THE QUESTION ANSWERED; Mow will JVuttiflcatian IVtorl# WIT* A BRIBF RBVIEW *T •Mr. C&JLHOUJV'S EETTEm •' * •F A© <50ST 38, 1890* Cfj.Krlrfltow: BfftMfcHID AND PRINTED BY WILLIAM S, SLAtfi ST*. 26? STATE STRBBT. 188* Library of Emory University The Question Answered, &o It is curious to read the different speculations upon this subject. While the discussion of it was confined to the writers who are its advocates, it was not to be expected that we should meet with any other views of the operations of Nullification than such as would subserve the great work on which they had adventured. The author of the "Occasional Reviews," censures th® Unionists for suspecting the motives of their adversaries. But does not he furnish, unanswerable reasons not only for suspi- eion, but conviction? Nullification, he tells us, dressed out in Constitutional attire, is an artifice to conceal its revolutionary and belligerent character—that the people must be brought to understand its unsoundness of doctrine, its delusive charac¬ ter, and seductive agent. B 4 how are we to divest ourselves "of the belief in. the high acquirements., and great mental acumen of its distinguished advocates, so long entertained and so often acted upon in this community by the most anequivocal proofsof respect and confidence? Has heaven struck them with madness as a prelude to their destruction? Or have we been deceived in our opinion of their intellectual powers?. It not, what is the alternative? Are they deceived themselves, or do they mean to deceive us? Why all this enormous expenditure of time, labour and money? These unheard of efforts? To sustain which, every consideration, humau and divine, has been set at naught, every practice resorted to, and unfortunatejy imitated, that could degrade a free government. Who are responsible for these acts? Is it the venal, hardened, despicable engage ?, or he who sup¬ plied the money, and arranged the machinery for these operations? T® say nothing of actually employing a second time—men who have once givefh proofs of their principles and habits. Can an honest cause need such aid? Or an h m^st man consent to share in its results? Demoralization we kn >w is the usual concomitant of that last of human evils, in-anity, but surely this apology will net be resorted to. What other is there? We crave a reply, for we would gladly avoid censuring. It was not to be expected from the advocates of Nullifica* tion, that it should be permitted to appear in any other cha¬ racter than the Emblem of Peace and Innocence-r-not admit ting of the possibility of collision, or hostility. But what shstll 4 W* my to these 'who have exposed themselves to the sarcasm •f the "Phantom Fruate?" <:r those who with the author of "Occasional Reviews," suppose that Congress either can or will cut us off From the common rights of every member of the Union by abolishing our ports of entry? This would truly be playing into the hands of the enemy; it is just what the advocates of Nullification want; and what they Think they have the ingenuity to compel the United States to resort to; that or any thing that will put the General Government in the wrong, or terminate in bloodshed.' They Would triumph in any act of the General Government that would savoui of Disunion. This odious work must at all hazards be put off the:r own hands,or even now their follower* abandon them. Whether that design be justly imputed to the leaders or not, (on which we leave others to decide,) all those of their followers who have any interest in the coun¬ try, or any claim to respectability, are yet sincere in their professions of attachment to the Union; and if they believed otherwise of their leaders, they would ^abandon them to¬ morrow, would hurl them from their monopoly of office, and blast and dissipate in a moment all the hopes and visions that are now dancing over their imaginations. The fact is well known, that years ago, at the first opening of this campaign, there are men in this community who sounded the people of this State on the subject of Disunion; who cautiously put out their feelers to know if the work of separation could be openly undertaken. But they were made to shrink from the touch of an indignant and patriotic community; they then felt, and from that time have acted upon the knowledge of the necessity of disavowing the object of Disunion. Then it was,, that this constitutional disguise was thrown over Nullification, this fraud upon public virtue invented, by which the best feelings of an American citizen have been converted into the possible moans of our ruin. It was by dazzling their senses with the glare of patriotic professions, that they have been gradually urged or tempted on to that precipice on the brink of which we now stand. There is no necessity that the United States shohld yield them this advantage, and it is time that both friends and foes should understand, that the United States want ho blockade, no repealing law, no soldier, no posse, no constable, nothing but the simple administration of the laws as they now exist, to convert this formidable weapon into as harmless an instru¬ ment as Priam's Spear, "Ttlurnsine iclu." Yes, the remedy may prove a very peaceful one, but no thanks to the good intentions of the empirics who advise it. An issue so devoutly to be wished for, will, if realized, be attributable to the & federation, censeieus power, and benevolent wishes ©f the government assailed. Nullification, as claimed by it? advocates, is a right reserved to the States under the Constitution, to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional and void, and to resist its execution by penal enactments and force of arms if necessary, and yet continue a member of the Union. This definition is deduced from the ex -o-ition of their 1< aders. But however defined, we have no hesitation »n saying, that simple Nullification has in it little to be dreaded; it may involve the State and City in debt, and loss, and temporary embarrassment, but its innate absurdity is a sure guaranty against its ever rallying any formidable force to -ustain it, or producing any permanent ill effects. If it were not for the sacrifice of character involved in it, we would say it cannot be too soon met and put down. In itself, it could only give a little trouble to the Treasury Department, and put a few ri< h forfeitures perhaps in the pockets of the officers of our revenue cutters, «but it would take nothing from the revenue, or from the foreign commerce of the Union. It will only turn aside the latter from this State, and compel the merchant to ship to ourNorthern Ports, or the Port of Savannah; from which,after paying or securing the duties there, the goods intendedfor this market will be shipped coastwise, incumbered probably, with some