SENATE.]

Revenue Collection Bill.

[JAN. 31, 1833.

are referred to as delegating the power to the Supreme coming before them, to take the treaties as obligatory, Court, to be the sole judge of the extent of the powers and to administer the rights growing out of the treaties granted and of the powers reserved, and as denying to between France and the United States. After that dethe States the sovereign power of protecting themselves claration, the court was bound to consider the treaties as against the usurpation of their reserved powers, authori- abrogated. The courts had no power, before the act of ties, and privileges. If the delegation to the Supreme July, 1798, to inquire into violations, and therefore to Court, and prohibition to the States, are not contained in declare the treaties not obligatory. After that act, they these two clauses, then they are not to be found in the had no power to demand evidence of the violations refederal constitution. cited, and revise the political decision of the GovernThe latter clause cannot touch the question in debate, ment. for that only declares the supremacy of the constitution, To declare these treaties no longer obligatory was a and the treaties "and laws made in pursuance thereof." political power, not a judicial power. Yet the violations Powers exercised contrary to the constitution, acts done of these treaties, committed under the authority of the contrary to the constitution, by the exercise of authorities French Government, and the consequent injuries to the not under but in violation of the constitution, and by citizens and Government of the United States, and the usurpation of State rights, State authorities, and State rights of the United States consequent therefrom, before privileges, are the subjects under consideration. the act of July, 1798, were "cases arising under the

Let us examine the former clause: "The judicial constitution" and treaties of the United States. But the power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising judicial power did not extend to those cases of violation, under this constitution." The case must be of "judicial so as to declare the treaties no longer obligatory. The power;" it must be a case, "in law or equity," arising question whether those violations should or should not under the constitution. The expression is not "to all abrogate the treaties, did not make a case in law or equity cases arising under the constitution, treaties, and laws for the decision of a judicial tribunal. Yet they were of the United States;" but it is "to all cases in law and cases arising under the constitution. The power to deequity." cide them belonged to the Government of the United States as a political sovereign; but the judicial power did not extend to them; those cases belonged to the political powers, not to the judicial powers of the Government.

Use is the law and rule of speech." By this law and this rule we must examine the language of the consti

tution.

A judicial power is one subject; a political power is another and a different subject. A case in law, or a case in equity, is one subject; a political case is another and a different subject.

The British courts of admiralty executed upon the commerce of the United States the British orders in council, disclaiming the power to decide whether those orders in council were conformable to the general law of nations, which every nation is bound to respect and observe. In like manner, the French courts of admiralty executed upon the commerce of the United States the Berlin and Milan decrees.

Judicial cases in law and equity, arising under the regular exercise of constitutional powers, by laws and treaties made by authority, are different from political questions of usurpation, surmounting the constitution, and involving the high prerogatives, authorities, and pri- The British and French courts had not cognizance to vileges of the sovereign parties who made the constitu-judge the sovereign powers of the nations, and to declare tion. those orders and decrees contrary to the law of nations;

In judicial cases arising under a treaty, the court may that was not a judicial power. So the courts of the United construe the treaty, and administer the rights rising States, even the Supreme Court, had not the power to under it to the parties who submit themselves to declare the treaties between the United States and France, the jurisdiction of the court in that case. But the and Great Britain, no longer obligatory upon the citizens court must confine itself within the pale of judicial au- and Government of the United States, because of the thority. It cannot rightfully exercise the political pow-multiplied wrongs and injuries committed upon the citier of the Government in declaring the treaty null, zens of the United States under color of those orders in because the one or the other party to the treaty has council and decrees, infracting the law of nations and broken this or that article; and, therefore, that the whole treaties, and hostile to the rights of the Government of treaty is abrogated. To judge of the breach of the arti- the United States. Those cases, in their effects upon the cles of the treaty by the sovereign contracting parties, treaties and amicable relations between the United States and in case of breach to dissolve that treaty, and to de- and those Governments, did not fall within the judicial clare it no longer obligatory, is a political power belong-power of the courts of the United States. Those quesing not to the judiciary. It belongs to other departments tions did not fall within the description of "cases in law of the Government, who will judge of the extent of the and equity," as used in the constitution of the United injury resulting from the violation, and whether the re- States, in conferring, vesting, and defining the powers of paration shall be sought by amicable negotiation, or whe- the judicial department. Those political powers belong ther the treaty shall be declared no longer obligatory on to other departments of the Government. According to the Government and the people of the injured party. the law and rule of speech established by use, such Yet, by the law of nations, the wilful and deliberate powers are classed under the denomination of political breach of one article of a treaty is a breach of all the ar-powers, prerogative powers, not under the head of juditicles, each being the consideration of the others; and the cial powers. injured party has the right so to treat it.

