Richmond Enquirer

Virginia Legislature.

FEDERAL RELATIONS—(Continued.)

Speech of Francis E. Rives, of Prince George, delivered in the Senate of Virginia, in Committee of the Whole, on the state of the Relations between the United States and South Carolina, on Thursday, Jan. 24, 1833.—(Concluded.)

To meet the question of peaceable Secession fairly:

I deny that it is deducible either from the Federal Constitution, or the report of '99 on the Virginia Resolutions of '98. I shall rely mainly on this report, because my reason approves it, and because it has been long looked on as the most able exposition ever given of the Federal Constitution.

I have examined the Constitution over and over again, and also the acts of ratification of the State Conventions, to see from whence originated the claim set up, to withdraw from the Union under any conceivable state of things, and all efforts have proved unavailing. Sir, it is not in the Constitution; no, it is not to be found anywhere, except among man's natural rights;—it is the right of revolution, disguise it as you may. If it could be found in the compact, it would be a peaceable remedy, and to molest a State for seceding, would be a violation of the law of nations. But such a thing was not contemplated: whilst the people thought that amendments to the compact might become necessary, and did provide for that case, it did not occur to them to provide for absolving any of the parties from the performance of their engagements. The Union was entered into deliberately; the parties went in, one at a time, and felt themselves bound, one to another, as fast as they entered. This must have been their belief at the time, or why the hesitancy of some of them?— Would they have stood off as they did, reflecting on the consequences, if they had believed themselves bound only during their own pleasure? Such could not have been their understanding of the matter. They thought that if once bound, they would be forced to obey the authorities of the government, till the dissolution of the government, and that the dissolution could only take place with the consent of the parties to the compact: that, and that only, caused them to hesitate.

But, suppose that I am mistaken about the right of Secession, and let it be (for the sake of argument) looked on as a constitutional right: would it not follow necessarily, that the State seceding would have an equitable right to a portion of the navy, the docks, the fortifications, and even the Capitol of the United States? They were erected out of the common fund, and she ought, therefore, to have a decree, directing a sale of all this property that was held in common, with a view to division. If one is constitutional, the other is equitable. But gentlemen on that side of the question would not, I presume, even contend for the equity of the case—and why? Because of its novelty.

Mr. Chairman, the third resolution of '98, which I now beg leave to return to, or that part of it which says, "the States 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," could not mean secession, or any thing from which secession could be deduced: For, according to that doctrine, a State must leave the Union to "arrest an evil"—she must destroy the Union to exercise her sovereignty. Disunion did not enter into their minds; so far from it, in the second resolution, the "General Assembly most solemnly declares a warm attachment to the union of the States, to maintain which, it pledges all its powers."

I have told the Senate that I think nullification an absurdity, that was not contemplated either by the Virginia, or Kentucky Resolutions: If, however, I could be driven to the admission, that secession, or nullification one, was contended for, I would say it was nullification;—for that would be "arresting an evil" in the Union; the other, would be "arresting an evil" out of the Union. One State might be instrumental in "arresting an evil," by raising the constitutionality of an act, and the parties to the compact might nullify an act. Secession, however, instead of "arresting," would give strength to those, who wished to continue "the evil;" for, as opposing members are diminished, in the same proportion do approving members gain strength.

Mr. Chairman, I have told you what I do not infer from the resolutions of '98, and it will be right now, for me to tell you what I think they do mean. Virginia was in that year very much disturbed about Congress having passed the Alien and Sedition acts, which she believed to be unconstitutional; and supposing, they would be sustained by the judicial tribunals of the country, thought it would have a good effect to assert, that instead of the Judiciary, the parties to the compact were "judges in the last resort," whether the Constitution was violated: meaning, no doubt, that if individuals, or a State thought an act of Congress unconstitutional, after remonstrating and protesting against its continuance, without effect, and if relief from its operation could not be had from the judiciary, that the States could give final judgment. I mean that the people of one State are entitled to one vote; and the people of each State having one, would make twenty-four judges. The opinion of each being taken, and the votes for and against the law being counted, the judgment, the final judgment, is rendered. If thirteen be against the constitutionality of the law, Congress must repeal it, or the government must be dissolved—for, it could not exist under such a state of things, although the thirteen States thus deciding, might contain only one-third of the whole population of the United States. I say this because it seems to be founded in reason. All, or nearly all of the institutions formed under our governments, State and Federal, seem to have been erected on that principle.