enhance* ment of cost to us. The good sense of the merchants will at once dictate this course to them as the means of avoiding to be involved in the conflicts proposed to be excited under State legislation. The great danger is, that when the leaders find themselves thus baffled; the imbecility of their grand nostrum, and their own fallibility exposed to their adherents, they may become desperate and resort to other means, the worst of which would be the irregular movements of a highly excited and always too ready populace. The precedent of the Boston Tea adventure, may then suggest a mode 6f pro¬ ceeding against goods that have paid a duty in other ports; but this could not be often repeated; 'I he feeling abroad and at home, would be such as respectable men dare not encounter. And the scarcity and enhanced price that would grow out of it to us, would soon enlist this whole community against it. The militia would soon volunteer to # prevent such riotous conduct. The next step probably attempted, for I trust it could not be effected, would be secession: But here again they will fail; for by this time the people will have begun to understand - the political empiricism—of which they have been the dupesj and indignation will have superseded confidence in their minds ' ^J8ut should the attempt sacceed, what follows! The State Ifceing eut of the Union may be treated as any other statfj Peace or war with her must be decided on by the rest of the states under the influence of those considerations which go¬ vern contiguous and independe? .t nations. How peace on any equal terms can be maintained; it is not easy to perceive. The separation would certainly be attended with a strong predis¬ position to war; a very hostile feeling. The rest of the states may refuse to treat with us, and conflicting legislation will be the result, from both feeling and interest. War must follow and then comes a terrible catastrophe. To compel a state to become or remain a member of our present Union is an absurdity in terms. But we must not shut our eyes on the alternative. No one will hope that we can resist a people forty times as strong as ourselves. We must be conquered and then, if the victor so chuses we may be permitted to re« turn and reoccupy the very position in the planisphere from which "we had shot devious." Or we may be governed as a Territory or as a dependant sovereignty, or perhaps (the Almighty avert it) extinguished and divided between North Carolina and Georgia'—the Edisio and Saluda constituting the line of demarkation. We hope for better things: the people will look to all thesa consequences and never be carried away by these adviser*, into the folly of Secession. It may be asked, what are the commercial embarrassments, to avoid which Merchants will make their shipme .ts to other ports, and the answer to thi3 brings under consideration the course which the General Government will pursue in th^ event ©f Nullification without secession, attended as is avowed with an act imposing pains and penalties to enforce it. In an* swering this we make no difference iti the case whether pro* duced by the Legislature alone,or by the Legislature acting under the sanction of a convention, still; supposing however that the* State continues in the Union.. And in anticipating the course of the general Government, we are governed by what, appears to be its true policy and. most consistent with its general course. The desire will be to leave the people of the state time to reflect and to form apractical opinion of their own measures, to see and to feel its true character and that of their advisers; thus trusting in their returning reflection voluntarily to aban¬ don both. And by a simple repeal of their own laws, to restore every thing to the state in quo—above all things not to in* dulge gentlemen in their favorite project oi having blood shed, •r the military pointing their bayonets: at the breast of the Citizen^ All this is easily practicable. The Collector and his Coadjutors of the Revenue will have perhaps te live X awhile without fkes, but if any vessel should be hardy enough to deliver h jr cargo without a permit, or leave the port with¬ out a clearance, there i> no difficulty in intercepting her on - the ocean and carrying ner for adjudication into a port to which the laws of this state do not extend. Importers would not repeat tlje experiment often: even associations would soon get ired if the expense and dangers attended it. We have been astonished to read from the pen of a learned civilian that this arrest could not take place beyond a marine league from our coast; toe contrary is unquestionable. It may be made any where on the ocean, and will be valid in our own courts* And, even when made of a foreign vessel within a marine lea.ue of the coast of her own or any other sovereign it is only a question of policy wherher her liberation will be demanded or ot. The language of Courts is "lupum aribus teneo." The books are full and explicit on this doctrine, and the Cut¬ ters frorn a few adjacent ports would soon give a practical appli¬ cation of it; without ever coming into ports where they may b© subjected to the laws of this State' And another sage doctrins from the same pen we read in these terms "if seizures b® made in a "port or within the. distance assigned by the law of na* tions as (he limits of a state the trial must be in the stale with all the embarrassments of its Courts and Juries." Where must the professional man have been for the last twenty years, who could venture upon such doctrines? [See Mr Calhoun's Letter. We believe, then, that in the event of the passage of such laws by the State, the President would do no more than express his regret on the occasion in a message to Congress, announcing the event, but would ask no Legislative interfe¬ rence, considering it and treating it as an affair for the Treasury and Judiciary Departments. How thos two Departments would meet the conflict, is fhe ext question. 