Before I proceed to illustrate by other examples the By the act approved on the 7th of July, 1798, the Con-distinctions which I have taken between political powers gress of the United States declared themselves of right and judicial powers, between political questions or cases freed and exonerated from the stipulations of the treaties and judicial questions or cases, I will refer to the declaraand of the consular convention theretofore concluded tion of one whose opinions on constitutional questions I between the United States and France, and that they know will command respect; a man to whose opinions I should not thenceforth be regarded as legally obligatory willingly yield my respect, without, however, submitting on the Government or citizens of the United States, be- with that implicit faith which belongs to fools. On the cause of the repeated violations on the part of the French Government, &c.

Before this declaration, the Supreme Court of the United States was bound, in cases of judicial cognizance

resolutions of Mr. Livingston, touching the conduct of President Adams, in causing Thomas Nash, alias Jonathan Robbins, to be arrested and delivered over to a British naval officer, without any accusation, or trial, or investi

JAN. 31, 1833.]

Revenue Collection Bill.

[SENATE.

gation in a court of justice, Mr. Marshall, then a represen- and cannot be represented and brought up for decision by tative of Virginia, now chief justice of the United States, individuals. in defending the conduct of the President, thus deliver- In a case between two citizens, parties to an ejectment, ed his opinion in that debate.-(Appendix 5, Wheaton, claiming lands, the one party under a grant from the State p. 17.) of New York, the other under a grant from the State of Connecticut, in the gore which was claimed by both States, the court was competent to decide the private rights and interests of the parties. But that decision could have no controlling influence over the line of jurisdiction between the two States; because those States were not parties. So said the Supreme Court of the United States in the cases of Fowler vs. Miller, and Fowler vs. Lindsay, (3 Dallas, p. 411.) And one of the judges, in delivering his opinion, with whom all concurred, asked emphatically, “On what principle can private citizens, in the litigation of their private claims, be competent to fix the important rights of sovereignty?"

"By extending the judicial power to all cases in law and equity, the constitution had never been understood to confer on that department any political power whatever. To come within this description, a question must assume a legal form for forensic litigation and judicial decision. There must be parties to come into court, who can be reached by its process, and bound by its power; whose rights admit of ultimate decision by a tribunal to which they are bound to submit. A case in law or equity may arise under a treaty, where rights of individuals acquired or secured by a treaty, are to be asserted or defended in "But the judicial power cannot extend to political compacts." This distinction between a political power and a judicial power is recognised and acted upon by the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Williams vs. Armroyd, 7 Cranch, 423,433.

courts."

The twelfth amendment to the constitution takes away the jurisdiction which had been given to the Supreme Court to hold jurisdiction of a suit against one of the United States by a citizen of another State, or by citizens Again, in the case of Marbury vs. Madison, (1 Cranch, or subjects of any foreign States; but leaves the juris137, 1st Peters's Condensed Reports, 279,) this distinction diction conferred over controversies between two or more between the political powers of Government and the States. If two States, therefore, have a controversy, judicial power is most explicitly avowed and recognised which, in its character, makes a case in law or equity proby the Supreme Court. The supremacy of that court is per for judicial cognizance, it may be brought before the a judicial supremacy only. It is supreme in reference to Supreme Court. Controversies between two or more the other courts, in questions of a judicial character, States, about territory or limits, may be litigated before brought within the sphere of judicial cognizance by con- the Supreme Court of the United States. But then each troversies which shall have assumed a legal form for State must have an opportunity, as a party, to prosecute forensic litigation and judicial decision. There must be or defend her right before the decision can bind her. parties amenable to its process, bound by its power, Those are questions of meum et tuum; rights of property whose rights admit of ultimate decision by a tribunal to which one State claims to the exclusion of the other; not which they are bound to submit. "Questions in their political rights belonging to all the States respectively, nature political, or which are by the constitution and laws where the rights and powers of one State does not exsubmitted to the Executive, can never be made in this clude but establishes the rights of each and every other. court." Such rights claimed for all, as belonging equally to each and every of the States respectively, cannot make a controversy in law or equity between two States.