But gentlemen say, the decision of the States would not vary from the opinion of Congress on any law, as each State has equal representation in the Senate. From this I dissent: for, although it may be generally true, it sometimes happens not to be true. Unconstitutional laws do not more frequently occur, than that States are not properly and truly represented by their agents. Sir, it frequently happens that the people of the States are misrepresented in both branches of Congress; and this arises, generally, not from a disposition designedly to misrepresent, but from the fact of the representatives not knowing the wishes of their constituents. Members are elected for general purposes of legislation, and without an eye to a particular subject; in fact, without knowing their opinions on many subjects, the people make them their agents, with powers to be restrained only by the Constitution.

Although I have said the misrepresentation is generally occasioned by an ignorance of the wishes of the constituent body, I must at the same time say, it sometimes happens that inducements are held out to members that are of such a tempting character, as to make them lose sight of the wishes and interests of their constituents. Sir, the patronage of the President of the United States is so great, and there are so many who are under the influence of it, the people "now and then" fail to have justice done them.

To sustain myself in this position, I must advert to the election of Mr. Adams in 1825, and in so doing, I hope it will not be thought that I am disposed to revive a subject of any kind, that would give pain to or irritate any man in the community. No—So far from it, my desire, my most earnest desire is, to appease angry and contending parties. Do not then, let me beg of the Senate, think that I have waked from its slumbers an old wrong done to Andrew Jackson, for the purpose of giving him support at this critical moment. The election at that time, as you all know, devolved on the House of Representatives: and here let me enquire of you, Mr. Chairman, if the people of Kentucky, after the exclusion of Mr. Clay, had elected men to give the vote of that State, and for nothing else, would they not have voted for General Jackson instead of Mr. Adams? Yes, they would have done so, I am very certain; for, Mr. Adams was the most unpopular of all the candidates. The members of Congress, however, who had the power of giving the vote of the State, either wilfully misrepresented their constituents, or were mistaken in the wishes of them. The people of Ohio, if I am not mistaken, experienced the same treatment from their representatives.

But the people of Kentucky and Ohio were not the only complaining people. How was it in Illinois? There once lived a man who could tell you. How was it in Missouri? Mr. Scott is very well informed on that subject, and he knows now, if he did not at the time the vote was given, that the voice of his constituents did not sound in the Capitol of the United States in the election of the President.

But, sir, I will give you a case of more recent date than what has just been stated, and one too, that is applicable to the other branch of Congress. The gentleman who was elected but a few weeks ago, Vice President of the United States, was, during the last Session of Congress, proposed by the President to the Senate of the U. States, as a proper person for a Minister to a Foreign Court. The decision of the Senate was, that he was not a proper person, and consequently he had to return from England. In this case, the people of some of the States were not represented, and perhaps, in others, misrepresented. In Mississippi they were not represented—because Mr. Ellis voted for, and Mr. Poindexter against ratifying the nomination. The same state of things existed in Alabama; Mr. King for, and Mr. Moore against the appointment. It is very certain, then, that the people of two States, if no more, were not represented on that occasion; and it is equally certain that the officer presiding over the Senate, misrepresented his constituents, the people of the United States. Mr. Chairman, if the will of the people had been expressed in the Senate, Mr. Van Buren would have continued where he was sent, instead of being put in the Chair, then occupied by an enemy who wished to disgrace him. Not only Mr. Van Buren, but the people of the United States, were badly treated, and they resolved, by the election of him to the Vice Presidency, to shew their sovereignty, and to tell their agents, in language not to be misunderstood, if you abuse the power with which you are delegated, we will correct the evils of the abuse.

I will now take a case nearer home. There is a district in this commonwealth composed of five counties, and all of the members of the House of Delegates from that district, think one way on the subject of Secession, and the Senator representing the same people entertains a different opinion. Sir, that is my own situation. There is an honest difference of opinion between us, and the consequence is, that in one or the other House, the people are not represented. But suppose we had been elected and sent here to give judgment on this, and no other subject, and the people had been true to themselves in the selection of their agents, disregarding personal predilections and acting on principle, this state of things would not have occurred. In fact, it would have rendered useless one or the other branch of the Legislature: all would think alike, or act alike.

