CLOVIS CITY COUNCIL MEETING
March 4, 2025 6:00 P.M. Council Chamber
Meeting called to order by Mayor Mouanoutoua at 6:00
Flag Salute led by Councilmember Bessinger
Roll Call: Present: Councilmembers Ashbeck, Basgall, Bessinger, Mayor Pro Tem Pearce, and Mayor Mouanoutoua
PRESENTATION - 6:05
6:05 - ITEM 1 - Presentation of Proclamation Declaring March 7, 2025, as Arbor Day. 6:11 - ITEM 2 - Presentation of Proclamation Honoring the Liberta Family for Owning and Operating Luna's Pizzeria and Italian Restaurant for over 50 Years in Old Town Clovis.
PUBLIC HEARING - Item to be heard at 6:05 p.m.
6:18 - ITEM 3 - Consider various actions related to the fifth public hearing on the city's transition to district-based elections:
Mayor Mouanoutoua acknowledged for the record that a written comment was received.
Steven Trevino, resident, expressed concerns about outsiders submitting maps for Clovis, questioned why certain streets weren't used in mapping, and mentioned socioeconomic differences in different areas.
Eric Rollins, resident, supported draft Map 508, citing its division of apartment buildings and homeowners, and its preservation of Old Town Clovis as a single district.
Brian Wilson, resident, asked about the numbering of districts on the maps, questioned how election cycles would be assigned, and supported draft Map 507.
Susan Patterson, resident, supported draft Map 508, favoring its division for socioeconomic diversity to maintain Clovis' culture.
Orlando, resident, supported draft Maps 508 and 502, emphasizing Clovis' long-standing community spirit and unity despite transitioning to district elections.
ITEM 3A. Review Draft District Maps, Select Final Map, and Determine Election Sequence.
Motion by Councilmember Ashbeck, seconded by Councilmember Bessinger to approve draft map 502 with district renumbering as follows: Districts up for election in 2026 will be District 1 (formerly District 3 on the map), District 4 (formerly District 1), and District 5 (formerly District 2). Districts 2
(formerly District 5) and 3 (formerly District 4) will be up for election in 2028. The motion carried 4-1 vote, with Mayor Pro Tem Pearce voting no.
ITEM 3B. Consider Introduction - Ord. 25-02, An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Clovis Adding Chapter 1.10 to Title 1 of the Clovis Municipal Code to Establish By-District Elections for Five Council Members, Define District Boundaries, and Schedule the Order of Elections for Each District.
Motion by Councilmember Ashbeck, seconded by Councilmember Bessinger to approve the introduction of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Clovis Adding Chapter 1.10 to Title 1 of the Clovis Municipal Code to Establish By-District Elections for Five Council Members, Define District Boundaries, and Schedule the Order of Elections for Each District. Motion carried by unanimous vote.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - 6:02
Co-Chair Avereet Samra and Secretary Jasmine Parmer of the Youth Commission invited the Council and community to the Cowboy Cleanup event on March 29, 2025.
Jesus Garcia, resident, expressed concerns about increasing traffic and speeding on Bullard Avenue near Willow.
CONSENT CALENDAR - 7:34
Upon call, there was no public comment.
Motion by Councilmember Ashbeck, seconded by Councilmember Bessinger, that the items on the Consent Calendar be approved. Motion carried by unanimous vote.
4. Administration - Approval - Minutes from the February 18, 2025, Regular Council Meeting, and the February 24, 2025, Special Council Meeting.
$1,500,000 to the California State Department of Housing and Community Development for funding under the CalHome Program; and Authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to sign the application, execute the Standard Agreement, any Amendments, and any related documents thereto, if selected for funding, as may be necessary to participate in the CalHome Program as identified in the 2024 Homeownership Super Notice of Funding Availability dated December 12, 2024.
6. General Services - Approval - Res. 25-17, Adopting Amendments to the Deputy City Engineer Salary Schedule.
7. General Services - Approval - Res. 25-18, Amending the City's FY 2024-2025 Position Allocation Plan by adding three (3) Police Officer/Recruits, one (1) Animal Control Officer, one (1) Community Service Officer, and one (1) Police Records Specialist I position within the Police Department.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS - 7:36
7:36 ITEM 8 - Workshop - Community Facilities District (CFD) for maintenance services.
•
Eric Rollins, resident, addressed concerns about the potential use of Measure Y funds for purposes other than police and fire services.
The council directed staff to move forward with the Resolution of Intention for the formal CFD formation process, including setting boundaries and tax rates. Staff will continue communication with the development community and will return to Council with the Resolution once the work is finalized. A hybrid approach was suggested, where the council would receive a high-level update on progress before finalizing the Resolution of Intention, to allow for feedback. 8:32 ITEM 9 - Provide Direction - Discussion and guidance on defining the criteria and establishing the Measure Y Oversight Committee.
Orlando, resident, addressed the responsibility of elected officials to honor their commitments, particularly in terms of fulfilling their duties for the entire city and ensuring public safety, while acknowledging the challenges in balancing budgets for police, fire, and other city needs.
Eric Rollins, resident, expressed concerns about the potential misuse of Measure Y funds and emphasized the need for clear direction and guidelines for the committee, while also offering to serve on it.
Susan Patterson, resident, expressed her interest in being on the Measure Y oversight committee.
The Council directed staff to move forward with the establishment of the Measure Y Oversight committee and to include the following criteria. Committee Formation: The committee will consist of five members, with one member appointed by each Councilmember through interviews and ideally representing their respective districts. The only qualification for members is that they must be residents of Clovis. A formal application process will be created for those interested in serving on the committee. Committee's Role: It will act as a reporting body to confirm that Measure Y funds are used as intended, focusing on oversight rather than offering recommendations for new initiatives. Length of Term: Members will serve at the pleasure of the Councilmember who appoints them. The committee will be governed by the Brown Act and will be formed through an ordinance. It will meet twice a year during the first year-likely in December, and either June or July-and then annually thereafter. The committee will remain active for the duration of Measure Y funding. Scope of the Committee: The committee's scope will be determined after the budget hearings and the five-year forecast.
9:10_ ITEM 10 - Consider various actions associated with CIP 16-19, the State Route 168/Enterprise Canal Pedestrian Bridge Project, east of Temperance Avenue and south of Owens Mountain Parkway.
Orlando, resident, addressed the importance of community involvement and potential philanthropic support in challenging projects, while emphasizing the need for careful consideration of public safety, particularly in high-traffic areas.
9:10 ITEM 10A - Consider Approval - Res. 25-19, A resolution of the City Council adopting an environmental finding of a negative declaration as a responsible agency under CEQA Guidelines Section 15381.
Motion for approval by Councilmember Ashbeck, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Pearce. Motion carried by unanimous vote.
9:10 ITEM 10B - Consider Approval - A request for the City Council to approve the completed Phase 1 of the project consisting of preliminary design, architectural aesthetics evaluation study, preliminary geotechnical investigation, environmental clearance, and community outreach meetings.
Motion for approval by Councilmember Ashbeck, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Pearce. Motion carried by unanimous vote.
9:10 ITEM 10C - Consider Approval - A request for the City Council to approve terminating Phase 2 of the project consisting of right of way acquisition, and final design including plans, specifications, and estimate.
Motion for approval by Councilmember Bessinger, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Pearce. Motion carried by 3-2 vote, with Councilmember Ashbeck and Mayor Mouanoutoua voting no.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS - 9:47
Can Manager on air 6, 202, ad several updates is Transi enter tur gay gaustr the Youth Commission Cowboy cleanup on March 29, 2025, at 8 am.., gave a shout-out to the Public Utilities team for a successful compost giveaway, and the Fire Department's installation of 167 smoke alarms at a mobile home park. He also noted that Council meetings would return to Mondays starting next week.
COUNCIL COMMENTS - 9:48
There was consensus of the Council to direct staff to review SB 496 and, if necessary, to approach the Mayor for a letter of support if there is a time-sensitive need.
There was consensus of the Council to support sending a letter of opposition to AB 1333, restricting rights of self-defense in homes, pending further review by the Police Chief Fleming.
There was consensus of the Council to support sending a letter of opposition to SB 554, related to the interaction between County Sheriffs and immigration authorities.
ADJOURNMENT CITY OF CLOVIS
Mayor Mouanoutoua adjourned the meeting of the Council to March 10, 2025. * Meeting adjourned: 10:03 p.m.
stereontae Buanai tama
Mayof City Clerk
Public Comment for agenda item 3
Briana Parra
From: City of Clovis Website < [email protected]> Sent: Monday, March 3, 2025 5:31 AM
To: Andrew Haussler; Rebecca Simonian; Briana Parra
Subject: [External] Public Comment for City Council
Council Meeting Date: 2025-03-04
Item Number (put "0" if your comment is regarding an item not on the agenda): 3 Full Name: Rachel Youdelman
Email: [email protected]
Comment: Regarding draft maps for district-based elections, my preference is for #501, based on the division of neighborhoods.
The statistical information accompanying the maps reveals that Clovis is mostly white, the population is generally not well educated and appears to be widely under-employed. Only white residents are invested in voting, and most residents own a single-family house --all of which I found interesting.
Supporting Files (2 Max.):
---
Date: March 3, 2025
Time: 5:30 am
Remote IP: 67.181.166.166
1 3/4
Briana Parra
From: City of Clovis Website < [email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, March 4, 2025 9:27 AM
To: Andrew Haussler, Rebecca Simonian; Briana Parra
Subject: [External] Public Comment for City Council
Council Meeting Date: 2025-03-04
Item Number (put "0" if your comment is regarding an item not on the agenda): 3 Full Name: Jerry & Martha Philipp
Email: [email protected]
Comment: My wife and I support proposed map 503, five districts and the mayor chosen by the City Council.
Martha & Jerry Philipp
2271 Alamos Ave.
Clovis, CA 93611
Supporting Files (2 Max.):
Date: March 4, 2025
Time: 9:26 am
Remote IP: 108.89.165.49
Briana Parra
From: City of Clovis Website <[email protected]> Sent: uesday, March 4, 2025 10:00 A
To: ndrew Haussler; Rebecca Simonian; Briana Parr
Subject: [External] Public Comment for City Council
Council Meeting Date: 2025-03-04
Item Number (put "O" if your comment is regarding an item not on the agenda): 3 Full Name: Patty Cassio
Email: [email protected]
Comment: Agenda Item 3: District Map 508
As a Clovis Resident, i would request Council Approve District Map 508. Thank you! Patty Cassio
Supporting Files (2 Max.):
Date: March 4, 2025
Time: 9:59 am
Remote IP: 172.12.152.226
Briana Parra
From: City of Clovis Website <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, March 4, 2025 11:31 AM
To: Andrew Haussler; Rebecca Simonian; Briana Parra
Subject: (External] Public Comment for City Council
Council Meeting Date: 2025-03-04
Item Number (put "0" if your comment is regarding an item not on the agenda): 3 Full Name: Molly Analla
Email: MollyA. [email protected]
Comment: After careful consideration of all maps submitted, I am supporting Map 508. I hope the City Council chooses this map to represent this great city! This map takes into consideration everything the city council has asked a map to do. Thank you!
Supporting Files (2 Max.):
--
Date: March 4, 2025
Time: 11:30 am
Remote IP: 99.3.107.159
2/26/25, 8:28 AM AT&T Yahoo Mail - CALIFORNIA NULLIFIERS DEFY HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES Joseph Thompson
416W Audubon Dr
CALIFORNIA NULLIFIERS DEFY HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES Fresno, CA 93711-6893 Received
From: Joseph P Thompson ([email protected])
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; FEB 28 2025 [email protected]; [email protected] Date: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 at 06:30 PM PST OMN/CITYMGR All Council.
PUBLIC COMMENT: NEXT MEETING; REAL OR VIRTUAL; REGULAR OR SPECIAL; STUDY
SESSION OR PUBLIC WORKSHOP
Dear Friends,
If I swear to uphold the Constitution, can I choose which parts of it to which I agree, or have I sworn to uphold all of it? Can local elected officials nullify those parts of the Constitution to which they disagree? What does history teach us? Did the original 13 States ratify all of the Constitution, or only parts of it? Did subsequent States? California in 1850-all of the Constitution, or just the parts with which they agreed? Nullifiers in the State of South Carolina were shown by President Jackson, and taught by Senator Webster, what it means to be a nation of laws.
So, today, is it "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, OR, UNITED STATES OF CALIFORNIA?" Under our federal Constitution's Supremacy Clause, federal law trumps contrary inferior law, e.g., County ordinances, locals decisions to nullify federal law.
During debate on the South Carolina attempt at nullification of federal law, Senator Daniel Webster, in his famous Second Reply to Senator Hayne, gave his immortal position defending the action of the federal government.
When Arkansas elected officials attempted to thwart federal law regarding desegregation, and the Arkansas Governor called out the National Guard to help prevent black school children from attending public school, on 9-5-1957 President Eisenhower invoked the power of the federal government, saying to Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus, "The only assurance I can give you is that the Federal Constitution will be upheld by me by every legal means at my command." President Eisenhower emphatically said that we must uphold federal law against those who seek to nullify it.
"You and other state officials—-as well as the National Guard which, of course, is uniformed, armed and partially sustained by the Government—will, I am sure, give full cooperation to the United States District Court."
signed Dwight D. Eisenhower.
He sent Army Airborne troops to back-up his telegram to Arkansas' nullifiers. And despite local government opposition to desegregation, federal law prevailed.
Today we see California "nullifiers" like our Governor, Attorney General, and some municipal elected officials defying our Nation's federal immigration law.
Are we the United States of America, or, the United States of California? Will you please convey to all my friends in local government, City and County, my prayer that they follow our Nation's historic adherence to paramount federal law as seen in Webster's famous Second Reply to Hayne, and in President Eisenhower's telegram to the Governor of Arkansas, when South Carolina, and later Arkansas, tried to nullify our federal law. While the Governor, our Attorney General, and some municipal elected officials may disagree with our federal law, they must obey it regardless of their personal beliefs.
President Eisenhower said, what we must say to those who disagree with federal law, including County Supervisors in all California Counties, "When I became President, I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States." So, too, have the Supervisors of the Counties of California, and municipal government leaders.
When predicting the outcome of pending federal complaint against Illinois and Chicago first read Madison's explanation of the Drafters debates in Philadelphia in 1787 on the meaning of the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution, which you can find in The Federalist Papers, No. 44. Such a complaint against California's nullifiers must adhere to the about:blank 1/2
2/26/25,8:28 AM AT&T Yahoo Mail - CALIFORNIA NULLIFIERS DEFY HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES same demands of federal preemption.
Thank you.
• Joseph P. Thompson
Past-President, Gilroy-Morgan Hill Bar Assn.
(408) 848-5506
EISENHOWER telegram to Arkansas Gov Faubus 9-5-1957.pdf 231.6kB
US V ILL 2-6-2025 BIG PRINT COMPLAINT.pdf
264.5kB
Webster 2nd Reply to Hayne 1830.pdf
3.3MB
about blank 2/2
2/26/25, 11:26 AM Federalist No. 44 - Wikipedia
WIKIPEDIA
The Free Encyclopedia
WIKIPEDIA
Federalist No. 44
Federalist No. 44 is an essay by James Madison, the
Federalist No. 44
forty-fourth of The Federalist Papers. It was first
published by The New York Packet on January 25, 1788
under the pseudonym Publius, the name under which
all The Federalist papers were published. This essay
addresses the Constitution's limitation of the power of individual states, something strongly decried by the
Anti-Federalists, who sought a greater degree of
sovereignty for the states. It is titled "Restrictions on the Authority of the Several States".!!!
Overview
James Madison, author of Federalist No. 44
In this essay, Madison justifies many parts of the Author James Madison Constitution, specifically those sections which limit the Original title Restrictions on the Authority
powers of the states, give Congress full authority to
of the Several States
execute its powers and establish the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. Language English
Series The Federalist
His discussion begins with article 1, section 10 (which Publisher New York Packet
limits the powers of individual states), wherein he
justifies the outlawing of state sponsored privateering as Publication January 25, 1788 date
consistent with not allowing states to conduct their own foreign policy, which could lead to great mischief. Publication United States place
He then expounds upon why states should not be Media type Newspaper allowed to mint their own currencies or issue paper
Preceded by Federalist No. 43
money, saying that multiple currencies would cause
confusion and discrepancies, hurt citizens and fuel Followed by Federalist No. 45 animosity between the states. He condemns the state
issuance of paper money by citing the problems caused by this after the peace in 1783 (paper money issued by the states led to runaway inflation).
Madison vigorously defends the outlawing of bills of attainder, ex post facto laws and laws impairing the obligations of contracts. He insists that such laws would contradict basic principles of sound legislation, and of the social compact itself by allowing a capricious congress to remove basic individual rights and security.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._44 1/2
2/26/25, 11:26 AM Federalist No. 44 - Wikipedia
Madison then argues at length for the Necessary and Proper Clause, noting that no part of the constitution had come under more attack. He states flatly that the clause is "invulnerable" and that without it the constitution would be a "dead letter." He says that the Constitution might have listed or enumerated those necessary and proper powers or attempted to list those that were expressly not necessary and proper, but argues that either exercise would have been futile in that no list could ever fully take into account all of the nation's present and future concerns.
He responds to critics who feared that the clause would allow the government to overstep its powers that the people would have the same redress to this as to any occasion on which the legislature abused its powers: the balance of the executive and legislative branches, and the potential to remove the offending legislators via the ballot box.
Madison similarly defends the supremacy clause as vital to the functioning of the nation. He notes that state legislatures were invested with all powers not specifically defined in the constitution, but also said that having the federal government subservient to various state constitutions would be an inversion of the principles of government, comparing it to having the brain subservient to limbs of the body.
Finally he speaks to the importance of having both state and federal legislators and judicial officers swear an oath to the constitution, noting that the federal government is dependent upon the states to carry out policy
References
1. Madison, James (January 25, 1788). "Restrictions on the Authority of the Several States" (https:// www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-44).
U.S. Congress. Retrieved September 2, 2017.
External links
• Text of The Federalist No. 44 (https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist +Papers#TheFederalistPapers-44): congress.gov
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federalist_No._44&oldid=1252383776" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._44 2/2
2/26/25, 11:30 AM Federalist No. 33 - Wikipedia
WIKIPEDIA
The Free Encyclopedia
WIKIPEDIA
Federalist No. 33
Federalist No. 33, written by Alexander Hamilton
Federalist No. 33
and first published in The Independent Journal on
January 2, 1788,!! continues the focus on the issues in creating an efficient taxation system, along with
reassuring the people's doubts about the government
control over taxation. Titled "The Same Subject
Continued: Concerning the General Power of
Taxation", No. 33 explores the idea of allowing
Congress to make all laws that are necessary for
efficiently operating the national government. Under
the pseudonym, Publius, John Jay, Hamilton, and
James Madison collectively wrote and published eighty-
five essays in the New York newspaper between 1787
and 1788 (later published as a book called The
Federalist Papers in 1788) to promote the ratification of Alexander Hamilton, author of Federalist No. the United States Constitution. 33
Author Alexander Hamilton
Original title The Same Subject Continued:
Controversies Concerning the General Power
of Taxation
Hamilton notes that the Necessary and Proper Clause
Language English
and the Supremacy Clause "have been the source of
much virulent invective and petulant declamation Series The Federalist against the proposed Constitution." This stirs up much Publisher The Independent Journal of the issues amongst the people due to the uncertainty Publication January 2, 1788 of the consequences of granting the government "too date much power". He argues that the first clause is implicit Publication United States in the constitution-if congress is granted a power, it place must necessarily be able to draft laws that enable it to Media type Newspaper
execute that power. Hamilton then applies this line of
Preceded by Federalist No. 32
logic to the issue of taxation, stating that Congress must have the power to create legislation to collect taxes. The Followed by Federalist No. 34 people's reluctance is understandable, considering their recent break from Great Britain. Hamilton ridicules the anti-federalist alarmism about giving the national government more power, writing that the national government has "been held up to the people in all the exaggerated colors of misrepresentation as the pernicious engines by which their local governments were to be destroyed and their liberties exterminated; as the hideous monster whose devouring jaws would spare neither sex nor age, nor high nor low, nor sacred nor profane..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._33 1/3
2/26/25, 11:30 AM Federalist No. 33 - Wikipedia
This quote expresses Hamilton's frustration for the people's inability to hear him out and truly understand the reasoning and importance for the two clauses because these legislations and clauses are stated specifically to avoid anyone from being able to nitpick and find loopholes, and without anyone enforcing it, it would just be a treaty.
He poses the question of why the clause should be included if its power is implicit. He answers by saying that the clause is included "to guard against all cavilling refinements in those who might hereafter feel the disposition to curtail and evade the legitimate authorities of the Union," in other words, to guard against those who would seek to evade the authority of the Union by an overly literal interpretation of the constitution. In his essay he states that "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers by that Constitution vested in the government of the United States...and the treaties made by their authority shall be the supreme law of the land, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.'" Hamilton proceeds to clarify and explain the clause and the purpose it serves in detail in order to assuage all conflict and fear.
His response to a potential abuse of these powers is that the government must be responsible for the proper exercise of its powers, but ultimately the people themselves must hold the government to account. "If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify."
Hamilton similarly argues that the Supremacy Clause is simply an assurance that the government's powers can be properly executed, saying that a law itself implies supremacy, and without supremacy, it would amount to nothing. He returns to the example of taxation, stating that the supremacy of the constitution as the law of the land did not preclude states from independently raising their own taxes as necessary, except for duties on imports and exports. Hamilton's intentions were to assuage any uncertainty, hesitancy or fear amongst the people. He does so by explicitly going over the main purpose of the two controversial clauses. He makes sure that the audience understands that this will not take away their liberty, but instead will strengthen the ability of the government to effectively eliminate any issues presented in the future.
Hamilton concludes by saying that this concurrent jurisdiction in the realm of taxation was the only acceptable substitute to complete federal control, an idea he expounds upon in Federalist No. 34.
See also
• Article Six of the United States Constitution
• Supremacy Clause
References
1. "The Federalist No. 33(2 January January 1788)"(https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-0 4-02-0190). archives.gov. Retrieved July 10, 2020.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._33 2/3
2/26/25, 11:30 AM Federalist No. 33 - Wikipedia
External links
• Text of The Federalist No. 33 (https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist +Papers#TheFederalistPapers-33): congress.gov
• The Federalist No. 33 Text (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa33.htm) Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federalist_No. 33&oldid =1146797619" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._33 3/3
Case: 1:25-cv-01285 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/25 Page 1 of 23 PagelD #:1 1 BRETT A. SHUMATE
Acting Assistant Attorney General
2 Civil Division
DREW C. ENSIGN
3 Deputy Assistant Attorney General
4 AUGUST FLENTJE
Deputy Director
5 EREZ REUVENI
Assistant Director
6 Office of Immigration Litigation
7 ERIC HAMILTON
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
8 ALEXANDER K. HAAS
Director
9 JACQUELINE COLEMAN SNEAD
10 Assistant Director
ELISABETH J. NEYLAN
11 Trial Attorney
Federal Programs Branch
12 Attorneys for the United States
13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
16 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
No. 1:25-cv-1285
17 Plaintiff,
18 v.
COMPLAINT
19 STATE OF ILLINOIS; JB PRITZKER,
Governor of Illinois, in his Official
20 Capacity; THE CITY OF CHICAGO;
21 BRANDON JOHNSON, Mayor of
Chicago, in his Official Capacity; LARRY
22 SNELLING, Chicago Police
Superintendent, in his Official Capacity;
23 COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS; COOK
24 COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS; TONI
25 PRECKWINKLE, President of the Cook
County Board of Commissioners, in her
26 Official Capacity; THOMAS J. DART,
27 Cook County Sheriff, in his Official
Capacity,
28 Defendants.
Complaint of the United States
Case: 1:25-cv-01285 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/25 Page 2 of 23 PagelD #:2 1 Plaintiff, the United States of America, by and through its undersigned counsel, brings 2 this civil action for declaratory and injunctive relief, and alleges as follows:
3 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
4 1. Within hours of assuming the Presidency, President Trump declared a "national 5 emergency exists at the southern border of the United States" from the unprecedented 6 7 "illegal entry of aliens" into the country. Proclamation 10,886, Declaring a National 8 Emergency at the Southern Border of the United States, 90 Fed. Reg. 8327, 8327 (Jan. 20, 9 2025). "Many of these aliens unlawfully within the United States present significant 10 threats to national security and public safety, committing vile and heinous acts against 12 innocent Americans." Executive Order 14,159, Protecting the American People Against Invasion, 90 Fed. Reg. 8443, 8443 (Jan. 20, 2025). Further exacerbating this national 14 crisis, some of these aliens find safe havens from federal law enforcement detection in so- 15 called Sanctuary Cities where they live and work among innocent Americans, who may 16 later become their crime victims.