'I he Treasury Department would do no more than instruct the Collector, the District Attorney and Marshal to make n® (deviation from their usual course; and if encountered by- force to let it pass on, and to be careful to secure testimony to be used when occasion required. But not to resort to military aid, or the Posse, or any other extra force until the tempest shall spend its force, or at least not until further orders? Thus the Moloch scheme of compelling bloodshed will be avoided. It "is probable that these officers may have to encounter prosecu ions; fine, imprisonment,confiscation, and even death have been threatened; but it is scarcely possible in the pres¬ ent state of this community, even to pack a jury which will not evntaia om mmn of sufficient firmness anil correctness & r esist the torrent, even if we can suppose that a Tudge ceul# >e found of sufficient weakn.ss to yield to. it. Some modifi- iatioa of the State Judiciary, it is said, is contemplated to guard against the independence of the-present incumbers in that department: But this is an extreme of madness td which it will not be easy to push a Legislature, much less the People, The laws of the U. States give, or may be made to give, a right of appeal to the Supreme Court. But we see that Mr. Calhoun advises, or at least suggests, that the State, by proper enactments, may prevent the party prosecuted from obtaining a copy of the record from the State Court, so as to avai himself of this appeal. This is a shocking suggestion. Can he hope to find a Judge in the State Court who would obey such a law. The work of corruption must have out¬ stripped eved imagination, if he ran. We feel little apprehension of cocviction; but if they da take place, and the individual suffer, the United States must indemnify him. If he suffers death, hecatombs of his perse¬ cutors will attend his obsequies. The whole course, how„ ever, , All that can be said is, that the demand must be complied with; it presents a state of colli don that there is no avoiding; but the collision is one which will enlist feelings that must soon furnish a remedy for the evil. Force must be used;'and every good man in the United States will support the Govern¬ ment in applying it upon such a demand, i . It has been suggested that this State will establish its own custom house, and supercede that of the United States; but can this be done and the State remain in the Union? Will any merchant trust to the permit or clearance of such a custom¬ house? Will it be any thing but a mere nullity'? And would any vessel venture into a port thus embarrassed? Then what a load of debt would not the State incur by acts so clearly subjecting her to the obligation to indemnify for such violent and perilous conduct! To say nothing of the unavoidable expenditure of public money which would certainly follow in the wake of such an adventure. Armies, and navies, and officers without number, must be created and paid, and tht State already overwhelmed with a debt for millions actually cast into the waters. ; We cannot conceive the possibility of such excesses. Bar they may come, and greater, and must be met. Next, how will the Judiciary Department be called upon to act? And here one difficulty presents itsblf at the threshold, which, while there remains a semblance of" law arid order in the country, it is not very easy to get over. If South Carolina is still in the Union, any laws passed for the purpose, of restricting the Courts of the United States in the exercise of their constitutional jurisdiction, must be null, and void; and those courts will themselves ' have' the right to decide upon such>hws. Every Court must of hecessity consider ques¬ tions on its own jurisdiction, as well as all othei. questions raised by parties litigant on the legal or constitu¬ tion..!' validity of the laws on which claims to its aid are eithei. preferred or repelled. To suppose then that any public body eould be so extravagant as to pass Jaws to punish the Judges of the United States for exercising juris¬ diction over revenue arising under the law^s,. of tl* ihe Government to .which they aie amenable, is to suppose that legislators may be t ikon (rom the tenants of a mad-house. It is hard!) possible that such laws can be passed; but if they are, they must be met with temper, firmness and respect. It is not right, however, to disseminate the idea that the tariff act, the object of Nullification, may be unconstitutional aud yet no possibility of judicial, relief ogain.it it. From the very initiation of the crusade against" this unhappy law, one 'party has ihade it a favor to object to shake the confidence of the people in the judicial y of the United States, us well as to propagate the opinion, that the question of constitutionality cannot be brought before a couvtby any known foMii of plead¬ ing; or if so brought, that it would be hopeless - And unfor¬ tunately, the favourite object of & Southern Convention recently recommended to the 01 posite party, and seemingly accepted by Vnem, makes it their interest id«o to hold cut the idea that it-is not a question of judicial but political cogni¬ sance. Each thus persuading "he people to uqlopt their favorite project, as the only one capable of affording relief. Unquestionably, the expediency oi the act is altogether a political question, and the vague aud indefinite idea of the spirit of the act, or of the co. stitution,'must be a political question; and certainly violations of the constitution may be supposed, so entirely confined 'o the Governments general and particular, that Courts of Law never can pass upon them. Such, for instance, as if(a state undertakes to coin money, or keep troops, or ships of war, in time oi peace; but to affirm, that the constitutionality of any act which takes money from the pocket of the people is a political question, is certainly art error. It is a question proper for a Court of Justice—a judi¬ cial question; and 'might be so presented in pleading; relying upoti the fact ol whatii Is in reality, not what it is made It* appear to be. Its real chaideter is not to be shut out fiom the view of a court by evasion or subterfuge. In tho cases of the suits between the states of Mary land and Oh o respect¬ ively, and the Bank of the United States, the laws passed. affect d be laws to tax; but the court would not pcim t a penally or prohibition to be impose*! under Lie semblance of a W. and the Courts of this state have established the same principle: Sp also in the case of the stale of Missouri^ bills «f credit were thrown into circulation under die semblance of a loan, but the court did not hesitate to examine whether the loan was any thing more than a disguise. It is a publie misfortune that tins great quest on of 'ousti- tutiouality could pot be solemnly examined in a judical form, instead of being discussed at Barbecues and in party news., papers. Let the public mind be once satisfied on this ques* Li font ami it w-ju'ui &«on come to a state of rest on every other, But the people have been taught 011 both sides, and it happens to suit the views of both sides, to teach them that the question is not of judicial cognisance, and that therefore it must be settled by Nullification, or pamphlets, of harangues, or news¬ papers, 01* conventions. As to the final question, whether Nullification will terminate in a failure or succeed in putting down the right of imposing protective duties, we must beg leave to give a qualified answer. From simple Nullification, \ve apprehend nothing but loss of trade and character, it will prove a mere failure; but there is no knowing what laws or measures may accompany it, or how ' soon the irritation and disappointment of its authors rnav conduct them to desperate measures. Yet'no measures, however desperate, we are convinced, can put down the' pro¬ tective policy altogether. If the United States do not now possess the power to pursue it, they will amend the Constitu¬ tion so as to give it, limited probably, to a certain per cent'age. Nor could any portfon of the States form a confederacy without incorporating in their Constitution something of a protective power. To do otherwise, would be to lay them¬ selves open to the legislative hostility of all the world. Stand" ing singly, each State possesses the protective power; to re.