Newspapers / The North-Carolina Star (Raleigh, … / May 12, 1836, edition 1 / Page 1
Part of The North-Carolina Star (Raleigh, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
DAVID OUTLAW,? EdUors. T1IOS. J.XKMAV, 5 HALBIGH. N. O. THTJItSDAY, EXAY 12,1030 VOL 2Z2LVII NO. 21 - .THOMAS J. LEJIAr, PROPRIETOR AND PCBUSHEB. 8oemt rn three dolUre per an no m one will be ,irioiiT requirtil to put the whole - mount ofth. y.r'. iubwiripiioii la. ifnet. AriiTiitri. not ''; cieen ime,i --iy.Bjre cent 10 ! eooltnuawe. - Ltmu to the Kditor mux be port paid. rtTJ'.ltCH. OF THK HON. J. C. CALIIOTJ1V, Of SOUTH CAROLINA On the Bill I? prohibit Deputy Poatmaateri trm'nebm6wtontg1to . r LVhS inrin of hirh la nrahibitcd br the law of aatil State. Territory or District Senate, March 1 836. I am aware, said Mr. Calhoun, how offensive it is to sneak of oneself but as the Senator from Georgia on . my right (Mr. King.) has thought pro- Iier to impute to me improper motives, feek myse f compelled in. self-de :F;fenVe? to-sfatcthe: TaswMwbkh have governed,;, my course.- Hi :.re&'n&j&ro; " We The Senator is greatly mistaken, in '.. . supposing that I .wa8 jt.veroed .bj, li(a-J t iuiy-LQ wn c ru-. v a c wjayuuuM that from being the fact, that I came here at the commencement of the ses sion with fixed and settled principles on the subject now under discussion, and which in pursuing the course that the Senator condemns, I have but at tempted to cany into eff-ct. As soon ss the subject of abolition began to agitate the Southeast aum mer,Tn sion of incendiary publications through the-matl.-! aawalojj;.ejfr force itself on the notice of Congress at the presen t session and that it involved questions bfgreaTdelTcaey and difficulty, I immediately turned my attention in consequence to the : subject, and after due reflection ar rived at the conclusion, that Congress could exercise no dirert mWer over it, and that if it actrd at. all, the only mode in which iteould act, consistent ly with the Constitutiun and tlw rights and safety of the slavelndding States, would be in the manner proposed by this bill. Ialso - saw that there was no inconsiderable danger in the excit ed state of, the feelings of the South that the power, however dangerous and ' unconstitutional , might .be thoughtlessly yielded to Congress, - knowing lull well - how - apt the weak and timid are, in a state of excitement and alarm, to seek temporary protec tion irr any quarter, regardless of after-consequences, and how ready the arlfjdt Jid 'designing ever are to setae on such occasions to extend ana per petuate their power, - With these impressions I arrived here at the beginning of the session. The President's Message was Dot cal culated to remove my apprehensions. He assumed for Congress direct pow er over the subject, and that on the broadest, most unqualified, and dan gerous' principles. Knowing the in fluence of his name by reason of his great patrUiregFTinitlhe rigid -disrip-- .Jine of party, with a large portion of the country, who nave 'Scarcely any other standard of constitution, politics, and morals. I saw the full extent of -- the danger of having -these dangerous principles reduced to practice, and I .tleterinined. at once to use every ef fort to prevent it. lue Senator from Georiria will. of course,' understand servient portion ot Ins party. o lar from it, 1 have always considered him "as one of the fnost Independent It . has been our fortune to concur in opinion Jn relation to most of the im portant - measures which have been - aiti taicd suite be "became 'asaMtinbc of thia bodv. twe- vears a, at 3 the com,,r menr.-ment of the session, duririe which the deposite question was agi-j tated. On that important question haf imDorfanrauestian, if I mistake not, the Senator and myself concurred in opinion, at least as to its inexpediency, and the dangerous con sequences to which it would probably lead. If mj memory serves me, we also agreed in opinion on the" connect ed subject of the currency, which was then incidentally discussed. We agreed too, on the question of raising the "value f gold to its present stan- -a . . . .. ! r uard, ana in opposition to tne uiu lor the distribution of the proceeds of pub- kaifta advance. HttOiermcrt in intr awe$ uons, wnicn l regret, as 1 K.USl coniiiu Moti.ll.tremiiinreiMlonrw j g-tio,, pa the principle on thuao'ieraar.Sl prtonniHtetwnoot thill , , ,. --v. T r r s..r-i--jilir.th,..uii.rib.. which tbey were received, as a aur- lie land, introduced by the Senator deny that Congress can , enforce the from Kentucky (Mr. Clay. In re- circulation against the law of the State, curringto the events of that interest- , I must tell him he would place hint ing session, . I can remember but one. self in the neighborhootkof nullifica imnortant subiect on which we die- tion. He would in fact eo beyond. agreed, and that waa the President's protest . Passine to the next, I find the same concurrence of opinion on most of the important subjects of the session. We agreed on the question ot Executive patronage, on the pro priety of amending the Constitution for a temporary -distribution of the surplus revenue, on : the subject of gress jurisdiction over the liberty f regulating the deposites, and in sup- .the press. '" The framers of the Con port of the Bill for restricting the pow- jstitution for i rather those jealsus pa- er oi ' tne executive in manine re- movats from office. 