The decision of the Executive, upon political questions submitted to its discretion, is as supreme as the decision of the court within its jurisdiction. Neither department Political powers not delegated to the Federal Governought to invade the jurisdiction of the other; so said the ment, political powers reserved to the States, constitute Supreme Court of the United States, in Marbury us. Ma- the subjects of the propositions which are affirmed on the dison. A judicial decision binds the parties litigant in one side, and denied on the other. The propositions that particular case, not others who are neither parties affirmed are, that the powers of the Federal Government nor privies, whose rights and privileges are separate and result from the compact to which the States are parties; distinct. Not even the court itself is bound to give the that these powers are limited by the plain sense and inlike decision between other parties, where a similar ques- tention of the instrument constituting that compact, and tion may be involved. Prudence will dictate that a former no further valid than they are authorized by the grants decision be not lightly disregarded, but adhered to in a enumerated in that compact; "and that, in case of a subsequent case, unless the judges see an error in the deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other former decision. But honesty requires that an erroneous powers, not granted by the said compact, the States, who opinion be not carried into doctrine, and error perpetuat- are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty ed, merely because of the first error. Errors should be bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, corrected, not perpetuated. To err is the lot of man; and for maintaining, within their respective limits, the to correct an error is noble and praiseworthy. No decision authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them." binds in law or in morality, beyond the rights of the If the Congress of the United States usurp and exerparties litigant, and those claiming under them as privies; cise a power not delegated, but reserved, it is evident and even there, not until the time for a new hearing or that the controversy about this exercise of power must re-trial has expired. But as to all other persons, binds be between the Government of the United States and not. It is contrary to the first principles of justice, that the States. How is this controversy to get into the courts, the rights, interests, and privileges of any person should and finally to the Supreme Court, so as to bind the State be decided, negatived, and abrogated, before he is heard as one party, and the Government of the United States as to make good his title and his claim, his rights and his the other party? For on no principle can private citizens, justification. God in his infinite wisdom did not condemn in the litigation of their private claims, be competent to Adam unheard. And this example of divine wisdom and fix the important rights of sovereignty. A decision in a justice is fit to be imitated by human tribunals. case to which a State is not a party cannot bind the State;

When parties present themselves before the Supreme it is res inter alios acta. So said this court, to whom these Court of the United States to litigate the judicial question litigated questions of the limits of sovereign power are involved in that controversy, the decision of the court supposed to be referred, by those who deny the right of binds the rights and interests therein represented and liti- the States to interpose.-Fowler vs. Miller and Lindsey, gated; it binds no others. 3 Dall. 412.

The public rights, privileges, authorities, and preroga- Mr. Callender was tried, convicted, and sentenced to tives of the States, are not the property of individuals, fine and imprisonment in the State of Virginia by the

SENATE.]

Revenue Collection Bill.

[JAN. 31, 1833.