- tain.it unimpaired to the several States when entering into Union with others, is impossible, and to abandon the power of exercising it, without vesting that power in the combined body would be the extreme of folly. To contend for its extinction, therefore, is to contend for an impossible thing. A modification of the power might be obtained, and would an¬ swer every necessary purpose, and could be obtained by an ordinary amendment. But it would b« well to reflect on what we are striving < against. Indeed, the question really 1 involved, is the great difficulty on which the best men and the best minds of our country, have always felt the most anxiety for the perpetuation of the Union,, That is, whether the country over which it extends, is not too large and too much diversified in moral, natural and political circumstances, to admit of the existence of one uniform republican form of government extending over the whole, As at present circum¬ stanced, and as, indeed, we must always expect to be circumstanced, complaining of a tariff of any" description because of its bearing unequally upon different, par4ewA our extended domain, is nothing short of objecting altogs^ier and forever to the imposition of a tariff. It is impossible unless imposed upon the air we breathe, (for we cannot add even Water, Earth, or Fire,) that it should operate others is. than unequally. Nor is there any thing to complain of/in this 12 * inequality of operation, while the right to demand a similat protection is equally diffused, over every part of the Union The theory of the application of it heretofore, has been, that each is equally entitled to it; and that it .should be extended to each, according as their several interests seem to require it, or the desire to have it, is advisedly expressed by any. Thus, when our cotton needed it, it was given to us; whert the sugar of Louisiana required it, it was extended,to sugar; So with the hemp and whiskey of the Western country, the Iron of Per nsylvania, and finally, the manufactures of the North and West; for certainly, the East never asked it of us until we forced them into a situation to need it Nor, if these favors were less equally distributed would there be much to complain of, when it is recollected, how certainly it contri¬ butes to the independence, dignity and security of a nation, that it should be able to supply its own wants and not be dependant upon the caprice of other nations, whose relative power over us is so materially dependant upon their capacity to distress us, as well as to attack us; and how certainly any present contributions of the public to the purpose of exciting competition, will be repaid by the reduction of price which never fails, to follow upon protection, until finally, when the capacity to produce transcends the domestic demand, a tariff becomes a mere nominal thing; as is exemplified with regard to that upon distilled spirits, and many other articles on which the duty nominally exceeds the price. We cannot but think that to refuse to others a boon which we have, in the day of our need, received from them, is neither consistent with justice nor gratitude; much less with that dignified liberality which has heretofore been an acknowledged attribute of this State and the Southern country. The duty on imported cotton-wool, never was imposed as a revenue measure: It was simply protective. $o firmly are we persuaded that the existence of the pro- tective power, is indispensable to the preservation of the Union, that whether Nullification or State Convention, or Southern Convention, be the means resorted to for pros¬ trating it, they may as well, it appears to us, be classed at once under one general appellation and 'yclp'd the approved means of destroying the Union. In fact, what inducement is • here,..for men to quit the individual separate existence of the which they do possess this power, and place them¬ selves p a situation in which they surrender the faculty of exercising it? Or rather, why not transfer it to the Union, and liberally, and in turn, extend the benefit of protection to each other's peculiar interests as they arise7 Such has hitherto 1 beenj^be practical exercise of the power; .and surely wish 11> great mutual advantage. Certainly no tariff'law, containing the minimum principle ought ever to have been parsed; but government is altogether an experimental science, and allow ances should be made for the inscrutable character of the minimum provision, and thus exculpate its authors from deliberate imposition. We have now nearly got rid ofit, and the time is not far distant when we shall be obliged to ac¬ knowledge, that, in the late tariff', we have been liberally dealt with. It may be thought to be passing beyond our proposed sub¬ ject, should we fenter upon the question of the constitutionality of a protective tariff. But there are one or two considerations on this subject, which appear to have so totally escaped ob¬ servation, that we cannot pretermit this opportunity of noti¬ cing them. We have never seen the question on the protec¬ tive power fairly stated. The proposition maintained by its opponents involves a palpable petitio principii, Whovcan question that a power to impose duties for revenue is not a. power to impose duties/or protection! Yet this is the only form given to the proposition bjr those who negative the pro¬ tective right in Congress.