'We also agreed in th propriety of establishing branch mints in the ' South and Westa sub- ject not a little contested at the time, Even at the present session we have not been to unfortunate as to. disagree entirely. We have, it is true, on the question of receiving abolition peti- , render of the whole ground to the Abolitionists, at far as this Govern- ment jg concerned. . It is also true. .1 that we: disagreed in part in reference I to the present subject. The senator sdWideditt.utUtimtiUbtween myself and General Jackson. He has igeiriiihripeeth in seppit f his Message, and announced his intcn- tj,,n 0f -ivi0g his vote in favor of my j cerainy have 0 ri ht fo pl f this division. Ihai r er have his vote than his speech. The one will stand forever on th. records of the Senate (unlet expunged) in favor of the Bill, and the important principles on which it-rests, while the other is destined, at no distant day, to oblivion. I .now nut to the Senator from Geor gia, two snort .questions. - In the nu been either right or wrong. . If right, how rould he be so uncharitable as to attrihixte my coarse to llie low and u ii- .woxxny.inouve..,ounveieraie-4usutuyfumcijeparune to uen. jacKsonr uut it wrons. in what condition does his charge against me place himself, who has concurred with me in all these measures? f Here Mr. King disclaimed the imputation of improper motives to Mr. C.) I am glad to hear the gentleman's disclaim er, said Mr. C. but I certainly under stood him as asserting, that such was my hbslilTty lo GeK support ot a measure was sutncient to inaare mj opposition j and this he un. derook4bilfu"tfaifr borrowed from O'Connell and the pig, whicn T musfiell tne Serialbf was much better suited to the Irish mob to which it was originally addressed, than to t"'.'' of jheSenate, where he has repeated ifT But to return from this long digres sion. I saw, as I have remarked, that there was reason to-apprehend that ; the prtncipleCeinbraced in" the Message might be reduced to pracliceprinci ples which I believed to be dangerous to the South, - and - anbversive of the liberty of the press. The report fully states what those principles are, but it may not be useless to refer to them briefljron the present ocr.aion. . The Message assumed for Congress the right of determining what publica tions are incendiary and calculated to excite the slaves to insurrection, and to prohibit the transmission of such publications through the mail; and ot course it also assumes the right of de ciding what are not incendiary, and of enforcing the transmission of such through the mail. But the Senator from Georgia . denies this inference, and treats it as a monstrous absurdity. I had (said Mr. C.) considered it so nearly intuitive, that I had not sup posed it necessary in the Report to add any thing in illustration of its truth; but as it has been contested by the Senator, I wili add in illustration single remark. nThe Senator wilt not deny that the right'-of ileterminingwbat papers are incendiary and of preventing their circulation, implies that Congress has jurisdiction over the subject! that is, l-of discnminatins as to what papers ought or ought not to be transmitted by the "m'Ait".Norwilr tie deny that Contrress has a right, when acting to enforce fife execufioh'oriFs arts and yet the admission of these unques tionable truths admits the conse quence asserted by the Report, and so sneered at by the Senator. But lest he should controvert so plain, a deduc turn, ta cut the i matter shortI, shall propound a plain question tb liimV He 'believes that Congress has the right, to say what papers are incen- idiary, and to prohibit their Circulation. Now, I ask hi in if he does not also believe that it has the right to enforce the circulation of such as it may de termine not to be incendiary, even against a law of Georgia that might prohibit their circulation? If the Senator should answer in the affirma tive, I then would prove by his ad mission the truth of the inference for which I contend, and which he has pronounced to be so absurd: but if he should answer, in the negative, and The denial would assume, the right of nullifying what the Senator , himself must, with his views, consider a con- stitutional act, when nullification only .assumes the right of a State to nullify an unconstitutional act. ; But the principle of the Message goes still tartner. - it assumes for Con u who remwu in consent to ns .adoption without amendments to guard against the abuse of power) have by the first amended article, provided that Congress shall pass no law abridg- ing the liberty of the press wfth the view of placing the press beyond the control oi congressional legislation. But . this