By these facts I am brought to the conclusion, that the people of the States may possibly "interpose," by a Convention in each State, and "arrest the evil" that now distracts the country. Some State that has heretofore, by her members, advocated the protective policy, may, when the people thereof are brought to think on it, and nothing else, but the consequences that have arisen from the oppression of people in all countries; might say, if it is not unconstitutional, its continuance would be impolitic. In this way, justice to the complaining might be done, and the best of all governments be preserved.

But, suppose the decision of these twenty-four judges, or a majority of them be the other way—that the law is constitutional? How then? The complaining State must submit to what she considers oppression, or trust to consequences, the extent of which would be regulated by the other parties to the compact. In preference to it, she might propose, as a measure of prudence, terms to the other States, on which she would go out of the Union, and, if they thought their own happiness and safety would not be endangered, and believed separation preferable to subjugation by force, they could say to her—"depart in peace." But if, on the contrary, the terms were rejected, and she disclaimed connexion with the Union, it would be revolution, and all engaged in it would be subject to punishment as the nature of the case required, or rather, the laws of the land authorized.

Secession then, is peaceable or not so, at the pleasure— not of the seceding State—but at the will of the parties to the compact. This is my opinion, and I think it was Mr. Madison's in 1799: If not then, it was in 1830, as will be seen by his letter to Mr. Everett, and is at this time. From a letter of the 6th of January, 1833, to Mr. Thomas Jefferson Randolph, (a gentleman to whom I am much indebted for the aid he has given me), I make the following extract: "What is meant by a peaceable secession,' I do not distinctly understand. If it means an acquiescence of the other parties, that might be either a tacit consent, or a forbearance to assert their right, without acknowledging the right of the seceding party."

I have, Mr. Chairman, frequently alluded to the Report of '99, and have said, that I rely on it to support me in the position I have taken against Secession, although gentlemen on the other side of the question take the same document to sustain themselves. In order then, to prevent its being said, it is assertion without proof on my part, I will, if the Senate please, read the following parts of the report. [Here Mr. Aylett said it was late in the day, and if Mr. Rives would give him the floor, he would move an adjournment.] I thank my friend from King William for his kindness, and am under obligations to the Senate for the attention given me; and as it is not my purpose to detain them much longer, I hope to be permitted to conclude to-day.

[He was told to proceed.] Sir, I was about to give you a part of the argument on this famous 3d resolution. In the report, is this language: "This resolution of the General Assembly relates to those great and extraordinary cases, in which all the forms of the Constitution may prove ineffectual against infractions dangerous to the essential rights of the parties to it. The resolution supposes that dangerous powers, not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the judicial department also, may exercise, or sanction dangerous powers, beyond the grant of the Constitution; and, consequently, that the ultimate right of the parties to the Constitution to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority, as well as by another; by the judiciary, as well as by the executive, or the legislature." Again, in another part of the report upon the same resolution: "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 sovereign 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."

Here you see, that one State was looked on as one of the judges, and not, as some contend, omnipotent of itself over all the laws of Congress. In this position of mine, I think I am sustained by Mr. Jefferson in a letter to Major John Cartwright in June 1824. In speaking of our State and Federal Governments, he says: "I do not think their relation is correctly understood by foreigners. They generally suppose the former subordinate to the latter. But this is not the case. They are co-ordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. But you may ask, if the two departments should claim each the same subject of power, where is the common umpire to decide ultimately between them? The answer is, a Convention of the States must be called, to ascribe the doubtful power to that department which they may think best." Sir, I have before me several other letters of Mr. Jefferson, which prove that he did not consider withdrawal from the Union, or separation from the co-States, a peaceful measure; but that it would "cause immediate rupture" between them. I will not read them at this late hour, but he said it as late as 1825.

Sir, I will not detain the Senate longer on this branch of the subject. I dismiss it with a hope that I have proved that it is not a constitutional right; that it was not contended for in '98 and '99, by what was called the republican party; and that Jefferson thought, and Madison concurs in the opinion, that it is peaceable or not, at the will of the parties to the Constitution, instead of any one of the parties to it.

