a

of both blood and treasure. The extinguishment of the Indian title had cost many millions. Nothing had been spared which a just sense of their necessities required. He adverted to the growth and prosperity of these states since the Indians were conquered by Wayne, which was the result of the care and protection of the government. He objected to throwing great portions of the lands, at low prices, into the hands of private speculation.

In replying to the remark of Mr. Hayne, that he wanted no permanent sources of income—that a fixed revenue only consolidated the government and corrupted the people—Mr. W. said, he was aware such sentiments were elsewhere held; but he had not expected to hear them uttered there. “Consolidation !--that perpetual cry of terror and delusion-consolidation! When gentlemen speak of the effects of a common fund as having a tendency to consolidation, what do they mean? Do they mean, or can they mean, any thing more than that the union of the states will be strengthened by whatever furnishes inducements to the people of the states to hold together? This is the sense in which the framers of the constitution use the word consolidation, and in which sense I adopt and cherish it. They tell us in the letter submitting the constitution to the consideration of the country, that, 'in all our deliberations on this subject, we kept steadily in our view that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American-the consolidation of our union-in which is involved our prosperity, liberty, safety; perhaps our national existence.'

This, sir, is Gen. Washington's consolidation. This is the true constitutional consolidation.”

Mr. W. defended the East against the charge of hostility to the West. The tariff had been mentioned as an instance of selfish policy, and designed to prevent western emigration. He repelled the charge, and the cause assigned for it. New England was not the author of the tariff. The tariff of 1816 was more a southern than an eastern measure. And in 1824, there were, in each of a majority of the western states, and even in Virginia, more votes in favor of the tariff of that year, than in Massachusetts. It had been forced upon New England.

From the time the cessions of the lands were made to congress, no portion of the country had acted with more liberality or intelligence on the subject of the western lands than New England. Provision was to be made for the government of the country and for disposing of the territory. The soil must be granted and settled. How was it to be done? Two systems presented themselves; the one a northern and the other a southern mode of conducting the sales. The northern was adopted; it was that now in successful operation in the new states north-west of the Ohio. That which was rejected was the system of warrants, surveys, entry and location, which prevailed south of the Ohio, and had shingled over the country with conflicting titles and claims, and led 10 speculation and litigation. The former was the New England system—that of surveying lands before issuing title papers, and of inserting accurate descriptions of metes and bounds. At the foundation of the constitution of these new states, was the ordinance of 1787, drawn up by Nathan Dane, of Massachusetts. It had impressed upon the soil an incapacity to bear up any other than free men. Mr. W. suggested this as the cause that had given to these states a more rapid growth and prosperity than those south of the Ohio. And this great measure, he said, had been carried by the north, and by the north alone. Individuals elsewhere had favored it; but as a measure, it was supported entirely by northern votes. The Cumberland road and other western improvements had uniformly received the votes of New England.

In vindication of his own course, he read a few extracts from a debate in the house of representatives, in 1825, on the subject of the western road; Mr. W. being then a member of that body. A distinguished member from the south (Mr. M'Duffie) had said in that debate, that emigration to the west needed no stimulus, but rather a check. Every inducement had been held out to the people to settle in the west, until the eastern population had become sparse. If any object was worthy the attention of the government, it was a plan which should limit the sale of the public lands. To which he (Mr. W.) had replied, that it was not his wish so to hasten the sales of the lands as to throw them into the hands of purchasers who would sell again; but he could not concur with the gentleman from South Carolina, in wishing to restrain the laboring classes in the eastern states from going to any part of our territory. He was in favor of letting population take its own course. any

of his constituents wished to settle on the Kansas, or the Arkansas, let them go, and be happier, if they could. Mr. W. said he had read these extracts to vindicate his state from unfounded charges and imputations on her public character and conduct.

After this stage of the discussion, many foreign subjects were intro. duced into the debate, which was continued until the 2d of April. Having been permitted to slumber until near the close of the session, it was revived the 20th of May, and finally brought to a close the next day, without any decisive action upon the resolution. Among the incidental and irrelevant topics drawn into the debate, were slavery, state rights and nullification, the judicial power of the union, New England federalism, &c. It abounded with facts and illustrations relating to the government, which impart to it not a little interest and value as a political history. But the most prominent subject was that of the relative powers of the

