ON NULLIFICATION,ETC.

ON NULLIFICATION,ETC.DELIVERED AT CINCINNATI, AUGUST  3, 1830.[THEREare few, if any, among the numerous addresses with whichMr.Clay has favored the country, on the policy of the government, and the true interests of the people, which more richly deserve careful consideration, than the following speech, delivered at the mechanics collation, in the Apollonian garden, on the third of August, 1830. It embraces almost every exciting topic of the time, including the American system, recharter of theU. S.Bank, and nullification.The eighth toast—‘Our valued guest—It is his highest eulogium, that the name of Henry Clay is inseparably associated with the best interests of the country, as their assertor and advocate.’When the enthusiastic cheering, which followed the reading of this toast, had subsided,Mr.Clay rose and addressed the company as follows.]MR.PRESIDENT AND FELLOW-CITIZENS,In rising to make the acknowledgments which are due from me, for the sentiment which has been just drunk, and for the honors which have been spontaneously rendered to me on my approach, and during my visit to this city, I feel more than ever the incompetency of all language adequately to express the grateful feelings of my heart. Of these distinguished honors, crowned heads themselves might well be proud. They indeed possess a value far surpassing that of any similar testimonies which could be offered to the chief of an absolute government. There, they are, not unfrequently, tendered by reluctant subjects, awed by a sense of terror, or impelled by a spirit of servility. Here, in this land of equal laws and equal liberty, they are presented to a private fellow-citizen, possessing neither office nor power, nor enjoying any rights and privileges which are not common to every member of the community. Power could not buy nor deter them. And, what confers an estimable value on them to me—what makes them alone worthy of you, or more acceptable to their object, is that they are offered, not to the man, but to the public principles and public interests, which you are pleased to associate with his name. On this occasion, too, they emanate from one of those great productive classes which form the main pillars of public liberty, and public prosperity. I thank you, fellow-citizens, most cordially, for these endearing proofs of your friendly attachment. They have made an impression of gratitude on my heart, which can never be effaced, during the residue of my life. I avail myselfof this last opportunity of being present at any large collection of my fellow-citizens of Ohio, during my present visit, to express my respectful acknowledgments for the hospitality and kindness with which I have been every where received and entertained.Throughout my journey, undertaken solely for private purposes, there has been a constant effort on my side, to repress, and, on that of my fellow-citizens of Ohio, to exhibit public manifestations of their affection and confidence. It has been marked by a succession of civil triumphs. I have been escorted from village to village, and have every where found myself surrounded by large concourses of my fellow-citizens, often of both sexes, greeting and welcoming me. Nor should I do justice to my feelings, if I confined the expression of my obligations to those only with whom I had the happiness to agree, on a late public event. They are equally due to the candid and liberal of those from whom it was my misfortune to differ on that occasion, for their exercise towards me of all the rights of hospitality and neighborly courtesy. It is true, that in one or two of the towns through which I passed, I was informed, that attempts were made, by a few political zealots, to dissuade portions of my fellow-citizens from visiting and saluting me. These zealots seemed to apprehend, that an invading army was about to enter the town; that it was necessary to sound the bells, to beat the drums, to point the cannon, and to make all needful preparations for a resolute assault, and a gallant defence. They were accordingly seen in the streets, and at public places, beating up for recruits, and endeavoring to drill their men. But I believe there were only a few who were awed by their threats, or seduced by their bounty, to enlist in such a cause. The great body of those who thought differently from me, in the instance referred to, remained firm and immovable. They could not comprehend that it was wrong to extend to a stranger from a neighboring state, the civilities which belong to social life. They could not comprehend that it was right to transform political differences into deadly animosities. Seeing that varieties in the mode of worshipping the great Ruler of the universe did not disturb the harmony of private intercourse, they could not comprehend the propriety of extending to mortal man a sacrifice which is not offered to our immortal Father, of all the friendly and social feelings of our nature, because we could not all agree as to the particular exercise of the elective franchise. As independent and intelligent freemen, they would not consent to submit to an arrogant usurpation which assumed the right to control their actions, and to regulate the feelings of their hearts, and they scorned with indignation, to yield obedience to the mandates of would-be dictators. To quiet the apprehensions of these zealots, I assure them, that I do not march at the head of any military force; that I have neither horse, foot, nor dragoon, and that I travel with my friendCharles, (a black boy, residing in my family, for whom I feel the same sort of attachment that I do for my own children,) without sword, pistol, or musket! Another species of attempted embarrassment has been practiced by an individual of this city. About an hour before I left my lodgings for this spot, he caused a packet to be left in my room by a little boy, who soon made his exit. Upon opening it, I looked at the signature, andthatwas enough for me. It contained a long list of interrogatories, which I was required publicly to answer. I read only one or two of them. There are some men whose contact is pollution. I can recognize no right in the person in question to catechize me. I can have no intercourse with one who is a disgrace to the gallant and generous nation from which he sprang. I cannot stop to be thus interrogated by a man whose nomination to a paltry office, was rejected by nearly the unanimous vote of the senate; I must be excused if, when addressing my friends, the mechanics of Cincinnati, I will not speak fromhisnotes. On the renewal of the charter of the present bank of the United States, which I believe formed the subject of one or two of these interrogatories, I will say a few words for your, not his sake. I will observe, in the first place, that I am not in favor of such a bank as was recommended in the message of the president of the United States, at the commencement of the last session of congress; that, with the committee of the two houses, I concur in thinking it would be an institution of a dangerous and alarming character; and that, fraught as it would be with the most corrupting tendencies, it might be made powerfully instrumental in overturning our liberties. As to the existing bank, I think it has been generally administered, and particularly of late years, with great ability and integrity; that it has fulfilled all the reasonable expectations of those who constituted it; and, with the same committees, I think it has made an approximation towards the equalization of the currency, as great as is practicable. Whether the charter ought to be renewed or not, near six years hence, in my judgment, is a question of expediency to be decided by the then existing state of the country. It will be necessary at that time, to look carefully at the condition both of the bank and of the union. To ascertain, if the public debt shall, in the mean time, be paid off, what effect that will produce? What will be our then financial condition? what that of local banks, the state of our commerce, foreign and domestic, as well as the concerns of our currency generally? I am, therefore, not now prepared to say, whether the charter ought, or ought not, to be renewed on the expiration of its present term. The bank may become insolvent, and may hereafter forfeit all pretensions to a renewal. The question is premature. I may not be alive to form any opinion upon it. It belongs to posterity, and if they would have the goodness to decide for us some of the perplexingand practical questions of the present day, we might be disposed to decide that remote question for them. As it is, it ought to be indefinitely postponed.With respect to the American system, which demands your undivided approbation, and in regard to which you are pleased to estimate much too highly my service, its great object is to secure the independence of our country, to augment its wealth, and to diffuse the comforts of civilization throughout society. That object, it has been supposed, can be best accomplished by introducing, encouraging, and protecting the arts among us. It may be called a system of real reciprocity, under the operation of which one citizen or one part of the country, can exchange one description of the produce of labor, with another citizen or another part of the country, for a different description of the produce of labor. It is a system which develops, improves, and perfects the capabilities of our common country, and enables us to avail ourselves of all the resources with which Providence has blest us. To the laboring classes it is invaluable, since it increases and multiplies the demands for their industry, and gives them an option of employments. It adds power and strength to our union, by new ties of interest, blending and connecting together all its parts, and creating an interest with each in the prosperity of the whole. It secures to our own country, whose skill and enterprise, properly fostered and sustained, cannot be surpassed, those vast profits which are made in other countries by the operation of converting the raw material into manufactured articles. It naturalizes and creates within the bosom of our country, all the arts; and, mixing the farmer, manufacturer, mechanic, artist, and those engaged in other vocations, together, admits of those mutual exchanges, so conducive to the prosperity of all and every one, free from the perils of sea and war;—all this it effects, whilst it nourishes and leaves a fair scope to foreign trade. Suppose we were a nation that clad ourselves, and made all the implements necessary to civilization, but did not produce our own bread, which we brought from foreign countries, although our own was capable of producing it, under the influence of suitable laws of protection, ought not such laws to be enacted? The ease supposed is not essentially different from the real state of things which led to the adoption of the American system.That system has had a wonderful success. It has more than realized all the hopes of its founders. It has completely falsified all the predictions of its opponents. It has increased the wealth, and power, and population of the nation. It has diminished the price of articles of consumption, and has placed them within the reach of a far greater number of our people than could have found means to command them, if they had been manufactured abroad instead of at home.But it is useless to dwell on the argument in support of thisbeneficent system before this audience. It will be of more consequence here to examine some of the objections which are still urged against it, and the means which are proposed to subvert it. These objections are now principally confined to its operation upon the great staple of cotton wool, and they are urged with most vehemence in a particular state. If the objections are well founded, the system should be modified, as far as it can consistently with interest, in other parts of the union. If they are not well founded, it is to be hoped they will be finally abandoned.In approaching the subject, I have thought it of importance to inquire, what was the profit made upon capital employed in the culture of cotton, at its present reduced price. The result has been information, that it nets from seven to eighteen per cent. per annum, varying according to the advantage of situation, and the degree of skill, judgment, and industry, applied to the production of the article. But the lowest rate of profit, in the scale, is more than the greatest amount which is made on capital employed in the farming portions of the union.If the cotton planter have any just complaint against the expediency of the American system, it must be founded on the fact, that he either sellslessof his staple, or sells atlowerprices, or purchases for consumption, articles atdearerrates, or ofworsequalities, in consequence of that system, than he would do, if it did not exist. If he would neither sell more of his staple, nor sell it at better prices, nor could purchase better or cheaper articles for consumption, provided the system did not exist, then he has no cause, on the score of its burdensome operation, to complain of the system, but must look to other sources for the grievances which he supposes afflict him.As respects the sale of his staple, it would be indifferent to the planter, whether one portion of it was sold in Europe, and the other in America, provided the aggregate of both were equal to all that he could sell in one market, if he had but one, and provided he could command the same price in both cases. The double market would indeed be something better for him, because of its greater security in time of war as well as in peace, and because it would be attended with less perils and less charges. If there be an equal amount of the raw material manufactured, it must be immaterial to the cotton planter, in the sale of the article, whether there be two theatres of the manufacture, one in Europe and the other in America, or but one in Europe; or if there be a difference, it will be in favor of the two places of manufacture, instead of one, for reasons already assigned, and others that will be hereafter stated.It could be of no advantage to the cotton planter, if all the cotton, now manufactured both in Europe and America, was manufactured exclusively in Europe, and an amount of cotton fabricsshould be brought back from Europe, equal to both what is now brought from there, and what is manufactured in the United States, together. Whilst he would gain nothing, the United States would lose the profit and employment resulting from the manufacture of that portion which is now wrought up by the manufacturers of the United States.Unless, therefore, it can be shown, that, by the reduction of import duties, and the overthrow of the American system, and by limiting the manufacture of cotton to Europe, a greater amount of the raw material would be consumed than is at present, it is difficult to see what interest, so far as respects the sale of that staple, the cotton planter has in the subversion of that system. If a reduction of duties would admit of larger investments in British or European fabrics of cotton, and their subsequent importation into this country, this additional supply would take the place, if consumed, of an equal amount of American manufactures, and consequently would not augment the general consumption of the raw material. Additional importation does not necessarily imply increased consumption, especially when it is effected by a policy which would impair the ability to purchase and consume.Upon the supposition just made, of a restriction to Europe of the manufacture of cotton, would more or less of the article be consumed than now is? More could not be, unless, in consequence of such a monopoly of the manufacture, Europe could sell more than she now does. But to what countries could she sell more? She gets the raw material now unburdened by any duties except such moderate ones as her policy, not likely to be changed, imposes. She is enabled thereby to sell as much of the manufactured article as she can find markets for in the states within her own limits, or in foreign countries. The destruction of the American manufacture would not induce her to sell cheaper, but might enable her to sell dearer, than she now does. The ability of those foreign countries, to purchase and consume, would not be increased by the annihilation of our manufactures, and the monopoly of European manufacture. The probability is, that those foreign countries, by the fact of that monopoly, and some consequent increase of price, would be worse and dearer supplied than they now are, under the operation of a competition between America and Europe in their supply.At most, the United States, after the transfer from their territory to Europe, of the entire manufacture of the article, could not consume, of European fabrics from cotton, a greater amount than they now derive from Europe, and from manufactures within their own limits.But it is confidently believed, that the consumption of cotton fabrics, on the supposition which has been made, within the United States, would be much less than it is at present. It would be lessbecause the American consumer would not possess the means or ability to purchase as much of the European fabric as he now does to buy the American. Europe purchases but little of the produce of the northern, middle, and