*' ISow whence is it deduced that the power to impose duties was given for the sole purpose of raising revenues! Certainly there is no such restriction in the instrument which grants it. The. grant is substantive and unlimited, ^'To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises." We cannot imagine on what the palpable interpo¬ lation of "for the purposes of revenue" is founded, un'ess it be on the unhappy change of form under which $ e find the Con¬ stitution published in Grimke's Laws, and signally also in the collection of laws of the United Statei, compi'ed by Colvin and we presume copied from all the publications that preceded it. The Journal of the Convention drawn up oy Mr. Madison must be supposed to exhibit the true and cor¬ rect form of the Constitution,and indeed is clearly proved to be so, by tracing the article from its origin to its consummation. The latter (Mr. Madison's) presents the grant of this pow-i er in a distinct paragraph,pointed like all the rest with a colon, and thus separated from the succeeding grant of power " to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and gen- ■*Thus in the 2nd number, 14,15 pages of the " Occasional Reviews," we find the following passage. "Congress has the power to impose dut'es on import for the-purposes of pulsing revenue, and that power, by implication, is converted into a power to protect manufactures." Now die restriction implied in the words, "for the purposes of raising revenue," we hold to be an interpolation—the restriction,not the power, is the creation of implication. . u eia) welfare/' Wheieas the edition by Colvm comprises it in the same paragraph, riot commencing with a capital letter, and pointed with a scmicdlori, while that by Judge Grimke gives ii in the same connexion and reduces the pointing to a sinijle comma, thus presenting the subsequent sentence, not as a substantive grant of power, but a restriction upon the preceding grant. We hope everyone will take the trouble to compare those copies. ■ It is true, it is often argued, and our legislature has been surprised into the assertion, that the power of protection was expressly negatived by the Convention. This however, is a demonstrable error; for the propositions submitted were to grant the power pt) establishpublic, institutions, rewards and immunities loi the promotion of agriculture, commerce,trade and manufactures." (Journal, p. 261.) and to establish a 'Secretary ofdoneslic off in >, whose duty it should be among other things to attend to the state of manufactures; both of which pr 'positions had regard to particular means of protec¬ ting manufactures, not the general exeicise of the protective pooer. Nor dees it appear that any vote passed upon either of these propositions, except the general reference to the Committee to report that Constitution which was finally adopted. These powers were not. specifically reported upon In that instrument, ard no doubt because it was deemed un¬ necessary to add any thing to the power over the subject im¬ plied in the general gi ant of the power to impose duties: w hich power, frorp time immemorial and over all Europe, had been familiarly resorted to for the protection of domestic industry in all its applications whether to agriculture, commerce or r Manufactures. Both in the first report by Mr. Rutledge, (p. 220) and the final rep irt by Mr. Brierly, (p. 356) as, well as in that finally subscribed by the members, the same sub¬ stantive character of this po wer is exhibited Nor isit immateri¬ al tp remark,if we are to refer to this journal for grounds of con* struingt.heContitutionJhdt under the patronage of the most de¬ mocratic of the men hers of that Convention, Butler, Piokney, and Randolph, the followi igj ropositinns were adopted: "The government of he United States ought to consist y>f a supreme legislature judiciary and executive. (71,83.207) 2nd. That the national legislature ought to possess " all the legisla¬ tive power v. otnd in Congress by the confederalm,and more¬ over to legislate in all r ases f< u the general interests* >f theUnion„ and also in ihoseto which the. State'- are s purately incompetent, or in which, thekarmov of the United St. a' es man 'e inUrrup- tedby the exercise of ml; n ml legidiit'on." (p, 108, Res.vi.) With reference to the put puses declared in these two resolu¬ tions, was the Constitution drawn up and adopted. And with ]& inference to them must it be expounded when doubts ai e rdis» cd upon its construction. On the question v>hoi-her NuIAfioafio»; will eventuate in for¬ eign connexion and civil war, it is impossible for any one to reflect without the most pdnful forebodings.. In itself, we repeat it, it is a mere bugbe r, a thing to frighten children.but when we reflect on the feelings it has excited, the means which have been resorted to to promote it, and the follies, extrava¬ gancies and enormities into which men are hurried in the collisions of pride, of passion, of avarice and ambition, and victory or defeat,the veriest phantoms of imagination and Ac¬ tion can scarcely transcend the dreadful realities which the fidelity of history has transmitted to u^ for a warning. What has happened, may happen again. Nero once shed tears; bui man let loose from the restraints of humanity, of morals, of religion and of laws, is more cruel than the Hyena. Even the Tiger will not destroy his own species. Should a civil war ensue, it will be one of the most blood v that ever deso¬ lated the habitations of man. The essential difficulty of gra¬ tifying private revenge under the forms of legal proceedings, will soon put by even tlie palliation of a resort to legal pro ¬ ceedings. With whom have the Party-leaders already iden¬ tified themselves in this struggle ? On whom have they made themselves dependant for the ineansof their expected triumphs? In whose hands, in fact,is the actual government of the country at this time ? It would be well to reflect on this; and it gen¬ erally happens that the very safety of the leaders will impel them to sacrifice a foe rather than furnish an apology or induce¬ ment for their followers to turn their swords upon themselves. The motives, the view's, the designs, of those leaders may be very moderate, very virtuous, very humane now, but it may not be long before they lose the liberty to exert them. We have read of the scenes in Paris of the time of Mai at and Robespierre, of Rome in the times of Scylla and Marins and some of the emperors,of Jerusalem as related by Josephus,and it is but of the other day that armies were formed in Buenos Ayres and New Granada of materials which we would now be shocked to think of. Polverel and Santhonax justified their enormites on the necessity of preserving the colony of St. Domingo to the Republic, and even in our South Caiolina was a proposition twice gravely debated during the Revolu¬ tion, which God grant there may never again be presented an apology for considering. But there is no extravagance which men exasperated by civil conflict, wil;^ not resort to; flattering themselves, perhaps, with the vain hope of restoring the order of Society if they ca» k>st possess themselves of power. ks to foreign aid, there is no question that eithei puny, i? hard pressed, will apply for it; the natural ally of one party ts the United States; and the natural ally of the other, would be the natural or habitual enemy of the United States. But how would the law of