I come now to the consideration of the Proclamation of the President; and in doing so, as I have already gone fully into the theory of the government, I will not detain you to point out the difference between us. You have read what he has said, and you have heard my opinion on the nature of the government. It is said by some who profess to be friends of the President, that it contains doctrines that are not the doctrines of Andrew Jackson: that the old man was imposed on by the writer of the Proclamation.— Now, by whom it was written I know not, and I care not: He is responsible to the nation for it, and he knew very well what it contained. Yes, very well. He would not put his hand to that, or any other paper of high import, without understanding what he was about. Call him dotard;—call him usurper; call him tyrant, delighted at the prospect of spilling blood;—or any thing else that gentlemen please, and my opinion is still unchanged. I believe him to be a patriot. Nay, more; I believe that he will save the Union; and in a few years quiet the South.

Sir, it is a fortunate thing for this country that he is now at the head of the nation, and has such unbounded popularity. In his last annual message he recommended to Congress to do all that Carolina could desire, and it made an impression on this side of the Potomac that his revilers cannot easily remove. If there was not a prospect of relief, and that too not very remote, the whole South might flock to the standard of South Carolina; but as it is, Carolina will be advised to retrace her steps, and not to attempt to prostrate a law, when there is a prospect of its being expunged from the statute-book. Yes, the confidence of the people in Andrew Jackson is of that character, since he recommended to Congress to reduce the revenue "to the wants of the government," that they will cling to the Union instead of flying to Carolina. But if we had a President in whom the people of the South could not discover a disposition to hear their petitions, and to lighten their burthens, the preservation of the Union would be a secondary, instead of what it now is, the primary consideration with them.

Mr. Chairman, much has been said here and elsewhere against the doctrines of the Proclamation: that they lead to consolidation and every thing else that is offensive to Virginia principles. Offensive, did I say? ah! so very abhorrent, that disunion would be preferable to the toleration of them. Sir. I will call your attention to one or two of the expressions that gentlemen are most violent against.

The President said, that "the members of Congress, when chosen, are the representatives of the United States, and not representatives of the particular State from which they come." Now what did he mean? That a member of Congress was one of the representatives of the people of the United States. This is true, or there are no such people as the people of the United States. And I believe that is considered a questionable matter; for, I heard the other day, that a member, not of this House, denied that he was an American citizen, but insisted that he was a Virginian. Yes, General Jackson meant, that although a member was elected by a district, his acts of legislation were not confined to the district sending him, nor to the State in which that district was; but that he was to look to the general good: that whilst he was immediately responsible to a district, and dependent on it for election, his acts reached beyond its boundary, and affected every member of all the communities within the confederacy. And however "they may in practice, as it is their duty to do, consult and prefer the interests of their particular constituents, when they come in conflict with any other partial or local interest," they ought not to require for their constituents what they would not allow to the constituents of other members similarly situated. Sir, there are twenty-four grand divisions of the people of the United States, and each division is entitled to send representation in proportion to its population; and these divisions are subdivided into as many districts, as a division is entitled to members in the Congress of the United States. This was so arranged for reasons heretofore stated, that each district might have a member to make known its wants. The objection to the President's proclamation in this particular, would be a valid objection, if each division or State had its members in Congress voted for by general ticket; for, then a member would have been voted for by the people of a State, instead of by the people of a district therein. Let me simplify:—In the formation of our new State Constitution, in consequence of there being a variety of interests in the State, it was thought necessary, in order that each interest might have its due representation, to have four divisions of the State, and to allot to each a certain number of members. But it does not follow necessarily, because I am located in the tide-water division, and represent a district in that division, that I am a representative of that division, and not one of the representatives of the people of the State of Virginia. Sir, the obligation that I am under to this tide-water division of the State, is of the same nature, and of the same extent, as that which binds a member of Congress to the State within which his district is. I have been sent here to attend to the domestic and internal concerns, not only of the people who sent me here, but of all the people of the Commonwealth. My acts in this body do not apply exclusively to the people, whose pleasure it was that I should have a seat here, but they reach and affect all in the State. A member of Congress is elected to attend to the external and foreign relations of the nation, and the influence of his acts is not circumscribed to the limits of the State from which he goes, but is felt and frequently complained of in other States. Mr. Chairman, it is the duty of a member, whether he be in the State or National Legislature, to refrain from violating the Constitution under which he is acting—to claim nothing for his constituents that he would not, under similar circumstances, allow to other people. By so doing, justice would be done to all, and complaints would not disturb the repose of the nation.

If I am not mistaken in the meaning of the President, and also mistaken in what I believe to be the duty of a representative of the people, we ought not to abuse as we do, members of Congress for their unwillingness to give up an advantage that their immediate constituents have, under any policy, however injuriously it may operate on other portions of the people.