western regions of the United States. The staple productions of those regions are excluded from her consumption by her policy, or by her native supplies of similar productions. The effect, therefore, of obliging the inhabitants of those regions to depend upon the cotton manufactures of Europe for necessary supplies of the article, would be alike injurious to them, and to the cotton grower. They would suffer from their inability to supply their wants, and there would be a consequent diminution of the consumption of cotton. By the location of the manufacture in the United States, the quantity of cotton consumed is increased, and the more numerous portion of their inhabitants, who would not be otherwise sufficiently supplied, are abundantly served. That this is the true state of things, I think cannot be doubted by any reflecting and unprejudiced man. The establishment of manufactures within the United States, enables the manufacturer to sell to the farmer, the mechanic, the physician, the lawyer, and all who are engaged in other pursuits of life; and these, in their turns, supply the manufacturer with subsistence, and whatever else his wants require. Under the influence of the protecting policy, many new towns have been built, and old ones enlarged. The population of these places draw their subsistence from the farming interest of our country, their fuel from our forests and coal mines, and the raw materials from which they fashion and fabricate, from the cotton planter and the mines of our country. These mutual exchanges, so animating and invigorating to the industry of the people of the United States, could not possibly be effected between America and Europe, if the latter enjoyed the monopoly of manufacturing.It results, therefore, that, so far as the sale of the great southern staple is concerned, a greater quantity is sold and consumed, and consequently better prices are obtained, under the operation of the American system, than would be without it. Does that system oblige the cotton planters to buy dearer or worse articles of consumption than he could purchase, if it did not exist?The same cause of American and European competition, which enables him to sell more of the produce of his industry, and at better prices, also enables him to buy cheaper and better articles for consumption. It cannot be doubted, that the tendency of the competition between the European and American manufacturer, is to reduce the price and improve the quality of their respective fabrics, whenever they come into collision. This is the immutable law of all competition. If the American manufacture were discontinued, Europe would then exclusively furnish those supplies which are now derived from the establishments in both continents,and the first consequence would be, an augmentation of the demand, beyond the supply, equal to what is now manufactured in the United States, but which, in the contingency supposed, would be wrought in Europe. If the destruction of the American manufactures were sudden, there would be a sudden and probably a considerable rise in the European fabrics. Although, in the end, they might be again reduced, it is not likely that the ultimate reduction of the prices would be to such rates as if both the workshops of America and Europe remained sources of supply. There would also be a sudden reduction in the price of the raw material, in consequence of the cessation of American demand. And this reduction would be permanent, if the supposition be correct, that there would be a diminution in the consumption of cotton fabrics, arising out of the inability, on the part of large portions of the people of the United States, to purchase those of Europe.That the effect of competition between the European and American manufacture, has been to supply the American consumer with cheaper and better articles, since the adoption of the American system, notwithstanding the existence of causes which have obstructed its fair operation, and retarded its full development, is incontestable. Both the freeman and the slave are now better and cheaper supplied than they were prior to the existence of that system. Cotton fabrics have diminished in price, and been improved in their texture, to an extent that it is difficult for the imagination to keep pace with. Those partly of cotton and partly of wool are also better and cheaper supplied. The same observation is applicable to those which are exclusively wrought of wool, iron, or glass. In short, it is believed that there is not one item of the tariff inserted for the protection of native industry, which has not fallen in price. The American competition has tended to keep down the European rival fabric, and the European has tended to lower the American.Of what then can the South Carolina planter justly complain in the operation of this system? What is there in it which justifies the harsh and strong epithets which some of her politicians have applied to it? What is there in her condition, which warrants their assertion, that she is oppressed by a government to which she stands in the mere relation of a colony?She is oppressed by a great reduction in the price of manufactured articles of consumption.She is oppressed by the advantage of two markets for the sale of her valuable staple, and for the purchase of objects required by her wants.She is oppressed by better prices for that staple than she could command, if the system to which they object did not exist.She is oppressed by the option of purchasing cheaper and betterarticles, the produce of the hands of American freemen, instead of dearer and worse articles, the produce of the hands of British subjects.She is oppressed by the measures of a government in which she has had, for many years, a larger proportion of power and influence, at home and abroad, than any state in the whole union, in comparison with the population.A glance at the composition of the government of the union, will demonstrate the truth of this last proposition. In the senate of the United States, South Carolina having the presiding officer, exercises nearly one sixteenth instead of one twenty-fourth part of both its legislative and executive functions.In both branches of congress, some of her citizens now occupy, as chairmen of committees, the most important and influential stations. In the supreme court of the United States, one of her citizens being a member, she has one seventh part, instead of about one twentieth, her equal proportion of the whole power vested in that tribunal. Until within a few months, she had nearly one third of all the missions of the first grade, from this to foreign countries. In a contingency, which is far from impossible, a citizen of South Carolina would instantly become charged with the administration of the whole of the vast power and patronage of the United States.Yet her situation has been compared to that of a colony which hasno voicein the laws enacted by the parent country for its subjection! And to be relieved from this cruel state of vassalage, and to put down a system which has been established by the united voice of all America, some of her politicians have broached a doctrine as new as it would be alarming, if it were sustained by numbers in proportion to the zeal and fervid eloquence with which it is inculcated. I call it a novel doctrine. I am not unaware that attempts have been made to support it on the authority of certain acts of my native and adopted states. Although many of their citizens are much more competent than I am to vindicate them from this imputation of purposes of disunion and rebellion, my veneration and affection for them both, urge me to bear my testimony of their innocence of such a charge. At the epoch of 1798–9, I had just attained my majority, and although I was too young to share in the public councils of my country, I was acquainted with many of the actors of that memorable period; I knew their views, and formed and freely expressed my own opinions on passing events. The then administration of the general government was believed to entertain views (whether the belief was right or wrong is not material to this argument, and is now an affair of history,) hostile to the existence of the liberties of this country. The alien and sedition laws, particularly, and other measures, were thought to be the consequences and proofs of thoseviews. If the administration had such a purpose, it was feared that the extreme case, justifying forcible resistance, might arise, but no one believed that, in point of fact, it had arrived. No one contended that asinglestate possessed the power to annul the deliberate acts of the whole. And the best evidence of these remarks is the fact, that the most odious of those laws, (the sedition act,) was peaceably enforced in the capitol of that great state which took the lead in opposition to the existing administration.The doctrines of that day, and they are as true at this, were, that the federal government is a limited government; that it has no powers but the granted powers. Virginia contended, that in case ‘of apalpable, deliberate, and dangerous exercise of other powers not granted by said compact, thestates, who are parties thereto, have the right to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties, appertaining to them.’ Kentucky declared, that the ‘several states, that framed that instrument, the federal constitution, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right tojudgeof its instructions, and a nullificationby those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts, done under color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.’Neither of these two commonwealths asserted the right of a single state to interpose and annul an act of the whole. This is an inference drawn from the doctrines then laid down, and it is not a principle expressly asserted or fairly deducible from the language of either. Both refer tothe statescollectively, (and not individually,) when they assert their right, in case of federal usurpation, to interpose ‘for arresting the progress of evil.’ Neither state ever did, no state ever yet has, by its separate legislation, undertaken to set aside an act of congress.That the statescollectively, may interpose their authority to check the evils of federal usurpation, is manifest. They may dissolve the union. They may alter, at pleasure, the character of the constitution, by amendment; they may annul any acts purporting to have been passed in conformity to it, or they may, by their elections, change the functionaries to whom the administration of its powers is confided. But no one state, by itself, is competent to accomplish these objects. The power of a single state to annul an act of the whole, has been reserved for the discovery of some politicians in South Carolina.It is not my purpose, upon an occasion so unfit, to discuss this pretension. Upon another and a more suitable theatre, it has been examined and refuted, with an ability and eloquence, which have never been surpassed on the floor of congress. But, as it is announced to be one of the means which is intended to be employed to break down the American system, I trust that I shall be excused for a few additional passing observations. On a late festiveoccasion, in the state where it appears to find most favor, it is said, by a gentleman whom I once proudly called my friend and towards whom I have done nothing to change that relation,—a gentleman who has been high in the councils and confidence of the nation, that the tariff must be resistedat all hazards. Another gentleman, who is a candidate for the chief magistracy of that state, declares that thetimeand thecasefor resistance had arrived. And a third, a senator of the United States, who enjoys unbounded confidence with the American executive, laid down principles and urged arguments tending directly and inevitably to violent resistance, although he did not indicate that as his specific remedy.The doctrine of some of the South Carolina politicians is, that it is competent to that state to annul, within its limits, the authority of an act deliberately passed by the congress of the United States. They do not appear to have looked much, beyond the simple act of nullification, into the consequences which would ensue, and have not distinctly announced, whether one of them might not necessarily be, to light up a civil war. They seem, however, to suppose, that the state might, after the act was performed, remain a member of the union. Now if one state can, by an act of its separate power, absolve itself from the obligations of a law of congress, and continue a part of the union, it could hardly be expected, that any other state would render obedience to the same law. Either every other state would follow the nullifying example, or congress would feel itself constrained, by a sense of equal duty to all parts of the union, to repeal altogether the nullified law. Thus, the doctrine of South Carolina, although it nominally assumes to act for one state only, in effect, would be legislating for the whole union.Congress embodies the collective will of the whole union, and that of South Carolina among its other members. The legislation of congress is, therefore, founded upon the basis of the representation of all. In the legislature, or a convention of South Carolina, the will of the people of that state is alone collected. They alone are represented, and the people of no other state have any voice in their proceedings. To set up for that state a claim, by a separate exercise of its power, to legislate, in effect, for the whole union, is to assert a pretension at war with the fundamental principles of all representative and free governments. It would practically subject the unrepresented people of all other parts of the union to the arbitrary and despotic power of one state. It would substantially convert them into colonies, bound by the parental authority of that state.Nor can this enormous pretension derive any support from the consideration, that the power to annul, is different from the power to originate laws. Both powers are, in their nature, legislative, and the mischiefs which might, accrue to the republic from the annulmentof its wholesome laws, may be just as great as those which would flow from the origination of bad laws. There are three things to which, more than all others, mankind in all ages, have shown themselves to be attached; their religion,their laws, and their language.But it has been argued, in the most solemn manner, ‘that the acknowledgments of the exclusive right of the federal government to determine the limits of its own powers, amounts to a recognition of its absolute supremacy over the states and the people, and involves the sacrifice not only of our dearest rights and interests, but the very existence of the southern states.’In cases where there are two systems of government, operating at the same time and place, over the same people, the one general, the other local or particular, one system or the other must possess the right to decide upon the extent of the powers, in cases of collision, which are claimed by the general government. No third party, of sufficient impartiality, weight, and responsibility, other than such a tribunal as a supreme court, has yet been devised, or perhaps can be created.The doctrine of one side is, that the general government, though limited in its nature, must necessarily possess the power to ascertain what authority it has, and, by consequence, the extent of that authority. And that, if its legislative or executive functionaries, by act, transcend that authority, the question may be brought before the supreme court, and, being affirmatively decided by that tribunal, their act must be obeyed until repealed or altered by competent power.Against the tendency of this doctrine to absorb all power, those who maintain it, think there are reasonable, and, they hope, sufficient securities. In the first place, all are represented in every legislative or executive act, and of course, each state can exert its proper influence, to prevent the adoption of any that may be deemed prejudicial or unconstitutional. Then, there are sacred oaths, elections, public virtue and intelligence, the power of impeachment, a common subjection to both systems of those functionaries who act under either, the right of the states to interpose and amend the constitution, or to dissolve the union; and, finally, the right, in extreme cases, when all other remedies fail, to resist insupportable oppression.The necessity being felt, by the framers of the constitution, to declare which system should be supreme, and believing that the securities now enumerated, or some of them, were adequate, they have accordingly provided, that the constitution of the United States, and the laws made in pursuance of it, and all treaties made under the authority of the United States, shall be thesupreme lawof the land; and that the judicial power shall extend toallcases arising under the constitution, laws, or treaties, of the United States.The South Carolina doctrine, on the other side, is, that that state has the right to determine the limits of the powers granted to the general government; and that whenever any of its acts transcend those limits, in the opinion of the state of South Carolina, she is competent to annul them. If the power, with which the federal government is invested by the constitution, to determine the limits of its authority, be liable to the possible danger of ultimate consolidation, and all the safeguards which have been mentioned might prove inadequate, is not this power, claimed for South Carolina, fraught with infinitely more certain, immediate, and fatal danger? It would reverse the rule of supremacy prescribed in the constitution. It would render the authority of a single state paramount to that of the whole union. For undoubtedly, that government, to some extent, must be supreme, which can annul and set aside the acts of another.The securities which the people of other parts of the United States possess against the abuse of this tremendous power claimed for South Carolina, will be found, on comparison, to be greatly inferior to those which she has against the possible abuses of the general government. They have no voice in her councils; they could not, by the exercise of the elective franchise, change her rulers; they could not impeach her judges, they could not alter her constitution, nor abolish her government.Under the South Carolina doctrine, if established, the consequence would be a dissolution of the union, immediate, inevitable, irresistible. There would be twenty-four chances to one against its continued existence. The apprehended dangers of the opposite doctrine, remote, contingent, and hardly possible, are greatly exaggerated; and, against their realization, all the precautions have been provided, which human wisdom and patriotic foresight could conceive and devise.Those who are opposed to the supremacy of the constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States, are adverse to all union, whatever contrary professions they may make. For it may be truly affirmed, that no confederacy of states can exist without a power, somewhere residing in the government of that confederacy, to determine the extent of the authority granted to it by the confederating states.It is admitted, that the South Carolina doctrine is liable to abuse; but it is contended, that thepatriotismof each state is an adequate security, and that the nullifying power would only be exercised ‘in an extraordinary case, where the powers reserved to the states, under the constitution, are usurped by the federal government.’ And is not thepatriotismofallthe states, as great a safeguard against the assumption of powers, not conferred upon the general government, as the patriotism of one state is against the denial of powers which are clearly granted? But the nullifyingpower is only to be exercised in anextraordinarycase. Who is to judge of this extraordinary case? What security is there, especially in moments of great excitement, that a state may not pronounce the plainest and most common exercise of federal power anextraordinary case? The expressions in the constitution, ‘general welfare,’ have been often justly criticised, and shown to convey, in themselves, no power, although they may indicate how the delegated power should be exercised. But this doctrine of an extraordinary case, to be judged of and applied by one of the twenty-four sovereignties, is replete with infinitely more danger, than the doctrine of the ‘general welfare,’ in the hands of all.We may form some idea of future abuses under the South Carolina doctrine, by the application which is now proposed to be made of it. The American system is said to furnish anextraordinary case, justifying that state to nullify it. The power to regulate foreign commerce, by a tariff, so adjusted as to foster our domestic manufactures, has been exercised from the commencement of our present constitution down to the last session of congress. I have been a member of the house of representatives at three different periods, when the subject of the tariff was debated at great length, and on neither, according to my recollection, was the want of a constitutional power in congress, to enact it, dwelt on as forming a serious and substantial objection to its passage. On the last occasion (I think it was) in which I participated in the debate, it was incidentally said to be against the spirit of the constitution. Whilst the authority of the father of the constitution is invoked to sanction, by a perversion of his meaning, principles of disunion and rebellion, it is rejected to sustain the controverted power, although his testimony in support of it has been clearly and explicitly rendered. This power, thus asserted, exercised, and maintained, in favor of which leading politicians in South Carolina have themselves voted, is alleged to furnish ‘anextraordinary case,’ where the powers reserved to the states, under the constitution, are usurped by the general government. If it be, there is scarcely a statute in our code which would not present a case equally extraordinary, justifying South Carolina or any other state to nullify it.The United States are not only threatened with the nullification of numerous acts, which they have deliberately passed, but with a withdrawal of one of the members from the confederacy. If the unhappy case should ever occur, of a state being really desirous to separate itself from the union, it would present two questions. The first would be, whether it had a right to withdraw, without the common consent of the members; and supposing, as I believe, no such right to exist, whether it would be expedient to yield consent. Although there may be power to prevent a secession, it might be deemed politic to allow it. It might be considered expedient to permit the refractory state to take the portion of goods that fallethto her, to suffer her to gather her all together, and to go off with her living. But, if a state should be willing, and allowed thus to depart, and to renounce her future portion of the inheritance of this great, glorious, and prosperous republic, she would speedily return, and, in language of repentance, say to the other members of this union, brethren, ‘I have sinned against heaven and before thee.’ Whether they would kill the fatted calf, and, chiding any complaining member of the family, say, ‘this thy sister was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found,’ I sincerely pray the historian may never have occasion to record.But nullification and disunion are not the only, nor the most formidable, means of assailing the tariff. Its opponents opened the campaign at the last session of congress, and, with the most obliging frankness, have since publicly exposed their plan of operations. It is, to divide and conquer; to attack and subdue the system in detail. They began by reducing the duty on salt and molasses, and, restoring the drawback of the duty on the latter article, allowed the exportation of spirits distilled from it. To all who are interested in the distillation of spirits from native materials, whether fruit, molasses, or grain, this latter measure is particularly injurious. During the administration ofMr.Adams, the duty on foreign molasses was augmented, and the drawback, which had been previously allowed of the duty upon the exportation of spirits distilled from it, was repealed. The object was to favor native produce, and to lessen the competition of foreign spirits, or spirits distilled from foreign materials, with spirits distilled from domestic material. It was deemed to be especially advantageous to the western country, a great part of whose grain can only find markets at home and abroad by being converted into distilled spirits. Encouraged by this partial success, the foes of the tariff may next attempt to reduce the duties on iron, woollens, and cotton fabrics, successively. The American system of protection should be regarded, as it is, an entire and comprehensive system, made up of various items, and aiming at the prosperity of the whole union, by protecting the interests of each part. Every part, therefore, has a direct interest in the protection which it enjoys of the articles, which its agriculture produces, or its manufactories fabricate, and also a collateral interest in the protection which other portions of the union derive from their peculiar interests. Thus, the aggregate of the prosperity of all is constituted by the sums of the prosperity of each.Take any one article of the tariff, (iron, for example,) and there is no suchdirectinterest in its protection, pervading the major part of the United States, as would induce congress to encourage it, if it stood alone. The states of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and Kentucky, which are most concerned, are encouraged in the production or manufacture of this article, in consequence ofthe adoption of a general principle, which extends protection to other interests in other parts of the union.The stratagem which has been adopted by the foes of the system, to destroy it, requires the exercise of constant vigilance and firmness, to prevent the accomplishment of the object. They have resolved to divide and conquer—the friends of the system should assume the revolutionary motto of our ancestors, ‘united we stand, divided we fall.’ They should allow no alteration in any part of the system, as it now exists, which did not aim at rendering more efficacious the system of protection, on which the whole is founded. Every one should reflect, that it is not equal, to have a particular interest which he is desirous should be fostered, in his part of the country, protected against foreign competition, without his being willing to extend the principle to other interests, deserving protection, in other parts of the union.But the measure of reducing the duty on salt and molasses, and reviving the drawback on the importation of spirits distilled from molasses, was an attack on the system, less alarming than another which was made during the last session of congress, on a kindred system.If any thing could be considered as settled, under the present constitution of our government, I had supposed that it was its authority to construct such internal improvements as may be deemed by congress necessary and proper to carry into effect the power granted to it. For nearly twenty-five years, the power has been asserted and exercised by the government. For the last fifteen years it has been often controverted in congress, but it has been invariably maintained, in that body, by repeated decisions, pronounced, after full and elaborate debate, and at intervals of time implying the greatest deliberation. Numerous laws attest the existence of the power; and no less than twenty-odd laws have been passed in relation to a single work. This power, necessary to all parts of the union, is indispensable to the west. Without it, this section can never enjoy any part of the benefit of a regular disbursement of the vast revenues of the United States. I recollect perfectly well, that, at the last great struggle for the power, in 1824,Mr.P. P. Barbour, of Virginia, the principal champion against it, observed to me, that if it were affirmed on that occasion, (Mr.Hemphill’s survey bill,) he should consider the question settled. And it was affirmed.Yet we are told, that this power can no longer be exercised without an amendment of the constitution! On the occasion in South Carolina, to which I have already adverted, it was said, that the tariff and internal improvements are intimately connected, and that the death-blow which it was hoped the one had received, will finally destroy the other. I concur in the opinion, that they are intimately, if not indissolubly, united. Not connected together,with the fraudulent intent which has been imputed, but by their nature, by the tendency of each to advance the objects of the other, and of both to augment the sum of national prosperity.If I could believe that the executive message, which was communicated to congress upon the application of the veto to the Maysville road, really expressed the opinion of the president of the United States, in consequence of the unfortunate relations which have existed between us, I would forbear to make any observation upon it. It has his name affixed to it; but it is not every paper which bears the name of a distinguished personage, that is his, or expresses his opinions. We have been lately informed, that the unhappy king of England, in perhaps his last illness, transmitted a paper to parliament, with his royal signature attached to it, which became an object of great curiosity. Can any one believe, that that paper conveyed any other sentiments than those of his majesty’s ministers? It is impossible, that the veto message should express the opinions of the president, and I prove it by evidence derived from himself. Not forty days before that message was sent to congress, he approved a bill embracing appropriations to various objects of internal improvement, and among others, to improve the navigation of Conneaut creek. Although somewhat acquainted with the geography of our country, I declare, I did not know of the existence of such a stream until I read the bill. I have since made it an object of inquiry, and have been told, that it rises in one corner of Pennsylvania, and is discharged into lake Erie, in a corner of the state of Ohio; and that the utmost extent, to which its navigation is susceptible of improvement, is about seven miles. Is it possible, that the president could conceivethat a nationalobject, and that the improvement of a great thoroughfare, on which the mail is transported for some eight or ten states and territories, is not a national consideration? The power to improve the navigation of watercourses, nowhere expressly recognised in the constitution, is infinitely more doubtful than the establishment of mail roads, which is explicitly authorized in that instrument! Did not the president, during the canvass which preceded his election, in his answer to a letter from governor Ray, of Indiana, written at the instance of the senate of that respectable state, expressly refer to his votes given in the senate of the United States, for his opinion as to the power of the general government, and inform him that his opinion remained unaltered? And do we not find, upon consulting the journals of the senate, that among other votes affirming the existence of the power, he voted for an appropriation to the Chesapeake and Delaware canal, which is only about fourteen miles in extent? And do we not know, that it was at that time, like the Maysville road now, in progress of execution under the direction of a company incorporated by a state? And that, whilst the Maysville road had aconnection with roads east of Maysville and southwest of Lexington, the turnpiking of which was contemplated, that canal had no connection with any other existing canal.The veto message is perfectly irreconcilable with the previous acts, votes, and opinions of General Jackson. It does not expresshisopinions, but those of his advisers and counsellors, and especially those of his cabinet. If we look at the composition of that cabinet, we cannot doubt it. Three of the five who, I believe, compose it, (whether the postmaster-general be one or not, I do not know,) are known to be directly and positively opposed to the power; a fourth, to use a term descriptive of the favorite policy of one of them, is anon-committal, and as to the fifth, good Lord deliver us from such friendship ashisto internal improvements. Further, I have heard it from good authority, (but I will not vouch for it, although I believe it to be true,) that some of the gentlemen from the south waited upon the president, whilst he held the Maysville bill under consideration, and told him if he approved of that bill, the south would no longer approve of him, but oppose his administration.I cannot, therefore, consider the message as conveying the sentiments and views of the president. It is impossible. It is the work of his cabinet; and if, unfortunately, they were not practically irresponsible to the people of the United States, they would deserve severe animadversions for having prevailed upon the president, in the precipitation of business, and perhaps without his spectacles, to put his name tosucha paper, and send it forth to congress and to the nation. Why, I have read that paper again and again; and I never can peruse it without thinking of diplomacy, and the name of Talleyrand, Talleyrand, Talleyrand, perpetually recurring. It seems to have been written in the spirit of an accommodating soul, who, being determined to have fair weather in any contingency, was equally ready to cry out, good lord, good devil. Are you for internal improvements? you may extract from the message texts enough to support your opinion. Are you against them? the message supplies you with abundant authority to countenance your views. Do you think that a long and uninterrupted current of concurring decisions ought to settle the question of a controverted power? so the authors of the message affect to believe. But ought any precedents, however numerous, to be allowed to establish a doubtful power? the message agrees with him who thinks not.I cannot read this regular document without thinking of Talleyrand. That remarkable person was one of the most eminent and fortunate men of the French revolution. Prior to its commencement, he held a bishoprick under the ill-fated Louis the sixteenth. When that great political storm showed itself above the horizon, he saw which way the wind was going to blow, and trimmed hissails accordingly. He was in the majority of the