Whole Xo. 439.
Tarboroiigh, (Edgecombe County, JV. C.J Tuesday, January 29, 1833.
Vol. IXJYo. 23,
The "Xorth Carolina Free Press,"
BY GKORGE HOWARD,
Is published weekly, at Two Dollars arid Fifty
t'cnts p?r year, if paid irt advaricc-or, Three Dol
lars, at the expiration of the subscription year. For
any period less than a year, Twenty five Cents per
nicnth. Subscribers are at liberty to discontinue at
any time, on giving notice thereof and paying arrears
those residing at a distance must invariably pay in
advance.or give a responsible reference in this vicinity.
Advertisements, not exceeding 16 lines, will be in
serted at 50 cents the first insertion, and 25 cents each
continuance. Longer ones at that rate for every 16
lines. Advertisements must be marked the number
of insertions required, or they will be continued until
otherwise ordered, and charged accordingly.
Letters addressed to the Editor must be post paid,
fir they may not be attended to.
I'ROGLAM ATION.
By Andrew Jackson, President of the
United States.
Whereas, a Convention assembled in the
Stale of South Carolina, have passed an Ordinance
by which they declare, "That the several acts
And parts of acts of the Congress of the United
States, purporting lo be laws for the imposing of
duties and imposts on the importation of foreign
commodities, and now having actual operation
and effect within the United States, and more
especially," two acts for the same purposes, pas
sed on the 29lh of May, 1828, and on tbc 14th
July, 1S32, are "unauthorized by the Constitu
tion of the United States, and violate the true
meaning and intent thereof, and are null and void
and no law," nor binding on the citizens of that
State or its officers; and by tbe said Ordinance,
it is further declared to be unlawful for any of
the constituted authorities of the State or of the
United Stales to enforce the payment of the du
ties imposed by the said acts within the same
State, and that it is the duty of the Legislature
to pass such laws as may be necessary to give
full effect to the said Ordinance;
And whereas, by the said Ordinance it is
further ordained, that in no case of law or equity,
decided in the Courts of said Slate, wherein shall
be drawn in question the validity of the said Or
dinance, or of the acts of the Legislature that
may be passed to give it effect, or of the said
laws of the United States, no appeal shall be al
lowed to the Supreme Court of the United States,
nor shall any copy of the record be permitted or
allowed for that purpose, and that any person at
tempting to take such appeal stiall be punished
as for a contempt of Court;
And, finally, the said Ordinance declares, that
the people of South Carolina will maintain the
said Ordinance at every hazard; and that they
will consider the passage of any act by Congress
abolishing or closing the ports of the said State,
or otherwise obstructing the free ingress or egress
of vessels to and from the said ports, or any oth
er act of the Federal Government to coerce the
State, shut up her ports, destroy or harrass her
commerce; or to enforce the said acts otherwise
than through the civil tribunals of the country, as
inconsistent with the longer continuance of South
Carolina in the Union; and that the people of the
said State will thenceforth hold themselves absol
ved from all further obligation to maintain or
preserve their political connexion with the peo
ple of the other States, and will forthwith pro
ceed to organize a separate government, and do
all other acts and things which sovereign and in
dependent States may of right do;
And whereas, the si id Ordinance prescribes
to the people of South Carolina a course of con
duct, in direct violation of their duty as citizens
of the United States, contrary to the laws of their
country, subversive of its Constitution, and hav
ing for its object the destruction of the Union
that Union, which, coeval with our political ex
istence, led our fathers without any other ties to
unite them than those of patriotism and a com
mon cause, through a sanguinary struggle to a
glorious independence that sacred Union, hith
erto inviolate, which, perfected by our happy
Constitution, has brought us by the favor of hea
ven to a state of prosperity at home, and high
consideration abroad, rarely, if ever, equalled in
the history of nations. To preserve this bond of
our political existence from destruction, to main
tain inviolate this state of national honor and
prosperity, and to justify the confidence my fel
low citizens have reposed in me, I, Andrew
Jackson, President of the United Slates, have
though! proper to issue this my PROCLAMA
TION, stating my views of the Constitution and
laws applicable to the measures adopted by the
Convention of South Carolina and to the reasons
they have put forth to sustain them, declaring
the course which duty will require me to pursue,
and. appealing to the understanding and patriot
ism of the people, warn them of the consequen
ces that must inevitably result from an obser
vance of the dictates of the Convention.