17 18 2. This national crisis underscores the vital importance of "[e]nforcing our Nation's 19 immigration laws." Id. This action seeks to put an end to one State's efforts to impede 20 the Federal Government from doing that.
21 3. The United States brings this declaratory and injunctive action to prohibit the State of 22 23 Illinois and its subdivisions from enforcing several state and local laws—-namely, the Way 24 Forward Act, TRUST Act, Welcoming City Act, and Cook County, III. Ordinance 11-O- 25 73—that are designed to and in fact interfere with and discriminate against the Federal 26 Government's enforcement of federal immigration law in violation of the Supremacy 27 Clause of the United States Constitution. See The TRUST Act, 5 IlI. Comp. Stat. 805/1 el 28 Complaint of the United States - 1-
Case: 1:25-cv-01285 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/25 Page 3 of 23 PagelD #:3 1 seq. (2017), amended, Illinois Way Forward Act, 2021 III. Legis. Serv. 102-234; Cook 2 County, Illinois Ordinance 11-0-73 (2011); and Welcoming City Ordinance, Chicago 3 Mun. Code ch. 2-173 (2012).
4 4. The United States has well-established, preeminent, and preemptive authority to regulate 5 immigration matters. This authority derives from the United States Constitution, 6 7 numerous acts of Congress, and binding U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Indeed, Congress 8 last week strengthened that authority with the enactment of the Laken Riley Act, S. 5, 9 119th Cong. (2025), which "mandates the federal detention of illegal immigrants who are 10 accused of theft, burglary, assaulting a law enforcement officer, and any crime that causes =
death or serious bodily injury." DHS, Press Release, President Trump Signs the Laken 12 Riley Act in Law, https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/01/29/president-trump-signs-laken- 14 riley-act-law.
15 5. Both the Governor of Illinois JB Pritzker and Mayor of Chicago Brandon Johnson, sued 16 here in their official capacities, profess a shared interest with the Federal Government in 17 18 enforcing immigration laws to effectuate the removal of such offenders from the United 19 States. Last week on CNN, Governor Pritzker proclaimed: "Well let me start by being 20 clear that when we're talking about violent criminals who've been convicted and who are 21 undocumented, we don't want them in our state. We want them out of the country. We 22 hope they do get deported. And if that's who they're picking up, we're all for it." 23 24 https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/26/politics/video/sotu-pritzker-on-planned-chicago- 25 immigration-raids. Illinois laws, however, provide otherwise. 26 6.
The challenged provisions of Illinois, Chicago, and Cook County law reflect their 27 intentional effort to obstruct the Federal Government's enforcement of federal 28 Complaint of the United States - 2-
Case: 1:25-CV-01285 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/25 Page 4 of 23 PagelD #:4 immigration law and to impede consultation and communication between federal, state, 1 2 and local law enforcement officials that is necessary for federal officials to carry out 3 federal immigration law and keep Americans safe.
4 7. Upon information and belief, the conduct of officials in Chicago and Illinois minimally 5 enforcing-and oftentimes affirmatively thwarting-federal immigration laws over a 7 period of years has resulted in countless criminals being released into Chicago who should 8 have been held for immigration removal from the United States. According to the U.S. 9 Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Law Enforcement Statistical Tracking 10 Unit, from Fiscal Year 2016 until 2025, Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) =
arrested 13,564 aliens in Illinois, lodging 11,036 detainers. For those arrested, many were 12 13 charged with serious crimes including assault, larceny, and sexual and drug-related 14 offenses.
15 8. The Illinois Way Forward Act and TRUST Act both impede the Federal Government's 16 ability to regulate immigration and take enforcement actions against illegal aliens by 17 18 preventing state law enforcement officials from assisting with federal civil immigration 19 enforcement. Under these laws, state officers are explicitly prohibited from complying 20 with immigration detainers or civil immigration warrants; they are also prevented from 21 entering into agreements to detain noncitizens for federal civil immigration violations. 22 See 5 III. Comp. Stat. 805/15.
23 24 9. The Chicago law, the Welcoming City Ordinance, Chicago Municipal Code ch. 2-173, limits the ability of Chicago law enforcement officers (1) to provide the Federal 26 Government with basic information about noncitizens who are in their custody and are 27 subject to federal immigration custody, including custody status or release date, and (2) 28 Complaint of the United States - 3-
Case: 1:25-cv-01285 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/25 Page 5 of 23 PagelD #:5 1 to provide federal officers access to such individuals to effect their safe transfer to federal 2 immigration custody when presented with a federal administrative warrant. 3 10.
The Cook County law, Ordinance 11-O-73, "Policy for Responding to ICE Detainers," 4 similarly limits the ability of Cook County law enforcement officers to provide the Federal 5 Government with basic information about noncitizens who are in their custody and are 6 7 subject to federal immigration custody, or to provide federal officers access to such 8 noncitizens to effect their safe transfer to federal immigration custody when presented 9 with a federal administrative warrant.
10 11. The challenged provisions of Illinois, Chicago, and Cook County law have the purpose 12 and effect of making it more difficult for, and deliberately impeding, federal immigration 13 officers' ability to carry out their responsibilities in those jurisdictions. These provisions 14 intentionally obstruct the sharing of information envisioned by Congress, including basic 15 information such as release dates and custodial status, thereby impairing federal detention 16 of removable aliens, including dangerous criminals, as required by federal law; they 17 18 further purport to direct federal officials to procure criminal arrest warrants in order to 19 take custody of removable aliens, even though Congress has made an explicit policy 20 choice that such removals can be effectuated by civil arrest warrants for immigration 21 enforcement; and they facilitate the release of dangerous criminals into the community by 22 directing local employees to refuse to transfer such aliens to federal officials in a secure 23 24 environment-thereby resulting in their release onto the streets, where they all too often 25 reoffend and commit serious crimes.
26 27
28 Complaint of the United States - 4-
Case: 1:25-CV-01285 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/25 Page 6 of 23 PagelD #:6
12. Upon information and belief, the provisions of Chicago and Cook County law that restrict 1 2 information sharing jeopardize the safety of residents. For example, last August, federal 3 officials issued a detainer request for an alien being held in Cook County jail on domestic 4 violence charges. The detainer was not honored, and the alien was subsequently arrested 5 on October 10, 2024 for aggravated criminal sexual assault and abuse of a minor. 6 7 13. The Supremacy Clause prohibits Illinois, Chicago, Cook County, and their officials from 8 obstructing the Federal Government's ability to enforce laws that Congress has enacted 9 or to take actions entrusted to it by the Constitution. 10 14. The Supremacy Clause also prohibits Illinois, Chicago, and Cook County from singling =
out the Federal Government for adverse treatment—as the challenged laws do-thereby 12 13 discriminating against the Federal Government. Accordingly, the provisions challenged 14 here are invalid and should be enjoined.
15 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
16 15. The Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 133l and 1345. 17 18 16. Venue is proper in this jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Defendants City 19 of Chicago, Cook County, and their officials reside within the Northern District of Illinois 20 and because all Defendants' acts or omissions giving rise to this Complaint arose from 21 events occurring within this judicial district.
22 17. The Court has the authority to provide the relief requested under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1651, 2201, 23 24 and 2202, and its inherent equitable powers.
25 PARTIES
26 18. Plaintiff, the United States of America, regulates immigration under its constitutional and 27 statutory authorities, and it enforces federal immigration laws through its Executive 28 Complaint of the United States - 5-
Case: 1:25-CV-01285 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/25 Page 7 of 23 PagelD #:7 1 agencies, including the Departments of Justice, State, Labor, and Homeland Security 2 (DHS) as well as DHS's component agencies U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 3 (ICE), and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
4 19. Defendant State of Illinois is a state of the Union.
20. Defendant JB Pritzker is the Governor of Illinois, and is being sued in his official 6 7 capacity.
8 21. Defendant City of Chicago is a city in the State of Illinois and a Sanctuary City. 9 22. Defendant Brandon Johnson is the Mayor of Chicago, and is being sued in his official 10 capacity.
23. Defendant Larry Snelling is the Superintendent of the Chicago Police Department, and 12 13 is being sued in his official capacity.
14 24. Defendant Cook County is a county in the State of Illinois. 15 25. Defendant Cook County Board of Commissioners is the governing board and legislative 16 body of Cook County, and is responsible for the management of the affairs of Cook 17 18 County.
19 26. Defendant Toni Preckwinkle is President of the Cook County Board of Commissioners, 20 and is being sued in her official capacity.
21 27. Defendant Thomas J. Dart is the Sheriff of Cook County, and is being sued in his official 22 capacity.
23 24 FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAW
25 28. The Constitution affords Congress the power to "establish a uniform Rule of 26 Naturalization," U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4, and to "regulate Commerce with foreign 27 Nations," U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3, and affords the President of the United States the Complaint of the United States - 6-
Case: 1:25-cv-01285 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/25 Page 8 of 23 PagelD #:8 authority to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed[.]" U.S. Const. art. II, § 3. 2 29. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution mandates that "[t]his Constitution, and the 3 Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof ... shall be the 4 supreme Law of the Land ... any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the 5 Contrary notwithstanding." U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2. Thus, a state enactment is invalid if 6 it "stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and 8 objectives of Congress," Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67 (1941), or if it 9 "discriminate[s] against the United States or those with whom it deals," South Carolina 10 v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505, 523 (1988).
=
30. Based on its enumerated constitutional and sovereign powers to control and conduct 12 13 relations with foreign nations, the Federal Government has broad authority to establish 14 immigration laws, the execution of which States cannot obstruct or take discriminatory 15 actions against. See Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 394-95 (2012); accord North 16 Dakola v. United States, 495 U.S. 423, 435 (1990) (plurality); id. at 444-47 (Scalia, J., 17 18 concurring).
19 31. Congress has exercised its authority to make laws governing the entry, presence, status, 20 and removal of aliens within the United States by enacting various provisions of the 21 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq. 22 32. These laws confer upon the Executive Branch extensive authority to inspect, investigate, 23 24 arrest, detain, and remove aliens who are suspected of being, or found to be, unlawfully 25 in the United States. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1231. 26 33. In effectuating these provisions, DHS may issue an "immigration detainer" that "serves 27 to advise another law enforcement agency that [DHS] seeks custody of an alien presently 28 Complaint of the United States - 7-
Case: 1:25-cv-01285 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/25 Page 9 of 23 PagelD #:9 in the custody of that agency, for the purpose of arresting and removing the alien." 8 2 C.F.R. § 287.7(a); see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1103(a)(3), 1226(a), (c), 1231(a), 1357(d). An 3 immigration "detainer is a request that such agency advise the Department, prior to release 4 of the alien, in order for the Department to arrange to assume custody[.J" 8 C.F.R. § 5 287.7(a).
6 34. DHS also may request, but not require, that custody be extended by a period not to exceed 7 8 48 hours, "in order to permit assumption of custody by the Department." Id. § 287.7(d). 9 And in some instances, DHS is statutorily required - upon request from local authorities 10 - to consider whether to issue a detainer for an alien in local custody. See 8 U.S.C. § 12 1357(d) (addressing violations of laws regulating controlled substances). In other cases, 13 DHS is required to issue a detainer for certain aliens, including any alien who is "charged 14 with, is arrested for, is convicted of, admits having committed, or admits committing acts 15 which constitute the essential elements of any burglary, theft, larceny, shoplifting, or 16 assault of a law enforcement officer offense, or any crime that results in death or serious 17 18 bodily injury to another person[.J" 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). 19 35. On January 29, 2025, President Trump signed into law the Laken Riley Act, named for 20 the nursing student killed by an alien who, after entering the United States illegally, committed additional crimes but was released before immigration authorities could 22 intervene. See Laken Riley Act, S. 5, 119th Cong. (2025). The Laken Riley Act requires 23 24 DHS to detain aliens who are unlawfully present in the United States and have been 25 arrested for theft and other crimes. Id.
26 36. Congress has also codified basic principles of cooperation and comity between state and 27 local authorities and the Federal Government. For example, federal law contemplates that 28 Complaint of the United States - 8-
Case: 1:25-Cv-01285 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/25 Page 10 of 23 PagelD #:10 removable aliens in state custody who have been convicted of state or local offenses will 1 2 generally serve their state or local criminal sentences before being subject to removal but 3 will be taken into federal custody upon the expiration of their state prison terms. See 8 4 U.S.C. §§ 1226(c), 1231(a)(1)(B)(iii), (a) (4).
5 37. "Consultation between federal and state officials is an important feature of the 6 7 immigration system." Arizona, 567 U.S. at 411. Congress has therefore directed that a 8 federal, state, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way 9 restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, DHS 10 "information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any 12 individual." 8 U.S.C. § 1373(a); see id. § 1644 (same); see also id. § 1357(g)(10)(A) 13 (providing for state and local "communication] with [DHS] regarding the immigration 14 status of any individual, including reporting knowledge that a particular alien is not 15 lawfully present in the United States"). Likewise, "no person or agency may prohibit, or 16 in any way restrict, a Federal, State, or local government entity from," among other things, 17 18 "[m]aintaining" information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any 19 individual," or "[e]xchanging such information with any other Federal, State, or local 20 government entity." Id. § 1373(b).
21 38. Congress also authorized states and localities "to cooperate with the [Secretary of DHS] 22 in the identification, apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully present in 24 the United States." Id. § 1357(g)(10)(B).
25 39. Congress further sought to affirmatively penalize efforts to obstruct immigration 26 enforcement by, among other things, prohibiting the "conceal[ing], harbor[ing], or 27 shield[ing] from detection, or attempts to" accomplish the same, of any "alien in any place, 28 Complaint of the United States - 9-
Case: 1:25-CV-01285 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/25 Page 11 of 23 PagelD #:11 1 including any building or any means of transportation." Id. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii). 2 40. DHS, through ICE and CBP, performs a significant portion of its law enforcement 3 activities in Chicago and Cook County. For example, since Fiscal Year 2024, ERO has 4 issued 1,470 detainers in Illinois, and made 400 at-large arrests in Illinois, with 329, or 5 roughly 82%, occurring in the Chicago area. And CBP is responsible for enforcing the 6 7 immigration laws at international ports of entry, including apprehending attempted 8 entrants with criminal convictions or who are national security concerns.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
10 Illinois's TRUST Act and Way Forward Act
41. The Illinois TRUST Act was enacted in 2017 to prohibit state law enforcement officials 12 from participating in federal civil immigration enforcement. See TRUST Act, 5 III. Comp. 14 Stat. 805/1 et seq. (2017). The TRUST Act was amended in 2021 by the Way Forward 15 Act, to, among other things, prevent state and local law enforcement officials from 16 entering into agreements to detain individuals for federal civil immigration violations. See 17 18 id. at 805/15(g).
19 42. The Way Forward Act along with the TRUST Act limit cooperation with federal 20 enforcement in numerous ways. For example, Section 15 of the TRUST Act prohibits "[a] 21 law enforcement agency or law enforcement official" from "detain[ing] or continu[ing] to 22 23 detain any individual solely on the basis of any immigration detainer or civil immigration 24 warrant or otherwise comply with an immigration detainer or civil immigration warrant." 25 Id. at 805/15(a).
26 43.
Under that section, unless presented with a federal criminal warrant, or otherwise required 27 by federal law, state law enforcement officials may not "assist in any capacity with an 28 Complaint of the United States - 10-
Case: 1:25-cv-01285 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/25 Page 12 of 23 PagelD #:12 1 immigration agent's enforcement operations," id. at 805/15(h). The prohibition extends 2 to offering collateral assistance, including coordinating an arrest in a public facility; giving 3 an immigration agent access, even by telephone, to an alien in state custody; transferring 4 an alien to an immigration agent's custody; providing information in response to an 5 immigration agent's inquiry or request; and providing information to an immigration 6 7 agent regarding an alien's release date or contact information that is not otherwise publicly 8 available. See id. at 805/15(h).
9 44.
In addition, "[a state] law enforcement agency or law enforcement official may not inquire 10 about or investigate the citizenship or immigration status or place of birth of any individual 11 12 in the agency or official's custody or who has otherwise been stopped or detained by the 13 agency or official." Id. at 805/15(e).
14 45. The TRUST Act purportedly does not prohibit "sending to, or receiving from, the United 15 States Department of Homeland Security or other federal, State, or local government 16 entity information regarding the citizenship or immigration status of any individual under 17 18 Sections 1373 and 1644 of Title 8 of the United States Code," or "contacting another law 19 enforcement agency for the purposes of clarifying or confirming the civil or criminal 20 nature of notifications or other records" in certain databases. Id. at 805/5. And the Act 21 permits "a [state] law enforcement agency or law enforcement official to request evidence 22 of citizenship or immigration status pursuant to the Firearm Owners Identification Card 23 24 Act, the Firearm Concealed Carry Act, Article 24 of the Criminal Code of 2012, or 18 25 United States Code Sections 92l through 931." Id. at 805/15(e). 26 46.
Finally, the TRUST Act does not preclude a state law enforcement official from 27 cooperating with other federal agencies, including Homeland Security Investigations 28 Complaint of the United States - 11-
Case: 1:25-cv-01285 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/25 Page 13 of 23 PagelD #:13 1 (HSI), in investigating criminal violations "in order to ensure public safety." See id. at 2 805/15(i).
3 Chicago's Restrictions on State and Local Cooperation with Federal Officials 4 (Chicago Municipal Code ch. 2-173)
5 47. In 2012, the Chicago City Council passed the "Welcoming City Ordinance," Chicago 6 Code ch. 2-173, which sought to "clarify the communications and enforcement 7 relationship between the City and the federal government," in addition to "establish[ing] 8 the City's procedures concerning immigration status and enforcement of federal civil 9 10 immigration laws." Chicago Mun. Code § 2-173-005.
11 48. The Ordinance explicitly and intentionally limits local cooperation with federal 12 immigration enforcement in various ways. It provides that no city agent or agency shall 13 "detain, or continue to detain a person based upon an immigration detainer" or "an 14 15 administrative warrant, including, but not limited to, those entered into the Federal Bureau 16 of Investigation's National Crime Information Center database, or successor or similar 17 database maintained by the United States." Id. § 2-173-020(a)(I). Moreover, no city 18 agent shall permit ICE agents "access, including by telephone, to a person being detained 19 by, or in the custody of, the [city] agency or agent," or "use of [city] agency facilities for 20 21 investigative interviews or other investigative purpose." Id. § 2-173-020(a)(2). Nor shall 22 city agents "expend their time responding to ICE inquiries or communicating with ICE 23 regarding a person's custody status, release date, or contact information." Id. § 2-173- 24 020(a)(3).
25 49. Section 2-173-030 provides that: "Unless required to do so by statute, federal regulation, 26 27 court order, or a lawfully issued judicial warrant, no [city] agent or agency shall request, 28 maintain, or share the citizenship or immigration status of any person unless such Complaint of the United States - 12 -
Case: 1:25-cv-01285 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/25 Page 14 of 23 PageID #:14 1 disclosure has been authorized in writing by the individual to whom such information 2 pertains, or if such individual is a minor or is otherwise not legally competent, by such 3 individual's parent or guardian." Id. § 2-17-030(a)(1). 4 50. These provisions used to contain a limited exception when the subject of the investigation:
5 (1) had an outstanding criminal warrant, (2) had been convicted of a felony, (3) was a 6 7 defendant in a criminal case with a pending felony charge, or (4) was a known gang 8 member, but those exceptions were repealed in 2021. See id. 2-173-042(c) (repealed). 9 s1. Upon information and belief, Chicago law enforcement officials have been chilled by 10 these prohibitions.
52. Upon information and belief, Chicago law enforcement officials are also confused by the 12 13 restrictions on them and thus do not provide even the permissible cooperation out of fear 14 of punishment.
15 Cook County's Restrictions on State and Local Cooperation with Federal Officials 16 (Cook County Code § 46-37)
17 53. In 2011, the Cook County Board of Commissioners approved and adopted Ordinance 11- 18 O-73, "Policy for Responding to ICE Detainers," which added Section 46-37 to the Cook 19 County Code. The policy purports to establish the "proper boundaries of the relationship 20 21 between local law enforcement and" ICE. Ordinance 11-O-73, pmbl. 22 54. The Cook County Ordinance limits local cooperation with federal immigration 23 enforcement in numerous ways. It mandates that the county Sheriff "shall decline all ICE 24 detainer requests unless there is a written agreement with the federal government by which 25 all costs incurred by Cook County in responding to the detainer shall be reimbursed" and 26 27 that "there shall be no expenditure of any County resources or effort by on-duty County 28 personnel for [the] purpose" of cooperating with ICE detainers. Cook County Code, § 46- Complaint of the United States - 13-
Case: 1:25-CV-01285 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/25 Page 15 of 23 PagelD #:15 1 37(a), (c). Section 46-37(b) of the County Code provides that "ICE agents shall not be 2 given access to individuals..., and County personnel shall not expend their time 3 responding to ICE inquiries or communicating with ICE regarding individuals' 4 incarceration status or release dates while on duty." 5 55. These provisions contain limited exceptions. County personnel may only provide ICE 6 7 access to individuals in County custody or share information concerning an individual's 8 incarceration status or release date if "ICE agents have a criminal warrant, or County 9 officials have a legitimate law enforcement purpose that is not related to the enforcement 10 of immigration laws." Id. § 46-37(b).
11/
56. The Federal Government, through ICE, has offered to reimburse certain costs incurred by 12 13 Cook County as a result of honoring ICE detainers. Cook County rejected that offer. 14 57. Upon information and belief, since April 1, 2024, there have been numerous instances 15 where Cook County law enforcement officers failed to honor a federal immigration 16 detainer request concerning an alien who was subsequently criminally charged following 17 18 the alien's release from jail. Had the requested information sharing occurred in these 19 instances, the commission of numerous crimes likely would have been averted 20 58. Consequently, not only are Cook County employees effectively barred from requesting 21 and sharing information regarding immigration status with ICE or other law enforcement 22 agencies, but where ICE has issued an immigration detainer for an alien in local custody, 23 24 the detainer is removed from the alien's permanent criminal file, and therefore does not 25 follow the alien if he/she is transferred to long-term state incarceration. 26 59.
Upon information and belief, Cook County does not impose these restrictions on other 27 forms of information sharing or other law enforcement agencies. See Cook County 28 Complaint of the United States - 14-
Case: 1:25-cv-01285 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/25 Page 16 of 23 PagelD #:16 1 Ordinance 11-0-73.
2 60. Upon information and belief, Cook County law enforcement officials have been chilled 3 by these prohibitions.
4 61. Upon information and belief, Cook County law enforcement officials are also confused 5 by the county restrictions on them and thus do not provide even the permissible 6 7 cooperation out of fear of punishment.
8 THE CHALLENGED PROVISIONS' IMPACT ON FEDERAL IMMIGRATION 9 ENFORCEMENT
10 62. The combined effect of the challenged provisions of Illinois, Chicago, and Cook County 11 12 laws, III. SB0667, 5 III. Comp. Stat. 80S, Chicago Mun. Code §§ 2-173-020, 2-173-030 13 and Cook County Code § 46-37, facially and as applied, prohibits even the most basic 14 cooperation with federal officials. Congress, in comity to States, permitted state and local 15 jurisdictions to fully punish aliens for state criminal violations prior to removal. See 8 16 U.S.C. § 123|(a)(4)(A) (providing that, subject to limited exceptions, federal agents "may 17 18 not remove an alien who is sentenced to imprisonment until the alien is released from 19 imprisonment"). But Congress crafted a statutory scheme that clearly envisioned the 20 Federal Government being able to detain and remove those aliens, once their state 21 proceedings and sentences concluded.
22 63. Specifically, Congress specified that the removal period begins immediately upon release 23 24 from state criminal custody, id. § 123l(a)(I)(B)(iii), and detention during that period is 25 mandatory, id. § 1231(a)(2); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)(3), id. § 1357(d) (directing 26 immigration officers to obtain a detainer to facilitate the transfer of criminal aliens from 27 state to federal custody). Congress granted this permission expecting that States would 28 Complaint of the United States - 15-
Case: 1:25-cv-01285 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/25 Page 17 of 23 PagelD #:17 1 then facilitate, or at the very least not obstruct, detention of criminal aliens by federal 2 immigration authorities. If ICE lacks knowledge of criminal aliens' release dates from 3 state custody, ICE cannot exercise its statutory responsibility of effecting an arrest upon 4 the alien's release.