cautious ' foresight would prove in vain, if we should concede to Congress the power which the Presi- ueni assumes oi discriminating in re ference to character, what publications shall, br shall not be transmitted by the mail. It would place in the hands of the General Government an instru ment more potent to control the free- doin M lhpre thAO,I;tJ(e Sedition Law itself, as is fully established In lhus regarding the Message, the Suestion which presented itself on its rst perusal was how to prevent powers so dan genius and unconstitutional from being carried into practice? To per mit the portion of the Message relating to ihe subject under consideration to take its regular course, and be referred to the Committee on post offices and post roads, would. I saw, ba the most certain way to defeat what I had in view. I could not doubt, from the composition of the cammittee.Ahat the ' Ueport would coincide witk the 'Mes with all that tact, ingenuity, and ad dress, for which the Chairman of the Committee and the head of the Post rc i ' ' . v" -t" tinsuished. Wiltf this impression, I could not but apprehend that the authority of the President, backed by such a Report, would go far to rivet in the public mind the dangerous princi ples which it was my design to defeat, and which could only be enecteu Dy referring the portion of the Message in question to a select committee, by investigated, and the result presented in a report. With this yiew.lT moved the Committee, and tlie -Bilf and Re port which the Senator has attacked so violentlyraretherestilt-' These are the reasons which govern ed me in the course I took, and not the base and unworthy motive of hostility to General3ackson. I appeal with confidence to my life to prove, that neither hostility nor attachment to any man or any party, can influence me in the discharge of my public duties hut were I capable being-influenced b such motives, I must tell the Senator from Georgia, that I have too little re gard for the opinion of General Jack son, and, were it not for his high sta tion, I would add his character too, to permit his course to influence me in the slightest degree, either for or a gainst any measure. Having now assigned the motiVes which governed me, it is with satisfac tion I add that I have a fair prospect of success. So entirely are the princi ples of the Message abandoned, that not a friend of the President has ven tured, and I hazard nothing in saying will venture, to assert them practically, whatever they may venture to do in argument They well know now that since the subject has been investigated, that a bill to carry into effect therrecoin mendation of the message would re ceive no support even from the ranks of the Administration, devoted aa they are to their chieftain. . . . - Tha Senator from Georgia made other" objections to the Report beside those, whjchj have thus incidentally nouceii, to wnicn x oo not ueem it ne cessary to reply. I am content with his vote, and cheerfully leave the Re port and his speech to abide their fate, with a bnet notice of a single objection. The Senator -charges me -with what he considers a strange and unaccounta ble ntradktiofl H says1 that the freedomoftherressT-andthtrnrighttjf petition, are both secured by the same article of the Constitution, and both stand-on the 'same principle and yet I who decidedly opposed the receiving of Abolition petitions, now as decided ly support the. liberty of thepress. To ihakWfthf'ioinlrcifoi mM aik sumes that the Constitution places the nghlof petitionerato have their-peu-4 tions received, and the liberty of the press on the same ground. 1 do not deem it necessary to show that in this he is entirely mistaken, and that my course on both occasions is perfectly consistent. I take the Senator at his word and put to him a question for hit decision. If, in opposing the receiv ing of the Abolition petitions, and ad vocating the freedom of the press, I have involved myself in a palpable contradiction, how can he escape a similar charge, when his course was the reverse o? mine on both occasions? Does he not see that if mine be contra dictory, as he supposes, his too must necessarily - be so? But the Senator forgfets his own argument, of which I must remind him,, in order to relieve him from the awkard dilemma in which he has placed himself in his eagerness to fix on me the charge of contradic tion. He seems not to recollect that in his speech on receiving the Aboli tion petitions, that he was compelled to abandon - the Constitution -and to place the right not on that instrument, as he would now have us believe, but expressly on the ground that the right existed anterior to the Constitution, and that we must look for its limits, not to the Constitution, but to the Magna .Charts and the Declaration of Rights. ' -,7 ' ' ' Havinar now concluded What I in tended to say in reply to the Senator from Georgia, I now turn to the ob jections of the Senator from Massa chusetts (hir. Davis,) which were di rected, not against the Keport, but the billiMctfrThe SenirorttfnfSnedtis