Strict duty would require of me nothing more
than the exercise of those powers, with which' 1
am row, or may hereafter be invested, for pre
serving the peace of the Union and for the exe
cution of the laws.- Wat the imposing aspect
which opposilion has assumed in this case, by
clothing itself with State authority, and the deep
interest which the people of the United States
must all feel in preventing a resort to stronger
measures while there is a hope that any thing
will be yielded to reasoning and remonstrance,
perhaps demand and will certainly justify a full
exposition to South Carolina and the nation of
the views I entertain of this important question,
as well as a distinct enunciation of the course
which my sense of duty will require me to pursue.
The Ordinance is founded, not on the indefea
sible right of resisting acts which are plainly un
constitutional and too oppressive to be endured;
but on the strange position that any one State
may not only declare ah act of Congress void,
but prohibit its execution that they may do
this consistently with the Constitution that the
true construction of that instrument permits a
State Jo retain its place in the Union, and yet be
bound by no other of its laws than those it may
choose to consider as constitutional. It is true,
they add, that to justify this abrogation of a law,
it must be palpably contrary to the Constitution;
but it is evident, that to give the right of resist
ing laws of that description, coupled with the un
controlled right to decide what laws deserve that
character, is to give the power of resisting all
laws. For, as by the theor', there is no appeal,
the reasons alleged by the State, good or bad,
must prevail. If it should be said that public
opinion is a sufficient check against the abuse of
this power, it may be asked why it is not deem
ed a sufficient guard against the passage of an un
constitutional act by Congress. There is, how
ever, a restraint in this last case, which makes
the assumed power of a State indefensible, and
which does not exist in the other. There are
two appeals from an unconstitutional act passed
by Congress one to the Judiciary, the other to
the people, and the States. There is no appeal
from the State decision in theory, and the prac
tical illustration shows that the Courts are closed
against an application to review it, both judges
and jurors being sworn to decide in its favor.
But reasoning on this subject is superfluous when
our social compact in express terms declare, that
the laws of the United States its Constitution
and treaties made under it, are the supreme law
of the land and for greater caution adds "that
the judges in every State shall be bound thereby,
any thing in the Constitution or laws of any
State to the contrary notwithstanding. And it
may be asserted without fear of refutation, that
no Federative Government could exist without
a similar provision. Look for a moment to the
consequences. If South Carolina considers the
revenue laws unconstitutional, and has a right to
prevent their execution in the port of Charles
ton, there would be a clear constitutional objec
tion to their collection in every other port, and
no revenue could be collected any where; for all
imposts must be equal. It is no answer to re
pent, that an unconstitutional law is no law, so
long as the question of its legality is to be decid
ed "by the State itself; for every law operating
injuriously Upon any local interest will be per
haps thought, and certainly represented as un
constitutional, and, as has been shown, there is
no appeal.
If this doctrine had been established at an ear
lier lay, the Union would have been dissolved
in its infancy. The excise law in Pennsylvania,
the embargo and non-intercourse law in t'ne Las
tern StaWs, and the carriage tax in Virginia,
were all deemed unconstitutional and were more
unequal in their operation than any of the laws
now complained of; but fortunately none of those
States discovered that they had the tight now
claimed by South Carolina. The war into which
we were forced, to support the dignity of the na
tion and the rights of our citizens, might have
ended in defeat and disgrace instead of victory
and honor, if the States who supposed it a ruin
ous and unconstitutional measure had thought
they possessed tbe right of nullifying the act by
which it was declared and denying supplies for
its prosecution. Hardly and unequally as those
measures bore upon several members of the Uni
on, to the Legislatures of none did this efficient
and peaceably remedy, as it is called, suggest it
self. Tbe discovery of this important feature in
our Constitution was reserved to the present day.
To the statesmen of South Carolina belongs the
invention, and upon the citizensof thatState will
unfortunately fall the evils of reducing it to
practice.
If the doctrine of a State veto upon the laws
of the Union carries with it internal evidence of
its impracticable absurdity, our constitutional his
tory will also afford abundant proof that it would
have been repudiated with indignation had it been
proposed to form a feature in our government.
In our colonial state, although dependent on
another power, we very early considered our
selves as connected by common interest with
each other. Leagues were formed for common
defence, and before the Declaration of Indepen
dence we were known in our aggregate charac
ter as THE UNITED COLONIES OF AMERICA. That
decisive and important step was taken jointly.