non-intervention apply ? It is altogether a mistake, a gross and palpable error to sup¬ pose that it would apply in favor of a State. There is no sovereign over this territory who is known to the rest of the world, but the Government of the United States. Among ourselves, our original relation to each other is remembered and recognized, but pass the threshold of the United States, and State sovereignty is a thing forgotten. The con¬ troversy would be regarded in Europe as existing between the General Government and a constituent part of that gov-, eminent; and should Great Britain be unwise enough to be disposed to take part in it, which is altogether improbable, the rest of Eqrope would not permit her. In her, it would be regarded with peculiar jealousy, it would be viewed as an attempt to recover her lost colonies. Put how cou!4 the U. States look on and maintain a neutral¬ ity while a controversy was going on so interesting to her future existence and happiness? It is not to a revenue law alone, that the right of Nullification is confined, ii may be extended to laws regarding the army, and navy, and post office: and particularly for the collection of a direct tax. On this subject, the ground is already suggested, ' A mode of apportioning representation has been, we think, sanctioned: but ceitainly debated m the Senate which many lipid to be unconstitutional; as then opponents do the mode actually adopted. Representation affords the constitutional rule for apportioning Ihe direct tax, and a state may adhere to one or the other of these contrary opinions, and according to that adherence oppose the collec¬ tion of a direct tax, even in time of war. The precedent, therefore, suggests interesting considerations which may not apply to the present instance. It may, therefore, possiblyr be the opinion of Congress, that it is better, at once, to try the energy of the government, and' have the point decided. Nor is it possible to anticipate the measures that may be adopted by the party that would pass a Nullification Act in this or any other state. At present, appeal a nces are very unpromising. Prosecutions, confiscations, fine and imprison¬ ment, and death itself, are among the terrors held out for effect: I say, for effect, because I cannot imagine that m the absence of civjl war, such excesses will be resorted to. But civil war may come, and an attempt to force the fate out of -the Union, or into a connexion with Great-Britain, will most certainly produce a civil war, and one in which the parties 17 Will'be very' nearly balanced. In that event, the United States cannot fold their arms and look on. The mounted men of the West, would sweep over our country like a torrent, putting a speedy end to all our metaphysical discussions. , We think it was Pompey, whose victorious course some . ''learned Theban," attempted to arrest by argument, and who met him with that reply which will always be given by men who have arms in their hands. Among the signs of the times, calling most strongly for public attention, is the late Letter of Mr. Calhoun, indorsed and circulated by the same gentleman, who not long since, appeared in the character of compurgator to Mr. McDuffie "e contra." , This letter of Mr. Calhoun,' although professing every thing but war and disunion,' is really a most ingenious, I will not say insidious preparation for both. Amidst a multitude of words, almost sufficient to conceal its tendency, if not its purpose, its object is to relieve the wavering consciences of those who remember their oaths of allegiance to the general govern¬ ment, and to remove the qualms of those who still hesitate upon the necessity, expediency, practicability, and pacific character of the work of Nullification. To the former, he teaches that the State possesses a dispensing power equal to that attributed to the Roman Pontiff,and a binding potency that, no citizen, no juror, no judiciary, can call in question. 'Tis true, he toils up the ascent with the laboured tread of one who feels the ground sinking beneath his feet at every step towards the crater of the volcano. Yet it is exactly that kind of preparation which his party stand in need of. What may be its effect cannot be conjectured; for it has been won¬ derfully well-timed to prevent the possibility of its being coni" batted and exposed in time to meet the election. This letter abounds in rhetorical management; first commencing with a string of truisms, or propositions no longer disputed, or so sim¬ ple and clear that the mind proceeds beyond them with a confidence in the writer's candour and correctness that pre¬ pares it to receive all his after claims to conclusions, with very little scruple" and.no examination; and then it proceeds at every succeeding step, to claim as established, whatever the writer stands in need of establishing. But one great fal¬ lacy runs through or affects the whole argument, which is a, radical misrepresentation of the relations in which the states and United States actually stand to each other, under the Constitution. The effort is t® bring us back to the feebleness and uncombined state of the old Confederation,and to persuade the reader that every thing beyond that, is actual consolidation. ( Jbdeedj it would sink the present government even lower in lie scale of political existence tlian undei the Confederation for the analogy perseveringly insisted on, and in every para* graph reiterated, is between the General Government and a Trading Company or Corporation; and all this to put it in the power of a State to effect one great and radical change in the Constitution, which gt can have no hope of effecting according to the plan and provisions of that instrument. The scheme of Nullification, as Mr. Calhoun explains it, and as it has been repeatedly explained by others is, to enable a single state to arrest the progress of the General Government until it shall be again set in motion by a vote-of three-fourths, still reserving the right to acquiesce or not, according as it shall be^ for or against the principle insisted on by such single state. With this latter reservation, it is absolute anar¬ chy; and without it, it is a Revolution, or a direct inversion of the present scheme of the Constitution on the subject of amendments. As the Coi stitution now stands, alterations in that instrument, can only be effected by 3-4ths of the states, whether it be to add to, or take from the General Government any power which a single state may think proper to draw into question. And as to proposing amendments, it will no longer rest with two-thirds of the Congress or the Legislatures of the states as under the Constitution, but be assumed and exer¬ cised by any one of the states; nor are such amendments to be merely proposed, but actually compelled