convention, of the national assembly, and of the party that sustained the bloody Robespierre and his cut-throat successor. He belonged to the party of the consuls, the consul for life, and finally the emperor. Whatever party was uppermost, you would see the head of Talleyrand always high among them, never down. Like a certain dexterous animal, throw him as you please, head or tail, back or belly uppermost, he is always sure to light upon his feet. During a great part of the period described, he was minister of foreign affairs, and although totally devoid of all principle, no man ever surpassed him in adroitness of his diplomatic notes. He is now, at an advanced age, I believe, grand chamberlain of his majesty, Charles the tenth.I have lately seen an amusing anecdote of this celebrated man, which forces itself upon me whenever I look at the cabinet message. The king of France, like our president, towards the close of the last session of congress, found himself in a minority. A question arose, whether, in consequence, he should dissolve the chamber of deputies, which resembles our house of representatives. All France was agitated with the question. No one could solve it. At length, they concluded to go to that sagacious, cunning old fox, Talleyrand, to let them know what should be done. I tell you what, gentlemen, said he, (looking very gravely, and taking a pinch of snuff,) in the morning I think his majesty will dissolve the deputies; at noon I have changed that opinion; and at night I have no opinion at all. Now, on reading the first column of this message, one thinks that the cabinet have a sort of an opinion in favor of internal improvements, with some limitations. By the time he has read to the middle of it, he concludes they have adopted the opposite opinion; and when he gets to the end of it, he is perfectly persuaded, they have no opinion of their own whatever!Let us glance at a few only of the reasons, if reasons they can be called, of this piebald message. The first is, that the exercise of the power has produced discord, and, to restore harmony to the national councils, it should be abandoned, or, which is tantamount, the constitution must be amended. The president is therefore advised to throw himself into the minority. Well—did that revive harmony? When the question was taken in the house of the people’s representatives, an obstinate majority still voted for the bill, the objections in the message notwithstanding. And in the senate, the representatives of the states, a refractory majority, stood unmoved. But does the message mean to assert, that no great measure, about which public sentiment is much divided, ought to be adopted in consequence of that division? Then none can ever be adopted. Apply this new rule to the case of the American revolution. The colonies were rent into implacable parties—thetories every where abounded, and in some places outnumbered the whigs. This continued to be the state of things throughout the revolutionary contest. Suppose some timid, time-serving whig had, during its progress, addressed the public, and, adverting to the discord which prevailed, and to the expediency of restoring harmony in the land, had proposed to abandon or postpone the establishment of our liberty and independence, until all should agree in asserting them? The late war was opposed by a powerful and talented party; what would have been thought of president Madison, if, instead of a patriotic and energetic message, recommending it, as the only alternative, to preserve our honor and vindicate our right, he had come to congress with a proposal that we should continue to submit to the wrongs and degradation inflicted upon our country by a foreign power, because we were, unhappily, greatly divided? What would have become of the settlement of the Missouri question, the tariff, the Indian bill of the last session, if the existence of a strong and almost equal division in the public councils ought to have prevented their adoption? The principle is nothing more nor less than a declaration, that the right of the majority to govern, must yield to the perseverance, respectability, and numbers of the minority. It is in keeping with the nullifying doctrines of South Carolina, and is such a principle as might be expected to be put forth by such a cabinet. The government of the United States, at this juncture, exhibits a most remarkable spectacle.It is that of a majority of the nation having put the powers of government into the hands of the minority.If any one can doubt this, let him look back at the elements of the executive, at the presiding officers of the two houses, at the composition and the chairmen of the most important committees, who shape and direct the public business in congress. Let him look, above all,at measures, the necessary consequences of such an anomalous state of things—internal improvements gone, or going; the whole American system threatened, and the triumphant shouts of anticipated victory sounding in our ears. Georgia, extorting from the fears of an affrighted majority of congress an Indian bill, which may prostrate all the laws, treaties, and policy which have regulated our relations with the Indians from the commencement of our government; and politicians in South Carolina, at the same time, brandishing the torch of civil war, and pronouncing unbounded eulogiums upon the president, for the good he has done, and the still greater good which they expect at his hands, and the sacrifice of the interests of the majority.Another reason assigned in the Maysville message is, the desire of paying the national debt. By an act passed in the year 1817, an annual appropriation was made of ten millions of dollars, which were vested in the commissioners of the sinking fund, to pay the principal and interest of the public debt. That act wasprepared and carried through congress by one of the most estimable and enlightened men that this country ever produced, whose premature death is to be lamented on every account, but especially because, if he were now living, he would be able, more than any other man, to check the extravagance and calm the violence raging in South Carolina, his native state. Under the operation of that act, nearly one hundred and fifty millions of the principal and interest of the public debt were paid, prior to the commencement of the present administration. During that ofMr.Adams, between forty and fifty were paid, whilst larger appropriations of money and land were made, to objects of internal improvements, than ever had been made by all preceding administrations together. There only remained about fifty millions to be paid, when the present chief magistrate entered on the duties of that office, and a considerable portion of that cannot be discharged during the present official term.The redemption of the debt is, therefore, the work of congress; the president has nothing to do with it, the secretary of the treasury being directed annually to pay the ten millions to the commissioners of the sinking fund, whose duty it is to apply the amount to the extinguishment of the debt. The secretary himself has no more to do with the operation, than the hydrants through which the water passes to the consumption of the population of this city. He turns the cock on the first of January, and the first of July, in each year, and the public treasure is poured out to the public creditor from the reservoir, filled by the wisdom of congress. It is evident, from this just view of the matter, that congress, to which belongs the care of providing the ways and means, was as competent as the president to determine what portion of their constituents’ money could be applied to the improvement of their condition. As much of the public debt as can be paid, will be discharged in four years by the operation of the sinking fund. I have seen, in some late paper, a calculation of the delay which would have resulted, in its payment, from the appropriation to the Maysville road, and it was less than one week! How has it happened, that, under the administration ofMr.Adams, and during every year of it, such large and liberal appropriations could be made for internal improvements, without touching the fund devoted to the public debt, and that this administration should find itself baulked in its first year?The veto message proceeds to insist, that the Maysville and Lexington road is not a national, but a local road, of sixty miles in length, and confined within the limits of a particular state. If, as that document also asserts, the power can, inno case, be exercised until it shall have been explained and defined by an amendment of the constitution, the discrimination of national and local roads would seem to be altogether unnecessary. What is or isnot a national road, the message supposes may admit of controversy, and is not susceptible of precise definition. The difficulty which its authors imagine, grows out of their attempt to substitute a rule founded upon the extent and locality of the road, instead of theuseandpurposesto which it is applicable. If the road facilitates, in a considerable degree, the transportation of the mail to a considerable portion of the union, and at the same time promotes internal commerce among several states, and may tend to accelerate the movement of armies, and the distribution of the munitions of war, it is of national consideration. Tested by this, the true rule, the Maysville road was undoubtedly national. It connects the largest body, perhaps, of fertile land in the union, with the navigation of the Ohio and Mississippi rivers, and with the canals of the states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York. It begins on the line which divides the state of Ohio and Kentucky, and, of course, quickens trade and intercourse between them. Tested by the character of other works, for which the president, as a senator, voted, or which were approved by him only about a month before he rejected the Maysville bill, the road was undoubtedly national.But this view of the matter, however satisfactory it ought to be, is imperfect. It will be admitted, that the Cumberland road is national. It is completed no farther than Zanesville, in the state of Ohio. On reaching that point, two routes present themselves for its further extension, both national, and both deserving of execution. One leading northwestwardly, through the states of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, to Missouri, and the other southwestwardly, through the states of Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Alabama, to the Gulf of Mexico. Both have been long contemplated. Of the two, the southwestern is the most wanted, in the present state of population, and will probably always be of the greatest use. But the northwestern route is in progress of execution beyond Zanesville, and appropriations towards part of it, were sanctioned by the president at the last session. National highways can only be executed in sections, at different times. So the Cumberland road was and continues to be constructed. Of all the parts of the southwestern route, the road from Maysville to Lexington is most needed, whether we regard the amount of transportation and travelling upon it, or the impediments which it presents in the winter and spring months. It took my family four days to reach Lexington from Maysville, in April, 1829.The same scheme which has been devised and practiced to defeat the tariff, has been adopted to undermine internal improvements. They are to be attacked in detail. Hence the rejection of the Maysville road, the Fredericktown road, and the Louisville canal. But is this fair? Ought each proposed road to be viewed separately and detached? Ought it not to be considered in connection with other great works which are in progress of execution,or are projected? The policy of the foes indicates what ought to be the policy of the friends of the power.The blow aimed at internal improvements has fallen with unmerited severity upon the state of Kentucky. No state in the union has ever shown more generous devotion to its preservation and to the support of its honor and its interest, than she has. During the late war, her sons fought gallantly by the side of the president, on the glorious eighth of January, when he covered himself with unfading laurels. Wherever the war raged, they were to be found among the foremost in battle, freely bleeding in the service of their country. They have never threatened nor calculated the value of this happy union. Their representatives in congress have constantly and almost unanimously supported the power, cheerfully voting for large appropriations to works of internal improvements in other states. Not one cent of the common treasure has been expended on any public road in that state. They contributed to the elevation of the president, under a firm conviction, produced by his deliberate acts, and his solemn assertions, that he was friendly to the power. Under such circumstances, have they not just and abundant cause of surprise, regret, and mortification, at the late unexpected decision?Another mode of destroying the system, about which I fear I have detained you too long, which its foes have adopted, is to assail the character of its friends. Can you otherwise account for the spirit of animosity with which I am pursued? A sentiment this morning caught my eye, in the shape of a fourth of July toast, proposed at the celebration of that anniversary in South Carolina, by a gentleman whom I never saw, and to whom I am a total stranger. With humanity, charity, and christian benevolence, unexampled, he wished that I might be driven so far beyond the frigid regions of the northern zone, that all hell could not thaw me! Do you believe it was againstme, this feeble and frail form, tottering with age, this lump of perishing clay, that all this kindness was directed? No, no, no. It was against the measures of policy which I have espoused, against the system which I have labored to uphold, that it was aimed. If I had been opposed to the tariff, and internal improvements, and in favor of the South Carolina doctrine of nullification, the same worthy gentleman would have wished that I might be ever fanned by soft breezes, charged with aromatic odors—that my path might be strewed with roses, and my abode be an earthly paradise. I am now a private man, the humblest of the humble, possessed of no office, no power, no patronage, no subsidized press, no postoffice department to distribute its effusions, no army, no navy, no official corps to chant my praises, and to drink, in flowing bowls, my health and prosperity. I have nothing but the warm affections of a portion of the people, and a fair reputation, the only inheritance derived from myfather, and almost the only inheritance which I am desirous of transmitting to my children.The present chief magistrate has done me much wrong, but I have freely forgiven him. He believed, no doubt, that I had done him previous wrong. Although I am unconscious of it, he hadthatmotive for his conduct towards me. But others, who had joined in the hue and cry against me, had no such pretext. Why then am I thus pursued, my words perverted and distorted, my acts misrepresented? Why do more than a hundred presses daily point their cannon at me, and thunder forth their peals of abuse and detraction? It is not against me. That is impossible. A few years more, and this body will be where all is still and silent. It is against the principles of civil liberty, against the tariff and internal improvements, to which the better part of my life has been devoted, that this implacable war is waged. My enemies flatter themselves, that those systems may be overthrown by my destruction. Vain and impotent hope! My existence is not of the smallest consequence to their preservation. They will survive me. Long, long after I am gone, whilst the lofty hills encompass this fair city, the offspring of those measures shall remain; whilst the beautiful river that sweeps by its walls, shall continue to bear upon its proud bosom the wonders which the immortal genius of Fulton, with the blessings of Providence, has given; whilst truth shall hold its sway among men, those systems will invigorate the industry, and animate the hopes, of the farmer, the mechanic, the manufacturer, and all other classes of our countrymen.People of Ohio here assembled—mothers—daughters—sons, and sires, when reclining on the peaceful pillow of repose, and communing with your own hearts, ask yourselves, if I ought to be the unremitting object of perpetual calumny? If, when the opponents of the late president gained the victory on the fourth of March, 1829, the war ought not to have ceased, quarters been granted, and prisoners released? Did not those opponents obtain all the honors, offices, and emoluments of government; the power, which they have frequently exercised, of rewarding whom they pleased, and punishing whom they could? Was not all this sufficient? Does it all avail not, while Mordecai, the Jew, stands at the king’s gate?I thank you, fellow-citizens, again and again, for the numerous proofs you have given me of your attachment and confidence. And may your fine city continue to enjoy the advantages of the enterprise, industry, and public spirit of its mechanics and other inhabitants, until it rises in wealth, extent, and prosperity, with the largest of our Atlantic capitals.