objections to the principles of the bill which he pronounces dangerous and unconstitutional. It is my wish to meet hia objections fully, fairly, and directly. '-'For this purpose,' it will be necessary to have an accurate and cteireonpt ffiftJr'LUitO to estimate correctly the force either of the objections or the reply. I am thus constrained to re-state what the prin ciples are, at the hazard of being con sidered fcomewhat tedious. The first and leading principle is, that the subiect of slavery is under the sole and exclusive control of the States where the institution exists. . It be longs to them to determine what may endanger ita existence, and when and how it may be defended. In the ex ercise ot.tbiartght, -Hey may prohibit; the introiicton orircuUt'wn of any paper or pubiicatiou '.wiiriyiiiTnay come as emissaries, or-1 their opinion, disturb or endanger the institution.. Thus far all are agreed, ' To this extent no one has questioned) thfgftt senator from - Massachusetts in his numerous objections to'the bill. I the next and remaining principle ot the bill is intimately connected with the preceding and, in fact, springs di-' ii ' . V 1 .1. .1 ! recur irom it. it assumes idh u is luuesi extent, it was intenueu to the duty of the General Government,1 sustain the laws of the States against in the exercise of its delegated rights, the introduction of free people of color to respect the laws which the slave-from the West India Islands. The holding States-may pasr tn-protec.tii)n'"Senatorfront Maasachnsetts,inhii of its institutions or, to express it dif- remarks upon this precedent, supposes ferently, it is its duty to pass such laws the la w to have been passed under the aa mav.be.nece.S38ry Ito make it obli-1 power given to Congress by the Con- gafory on its officers and agents to ab- stain -from violating the laws of the. States, and to. co-operate, as far as it may consistently b done, in their ex- ecution. It is against this principle that the objections of the : Senator fronr Massachusetts have been directed, and to which I now proceed to reply. t His first objection is, that tne prin-' ciple lsJhew h "vhichI understand slaves of StDomingo,and threxpul him to mean, that it never has hereto- sion of the French power, the Govern fore been acted on by the government, ment of the other French West India The objection presents two questions; is it true, in point of tact and if so, what weight or force properly belongs to it? If I am nbt greatly mistaken, it will be found wanting in both particu- tars and that so far from being new, it has been frequently acted onj and that if it were new, the fact would have little or no force, If our government had been in op- eration for centuries, and had been ex-; posed to the various changes and trials to which political institutions, in a long protracted existence, are exposed in the vicis-itudes of events, the oh- jection under such circumstances that a principle naa never oeen actea up- j ' , i . s on, u not decisive, wouia oe exceea- ingly strong but when made in reler- ence to our government, which has been in operation for less than half a century, and which is so complex and novel in its structure, if is 'very'leeble.econd'iection' prohibits the entry of we ait Know that new principles are daily developing themselves under our system, with the changing condition of the country,, -and doubtless . will - long .mili'mi. 4 .In it,, mlm m wl , vuuiiuuv bu w uv, in me iitw uu ii j ing scenes through which we are ties- tineu to pass, -it may-1- aamit, ne good reason even with us for caution for thorough and careful investigation, if a principle proposed to be acted up- tia.be.pje.wi,for:I jpayeJon a La i : -..t--A I--. wugnt-oy-expexieiu:e-anaii&-niuExerJiLiiOL untried it to be received with cautionthose States to pass such, laws as they in politics, however plausible. But to mayMeem necessary to protect them- so farther in this early atage of our po-j ourselves o( means that might be indis pensable to meet future dangers and tUlficUiea.g But I take higher grounds in reply tohe-objection. I deny"itt-truth in point of fact, and assert, that the prin ciple is not new. The Report refers to two instances in which it has been acted on, and to which for the present I shall connne myself one in refer ence to the quarantine lawa of the States, and the other more directly connected with the subject of this bill. I propose to make a few remarks in reference to both, beginning with the former, with the view of showing that the principle in Twth cases is strictly analogous, or rather identical with the present. The health of the State, like that of the subject of Slavery, belongs exclu sively to the States. It is a reserved and not delegated and of course, each State haa a " right to judge i tor itseit, what may endanger, the health of its citizens, what measures are necessary to prevent it, and when and how such measures are to be carried into effect Among the causes which may endan ger the health of a State, if the intro auction of nfectiousr-er -contagious j diseases through the medium 'of com merce. 