and enforced by the separate action of a state, so far, at least, as to compel the other states to take up and examine the question which the state raises, or enter upon the work of considering and discuss¬ ing proposed amendments, or constructions, which ever it may be called, at the dictation of an individual state. This is a •wonderful conservative principle: The true conservative principles of the General Govern" ment are to be found in frequent elections and the equal rep¬ resentation in the Senate. Mr. Calhoun is right in insisting that it is not enough to give to the positive numerical major¬ ity the right of governing. There i? a protection of interests necessary in a. country so extensive as ours, to which the power of a positive majority may be the most fatal enemy Rut how far is it possible to carry this idea in a practical gov¬ ernment? The frameis of the Constitution thought,, and thought correctly, that they had carried it out to eveiy prac¬ tical purpose, when they gave numerical weight to the slaves of the Southern States, and an equal representation to every State in one branch of the legislature, while the popular elec tion of the President provided a check, by his veto, upon the possible legislation of oppressive majorities; a provision which 10" iriay emphatically be called the voice of the people. Here is the whole scheme of protection to interests as distinguish¬ ed from numbers. And ' in the hands of a virtuous people it is enough; in a corrupt state of society nothing is enough to secure the existence of a popular government. The additional check of State Conventions, or Southern Conventions, was never contemplated, or wisely avoided. Much has been said and written on the question, to whom belongs the right of deciding on Constitutional powers. Yet nothing can be more simple or certain than the answer. Every party to the contract,and there are three,the States,the United States and the People, and every department of each govern" ment of which there are also three; the Legislature, Judiciary arid Executive, must necessarily,each in its own proper sphere of action, construe the Constitution. The Supreme Court of the United States has no power over the subject any farther than as it affects the People, or rights of property between the States. There, its power ends; as to every other party or constituent its decisions have only so much influence as their merits entitfe them to: The, question, whether a pro* . tecting tariff is a constitutional law is, as between the parties to the compact, a political question ; but as it bears upon the liberty or the property of the individual, it is a Judicial ques¬ tion. And so fari incidentally, the decisions of the Supreme Court are obligatory on the departments of the government; in this, that they may be a check upon theiy enforcing such a law against the individual, and thus render it nugatory,to pass another of an analogous character. This seems tobe their whole power over constitutional questions. But as between the con¬ tracting parties,there can be no doubt that the power of one to decide the affirmative, implies the power of the other to decide the negative. Hence there cannot be a greater fallacy than that insisted on by Mr. Calhoun,that the State alone has the power to decide on the constitutionality of'the protective system, to 1 the exclusion of the same power in the U. States; and that the citizen ol such state is bound to ah'do by the decision of the State, and disregard that of the United States. Even if h'v analogy were correct between the States in their relation to the United States, and principal and agent., h3 lays down the law incorrectly, when he says that "he alone who grants the power has the right to judge of the. extent of that grant." Both have the right to judge, and to maintain their rights, whether in society or out of it. The truth of the proposition is, that- the people of the United States, in forming the present Con¬ stitution, acting in their several State capacities changed then old form of government, arid adopted a rew fcrm. the plain 20 and obvious import of which act was, to limit their State "go¬ vernments, and by uniting the powers taken from them, to constitute another government, new and distinct in its oper¬ ations, but as sovereign as to the powers committed to it, as the respective states. The power,indeed, was not given over the States, but it was a much higher power, it was given over' the persons of the sovereigns themselves who constituted the States It would indeed have been a "barren sceptre" bad it waved only over a metaphysical entity that could neither have been taxed or coerced. And what would have been gained1?, The object was to get rid of the imbecility of the Confedera¬ tion, and to put down forever the bickerings pf the Stales, among which Delaware and Rhode Island would always have been the most jealous and tenacious of dignity and power. The struggle now is to resume the power of which the people then stripped the States. The effort of Mr. Calhoun, whether so intended or not, is calculated to degrade the Constitution into a mere letter of " attorney, or a lease at will. The effect would be to strip it of its sanctity, and put down ever y compunctious feeling at destroying it; to give to Revolution the harmless character of revoking a simple delegation of ind'vidual power, a power v over one's several property or interests. But is this consis¬ tent with the relation between governors and tho governed * That compact over which the Deity himself so emphatically presides ? which by the solemn act of an oath, God himself is called upon to guard or to guaranty? Which, being in its character unadapted to the cognizance of human tribunals, is solemnly committed to the jurisdiction of the Judge of Heaven and earth ? But yield to Mr. Calhoun his analogy, admit that the Consti¬ tution only constitutes the General government a tenant at will, and what docs he gain' by the concession? Nothing, nothing. For the tenure is not of our sole creating, it is the- joint act of twenty three other sovereigns. Nor was that act several in its operation, no more than the victory of the Eu taws, where six States united their efforts and fought, was thr victory of South Carolina because her iioops co operated and the battle was fought in her .territory. The act of South Car ojiiu in creating this new government made it the government of ^lassachusetts, and Massachusetts, of C arolina. It was a joint and several creation by each and all; and were the right o! revolution in its nature alienable,we would say even that was- rclmqaishcd. One consequence, at least, of the nature and character of that joint act cannot be controverted, which that it p-ive and derived to the several States*" mutually