DELIVERED AT CINCINNATI, AUGUST  3, 1830.

[THEREare few, if any, among the numerous addresses with whichMr.Clay has favored the country, on the policy of the government, and the true interests of the people, which more richly deserve careful consideration, than the following speech, delivered at the mechanics collation, in the Apollonian garden, on the third of August, 1830. It embraces almost every exciting topic of the time, including the American system, recharter of theU. S.Bank, and nullification.

The eighth toast—‘Our valued guest—It is his highest eulogium, that the name of Henry Clay is inseparably associated with the best interests of the country, as their assertor and advocate.’

When the enthusiastic cheering, which followed the reading of this toast, had subsided,Mr.Clay rose and addressed the company as follows.]

MR.PRESIDENT AND FELLOW-CITIZENS,

In rising to make the acknowledgments which are due from me, for the sentiment which has been just drunk, and for the honors which have been spontaneously rendered to me on my approach, and during my visit to this city, I feel more than ever the incompetency of all language adequately to express the grateful feelings of my heart. Of these distinguished honors, crowned heads themselves might well be proud. They indeed possess a value far surpassing that of any similar testimonies which could be offered to the chief of an absolute government. There, they are, not unfrequently, tendered by reluctant subjects, awed by a sense of terror, or impelled by a spirit of servility. Here, in this land of equal laws and equal liberty, they are presented to a private fellow-citizen, possessing neither office nor power, nor enjoying any rights and privileges which are not common to every member of the community. Power could not buy nor deter them. And, what confers an estimable value on them to me—what makes them alone worthy of you, or more acceptable to their object, is that they are offered, not to the man, but to the public principles and public interests, which you are pleased to associate with his name. On this occasion, too, they emanate from one of those great productive classes which form the main pillars of public liberty, and public prosperity. I thank you, fellow-citizens, most cordially, for these endearing proofs of your friendly attachment. They have made an impression of gratitude on my heart, which can never be effaced, during the residue of my life. I avail myselfof this last opportunity of being present at any large collection of my fellow-citizens of Ohio, during my present visit, to express my respectful acknowledgments for the hospitality and kindness with which I have been every where received and entertained.

Throughout my journey, undertaken solely for private purposes, there has been a constant effort on my side, to repress, and, on that of my fellow-citizens of Ohio, to exhibit public manifestations of their affection and confidence. It has been marked by a succession of civil triumphs. I have been escorted from village to village, and have every where found myself surrounded by large concourses of my fellow-citizens, often of both sexes, greeting and welcoming me. Nor should I do justice to my feelings, if I confined the expression of my obligations to those only with whom I had the happiness to agree, on a late public event. They are equally due to the candid and liberal of those from whom it was my misfortune to differ on that occasion, for their exercise towards me of all the rights of hospitality and neighborly courtesy. It is true, that in one or two of the towns through which I passed, I was informed, that attempts were made, by a few political zealots, to dissuade portions of my fellow-citizens from visiting and saluting me. These zealots seemed to apprehend, that an invading army was about to enter the town; that it was necessary to sound the bells, to beat the drums, to point the cannon, and to make all needful preparations for a resolute assault, and a gallant defence. They were accordingly seen in the streets, and at public places, beating up for recruits, and endeavoring to drill their men. But I believe there were only a few who were awed by their threats, or seduced by their bounty, to enlist in such a cause. The great body of those who thought differently from me, in the instance referred to, remained firm and immovable. They could not comprehend that it was wrong to extend to a stranger from a neighboring state, the civilities which belong to social life. They could not comprehend that it was right to transform political differences into deadly animosities. Seeing that varieties in the mode of worshipping the great Ruler of the universe did not disturb the harmony of private intercourse, they could not comprehend the propriety of extending to mortal man a sacrifice which is not offered to our immortal Father, of all the friendly and social feelings of our nature, because we could not all agree as to the particular exercise of the elective franchise. As independent and intelligent freemen, they would not consent to submit to an arrogant usurpation which assumed the right to control their actions, and to regulate the feelings of their hearts, and they scorned with indignation, to yield obedience to the mandates of would-be dictators. To quiet the apprehensions of these zealots, I assure them, that I do not march at the head of any military force; that I have neither horse, foot, nor dragoon, and that I travel with my friendCharles, (a black boy, residing in my family, for whom I feel the same sort of attachment that I do for my own children,) without sword, pistol, or musket! Another species of attempted embarrassment has been practiced by an individual of this city. About an hour before I left my lodgings for this spot, he caused a packet to be left in my room by a little boy, who soon made his exit. Upon opening it, I looked at the signature, andthatwas enough for me. It contained a long list of interrogatories, which I was required publicly to answer. I read only one or two of them. There are some men whose contact is pollution. I can recognize no right in the person in question to catechize me. I can have no intercourse with one who is a disgrace to the gallant and generous nation from which he sprang. I cannot stop to be thus interrogated by a man whose nomination to a paltry office, was rejected by nearly the unanimous vote of the senate; I must be excused if, when addressing my friends, the mechanics of Cincinnati, I will not speak fromhisnotes. On the renewal of the charter of the present bank of the United States, which I believe formed the subject of one or two of these interrogatories, I will say a few words for your, not his sake. I will observe, in the first place, that I am not in favor of such a bank as was recommended in the message of the president of the United States, at the commencement of the last session of congress; that, with the committee of the two houses, I concur in thinking it would be an institution of a dangerous and alarming character; and that, fraught as it would be with the most corrupting tendencies, it might be made powerfully instrumental in overturning our liberties. As to the existing bank, I think it has been generally administered, and particularly of late years, with great ability and integrity; that it has fulfilled all the reasonable expectations of those who constituted it; and, with the same committees, I think it has made an approximation towards the equalization of the currency, as great as is practicable. Whether the charter ought to be renewed or not, near six years hence, in my judgment, is a question of expediency to be decided by the then existing state of the country. It will be necessary at that time, to look carefully at the condition both of the bank and of the union. To ascertain, if the public debt shall, in the mean time, be paid off, what effect that will produce? What will be our then financial condition? what that of local banks, the state of our commerce, foreign and domestic, as well as the concerns of our currency generally? I am, therefore, not now prepared to say, whether the charter ought, or ought not, to be renewed on the expiration of its present term. The bank may become insolvent, and may hereafter forfeit all pretensions to a renewal. The question is premature. I may not be alive to form any opinion upon it. It belongs to posterity, and if they would have the goodness to decide for us some of the perplexingand practical questions of the present day, we might be disposed to decide that remote question for them. As it is, it ought to be indefinitely postponed.