Again:—General Jackson, in his Proclamation, has said, the Government of the United States is the Government of a "Single Nation." This is high-toned federal doctrine, gentlemen say; for, it denies the sovereignty of the States, and is, in effect, pronouncing ours a consolidated Government. Whether the language used by him, will in its literal sense, justify such a conclusion, I will not determine: but I am very sure he did not intend to be so understood; for, he has several times advised Congress not to exercise doubtful powers, and has, since the Proclamation was issued, communicated to Congress the unfortunate difference between the governments, and in that communication speaks in the most intelligible language of the reserved rights of the States. I am bound then to think, that injustice is done him, in ascribing to certain words, meanings that his prior and subsequent acts prove were not intended. I am glad, however, that he was not the first State Rights man of distinction, who uttered that expression in relation to the General Government. Yes, sir, we are a "single nation," unless not only the distinguished federalists are mistaken, but three, if not all of Jackson's predecessors in office were mistaken. Till now, I never heard the people of the United States spoken of, as the nations of the United States; but had supposed we were viewed as the greatest nation on earth. Mr. Chairman, the ingenuity of gentlemen may bewilder for a time, and produce the belief in the minds of the people, who have not looked into the history of our government, that General Jackson has committed a political sin that ought not to be pardoned: But give them time for reason to perform its part, and a different verdict will be the award of their judgment.

Before I go further, let me premise to the committee, that I am about to introduce authority, that more than supports me on this point, I do not subscribe to the whole, but take only so much of it as reaches the point I aim at: All that passes that, I mean the "single nation," is consolidation, which I do not adopt. The authority to which I now allude, is the statement of the deputies of Virginia, who were in the Federal Convention, to the Congress of the United States, in the year 1787: After informing Congress of the difficulties they encountered in making a Constitution; they use this language: "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, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existence." Yes, and it has to it the name of "the first in war, the first in peace, and the first in the hearts of his countrymen," George Washington.

But, knowing as I do, the first President of the United States was never considered as orthodox in politics as Mr. Jefferson, and believing it would moderate the opposition to the present Administration, if it were known that General Jackson got the expression from Mr. Jefferson, I will call your attention to a paper that was drawn by him in 1825. In that year General Gordon, a representative from the county of Albemarle, and now a member of Congress, wished the Legislature again to protest against unconstitutional laws of Congress, and with that view, addressed a request to Mr. Jefferson to prepare it. He (Mr. Jefferson,) did so, and submitted it to Mr. Madison for his examination and revision. It was then forwarded to General Gordon, but was not presented to the Legislature: why, I do not know. [Here Mr. Dromgoole said—“he was advised not to offer it.”] The title of this paper is, "The solemn Declaration and Protest of the Commonwealth of Virginia on the principles of the Constitution of the United States of America." From that protest I make this quotation: "The States entered into a compact (which is called the Constitution of the United States of America) by which they agreed to unite in a single government, as to their relations with each other, and with foreign nations, and as to certain other articles particularly specified." I feel myself justified then, in asserting, that if it be doctrine that is offensive to the Virginia politicians of this day, it is what was tolerated in Washington, Jefferson and Madison in former days; and the question for the people to decide, is, were the old men right, or have the young men discovered, that the old men who made the Constitution knew not what they were about? Sir, if we bring up Mr. Jefferson, or Mr. Madison, in support of our side of the question, we are immediately told, that it is an unfortunate thing for the country, that those old men would not be silent in their retirement; that they became timid, and would not support opinions that they advanced in the vigor of life.— These politicians, I mean the new school, have gone so far as to explode one half of an old adage—“that young people think old people are fools, but old people know young ones to be fools.” Sir, they have lopped off the latter member of the adage, and if that be right, perhaps I am wrong.

There is but one thing more that was uttered by the President in his Proclamation, that I have heard much complaint about. In his appeal to the people of his native State, he said, "Those who told you that you might peaceably prevent the execution of the laws, deceived you;— they could not have been deceived themselves: they know that a forcible opposition could alone prevent the execution of them, and they know that such opposition must be repelled. Their object is disunion. But be not deceived by names; disunion by armed force is treason."