1 He vessels returning with a rich cargo, in exchange for the pro- puctt oi a state, may also come freight ed with the seeds of disease and death.' To guard against this danger, the Statet at a very earlv period, a Idopted quarantine, or health laws. These laws' it is obvious, mustneces sanly interfere with the power of Con gress to regulate commerce a power as expressly given as mat to regulate tne mail, and, as far as the present question it concerned, every way an- aiogoudj ana acting accottiingTyioti'th Eriuciplesof this bill. Congress, as far ack as the year '96, passed an act making it the duty of its civil and mil itary officers to abstain from the viola tion of the health laws of the States, and to co-operate in their execution. Tkia.act'was mtMUuedAmlrepeale tlby that of '!, which- ha since remained uncnangeu on tne statute dook. But the other preeddeht referred to in the Keport, is still more direct and important That case, like the pre sent, involved the right1 ot the slave- holding States to adopt such measures aa they may think proper, to prevent their domestic institutions from being disturbed, or endangered. . They may be. endangered, not only by introduc ing and circulating Inflammatory pub lications, calculated to excite insurrec tion, but also by the Introduction of ions and ' sentiments, hostile to ' the peace and security of those States. The right of a State to pass laws to not more clear than the right to pass those which may be necessary to guard against this danger, ihe act ot 1B03, to which the Keport refers, as a pre- cedent, recognizes this right to the A. A . I I . A - stitutton to suppress IHe siavelfatTe."' I have turned to the journals in..order to ascertain the facts, and find that the senator is entirely mistaken. The law was passed -on a memorial of the citizens of Wilmington, ; North Cro linaf - and originated ia the following facts: ' ' , After the successful rebellion of the islands, in order ..to guard against the danger from the example ot St Domin- go, adopted rigid measures to expel and send out their free blacks. In 1803, a, brig, having five persona of that description who were driven from Guadeloupe, arrived at Wilmington, The alarm which this caused gave Virth jto the meiuorial, and the memorial to the act. - I learn from the journals, that the aubject was fully investigated and dis cussed in both Houses, and that it passed by a very large majority. The first section of the bill prevents the introduction of anr negro, mulatto, or mustee, into any state oy tne lawa oi . -ii . t t- wnicn tney are prevented irom oeing introduced, except persons of the lic acription Irom beyond the Cape of Good Hope, or registered sea-men, or natives of the United States. The vessels having such persons on board, and subjects the vessels to seizure and forfeiture for landing, or attempting to land, them contrary to the lawa of the O . I . I ' . 1 ' f . - , A . . . duicij biiu mo iiutu anu last section makes it the duty of the officers ot the uenerai uovernment . to - co-operate ith the States in the execution of their laws-against -their introduction. I conaiderthis precedent to be one of vast A A . At - " I A -r selves against the slave population, and the duty of the General Government to respect those laws, but also the Very important right, that the Statet have the authority to exclude the introduce tion of liftti pfsbns amay"bieihnger- ous to their institutions a principle of great extent and importance, and ap plicable to other states as well , as slaveholding, and to other persons as well as blacks, and , which may here after occupy a prominent place in the history of our legislation. ! , ; Having now, I trust, fully and suc cessfully replied to the first objection of the senator from Massachusetts, by showing that it it not true, in fact, and if it were, that it would have had little or no force, I shall now proceed to re ply to the second objection, which as sutnes that the principles for which 1 contend, would, if admitted, transfer the power over the mail from the Gen eral Government to the States. If the objection be well founded, it must prove fatal to the Bill. The power over the mail . is, beyond an doubt, a delegated power and what- ever would divest the. Government of this power, and transfer it to the States, would certainly be a violation of the Constitution.