If

id federal governments, in the discussion of which was asserted stitutional right of a state to disobey any law which the state ties may deem unconstitutional—the right of NULLIFICATION. principal speakers in this debate, which was almost strictly of a haracter were Messrs. Benton, Hayne, Kane, Rowan, Grundy, ton, and Smith, of South Carolina, supporters of the administrand Messrs. Webster, Sprague, Holmes, Noble, Foot, Clayton,

of Louisiana, and Robbins, of the opposition. The former were to the resolution, except Mr. Smith, who, on this subject, disfrom his colleague, Mr. Hayne; the latter, it is believed, Mr. xcepted, were all in favor of the inquiry proposed in the resoluAlthough Messrs. Hayne and Webster are generally regarded as ing combatants in this celebrated controversy, Mr. Benton occumuch greater portion of time than any other senator. Vebster, at the close of the speech above noticed, was immefollowed by Mr. Benton in the commencement of a speech which tinued for an hour the next day, (January 21,) when he yielded to Mr. Hayne, and did not resume it until after the discussion those two gentlemen was over. Necessity forbids our giving most condensed sketch of the remarks of speakers on the various mbraced in this very discursive debate-or party combat, as it appropriately called. Many important questions, however, were d, among which the most prominent was that of the constitutional of the national and state governments, in other words, the notvre nion. Iayne claimed for a state the right not only to disregard a law ress which it may deem unconstitutional, but to determine for e unconstitutionality of an act, as well as the mode and measedress; and founded this claim upon the authority of the Vir1 Kentucky resolutions of 1798 and 1799. Mr. Webster, on the und, contended for some power in the general government to Itimately upon the constitutionality of laws; and that the doct each state might at discretion violate any law which her own es should pronounce unconstitutional, would, if carried into be fatal to the union. ayne, in defense of his doctrine, said: “The senator from Mass, in denouncing what he is pleased to call the South Carolina

has attempted to throw ridicule upon the idea that a state has titutional remedy, by the exercise of its sovereign authority, - 'gross, palpable, and deliberate violation of the constitution.' it an idle or a ridiculons notion, or something to that effect, and would make the union 'a mere rope of sand.' Now, sir, as

7

the gentleman has not condescended to enter into any examination of the question, and has been satisfied with throwing the weight of his authority into the scale, I do not deem it necessary to do more than to throw into the opposite scale the authority on which South Carolina relies, and there, for the present, I am willing to leave the controversy. The South Carolina doctrine, that is to say, the doctrine contained in an exposition reported by a committee of the legislature in December, 1828, and published by their authority, is the good old republican doctrine of '98; the doctrine of the celebrated Virginia resolutions of that year, and of • Madison's report,' of '99. It will be recollected that the legislature of Virginia, in December, '98, took into consideration the alien and sedition laws, then considered by all republicans as a gross violation of the constitution of the United States, and on that day passed among others, the following resolution :

“ The general assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact to which the states are parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact, as no farther valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that, in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them."

Mr. H. also quoted from Mr. Madison's report the following: “It appears to your committee to be a plain principle, founded on common sense, illustrated by common practice, and essential to the nature of compacts, that, when 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 each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority of the constitution, that it rests on this legitimate and solid foundation. The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sov. ereign capacity, it follows, of necessity, that there can be no tribunal, above their authority, to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and, consequently, that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.”

From the Kentucky resolutions, responding to those of Virginia, and penned by Mr. Jefferson, Mr. H. quoted the following declaration :

" That the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself

, as well of infractions, as of the mode and measure of redress.” The legislature of Kentucky, in 1799, reaffirmed their resolutions of the preceding year. From their proceedings, Mr. H. read, in support \of his theory, the following declarations : “That the principle and construction contended for by several 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. That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction; and, that a nullification, by those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts, done under the color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy."

Mr. Webster said he had much respect for the constitutional opinions of Mr. Madison ; but possibly a wrong construction might have been given to the resolution to which Mr. Madison had given his sanction. That resolution declared, that, in case of the dangerous exercise of powers not granted to the general government, the states might interpose to arrest the progress of the evil. But how interpose? Did it nean no more than that the people, in any mode of assembling, might esist usurpation ? No one would deny this. Nor would it be denied, at the people might, if they chose, throw off any government when it came oppressive and intolerable, and erect a better one. This was

right of revolution. But what the gentleman contended for, was, t it was constitutional for a state, in form of law, in virtue of its sovgn capacity, to interrupt the, administration of the constitution it

in the hands of those who were chosen and sworn to administer it. pendix, Note E]. : W. admitted that unconstitutional laws were not binding. But ceat question was, whose prerogative was it to decide whether a as constitutional or not? The proposition, that a state has a cononal right to annul a law supposed to be unconstitutional, he deUnder the constitution, there was no mode in which a state gov. t, as a member of the union, could interfere, and stop the prof the general government, by force of her owr. laws, under any stances whatever. led him to inquire into the origin of the governmert, and the source