We declared ourselves n nation by a joint, not by
several acts, and when the terms of our confede
ration were reduced to form, it was that of a sol
emn league of several States by which they a
greed that they would collectively form one na
tion for the purpose of conducting some certain
domestic concerns and all foreign relations. In
the instrument forming that union is found an
article which declares that, "every State shall a
bide by the determinations of Congress on all
questions Which by that confederation should be
submitted to them."
Under the confederation Ihen, no State could
legally annul a decision of the Congress, or re
fuse to submit to its execution; but no provision
was made to enforce these decisions. Congress
made requisitions, but they were not complied
with. The government could not operate on in
dividuals. They had no judiciary, no means ol
Collecting revenue.
But the defects of the confederation need not
be detailed. Under its operation we could
scarcely bb called a nation. We had neither
prosperity at home nor consideration abroad.
This state of things could not be endured, and
our present happy Constitution was formed, but
formed in vain, if this fatal doctrine prevails. It
was formed for important objects that are an
nounced in the preamble made in the name and
by tbe authority of the people of the United
States, whose delegates framed, and whose con
ventions approved it. The most important a
mong these objects, that which is placed first in
rank, on which all the others rest, is "to forma
more perftct Union." Now, is it possible that
even if there were no express provision giving
supremacy to the Constitution and laws of the
United States over those of the States; can it be
conceived, that an instrument made for the pur
pose of "forming a more perfect Union," than
that of the confederation, could be so construct
ed by the assembled wisdom of our country, as to
substitute for that confederation a form of gov
ernment dependent for its existence on the local
interest, the party spirit of a State, or of a pre
vailing taction in a Stale.'' Lvery man of plain,
unsophisticated understanding, who hens the
question, will give such an answer as will pre
serve the Union. Metaphysical subtlety, in pur
suit of an impracticable theory, Could alone have
devised one that is calculated to destroy it.
I consider then the power to annul the law of
the United States, assumed by one Stale, incom
patible with the existence of the Union con
tradicted, expressly by I he tetter of the Consti
tution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsisl
cut with every principle cn which it was faun
ded, and destructive of the gitat object for
which it was formed.
After this general view of the leading princi
pie, we must examine the particular applicatiou
of it which is made in the Ordinance.
The preamble rests its justification on these
grounds: It assumes as a fact, that the obnox
ious laws, although they purport to be laws for
raising revenue, were in reality intended for the
protection of manufactures, which purpose it as
serts to be unconstitutional; that the operation
of these laws is unequal; that the amount rai
ed by them is greater than is required by the
wants of the government; and finally, that, the
proceeds are to be applied to objects unauthoriz
ed by the Constitution. These are the only cau
ses alleged to justify an open opposition to tbe
laws rjf the country, and a threat of seceding
from the Union, if any attempt should be made
to enforce them. The first virtually acknowl
edges, that the law in question was passed under
a power expressly given by the Constitution, to
lay and collect impost: but its constitutionality
is drawn in question from the motives of those
who passed it. However apparent this purpose
may be in the present case, nothing can be more
dangerous than lo admit the position that an un
constitutional purpose, entertained by the mem
bers who assent to a law enacted under a consti
tutional power, shall make that law void; for
how is that purpose to be ascertained? Who is
to make the scrutiny? How often may bad pur
poses be falsely imputed in how many cases are
they concealed by false professions in how ma
ny is no declaration of motive made? Admit
this doctrine, and you give to the States an un
controlled right to decide, and every law may be
annulled under this pretext. If, therefore, the
absurd and dangerous doctrine should be admit
ted, that a State may annul an unconstitutional
law, or one that it deems such, it will not apply
to the present case.
The next objection is, that the laws in ques
tion operate unequally. This objection may be
made with truth, lo every law that has been or
can be passed. The wisdom of man never yet
contrived a system of taxation that would operate
with perfect equality. U the unequal operation
of a law makes it unconstitutional, and if all laws
of that description may be abrogated by any
State for that cause, then indeed is the Federal
Constitution unworthy of the slightest effort for
its preservation. We have hitherto relied on it
as the perpetual bond of Our Union. We havcf
received it as the work ot the assembled wisdom
of the nation. We have trusted -to it as the
sheet anchor of our safety in the stormy times of
conflict with a foreign or domestic foe. We
have looked to it with sacred awe as the palladi
um of oor liberties, and with all the solemnities
of religion have pledged lo each other our lives
and lortunes here, and our hopes of happiness
hereafter, in its defence and support. - Were we
mistaken, my countrymen, in attaching: this im
portance to the Constitution of our country?