hnC 21 reciprocally, rights over the conduct of each other, which 110 sophistry can disguise or evade.'1 Rights, involving such deep , and vital interests, of the whole and of each, as all the meta- physics of a thousand writers and orators will in "Vain endea¬ vour to whittle down to the standard of Nullification; they inust and will and ought to he asserted; asserted upon the very principle on which the claims of Nullification are main tained, to wit, self-preservation. To conclude/there are two passages in Mr. Calhoun's letter well worthy of public attention, as they partake of the char¬ acter of an official exposition of the scheme of practical Nul¬ lification. In the one, the writer remarks on the effects upon foreign cupidity in evading the fofce of the United States which would be produced "by a profitable market without the exaction of duties." In the other he says, "The Court itself (the Supreme Court of the United States) has decided that a copy of the record is requisite to review a judgment of a State Court, and if necessary, the State would take the precaution to prevent by proper enactments the means of obtaining the copy. But if it is obtained, what would it avail against ithe penal, enactments of the State intended to enforce the declaration of Nullification ? The judgment of the State Court would be pronounced, and executed before the possibility of a reversal and executed, too without responsibility incurred by any one.,T ' Who does not see in these suggestions, the settled purpose of prbvokirig civil war?, What professions can extricate them from the imputation ? What must be that cause which needs the support of such means and such arguments, and what can be its consequences but the most deplorable ! We will not impute to the author a wilful effort at imposition; there is too much at slake,.and it is hardly possible that he can be so blinded by his passions as not to foresee the terrible recoil that would fall upon himself and party, if imposition fyere ever detected or suspected., Yet how can we believe that any possible effort of this state can prevent the collection of duties by the United States'? Or that any such artifice as he would seem to recommend by suggesting it, could deprive the Supreme Court of the power of asserting its appellate jurisdiction? If they ever have made the decision he refers to, ought he not, as a professional man, to know that it could not apply to the cases that he exhibits? And that if it were possible for his native state so to commit itself in the eyes of the world as to attempt an evasion so unworthy of it, and so directly in the teeth of the Constitution, if is scarcely practicable to carry it into effect.' If made so far effectual as. tw prevent the party from attaining a certified ' copy of the roll when recorded, the ingenuity t>l counsel would find the means of presenting the cause to the Supreme Court without it, and that Court would aid hipi in doing s0.t Suppose the record were accidentally burnt before the writ of error was allowed, would that defeat the party's right? A professional man ought to smile at the question. There is one view of this subject which cannot be passed over unnoticed since it is calculated to set at nought all the anticipations that may be formed on the operation of Nullifica¬ tion. All history teaches that the real causes of revolutions seldom swim upon the surface, and that it, is a folly to look into the professions of their authors or their active partizans for their motives or incentives. Nay, perhaps it may be said that even the people themselves are not always willing to avow the whole truth on this subject; perhaps they may not be dis¬ tinctly conscious how far they are acted.upon by unavowed considerations. The remedy of Nullification relies for its claims upon pub* lie patronage, on its constitutionality, its pacific character and its competency to the end proposed. The avowed motives of those who favor it, are, the preservation of the Union, the re¬ peal of the tariff, and the abolition of the protective principle-. The actual oppression complained of, is all summed up in the celebrated Party bale paradox. The difficulty is to conceive how it is possible that the clear Jieads and sound minds of those who inculcate these dootrines, can themselves believe in them; and if they do not, then is ■•■he proposed nullification of the tariff act resorted to as the means not the end of the convulsive movements which seem to be approaching. And admirably has it been selected, since 'it has furnished occasion for the propagation of dogmas of that incomprehensible character which have been often in the his¬ tory of human affairs, found as potent in producing great pop¬ ular excitement, as the most important but simple truths. The operation of a tariff is at best a most mysterious subject, and the only correct mode of estimating what part the community actually pays of the sum imposed, is the last that will be re¬ sorted to, to wit, the prices current beforh and after its impo¬ sition. Independent of this, it is all a matter of speculation to determine how the duty is distributed among the parties interested—the grower, the operative, the artist, the capitalist, the buyer, the speculator, the shipper, the ship owner, the im¬ porter, the country merchant, and so on, up to the actual consumer, and tho" last not least, its influence upon prices by exciting competition on one hand^and increasing consumption on the other. When a people get confused in these specula- 23 wons, they Easily abandon thinking, and give themselves up to faith. After which, he who exaggerates their sufferings most, and is loudest and most assiduous in propagating discon¬ tent, will be sure to command most of their confidence, until they become awaked to suspicion by actual suffering. Then it is almost a matter of accident whether their leaders are lift¬ ed to empire upon their shields, or torn to pieces like the pensioner De wit. These remote effects, tho1 not the immediate workings of Nullification, may be anticipated among its consequences. ^ There are certainly strong secret springs acting at this time on the necessary or probable operations of Nullification in this State—springs of action, well worthy of consideration. We could enumerate near a dozen of known potency upon the conduct of men and the fate of nations, and yet of a character not to be, avowed. But it is time to bring this Pamphlet to aa end. ERRATA. t'?je 4 14th line from the top, read "their foTlowers wauld abandon them.P" 11th line from bottom, for "we now stand, read tksy now stand. 6, 5th line from bottom, for "state in quo," read status in quo. 7 7th line from top, for "dangers attended it," mad dangers et.t'jinijig ix._ 1 tT'fh line, read "lonum mrihv.s t«8W."