5 64. Furthermore, federal law contemplates that DHS will be able to inspect all applicants for 6 7 admission, and take all appropriate action against those found to be inadmissible to the 8 United States, even those transferred to state or local custody pending prosecution. See id. 9 §§ 1182, 1225(b)(2); 8 C.F.R. § 235.2. And, to facilitate coordination between state and 10 local officials and the Federal Government, Congress expressly prohibited any federal, 11 12 state, or local government entity or official from prohibiting, or in any way restricting, 13 any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, DHS "information 14 regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual," 8 15 U.S.C. § 1373(a), or from maintaining and exchanging such information with other law 16 enforcement entities. Id. § 1373(b); see also id. § 1644. 17 65. The challenged Illinois, Chicago, and Cook County laws directly conflict with this 18 19 scheme.
20 66. The Welcoming City Ordinance runs directly afoul of 8 U.S.C. § 1373 by forbidding city 21 officers from "expend[ing] their time responding to ICE inquiries.... regarding a person's 22 23 custody status, release date, or contact information," Chicago Mun. Code § 2-173- 24 020(a)(3), and further providing that such officers may not "request, maintain, or share 25 the citizenship or immigration status of any person," id. § 2-173-030(a)(1). Nor can 26 Chicago point to its purported savings clause to avoid that reality. The savings clause 27 allows agents to undertake those activities "if required to do so by statute, federal 28 Complaint of the United States - 16-
Case: 1:25-CV-01285 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/25 Page 18 of 23 PagelD #:18 regulation, court order, or a lawfully issued judicial warrant," id. § 2-173-030(a), but 2 rather than require States and local governments to share and maintain that information, 3 federal law only prohibits restrictions on those activities. Chicago has therefore prohibited 4 the activities that federal law expressly contemplates States will do. 5 67. Moreover, Chicago's failure to provide exceptions to its prohibition on cooperation with 6 7 federal immigration agents conflicts with federal law governing what constitutes a 8 predicate for inadmissibility or removability. See id. §§ 1182(a)(2), 1227(a)(2). Federal 9 agents are required to detain illegal aliens who have committed certain offenses upon their 10 release from state custody. Congress not only recently reaffirmed its commitment to this 11 mandate, but augmented the authority of federal agents in this space by adding predicate 12 13 offenses that trigger this detention requirement, id. §§ 1226(c), (c)(3), 1357(d); see also 14 Laken Riley Act, S. 5, 119th Cong. (2025).
15 68. The restrictions on providing ICE access to removable aliens in their custody, see 5 III. 16 Comp. Stat. 805/15(a), (h); Cook County Code § 46-37(b); Chicago Mun. Code § 2-173- 17 18 020, also conflict with federal law, which establishes a system of civil administrative 19 warrants as the basis for immigration arrest and removal, and does not require or 20 contemplate use of a judicial warrant for civil immigration enforcement. See 8 U.S.C. §$ 21 1226(a), 1231(a).
22 69. Further, upon information and belief, because of the challenged laws, DHS lacks the 23 24 ability to readily obtain from local law enforcement the release date of aliens whom DHS 25 has reason to believe are removable from the United States, and DHS lacks access to such 26 aliens to facilitate the transfer of custody, even where DHS presents a Congressionally 27 authorized civil administrative warrant of arrest or removal, see id. §§ 1226(a), 1231(a), 28 Complaint of the United States - 17 -
Case: 1:25-CV-01285 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/25 Page 19 of 23 PagelD #:19 or has transferred those aliens to local law enforcement in the first instance to permit their 1 2 prosecution for a state crime.
3 70. By restricting basic information sharing and barring DHS access to aliens in state or local 4 custody upon their release as provided by federal law (e.g., an administrative warrant), the 5 challenged Illinois, Chicago, and Cook County laws require federal immigration officers 6 7 either (1) to engage in difficult and dangerous efforts to re-arrest aliens who were 8 previously in local custody, endangering immigration officers, the particular alien, and 9 others who may be nearby, or (2) to determine that it is not appropriate to transfer an alien 10 to local custody in the first place, in order to comply with their mission to enforce the 11 immigration laws.
12 13 71. Illinois, Chicago, and Cook County have no lawful interest in assisting removable aliens' 14 evasion of federal law enforcement.
15 172. Upon information and belief, neither Illinois, nor Chicago, nor Cook County permits its 16 employees to place a detainer or administrative warrant in the alien's file or to enter its 17 18 existence in government databases, such that if an alien is transferred to another law 19 enforcement agency, that agency cannot act on the undisclosed detainer or administrative 20 warrant or learn about and share that alien's immigration status with other law 21 enforcement, including the Federal Government.
22 73. Illinois, Chicago, and Cook County single out the Federal Government for their disfavored 23 24 treatment. See 5 III. Comp. Stat 805/15; Chicago Mun. Code § 2-173-020; Cook County 25 Ordinance 11-0-73.
26 74. These provisions are an obstacle to the Federal Government's enforcement of the 27 immigration laws and discriminate against federal immigration enforcement, as well as 28 Complaint of the United States - 18-
Case: 1:25-CV-01285 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/25 Page 20 of 23 PagelD #:20 1 (with respect to the information-sharing and maintenance restrictions) expressly violate 8 2 U.S.C. § 1373.
3 75. In rejecting congressionally authorized means of enforcing federal immigration law, 4 including detainers and administrative warrants, these provisions constitute unlawful 5 direct regulation of the Federal Government.
6 7 CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
8 COUNT ONE - VIOLATION OF THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE
(PREEMPTION)
9 10 76. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 75 of the Complaint as if fully stated = herein.
12 77. The challenged provisions of the TRUST Act, 5 III. Comp. Stat. 805/1 et seq. (2017), as amended by the Way Forward Act, SB0667 (2021); Cook County Ordinance 11-0-73, § 14 15 46-37 (2011); and Chicago Welcoming City Ordinance ch. 2-173 constitute and create 16 obstacles to the enforcement of federal immigration law. 17 78. The challenged provisions of those acts also undermine federal immigration law's 18 protections for information sharing and are thus preempted under both express and 19 conflict preemption principles. E.g., 8 U.S.C. §§ 1373(a), 1644. 20 21 179. Federal immigration law therefore preempts the challenged provisions of the TRUST Act, 22 5 III. Comp. Stat. 805/1 et seq. (2017), as amended by the Way Forward Act, SB0667 23 (2021); Cook County Ordinance 11-0-73, § 46-37 (2011); and Chicago Welcoming City 24 Ordinance ch. 2-173.
25 80. Accordingly, those provisions violate the Supremacy Clause, interfere with federal law, 26 27 and create obstacles to the enforcement of federal immigration law both on their face and 28 as applied to the Federal Government.
Complaint of the United States - 19-
Case: 1:25-cV-01285 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/25 Page 21 of 23 PageID #:21 •
1 COUNT TWO - VIOLATION OF THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE
(UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT) 2 81. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs I through 80 of the Complaint as if fully stated 3 4 herein.
5 82. Defendants' enforcement of the challenged provisions of the TRUST Act, 5 Ill. Comp. 6 Stat. 805/1 et seq. (2017), as amended by the Way Forward Act, SB0667 (2021); Cook 7 County Ordinance 11-0-73, § 46-37 (201 1); and Chicago Welcoming City Ordinance ch. 8 2-173 discriminates against the Federal Government.
9 10 83. The challenged provisions single out federal immigration officials, expressly and implicitly, for unfavorable and uncooperative treatment when other law enforcement 12 officials are not so treated.
84. Accordingly, the challenged provisions of the TRUST Act, 5 III. Comp. Stat. 805/1 et seq. 15 (2017), as amended by the Way Forward Act, SB0667 (2021); Cook County Ordinance 16 11-0-73, § 46-37 (2011); and Chicago Welcoming City Ordinance ch. 2-173 violate the 17 Doctrine of Intergovernmental Immunity and therefore alternatively are invalid on that 18 basis.
19 COUNT THREE - VIOLATION OF THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE
20 (UNLAWFUL REGULATION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT)
21 85. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs I through 84 of the Complaint as if fully stated 22 herein.
23 24 86. Defendants' enforcement of the challenged provisions of the TRUST Act, 5 III. Comp. 25 Stat. 805/1 et seq. (2017), as amended by the Way Forward Act, SB0667 (2021); Cook 26 County Ordinance 11-0-73, § 46-37 (201 1); and Chicago Welcoming City Ordinance ch. 27 2-173 effects direct regulation of the Federal Government. 28 Complaint of the United States - 20-
Case: 1:25-CV-01285 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/25 Page 22 of 23 PagelD #:22
87. By refusing to honor civil detainers and warrants expressly authorized by Congress, 1 2 Defendants have unlawfully eliminated these means for federal immigrations officials to 3 carry out their statutory functions.
4 88. Accordingly, the challenged provisions of the TRUST Act, 5 III. Comp. Stat. 805/l et seq. 5 (2017), as amended by the Way Forward Act, SB0667 (2021); Cook County Ordinance 6 7 11-0-73, § 46-37 (2011); and Chicago Welcoming City Ordinance ch. 2-173 effect 8 regulation of the Federal Government and alternatively are invalid on that basis. 9 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
10 WHEREFORE, the United States respectfully requests the following relief:
11 1. That this Court enter a judgment declaring that the challenged provisions of the TRUST 12 13 Act, 5 III. Comp. Stat. 805/l et seq. (2017), as amended by the Way Forward Act, SB0667 14 (2021); Cook County Ordinance 11-0-73, § 46-37 (2011); and Chicago Welcoming City 15 Ordinance ch. 2-173 violate the Supremacy Clause and are therefore invalid; 16 2. That this Court enter a judgment declaring that the challenged provisions of the TRUST 17 18 Act, 5 III. Comp. Stat. 805/l et seq. (2017), as amended by the Way Forward Act, SB0667 19 (2021); Cook County Ordinance 11-O-73, § 46-37 (2011); and Chicago Welcoming City 20 Ordinance ch. 2-173 violate 8 U.S.C. § 1373 and are therefore invalid; 21 3. That this Court issue preliminary and permanent injunctions that prohibit Defendants as 22 well as their successors, agents, and employees, from enforcing the challenged provisions 23 24 of the TRUST Act, 5 III. Comp. Stat. 805/1 et seq. (2017), as amended by the Way 25 Forward Act, SB0667 (2021); Cook County Ordinance 11-0-73, § 46-37 (2011); and 26 Chicago Welcoming City Ordinance ch. 2-173;
27 4. That this Court award the United States its costs and fees in this action; and 28 Complaint of the United States - 21-
Case: 1:25-CV-01285 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/06/25 Page 23 of 23 PageID #:23 •
•
5. That this Court award any other relief it deems just and proper. 1 2 DATED: February 6, 2025
3 BRETT A. SHUMATE
4 Acting Assistant Attorney General
5 Civil Division
6 DREW C. ENSIGN
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
7 AUGUST FLENTJE
8 Deputy Director
EREZ REUVENI
9 Assistant Director
Office of Immigration Litigation
10 11 ERIC HAMILTON
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
12 ALEXANDER K. HAAS
Director
13 JACQUELINE COLEMAN SNEAD
14 Assistant Director
ELISABETH J. NEYLAN
15 Trial Attorney
Federal Programs Branch
16 17 Attorneys for the United States
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 Complaint of the United States - 22-
IMMEDIATE RELEASE September 5, 1957
James C, Hagerty, Press Secretary to the President
THE WHILE HOUSE
U.S. Naval Base
Newport, Rhode Island
THE PRESIDENT TODAY SENT THE
FOLLOWING TELEGRAM TO THE
HONORABLE ORVAL D. FAUBUS,
THE GOVERNOR OF ARKANSAS
The Honorable Orval G, Faubus
Governor of Arkansas
Little Rock, Arkansas
Your telegram received requesting my assurance of understanding of and cooperation in the course of action you have taken on school integration recommended by the Little Rock School Board and ordered by the United States District Court pursuant to the mandate of the United States Supreme Court,
When I became President, I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. The only assurance I can give you is that the Federal Constitution will be upheld by me by every legal means at my command.
There is no basis of fact to the statements you make in your telegram that Federal authorities have been considering taking you into custody or that telephone lines to your Executive Mansion have been tapped by any agency of the Federal Government.
At the request of Judge Davies, the Department of Justice is presently collecting facts as to interference with or failure to comply with the District Court's order. You and other state officials -- as well as the National Guard which, of coorse, is uniformed, armed and partially sustained by the Government -- will, Iam sure, give full cooperation to the United States District Dwight D. Eisenhower
4+÷*
Daniel Webster
SECOND REPLY TO HAYNE 1
January 26 and 27, 1830
(In the Senate)
Vir. President, when the mariner has been member's attention, save only the resolution ossed for many days in thick weather, and or before the Senate. He has spoken of everything but the public lands; they have escaped his
notice. To that subject, in all his excursions, he
has not paid even the cold respect of a passing
"THAT SHOT... HAS NOW BEEN RECEIVED"
debate, refer to the point from which we de- When this debate, sir, was to be resumed on parted, that we may at least be able to conjec- Thursday morning, it so happened that it ture where we now are. I ask for the reading of would have been convenient for me to be else- the resolution before the Senate. where. The honorable member, however, did The secretary read the resolution, as follows: not incline to put off the discussion to another Resoloed, That the Committee on Public Lands be instruct- day. He had a shot, he said, to return, and he ed to inquire and report the quantity of public lands re- wished to discharge it. That shot, sir, which he maining unsold within each State and Territory, and thus kindly informed us was coming, that we whether it be expedient to limit for a certain period the might stand out of the way, or prepare our- sales of the public lands to such lands only as have hereto- fore been offered for sale, and are now subject to entry at selves to fall by it and die with decency, has the minimum price. And, also, whether the office of Sur- now been received. Under all advantages, and veyor-General, and some of the land offices, may not be with expectation awakened by the tone which without detriment to the public interest; or preceded it, it has been discharged, and has whether it be expedient to adopt measures to hasten the spent its force. It may become me to say no sales and extend more rapidly the surveys of the public more of its effect, than that, if nobody is found, after all, either killed or wounded, it is not the
We have thus heard, sir, what the resolution first time, in the history of human affairs, that is which is actually before us for consideration; the vigor and success of the war have not quite and it will readily occur to every one, that it is come up to the lofty and sounding phrase of almost the only subject about which something the manifesto. has not been said in the speech, running The gentleman, sir, in declining to postpone through two days, by which the Senate has the debate, told the Senate, with the emphasis been entertained by the gentleman from South of his hand upon his heart, that there was Carolina. Every topic in the wide range of our something rankling here, which he wished to re- public affairs, whether past or present-every- lieve. [Mr. Hayne rose, and disclaimed having thing, general or local, whether belonging to used the word rankling.] It would not, Mr. Presi- national politics or party politics-seems to dent, be safe for the honorable member to have attracted more or less of the honorable appeal to those around him, upon the question whether he did in fact make use of that word.
' Edwin P. Whipple, ed., The Greal Speeches and Orations of Daniel Web. But he may have been unconscious of it. At sler (Boston, 1880), pp. 227-69. any rate, it is enough that he disclaims it. But [37]
still, with or without the use of that particular rose, and, with much honeyed commendation word, he had yet something here, he said, of of the speech, suggested that the impressions which he wished to rid himself by an immedi- which it had produced were too charming and ate reply. In this respect, sir, I have a great ad- delightful to be disturbed by other sentiments vantage over the honorable gentleman. There is or other sounds, and proposed that the Senate nothing here, sir, which gives me the slightest should adjourn. Would it have been quite ami- uneasiness; neither fear, nor able in me, sir, to interrupt this excellent good which is sometimes more troublesome than feeling? Must I not have been absolutely mali- either, the consciousness of having been in the cious, if I could have thrust myself forward, to wrong. There is nothing, either originating here, destroy sensations thus pleasing? Was it not or now received here by the gentleman's shot. much better and kinder, both to sleep upon Nothing originating here, for I had not the them myself, and to allow others also the pleas- slightest feeling of unkindness towards the ure of sleeping upon them? But if it be meant, honorable member. Some passages, it is true, by sleeping upon his speech, that I took time to had occurred since our acquaintance in this prepare a reply to it, it is quite a mistake. body, which I could have wished might have Owing to other engagements, I could not been otherwise; but I had used philosophy and employ even the interval between the adjourn- forgotten them. I paid the honorable member ment of the Senate and its meeting the next the attention of listening with respect to his morning, in attention to the subject of this first speech; and when he sat down, though debate. Nevertheless, sir, the mere matter of surprised, and I must even say astonished, at fact is undoubtedly true. I did sleep on the gen- some of his opinions, nothing was farther from tleman's speech, and slept soundly. And I slept my intention than to commence any personal equally well on his speech of yesterday, to warfare. Through the whole of the few remarks which I am now replying. It is quite possible I made in answer, I avoided, studiously and that in this respect, also, I possess some advan- carefully, everything which I thought possible tage over the honorable member, attributable, to be construed into disrespect. And, sir, while doubtless, to a cooler temperament on my part; there is thus nothing originating here which I for, in truth, I slept upon his speeches remark- have wished at any time, or now wish, to dis- ably well. charge, I must repeat, also, that nothing has
been received here which rankles, or in any way
"WHY WAS HE SINGLED OUT?'
gives me annoyance. I will not accuse the hon-
orable member of violating the rules of civilized But the gentleman inquires why he was made war; I will not say, that he poisoned his arrows. the object of such a reply. Why was he singled But whether his shafts were, or were not, out? If an attack has been made on the East, he, dipped in that which would have caused ran- he assures us, did not begin it; it was made by kling if they had reached their destination, the gentleman from Missouri. Sir, I answered there was not, as it happened, quite strength the gentleman's speech because I happened to enough in the bow to bring them to their mark. hear it; and because, also, I chose to give an If he wishes now to gather up those shafts, he answer to that speech, which, if unanswered, I must look for them elsewhere; they will not be thought most likely to produce injurious im- found fixed and quivering in the object at pressions. I did not stop to inquire who was the which they were aimed. original drawer of the bill. I found a responsible The honorable member complained that I had indorser before me, and it was my purpose to lept on his speech. I must have slept on it, or hold him liable, and to bring him to his just re- not slept at all. The moment the honorable sponsibility, without delay. But, sir, this inter- member sat down, his friend from Missouri? rogatory of the honorable member was only in- troductory to another. He proceeded to ask me
whether I had turned upon him, in this debate,
185 (Se Speeche No. 10 and 2-385) served in the Senate, 1621- from the consciousness that I should find an [38]
overmatch, if I ventured on a contest with his whatever opinions I may choose to espouse, friend from Missouri. If, sir, the honorable from debating whenever I may choose to member, modestiae gratia, had chosen thus to Полольє debate, or from speaking whatever I may see fit defer to his friend, and to pay him a compli- to say, on the floor of the Senate. Sir, when ut- ment, without intentional disparagement to tered as matter of commendation or compli- others, it would have been quite according to ment, I should dissent from nothing which the the friendly courtesies of debate, and not at all honorable member might say of his friend. Still ungrateful to my own feelings. I am not one of less do 1 put forth any pretensions of my own. those, sir, who esteem any tribute of regard, But when put to me as matter of taunt, I throw whether light and occasional, or more serious it back, and say to the gentleman, that he could and deliberate, which may be bestowed on possibly say nothing less likely than such a others, as so much unjustly withholden from comparison to wound my pride of personal themselves. But the tone and manner of the character. The anger of its tone rescued the gentleman's question forbid me thus to inter- remark from intentional irony, which otherwise, pret it. I am not at liberty to consider it as probably, would have been its general accepta- nothing more than a civility to his friend. It had tion. But, sir, if it be imagined that by this an air of taunt and disparagement, something of mutual quotation and commendation; if it be the loftiness of asserted superiority, which does supposed that, by casting the characters of the not allow me to pass it over without notice. It drama, assigning to each his part, to one the was put as a question for me to answer, and so attack, to another the cry of onset; or if it be put as if it were difficult for me to answer, thought that, by a loud and empty vaunt of an- whether I deemed the member from Missouri ticipated victory, any laurels are to be won an overmatch for myself, in debate here. It here; if it be imagined, especially, that any, or seems to me, sir, that this is extraordinary lan- all these things will shake any purpose of mine, guage, and an extraordinary tone, for the dis- I can tell the honorable member, once for all, cussions of this body. that he is greatly mistaken, and that he is deal- ing with one of whose temper and character he
has yet much to learn. Sir, I shall not allow
"THIS IS A SENATE... OF EQUALS" myself, on this occasion, I hope on no occasion, to be betrayed into any loss of temper; but if
Matches and overmatches! Those terms are provoked, as I trust I never shall be, into crimi- more applicable elsewhere than here, and fitter recrimination, the honorable for other assemblies than this. Sir, the gentle- member may perhaps find that, in that contest, man seems to forget where and what we are. there will be blows to take as well as blows to This is a Senate, a Senate of equals, of men of give; that others can state comparisons as sig- individual honor and personal character, and of nificant, at least, as his own, and that his impu- absolute independence. We know no masters, nity may possibly demand of him whatever we acknowledge no dictators. This is a hall for powers of taunt and sarcasm he may possess. I mutual commend him to a prudent husbandry of his
arena for the exhibition of champions. I offer resources. myself, sir, as a match for no man; I throw the
challenge of debate at no man's feet. But then,
"THE GHOST OF THE MURDERED COALITION"
But, sir, the coalition! The coalition! Ay, "the
murdered coalition!" The gentleman asks, if I
holding myself to be the humblest of the mem- were led or frighted into this debate by the bers here, I yet know nothing in the arm of his
Sided by the an of his friend from out he-
which, like the ghost of Banquo, would never
..... (39]
крс.
down?" "The murdered coalition!" Sir, this conscience-smitten, and none others, to start, charge of a coalition, in reference to the late ad- with, ministration, is not original with the honorable Pr'ythee, see there! behold!-look! lo member. It did not spring up in the Senate. If I stand here, 1 saw him! Whether as a fact, as an argument, or as an em-
bellishment, it is all borrowed. He adopts it, Their eyeballs were seared (was it not so, indeed, from a very low origin, and a still lower sir?) who had thought to shield themselves by present condition. It is one of the thousand cal- concealing their own hand, and laying the im- umnies with which the press teemed, during an putation of the crime on a low and hireling excited political canvass. It was a charge, of agency in wickedness; who had vainly attempt- which there was not only no proof or probabili- ed to stifle the workings of their own coward ty, but which was in itself wholly impossible to consciences by ejaculating through white lips be true. No man of common information ever and chattering teeth, "Thou canst not say I did believed a syllable of it. Yet it was of that class it!" I have misread the great poet if those who of falsehoods, which, by continued repetition, had no way partaken in the deed of the death, through all the organs of detraction and abuse, either found that they were, or feared that they are capable of misleading those who are already should be, pushed from their stools by the ghost far misled, and of further fanning passion al- of the slain, or exclaimed to a spectre created ready kindling into flame. Doubtless it served by their own fears and their own remorse, in its day, and in greater or less degree, the end "Avaunt! and quit our sight!" designed by it. Having done that, it has sunk There is another particular, sir, in which the into the general mass of stale and loathed cal- honorable member's quick perception of resem- umnies. It is the very cast-off slough of a pol- blances might, I should think, have seen some- luted and shameless press. Incapable of further thing in the story of Banquo, making it not mischief, it lies in the sewer, lifeless and de- altogether a subject of the most pleasant con- spised. It is not now, sir, in the power of the templation. Those who murdered Banquo, what honorable member to give it dignity or decency, did they win by it? Substantial good? Perma- by attempting to elevate it, and to introduce it nent power? Or disappointment, rather, and into the Senate. He cannot change it from what sore mortification; dust and ashes, the common it is, an object of general disgust and scorn. On fate of vaulting ambition overleaping itself? Did the contrary, the contact, if he choose to touch not even-handed justice ere long commend the it, is more likely to drag him down, down, to poisoned chalice to their own lips? Did they the place where it lies itself. not soon find that for another they had "filed But, sir, the honorable member was not, for their mind"? that their ambition, though appar- other reasons, entirely happy in his allusion to ently for the moment successful, had but put a the story of Banquo's murder and Banquo's barren sceptre in their grasp? Ay, sir, ghost. It was not, I think, the friends, but the
enemies of the murdered Banquo, at whose bid- a barren sceptre in their gripe, ding his spirit would not down. The honorable Thence to be wrenched with an unlineal hand, gentleman is fresh in his reading of the English No son of theirs succeeding. classics, and can put me right if I am wrong;
but according to my poor recollection, it was at Sir, I need pursue the allusion no farther. I leave the honorable gentleman to run it out at
his leisure, and to derive from it all the gratifi-
cation it is calculated to administer. If he finds
himself pleased with the associations, and pre-
pared to be quite satisfied, though the parallel
pearance would strike terror, and who would should be entirely completed, I had almost said, cry out, A ghost! It made itself visible in the I am satisfied also; but that I shall think of.