federal court, under the sedition law. Now, it is clear imprisoned, on conviction of such disobedience, and never that Mr. Callender was not in his individual person the admitted to become a citizen of the United States. To representative of the State of Virginia, so as to bind that obtain a license, such alien was to prove his innocence, State by the decision, and fix her sovereign rights. Mr. and to give bond and security for his good behavior, and Lyon was tried and sentenced in Vermont under the sedi- for not violating his license; which the President, howevtion law by the federal court; yet that decision did not er, might revoke at his pleasure. All aliens ordered to bind the State of Vermont. Mr. Cooper was sentenced depart, who did not obtain license to remain, were liable for sedition by the federal court in the State of Pennsyl- to be arrested and sent out of the United States, at the vania, yet that did not bind that State; neither did all discretion of the President. these decisions bind the States, nor settle the point that This act was not levelled against the citizens of any the sedition act was valid and constitutional; nor would the power, State, or potentate, at war with the United decision of the Supreme Court have had that effect if States, for there was then no declaration of war by the such cases could by law have been carried to the Supreme United States against any foreign power. There was Court. another act passed in July, 1798, "respecting alien To bind a State, and command obedience to the de- enemies," providing for a case of war, and operating only cision of the Supreme Court, in a question relating to a upon the citizens or subjects of the hostile nation or Govdangerous usurpation of powers not delegated, but re- ernment. This act of June, 1798, was levelled at alien tained by the States, it is necessary that a case should be friends; against those who had been invited by the policy brought before that court between the United States and of the States, and the genius and spirit of our free instia State, as parties litigant; because, according to the first tutions, to fly from the oppressions and convulsions of the principles of jurisprudence, none but the rights of par-old world, and seek an asylum in the States; against opties are bound by the decision. pressed humanity, seeking a home on our peaceful shores. Where is the grant of power to the judicial department All this numerous class of aliens, not then having comto hold a plea of controversy between the United States pleted their naturalization, were placed at the discretion and a State, as parties in a controversy touching the poli- of the President, to be removed upon suspicion, without tical powers alleged to be reserved to the States, respec- the form of a trial, except in the mind and judgment of tively, and not delegated to the Federal Government? Is the President. The sedition law operated upon citizens there any thing in the constitution which gives color to as well as aliens.

the idea that a suit can be maintained in the Supreme These two acts, when made to bear against particular Court, or in any of the inferior courts, between the individuals, might have been the subjects of judicial inUnited States as plaintiffs and a State as defendant, or vestigation in each particular case; but the decision in such between a State as plaintiff against the United States as case would have affected only the personal rights of the defendant, to settle a controverted question of delegation individuals, parties to the judicial proceeding, but could and reservation of political powers? Would such a suit not fix and bind the important rights of the State sovebe a case in law or equity according to any usage of reignty involved in those two acts of Congress. Those speech? Let us try to frame the complaint on the one acts, although they had never been brought to bear upon side, and the defence on the other, and come to the a single person, did invade the political rights and powers judgment, upon the alien and sedition laws. What sentence is to be passed upon the State? I suppose that her resolutions were seditious and unconstitutional; that she should forever thereafter acknowledge that the alien and sedition laws were constitutional; that she repeal her false and seditious resolutions. Ridiculous!

of the States, violated that security for liberty of speech, of the press, of the person, which the States respectively had a right, and were in duty bound, to maintain within their respective jurisdictions; and counteracted the policy and interests of the States, by driving from their shores alien friends, whom their laws had encouraged and invited Let the Attorney General of the United States try to to settle their vast tracts of wild, uncultivated lands; the frame a bill in equity, or an indictment for the United faith of a sovereign State was pledged; that sovereign States against a State or States; or the Attorney General was bound to take care that its plighted faith was not of a State to frame a declaration at law, or bill in equity, violated by the usurpation of another potentate. The or indictment, for a State against the United States, to try private rights and personal security of individuals, and the controverted questions of political powers delegated the political rights, authorities, and powers of the State and retained by the States; draw out the plaint, and it Governments, were both invaded and violated by these will appear at first blush to be an anomaly, not known in two acts. An individual might be indicted for sedition, the vocabulary of "cases of law and equity," not to be and sentenced, or be arrested for refusing to depart acclassed under the judicial power over cases in law and cording to the order of the President, and the court might equity, according to any law or rule of speech. There refuse to discharge him upon habeas corpus. The private is no grant of power to the Supreme Court to hold juris- rights of the individual, when violated under color of the diction of any such plaint or bill. Such a plaint in law alien or sedition law, might be submitted to the judicial or in equity would be a novelty in the history of judicial powers. But the political powers, authorities, and liberpowers. The portentous consequences of such a juris- ties of a State, violated by those laws, cannot be subjectdiction in the court would strike with terror and amaze- ed to the judicial power of a federal court, supreme or ment as soon as such a process should be instituted. inferior; they cannot be arrested, tried, condemned, reThe alien act of June, 1798, was enacted when the moved, or extinguished. Such cases as do not fall proUnited States were at peace with all the world. By this perly under the denomination of judicial powers, of cases it was declared that it shall be lawful for the President of of law and equity, according to common usage and accepthe United States "to order all such aliens as he shall tation antecedent to the constitution, required an enumejudge dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States, or shall have reasonable grounds to suspect are concerned in any treasonable or secret machinations against the Government thereof, to depart out of the territory of the United States within such time as shall be expressed in such order." Any alien, so ordered to depart, found at large within the United States, after the time limited in such order, and not having obtained a license from the President to remain, was subject to be

ration and express delegation to the judicial department to hold cognizance of such classes, of which there are examples in the constitution; such as controversies between two or more States, and between a State and foreign States, &c.

