an unconstitutional act of the general government, and which might be asserted as such through the state tribunals. Both parties agree that the acts against which it was directed are unconstitutional and oppressive. The controversy was only as to the means by which our citizens might be protected against the acknowledged encroachments on their rights. This being the point at issue between the parties, and the very object of the majority being an efficient protection of the citizens through the state tribunals; the measures adopted to enforce the ordinance, of course, received the most decisive character. We were not children, to act by halves. Yet, for acting thus efficiently the state is denounced, and this bill is reported to overrule, by military force, the civil tribunals and civil process of the state. Sir, said Mr. C., I consider the bill, and the arguments which have been urged on this floor in its support, as the most triumphant acknowledgment that nullification is peaceful and efficient, and so deeply entrenched in the principles of our system, that it cannot be assailed but by prostrating the constitution, and substituting the supremacy of military force in lieu of the supremacy of the laws. In fact, the advocates of

this bill refute their own argument. They tell us that the ordinance is unconstitutional, that it violates the constitution of South Carolina: although to him, the objection appears absurd, as it was adopted by the very authority which adopted the constitution itself. They also tell us that the supreme court is the appointed arbiter of all controversies between a state and the general government. Why, then, do they not leave this controversy to that tribunal? Why do they not confide to it the abrogation of the ordinance, and the laws made in pursuance of it, and the assertion of that supremacy which they claim for the laws of congress? The state stands pledged to resist no process of the courts. Why, then, confer on the president the extensive and unlimited powers provided in this bill? Why authorize him to use military force to arrest the civil process of the state? But one answer can be given. That, in a contest between the state and the general government, if the resistance be limited on both sides to the civil process, the state, by its inherent Sovereignty, standing upon its reserved powers, will prove too powerful in such a controversy, and must triumph over the federal government, sustained by its delegated and limited authority; and, in this answer, we have an acknowledgment of the truth of those great principles for which the state has so firmly and nobly contended.

Having made these remarks, the great question is now pre

sented; has congress the right to pass this bill? The decision of this question involves the inquiry into the provisions of the bill. What are they? It puts at the disposal of the president the army and navy, and the entire militia of the country. It enables him, at his pleasure, to subject every man in the United States, not exempt from militia duty, to martial law-to call him from his ordinary occupation, to the field, and under the penalty of fine and imprisonment inflicted by a court martial, to imbrue his hand in his brothers' blood. There is no limitation on the power of the sword, and that over the purse is equally without restraint; for among the extraordinary features of the bill, it contains no appropriation, which, under existing circumstances, is tantamount to an unlimited appropriation. The president may, under its authority, incur any expenditure and pledge the national faith to meet it. He may create a new national debt at the very moment of the extinction of the former,—a debt of millions to be paid out of the proceeds of the labour of that section of the country whose dearest constitutional rights this bill prostrates.

And for what purpose is the unlimited control of the purse and of the sword thus placed at the disposition of the executive? To make war against one of the free and sovereign members of this confederation; which the bill proposes to deal with, not as a state, but as a collection of banditti or outlaws. Thus ex

hibiting the impious spectacle of this government-the creature of the states, making war against the power to which it owes its existence.

The bill violates the constitution, plainly and palpably, in many of its provisions, by authorizing the president, at his pleasure, to place the different ports of the Union on an unequal footing, contrary to that provision of the constitution which declares that no preference should be given to one port over another. It also violates the constitution, by authorizing him, at his discretion, to impose cash duties on one port, while credit is allowed in others; by enabling the president to regulate commerce, a power vested in congress alone; and by drawing within the jurisdiction of the United States' courts, powers never intended to be conferred on them. As great as these objections were, they became insignificant in the provisions of a bill which, by a single blowby treating the state as a mere lawless mass of individualsprostrates all the barriers of the constitution. He would pass over the minor considerations, and proceed directly to the great point. This bill proceeds on the ground that the entire sovereignty of this country belongs to the American people, as forming one great community; and regards the states as mere fractions or counties, and not as an integral part of the Union; having no more right to resist the encroachments of the government, than a

county has to resist the autho rity of a state; and treating such resistance as the lawless acts of so many individuals, without possessing sovereignty or political rights.

