t'OR THE FREE PRESS.
To the Editor of the Globe.
Mr. Blaik: A Subscriber lo the Globe
wishes to make a few remarks in relation
to a subject on which you have touched,
more than nee during the past summer.
I allude to certain bills of last session of
Congress making appropriations for In-
lernat improvements, winch bills were
sometimes denominated Harbour bills.
You seem to think that these bills differ
as to principle. 1 suppose you mean
constitutional principle. In this respect
I can see no difference. A little exami
nation would show that thev stand on the
same footing, and have no claim to con
stitutionality. The only difference per
ceptible, is one of expediency or inexpe
diency, as to finishing works previously
commenced, and commencing and prose
cuting newones. If it is not constitutional
to make works of the kind, it can not be
constitutional either to commence or fin
ish them. The mere acts of Congress
designating objects of this kind, and ap
propriating money, can not give them
constitutionality in other words, if Con
gress had not previously the constitution
al right to make the improvements, these
jxcts of legislation would not give consti
tutional authority. Congress is itself the
creature of the Constitution. Its acts
are rules for carrying constitutional
grants of power into practical execution
not for granting or assuming new pow
ers. They are subordinate, and not
transcendant to that fundamental law (the
Constitution,) with which they must co
incide or be void. The whole claim of
making internal improvements within the
territorial limits of a State, in placcs,xhe
jurisdiction over which has' not been ce
ded, is a direct assumption of ungranted
power, in violation of the Constitution
and the sovereign authority of the peo
ple. Jurisdiction in its full and literal
sense, means the power to say what the
law is or shall be. The right of soil or
territory, with the right of jurisdiction,
constitute essentially the sovereignty of a
State or nation. Sovereignty according
to the principles of political law, is the
highest power of government in a State
or nation. Agreeably to the political in
stitutions of our country, this power re
sides in the people. They have never
alienated or transferred this power.
They have only delegated to their politi
cal agents powers to be exercised for
their own benefit powers which the peo
ple can at will modify or resume. The
two bills to which I have alluded, consist
mainly of the same kind of items ap
propriations for improving or making im
provements upon certain portions of the
public highways, within the jurisdictional
limits of different States. These places
io oe improved by Uongrcss are all of ne
ry, without the cession of political or go
vernmental power, it would be idle to
talk of the sovereignty of the States for
the reason already stated, that the right
of soil and jurisdiction constitute sove
reignty. It is in vain to attempt an es
cape from the difficulty by drawing a dis
tinction between the legislative power to
make appropriations for these purposes,
and the exercise of any other jurisdiction.
An act of appropriation is an act of legis
lation to appropriate money, therefore,
to make these local improvements, is one
of the most efficient modes of exercising
legislative jurisdiction over them. It is
neither more nor less, than legislating for
the territorial localities within the States,
without warrant from the authority by
which all the action of Congress should
be regulated.
In making appropriations of this kind,
is not Congress legislating for local pur
poses within the State, the right to do so
never having been obtained? Is not this
local legislation? Legislation for mere
places'! What makes them national any
more than any other parts of the State,
not granted lo the federal government
for federal purposes? Is it the assump
tion of the legislative action of making
appropriations? To legislate thus far is
in principle as much to legislate for these
localities as any other act could be. Is it
this and the use of public money that
makes these places national and there
fore constitutional? Is not such an idea
absurd in the extreme? Such a claim
carried into effect would be legislating
the Constitution out of countenance as
well as out of use. If any objects of a
circumscribed character arc entitled to
the term national, they are such only as
have been constitutionally appropriated
to federal or general purposes, under the
management of the federal government.
Can any one tell what he means when he
savs. that some narticular nnrtion nf a
j i i -
public highway within a State, (no part
of which has been ceded for general pur
poses,) is national while other parts of
the same are not national: Will he tell
me, what gage or rule of discrimination
he has to find where nationality begins
or ceases? It is an idle fantasy of the
brain a term indefinite and indistinct.
What! national locality! Why not uni
versal locality, or local universality par
ticular generality, or general particulari
ty? The terms are equally consonant to
sound sense and the meaning of our ver
nacular language. Would any one un
dertake to say, that because some of the
works had been commenced and money
spent on them, that they were therefore
national and constitutional? W7ould not
this be of a piece with the very strange
doctrine, that the placing custom houses
and describing collection districts could
give jurisdiction over local subjects with
in these districts, without sessions of ter
ritory and jurisdiction as in other cases?