Yes, sir, I will think of that.
[ 40]
"MR. DANE LIVES A LITTLE TOO FAR NORTH' sentiment has led the gentleman, not only into In the course of my observations the other a labored defence of slavery, in the abstract, day, Mr. President, I paid a passing tribute of and on principle, but also into a warm accusa- respect to a very worthy man, Mr. Dane of tion against me, as having attacked the system Massachusetts. " It so happened that he drew of domestic slavery now existing in the south- the Ordinance of 1787, for the government of ern states. For all this, there was not the slight- the Northwestern Territory. A man of so much est foundation, in anything said or intimated by ability, and so little pretence; of so great a ca- me. I did not utter a single word which any in- pacity to do good, and so unmixed a disposition genuity could torture into an attack on the to do it for its own sake; a gentleman who had slavery of the South. I said, only, that it was acted an important part, forty years ago, in a highly wise and useful, in legislating for the measure the influence of which is still deeply northwestern country while it was yet a wilder- felt in the very matter which was the subject of ness, to prohibit the introduction of slaves; and debate, might, I thought, receive from me a I added, that I presumed there was no reflecting commendatory recognition. But the honorable and intelligent person, in the neighboring state member was inclined to be facetious on the of Kentucky, who would doubt that, if the subject. He was rather disposed to make it same prohibition had been extended, at the matter of ridicule, that I had introduced into same early period, over that commonwealth, the debate the name of one Nathan Dane, of her strength and population would, at this day, whom he assures us he had never before heard. have been far greater than they are. If these Sir, if the honorable member had never before opinions be thought doubtful, they are never- heard of Mr. Dane, I am sorry for it. It shows theless, I trust, neither extraordinary nor disre- him less acquainted with the public men of the spectful. They attack nobody and menace country than I had supposed. Let me tell him, nobody. And yet, sir, the gentleman's optics however, that a sneer from him at the mention have discovered, even in the mere expression of of the name of Mr. Dane is in bad taste. It may this sentiment, what he calls the very spirit of well be a high mark of ambition, sir, either the Missouri question! He represents me as with the honorable gentleman or myself, to ac- making an onset on the whole South, and complish as much to make our names known to manifesting a spirit which would interfere with, advantage, and remembered with gratitude, as and disturb, their domestic condition! Mr. Dane has accomplished. But the truth is,
sir, I suspect, that Mr. Dane lives a little too far
THERE IS NO DISPOSITION IN THE NORTH TO INTERFERE WITH
north. He is of Massachusetts, and too near the
SLAVERY IN THE SOUTH
north star to be reached by the honorable gen-
tleman's telescope. If his sphere had happened Sir, this injustice no otherwise surprises me, to range south of Mason and Dixon's line, he than as it is committed here, and committed might, probably, have come within the scope of without the slightest pretence of ground for it. I his vision. say it only surprises me as being done here; for I spoke, sir, of the Ordinance of 1787, which I know full well, that it is, and has been, the prohibits slavery, in all future times, northwest
of the Ohio, as a measure of great wisdom an
oresight, and one which had been attendec
with highly beneficial and permanent conse- exclusive and peculiar concerns. This is a deli- quences. I supposed that, on this point, no two cate and sensitive point in southern feeling; and gentlemen in the Senate could entertain differ- of late years it has always been touched, and ent opinions. But the simple expression of this generally with effect, whenever the object has been to unite the whole South against northern
men or northern measures. This feeling, always
carefully kept alive, and maintained at too in-
gress, 1785-1787. tense a heat to admit discrimination or reflec- [41 ]
tion, is a lever of great power in our political different states. The Pennsylvania society for machine. It moves vast bodies, and gives to promoting the abolition of slavery took a lead, them one and the same direction. But it is and laid before Congress a memorial, praying without adequate cause, and the suspicion Congress to promote the abolition by such which exists is wholly groundless. There is not, powers as it possessed. This memorial was re- and never has been, a disposition in the North ferred, in the House of Representatives, to a to interfere with these interests of the South. select committee, consisting of Mr. Foster of Such interference has never been supposed to New Hampshire, 5 Mr. Gerry of Massachusetts, ® be within the power of government; nor has it Mr. Huntington of Connecticut,? Mr. Lawrence been in any way attempted. The slavery of the of New York, & Mr. Sinnickson of New Jersey,° South has always been regarded as a matter of Mr. Hartley of Pennsylvania, 10 and Mr. Parker domestic policy, left with the states themselves, of Virginia '—all of them, sir, as you will and with which the federal government had observe, northern men but the last. This com- nothing to do. Certainly, sir, I am, and ever mittee made a report, which was referred to a have been, of that opinion. The gentleman, committee of the whole House, and there con- indeed, argues that slavery, in the abstract, is sidered and discussed for several days; and no evil. Most assuredly I need not say I differ being amended, although without material al- with him, altogether and most widely, on that teration, it was made to express three distinct point. I regard domestic slavery as one of the propositions, on the subject of slavery and the greatest evils, both moral and political. But slave trade. First, in the words of the Constitu- whether it be a malady, and whether it be cura- tion, that Congress could not, prior to the year ble, and if so, by what means; or, on the other 1808, prohibit the migration or importation of hand, whether it be the vulnus immedicabile of the such persons as any of the states then existing social system, I leave it to those whose right should think proper to admit; and secondly, and duty it is to inquire and to decide. And this that Congress had authority to restrain the citi- I believe, sir, is, and uniformly has been, the zens of the United States from carrying on the sentiment of the North. Let us look a little at African slave trade, for the purpose of supply- the history of this matter. ing foreign countries. On this proposition, our When the present Constitution was submit- early laws against those who engage in that ted for the ratification of the people, there were traffic are founded. The third proposition, and those who imagined that the powers of the that which bears on the present question, was government which it proposed to establish expressed in the following terms:
might, in some possible mode, be exerted in
measures tending to the abolition of slavery. Resoloed, That Congress have no authority to interfere in This suggestion would of course attract much the emancipation of slaves, or in the treatment of them in attention in the southern conventions. In that any of the states; it remaining with the several states alone of Virginia, Governor Randolph * said:
• Abiel Foster (1735-1806) served in the House of Representatives, Elbridge Gerry (1744-1814) served in the House of Represents ives, 1789-1793. He was vice president of the United States, 181. * Benjamin Huntington (1736-1800) served in the House of Rep- rain Laurance (1930-1010) perved in the House of Represents- At the very first. Congress, petitions on the tives, 1789-1793, and in the Senate, 1796-1800. • Thomas Sinnickeon (1761-1817) served in the House of Repre- subject were presented, if I mistake not, from sentatives, 1789-1791 and 1797-1799. 10 Thomas Hartley (1740-1800) served in the House of Represen- tatives, 1789-1800.
* Edmund Randolph (1753-1813) was governor of Virginia, 1786- "Josiah Parker (1751-1810) served in the House of Representa- 1788. tives, 1789-1801.
[42]
to provide rules and regulations therein which humanity states I leave where I find it, in the hands of and true policy may require.
their own governments. It is their affair, not
This resolution received the sanction of the mine. Nor do I complain of the peculiar effect House of Representatives so early as March, which the magnitude of that population has 1790. And now, sir, the honorable member will had in the distribution of power under this fed- allow me to remind him, that not only were the eral government. We know, sir, that the repre- select committee who reported the resolution, sentation of the states in the other house is not with a single exception, all northern men, but equal. We know that great advantage in that also that, of the members then composing the respect is enjoyed by the slaveholding states; House of Representatives, a large majority, I and we know, too, that the intended equivalent believe nearly two-thirds, were northern men for that advantage, that is to say, the imposi- tion of direct taxes in the same ratio, has
The House agreed to insert these resolutions become merely nominal, the habit of the gov- in its journal; and from that day to this it has emment being almost invariably to collect its never been maintained or contended at the revenue from other sources and in other modes.
North, that Congress had any authority to reg- Nevertheless, I do not complain; nor would I ulate or interfere with the condition of slaves in countenance any movement to alter this ar- the several states. No northern gentleman, to rangement of representation. It is the original my knowledge, has moved any such question in bargain, the compact; let it stand; let the advan- either House of Congress. tage of it be fully enjoyed. The Union itself is too full of benefit to be hazarded in proposi-
tions for changing its original basis. I go for the
"THE DOMESTIC SLAVERY OF THE SOUTHERN Constitution as it is, and for the Union as it is.
STATES. ... IS THEIR AFFATR" But I am resolved not to submit in silence to accusations, either against myself individually
or against the North, wholly unfounded and
The fears of the South, whatever fears they unjust; accusations which impute to us a dispo- might have entertained, were allayed and quiet- sition to evade the constitutional compact, and ed by this early decision; and so remained till to extend the power of the government over they were excited afresh, without cause but for the internal laws and domestic condition of the collateral and indirect purposes. states. All such accusations, wherever and became necessary, or was thought so, by some whenever made, all insinuations of the exist- political persons, to find an unvarying ground ence of any such purposes, I know and feel to for the exclusion of northern men from confi- be groundless and injurious. And we must con- dence and from lead in the affairs of the repub- fide in southern gentlemen themselves; we lic, then, and not till then, the cry was raised, must trust to those whose integrity of heart and and the feeling industriously excited, that the magnanimity of feeling will lead them to a influence of northern men in the public coun desire to maintain and disseminate truth, and sels would endanger the relation of master and who possess the means of its diffusion with the slave. For myself, I claim no other merit than
that this gross and enormous injustice towards disabuse that public of its prejudices. But in the the whole North has not wrought upon me to meantime, for my own part, i shall continue to change my opinions or my political conduct. I act justly, whether those towards whom justice hope I am above violating my principles, even is exercised receive it with candor or with under the smart of injury and false imputations. contumely.
Unjust suspicions and undeserved reproach,
whatever pain I may experience from them, will THE ORDINANCE OF 1787 not induce me, I trust, to overstep the limits of Having had occasion to recur to the Ordi- constitutional duty, or to encroach on the rights nance of 1787, in order to defend myself of others. The domestic slavery of the southern against the inferences which the honorable [43]
member has chosen to draw from my former ported a plan for a temporary government of observations on that subject, 1 am not willing the territory, in which was this article: "That, now entirely to take leave of it without another after the year 1800, there shall be neither slav- remark. It need hardly be said, that that paper ery nor involuntary servitude in any of the said expresses just sentiments on the great subject of States, otherwise than in punishment of crimes, civil and religious liberty. Such sentiments were whereof the party shall have been convicted." common, and abound in all our state papers of Mr. Spaight of North Carolina 15 moved to that day. But this ordinance did that which was strike out this paragraph. The question was put, not so common, and which is not even now according to the form then practised, universal; that is, it set forth and declared it to these words stand as a part of the plan?" New be a high and binding duty of government Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Con- itself to support schools and advance the means necticut, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsyl- of education, on the plain reason that religion, vania, seven states, voted in the affirmative; morality, and knowledge are necessary to good Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina, in the government, and to the happiness of mankind. negative. North Carolina was divided. As the One observation further. The important provi- consent of nine states was necessary, the words sion incorporated into the Constitution of the could not stand, and were struck out according- United States, and into several of those of the ly. Mr. Jefferson voted for the clause, but was states, and recently, as we have seen, adopted overruled by his colleagues. into the reformed constitution of Virginia, re- In March of the next year (1785), Mr. King of straining legislative power in questions of pri- Massachusetts, 16 seconded by Mr. Ellery of vate right, and from impairing the obligation of Rhode Island,' proposed the formerly rejected contracts, is first introduced and established, as article, with this addition: "And that this regu- far as I am informed, as matter of express writ- lation shall be an article of compact, and remain ten constitutional law, in this Ordinance of a fundamental principle of the constitutions be- 1787. And I must add, also, in regard to the tween the thirteen original States, and each of author of the ordinance, who has not had the the States described in the resolve." On this happiness to attract the gentleman's notice clause, which provided the adequate and thor- heretofore, nor to avoid his sarcasm now, that ough security, the eight northern states at that he was chairman of that select committee of the time voted affirmatively, and the four southern old Congress, whose report first expressed the states negatively. The votes of nine states were strong sense of that body, that the old Confed- not yet obtained, and thus the provision was eration was not adequate to the exigencies of again rejected by the southern states. The per- the country and recommended to the states to severance of the North held out, and two years send delegates to the convention which formed afterwards the object was attained. It is no the present Constitution. derogation from the credit, whatever that may An attempt has been made to transfer from be, of drawing the ordinance, that its principles the North to the South the honor of this exclu- had before been prepared and discussed, in the sion of slavery from the Northwestern Terri- form of resolutions. If one should reason in that way, what would become of the distinguished
ment, refutes such attempts. honor of the author of the Declaration of Inde- pendence? There is not a sentiment in that
paper which had not been voted and resolved
of April following, a commitee, coweting ref
Messrs. Jefferson, 12 Chase, '
States, 1801-1809.
Jeremiah T. Chase (1748-1828) served in the Continental Col ess, 1783-171
1 David Howell (1747-1824) served in the Continental Congress, 1782-1785. 1776-1785.
[ 44]
in the assemblies, and other popular bodies in anyone to bestow on them reprehension and the country, over and over again. censure.
"THIS ALLEGED CONTRADICTION"
THE HARTFORD CONVENTION Having dwelt long on this convention, and other occurrences of that day, in the hope,
But the honorable member has now found probably, (which will not be gratified) that I out that this gentleman, Mr. Dane, was a should leave the course of this debate to follow member of the Hartford Convention. 18 Howev- him at length in those excursions, the honora- er uninformed the honorable member may be ble member returned, and attempted another of characters and occurrences at the North, it object. He referred to a speech of mine in the would seem that he has at his elbow, on this other house, the same which I had occasion to occasion, some high-minded and lofty spirit, allude to myself, the other day; and has quoted some magnanimous and true-hearted monitor, a passage or two from it, with a bold, though possessing the means of local knowledge, and uneasy and laboring, air of confidence, as if he ready to supply the honorable member with ev- had detected in me an inconsistency. Judging erything, down even to forgotten and moth- from the gentleman's manner, a stranger to the eaten two-penny pamphiets, which may be course of the debate and to the point in discus- used to the disadvantage of his own country. sion would have imagined, from so triumphant But as to the Hartford Convention, sir, allow a tone, that the honorable member was about me to say, that the proceedings of that body to overwhelm me with a manifest contradiction. seem now to be less read and studied in New Anyone who heard him, and who had not England than farther South. They appear to be heard what I had, in fact, previously said, must looked to, not in New England, but elsewhere, have thought me routed and discomfited, as the for the purpose of seeing how far they may gentleman had promised. Sir, a breath blows all serve as a precedent. But they will not answer this triumph away. There is not the slightest the purpose, they are quite too tame. The lati- difference in the purport of my remarks on the tude in which they originated was too cold. two occasions. What I said here on Wednesday Other conventions, of more recent existence, is in exact accordance with the opinion ex- have gone a whole bar's length beyond it. The pressed by me in the other house in 1825. learned doctors of Colleton and Abbeville have Though the gentleman had the metaphysics of pushed their commentaries on the Hartford col- Hudibras, though he were able lect so far, that the original text writers are
thrown entirely into the shade. I have nothing to sever and divide to do, sir, with the Hartford Convention. Its A hair twixt north and northwest side, journal, which the gentleman has quoted, I
never read. So far as the honorable member he yet could not insert his metaphysical scissors may discover in its proceedings a spirit in any between the fair reading of my remarks in degree resembling that which was avowed and 1825, and what I said here last week. There is justified in those other conventions to which I not only no contradiction, no difference, but, in have alluded, or so far as those proceedings can truth, too exact a similarity, both in thought be shown to be disloyal to the Constitution, or and language, to be entirely in just taste. I had tending to disunion, so far I shall be as ready as myself quoted the same speech; had recurred to it, and spoke with it open before me; and much
of what I said was little more than a repetition
Les we convention ale from petenter 15, ever na ne from it. In order to make finishing work with this alleged contradiction, permit me to recur to
the origin of this debate, and review its course.
This seems expedient, and may be done as well
now as at any time.
[45]
Well, then, its history is this. The honorable lands; and then, turning northward and east- member from Connecticut 19 moved a resolu- ward, and fancying he had found a cause for tion, which constitutes the first branch of that alleged narrowness and niggardliness in the which is now before us; that is to say, a resolu- "accursed policy" of the tariff, to which he rep- tion, instructing the committee on public lands resented the people of New England as wedded, to inquire into the expediency of limiting, for a he went on for a full hour with remarks, the certain period, the sales of the public lands, to whole scope of which was to exhibit the results such as have heretofore been offered for sale; of this policy, in feelings and in measures unfa- and whether sundry offices connected with the vorable to the West. I thought his opinions un- sales of the lands might not be abolished with- founded and erroneous, as to the general course out detriment to the public service. In the of the government, and ventured to reply to progress of the discussion which arose on this them.
resolution, an honorable member from New
Hampshire 20 moved to amend the resolution, 'THE APPEARANCE OF ANALOGY" so as entirely to reverse its object; that is, to
strike it all out, and insert a direction to the The gentleman had remarked on the analogy committee to inquire into the expediency of of other cases, and quoted the conduct of Euro- adopting measures to hasten the sales, and pean governments towards their own subjects extend more rapidly the surveys, of the lands. settling on this continent, as in point, to show The honorable member from Maine 21 sug- that we had been harsh and rigid in selling, gested that both those propositions might well when we should have given the public lands to enough go for consideration to the committee; settlers without price. I thought the honorable and in this state of the question, the member member had suffered his judgment to be be- from South Carolina addressed the Senate in his trayed by a false analogy; that he was struck first speech. He rose, he said, to give us his with an appearance of resemblance where there own free thoughts on the public lands. I saw was no real similitude. I think so still. The first him rise with pleasure, and listened with expec- settlers of North America were enterprising tation, though before he concluded I was filled spirits, engaged in private adventure, or fleeing with surprise. Certainly, I was never more sur- from tyranny at home. When arrived here, they were forgotten by the mother country, or re-
extent he did, the sentiments and opinions membered only to be oppressed. Carried away which the gentleman from Missouri had put again by the appearance of analogy, or struck forth, and which it is known he has long with the eloquence of the passage, the honora- entertained. ble member yesterday observed, that the con- I need not repeat at large the general topics duct of government towards the western emi- of the honorable gentleman's speech. When he grants, or my representation of it, brought to said yesterday that he did not attack the eastern his mind a celebrated speech in the British Par- states, he certainly must have forgotten, not Liament. It was, sir, the speech of Colonel Barre. only particular remarks, but the whole drift and On the question of the stamp act, or tea tax, I tenor of his speech; unless he means by not at- forget which, Colonel Barre had heard a tacking, that he did not commence hostilities, member on the treasury bench argue, that the but that another had preceded him in people of the United States, being British colo- attack. He, in the first place, disapproved of the nists, planted by the maternal care, nourished whole course of the government, for forty by the indulgence, and protected by the arms of years, in regard to its disposition of the public England, would not grudge their mite to relieve the mother country from the heavy burden
• Samuel A. Foot (1780-1846) served in the Senatc, 1827-183 under which she groaned. The language of ° Levi Woodbury (1789-1851) served in the Senate, 1825-183 Colonel Barre, in reply to this, was, "They and 1841-1845. planted by your care? Your oppression planted 21 Peleg Sprague (1793-1880) served in the Senate, 1829-1835. them in America. They fled from your tyranny, [46]
and grew by your neglect of them. So soon as ging them as a favorite treasure? Is there no you began to care for them, you showed your difference between hugging and hoarding this care by sending persons to spy out their liber- fund, on the one hand, as a great treasure, and, ties, misrepresent their character, prey upon on the other, of disposing of it at low prices, them, and eat out their substance." placing the proceeds in the general treasury of And how does the honorable gentleman the Union? My opinion is, that as much is to be mean to maintain, that language like this is ap- made of the land as fairly and reasonably may plicable to the conduct of the government of be, selling it all the while at such rates as to the United States towards the western emi- give the fullest effect to settlement. This is not grants, or to any representation given by me of giving it all away to the states, as the gentle- that conduct? Were the settlers in the West man would propose; nor is it hugging the fund driven thither by our oppression? Have they closely and tenaciously, as a favorite treasure; flourished only by our neglect of them? Has the but it is, in my judgment, a just and wise government done nothing but prey upon them, policy, perfectly according with all the various and eat out their substance? Sir, this fervid elo- duties which rest in government. So much for quence of the British speaker, just when and my contradiction. And what is it? Where is the where it was uttered, and fit to remain an exer- ground of the gentleman's triumph? What in- cise for the schools, is not a little out of place, consistency in word or doctrine has he been when it is brought thence to be applied here, to able to detect? Sir, if this be a sample of that the conduct of our own country towards her discomfiture with which the honorable gentle- own citizens. From America to England, it may man threatened me, commend me to the word be true; from Americans to their own govern- discomfiture for the rest of my life. ment, it would be strange language. Let us leave But, after all, this is not the point of the it, to be recited and declaimed by our boys debate; and I must now bring the gentleman against a foreign nation; not introduce it here, back to what is the point. to recite and declaim ourselves against our own.
But I come to the point of the alleged contra-
diction. In my remarks on Wednesday, I con- NEW ENGLAND HAS NOT RETARDED WESTERN POPULATION tended that we could not give away gratuitous-
ly all the public lands; that we held them in The real question between me and him is, has trust; that the government had solemnly the doctrine been advanced at the South or the pledged itself to dispose of them as a common East, that the population of the West should be fund for the common benefit, and to sell and retarded, or at least need not be hastened, on settle them as its discretion should dictate. account of its effect to drain off the people Now, sir, what contradiction does the gentle- from the Atlantic states? Is this doctrine, as has man find to this sentiment in the speech of been alleged, of eastern origin? That is the 1825? He quotes me as having then said, that question. Has the gentleman found anything by we ought not to hug these lands as a very great which he can make good his accusation? I treasure. Very well, sir, supposing me to be ac- submit to the Senate, that he has entirely failed; curately reported in that expression, what is the and, as far as this debate has shown, the only contradiction? I have not now said, that we person who has advanced such sentiments is a should hug these lands as a favorite source of gentleman from South Carolina, and a friend of pecuniary income. No such thing. It is not my the honorable member himself. The honorable view. What I have said, and what I do say, is, gentleman has given no answer to this; there is that they are a common fund, to be disposed of none which can be given. The simple fact, for the common benefit, to be sold at low prices while it requires no comment to enforce it, for the accommodation of settlers, keeping the defies all argument to refute it. I could refer to object of settling the lands as much in view as the speeches of another southern gentleman, in that of raising money from them. This I say years before, of the same general character, and now, and this I have always said. Is this hug- to the same effect, as that which has been [ 47 ]
quoted; but I will not consume the time of the in all main respects separate and diverse. On Senate by the reading of them. that system, Carolina has no more interest in a So then, sir, New England is guiltless of the canal in Ohio than in Mexico. The gentleman, policy of retarding western population, and of therefore, only follows out his own principles; all envy and jealousy of the growth of the new he does no more than arrive at the natural con- states. Whatever there be of that policy in the clusions of his own doctrines; he only an- country, no part of it is hers. If it has a local nounces the true results of that creed which he habitation, the honorable member has probably has adopted himself, and would persuade seen by this time where to look for it; and if it others to adopt, when he thus declares that now has received a name, he has himself chris- South Carolina has no interest in a public work in Ohio.