With respect to the American system, which demands your undivided approbation, and in regard to which you are pleased to estimate much too highly my service, its great object is to secure the independence of our country, to augment its wealth, and to diffuse the comforts of civilization throughout society. That object, it has been supposed, can be best accomplished by introducing, encouraging, and protecting the arts among us. It may be called a system of real reciprocity, under the operation of which one citizen or one part of the country, can exchange one description of the produce of labor, with another citizen or another part of the country, for a different description of the produce of labor. It is a system which develops, improves, and perfects the capabilities of our common country, and enables us to avail ourselves of all the resources with which Providence has blest us. To the laboring classes it is invaluable, since it increases and multiplies the demands for their industry, and gives them an option of employments. It adds power and strength to our union, by new ties of interest, blending and connecting together all its parts, and creating an interest with each in the prosperity of the whole. It secures to our own country, whose skill and enterprise, properly fostered and sustained, cannot be surpassed, those vast profits which are made in other countries by the operation of converting the raw material into manufactured articles. It naturalizes and creates within the bosom of our country, all the arts; and, mixing the farmer, manufacturer, mechanic, artist, and those engaged in other vocations, together, admits of those mutual exchanges, so conducive to the prosperity of all and every one, free from the perils of sea and war;—all this it effects, whilst it nourishes and leaves a fair scope to foreign trade. Suppose we were a nation that clad ourselves, and made all the implements necessary to civilization, but did not produce our own bread, which we brought from foreign countries, although our own was capable of producing it, under the influence of suitable laws of protection, ought not such laws to be enacted? The ease supposed is not essentially different from the real state of things which led to the adoption of the American system.

That system has had a wonderful success. It has more than realized all the hopes of its founders. It has completely falsified all the predictions of its opponents. It has increased the wealth, and power, and population of the nation. It has diminished the price of articles of consumption, and has placed them within the reach of a far greater number of our people than could have found means to command them, if they had been manufactured abroad instead of at home.

But it is useless to dwell on the argument in support of thisbeneficent system before this audience. It will be of more consequence here to examine some of the objections which are still urged against it, and the means which are proposed to subvert it. These objections are now principally confined to its operation upon the great staple of cotton wool, and they are urged with most vehemence in a particular state. If the objections are well founded, the system should be modified, as far as it can consistently with interest, in other parts of the union. If they are not well founded, it is to be hoped they will be finally abandoned.

In approaching the subject, I have thought it of importance to inquire, what was the profit made upon capital employed in the culture of cotton, at its present reduced price. The result has been information, that it nets from seven to eighteen per cent. per annum, varying according to the advantage of situation, and the degree of skill, judgment, and industry, applied to the production of the article. But the lowest rate of profit, in the scale, is more than the greatest amount which is made on capital employed in the farming portions of the union.

If the cotton planter have any just complaint against the expediency of the American system, it must be founded on the fact, that he either sellslessof his staple, or sells atlowerprices, or purchases for consumption, articles atdearerrates, or ofworsequalities, in consequence of that system, than he would do, if it did not exist. If he would neither sell more of his staple, nor sell it at better prices, nor could purchase better or cheaper articles for consumption, provided the system did not exist, then he has no cause, on the score of its burdensome operation, to complain of the system, but must look to other sources for the grievances which he supposes afflict him.

As respects the sale of his staple, it would be indifferent to the planter, whether one portion of it was sold in Europe, and the other in America, provided the aggregate of both were equal to all that he could sell in one market, if he had but one, and provided he could command the same price in both cases. The double market would indeed be something better for him, because of its greater security in time of war as well as in peace, and because it would be attended with less perils and less charges. If there be an equal amount of the raw material manufactured, it must be immaterial to the cotton planter, in the sale of the article, whether there be two theatres of the manufacture, one in Europe and the other in America, or but one in Europe; or if there be a difference, it will be in favor of the two places of manufacture, instead of one, for reasons already assigned, and others that will be hereafter stated.

It could be of no advantage to the cotton planter, if all the cotton, now manufactured both in Europe and America, was manufactured exclusively in Europe, and an amount of cotton fabricsshould be brought back from Europe, equal to both what is now brought from there, and what is manufactured in the United States, together. Whilst he would gain nothing, the United States would lose the profit and employment resulting from the manufacture of that portion which is now wrought up by the manufacturers of the United States.

Unless, therefore, it can be shown, that, by the reduction of import duties, and the overthrow of the American system, and by limiting the manufacture of cotton to Europe, a greater amount of the raw material would be consumed than is at present, it is difficult to see what interest, so far as respects the sale of that staple, the cotton planter has in the subversion of that system. If a reduction of duties would admit of larger investments in British or European fabrics of cotton, and their subsequent importation into this country, this additional supply would take the place, if consumed, of an equal amount of American manufactures, and consequently would not augment the general consumption of the raw material. Additional importation does not necessarily imply increased consumption, especially when it is effected by a policy which would impair the ability to purchase and consume.

Upon the supposition just made, of a restriction to Europe of the manufacture of cotton, would more or less of the article be consumed than now is? More could not be, unless, in consequence of such a monopoly of the manufacture, Europe could sell more than she now does. But to what countries could she sell more? She gets the raw material now unburdened by any duties except such moderate ones as her policy, not likely to be changed, imposes. She is enabled thereby to sell as much of the manufactured article as she can find markets for in the states within her own limits, or in foreign countries. The destruction of the American manufacture would not induce her to sell cheaper, but might enable her to sell dearer, than she now does. The ability of those foreign countries, to purchase and consume, would not be increased by the annihilation of our manufactures, and the monopoly of European manufacture. The probability is, that those foreign countries, by the fact of that monopoly, and some consequent increase of price, would be worse and dearer supplied than they now are, under the operation of a competition between America and Europe in their supply.

At most, the United States, after the transfer from their territory to Europe, of the entire manufacture of the article, could not consume, of European fabrics from cotton, a greater amount than they now derive from Europe, and from manufactures within their own limits.

But it is confidently believed, that the consumption of cotton fabrics, on the supposition which has been made, within the United States, would be much less than it is at present. It would be lessbecause the American consumer would not possess the means or ability to purchase as much of the European fabric as he now does to buy the American. Europe purchases but little of the produce of the northern, middle, and western regions of the United States. The staple productions of those regions are excluded from her consumption by her policy, or by her native supplies of similar productions. The effect, therefore, of obliging the inhabitants of those regions to depend upon the cotton manufactures of Europe for necessary supplies of the article, would be alike injurious to them, and to the cotton grower. They would suffer from their inability to supply their wants, and there would be a consequent diminution of the consumption of cotton. By the location of the manufacture in the United States, the quantity of cotton consumed is increased, and the more numerous portion of their inhabitants, who would not be otherwise sufficiently supplied, are abundantly served. That this is the true state of things, I think cannot be doubted by any reflecting and unprejudiced man. The establishment of manufactures within the United States, enables the manufacturer to sell to the farmer, the mechanic, the physician, the lawyer, and all who are engaged in other pursuits of life; and these, in their turns, supply the manufacturer with subsistence, and whatever else his wants require. Under the influence of the protecting policy, many new towns have been built, and old ones enlarged. The population of these places draw their subsistence from the farming interest of our country, their fuel from our forests and coal mines, and the raw materials from which they fashion and fabricate, from the cotton planter and the mines of our country. These mutual exchanges, so animating and invigorating to the industry of the people of the United States, could not possibly be effected between America and Europe, if the latter enjoyed the monopoly of manufacturing.

It results, therefore, that, so far as the sale of the great southern staple is concerned, a greater quantity is sold and consumed, and consequently better prices are obtained, under the operation of the American system, than would be without it. Does that system oblige the cotton planters to buy dearer or worse articles of consumption than he could purchase, if it did not exist?

The same cause of American and European competition, which enables him to sell more of the produce of his industry, and at better prices, also enables him to buy cheaper and better articles for consumption. It cannot be doubted, that the tendency of the competition between the European and American manufacturer, is to reduce the price and improve the quality of their respective fabrics, whenever they come into collision. This is the immutable law of all competition. If the American manufacture were discontinued, Europe would then exclusively furnish those supplies which are now derived from the establishments in both continents,and the first consequence would be, an augmentation of the demand, beyond the supply, equal to what is now manufactured in the United States, but which, in the contingency supposed, would be wrought in Europe. If the destruction of the American manufactures were sudden, there would be a sudden and probably a considerable rise in the European fabrics. Although, in the end, they might be again reduced, it is not likely that the ultimate reduction of the prices would be to such rates as if both the workshops of America and Europe remained sources of supply. There would also be a sudden reduction in the price of the raw material, in consequence of the cessation of American demand. And this reduction would be permanent, if the supposition be correct, that there would be a diminution in the consumption of cotton fabrics, arising out of the inability, on the part of large portions of the people of the United States, to purchase those of Europe.

That the effect of competition between the European and American manufacture, has been to supply the American consumer with cheaper and better articles, since the adoption of the American system, notwithstanding the existence of causes which have obstructed its fair operation, and retarded its full development, is incontestable. Both the freeman and the slave are now better and cheaper supplied than they were prior to the existence of that system. Cotton fabrics have diminished in price, and been improved in their texture, to an extent that it is difficult for the imagination to keep pace with. Those partly of cotton and partly of wool are also better and cheaper supplied. The same observation is applicable to those which are exclusively wrought of wool, iron, or glass. In short, it is believed that there is not one item of the tariff inserted for the protection of native industry, which has not fallen in price. The American competition has tended to keep down the European rival fabric, and the European has tended to lower the American.

Of what then can the South Carolina planter justly complain in the operation of this system? What is there in it which justifies the harsh and strong epithets which some of her politicians have applied to it? What is there in her condition, which warrants their assertion, that she is oppressed by a government to which she stands in the mere relation of a colony?

She is oppressed by a great reduction in the price of manufactured articles of consumption.

She is oppressed by the advantage of two markets for the sale of her valuable staple, and for the purchase of objects required by her wants.

She is oppressed by better prices for that staple than she could command, if the system to which they object did not exist.

She is oppressed by the option of purchasing cheaper and betterarticles, the produce of the hands of American freemen, instead of dearer and worse articles, the produce of the hands of British subjects.

She is oppressed by the measures of a government in which she has had, for many years, a larger proportion of power and influence, at home and abroad, than any state in the whole union, in comparison with the population.

A glance at the composition of the government of the union, will demonstrate the truth of this last proposition. In the senate of the United States, South Carolina having the presiding officer, exercises nearly one sixteenth instead of one twenty-fourth part of both its legislative and executive functions.

In both branches of congress, some of her citizens now occupy, as chairmen of committees, the most important and influential stations. In the supreme court of the United States, one of her citizens being a member, she has one seventh part, instead of about one twentieth, her equal proportion of the whole power vested in that tribunal. Until within a few months, she had nearly one third of all the missions of the first grade, from this to foreign countries. In a contingency, which is far from impossible, a citizen of South Carolina would instantly become charged with the administration of the whole of the vast power and patronage of the United States.