Is it not apparent that such a doctrine as
ccss.ly mere mailers of locality in the sun.es that an act of Congress is para
legal sense of the term, parts of tlm mrri
torv of sovnrp.irrn Sfntoo 1,
4 b uuuus, rivers,
bays,&c. within the limits of a State, are
poruqpsot its territory, subject to pre
cisely the same jurisdiction which any
other parts are, that have not beed ceded
lor specified purposes. Congress has no
jurisdiction over the soil or territory ex
cept where it has been ceded, as in cases
of forts, dockyards, the District of Co
lumbia, &c. for public or federal purpo
ses. IS'o State could be sovereign
which had not the right exclusively to le
gislate over all il if! fnrritnrv wirliin its
limits, with the exception of such nortions
as may have been constitutionally ceded
to the authority of another. I f Congress
had the command or rinht of soil and ter
ritory, as well as the right of jurisdiction
over the whole territory of the States, as
in the cases of forts, dockyards, &c. it
would have been wholly useless to pro
vide for cessions of territory and juris-
ncuon lor those purposes. 1 he very
fact that these subjects have thus been
provided for in the Constitution, is suffi
cient of itself to prove that no pretension
was made to the extension of federal ju
risdiction to the territorial localities Gen
erally within the States. If Confess
has the right to act upon territory within
a State, that is, to legislate upon localities
or particular places or parts of her tcrrito-
mount to the Constitution? If Congress
can confer constitutionality where it does
not exist, it can alter, or amend, or
change the Constitution and may by the
same rule abolish it, with as much pro
priety as it may improve, amend, alter or
boiisn me puonc nignways within a
fctate, over which it has never obtained
jurisdiction. It either has the whole of ment. But in my opinion, the very es-
tli'w nnivfir nr nnnr nf it. It nn twit -. f . .
which all would hail as but the commence
ment of a political millennium. !
Nullification in "Georgia. The Legislature
of Georgia convened on the 5th inst. The fol
lowing day Gov. Lumpkin made his communi
cation to the Legislature which commences
with reprobating federal usurpation, and ends
with condemning nullification. The Governor
charges the Supreme Court with an attempt to
overthrow the essential jurisdiction of the State
in criminal cases; but that the people, as the
voice of one man, have manifested a determined
resolution to sustain the State authorities. As
regards nullification, he remarks:
"No State can act efficiently in sustain
ing her just rights against a mighty pow
er, unless her own population are united
in the policy to be pursued. 1 cannot
consider it advisable, for a single Slate,
upon her separate action, to undertake to
force a redress of grievances from the
Federal Government, while her sister
States, equally interested, are not even
consulted as to the policy to be pursued.
Principles of common courtesy must
concede to the members of the same con
federacy or copartnership, a right to par
ticipate in all councils, where the subject
under consideration, and the policy lo be
adopted, are equally interesting to each
member. Whenever a case, however,
shall arise, wherein a single State shall
be oppressed by the usurpations of Fed-
oral power, and that pressure shall be
confined to her local interest alone, and
consequently produce no identity of feel
ing, and interest in the other Stales; then
I would consider it the incumbent duty
of the aggrieved State to judge and act
for herself, independently of the advice
and opinions at others. It is due to the
sovereign character of every State of the
Union, to maintain its territorial rights
ind policy over its own population.
These are rights which can never be sur
rendered, by a free State, or submitted
to the arbitration of others. But upon
the subject of the Tariff, shall Georgia
undertake to redress the wrongs of the
whole South'! Shall we not hearken to
the voice and movements of our sister
States, who agree with us in principle and
feeling? Or shall we precipitately rush
forward upon a novel and untried theory,
which may disgust our sister States, end
in abortion, and prove to be worse than
submission itself I I he Slates which
agree in principle, must be brought to act
in concert, betore they can reasonably
hope lo produce the consummation desi
red by the opponents of the protective
system as well as every true patriot and
friend of the Federal Union. Separate
action upon this subject is calculated to
engender strife and disunion, anarchy and
confusion, among brethren of the same
principles.
"The mystical doctrine of Nullifica
tion, as contended for by its advocates,
has only tended to bewilder the minds of
the people, inllanie their passions, and
prepare thein for anarchy and revolution.
Wherever it spreads, it engenders the
most bitter strifes and animosities, and
dissolves the most endearing relations of
lite. 1 believe Nullification to be un
sound, dangerous and delusive, in prac
tice as well as in theory.
"Its advocates have, with great ability,
endeavored to make their theory harmo
nize with the principles and operations
or reclerai and fctate systems of govern-
Federal Government to retract from its
measures of usurpation. JMr. Jeffersoft
would have called such a measure, on the
part of a State, by Us plain proper name;
resistance to intolerable usurpation."
John Randolph. The Editors of the New
York Evening Post have published the follow,
ing letter lo them from Mr. Randolph, dated
Roanoke, 22d Oct.
"Gentlemen: The account given in
vour last country paper (Oct. 15.) of th0
f i i-i i-
state ot my neaitn, contains almost the
only words of truth that 1 have seen up.
on a subject with which the newspapers
have been so busy since my return from
Europe.