- But would the princi- ?le if acted on, transfer the power? f admitted to it full extent, its only effect would be to make it the duty of Congress, in the exercise ot its power over the mail, to abstain from violating the laws of the States in protection of their slave property, and to co-operate where it could with propriety, in their execution, its utmost cRect would then be a modification and not a trans fer, or destruction of the power; and surely the Senator., will not contend that to modify a right, amounts either to its transfer, or annihilation. He cannot forget that all rights are sub. iectrto modifications, and all, from the lighest to the lowest, ate held under one universal condition that their possessors should so use them as not to injure others. Nor can he contend that the power, of the General Govern ment over the mail is without modffi- mits that it is subject to a very imnor plant modification, when he concedes" that the Government cannot discrimi nate in reference to the character of the publications to be transmitted by the mail, without violating the first a mended article of the Constitution. which prohibits Congress from parsing ' laws abrids'in? the liberty of the nresa. Other modifications of the right might be shown to exist, not less clear nor of much tess'importance. It might be easily shown, for instance, that the power over" the thaTI i limited to the"" tcantmission '. MeWflfeiii and that Congress cannot consistently 'with the' ', nature and the object :'of the power, ex- tend it to the ordinary objects of transportation, without i manifest vio lation of, the Constitution, and the as-' sunVptibn bf "a p give the goverhment control over the general transportation or the country both by land and water. But if it be subjected to these modifications, with out either annihilating or transferring the power, why should the modifica tion for which I contend, and which I shall show, hereafter to rest opon u'n- ; Suestionable principles, have such eff ect? That it would not in fact, might-be ahown - ifother. proof wer. necessary, by a reference to the prac ticaroper tiotrof "the-Trincipie ht tha two instances already referred to. -In : both, the principle which I contend "" for in relation to the mail, bat long been in operation In reference to com merce without the tronster of the power of Congress . to regulate com merce to the States, which the Sena- tor contends would be its effect if ap- 1 plied tonhemall.-6"tarbtherwise 410 . little has it affected the power of Congress to regulate the commerce of the country, that fevu persons, com-1. paratively, are aware that the princi- Eie has been recognized and acted on y the general government; 1 come next (said Mr. Calhoun; to -what the Senator seemed to rely upon at hit main objection. He stated that the principles asserted in the Report were contradicted by the bill, and that " the latter undertakes to do indirectly ' what the former asserts that the gen eral government cannot do at all. ' Admit said Mr. Calhoun) the ob jection to be true in fact, and what ' does it prove, but that the author ot the Report is a bad logician, and that there is error tome where, but without prov ing that it is in the bill, and tlt it ought therefore to be rejected, as the ' senator contends. If there be error, it may be in the report instead of the bill, and till the Senator can ' fix it on the latter, he cahribF avail himself of the objection. But tfoes the contra dition which he alleges exist? Let . us turn to ; the principles asserted in the Report, and compare them with those of the bill in-order to Uetermine this point. ' -What then are the principles--which : the report maintains! It asserts that Congress has. no riht to determine what papers are incentliMrvTaiid cal." culated - to eteitt iHtuiTec4itHv and as suchlorohibitlJjekiircHlJ8liunr.but A I A -A. a. 1 - . on the contrary, that it belongs to the oiaica iu ueterinine on me character and tendency of tuch publications, and . to adopt such measures as they may think proper to, prevent their, intro- . ' duction or circulation. V Does the bill deny any of these principles? - Does ; U:Aor:ain tlie'a i'kltl 7j'It fr.vot . -': drawn up on the-tunpusitjon.thatthel general government have none of the .' powers denied by the Report, and that . the States possess 'nil for which it con. , ; tends? ' How then can it be said that V the bill contradicts the Report? ' But ' ' - the difficulty, it teems, Is, that the general government would do through the States ' under the proviidons of the bill, what the Report denies that it can do directly and this, according to the Senator from Georgia, it so mani fest and palpable a contradiction, that he can find no explanation for my con duct, but an inveterate" hostility to General Jackson, which he is pleased to attribute to me. ; I have, I trust, successfully repclU ed already the imputation, and it now remains to show that the gross and pal patio errors, . which the Senator per ceives, exist only in his own imagina tion, and that instead of the cause ho supposes, it onginatea on his part, in a dangerous and fundamental miscon ception of the nature of our political system particularly of the r relation between tne states ana. uenwoi uov ernment. W( re the S'stes the agents of the General Government, as the ob jection clearly presupposes, then what he says would be true, and the Govern ment 'in recognising tne law oi the States Would adopt a the acts of its agents. But the fact it far otherwise. .... .. .t.. . : ...-. X
The North-Carolina Star (Raleigh, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
May 12, 1836, edition 1
1
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75