We approach, at length, sir, to a more impor-
tant part of the honorable gentleman's observa-
tions. Since it does not accord with my views of
"WE LOOK UPON THE STATES... AS UNTTED"
justice and policy to give away the public lands
altogether, as a mere matter of gratuity, I am Sir, we narrow-minded people of New Eng- asked by the honorable gentleman on what land do not reason thus. Our notion of things is ground it is that I consent to vote them away in entirely different. We look upon the states, not particular instances. How, he inquires, do I rec- as separated, but as united. We love to dwell on oncile with these professed sentiments, my sup- that union, and on the mutual happiness which port of measures appropriating portions of the it has so much promoted, and the common lands to particular roads, particular canals, par- renown which it has so greatly contributed to ticular rivers, and particular institutions of edu- acquire. In our contemplation, Carolina and cation in the West? This leads, sir, to the real Ohio are parts of the same country; states, and wide difference in political opinion be- united under the same general government, tween the honorable gentleman and myself. On having interests, common, associated, intermin- my part, I look upon all these objects as con- gled. In whatever is within the proper sphere of nected with the common good, fairly embraced the constitutional power of this government, we in its object and its terms; he, on the contrary, look upon the states as one. We do not impose deems them all, if good at all, only local good. geographical limits to our patriotic feeling or This is our difference. The interrogatory which regard; we do not follow rivers and mountains, he proceeded to put, at once explains this dif- and lines of latitude, to find boundaries, ference. "What interest," asks he, "has South beyond which public improvements do not Carolina in a canal in Ohio?" Sir, this very benefit us. We who come here, as agents and question is full of significance. It develops the representatives of these narrow-minded and gentleman's whole political system; and its selfish men of New England, consider ourselves answer expounds mine. Here we differ. I look as bound to regard with an equal eye the good upon a road over the Alleghanies, a canal round of the whole, in whatever is within our powers the falls of the Ohio, or a canal or railway from of legislation. Sir, if a railroad or canal, begin- the Atlantic to the western waters, as being an ning in South Carolina and ending in South object large and extensive enough to be fairly Carolina, appeared to me to be of national im- said to be for the common benefit. The gentle- portance and national magnitude, believing, as I man thinks otherwise, and this is the key to his do that the power of government extends to the construction of the powers of the government. encouragement of works of that description, if I He may well ask what interest has South Caro- were to stand up here and ask, What interest lina in a canal in Ohio. On his system, it is has Massachusetts in a railroad in South Caroli- true, she has no interest. On that system, Ohio na? I should not be willing to face my constitu- and Carolina are different governments, and ents. These same narrow-minded men would different countries; connected here, it is true, by tell me, that they had sent me to act for the some slight and ill-defined bond of union, but whole country, and that one who possessed too [ 48]
Little comprehension, either of intellect or feel- of schools. And, finally, have not these new ing, one who was not large enough, both in states singularly strong claims, founded on the mind and in heart, to embrace the whole, was ground already stated, that the government is a not fit to be intrusted with the interest of any great untaxed proprietor, in the ownership of part.
the soil? It is a consideration of great impor-
Sir, I do not desire to enlarge the powers of tance, that probably there is in no part of the the government by unjustifiable construction, country, or of the world, so great call for the nor to exercise any not within a fair interpreta- means of education, as in these new states, tion. But when it is believed that a power does owing to the vast numbers of persons within exist, then it is, in my judgment, to be exercised those ages in which education and instruction for the general benefit of the whole. So far as are usually received, if received at all. This is respects the exercise of such a power, the states the natural consequence of recency of settle- are one. It was the very object of the Constitu- ment and rapid increase. The census of these tion to create unity of interests to the extent of states shows how great a proportion of the the powers of the general government. In war whole population occupies the classes between and peace we are one; in commerce, one; be- infancy and manhood. These are the wide cause the authority of the general government fields, and here is the deep and quick soil for reaches to war and peace, and to the regulation the seeds of knowledge and virtue; and this is of commerce. I have never seen any more diffi- the favored season, the very springtime for culty in erecting lighthouses on the lakes, than sowing them. Let them be disseminated without on the ocean; in improving the harbors of stint. Let them be scattered with a bountiful inland seas, than if they were within the ebb hand, broadcast. Whatever the government can and flow of the tide; or in removing obstruc- fairly do towards these objects, in my opinion, tions in the vast streams of the West, more ought to be done. than in any work to facilitate commerce on the These, sir, are the grounds, succinctly stated, Atlantic coast. If there be any power for one, on which my votes for grants of lands for par- there is power also for the other; and they are ticular objects rest; while I maintain, at the all and equally for the common good of the same time, that it is all a common fund, for the common benefit. And reasons like these, I pre-
local, or the benefit of which is less general, to- sume, have influenced the votes of other gen- tlemen from New England. Those who have a
wards which, nevertheless, I have concurred different view of the powers of the govern- with others, to give aid by donations of land. It ment, of course, come to different conclusions, is proposed to construct a road, in or through on these, as on other questions. I observed, one of the new states, in which this govern- when speaking on this subject before, that if ment possesses large quantities of land. Have we looked to any measure, whether for a road, the United States no right, or, as a great and a canal, or anything else, intended for the im- untaxed proprietor, are they under no obliga- provement of the West, it would be found that, tion to contribute to an object thus calculated if the New England ayes were struck out of the etors, themselves included? And even with re- lists of votes, the southern noes would always have rejected the measure. The truth of this has
spect to education, which is the extreme case, not been denied, and cannot be denied. In stat- let the question be considered. In the first place, ing this, I thought it just to ascribe it to the as we have seen, it was made matter of compact constitutional scruples of the South, rather than !
with these states, that they should do their parl to any other less favorable or less charitable • promote education. In the next place, ou cause. But no sooner had I done this, than the ! hole system of land laws proceeds on the ide
that education is for the common good; be- honorable gentleman asks if I reproach him and his friends with their constitutional scruples.
cause, in every division, a certain portion is Sir, I reproach nobody. I stated a fact, and gave uniformly reserved and appropriated for the use the most respectful reason for it that occurred [ 49]
to me. The gentleman cannot deny the fact; he erything of this kind, designed for western im- may, if he choose, disclaim the reason. It is not provement, has depended on the votes of New long since I had occasion, in presenting a peti- England; all this is true beyond the power of tion from his own state, to account for its being contradiction. And now, sir, there are two intrusted to my hands, by saying, that the con- measures to which I will refer, not so ancient as stitutional opinions of the gentleman and his to belong to the early history of the public worthy colleague prevented them from support- lands, and not so recent as to be on this side of ing it. Sir, did I state this as matter of reproach? the period when the gentleman charitably Far from it. Did I attempt to find any other imagines a new direction may have been given cause than an honest one for these scruples? to New England feeling and New England Sir, I did not. It did not become me to doubt or votes. These measures, and the New England to insinuate that the gentleman had either votes in support of them, may be taken as sam- changed his sentiments, or that he had made up ples and specimens of all the rest. a set of constitutional opinions accommodated In 1820 (observe, Mr. President, in 1820) the to any particular combination of political occur- people of the West besought Congress for a re- rences. Had I done so, I should have felt, that, duction in the price of lands. In favor of that while I was entitled to little credit in thus ques- reduction, New England, with a delegation of tioning other people's motives, I justified the 40 members in the other house, gave 33 votes, whole world in suspecting my own. But how and one only against it. The four southern has the gentleman returned this respect for states, with more than 50 members, gave 32 others' opinions? His own candor and justice, votes for it, and 7 against it. Again, in 1821 how have they been exhibited towards the mo- (observe again, sir, the time), the law passed for tives of others, while he has been at so much the relief of the purchasers of the public lands. pains to maintain, what nobody has disputed, This was a measure of vital importance to the the purity of his own? Why, sir, he has asked West, and more especially to the Southwest. It when, and how, and why New England votes were authorized the relinguishment of contracts for found going for measures favorable to the lands which had been entered into at high West. He has demanded to be informed wheth- prices, and a reduction in other cases of not less er all this did not begin in 1825, and while the than 37½ percent on the purchase money. election of president was still pending. Many millions of dollars, six or seven, I believe, probably much more, were relinquished by this
law. On this bill, New England, with her 40
"NEW ENGLAND HAS SUPPORTED MEASURES FAVORABLE members, gave more affirmative votes than the TO THE WEST"
four southern states, with their 52 or 53 mem-
Sir, to these questions retort would be justi- bers. These two are far the most important gen- fied; and it is both cogent and at hand. Never- eral measures respecting the public lands which theless, I will answer the inquiry, not by retort, have been adopted within the last twenty years. but by facts. I will tell the gentleman when, and They took place in 1820 and 1821. That is the how, and why New England has supported meas-
ures favorable to the West. I have already re- As to the manner how, the gentleman already erred to the early history of the government sees that it was by voting in solid column for o the first acquisition of the lands, to the origi. the required relief; and, lastly, as to the cause nal laws for disposing of them, and for govern- why, I tell the gentleman it was because the ing the territories where they lie; and have members from New England thought the meas ures just and salutary; because they entertained
New England principles in all these leading towards the West neither envy, hatred, nor measures. I should not be pardoned were I to malice; because they deemed it becoming them, go over that ground again. Coming to more as just and enlightened public men, to meet the recent times, and to measures of a less general exigency which had arisen in the West with the haracter, I have endeavored to prove that ev. appropriate measure of relief; because they felt [ 50]
it due to their own characters, and the charac- cord, through the long series of twenty years, ters of their New England predecessors in this till they finally issued in the war with England. government, to act towards the new states in Down to the close of that war, no distinct, the spirit of a liberal, patronizing, magnanimous marked, and deliberate attention had been policy. So much, sir, for the cause why; and I given, or could have been given, to the internal hope that by this time, sir, the honorable gen- condition of the country, its capacities of im- tleman is satisfied; if not, I do not know when, provement, or the constitutional power of the or how, or why he ever will be. government in regard to objects connected with such improvement.
INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS BEGAN AFTER 1815 The peace, Mr. President, brought about an entirely new and a most interesting state of
Having recurred to these two important things; it opened to us other prospects and sug- measures, in answer to the gentleman's inquir- gested other duties. We ourselves were ies, I must now beg permission to go back to a changed, and the whole world was changed. period somewhat earlier, for the purpose of still The pacification of Europe, after June 1815, as- further showing how much, or rather how little, sumed a firm and permanent aspect. The na- reason there is for the gentleman's insinuation tions evidently manifested that they were dis- that political hopes or fears, or party associa- posed for peace. Some agitation of the waves tions, were the grounds of these New England might be expected, even after the storm had votes. And after what has been said, I hope it subsided, but the tendency was, strongly and may be forgiven me if I allude to some political rapidly, towards settled repose. opinions and votes of my own, of very little It so happened, sir, that I was at that time a public importance certainly, but which, from member of Congress, and, like others, naturally the time at which they were given and ex- turned my thoughts to the contemplation of the pressed, may pass for good witnesses on this recently altered condition of the country and of the world. It appeared plainly enough to me, as
This government, Mr. President, from its well as to wiser and more experienced men, origin to the peace of 1815, had been too much that the policy of the government would natu- engrossed with various other important con- rally take a start in a new direction; because cerns to be able to turn its thoughts inward, new directions would necessarily be given to and look to the development of its vast internal the pursuits and occupations of the people. We resources. In the early part of President Wash- had pushed our commerce far and fast, under ington's administration, 22 it was fully occupied the advantage of a neutral flag. But there were with completing its own organization, providing now no longer flags, either neutral or belliger- for the public debt, defending the frontiers, and ent. The harvest of neutrality had been great, maintaining domestic peace. Before the termi- but we had gathered it all. With the peace of nation of that administration, the fires of the Europe, it was obvious there would spring up French Revolution blazed forth, as from a new- in her circle of nations a revived and invigorat- opened volcano, and the whole breadth of the ed spirit of trade, and a new activity in all the ocean did not secure us from its effects. The business and objects of civilized life. Hereafter, our commercial gains were to be earned only by
the burning lava. Difficult and agitating ques- success in a close and intense competition. tions, embarrassing to government and dividing Other nations would produce for themselves, public opinion, sprung out of the new state of and carry for themselves, and manufacture for our foreign relations, and were succeeded by themselves, to the full extent of their abilities. others, and yet again by others, equally embar- The crops of our plains would no longer sustain rassing and equally exciting division and dis- European armies, nor our ships longer supply those whom war had rendered unable to supply
Suite, 70 anie 173279) was president of the unted themselves. It was obvious, that, under these circumstances, the country would begin to
[51 ]
survey itself, and to estimate its own capacity their accomplishment, which are now common- of improvement. ly spoken of as INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS.
And this improvement, how was it to be ac- That conclusion, sir, may have been right, or it complished, and who was to accomplish it? We may have been wrong. I am not about to argue were ten or twelve millions of people, spread the grounds of it at large. I say only, that it was over almost half a world. We were more than adopted and acted on even so early as in 1816. twenty states, some stretching along the same Yes, Mr. President, I made up my opinion, and seaboard, some along the same line of inland determined on my intended course of political frontier, and others on opposite banks of the conduct, on these subjects, in the Fourteenth same vast rivers. Two considerations at once Congress, in 1816. And now, Mr. President, I presented themselves with great force, in look- have further to say, that I made up these opin- ing at this state of things. One was, that that ions, and entered on this course of political great branch of improvement which consisted conduct, Teucro duce. Yes, sir, I pursued in all this in furnishing new facilities of intercourse neces- a South Carolina track on the doctrines of in- sarily ran into different states in every leading ternal improvement. South Carolina, as she was instance, and would benefit the citizens of all then represented in the other house, set forth in such states. No one state, therefore, in such 1816 under a fresh and leading breeze, and I cases, would assume the whole expense, nor was among the followers. But if my leader sees was the cooperation of several states to be ex- new lights and turns a sharp corner, unless I see pected. Take the instance of the Delaware new lights also, I keep straight on in the same breakwater. It will cost several millions of path. I repeat, that leading gentlemen from money. Would Pennsylvania alone ever have South Carolina were first and foremost in constructed it? Certainly never, while this behalf of the doctrines of internal improve- Union lasts, because it is not for her sole bene- ments, when those doctrines came first to be fit. Would Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Dela- considered and acted upon in Congress. The ware have united to accomplish it at their joint debate on the bank question, on the tariff of expense? Certainly not, for the same reason. It 1816, and on the direct tax, will show who was could not be done, therefore, but by the general who, and what was what, at that time. government. The same may be said of the large
inland undertakings, except that, in them, gov-
"A SOUTH CAROLINA TARIFF"
ernment, instead of bearing the whole expense,
cooperates with others who bear a part. The The tariff of 1816, (one of the plain cases of other consideration is, that the United States oppression and usurpation, from which, if the have the means. They enjoy the revenues de- government does not recede, individual states rived from commerce, and the states have no may justly secede from the government) is, sir, abundant and easy sources of public income. in truth, a South Carolina tariff, supported by fill the general treasury, South Carolina votes. But for those votes, it while the states have scanty resources, except could not have passed in the form in which it by resort to heavy direct taxes. did pass; whereas, if it had depended on Mas- Under this view of things, I thought it neces- sachusetts votes, it would have been lost. Does sary to settle, at least for myself, some definite not the honorable gentleman well know all notions with respect to the powers of the gov- this? There are certainly those who do, full ernment in regard to internal affairs. It may not well, know it all. I do not say this to reproach savor too much of self-commendation to South Carolina. I only state the fact; and I think remark, that, with this object, I considered the it will appear to be true, that among the earliest Constitution, its judicial construction, its con- and boldest advocates of the tariff, as a measure temporaneous exposition, and the whole history of protection, and on the express ground of of the legislation of Congress under it; and I ar- protection, were leading gentlemen of South rived at the conclusion, that government had Carolina in Congress. I did not then, and cannot power to accomplish sundry objects, or aid in now, understand their language in any other [ 52]
sense. While this tariff of 1816 was under dis- which the honorable gentleman has now in- cussion in the House of Representatives, an veighed against them, as part and parcel of the honorable gentleman from Georgia 23 now of system of consolidation. Whether this party this house, moved to reduce the proposed duty arose in South Carolina itself, or in the neigh- on cotton. He failed, by 4 votes, South Carolina borhood, is more than I know. I think the giving 3 votes (enough to have turned the scale) latter. However that may have been, there were against his motion. The act, sir, then passed, those found in South Carolina ready to make and received on its passage the support of a
war upon it, and who did make intrepid war
majority of the representatives of South Caroli- upon it. Names being regarded as things in such na present and voting. This act is the first in controversies, they bestowed on the anti-im- the order of those now denounced as plain
provement gentlemen the appellation of radi-
usurpations. We see it daily in the list, by the cals. Yes, sir, the appellation of radicals, as a side of those of 1824 and 1828, as a case of term of distinction applicable and applied to manifest oppression, justifying disunion. I put those who denied the liberal doctrines of inter- it home to the honorable member from South nal improvement, originated, according to the Carolina, that his own state was not only "art best of my recollection, somewhere between and part" in this measure, but the causa causans. North Carolina and Georgia. Well, sir, these Without her aid, this seminal principle of mis- mischievous radicals were to be put down, and chief, this root of Upas, could not have been the strong arm of South Carolina was stretched planted. I have already said, and it is true, that out to put them down. About this time I re- this act proceeded on the ground of protection. turned to Congress. The battle with the radicals It interfered directly with existing interests of had been fought, and our South Carolina cham- great value and amount. It cut up the Calcutta pions of the doctrines of internal improvement cotton trade by the roots, but it passed, never- had nobly maintained their ground, and were theless, and it passed on the principle of pro- understood to have achieved a victory. We tecting manufactures, on the principle against looked upon them as conquerors. They had free trade, on the principle opposed to that driven back the enemy with discomfiture, a which lets us alone.
Such, Mr. President, were the opinions of im- thing, by the way, sir, which is not always per- formed when it is promised. A gentleman to
portant and leading gentlemen from South whom I have already referred in this debate had Carolina, on the subject of internal improve- come into Congress, during my absence from it, ment, in 1816. I went out of Congress the next
year, and, returning again in 1823, thought I from South Carolina, and had brought with found South Carolina where I had left her. I him a high reputation for ability. He came from really supposed that all things remained as they a school with which we had been acquainted, et were, and that the South Carolina doctrine of noscitur a socis. I hold in my hand, sir, a printed speech of this distinguished gentleman, 24
internal improvements would be defended by "ON INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS," deliv- the same eloquent voices, and the same strong ered about the period to which I now refer, and arms, as formerly. In the lapse of these six
years, it is true, political associations had as-
sumed a new aspect and new. divisions. A
a short but significant quotation from these re-
fought; and its supporters inveighed against in- marks. He is speaking of a pamphlet, then re- ternal improvements, much after the manner in cently published, entitled "Consolidation"; and having alluded to the question of renewing the
nd 1829-1834 " George McDuffie of South Carolina (1790-1851) served in th louse of Representatives, 1821-1834, and in the Senate, 1842~184 [ 53]
charter of the former Bank of the United States, treasury to defray the expense. This act, though he says: preliminary in its nature, covered the whole
Moreover, in the early history of parties, and when Mr. ground. It took for granted the complete power Crawford advocated a renewal of the old charter, it was of internal improvement, as far as any of its ad- considered a Pederal measure; which internal improvement vocates had ever contended for it. Having never was, as this author erroneously states. This latter meas- passed the other house, the bill came up to the ure originated in the administration of Mr. Jefferson, with Senate, and was here considered and debated in the appropriation for the Cumberland Road; and was first proposed, as a system, by Mr. Calhoun, and carried through April 1824. The honorable member from South the House of Representatives by a large majority of the Re- Carolina was a member of the Senate at that time. While the bill was under consideration
here, a motion was made to add the following
proviso: "Provided, That nothing herein con-
the deal bereal ine parent is moreone of tained shall be construed to affirm or admit a power in Congress, on their own authority, to
The author in question, not content with denouncing as make roads or canals within any of the states of Federalists, General Jackson, Mr. Adams, Mr. Calhoun, and the majority of the South Carolina delegation in Congress, the Union." The yeas and nays were taken on modestly extends the denunciation to Mr. Monroe and the this proviso, and the honorable member voted whole Republican party. Here are his words: "During the in the negative! The proviso failed. administration of Mr. Monroe much has passed which the A motion was then made to add this proviso, Republican party would be glad to approve if they could! viz: "Provided, That the faith of the United But the principal feature, and that which has chiefly elicited these observations, is the renewal of the SYSTEM OF IN- States is hereby pledged, that no money shall TERNAL IMPROVEMENTS." Now this measure was ever be expended for roads or canals, except it adopted by a vote of 115 to 86 of a Republican Congress, shall be among the several states, and in the and sanctioned by a Republican President. Who, then, is same proportion as direct taxes are laid and as- this author, who assumes the high prerogative of denounc- sessed by the provisions of the Constitution." ing, in the name of the Republican party, the Republican administration of the country? A denunciation including The honorable member voted against this proviso within its sweep Calhoun, Londes, and Cheoes, men who will also, and it failed. The bill was then put on its be regarded as the brightest ornaments of South Carolina, passage, and the honorable member voted for it, and the strongest pillars of the Republican party, as long as and it passed, and became a law. the late war shall be remembered, and talents and patriot- Now it strikes me, sir, that there is no main- ism shall be regarded as the proper objects of the admira- tion and gratitude of a free people! taining these votes, but upon the power of in- ternal improvement, in its broadest sense. In
truth, these bills for surveys and estimates have
SUPPORT FOR INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT always been considered as test questions; they show who is for and who against internal im-
Such are the opinions, sir, which were main- This law itself went the whole tained by South Carolina gentlemen, in the length, and assumed the full and complete House of Representatives, on the subject of in- power. The gentleman's votes sustained that ternal improvements, when I took my seat there power, in every form in which the various as a member from Massachusetts in 1823. But propositions to amend presented it. He went for this is not all. We had a bill before us, and the entire and unrestrained authority, without passed it in that house, entitled, "An Act to consulting the states, and without agreeing to procure the necessary surveys, plans, and esti- any proportionate distribution. And now suffer mates upon the subject of roads and canals." It me to remind you, Mr. President, that it is this authorized the president to cause surveys and very same power, thus sanctioned, in every estimates to be made of the routes of such form, by the gentleman's own opinion, which is roads and canals as he might deem of national so plain and manifest a usurpation, that the importance in a commercial or military point of state of South Carolina is supposed to be justi- view, or for the transportation of the mail, and fied in refusing submission to any laws carrying appropriated thirty thousand dollars out of the the power into effect. Truly, sir, is not this a [ 54]
little too hard? May we not crave some mercy, "AN EXCESSIVE ANXIETY TO PAY OFF THE DEBT" under favor and protection of the gentleman's
own authority? Admitting that a road, or a
canal, must be written down flat usurpation as I go to other remarks of the honorable was ever committed, may we find no mitigation member; and I have to complain of an entire in our respect for his place, and his vote, as one misapprehension of what I said on the subject that knows the law?
of the national debt, though I can hardly per-
The tariff, which South Carolina had an effi- ceive how anyone could misunderstand me. cient hand in establishing, in 1816, and this as- What I said was, not that I wished to put off serted power of internal improvement, ad- the payment of the debt, but, on the contrary, vanced by her in the same year, and, as we that I had always voted for every measure for have seen, approved and sanctioned by her rep- its reduction, as uniformly as the gentleman resentatives in 1824, these two measures are the himself. He seems to claim the exclusive merit great grounds on which she is now thought to of a disposition to reduce the public charge. I be justified in breaking up the Union, if she do not allow it to him. As a debt, I was, I am sees fit to break it up! for paying it, because it is a charge on our fi- I may now safely say, I think, that we have nances, and on the industry of the country. But had the authority of leading and distinguished I observed, that I thought I perceived a morbid gentlemen from South Carolina in support of fervor on that subject, an excessive anxiety to the doctrine of internal improvement. I repeat, pay off the debt, not so much because it is a that, up to 1824, I for one followed South debt simply, as because, while it lasts, it fur- Carolina; but when that star, in its ascension, nishes one objection to disunion. It is, while it veered off in an unexpected direction, I relied continues, a tie of common interest. I did not on its light no longer. impute such motives to the honorable member [Here the vice president 25 said, "Does the himself, but that there is such a feeling in exist- chair understand the gentleman from Massa- ence I have not a particle of doubt. The most I chusetts to say that the person now occupying said was, that if one effect of the debt was to the chair of the Senate has changed his opin- strengthen our Union, that effect itself was not ions on the subject of internal improvements?"] regretted by me, however much others might From nothing ever said to me, sir, have I had regret it. The gentleman has not seen how to reason to know of any change in the opinions reply to this, otherwise than by supposing me of the person filling the chair of the Senate. If to have advanced the doctrine that a national such change has taken place, I regret it. I speak debt is a national blessing. Others, 1 must hope, generally of the state of South Carolina. Indi- will find much less difficulty in understanding viduals we know there are, who hold opinions me. I distinctly and pointedly cautioned the favorable to the power. An application for its honorable member not to understand me as ex- exercise, in behalf of a public work in South pressing an opinion favorable to the continu- Carolina itself, is now pending, I believe, in the ance of the debt. I repeated this caution, and other house, presented by members from that repeated it more than once; but it was thrown state. away.