"You would not have been troubled
with this letter, if so frivolous a matter
had been its object. I wished to apprize
you that certain opposition journals, in
their rage against Gen. Jackson are en
deavoring to wound him through mv
sides by alternately representing rue as
reduced to the last stage of imbecility of
mind, as well as of body or as feigning
illness to cover dereliction of duty. It
matters not to these worthy and consci
entious gentlemen, with which horn of the.
dilemma we are gored. Indeed, to gain
belief for one half of their falsehoods is
with them a thriving state of trade, far
exceeding their average profit. Among
these persons no one has been more ac
tive, and none half so virulent as the edi
tor of the 'American.' This gentleman's
political rancour is whetted by personal
ill will towards me, the history and cau
ses you shall have amply explained as
soon as I can obtain an amanuensis; for
I am unable to write, except a very few
lines, and those with unutterable pain."
Resignation of 'iVr. Tazewell. We
learn from unquestionable authority, that
Gov. Floyd has received a letter from
Littleton Waller Tazewell, Esq. resign
ing his seat in the Senate of the United
States. He leaves no superior in talents
behind him. Richmond Enq.
Murder. A coroner's inquest was
held on Saturday last, in this county, over
the body of a man named Email Pilant.
The verdict of the jury was, that said Pi
lant "came to his death by acts of violence
lntlictcd on him by some unknown person,
at the house of Giles Driver, on the 8th
day of November, 1832." Suspicion rests
upon an individual who has since absent
ed himself. Windsor Herald.
this power or none of it. It can not
rightfully alter the Constitution. As to
the expediency or propriety of this sys
tem, past experience has taught us a les
son not to be misunderstood, one which
should not be forgotten. It has shown
us the utter impracticability of equitable
distribution of the favors of government.
It has given us a commentary upon this
system of iniquity, which none but the
wilfully blind and dull cau fail to see and
understand. Witness Mahon's ditch,
various creeks, rivulets, &c. not neces
sary to enumerate. In short, it is the
duty of every real friend to the people
and to our republican institutions, lobring
down the misnamed American System,
by reducing the taxes to the wants of the'
government, and more readily to effect
this, refusing all unnecessary appropria
tions of the public money. This beinr
accomplished, our divisions would be
healed, we should be united as a band of
brothers celebrating a political jubilee,
ssncc of their doctrine tends directly to
aesiroy an narmony between the Federal
and State governments, and must inevi
tably produce the most direct and vexa
tious conflicts, whenever it mav bn at
tempted by a State to enforce the theory
ui iumiiuuiion. i am unable to compre
hend, or conceive of the peaceable con
stitutional harmony, which would attend
a measure emanating from one twenty
fourth part of the sovereign power of the
Union; which measure should stop the
revenue ODeratinna nf tU rr.
t v. mucin,
vjreat ingenuity has Upp
blend this new theory with the admirable
pnuupies ana doctrines of State Rights
as sqt forth and successful tv nAv.l
by 1 nomas Jefferson. But after the
mubi umgent research, I have not been
auie lo nna wnere Mr. JefTerson ever at
templed to delude the people into the be
lief, that when reason fnilnd nA a..
ranee became into erablp. n Rini
could by its acts of nullification, force the
Sudden Death. Mr. John S. Larkin.
Cashier of ihe Boston Commercial Bank,
while standing at his desk on the 1st
inst. about half past one o'clock, fell, and
instantly expired. His death is suppo
sed to nave been occasioned by a disease
of the heart.
Boston Gaz.
Tripoli. -The Washington Globe fur
nishes intelligence, probably from the
State Department, under date of July
24th, of difficulties between the British
and Tripolitan governments. We state
the substance. The breach between the
Regency of Tripoli and the British, ori
ginated in ihe refusal of the former to
pay certain claims of the British Consul,
amounting to Si 80,000 113,000 had
been offered and refused. A squadron
of British vessels, consisting of two fri
gates and a sloop of war, were before
the place; the British flag had been
struck, and the Consul was only prevent
ed from embarking by the illness of a
daughter. On the 27th, in consequence
of an attempt to levy contributions by the
Bashaw, an insurrection took place.
Youmahed, son of a deceased son of the
reigning prince (Sidi Jusseff) was pro
claimed Bashaw. A battle took place,
without any decisive result, after which
ihe Bashaw abdicated in favor of his
son Sidi Ali, and at the last dates, the
contention was carried on between Sidi
Eli and his nephew, Youhamed, who was
outside ihe town with a large force, about
to make an assault. The British Consul
General had embarked his family on
board a brig in the harbor, and had po
litely furnished an asylum on board, for
the family of the American Consul, Mr
McCauley. It is not stated whether our
Consul had himself embarked.
Baltimore A?ner