The distinctions between political and judicial powers; between judicial cases in law and equity, and political cases; between the binding effect of a judicial decision on the parties litigant, and its want of obligatory force on

JAN. 31, 1833.]

Revenue Collection Bill.

[SENATE.

others, not parties nor privies, are very necessary to be oath can detract nothing from the constitution; nothing observed.

The disregard of the usage of speech antecedent to the constitution, and of the distinctions just mentioned, would remove the landmarks of the compact. It would convert the Supreme Court into a political council and board of control, to administer the political opinions of its members. It would confer on the Supreme Court powers too gigantic and terrific, too dangerous to the peace of the United States, to the reserved powers of the States, and to the safety of the Union.

from the public liberty, which the constitution was intended to protect. It admits the right to protect and preserve the constitution, and imposes a duty to avenge the violation of it.

By the constitution, the diversified particular interests of the States were intended to be under the regular action of the Federal Government, secured and reserved from federal legislation: 1st, by a judicious selection of the delegated powers, the exercise of which were most likely to promote the general welfare of all the States, and least It would carry along with it the power to the Supreme likely to bear oppressively upon any one of them; 2d, by Court to decide upon acquisition of new territories, and regulations and prohibitions upon the exercise of those upon the admission of States into the Union, formed out powers so specified and delegated, so as to render their of such purchased territories; the power to decide how action uniform in all the States, and to guard against a far infractions of treaties and delays of reparation did preference or favoritism towards any of the States; 3d, abrogate those treaties between the United States and for- by guarding against amendments which might delegate eign nations. additional powers, and divest the States of further portions of sovereignty, unless such amendments were proposed by two-thirds of the Houses of Congress, or twothirds of the Legislatures of the several States, and afterwards ratified by three-fourths of the States.

The whole system of the United States, for ascertaining and adjusting private land claims in the newly acquired territories by commissioners, reserving the final decision to the Congress, depends upon the distinction I have taken. Remove these distinctions, and the powers of the legislative and executive departments depend on the judgment of the Supreme Court; and the limits of its own powers would depend upon its own will.

A new mode of drawing to the Federal Government the reserved powers of the States is let in, which evades and puts to naught the safeguard to the minority of the States provided by the compact against amendments. The door is open to usurpation and tyranny, by giving the Federal Government the sole and entire control, independent of any control of the States.