I have thus, sir, perhaps not without some te- On yet another point, I was still more unac- countably misunderstood. The gentleman had
harangued against "consolidation." I told him,
in reply, that there was one kind of consolida-
wrong, it is apparent who misled me. tion to which I was attached, and that was the consolidation of our Union; that this was pre-
cisely that consolidation to which I feared
others were not attached, and that such consoli
* John C. Calhoun (1782-1850), vice president of the United lation was the very end of the Constitution States, 1825-1832, was presiding over the Senate. the leading object, as they had informed us [ 55]
themselves, which its framers had kept in view. am happy the honorable gentleman has fur- I turned to their communication, and read their nished me an opportunity of a timely remark or very words, "the consolidation of the Union," two on that subject. I was glad he approached and expressed my devotion to this sort of con- it, for it is a question I enter upon without fear solidation. I said, in terms, that I wished not in from anybody. The strenuous toil of the gentle- the slightest degree to augment the powers of man has been to raise an inconsistency between this government; that my object was to pre- my dissent to the tariff in 1824, and my vote in serve, not to enlarge; and that by consolidating 1828. It is labor lost. He pays undeserved com- the Union I understood no more than the pliment to my speech in 1824; but this is to strengthening of the Union, and perpetuating it. raise me high, that my fall, as he would have it, Having been thus explicit, having in 1828, may be more signal. Sir, there was no from the printed book the precise words which fall. Between the ground I stood on in 1824 and I adopted, as expressing my own sentiments, it that I took in 1828, there was not only no prec- passes comprehension how any man could un- ipice, but no declivity. It was a change of posi- derstand me as contending for an extension of tion to meet new circumstances, but on the the powers of the government, or for consolida- same level. A plain tale explains the whole tion in that odious sense in which it means an matter. In 1816 I had not acquiesced in the accumulation, in the federal government, of the tariff, then supported by South Carolina. To powers properly belonging to the states. some parts of it, especially, I felt and expressed I repeat, sir, that, in adopting the sentiment great repugnance. I held the same opinions in of the framers of the Constitution, I read their 1820, at the meeting in Faneuil Hall, to which language audibly, and word for word; and I the gentleman has alluded. I said then, and say pointed out the distinction, just as fully as I now, that, as an original question, the authority have now done, between the consolidation of of Congress to exercise the revenue power, with the Union and that other obnoxious consolida- direct reference to the protection of manufac- tion which I disclaimed. And yet the honorable tures, is a questionable authority, far more member misunderstood me. The gentleman had questionable, in my judgment, than the power said that he wished for no fixed revenue-not a of internal improvements. I must confess, sir, shilling. If by a word he could convert the Cap- that in one respect some impression has been itol into gold, he would not do it. Why all this made on my opinions lately. Mr. Madison's fear of revenue? Why, sir, because, as the gen- publication 26 has put the power in a very tleman told us, it tends to consolidation. Now strong light. He has placed it, I must acknowl- this can mean neither more nor less than that a edge, upon grounds of construction and argu- common revenue is a common interest, and that ment which seem impregnable. But even if the all common interests tend to preserve the union power were doubtful, on the face of the Consti- of the states. I confess I like that tendency; if tution itself, it had been assumed and asserted the gentleman dislikes it, he is right in depre- in the first revenue law ever passed under that cating a shilling of fixed revenue. So much, sir, same Constitution; and on this ground, as a for consolidation. matter settled by contemporaneous practice, l had refrained from expressing the opinion that
the tariff laws transcended constitutional limits,
"THE SUBJECT OF THE TARTY" as the gentleman supposes. What I did say at struction. The gentleman himself, I suppose,
hinks there is no doubt about it, and that th
aws are plainly against the Constitution. M
and proceeded, with an effort neither new nor
attended with new success, to involve me and
my votes in inconsistency and contradiction. I
[56]
Madison's letters, already referred to, contain, inconsistency so much bruited. I had voted in my judgment, by far the most able exposi- against the tariff of 1824, but it passed; and in tion extant of this part of the Constitution. He 1827 and 1828, I voted to amend it, in a point has satisfied me, so far as the practice of the essential to the interest of my constituents. government had left it an open question. Where is the inconsistency? Could I do other- With a great majority of the representatives wise? Sir, does political consistency consist in of Massachusetts, I voted against the tariff of always giving negative votes? Does it require of 1824. My reasons were then given, and I will a public man to refuse to concur in amending not now repeat them. But, notwithstanding our laws, because they passed against his consent? Having voted against the tariff originally, does
vania, Ohio, and Kentucky went for the bill, in consistency demand that I should do all in my almost unbroken column, and it passed. Con- power to maintain an unequal tariff, burden- gress and the president sanctioned it, and it some to my own constituents in many respects, became the law of the land. What, then, were favorable in none? To consistency of that sort, I we to do? Our only option was, either to fall in lay no claim. And there is another sort to which with this settled course of public policy, and I lay as little, and that is, a kind of consistency accommodate ourselves to it as well as we by which persons feel themselves as much could, or to embrace the South Carolina doc- bound to oppose a proposition after it has trine, and talk of nullifying the statute by state become a law of the land as before. interference. The bill of 1827, limited, as I have said, to This last alternative did not suit our princi- the single object in which the tariff of 1824 had ples, and of course we adopted the former. In manifestly failed in its effect, passed the House 1827, the subject came again before Congress, of Representatives, but was lost here. We had on a proposition to afford some relief to the then the act of 1828. I need not recur to the branch of wool and woollens. We looked upon history of a measure so recent. Its enemies the system of protection as being fixed and set- spiced it with whatsoever they thought would tled. The law of 1824 remained. It had gone render it distasteful; its friends took it, drugged into full operation, and, in regard to some ob- as it was. Vast amounts of property, many mil- jects intended by it, perhaps most of them, had lions, had been invested in manufactures, under produced all its expected effects. No man pro- the inducements of the act of 1824. Events posed to repeal it; no man attempted to renew called loudly, as I thought, for further regula- the general contest on its principle. But, owing tion to secure the degree of protection intended to subsequent and unforeseen occurrences, the by that act. I was disposed to vote for such reg- benefit intended by it to wool and woollen fab- ulation, and desired nothing more; but certainly rics had not been realized. Events not known was not to be bantered out of my purpose by a here when the law passed had taken place, threatened augmentation of duty on molasses, which defeated its object in that particular re- put into the bill for the avowed purpose of spect. A measure was accordingly brought for- making it obnoxious. The vote may have been ward to meet this precise deficiency, to remedy right or wrong, wise or unwise; but it is little this particular defect. It was limited to wool less than absurd to allege against it an incon- and woollens. Was ever anything more reasona- sistency with opposition to the former law. ble? If the policy of the tariff laws had become
established in principle, as the permanent policy
of the government, should they not be revised
and amended, and made equal, like other laws, "THIS POLICY DID NOT BEGIN WITH US IN NEW ENGLAND" as exigencies should arise, or justice require?
Because we had doubted about adopting the Sir, as to the general subject of the tariff, I system, were we to refuse to cure its manifest
defects, after it had been adopted, and when no
one attempted its repeal? And this, sir, is the
[57]
England; and yet, sir, New England is charged it, into the enemy's country. Prudently willing with vehemence as being favorable, or charged to quit these subjects, he was, doubtless, desir- with equal vehemence as being unfavorable, to ous of fastening on others, which could not be the tariff policy, just as best suits the time, transferred south of Mason and Dixon's line. place, and occasion for making some charge The politics of New England became his theme; against her. The credulity of the public has and it was in this part of his speech, I think, been put to its extreme capacity of false im- that he menaced me with such sore discomfi- pression relative to her conduct in this particu- ture. Discomfiture! Why, sir, when he attacks lar. Through all the South, during the late con- anything which I maintain, and overthrows it, test, it was New England policy and a New when he turns the right or left of any position England administration that were afflicting the which I take up, when he drives me from any country with a tariff beyond all endurance; ground I choose to occupy, he may then talk of while on the other side of the Alleghanies even discomfiture, but not till that distant day. What the act of 1828 itself, the very sublimated es- done? Has he maintained his own sence of oppression, according to southern charges? Has he proved what he alleged? Has opinions, was pronounced to be one of those he sustained himself in his attack on the gov- blessings for which the West was indebted to ernment, and on the history of the North, in the "generous South." the matter of the public lands? Has he dis- With large investments in manufacturing es- proved a fact, refuted a proposition, weakened tablishments, and many and various interests an argument, maintained by me? Has he come connected with and dependent on them, it is within beat of drum of any position of mine? not to be expected that New England, any more O, no; but he has "carried the war into the than other portions of the country, will now enemy's country"! Carried the war into the consent to any measure destructive or highly enemy's country! Yes, sir, and what sort of a dangerous. The duty of the government, at the war has he made of it? Why, sir, he has present moment, would seem to be to preserve, stretched a dragnet over the whole surface of not to destroy; to maintain the position which perished pamphlets, indiscreet sermons, frothy it has assumed; and, for one, I shall feel it an paragraphs, and fuming popular addresses; over indispensable obligation to hold it steady, as far whatever the pulpit in its moments of alarm, as in my power, to that degree of protection the press in its heats, and parties in their ex- which it has undertaken to bestow. No more of travagance, have severally thrown off in times the tariff. of general excitement and violence. He has thus Professing to be provoked by what he chose swept together a mass of such things as, but to consider a charge made by me against South that they are now old and cold, the public Carolina, the honorable member, Mr. President, health would have required him rather to leave has taken up a new crusade against New Eng- in their state of dispersion. For a good long land. Leaving altogether the subject of the hour or two, we had the unbroken pleasure of public lands, in which his success, perhaps, had listening to the honorable member, while he re- been neither distinguished nor satisfactory, and cited with his usual grace and spirit, and with letting go, also, of the topic of the tariff, he sal- evident high gusto, speeches, pamphlets, ad lied forth in a general assault on the opinions, dresses, and all the et caeteras of the politica politics, and parties of New England, as they press, such as warm heads produce in warm have been exhibited in the last thirty years. times; and such as it would be "discomfiture" This is natural. The "narrow policy" of the indeed for anyone, whose taste did not delight public lands had proved a legal settlement in in that sort of reading, to be obliged to peruse.
South Carolina, and was not to be removed. This is his war. This it is to carry war into the The "accursed policy" of the tariff, also, had enemy's country. It is in an invasion of this established the fact of its birth and parentage in sort, that he flatters himself with the expecta- the same state. No wonder, therefore, the gen- tion of gaining laurels fit to adorn a senator's tleman wished to carry the war, as he expressed
[ 58 ]
PARTIES AROSE WITH THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF we all know, by New England. It was violently opposed elsewhere. We know in what quarter
Mr. President, I shall not, it will not, I trust, he had the most earnest, constant, and perse- vering support, in all his great and leading
be expected that I should, either now or at any measures. We know where his private and per- time, separate this farrago into parts, and sonal character was held in the highest degree answer and examine its components. I shall of attachment and veneration; and we know, barely bestow upon it all a general remark or too, where his measures were opposed, his two. In the run of forty years, sir, under this services slighted, and his character vilified. We Constitution, we have experienced sundry suc- know, or we might know, if we turned to the cessive violent party contests. Party arose, journals, who expressed respect, gratitude, and indeed, with the Constitution itself, and, in regret, when he retired from the chief magistra- some form or other, has attended it through the cy, and who refused to express either respect, greater part of its history. Whether any other gratitude, or regret. I shall not open those jour- constitution than the old Articles of Confedera- nals. Publications more abusive or scurrilous tion was desirable, was itself a question on never saw the light, than were sent forth which parties divided; if a new constitution against Washington, and all his leading meas- were framed, what powers should be given to it ures, from presses south of New England. But I was another question; and when it had been shall not look them up. I employ no scavengers, formed, what was, in fact, the just extent of the no one is in attendance on me, furnishing such powers actually conferred was a third. Parties, means of retaliation; and if there were, with an as we know, existed under the first administra- ass's load of them, with a bulk as huge as that tion, as distinctly marked as those which have which the gentleman himself has produced, I subsequent would not touch one of them. I see enough of period. The contest immediately preceding the the violence of our own times, to be no way political change in 1801, and that, again, which anxious to rescue from forgetfulness the ex- existed at the commencement of the late war, travagances of times past. are other instances of party excitement, of
something more than usual strength and inten- "WHY SHOULD HE.. ABUSE NEW ENGLAND?" sity. In all these conflicts there was, no doubt,
much of violence on both and all sides. It Besides, what is all this to the present pur- would be impossible, if one had a fancy for pose? It has nothing to do with the public such employment, to adjust the relative quantum lands, in regard to which the attack was begun; of violence between these contending parties. and it has nothing to do with those sentiments There was enough in each, as must always be and opinions which, I have thought, tend to expected in popular governments. With a great disunion, and all of which the honorable deal of popular and decorous discussion, there member seems to have adopted himself, and was mingled a great deal, also, of declamation, undertaken to defend. New England has, at virulence, crimination, and abuse. In regard to times, so argues the gentleman, held opinions as any party, probably, at one of the leading dangerous as those which he now holds. Sup- epochs in the history of parties, enough may be pose this were so; why should he therefore found to make out another inflamed exhibition, abuse New England? If he finds himself coun- not unlike that with which the honorable tenanced by acts of hers, how is it that, while member has edified us. For myself, sir, I shall he relies on these acts, he covers, or seeks to not rake among the rubbish of bygone times, to cover, their authors with reproach? But, sir, if, see what I can find, or whether I cannot find in the course of forty years, there have beer something by which I can fix a blot on the es- undue effervescences of party in New England, cutcheon of any state, any party, or any part of has the same thing happened nowhere else? the country. General Washington's administra- Party animosity and party outrage, not in New tion was steadily and zealously maintained, as England, but elsewhere, denounced President : [59]
Washington, not only as a Federalist, but as a the other. I leave to him, and to them, the Tory, a British agent, a man who in his high whole concern. office sanctioned corruption. But does the hon- It is enough for me to say, that if, in any part orable member suppose, if I had a tender here of this their grateful occupation, if, in all their who should put such an effusion of wickedness researches, they find anything in the history of and folly into my hand, that I would stand up Massachusetts, or New England, or in the pro- and read it against the South? Parties ran into ceedings of any legislative or other public body, great heats again in 1799 and 1800. What was disloyal to the Union, speaking slightingly of its said, sir, or rather what was not said, in those value, proposing to break it up, or recommend- years, against John Adams,27 one of the com- ing nonintercourse with neighboring states, on mittee that drafted the Declaration of Inde- account of difference of political opinion, then, pendence, and its admitted ablest defender on sir, I give them all up to the honorable gentle- the floor of Congress? If the gentleman wishes man's unrestrained rebuke; expecting, however, to increase his stores of party abuse and frothy that he will extend his buffetings in like violence, if he has a determined proclivity to manner to all similar proceedings, wherever else such pursuits, there are treasures of that sort
south of the Potomac, much to his taste, yet
untouched. I shall not touch them. "THE GENTLEMAN'S HISTORY OF FEDERALISM" The parties which divided the country at the
commencement of the late war were violent. The gentleman, sir, has spoken at large of But then there was violence on both sides, and former parties, now no longer in being, by their violence in every state. Minorities and majori- received appellations, and has undertaken to in- ties were equally violent. There was no more struct us, not only in the knowledge of their violence against the war in New England, than principles, but of their respective pedigrees also. in other states; nor any more appearance of vio- He has ascended to their origin, and run out lence, except that, owing to a dense population, their genealogies. With most exemplary modes- greater facility of assembling, and more presses, ty, he speaks of the party to which he professes there may have been more in quantity spoken to have himself belonged, as the true Pure, the and printed there than in some other places. In only honest, patriotic party, derived by regular the article of sermons, too, New England is descent, from father to son, from the time of somewhat more abundant than South Carolina; the virtuous Romans! Spreading before us the and for that reason the chance of finding here family tree of political parties, he takes especial and there an exceptionable one may be greater. care to show himself snugly perched on a pop- I hope, too, there are more good ones. Opposi- ular bough! He is wakeful to the expediency of tion may have been more formidable in New adopting such rules of descent as shall bring England, as it embraced a larger portion of the him in, to the exclusion of others, as an heir to whole population; but it was no more unre- the inheritance of all public virtue and all true strained in principle, or violent in manner. The political principle. His party and his opinions minorities dealt quite as harshly with their own are sure to be orthodox; heterodoxy is confined state governments as the majorities dealt with to his opponents. He spoke, sir, of the Federal- ists, and I thought I saw some eyes begin to
open and stare a little, when he ventured on
that ground. I expected he would draw his
sketches rather lightly, when he looked on the
productions of one side. I certainly shall not circle round him, and especially if he should supply the deficiency by furnishing samples of cast his thoughts to the high places out of the Senate. Nevertheless, he went back to Rome, ad
annum urbis conditae, and found the fathers of the
37 John Adams (1735-1826) was president of the United States, Federalists in the primeval aristocrats of that re- 1797-1801. nowned city! He traced the flow of Federal
[60]
blood down through successive ages and cen- the other requisite qualifications, there is no turies, till he brought it into the veins of the knowing, notwithstanding his Federalism, to American Tories, of whom, by the way, there what heights of favor he might not yet attain. were twenty in the Carolinas for one in Massa-
chusetts. From the Tories he followed it to the
Federalists; and, as the Federal party was NO ATTACK ON SOUTH CAROLINA broken up, and there was no possibility of Mr. President, in carrying his warfare, such as transmitting it further on this side the Atlantic, it is, into New England, the honorable gentle- he seems to have discovered that it has gone off man all along professes to be acting on the de- collaterally, though against all the canons of de- fensive. He chooses to consider me as having scent, into the Ultras of France, and finally assailed South Carolina, and insists that he become extinguished, like exploded gas, among comes forth only as her champion, and in her the adherents of Don Miguel! This, sir, is an defence. Sir, I do not admit that I made any abstract of the gentleman's history of Federal- attack whatever on South Carolina. Nothing ism. I am not about to controvert it. It is not, at like it. The honorable member, in his first present, worth the pains of refutation; because, speech, expressed opinions, in regard to revenue sir, if at this day anyone feels the sin of Feder- and some other topics, which I heard both with alism lying heavily on his conscience, he can pain and with surprise. I told the gentleman I easily procure remission. He may even obtain was aware that such sentiments were enter- an indulgence, if he be desirous of repeating the tained out of the government, but had not ex- same transgression. It is an affair of no difficul- pected to find them advanced in it; that I knew ty to get into this same right line of patriotic there were persons in the South who speak of descent. A man now-a-days is at liberty to our Union with indifference or doubt, taking choose his political parentage. He may elect his pains to magnify its evils, and to say nothing of own father. Federalist or not, he may, if he its benefits; that the honorable member himself, choose, claim to belong to the favored stock, I was sure, could never be one of these; and I and his claim will be allowed. He may carry regretted the expression of such opinions as he back his pretensions just as far as the honorable had avowed, because I thought their obvious gentleman himself; nay, he may make himself tendency was to encourage feelings of disre- out the honorable gentleman's cousin, and spect to the Union, and to impair its strength. prove, satisfactorily, that he is descended from This, sir, is the sum and substance of all I said the same political great-grandfather. All this is on the subject. And this constitutes the attack allowable. We all know a process, sir, by which which called on the chivalry of the gentleman, the whole Essex Junto could, in one hour, be all in his own opinion, to harry us with such a washed white from their ancient Federalism, foray among the party pamphlets and party and come out, every one of them, original proceedings of Massachusetts! If he means that Democrats, dyed in the wool! Some of them I spoke with dissatisfaction or disrespect of the have actually undergone the operation, and ebulitions of individuals in South Carolina, it is they say it is quite easy. The only inconven- true. But if he means that I assailed the charac- ience it occasions, as they tell us, is a slight ter of the state, her honor, or patriotism, that I tendency of the blood to the face, a soft suffu- reflected on her history or her conduct, he has sion, which, however, is very transient, since not the slightest ground for any such assump- nothing is said by those whom they join calcu- tion. I did not even refer, I think, in my obser- ated to deepen the red on the cheek, but a pru. vations, to any collection of individuals. I said lent silence is observed in regard to all thi nothing of the recent conventions. I spoke in past. Indeed, sir, some smiles of approbation the most guarded and careful manner, and only have been bestowed, and some crumbs of com- expressed my regret for the publication of opin- fort have fallen, not a thousand miles from the ions, which I presumed the honorable member door of the Hartford Convention itself. And if disapproved as much as myself. In this, it the author of the Ordinance of 1787 possessed seems, I was mistaken. I do not remember that [61 ]
the gentleman has disclaimed any sentiment, or more or less aggravated case, but cannot affect any opinion, of a supposed anti-Union tenden- the principle. I do not hold, therefore, sir, that cy, which on all or any of the recent occasions the Hartford Convention was pardonable, even has been expressed. The whole drift of his to the extent of the gentleman's admission, if speech has been rather to prove, that, in divers its objects were really such as have been imput- times and manners, sentiments equally liable to ed to it. Sir, there never was a time, under any my objection have been avowed in New Eng- degree of excitement, in which the Hartford land. And one would suppose that his object, in Convention, or any other convention, could this reference to Massachusetts, was to find a have maintained itself one moment in New precedent to justify proceedings in the South, England, if assembled for any such purpose as were it not for the reproach and contumely the gentleman says would have been an allow- with which he labors, all along, to load these able purpose. To hold conventions to decide his own chosen precedents. By way of defend- constitutional law! To try the binding validity ing South Carolina from what he chooses to of statutes by votes in a convention! Sir, the think an attack on her, he first quotes the ex- Hartford Convention, I presume, would not ample of Massachusetts, and then denounces desire that the honorable gentleman should be that example in good set terms. This twofold their defender or advocate, if he puts their case purpose, not very consistent, one would think, upon such untenable and extravagant grounds. with itself, was exhibited more than once in the Then, sir, the gentleman has no fault to find course of his speech. He referred, for instance, with these recently promulgated South Carolina to the Hartford Convention. Did he do this for opinions. And certainly he need have none; for authority, or for a topic of reproach? Apparent- his own sentiments, as now advanced, and ad- ly for both, for he told us that he should find vanced on reflection, as far as I have been able no fault with the mere fact of holding such a to comprehend them, go the full length of all convention, and considering and discussing these opinions. I propose, sir, to say something such questions as he supposes were then and on these, and to consider how far they are just there discussed; but what rendered it obnoxious and constitutional. Before doing that, however, was its being held at the time, and under the let me observe that the eulogium pronounced circumstances of the country then existing. We by the honorable gentleman on the character of were in a war, he said, and the country needed the state of South Carolina, for her revolution- all our aid; the hand of government required to ary and other merits, meets my hearty concur- be strengthened, not weakened; and patriotism rence. I shall not acknowledge that the honora- should have postponed such proceedings to an- ble member goes before me in regard for other day. The thing itself, then, is a precedent; whatever of distinguished talent, or distin- the time and manner of it only, a subject of guished character, South Carolina has produced I claim part of the honor, I partake in the pride,
Now, sir, I go much further, on this point, of her great names. I claim them for country- than the honorable member. Supposing, as the men, one and all, the Laurenses, the Rutledges, gentleman seems to do, that the Hartford Con- the Pinckneys, the Sumpters, the Marions, vention assembled for any such purpose as Americans all, whose fame is no more to be breaking up the Union, because they thought hemmed in by state lines, than their talents and unconstitutional laws had been passed, or to patriotism were capable of being circumscribed consult on that subject, or to calculate the value of within the same narrow limits. In their day and the Union; supposing this to be their purpose, or generation, they served and honored the coun- any part of it, then I say the meeting itself was try, and the whole country; and their renown is disloyal, and was obnoxious to censure, wheth- of the treasures of the whole country. Him er held in time of peace or time of war, or whose honored name the gentleman himself under whatever circumstances. The material bears, does he esteem me less capable of grati- question is the object. Is dissolution the objec? If tude for his patriotism, or sympathy for his it be, external circumstances may make it a sufferings, than if his eyes had first opened [ 62 ]
upon the light of Massachusetts, instead of where its youth was nurtured and sustained, South Carolina? Sir, does he suppose it in his there it still lives, in the strength of its man- power to exhibit a Carolina name so bright, as hood and full of its original spirit. If discord to produce envy in my bosom? No, sir, in- and disunion shall wound it, if party strife and creased gratification and delight, rather. I thank blind ambition shall hawk at and tear it, if folly God, that, if I am gifted with little of the spirit and madness, if uneasiness under salutary and which is able to raise mortals to the skies, I necessary restraint, shall succeed in separating it have yet none, as I trust, of that other spirit, from that Union, by which alone its existence is which would drag angels down. When I shall made sure, it will stand, in the end, by the side be found, sir, in my place here in the Senate, or of that cradle in which its infancy was rocked; elsewhere, to sneer at public merit, because it it will stretch forth its arm with whatever of happens to spring up beyond the little limits of vigor it may still retain over the friends who my own state or neighborhood; when I refuse, gather round it; and it will fall at last, if fall it for any such cause, or for any cause, the must, amidst the proudest monuments of its homage due to American talent, to elevated pa- own glory, and on the very spot of its origin. triotism, to sincere devotion to liberty and the
country; or, if I see an uncommon endowment
of Heaven, if I see extraordinary capacity and "THE TRUE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSTITUTION" virtue, in any of the South, and if, moved by
local prejudice or gangrened by state jealousy, I There yet remains to be performed, Mr. get up here to abate the tithe of a hair from his President, by far the most grave and important just character and just fame, may my tongue duty, which I feel to be devolved on me by this cleave to the roof of my mouth! occasion. It is to state, and to defend, what I Sir, let me recur to pleasing recollections; let conceive to be the true principles of the Consti- me indulge in refreshing remembrance of the tution under which we are here assembled. I past; let me remind you that, in early times, no might well have desired that so weighty a task states cherished greater harmony, both of prin- should have fallen into other and abler hands. I ciple and feeling, than Massachusetts and South could have wished that it should have been ex- Carolina. Would to God that harmony might ecuted by those whose character and experience again return! Shoulder to shoulder they went give weight and influence to their opinions, through the Revolution, hand in hand they such as cannot possibly belong to mine. But, stood round the administration of Washington, sir, I have met the occasion, not sought it; and I and felt his own great arm lean on them for shall proceed to state my own sentiments, with- support. Unkind feeling, if it exist, alienation, out challenging for them any particular regard, with studied plainness, and as much precision
as possible.