Yet her situation has been compared to that of a colony which hasno voicein the laws enacted by the parent country for its subjection! And to be relieved from this cruel state of vassalage, and to put down a system which has been established by the united voice of all America, some of her politicians have broached a doctrine as new as it would be alarming, if it were sustained by numbers in proportion to the zeal and fervid eloquence with which it is inculcated. I call it a novel doctrine. I am not unaware that attempts have been made to support it on the authority of certain acts of my native and adopted states. Although many of their citizens are much more competent than I am to vindicate them from this imputation of purposes of disunion and rebellion, my veneration and affection for them both, urge me to bear my testimony of their innocence of such a charge. At the epoch of 1798–9, I had just attained my majority, and although I was too young to share in the public councils of my country, I was acquainted with many of the actors of that memorable period; I knew their views, and formed and freely expressed my own opinions on passing events. The then administration of the general government was believed to entertain views (whether the belief was right or wrong is not material to this argument, and is now an affair of history,) hostile to the existence of the liberties of this country. The alien and sedition laws, particularly, and other measures, were thought to be the consequences and proofs of thoseviews. If the administration had such a purpose, it was feared that the extreme case, justifying forcible resistance, might arise, but no one believed that, in point of fact, it had arrived. No one contended that asinglestate possessed the power to annul the deliberate acts of the whole. And the best evidence of these remarks is the fact, that the most odious of those laws, (the sedition act,) was peaceably enforced in the capitol of that great state which took the lead in opposition to the existing administration.

The doctrines of that day, and they are as true at this, were, that the federal government is a limited government; that it has no powers but the granted powers. Virginia contended, that in case ‘of apalpable, deliberate, and dangerous exercise of other powers not granted by said compact, thestates, who are parties thereto, have the right to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties, appertaining to them.’ Kentucky declared, that the ‘several states, that framed that instrument, the federal constitution, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right tojudgeof its instructions, and a nullificationby those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts, done under color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy.’

Neither of these two commonwealths asserted the right of a single state to interpose and annul an act of the whole. This is an inference drawn from the doctrines then laid down, and it is not a principle expressly asserted or fairly deducible from the language of either. Both refer tothe statescollectively, (and not individually,) when they assert their right, in case of federal usurpation, to interpose ‘for arresting the progress of evil.’ Neither state ever did, no state ever yet has, by its separate legislation, undertaken to set aside an act of congress.

That the statescollectively, may interpose their authority to check the evils of federal usurpation, is manifest. They may dissolve the union. They may alter, at pleasure, the character of the constitution, by amendment; they may annul any acts purporting to have been passed in conformity to it, or they may, by their elections, change the functionaries to whom the administration of its powers is confided. But no one state, by itself, is competent to accomplish these objects. The power of a single state to annul an act of the whole, has been reserved for the discovery of some politicians in South Carolina.

It is not my purpose, upon an occasion so unfit, to discuss this pretension. Upon another and a more suitable theatre, it has been examined and refuted, with an ability and eloquence, which have never been surpassed on the floor of congress. But, as it is announced to be one of the means which is intended to be employed to break down the American system, I trust that I shall be excused for a few additional passing observations. On a late festiveoccasion, in the state where it appears to find most favor, it is said, by a gentleman whom I once proudly called my friend and towards whom I have done nothing to change that relation,—a gentleman who has been high in the councils and confidence of the nation, that the tariff must be resistedat all hazards. Another gentleman, who is a candidate for the chief magistracy of that state, declares that thetimeand thecasefor resistance had arrived. And a third, a senator of the United States, who enjoys unbounded confidence with the American executive, laid down principles and urged arguments tending directly and inevitably to violent resistance, although he did not indicate that as his specific remedy.

The doctrine of some of the South Carolina politicians is, that it is competent to that state to annul, within its limits, the authority of an act deliberately passed by the congress of the United States. They do not appear to have looked much, beyond the simple act of nullification, into the consequences which would ensue, and have not distinctly announced, whether one of them might not necessarily be, to light up a civil war. They seem, however, to suppose, that the state might, after the act was performed, remain a member of the union. Now if one state can, by an act of its separate power, absolve itself from the obligations of a law of congress, and continue a part of the union, it could hardly be expected, that any other state would render obedience to the same law. Either every other state would follow the nullifying example, or congress would feel itself constrained, by a sense of equal duty to all parts of the union, to repeal altogether the nullified law. Thus, the doctrine of South Carolina, although it nominally assumes to act for one state only, in effect, would be legislating for the whole union.

Congress embodies the collective will of the whole union, and that of South Carolina among its other members. The legislation of congress is, therefore, founded upon the basis of the representation of all. In the legislature, or a convention of South Carolina, the will of the people of that state is alone collected. They alone are represented, and the people of no other state have any voice in their proceedings. To set up for that state a claim, by a separate exercise of its power, to legislate, in effect, for the whole union, is to assert a pretension at war with the fundamental principles of all representative and free governments. It would practically subject the unrepresented people of all other parts of the union to the arbitrary and despotic power of one state. It would substantially convert them into colonies, bound by the parental authority of that state.

Nor can this enormous pretension derive any support from the consideration, that the power to annul, is different from the power to originate laws. Both powers are, in their nature, legislative, and the mischiefs which might, accrue to the republic from the annulmentof its wholesome laws, may be just as great as those which would flow from the origination of bad laws. There are three things to which, more than all others, mankind in all ages, have shown themselves to be attached; their religion,their laws, and their language.

But it has been argued, in the most solemn manner, ‘that the acknowledgments of the exclusive right of the federal government to determine the limits of its own powers, amounts to a recognition of its absolute supremacy over the states and the people, and involves the sacrifice not only of our dearest rights and interests, but the very existence of the southern states.’

In cases where there are two systems of government, operating at the same time and place, over the same people, the one general, the other local or particular, one system or the other must possess the right to decide upon the extent of the powers, in cases of collision, which are claimed by the general government. No third party, of sufficient impartiality, weight, and responsibility, other than such a tribunal as a supreme court, has yet been devised, or perhaps can be created.

The doctrine of one side is, that the general government, though limited in its nature, must necessarily possess the power to ascertain what authority it has, and, by consequence, the extent of that authority. And that, if its legislative or executive functionaries, by act, transcend that authority, the question may be brought before the supreme court, and, being affirmatively decided by that tribunal, their act must be obeyed until repealed or altered by competent power.

Against the tendency of this doctrine to absorb all power, those who maintain it, think there are reasonable, and, they hope, sufficient securities. In the first place, all are represented in every legislative or executive act, and of course, each state can exert its proper influence, to prevent the adoption of any that may be deemed prejudicial or unconstitutional. Then, there are sacred oaths, elections, public virtue and intelligence, the power of impeachment, a common subjection to both systems of those functionaries who act under either, the right of the states to interpose and amend the constitution, or to dissolve the union; and, finally, the right, in extreme cases, when all other remedies fail, to resist insupportable oppression.

The necessity being felt, by the framers of the constitution, to declare which system should be supreme, and believing that the securities now enumerated, or some of them, were adequate, they have accordingly provided, that the constitution of the United States, and the laws made in pursuance of it, and all treaties made under the authority of the United States, shall be thesupreme lawof the land; and that the judicial power shall extend toallcases arising under the constitution, laws, or treaties, of the United States.

The South Carolina doctrine, on the other side, is, that that state has the right to determine the limits of the powers granted to the general government; and that whenever any of its acts transcend those limits, in the opinion of the state of South Carolina, she is competent to annul them. If the power, with which the federal government is invested by the constitution, to determine the limits of its authority, be liable to the possible danger of ultimate consolidation, and all the safeguards which have been mentioned might prove inadequate, is not this power, claimed for South Carolina, fraught with infinitely more certain, immediate, and fatal danger? It would reverse the rule of supremacy prescribed in the constitution. It would render the authority of a single state paramount to that of the whole union. For undoubtedly, that government, to some extent, must be supreme, which can annul and set aside the acts of another.

The securities which the people of other parts of the United States possess against the abuse of this tremendous power claimed for South Carolina, will be found, on comparison, to be greatly inferior to those which she has against the possible abuses of the general government. They have no voice in her councils; they could not, by the exercise of the elective franchise, change her rulers; they could not impeach her judges, they could not alter her constitution, nor abolish her government.

Under the South Carolina doctrine, if established, the consequence would be a dissolution of the union, immediate, inevitable, irresistible. There would be twenty-four chances to one against its continued existence. The apprehended dangers of the opposite doctrine, remote, contingent, and hardly possible, are greatly exaggerated; and, against their realization, all the precautions have been provided, which human wisdom and patriotic foresight could conceive and devise.

Those who are opposed to the supremacy of the constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States, are adverse to all union, whatever contrary professions they may make. For it may be truly affirmed, that no confederacy of states can exist without a power, somewhere residing in the government of that confederacy, to determine the extent of the authority granted to it by the confederating states.

It is admitted, that the South Carolina doctrine is liable to abuse; but it is contended, that thepatriotismof each state is an adequate security, and that the nullifying power would only be exercised ‘in an extraordinary case, where the powers reserved to the states, under the constitution, are usurped by the federal government.’ And is not thepatriotismofallthe states, as great a safeguard against the assumption of powers, not conferred upon the general government, as the patriotism of one state is against the denial of powers which are clearly granted? But the nullifyingpower is only to be exercised in anextraordinarycase. Who is to judge of this extraordinary case? What security is there, especially in moments of great excitement, that a state may not pronounce the plainest and most common exercise of federal power anextraordinary case? The expressions in the constitution, ‘general welfare,’ have been often justly criticised, and shown to convey, in themselves, no power, although they may indicate how the delegated power should be exercised. But this doctrine of an extraordinary case, to be judged of and applied by one of the twenty-four sovereignties, is replete with infinitely more danger, than the doctrine of the ‘general welfare,’ in the hands of all.

We may form some idea of future abuses under the South Carolina doctrine, by the application which is now proposed to be made of it. The American system is said to furnish anextraordinary case, justifying that state to nullify it. The power to regulate foreign commerce, by a tariff, so adjusted as to foster our domestic manufactures, has been exercised from the commencement of our present constitution down to the last session of congress. I have been a member of the house of representatives at three different periods, when the subject of the tariff was debated at great length, and on neither, according to my recollection, was the want of a constitutional power in congress, to enact it, dwelt on as forming a serious and substantial objection to its passage. On the last occasion (I think it was) in which I participated in the debate, it was incidentally said to be against the spirit of the constitution. Whilst the authority of the father of the constitution is invoked to sanction, by a perversion of his meaning, principles of disunion and rebellion, it is rejected to sustain the controverted power, although his testimony in support of it has been clearly and explicitly rendered. This power, thus asserted, exercised, and maintained, in favor of which leading politicians in South Carolina have themselves voted, is alleged to furnish ‘anextraordinary case,’ where the powers reserved to the states, under the constitution, are usurped by the general government. If it be, there is scarcely a statute in our code which would not present a case equally extraordinary, justifying South Carolina or any other state to nullify it.