But by this new doctrine of supremacy of the federal court, an irregular action of the Federal Government is substituted in place of amendment. Usurpation of power, if sanctioned by the Supreme Court, is made equal to an additional grant by an amendment of the constitution. A majority of the States combined in interest, may, if sanctioned by the Supreme Court, exercise any powers not delegated, not necessary and proper to execute the powers especially delegated, but new substantive powers to the Government, added by construction, destructive of the particular interests and prosperity of a minority of By the theory of the constitution, if the Congress de- the States-powers which two-thirds of both Houses, or sire to exercise a new power not before delegated, they two-thirds of the Legislatures of the States, would not must draw upon the States for a further surrender and propose; or, if proposed, would not be ratified by threedelegation of another portion of their reserved powers. fourths of the States as an amendment to the constitution. To sanction such new delegation of power, three-fourths A majority of the States elect a majority of the Senaof the several States must consent, by ratifying the amend- tors, and a majority of the members of the House of Rement proposed. But in practice, under this new doc- presentatives; and a bare majority of the States may be so trine, that whatever power is sanctioned by the Supreme taken as that they may elect a majority of electors of PreCourt of the United States is constitutional, and the sident and Vice President. So that a majority of States. States have no power to interpose, a bare majority of both combined in the assumption of new powers, may exercise Houses of Congress, with the assent of the President and such new constructive powers to their agrandizement, and the Supreme Court, or two-thirds of both Houses with the advancement of their particular interests, to the dethe assent of the Supreme Court, without the assent of pression of the particular interests and prosperity of the the President, may alter the constitution at pleasure. If minority. Such a combination may be perpetuated by the Congress exercise any of the powers reserved to the the very fact that it is a combination of the majority of States by passing an act, let the Supreme Court, in a lit- local and particular interests. The aggression cannot be igation between two citizens, in which this law is incident- corrected by an appeal of the minority for a change of ally drawn in question, sanction it as constitutional, representation in the two Houses, because of the special then, according to this unlimited power, conferred on interests which the majority of the States have in contithe Supreme Court by construction, the act would be nuing such system of benefits to themselves, at the exconstitutional law, sound constitutional doctrine. Protect pense of the minority. The combination can effectually the authors of the law from a public examination of their perpetuate itself by continual elections to both Houses, conduct, by the terrors of an alien and sedition law, to and by the election of the President and Vice President. speak or to write against the authors of the law would This is a short way of adding new powers by assumption be seditious; to oppose the law by force would be trea- of Congress, with the consent of the Supreme Court, son, rebellion! So say those who contend for the unlim- and denying the authority of the States to interpose to ited power of the Supreme Court to decide "all cases arrest the evil. It is a new mode of amendment to the arising under the constitution and laws of the United constitution, totally variant from the mode prescribed by States!" Deny the rights of the States to interpose to the constitution. It evades and defies the security and arrest the usurpation, and where is the remedy? efficient safeguard provided by the constitution, and encourages encroachments which lead to a tyrannical concentration of all the powers of Government, both State and federal, in the same hands.

a

Happily, a Legislature cannot be indicted of sedition; State cannot be indicted of treason, and arraigned at the bar of a court. The general revolt of a whole nation against usurpation and oppression cannot justly be called But there may be instances of usurpations of undelerebellion. Truth is comprehended by examining princi- gated power so contrived as to evade the examination ples. A whole people resisting oppression, and vindicat- and decision of the judicial department, even in suits being their own liberty and the constitution, commit no tween the Federal Government and an individual. crime in so doing. Private men, who swear allegiance The very protective system, which is the source of the to the constitution, who swear" obedience ad legem," unhappy discontents in South Carolina as well as in other swear no obedience "extra vel contra legem." The States, is a striking example.

VOL. IX.-19

SENATE.]

Revenue Collection Bill.

[JAN. 31, 1833.

The tariff bill, on its title and face, professes to be for a President, so as to give a majority of a desired political revenue. But the duties imposed produce revenue ex- cast. These judges hold their offices for life, removceeding the wants of the Government for its economical able by impeachment by the House of Representatives, expenditures. The high imposts are enacted for protec- and conviction by the concurrence of two-thirds of the tion of manufactures. But this motive and intent is conceal- Senators. Their responsibility is too remote, and the ed and not avowed in the bill, howsoever strongly urged number too few for a high prerogative court, with power on the floors of Congress to induce the high tariff, and to adjust the political powers of the Federal and State howsoever this intent may inflate extravagant and waste- Governments, and try the Federal Government when imful expenditures, for the purpose of fostering and continuing the high pressure of taxation upon consumers.