Notwithstanding all that has been said, he must say that no one who had taken part in the debate had directly and fairly met the great questions at issue: Is this a federal Union? a union of states, as distinct from that of individuals? Is the sovereignty in the several states, or in the American people in the aggregate? The very language which we are compelled to use, when speaking of our political institutions, affords proof conclusive as to its real character. The terms union, federal, united, all imply a combination of sovereignties, a confederation of states. They are never applied to an association of individuals. Who ever heard of the United State of New-York, of Massachusetts, or of Virginia? who ever heard the term federal or union, applied to the aggregation of individuals into one community? Nor is the other point less clear-that the sovereignty is in the several states, and that our system is a union of twenty-four sovereign powers, under a constitutional compact, and not of a divided sovereignty between the states severally and the United States. In spite of all that had been said, he maintained that sovereignty is, in its nature, indivisible. It is the supreme power in a state, and we might just as well speak of half a square, or half of a tri

angle, as of half a sovereignty. It is a gross error to confound the exercise of sovereign powers with sovereignty itself; or the delegation of such powers with a surrender of them. A sovereign may delegate his powers to be exercised by as many agents as he may think proper, under such conditions and with such limitations as he may impose; but to surrender any portion of his sovereignty to another, is to annihilate the whole. In connexion with this part of the subject, he understood the senator from Virginia, (Mr. Rives,) to say that sovereignty was divided, and that a portion remained with the states severally, and that the residue was vested in the Union. By Union, he supposed that the senator meant the United States. If such be his meaning-if he intended to affirm that the sovereignty was in the twenty-four states, in whatever light he might view them, their opinions would not disagree; but, according to his (Mr. C's.) conception, the whole sovereignty was in the several states, while the exercise of sovereign powers was divided-a part being exercised under compact, through this general government, and the residue through the separate state governments. But if the senator from Virginia (Mr. Rives) meant to assert that the twentyfour states formed but one community, with a single sovereign power, as to the objects of the Union, it would be but the revival of the old question, of whether the Union was a union be

tween states, as distinct communities, or a mere aggregate of the American people, as a mass of individuals, and in this light his opinions would lead directly to consolidation.

But to return to the bill. It is said that the bill ought to pass, because the law must be enforced. The law must be enforced. The imperial edict must be executed. It is under such sophistry, couched in general terms, without looking to the limitations which must ever exist in the practical exercise of power, that the most cruel and despotic acts ever have been covered. It was such sophistry as this, that cast Daniel into the lion's den, and the three innocents into the fiery furnace. Under the same sophistry, the bloody edicts of Nero and Caligula were executed. The law must be enforced. Yes, the "tea tax must be executed." This was the very argument which impelled Lord North and his administration in that mad career which for ever separated us from the British crown. Under a similar sophistry, "that religion must be protected;" how many massacres have been perpetrated! and how many martyrs have been tied to the stake! What! acting on this vague abstraction, are you prepared to enforce a law, without considering whether it be just or unjust, constitutional or unconstitutional? Will you collect money when it is acknowledged that it is not wanted ?—— He who earns the money, who digs it from the earth with the sweat of his brow, has a just

title to it against the universe. No one has a right to touch it without his consent, except his government, and it only to the extent of its legitimate wants; to take more is robbery, and you propose by this bill to enforce robbery by murder. Yes, to this result you must come, by this miserable sophistry, this vague abstraction, of enforcing the law without regard to the fact whether the law be just or unjust, constitutional or unconstitutional.

In the same spirit we are told that the Union must be preserved, without regard to the means. And how is it proposed to preserve the Union? By force!! Does any man in his senses believe that this beautiful structure—this harmonious aggregate of states, produced by the joint consent of all, can be preserved by force? Its very introduction will be certain destruction of this federal Union. No! no! You cannot keep the states united in their constitutional and federal bonds by force. Force may, indeed, hold the parts together; but such union would be the bond between master and slave; a union of exaction on one side, and of unqualified obedience on the other. That obedience which we are told by the senator from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Wilkins,) is the Union! Yes, exaction on the side of the master: for this very bill is intended to collect what can be no longer called taxesthe voluntary contribution of a free people; but tribute, tribute to be collected under the mouths

of the cannon! Your custom house is already transferred to a garrison, and that garrison with its batteries turned, not against the enemies of your country, but on subjects (I will not say citizens) on whom you propose to levy contributions. Has reason fled from our borders? Have we ceased to reflect? It is madness to suppose that the Union can be preserved by force. I tell you plainly, that the bill, should it pass, cannot be enforced. It will prove only a blot upon your statute book, a reproach to the year, and a disgrace to the American senate. I repeat that it will not be executed; it will rouse the dormant spirit of the people, and open their eyes to the approach of despotism. The country has sunk into avarice and political corruption, from which nothing could rouse it but some measure on the part of the government, of folly and madness, such as that now under consideration.

Disguise it as you may, the controversy is one between power and liberty, and he would tell the gentleman who are opposed to him, that as strong as might be the love of power on their side, the love of liberty is still stronger on ours. History furnishes many instances of similar struggles, where the love of liberty has prevailed against power, under every disadvantage, and among them few more striking than that of our own revolution; where, as

strong as was the parent country, and as feeble as were the colonies, yet, under the impulse