Sir, I will not support the President in saying "their object was disunion," nor will I say that he was wrong: That was his opinion, or he would not have expressed himself in that way. I think their object was, to free the South from unequal taxation; and that they have resorted to desperate means to effect their wishes; means, that I will not support them in; nor will the people of Virginia do it, so long as they have before them cheering prospects of relief in a more pacific manner. Nor will I go with the President in punishing as traitors, the people of a State, acting in obedience to the laws of their State: It may be constitutional, or it may not be; and not having made up a positive opinion, I will not claim the right for the General Government to punish offenders in that way; although I say, they subject themselves to punishment in some way. It is a matter that we need not squabble about; as a conquering nation will always use its discretion, in disposing of the subdued or conquered. But, even in that idea of punishing as traitors, General Jackson is sustained by the opinion of Mr. Jefferson. But before I go any further, I wish to explain to the committee, why I so frequently quote the opinions of Jefferson and Madison, and leave out of view the opinions of Chief Justice Marshall, and other distinguished men in the United States. Sir, it is honestly this: I live among a people who have never looked on such authority as good, "since 1801:" But you are not to understand, that I now differ, or have heretofore differed, from my constituents, in viewing with distrust the opinions of Federalists generally. Mr. Chairman, my constituents have been true to me, and every energy shall be exerted to sustain the good opinion they have of me. Did I say true to me? The expression is not strong enough. They are the best constituents that any man ever had," and I intend that they shall see what I have said already, and the little that is to follow on this subject. Sir, the authority of Jefferson and Madison, they will consider good and satisfactory; and if I were to introduce Hamilton, and Marshall, and Webster, and Otis, they might lose confidence in my judgment. No man ought, who has a proper regard for what little reputation he may have acquired as a politician, to introduce authority that is to do no good, either in the body of which he is a member, or among the people he is representing.

But to return from the digression. Mr. Giles did in 1825, when he was writing against Mr. Adams' administration, address a letter to Mr. Jefferson, to know if he would permit him, (Mr. Giles,) to inform the world, how it happened that Mr. Adams was received into the republican ranks. It was then known to but a few individuals, that during the embargo or non-intercourse, in the latter part of Mr. Jefferson's administration, Mr. Adams communicated to Mr. Jefferson, a secret of the leading federalists in New England, to withdraw from the Union, if the act was not suspended. He thereby obtained the confidence of Mr. Jefferson, which created in the minds of the uninformed friends of the administration, some dissatisfaction. In reply to Mr. Giles, he uses this language, "I doubt whether a single fact known to the world, will carry as clear conviction to it, of the correctness of our knowledge of the treasonable views of the federal party of that day, as disclosed by this, the most nefarious and daring attempt to dissever the Union, of which the Hartford Convention was a subsequent chapter." If these two occurrences to which Mr. Jefferson alluded, were "nefarious" and "treasonable," because their object was to "dissever the Union," does it not follow as a consequence, that he thought the General Government had a constitutional right to punish them as traitors? I leave the answer to the good sense of the committee.

Sir, the President could not well have taken a better ground than he did, for saving the Union, when Carolina had announced to him her rash determination. He reasoned with her;—reminded her of his unwillingness to have her any longer laboring under the burthens she complained of; called her attention to the extinguishment of the national debt;—and expressed a belief, that if the present did not, the New Congress would relieve her—He entreated her to retrace her steps, and warned her of the consequences of an attempt to resist the enforcement of the laws:—told her, that although they were laws he was opposed to the existence of, yet he had sworn to have them "faithfully executed:"—that it was madness in her, under such circumstances, to press on to her own ruin, and put a stain on the best government in the world. Yes, he told her he would do his duty, however painful might be the consequences; that, if force was used in resistance of the laws of Congress, force would be used on the part of the United States: That even if she seceded, he would collect duties; that he acted under the authority of Congress; that it was his duty to collect duties in every port of the United States; and that he would consider S. Carolina a part of the United States, till he was informed by Congress that she was no longer a part.—Sir, the President is right, and will be sustained by the American people.

Here, perhaps, I ought to conclude; but I shall not feel satisfied without taking notice of two or three remarks of the gentleman from Wythe, (Mr. McComas.)