peached of usurpation and encroachment upon the reserved powers belonging to the States. If the central Now, the judicial tribunals cannot go out of the act to Government be accused of encroachment and usurpation, look for the motives of the members of Congress; they its tricrs, the Supreme Court judges, are, in their turn, liacannot examine into the secret springs of action in the ble to be impeached and tried by the central Government. Legislature. So it is decided in the case of Fletcher vs. The Congress who commit the usurpation are the only perPeck, in the Supreme Court of the United States. As sons who can impeach and try their judges. The offending the power to tax imports and collect revenue is expressly Congress are to be tried by their judges; and the offending delegated, the question of the undelegated but usurped judges are to be impeached and tried by the offending Conpower of protection of one class of citizens, by giving gress. There is but little wise and practical security in this money to them, taken from the pockets of other classes against the encroachments of the central Government. of citizens who consume domestic manufactures, can No plaintiff would feel very safe if the defendant had the never arise upon a bill professing to be for revenue. But sole power to appoint the jury, with the power superwill the gentlemen who are so ardent for protection of added to accuse that jury of misconduct, and try the acmanufactures be pleased to divide these subjects into two cusation. It seems to me that if those wise and practical acts: the first, for revenue; the second, declaring that statesmen and patriots who framed the new federal conover and above the amount of duties necessary for reve- stitution had designed the Supreme Court to be the sole nue, so much additional duty shall be imposed for pro- prerogative court of high and ultimate commission to try tection? Bill number one, for revenue, no citizen will the central Government for usurpation of powers not dequestion. But bill number two, for protection avowedly, legated, and the final and sole safeguard for the reserved will be questioned; the judicial tribunals can, at the in- powers of the States, they would have devised some more stance of any individual, who pays the duty for revenue, certain and direct responsibility of the judges to the but refuses to pay the duty for protection, come at the States, than by referring their impeachment to Congress, question of delegated or undelegated power. Aye, more, who must be parties, aiders, and abettors in the usurpation. sir; the people will see how much they are taxed for the The States would not have adopted the constitution if they wants of the treasury; and what for the system of pro- had been informed that such was to be its interpretation. tection to manufactures. I challenge the supporters of In deliberating upon the extent of the powers intended the protective system to such a trial. to be conferred by the constitution upon the several deGovernment, at best, is but an evil. But it is a neces-partments, and the powers reserved by the States, we sary evil. It is founded in an imperious necessity arising ought to keep steadily in viewout of the very nature of man, his imperfection, his appe- 1st. The perpetuity of the Union; tency to pursue his passion and selfish desires, to the destruction of the rights and interests of his fellow-men. If men were as perfect as angels, then no Government would be necessary. But such is the nature and imperfections of man, that the exercise of the powers of Government tends to increase, not to allay, his lust for dominion.

2d. The powers necessary to a fair and energetic administration of the Government, as ordained and established;

3d. The safety of a minority of the States against a combination of a majority;

4th. The security against usurpation and degeneracy into practical tyranny.

These are the great interests of every true American, to which every patriot ought to look with a watchful, steadfast eye.

Few men are willing to lessen their own powers. There are illustrious examples to the contrary. They stand conspicuous and illustrious, because they are exceptions to the general rule. "Power is continually stealing from Every construction of the constitution which tends, in the many to the few." No wise and practical statesman, practical operation, to weaken the exercise of the powers who is a lover of rational liberty, none but a political plainly conferred, to lessen the security against the comdreamer of the perfectability of man, or one who, ex- bination of a majority of the States against the minority, pecting to bask in the sunshine of power, loves it more or to weaken the guards against usurpation and practical than liberty, would ever construct a Government upon tyranny, tends necessarily, in the end, to weaken and disany other plan than that of providing and securing checks solve the bonds of union, and ought, therefore, to be reand balances against the encroachments and abuses of jected.

power. The federal constitution was framed and adopted Union, common defence, and protection, justice to all, by wise, patriotic, and practical statesmen, lovers of li- rational liberty to all, now and at all times hereafter, were berty, inspired with a holy zeal in a revolution to resist the great ends intended by the constitution. All conthe encroachments of power from the central Govern- structions which tend to subvert these great ends; which ment upon the rights and liberties of the colonies. They tend to invite or encourage usurpation in the Federal did not, they could not, intend to create a central Govern- Government, or to the usurpation by one department of ment with unlimited powers, nor a Government without powers belonging to another department; which tend to sufficient practical checks against the usurpations which invite and encourage a combination of a majority of the might be attempted upon the reserved rights of the States. States to pursue their interests at the expense of a minoThe Supreme Court of the United States is not such rity of the States, ought to be rejected as repugnant to sufficient check and safeguard against the encroachments the leading objects of the constitution. These leading of the central Government upon the State Governments. inducements were, justice to the whole, the welfare The number of judges of the Supreme Court is not de-of all.

fined by the constitution. That number is but seven at Oppression, injustice, invasion of private property by present. Four are a majority of the court. But the num- the insidious arts of legislation, insecurity against the opber may be increased at the pleasure of the Congress and pressive hand of power, combinations by a majority of