Was our devotion paid to the wretched, ineffi
cient, clumsy Contrivance, which this new doc
trine would make it? Did we pledge ourselves
to the support of an airy nothing, a bubble that
must be blown away by the first breath of dis
affection? Was this self-destroying, Visionary
theory, the work ot the prolound statesmen, the
exalted patriots, to whom the task of constitu
tional relorm was entrusted? Did the name oi
Washington sanction, did the States deliberately
ratify such an anomaly in the history of funda
mental legislation? No. We were not mista
ken. The letter of this great instrument is free)
from this radical fault; its language directly con
tradicts the imputation: its spirit its evident
iulent contradicts it. No we did not err! Our
Constitution does not contain the absurdity oC
giving power to make laws and another power
to resist them. The sages whose memory will
always be reverenced, have given us a practical
and as they hoped, a permanent constitutional
compact. I he father ol his country did not
affix his revered name to so palpable an absurdi
ty. Nor did the States, when they severally
ratified is, do so under the impression that a ve
lo on the laws of the United Stales was reserved
to them, or that they could exercise it by impli
cation, search the debates in all their conven
tions examine the speeches of the most zealous
opposers of Federal authority look at the a
mendments that were proposed they are all si
lent not a syllable uttered, not a vote given,
not a motion made to correct the explicit supre
macy given to the laws of the Union over those
of the States or to show that implication, as is
now contended, could defeat it. No we havo
not erred! The Constitution is still the object
of our reverence, the bood of our Union, our de
fence in danger, the source of our prosperity in
peace. It shall descend as we have received it
uncorrupted by sophistical construction, to our
posterity; and the sacrifices of local interest, of
State prejudices of personal animosities, that
were made to bring it int6 existence, will again
be patriotically offered for its support.
The two remaining objections made by the Or
dinance to these laws are that the sums intended
to be raised by them are greater thau are requir
ed, and that the proceeds will be unconslitution
allT employed.
The Constitution has given expressly to Con
gress the right of raising revenue and of determi
ning the sum the public exigencies will require.
The States have no control over the exercise oC
this right, other than that which results from the
power of changing the Representatives who a
buse it, and thus procure redress. Congress
may undoubtedly abuse this discretionary power,
but the same may be said of olhers with which
they are vested. Yet tbe discretion must exist
somewhere. The Constitution has given it to
the Representatives of all the people, checked by
the Representatives of the States, and by the Ex
ecutive power. The South Carolina construc
lion jjives it to the Legislature or the Convention
of a single Shle, where neither the people of the
dihereut States, nor the States in their separate
capacity, nor the Chief Magistrate elected .by the
people have any representation. Which is the
most discrert disposition of the power? I do not
ask you, frllow citizens, which is the constitu
tional disposition that instrument speaks a lan
guage not to be misunderstood. But if you were
assembled in general convention, which would
you think the safest depository of this discretion
ary power in the last resort? Would you add a
clause giving it to each of the States, or would
you sanction the wise provisions already made
by your Constitution? If this should be the re
sult of your deliberations when providing for the
future, are you, can you be ready, to risk all that
we hold dear, to establish, for a temporary and a
local purpose, "that which you must acknowledge
to be destructive and even absurd as a general
provision? Carry out the consequences of this
right vested in the different States, and you must
perceive that the crisis your conduct presents at
this day would recur whenever any law of the U
nited States, displeased any of the States, and
that we should cease to be a nation.
The Ordinance, with the same knowledge ot
the future that characterizes a former objection,
tells you that the proceeds of the law will be un
constitutionally applied. If this could be ascer
tained with certainty, the objection would, with
more propriety, be reserved for the law so apply
ing the proceeds, but surely cannot be urged a
gainst the laws levying the duty.
These are the allegations contained in the Or
dinance. Examine them seriously, my fellow
citizens judge for yoursel ves. I appeal to you
to determine whether they are so clear, so con
vincing, as to leave no doubt of their correct
ness; and even if you should come to this con
clusion, how far they justify the reckless, des
tructive course, which you are directed to pur
sue. Review these objections, and the conclusions-drawn
from them once more. What are
Ihev? Everv law ihen for raising revenue, sc-