Mr. Chairman, that gentleman said the other day in his very able speech, that he wished "John C. Calhoun was now President of the United States." I must ask that gentleman, with what propriety he could wish it? He says they do not agree on the subject of Nullification; and if he were President instead of General Jackson, we might witness in this country this strange state of things—one State in the Union subject to none of the burthens, and enjoying all the advantages of the Union; the other States bound to defend her against "invasions from abroad," and "domestic violence" within. According to this doctrine, although the gentleman disapproves of nullification, he would not have any means used for its suppression. If the gentleman has spoken frankly on this subject, and I believe he has, he ought not to wish Mr. Calhoun President, for another reason: they differ on the subject of secession. The member from Wythe thinks it a peaceable measure; and Mr. Calhoun thinks with me, that it is, or is not, at the will of the other parties to the compact. In fact, he goes further on the subject than I do. He thinks "that war would be the certain effect of secession." Mr. Calhoun thinks that nullification is a peaceable and constitutional remedy; and that secession is unconstitutional, and that the act itself would be considered cause of war against a seceded State.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Wythe has, as is usual with members in the consideration of all great questions, complained of the conduct of the Richmond Enquirer, on this vitally interesting question. His brother, the member from Cabell, answered him very handsomely in his speech on yesterday; but I hope I shall be excused for saying something in reply to him. Sir, he said "if the Richmond Enquirer had immediately taken a stand against the principles of the Proclamation, and have advocated State Rights, this question would have been settled before now without difficulty: That it had great influence on public opinion, but unfortunately for the country, man worship had taken the place of principle." May I enquire of that gentleman, whether we are to understand from that remark, that he was not operated on by the Enquirer, but that other members were under its influence? [Mr. McComas explained.]

I have been amused at the different charges, not only here, but in the country, against the senior Editor of that paper. Sometimes you hear it said that he has not boldness enough—that he waits to see how public feeling is going, before he comes out to advocate or oppose any great question. At other times he is charged with wishing to dictate to the Legislature; and this, too, by the very same men.

Whilst I agree that it is an able paper, perhaps the ablest in the United States, I will not agree to attach to it the importance that has been attached to it since I have been a member of the Legislature. Gentlemen ought to recollect that editors of newspapers are dependent on the community in which they are, for support; and, therefore, ought not, without due deliberation, to give an opinion. I admit that the Enquirer has considerable influence, and if more than any other newspaper, it is because of the caution of the editors: they are more frequently right than other editors. But I did not expect complaint on this particular subject, from an admirer of the politics of Mr. Calhoun, when the Enquirer had said what it did in 1814, about the members of the Hartford Convention. Sir, the complaint, if any be made, should come from our side of the question; because they have not been consistent in the maintenance of a principle once advocated by them, which we deem more in accordance with our opinions, than the course they have observed of late. The gentleman is illiberal. Does he want all the newspapers to sustain him? Does he think the course he has taken cannot be sustained before the people, unless he can get Mr. Ritchie over to his aid? Sir, there is some cause now, and there would be great cause of complaint, on our part, if he should get any nearer to the support of the gentleman, than he is at this time. That member and those who think with him, ought to recollect that they have in the Richmond Whig an able advocate. Not only have they the Whig, to disseminate what I consider their heresies; but they have the "Jeffersonian and Times," to preach disunion, and to throw firebrands among the people. Yes, this Jeffersonian is doing incalculable mischief to my own district. Through the influence of one of my most intelligent personal friends, (who unfortunately, as I think, for himself, and more so for the people in that section of the State, is a Nullifier,) it has obtained a more extensive circulation in one neighborhood, than any other paper. The consequence is, the most of the subscribers, as there is only one side of the question presented to them, are more inclined to the dissolution, than the perpetuation of the Union. The friend to whom I allude, although in retirement, and has been several years, has it in his power to do more for the advancement of nullification, than any other individual in that whole region of country. He, and much to his credit too, was the first man in Virginia that put forward in sending a remonstrance to Congress, against a continuance of the Tariff of 1816. He then convinced the people that it was an unjust policy, and produced in their minds such a prejudice against the Tariff, that they, (I mean some of them,) are ready to go with him all lengths to put down the present Tariff.

Mr. Chairman, I must conclude. I shall vote against the amendment of the Select Committee, which I look on as the proposition of the gentleman from Norfolk, (Mr. Maxwell,) because it raises the subject of secession. I think it would be unwise in us at this time, if we thought it a constitutional right, to say so; for, we wish to make peace; and to say to South Carolina that she has a peaceable right to secede, would embolden her, and thereby produce the catastrophe that all the lovers of liberty would deprecate. Sir, let us not by any act of ours give encouragement to Carolina. She is wrong, and she must retrace her steps, or the Union will be dissolved.