I understand the honorable gentleman from
never scattered. South Carolina to maintain, that it is a right of Mr. President, I shall enter on no encomium the state legislatures to interfere, whenever, in upon Massachusetts; she needs none. There she their judgment, this government transcends its is. Behold her, and judge for yourselves. There constitutional limits, and to arrest the operation is her history; the world knows it by heart. The of its laws. past, at least, is secure. There is Boston, and I understand him to maintain this right, as a Concord, and Lexington, and Bunker Hill; and right existing under the Constitution, not as a there they will remain for ever. The bones of right to overthrow it on the ground of her sons, falling in the great struggle for inde- extreme necessity, such as would justify violent pendence, now lie mingled with the soil of revolution.
every state from New England to Georgia; and I understand him to maintain an authority, there they will lie for ever. And sir, where on the part of the states, thus to interfere, for liberty raised its first voice, and the purpose of correcting the exercise of power [ 63]
by the general government, of checking it, and That this assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily de- of compelling it to conform to their opinion of clare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as the extent of its powers. resulting from the compact to which the States are parties, I understand him to maintain, that the ulti- as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instru- ment constituting that compact, as no farther valid than mate power of judging of the constitutional they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that com- extent of its own authority is not lodged exclu- pact; and that, in case of a deliberate, palpable, and danger- sively in the general government, or any branch ous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said com- of it; but that, on the contrary, the states may pact, the States who are parties thereto have the right, and lawfully decide for themselves, and each state are in duty bound, to interpose, for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits for itself, whether, in a given case, the act of the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them. the general government transcends its power.
I understand him to insist, that, if the exigen- Mr. Webster resumed:] cy of the case, in the opinion of any state gov- I am quite aware, Mr. President, of the exist- ernment, require it, such state government may, ence of the resolution which the gentleman by its own sovereign authority, annul an act of read, and has now repeated, and that he relies the general government which it deems plainly on it as his authority. I know the source, too, and palpably unconstitutional. from which it is understood to have proceeded This is the sum of what I understand from I need not say that I have much respect for the him to be the South Carolina doctrine, and the constitutional opinions of Mr. Madison; they doctrine which he maintains. I propose to con- would weigh greatly with me always. But sider it, and compare it with the Constitution. before the authority of his opinion be vouched Allow me to say, as a preliminary remark, that I for the gentleman's proposition, it will be call this the South Carolina doctrine only be- proper to consider what is the fair interpreta- cause the gentleman himself has so denominat- tion of that resolution, to which Mr. Madison is ed it. I do not feel at liberty to say that South understood to have given his sanction. As the Carolina, as a state, has ever advanced these gentleman construes it, it is an authority for sentiments. I hope she has not, and never may. him. Possibly, he may not have adopted the That a great majority of her people are opposed right construction. That resolution declares, to the tariff laws, is doubtless true. That a ma- that, in the case of the dangerous exercise of powers not jority, somewhat less than that just mentioned, granted by the general government, the states may inter- conscientiously believe these laws unconstitu- pose to arrest the progress of the evil. But how inter- tional, may probably also be true. But that any pose, and what does this declaration purport? majority holds to the right of direct state inter- Does it mean no more than that there may be ference at state discretion, the right of nullify- extreme cases, in which the people, in any ing acts of Congress by acts of state legislation, mode of assembling, may resist usurpation, and is more than I know, and what I shall be slow relieve themselves from a tyrannical govern- ment? No one will deny this. Such resistance is
That there are individuals besides the honor- not only acknowledged to be just in America, able gentleman who do maintain these opin- but in England also. Blackstone admits as much, ions, is quite certain. I recollect the recent ex- in the theory, and practice, too, of the English pression of a sentiment, which circumstances constitution. We, sir, who oppose the Carolina attending its utterance and publication justify doctrine, do not deny that the people may, if us in supposing was not unpremeditated. "The they choose, throw off any government when it sovereignty of the state, never to be controlled, becomes oppressive and intolerable, and erect a construed, or decided on but by her own feel- better in its stead. We all know that civil insti- ings of honorable justice." tutions are established for the public benefit, [Mr. Hayne here rose and said, that, for the and that when they cease to answer the ends of purpose of being clearly understood, he would their existence they may be changed. But I do state that his proposition was in the words of not understand the doctrine now contended for the Virginia resolution, as follows: to be that, which, for the sake of distinction, [ 64]
we may call the right of revolution. I under- revolution. I admit that there is an ultimate vio- stand the gentleman to maintain, that, without lent remedy, above the Constitution and in de- revolution, without civil commotion, without fiance of the Constitution, which may be re- rebellion, a remedy for supposed abuse and sorted to when a revolution is to be justified. transgression of the powers of the general gov- But I do not admit, that, under the Constitution ernment lies in a direct appeal to the interfer- and in conformity with it, there is any mode in ence of the state governments. which a state government, as a member of the [Mr. Hayne here rose and said: He did not Union, can interfere and contend for the mere right of revolution, but the general government, by force of her own for the right of constitutional resistance. What laws, under any circumstances whatever. he maintained was, that in case of a plain, pal- This leads us to inquire into the origin of this pable violation of the Constitution by the gen- government and the source of its power. Whose eral government, a state may interpose; and that agent is it? Is it the creature of the state legisla- this interposition is constitutional. tures, or the creature of the people? If the gov- Mr. Webster resumed:] ernment of the United States be the agent of WHO IS TO DECIDE ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY? the state governments, then they may control it, provided they can agree in the manner of con-
So, sir, I understood the gentleman, and am trolling it; if it be the agent of the people, then happy to find that I did not misunderstand the people alone can control it, restrain it, him. What he contends for is, that it is consti- modify, or reform it. It is observable enough, tutional to interrupt the administration of the that the doctrine for which the honorable gen- Constitution itself, in the hands of those who tleman contends leads him to the necessity of are chosen and sworn to administer it, by the maintaining, not only that this general govern- direct interference, in form of law, of the states, ment is the creature of the states, but that it is in virtue of their sovereign capacity. The inher- the creature of each of the states severally, so ent right in the people to reform their govern- that each may assert the power for itself of de- ment I do not deny; and they have another termining whether it acts within the limits of
4. right, and that is, to resist unconstitutional its authority. It is the servant of four-and- laws, without overturning the government. It is twenty masters, of different wills and different no doctrine of mine that unconstitutional laws purposes, and yet bound to obey all. This ab- bind the people. The great question is, whose surdity (for it seems no less) arises from a mis- prerogative is it to decide on the constitutional- conception as to the origin of this government ity or unconstitutionality of the laws? On that, and its true character. It is, sir, the people's the main debate hinges. The proposition, that, Constitution, the people's government, made in case of a supposed violation of the Constitu- for the people, made by the people, and an- tion by Congress, the states have a constitu- swerable to the people. The people of the tional right to interfere and annul the law of United States have declared that the Constitu- Congress, is the proposition of the gentleman. I tion shall be the supreme law. We must either do not admit it. If the gentleman had intended admit the proposition, or dispute their author- no more than to assert the right of revolution ity. The states are, unquestionably, sovereign, for justifiable cause, he would have said only so far as their sovereignty is not affected by what all agree to. But I cannot conceive that this supreme law. But the state legislatures, as there can be a middle course, between submis- political bodies, however sovereign, are yet not sion to the laws, when regularly pronounced sovereign over the people. So far as the people constitutional, on the one hand, and open re- have given power to the general government, so sistance, which is revolution or rebellion, on the far the grant is unquestionably good, and the other. I say, the right of a state to annul a law government holds of the people, and not of the of Congress cannot be maintained, but on the state governments. We are all agents of the ground of the inalienable right of man to resist same supreme power, the people. The general oppression; that is to say, upon the ground of government and the state governments derive [ 65]
their authority from the same source. Neither mote one branch of industry at the expense of can, in relation to the other, be called primary, others, is contrary to the meaning and intention though one is definite and restricted, and the of the federal compact; and such a dangerous, other general and residuary. The national gov- palpable, and deliberate usurpation of power, ernment possesses those powers which it can be by a determined majority, wielding the general shown the people have conferred on it, and no government beyond the limits of its delegated more. All the rest belongs to the state govern- powers, as calls upon the states which compose ments, or to the people themselves. So far as the suffering minority, in their sovereign capac- the people have restrained state sovereignty, by ity, to exercise the powers which, as sovereigns, the expression of their will, in the Constitution necessarily devolve upon them, when their of the United States, so far, it must be admit- compact is violated." ted, state sovereignty is effectually controlled. I Observe, sir, that this resolution holds the do not contend that it is, or ought to be, con- tariff of 1828, and every other tariff designed to trolled farther. The sentiment to which I have promote one branch of industry at the expense referred propounds that state sovereignty is of another, to be such a dangerous, palpable, only to be controlled by its own "feeling of jus- and deliberate usurpation of power, as calls tice"; that is to say, it is not to be controlled at upon the states, in their sovereign capacity, to all, for one who is to follow his own feelings is interfere by their own authority. This denun- under no legal control. Now, however men may ciation, Mr. President, you will please to ob- think this ought to be, the fact is, that the serve, includes our old tariff of 1816, as well as people of the United States have chosen to all others; because that was established to pro- impose control on state sovereignties. There are the manufacturers of those, doubtless, who wish they had been left cotton, to the manifest and admitted injury of without restraint; but the Constitution has or- the Calcutta cotton trade. Observe, again, that dered the matter differently. To make war, for all the qualifications are here rehearsed and instance, is an exercise of sovereignty; but the charged upon the tariff, which are necessary to Constitution declares that no state shall make bring the case within the gentleman's proposi- war. To coin money is another exercise of sov- tion. The tariff is a usurpation; it is a dangerous ereign power, but no state is at liberty to coin usurpation; it is a palpable usurpation; it is a money. Again, the Constitution says that no deliberate usurpation. It is such a usurpation, sovereign state shall be so sovereign as to make therefore, as calls upon the states to exercise a treaty. These prohibitions, it must be con- their right of interference. Here is a case, then, fessed, are a control on the state sovereignty of within the gentleman's principles, and all his South Carolina, as well as of the other states, qualifications of his principles. It is a case for which does not arise "from her own feelings of action. The Constitution is plainly, dangerously, honorable justice." The opinion referred to, palpably, and deliberately violated; and the therefore, is in defiance of the plainest provi- states must interpose their own authority to sions of the Constitution. arrest the law. Let us suppose the state of South Carolina to express this same opinion, by the
"THE CAROLINA DOCTRINE" voice of her legislature. That would be very im- posing; but what then? Is the voice of one state
There are other proceedings of public bodies conclusive? It so happens that, at the very which have already been alluded to, and to moment when South Carolina resolves that the which I refer again, for the purpose of ascer- tariff laws are unconstitutional, Pennsylvania taining more fully what is the length and and Kentucky resolve exactly the reverse. They breadth of that doctrine, denominated the hold those laws to be both highly proper and Carolina doctrine, which the honorable member strictly constitutional. And now, sir, how does has now stood up on this floor to maintain. In the honorable member propose to deal with this one of them I find it resolved, that "the tariff case? How does he relieve us from this difficul- of 1828, and every other tariff designed to pro- ty, upon any principle of his? His construction [66 ]
gets us into it; how does he propose to get us their own opinions above the judgment of all others, above the laws, and above the Constitu-
In Carolina, the tariff is a palpable, deliberate tion. This is their liberty, and this is the fair usurpation; Carolina, therefore, may nullify it, result of the proposition contended for by the and refuse to pay the duties. In Pennsylvania, it honorable gentleman. Or, it may be more prop- is both clearly constitutional and highly expedi- erly said, it is identical with it rather than a ent; and there the duties are to be paid. And result from it. yet we live under a government of uniform In the same publication we find the follow- laws, and under a Constitution too, which con- ing: "Previously to our Revolution, when the tains an express provision, as it happens, that arm of oppression was stretched over New Eng- all duties shall be equal in all the states. Does land, where did our Northern brethren meet not this approach absurdity? with a braver sympathy than that which sprung THERE MUST BE A POWER TO SETTLE SUCH QUESTIONS from the bosoms of Carolinians? We had no extortion, no oppression, no collision with the
If there be no power to settle such questions, king's ministers, no navigation interests spring- independent of either of the states, is not the ing up, in envious rivalry of England." whole Union a rope of sand? Are we not This seems extraordinary language. South thrown back again, precisely, upon the old Carolina no collision with the king's ministers Confederation? in 1775! No extortion! No oppression! But, sir, It is too plain to be argued. Four-and-twenty it is also most significant language. Does any interpreters of constitutional law, each with a man doubt the purpose for which it was power to decide for itself, and none with au- penned? Can anyone fail to see that it was de- thority to bind anybody else, and this constitu- signed to raise in the reader's mind the ques- tional law the only bond of their union! What tion, whether, at this time—that is to say, in is such a state of things but a mere connection 1828—South Carolina has any collision with during pleasure, or, to use the phraseology of the king's ministers, any oppression, or extor- tion, to fear from England? whether, in short,
not the feeling of the people, who established England is not as naturally the friend of South the Constitution, but the feeling of the state Carolina as New England, with her navigation interests springing up in envious rivalry of
In another of the South Carolina addresses, England?
having premised that the crisis requires "all the Is it not strange, sir, that an intelligent man concentrated energy of passion," an attitude of in South Carolina, in 1828, should thus labor to open resistance to the laws of the Union is ad- prove that, in 1775, there was no hostility, no vised. Open resistance to the laws, then, is the cause of war, between South Carolina and Eng- constitutional remedy, the conservative power land? That she had no occasion, in reference to of the state, which the South Carolina doctrines her own interest, or from a regard to her own teach for the redress of political evils, real or welfare, to take up arms in the revolutionary imaginary. And its authors further say, that, contest? Can anyone account for the expression appealing with confidence to the Constitution of such strange sentiments, and their circulation itself, to justify their opinions, they cannot con- through the state, otherwise than by supposing sent to try their accuracy by the courts of jus- the object to be what I have already intimated, ice. In one sense, indeed, sir. to raise the question, if they had no "collision" an attitude ope, i resistance ith ta is assumer
(mark the expression) with the ministers of
ty. But what sort of liberty? The liberty of es- King George the Third, in 1775, what collision tablishing their own opinions, in defiance of have they, in 1828, with the ministers of King the opinions of all others; the liberty of judging George the Fourth? What is there now in the and of deciding exclusively themselves, in a existing state of things, to separate Carolina matter in which others have as much right to from Old, more, or rather, than from New judge and decide as they; the liberty of placing
[ 67]
Resolutions, sir, have been recently passed by on the other hand, a constitutional law of Con- the legislature of South Carolina. I need not gress does bind the citizens of every state, al- refer to them; they go no farther than the hon- though all their legislatures should undertake to orable gentleman himself has gone, and I hope annul it by act or resolution. The venerable not so far. I content myself, therefore, with de- Connecticut senator is a constitutional lawyer, bating the matter with him. of sound principles and enlarged knowledge; a And now, sir, what I have first to say on this statesman practised and experienced, bred in subject is, that at no time, and under no cir- the company of Washington, and holding just has New England, or any state in views upon the nature of our governments. He cumstances,
New England, or any respectable body of per- believed the embargo unconstitutional, and so sons in New England, or any public man of did others; but what then? Who did he suppose standing in New England, put forth such a doc- was to decide that question? The state legisla- trine as this Carolina doctrine. tures? Certainly not. No such sentiment ever The gentleman has found no case, he can escaped his lips. find none, to support his own opinions by New Let us follow up, sir, this New England oppo- England authority. New England has studied sition to the embargo laws; let us trace it, till the Constitution in other schools, and under we discern the principle which controlled and other teachers. She looks upon it with other re- governed New England throughout the whole gards, and deems more highly and reverently course of that opposition. We shall then see both of its just authority and its utility and ex- what similarity there is between the New Eng- cellence. The history of her legislative proceed- land school of constitutional opinions, and this ings may be traced. The ephemeral effusions of modern Carolina school. The gentleman, I temporary bodies, called together by the excite- think, read a petition from some single individ- ment of the occasion, may be hunted up; they ual addressed to the legislature of Massachu- have been hunted up. The opinions and votes setts, asserting the Carolina doctrine; that is, the of her public men, in and out of Congress, may right of state interference to arrest the laws of be explored. It will all be in vain. The Carolina the Union. The fate of that petition shows the doctrine can derive from her neither counte- sentiment of the legislature. It met no favor. nance nor support. She rejects it now; she The opinions of Massachusetts were very dif- always did reject it; and till she loses her ferent. They had been expressed in 1798, in senses, she always will reject it. The honorable answer to the resolutions of Virginia, and she member has referred to expressions on the sub- did not depart from them, nor bend them to the ject of the embargo law, made in this place, by times. Misgoverned, wronged, oppressed, as she an honorable and venerable gentleman, 28 now felt herself to be, she still held fast her integrity favoring us with his presence. He quotes that to the Union. The gentleman may find in her distinguished senator as saying, that, in his proceedings much evidence of dissatisfaction judgment, the embargo law was unconstitution- with the measures of government, and great al, and that therefore, in his opinion, the people and deep dislike to the embargo; all this makes were not bound to obey it. That, sir, is perfect- the case so much the stronger for her; for, not- ly constitutional language. An unconstitutional withstanding all this dissatisfaction and dislike, law is not binding; but then it does not rest with a she still claimed no right to sever the bonds of resolution or a law of a state legislature to decide whether the Union. There was heat, and there was anger an act of Congress be or be not constitutional. An un- in her political feeling. Be it so; but neither her constitutional act of Congress would not bind heat nor her anger betrayed her into infidelity the people of this District, although they have to the government. The gentleman labors to no legislature to interfere in their behalf; and, prove that she disliked the embargo as much as South Carolina dislikes the tariff, and expressed
her dislike as strongly. Be it so; but did she
28 James Hillhouse of Connecticut (1754-1832) served in the propose the Carolina remedy? did she threaten Senate, 1796-1810. to interfere, by state authority, to annul the [ 68]
laws of the Union That ie the quetion for the trated energy of passion," but with her own strong sense, and the energy of sober convic-
"WHO IS TO JUDGE BETWEEN THE PEOPLE AND THE tion. But she did not interpose the arm of her GOVERNMENT?" own power to arrest the law, and break the em- No doubt, sir, a great majority of the people bargo. Far from it. Her principles bound her to of New England conscientiously believed the two things; and she followed her principles, lead where they might. First, to submit to every
scientiously, certainly, as the people of South constitutional law of Congress, and secondly, if the constitutional validity of the law be doubt-
ed, to refer that question to the decision of the
commerce; but here is a law, they said, stopping proper tribunals. The first principle is vain and all commerce, and stopping it indefinitely. The ineffectual without the second. A majority of law is perpetual; that is, it is not limited in us in New England believed the embargo law point of time, and must of course continue until unconstitutional; but the great question was, it shall be repealed by some other law. It is as and always will be in such cases, who is to decide this? Who is to judge between the
perpetual, therefore, as the law against treason
or murder. Now, is this regulating commerce, or people and the government? And, sir, it is quite destroying it? Is it guiding, controlling, giving plain, that the Constitution of the United States the rule to commerce, as a subsisting thing, or confers on the government itself, to be exer- is it putting an end to it altogether? Nothing is cised by its appropriate department, and under more certain, than that a majority in New Eng- its own responsibility to the people, this power land deemed this law a violation of the Consti- of deciding ultimately and conclusively upon tution. The very case required by the gentleman the just extent of its own authority. If this had to justify state interference had then arisen. not been done, we should not have advanced a Massachusetts believed this law to be "a delib- single step beyond the old Confederation.
Being fully of opinion that the embargo law
erate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of a
power not granted by the Constitution." Delib- was unconstitutional, the people of New Eng- erate it was, for it was long continued; palpable land were yet equally clear in the opinion, (it she thought it, as no words in the Constitution was a matter they did doubt upon) that the gave the power, and only a construction, in her question, after all, must be decided by the judi- opinion most violent, raised it; dangerous it cial tribunals of the United States. Before those was, since it threatened utter ruin to her most tribunals, therefore, they brought the question. important interests. Here, then, was a Carolina Under the provisions of the law, they had given case. How did Massachusetts deal with it? It bonds to millions in amount, and which were alleged to be forfeited. They suffered the bonds
was, as she thought, a plain, manifest, palpable to be sued, and thus raised the question. In the violation of the Constitution, and it brought old-fashioned way of settling disputes, they ruin to her doors. Thousands of families, and went to law. The case came to hearing, and hundreds of thousands of individuals, were solemn argument; and he who espoused their beggared by it. While she saw and felt all this, cause, and stood up for them against the validi- she saw and felt also, that, as a measure of na- ty of the Embargo Act, was none other than tional policy, it was perfectly futile; that the that great man, of whom the gentleman has country was no way benefited by that which made honorable mention, Samuel Dexter. 2° He caused so much individual distress; that it was was then, sir, in the fulness of his knowledge, efficient only for the production of evil, and all and the maturity of his strength. He had retired that evil inflicted on ourselves. In such a case, from long and distinguished public service here under such circumstances, how did Massachu- to the renewed pursuit of professional duties setts demean herself? Sir, she remonstrated, she
memorialized, she addressed herself to the gen-
eral government, not exactly "with the concen- 30 Samuel Dexter (1761-1816) served in the Senate, 1799-1800. ; [ 69]
carrying with him all that enlargement and ex- break up the Union; for 1 maintain, that be- pansion, all the new strength and force, which tween submission to the decision of the consti- an acquaintance with the more general subjects tuted tribunals, and revolution, or disunion, discussed in the national councils is capable of there is no middle ground; there is no ambigu- adding to professional attainment, in a mind of ous condition, half allegiance and half rebellion. true greatness and comprehension. He was a And, sir, how futile, how very futile it is, to lawyer, and he was also a statesman. He had admit the right of state interference, and then studied the Constitution, when he filled public attempt to save it from the character of unlaw- station, that he might defend it; he had exam- ful resistance, by adding terms of qualification ined its principles that he might maintain them. to the causes and occasions, leaving all these More than all men, or at least as much as any qualifications, like the case itself, in the discre- man, he was attached to the general govern- tion of the state governments. It must be a clear ment and to the union of the states. His feel- case, it is said, a deliberate case, a palpable case, ings and opinions all ran in that direction. A a dangerous case. But then the state is still left question of constitutional law, too, was, of all at liberty to decide for herself what is clear, subjects, that one which was best suited to his what is deliberate, what is palpable, what is talents and learning. Aloof from technicality, dangerous. Do adjectives and epithets avail and unfettered by artificial rule, such a question anything? gave opportunity for that deep and clear analy- Sir, the human mind is so constituted, that sis, that mighty grasp of principle, which so the merits of both sides of a controversy appear much distinguished his higher efforts. His very very clear, and very palpable, to those who re- statement was argument; his inference seemed spectively espouse them; and both sides usually demonstration. The earnestness of his own con- grow clearer as the controversy advances. South viction wrought conviction in others. One was Carolina sees unconstitutionality in the tariff; convinced, and believed, and assented, because she sees oppression there also, and she sees it was gratifying, delightful, to think, and feel, danger. Pennsylvania, with a vision not less and believe, in unison with an intellect of such sharp, looks at the same tariff, and sees no such evident superiority. thing in it; she sees it all constitutional, all Mr. Dexter, sir, such as I have described him, useful, all safe. The faith of South Carolina is argued the New England cause. He put into his strengthened by opposition, and she now not effort his whole heart, as well as all the powers only sees, but resoloes, that the tariff is palpably unconstitutional, oppressive, and dangerous;
but Pennsylvania, not to be behind her neigh-
bors, and equally willing to strengthen her own
argued the cause; it was lost, and New England faith by a confident asseveration, resoloes, also, submitted. The established tribunals pro- and gives to every warm affirmative of South nounced the law constitutional, and New Eng- Carolina, a plain, downright, Pennsylvania neg- land acquiesced. Now, sir, is not this the exact ative. South Carolina, to show the strength and opposite of the doctrine of the gentleman from unity of her opinion, brings her assembly to a South Carolina? According to him, instead of unanimity, within seven voices; Pennsylvania, referring to the judicial tribunals, we should not to be outdone in this respect any more than have broken up the embargo by laws of our in others, reduces her dissentient fraction to a own; we should have repealed it, quad New single vote. Now, sir, again, I ask the gentle- England; for we had a strong, palpable, and op- man, What is to be done? Are these states both pressive case. Sir, we believed the embargo un- right? Is he bound to consider them both right? constitutional; but still that was matter of opin- If not, which is in the wrong? or rather, which ion, and who was to decide it? We thought it a has the best right to decide? And if he, and if I, clear case; but, nevertheless, we did not take are not to know what the Constitution means, the law into our own hands, because we did and what it is, till those two state legislatures, not wish to bring about a revolution, nor to and the twenty-two others, shall agree in its [ 70]
construction, what have we sworn to, when we tutional in South Carolina justifies that state in have sworn to maintain it? I was forcibly arresting the progress of the law, tell me struck, sir, with one reflection, as the gentleman whether that which was thought palpably un- went on in his speech. He quoted Mr. Madi- constitutional also in Massachusetts would have son's resolutions, to prove that a state may justified her in doing the same thing. Sir, I deny interfere, in a case of deliberate, palpable, and the whole doctrine. It has not a foot of ground dangerous exercise of a power not granted. The in the Constitution to stand on. No public man honorable member supposes the tariff law to be of reputation ever advanced it in Massachusetts such an exercise of power; and that conse- in the warmest times, or could maintain himself quently a case has arisen in which the state upon it there at any time. may, if it see fit, interfere by its own law. Now
it so happens, nevertheless, that Mr. Madison "THE VIRGINIA RESOLUTIONS OF 1798" deems this same tariff law quite constitutional.
Instead of a clear and palpable violation, it is, in I wish now, sir, to make a remark upon the his judgment, no violation at all. So that, while Virginia resolutions of 1798. I cannot undertake they use his authority for a hypothetical case, to say how these resolutions were understood they reject it in the very case before them. All by those who passed them. Their language is this, sir, shows the inherent futility, I had not a little indefinite. In the case of the exercise almost used a stronger word, of conceding this by Congress of a dangerous power not granted power of interference to the state, and then at- to them, the resolutions assert the right, on the tempting to secure it from abuse by imposing part of the state, to interfere and arrest the qualifications of which the states themselves progress of the evil. This is susceptible of more are to judge. One of two things is true; either than one interpretation. It may mean no more the laws of the Union are beyond the discretion than that the states may interfere by complaint and beyond the control of the states; or else we and remonstrance, or by proposing to the have no constitution of general government, people an alteration of the federal Constitution. and are thrust back again to the days of the This would all be quite unobjectionable. Or it Confederation. may be that no more is meant than to assert the Let me here say, sir, that if the gentleman's general right of revolution, as against all gov- doctrine had been received and acted upon in ernments, in cases of intolerable oppression.
New England, in the times of the embargo and This no one doubts, and this, in my opinion, is nonintercourse, we should probably not now all that he who framed the resolutions could have been here. The government would very have meant by it; for I shall not readily believe likely have gone to pieces, and crumbled into that he was ever of opinion that a state, under dust. No stronger case can ever arise than exist- the Constitution and in conformity with it, ed under those laws; no states can ever enter- could, upon the ground of her own opinion of tain a clearer conviction than the New England its unconstitutionality, however clear and pal- states then entertained; and if they had been pable she might think the case, annul a law of under the influence of that heresy of opinion, Congress, so far as it should operate on herself, as 1 must call it, which the honorable member by her own legislative power. espouses, this Union would, in all probability, I must now beg to ask, sir, whence is this have been scattered to the four winds. I ask the supposed right of the states derived? Where do gentleman, therefore, to apply his principles to they find the power to interfere with the laws that case; I ask him to come forth and declare, of the Union? Sir, the opinion which the hon- whether, in his opinion, the New England states orable gentleman maintains is a notion founded would have been justified in interfering to in a total misapprehension, in my judgment, of break up the embargo system under the consci- the origin of this government, and of the foun- entious opinions which they held upon it? Had dation on which it stands. I hold it to be a pop- they a right to annul that law? Does he admit ular government, erected by the people; those or deny? If what is thought palpably unconsti- who administer it, responsible to the people; [ 71]
and itself capable of being amended and modi- Constitution they have enumerated the powers fied, just as the people may choose it should be. which they bestow on it. They have made it a It is as popular, just as truly emanating from limited government. They have defined its au- the people, as the state governments. It is cre- thority. They have restrained it to the exercise ated for one purpose; the state governments for of such powers as are granted; and all others, another. It has its own powers; they have they declare, are reserved to the states or the theirs. There is no more authority with them to people. But, sir, they have not stopped here. If arrest the operation of a law of Congress, than they had, they would have accomplished but with Congress to arrest the operation of their half their work. No definition can be so clear, laws. We are here to administer a Constitution as to avoid possibility of doubt; no limitation so emanating immediately from the people, and precise, as to exclude all uncertainty. Who, trusted by them to our administration. It is not then, shall construe this grant of the people? the creature of the state governments. It is of Who shall interpret their will, where it may be no moment to the argument, that certain acts of supposed they have left it doubtful? With the state legislatures are necessary to fill our whom do they repose this ultimate right of de- seats in this body. That is not one of their ciding on the powers of the government? Sir, original state powers, a part of the sovereignty they have settled all this in the fullest manner. of the state. It is a duty which the people, by They have left it with the government itself, in the Constitution itself, have imposed on the its appropriate branches. Sir, the very chief end, state legislatures; and which they might have the main design, for which the whole Constitu- left to be performed elsewhere, if they had seen tion was framed and adopted, was to establish a fit. So they have left the choice of president government that should not be obliged to act with electors; but all this does not affect the through state agency, or depend on state opin- proposition that this whole government, presi- ion and state discretion. The people had had dent, Senate, and House of Representatives, is a quite enough of that kind of government under popular government. It leaves it still all its pop- the Confederation. Under that system, the legal ular character. The governor of a state (in some action, the application of law to individuals, be- of the states) is chosen, not directly by the longed exclusively to the states. Congress could people, but by those who are chosen by the only recommend; their acts were not of binding people, for the purpose of performing, among force, till the states had adopted and sanctioned other duties, that of electing a governor. Is the them. Are we in that condition still? Are we yet government of the state, on that account, not a at the mercy of state discretion and state con- popular government? This government, sir, is struction? Sir, if we are, then vain will be our the independent offspring of the popular will. It attempt to maintain the Constitution under is not the creature of state legislatures; nay, which we sit. more, if the whole truth must be told, the
people brought it into existence, established it,
and have hitherto supported it, for the very THE SUPREME COURT HAS THE FINAL DECISION purpose, amongst others, of imposing certain
salutary restraints on state sovereignties. The But, sir, the people have wisely provided, in tates cannot now make war; they cannot con the Constitution itself, a proper, suitable mode ract alliances; they cannot make, each for itself and tribunal for settling questions of constitu- separate regulations of commerce; they cannot tional law. There are in the Constitution grants lay imposts; they cannot coin money. If this of powers to Congress, and restrictions on these Constitution, sir, be the creature of state legis- powers. There are, also, prohibitions on the latures, it must be admitted that it has obtained states. Some authority must, therefore, neces- a strange control over the volitions of its sarily exist, having the ultimate jurisdiction to creators. fix and ascertain the interpretation of these The people, then, sir, erected this govern- grants, restrictions, and prohibitions. The Con- ment. They gave it a Constitution, and in that stitution has itself pointed out, ordained, and [72]
established that authority. How has it accom- people from intolerable oppression. Sir, in such plished this great and essential end? By declar- a case, the people might protect themselves, ing, sir, that "the Constitution, and the laws of the without the aid of the state governments. Such United States made in pursuance thereof, shall be the su- a case warrants revolution. It must make, when preme law of the land, any thing in the constitution or it comes, a law for itself. A nullifying act of a laros of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." state legislature cannot alter the case, nor make This, sir, was the first great step. By this the resistance any more lawful. In maintaining supremacy of the Constitution and laws of the these sentiments, sir, I am but asserting the United States is declared. The people so will it. rights of the people. I state what they have de- No state law is to be valid which comes in con- clared, and insist on their right to declare it. flict with the Constitution, or any law of the They have chosen to repose this power in the United States passed in pursuance of it. But general government, and I think it my duty to who shall decide this question of interference? support it, like other constitutional powers.
To whom lies the last appeal? This, sir, the For myself, sir, I do not admit the competen- Constitution itself decides also, by declaring, cy of South Carolina, or any other state, to pre- 'that the judicial power shall extend to all cases arising scribe my constitutional duty; or to settle, be- under the Constitution and laws of the United States. tween me and the people, the validity of laws These two provisions cover the whole ground. of Congress, for which I have voted. I decline They are, in truth, the keystone of the arch! her umpirage. I have not sworn to support the With these it is a government; without them it Constitution according to her construction of its is a confederation. In pursuance of these clear clauses. I have not stipulated, by my oath of and express provisions, Congress established, at office or otherwise, to come under any respon- its very first session, in the judicial act, a mode sibility, except to the people, and those whom for carrying them into full effect, and for bring- they have appointed to pass upon the question, ing all questions of constitutional power to the whether laws, supported by my votes, conform final decision of the Supreme Court. It then, sir, to the Constitution of the country. And, sir, if became a government. It then had the means of we look to the general nature of the case, could self-protection; and but for this, it would, in all anything have been more preposterous, than to probability, have been now among things make a government for the whole Union, and which are past. Having constituted the govern- yet leave its powers subject, not to one inter- ment, and declared its powers, the people have pretation, but to thirteen or twenty-four inter- further said, that, since somebody must decide pretations? Instead of one tribunal, established on the extent of these powers, the government by all, responsible to all, with power to decide shall itself decide; subject, always, like other for all, shall constitutional questions be left to popular governments, to its responsibility to the four-and-twenty popular bodies, each at liberty people. And now, sir, I repeat, how is it that a to decide for itself, and none bound to respect state legislature acquires any power to inter- the decisions of others; and each at liberty, too, fere? Who, or what, gives them the right to say to give a new construction on every new elec- to the people, "We, who are your agents and tion of its own members? Would anything, servants for one purpose, will undertake to with such a principle in it, or rather with such a decide, that your other agents and servants, ap- destitution of all principle, be fit to be called a pointed by you for another purpose, have tran- government? No, sir. It should not be denomi- scended the authority you gave them!" The nated a Constitution. It should be called, rather, reply would be, I think, not impertinent, "Who a collection of topics for everlasting controver- made you a judge over another's servants? To sy; heads of debate for a disputatious people. It their own masters they stand or fall." and or crane would not be a government. It would not be Sir, I deny this power of state legislatures al- adequate to any practical good, or fit for any together. It cannot stand the test of examina- country to live under. tion. Gentlemen may say, that, in an extreme To avoid all possibility of being misunder- case, a state government might protect the stood, allow me to repeat again, in the fullest [73]
manner, that I claim no powers for the govern- ous violations of the Constitution! He will pro- ment by forced or unfair construction. I admit ceed, with this banner flying, to the custom- that it is a government of strictly limited house in Charleston, powers; of enumerated, specified, and particu-
larized powers; and that whatsoever is not All the while, Sonorous metal blowing martial sounds.
granted, is withheld. But notwithstanding all
this, and however the grant of powers may be Arrived at the customhouse, he will tell the col- expressed, its limit and extent may yet, in some lector that he must collect no more duties under cases, admit of doubt; and the general govern- any of the tariff laws. This he will be some- ment would be good for nothing, it would be what puzzled to say, by the way, with a grave countenance, considering what hand South
Carolina herself had in that of 1816. But, sir,
they should arise, might be peaceably, but au- the collector would not, probably, desist, at his thoritatively, solved. bidding. He would show him the law of Con- gress, the treasury instruction, and his own oath
THESE DOCTRINES LEAD TO DISUNION of office. He would say, he should perform his duty, come what come might.
And now, Mr. President, let me run the hon- Here would ensue a pause; for they say that orable gentleman's doctrine a little into its prac- a certain stillness precedes the tempest. The tical application. Let us look at his probable trumpeter would hold his breath awhile, and modus operandi. If a thing can be done, an inge- before all this military array should fall on the nious man can tell how it is to be done, and I customhouse, collector, clerks, and all, it is very wish to be informed how this state interference probable some of those composing it would re- is to be put in practice, without violence, quest of their gallant commander in chief to be bloodshed, and rebellion. We will take the ex- informed a little upon the point of law; for they isting case of the tariff law. South Carolina is have, doubtless, a just respect for his opinions said to have made up her opinion upon it. If we as a lawyer, as well as for his bravery as a sol- do not repeal it (as we probably shall not), she dier. They know he has read Blackstone 30 and will then apply to the case the remedy of her the Constitution, as well as Turenne 31 and doctrine. She will, we must suppose, pass a law Vauban. 32 They would ask him, therefore, of her legislature, declaring the several acts of something concerning their rights in this matter.
Congress, usually called the tariff laws, null and They would inquire, whether it was not some- void, so far as they respect South Carolina, or what dangerous to resist a law of the United the citizens thereof. So far, all is a paper trans- States. What would be the nature of their of- action, and easy enough. But the collector at fence, they would wish to learn, if they, by Charleston is collecting the duties imposed by military force and array, resisted the execution these tariff laws. He, therefore, must be in Carolina of a law of the United States, and it stopped. The collector will seize the goods if should turn out, after all, that the law was consti- the tariff duties are not paid. The state authori- tutional? He would answer, of course, treason.
No lawyer could give any other answer. John
with his posse, will come to the collector's aid, Fries, 33 he would tell them, had learned that, and here the contest begins. The militia of the some years ago. How, then, they would ask, do state will be called out to sustain the nullifying
act. They will march, sir, under a very gallant 30 Sir William Blackstone (1723-1780) wrote Commentaries on the leader; for I believe the honorable member him- Lacos of England. self commands the militia of that part of the * lie ride a nur deAle Frenchicomte de Turenne (1611-1635). state. He will raise the NULLIFYING ACT on •* Sébastien de Vauban (1633-1707), a French military engineer is standard, and spread it out as his banner!
ill have a preamble, setting forth, that th
tariff laws are palpable, deliberate, and danger- enced to death but was pardoned by President John Adam [ 74]
you propose to defend us? We are not afraid of The honorable gentleman argues, that if this bullets, but treason has a way of taking people government be the sole judge of the extent of off that we do not much relish. How do you its own powers, whether that right of judging propose to defend us? "Look at my floating be in Congress or the Supreme Court, it equally banner," he would reply; "see there the nullify- subverts state sovereignty. This the gentleman ing law!" Is it your opinion, gallant commander, sees, or thinks he sees, although he cannot per- they would then say, that, if we should be in- ceive how the right of judging, in this matter, if dicted for treason, that same floating banner of left to the exercise of state legislatures, has any yours would make a good plea in bar? "South tendency to subvert the government of the Carolina is a sovereign state," he would reply. Union. The gentleman's opinion may be, that That is true; but would the judge admit our the right ought not to have been lodged with the plea? "These tariff laws," he would repeat, "are general government; he may like better such a unconstitutional, palpably, deliberately, danger- constitution as we should have under the right ously." That may all be so; but if the tribunal of state interference; but I ask him to meet me should not happen to be of that opinion, shall on the plain matter of fact. I ask him to meet we swing for it? We are ready to die for our me on the Constitution itself. I ask him if the country, but it is rather an awkward business, power is not found there, clearly and visibly this dying without touching the ground! After found there? all, that is a sort of hemp tax worse than any But, sir, what is this danger, and what are the part of the tariff. grounds of it? Let it be remembered, that the Mr. President, the honorable gentleman Constitution of the United States is not unalter- would be in a dilemma, like that of another able. It is to continue in its present form no great general. He would have a knot before him longer than the people who established it shall which he could not untie. He must cut it with choose to continue it. If they shall become con- his sword. He must say to his followers, vinced that they have made an injudicious or "Defend yourselves with your bayonets"; and inexpedient partition and distribution of power this is war-civil war. between the state governments and the general Direct collision, therefore, between force and government, they can alter that distribution at force, is the unavoidable result of that remedy will.
for the revision of unconstitutional laws which If anything be found in the national Consti- the gentleman contends for. It must happen in tution, either by original provision or subse- the very first case to which it is applied. Is not • hope in quent interpretation, which ought not to be in this the plain result? To resist by force the exe- it, the people know how to get rid of it. If any cution of a law, generally, is treason. Can the construction, unacceptable to them, be estab- courts of the United States take notice of the lished, so as to become practically a part of the indulgence of a state to commit treason? The Constitution, they will amend it, at their own common saying, that a state cannot commit sovereign pleasure. But while the people choose treason herself, is nothing to the purpose. Can to maintain it as it is, while they are satisfied she authorize others to do it? If John Fries had with it, and refuse to change it, who has given, produced an act of Pennsylvania, annulling the or who can give, to the state legislatures a right law of Congress, would it have helped his case? to alter it, either by interference, construction, Talk about it as we will, these doctrines go the or otherwise? Gentlemen do not seem to recol- length of revolution. They are incompatible lect that the people have any power to do any- with any peaceable administration of the gov- thing for themselves. They imagine there is no ernment. They lead directly to disunion and safety for them, any longer than they are under civil commotion; and therefore it is, that at the close guardianship of the state legislatures. their commencement, when they are first found Sir, the people have not trusted their safety, in to be maintained by respectable men, and in a regard to the general Constitution, to these tangible form, I enter my public protest against hands. They have required other security, and them all. taken other bonds. They have chosen to trust
[ 75]
themselves, first, to the plain words of the in- strongly attached to it. Overthrown by direct strument, and to such construction as the gov- assault, it cannot be; evaded, undermined, ernment themselves, in doubtful cases, should NULLIFIED, it will not be, if we, and those put on their own powers, under their oaths of who shall succeed us here, as agents and repre- office, and subject to their responsibility to sentatives of the people, shall conscientiously them; just as the people of a state trust their and vigilantly discharge the two great branches own state governments with a similar power. of our public trust, faithfully to preserve, and Secondly, they have reposed their trust in the wisely to administer it. efficacy of frequent elections, and in their own Mr. President, I have thus stated the reasons power to remove their own servants and agents of my dissent to the doctrines which have been whenever they see cause. Thirdly, they have re- the han advanced and maintained. I am conscious of posed trust in the judicial power, which, in having detained you and the Senate much too order that it might be trustworthy, they have long. I was drawn into the debate with no pre- made as respectable, as disinterested, and as in- vious deliberation, such as is suited to the dis- cussion of so grave and important a subject. But
it is a subject of which my heart is full, and I
have not been willing to suppress the utterance
power to alter or amend the Constitution, of its spontaneous sentiments. I cannot, even peaceably and quietly, whenever experience now, persuade myself to relinquish it, without shall point out defects or imperfections. And, expressing once more my deep conviction, that finally, the people of the United States have at since it respects nothing less than the Union of no time, in no way, directly or indirectly, au- the states, it is of most vital and essential im- thorized any state legislature to construe or in- portance to the public happiness. I profess, sir, terpret their high instrument of government; in my career hitherto, to have kept steadily in much less, to interfere, by their own power, to view the prosperity and honor of the whole arrest its course and operation. country, and the preservation of our federal Union. It is to that Union we owe our safety at
"THE PEOPLE HAVE PRESERVED... THEIR ... home, and our consideration and dignity CONSTITUTION" abroad. It is to that Union that we are chiefly indebted for whatever makes us most proud of
If, sir, the people in these respects had done our country. That Union we reached only by otherwise than they have done, their constitu- the discipline of our virtues in the severe school tion could neither have been preserved, nor of adversity. It had its origin in the necessities would it have been worth preserving. And if its of disordered finance, prostrate commerce, and plain provisions shall now be disregarded, and ruined credit. Under its benign influences, these these new doctrines interpolated in it, it will great interests immediately awoke, as from the become as feeble and helpless a being as its en- dead, and sprang forth with newness of life. emies, whether early or more recent, could pos- Every year of its duration has teemed with sibly desire. It will exist in every state but as a fresh proofs of its utility and its blessings; and poor dependent on state permission. It must although our territory has stretched out wider borrow leave to be; and will be, no longer than and wider, and our population spread farther state pleasure, or state discretion, sees fit to and farther, they have not outrun its protection grant the indulgence, and to prolong its poor or its benefits. It has been to us all a copious existence. fountain of national, social, and personal
But, sir, although there are fears, there are happiness. hopes also. The people have preserved this I have not allowed myself, sir, to look their own chosen Constitution, for forty years beyond the Union, to see what might lie hidden and have seen their happiness, prosperity, and in the dark recess behind. I have not coolly renown grow with its growth, and strengthen weighed the chances of preserving liberty when with its strength. They are now, generally the bonds that unite us together shall be broken [76]
asunder. I have not accustomed myself to hang rious Union; on states dissevered, discordant, over the precipice of disunion, to see whether, belligerent; on a land rent with civil feuds, or with my short sight, I can fathom the depth of drenched, it may be, in fraternal blood! Let the abyss below; nor could I regard him as a their last feeble and lingering glance rather safe counsellor in the affairs of this govern- behold the gorgeous ensign of the republic, ment, whose thoughts should be mainly bent now known and honored throughout the earth, on considering, not how the Union may be best still full high advanced, its arms and trophies preserved, but how tolerable might be the con- streaming in their original lustre, not a stripe dition of the people when it should be broken erased or polluted, nor a single star obscured, up and destroyed. While the Union lasts, we bearing for its motto, no such miserable inter- have high, exciting, gratifying prospects spread rogatory as "What is all this worth?" nor those out before us, for us and our children. Beyond other words of delusion and folly, "Liberty first that I seek not to penetrate the veil. God grant and Union afterwards"; but everywhere, spread that in my day, at least, that curtain may not all over in characters of living light, blazing on rise! God grant that on my vision never may be all its ample folds, as they float over the sea opened what lies behind! When my eyes shall and over the land, and in every wind under the be turned to behold for the last time the sun in whole heavens, that other sentiment, dear to heaven, may I not see him shining on the every true American heart-Liberty and Union, broken and dishonored fragments of a once glo- now and forever, one and inseparable! [ 77 ]