The United States are not only threatened with the nullification of numerous acts, which they have deliberately passed, but with a withdrawal of one of the members from the confederacy. If the unhappy case should ever occur, of a state being really desirous to separate itself from the union, it would present two questions. The first would be, whether it had a right to withdraw, without the common consent of the members; and supposing, as I believe, no such right to exist, whether it would be expedient to yield consent. Although there may be power to prevent a secession, it might be deemed politic to allow it. It might be considered expedient to permit the refractory state to take the portion of goods that fallethto her, to suffer her to gather her all together, and to go off with her living. But, if a state should be willing, and allowed thus to depart, and to renounce her future portion of the inheritance of this great, glorious, and prosperous republic, she would speedily return, and, in language of repentance, say to the other members of this union, brethren, ‘I have sinned against heaven and before thee.’ Whether they would kill the fatted calf, and, chiding any complaining member of the family, say, ‘this thy sister was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found,’ I sincerely pray the historian may never have occasion to record.

But nullification and disunion are not the only, nor the most formidable, means of assailing the tariff. Its opponents opened the campaign at the last session of congress, and, with the most obliging frankness, have since publicly exposed their plan of operations. It is, to divide and conquer; to attack and subdue the system in detail. They began by reducing the duty on salt and molasses, and, restoring the drawback of the duty on the latter article, allowed the exportation of spirits distilled from it. To all who are interested in the distillation of spirits from native materials, whether fruit, molasses, or grain, this latter measure is particularly injurious. During the administration ofMr.Adams, the duty on foreign molasses was augmented, and the drawback, which had been previously allowed of the duty upon the exportation of spirits distilled from it, was repealed. The object was to favor native produce, and to lessen the competition of foreign spirits, or spirits distilled from foreign materials, with spirits distilled from domestic material. It was deemed to be especially advantageous to the western country, a great part of whose grain can only find markets at home and abroad by being converted into distilled spirits. Encouraged by this partial success, the foes of the tariff may next attempt to reduce the duties on iron, woollens, and cotton fabrics, successively. The American system of protection should be regarded, as it is, an entire and comprehensive system, made up of various items, and aiming at the prosperity of the whole union, by protecting the interests of each part. Every part, therefore, has a direct interest in the protection which it enjoys of the articles, which its agriculture produces, or its manufactories fabricate, and also a collateral interest in the protection which other portions of the union derive from their peculiar interests. Thus, the aggregate of the prosperity of all is constituted by the sums of the prosperity of each.

Take any one article of the tariff, (iron, for example,) and there is no suchdirectinterest in its protection, pervading the major part of the United States, as would induce congress to encourage it, if it stood alone. The states of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and Kentucky, which are most concerned, are encouraged in the production or manufacture of this article, in consequence ofthe adoption of a general principle, which extends protection to other interests in other parts of the union.

The stratagem which has been adopted by the foes of the system, to destroy it, requires the exercise of constant vigilance and firmness, to prevent the accomplishment of the object. They have resolved to divide and conquer—the friends of the system should assume the revolutionary motto of our ancestors, ‘united we stand, divided we fall.’ They should allow no alteration in any part of the system, as it now exists, which did not aim at rendering more efficacious the system of protection, on which the whole is founded. Every one should reflect, that it is not equal, to have a particular interest which he is desirous should be fostered, in his part of the country, protected against foreign competition, without his being willing to extend the principle to other interests, deserving protection, in other parts of the union.

But the measure of reducing the duty on salt and molasses, and reviving the drawback on the importation of spirits distilled from molasses, was an attack on the system, less alarming than another which was made during the last session of congress, on a kindred system.

If any thing could be considered as settled, under the present constitution of our government, I had supposed that it was its authority to construct such internal improvements as may be deemed by congress necessary and proper to carry into effect the power granted to it. For nearly twenty-five years, the power has been asserted and exercised by the government. For the last fifteen years it has been often controverted in congress, but it has been invariably maintained, in that body, by repeated decisions, pronounced, after full and elaborate debate, and at intervals of time implying the greatest deliberation. Numerous laws attest the existence of the power; and no less than twenty-odd laws have been passed in relation to a single work. This power, necessary to all parts of the union, is indispensable to the west. Without it, this section can never enjoy any part of the benefit of a regular disbursement of the vast revenues of the United States. I recollect perfectly well, that, at the last great struggle for the power, in 1824,Mr.P. P. Barbour, of Virginia, the principal champion against it, observed to me, that if it were affirmed on that occasion, (Mr.Hemphill’s survey bill,) he should consider the question settled. And it was affirmed.

Yet we are told, that this power can no longer be exercised without an amendment of the constitution! On the occasion in South Carolina, to which I have already adverted, it was said, that the tariff and internal improvements are intimately connected, and that the death-blow which it was hoped the one had received, will finally destroy the other. I concur in the opinion, that they are intimately, if not indissolubly, united. Not connected together,with the fraudulent intent which has been imputed, but by their nature, by the tendency of each to advance the objects of the other, and of both to augment the sum of national prosperity.

If I could believe that the executive message, which was communicated to congress upon the application of the veto to the Maysville road, really expressed the opinion of the president of the United States, in consequence of the unfortunate relations which have existed between us, I would forbear to make any observation upon it. It has his name affixed to it; but it is not every paper which bears the name of a distinguished personage, that is his, or expresses his opinions. We have been lately informed, that the unhappy king of England, in perhaps his last illness, transmitted a paper to parliament, with his royal signature attached to it, which became an object of great curiosity. Can any one believe, that that paper conveyed any other sentiments than those of his majesty’s ministers? It is impossible, that the veto message should express the opinions of the president, and I prove it by evidence derived from himself. Not forty days before that message was sent to congress, he approved a bill embracing appropriations to various objects of internal improvement, and among others, to improve the navigation of Conneaut creek. Although somewhat acquainted with the geography of our country, I declare, I did not know of the existence of such a stream until I read the bill. I have since made it an object of inquiry, and have been told, that it rises in one corner of Pennsylvania, and is discharged into lake Erie, in a corner of the state of Ohio; and that the utmost extent, to which its navigation is susceptible of improvement, is about seven miles. Is it possible, that the president could conceivethat a nationalobject, and that the improvement of a great thoroughfare, on which the mail is transported for some eight or ten states and territories, is not a national consideration? The power to improve the navigation of watercourses, nowhere expressly recognised in the constitution, is infinitely more doubtful than the establishment of mail roads, which is explicitly authorized in that instrument! Did not the president, during the canvass which preceded his election, in his answer to a letter from governor Ray, of Indiana, written at the instance of the senate of that respectable state, expressly refer to his votes given in the senate of the United States, for his opinion as to the power of the general government, and inform him that his opinion remained unaltered? And do we not find, upon consulting the journals of the senate, that among other votes affirming the existence of the power, he voted for an appropriation to the Chesapeake and Delaware canal, which is only about fourteen miles in extent? And do we not know, that it was at that time, like the Maysville road now, in progress of execution under the direction of a company incorporated by a state? And that, whilst the Maysville road had aconnection with roads east of Maysville and southwest of Lexington, the turnpiking of which was contemplated, that canal had no connection with any other existing canal.

The veto message is perfectly irreconcilable with the previous acts, votes, and opinions of General Jackson. It does not expresshisopinions, but those of his advisers and counsellors, and especially those of his cabinet. If we look at the composition of that cabinet, we cannot doubt it. Three of the five who, I believe, compose it, (whether the postmaster-general be one or not, I do not know,) are known to be directly and positively opposed to the power; a fourth, to use a term descriptive of the favorite policy of one of them, is anon-committal, and as to the fifth, good Lord deliver us from such friendship ashisto internal improvements. Further, I have heard it from good authority, (but I will not vouch for it, although I believe it to be true,) that some of the gentlemen from the south waited upon the president, whilst he held the Maysville bill under consideration, and told him if he approved of that bill, the south would no longer approve of him, but oppose his administration.

I cannot, therefore, consider the message as conveying the sentiments and views of the president. It is impossible. It is the work of his cabinet; and if, unfortunately, they were not practically irresponsible to the people of the United States, they would deserve severe animadversions for having prevailed upon the president, in the precipitation of business, and perhaps without his spectacles, to put his name tosucha paper, and send it forth to congress and to the nation. Why, I have read that paper again and again; and I never can peruse it without thinking of diplomacy, and the name of Talleyrand, Talleyrand, Talleyrand, perpetually recurring. It seems to have been written in the spirit of an accommodating soul, who, being determined to have fair weather in any contingency, was equally ready to cry out, good lord, good devil. Are you for internal improvements? you may extract from the message texts enough to support your opinion. Are you against them? the message supplies you with abundant authority to countenance your views. Do you think that a long and uninterrupted current of concurring decisions ought to settle the question of a controverted power? so the authors of the message affect to believe. But ought any precedents, however numerous, to be allowed to establish a doubtful power? the message agrees with him who thinks not.

I cannot read this regular document without thinking of Talleyrand. That remarkable person was one of the most eminent and fortunate men of the French revolution. Prior to its commencement, he held a bishoprick under the ill-fated Louis the sixteenth. When that great political storm showed itself above the horizon, he saw which way the wind was going to blow, and trimmed hissails accordingly. He was in the majority of the convention, of the national assembly, and of the party that sustained the bloody Robespierre and his cut-throat successor. He belonged to the party of the consuls, the consul for life, and finally the emperor. Whatever party was uppermost, you would see the head of Talleyrand always high among them, never down. Like a certain dexterous animal, throw him as you please, head or tail, back or belly uppermost, he is always sure to light upon his feet. During a great part of the period described, he was minister of foreign affairs, and although totally devoid of all principle, no man ever surpassed him in adroitness of his diplomatic notes. He is now, at an advanced age, I believe, grand chamberlain of his majesty, Charles the tenth.

I have lately seen an amusing anecdote of this celebrated man, which forces itself upon me whenever I look at the cabinet message. The king of France, like our president, towards the close of the last session of congress, found himself in a minority. A question arose, whether, in consequence, he should dissolve the chamber of deputies, which resembles our house of representatives. All France was agitated with the question. No one could solve it. At length, they concluded to go to that sagacious, cunning old fox, Talleyrand, to let them know what should be done. I tell you what, gentlemen, said he, (looking very gravely, and taking a pinch of snuff,) in the morning I think his majesty will dissolve the deputies; at noon I have changed that opinion; and at night I have no opinion at all. Now, on reading the first column of this message, one thinks that the cabinet have a sort of an opinion in favor of internal improvements, with some limitations. By the time he has read to the middle of it, he concludes they have adopted the opposite opinion; and when he gets to the end of it, he is perfectly persuaded, they have no opinion of their own whatever!

Let us glance at a few only of the reasons, if reasons they can be called, of this piebald message. The first is, that the exercise of the power has produced discord, and, to restore harmony to the national councils, it should be abandoned, or, which is tantamount, the constitution must be amended. The president is therefore advised to throw himself into the minority. Well—did that revive harmony? When the question was taken in the house of the people’s representatives, an obstinate majority still voted for the bill, the objections in the message notwithstanding. And in the senate, the representatives of the states, a refractory majority, stood unmoved. But does the message mean to assert, that no great measure, about which public sentiment is much divided, ought to be adopted in consequence of that division? Then none can ever be adopted. Apply this new rule to the case of the American revolution. The colonies were rent into implacable parties—thetories every where abounded, and in some places outnumbered the whigs. This continued to be the state of things throughout the revolutionary contest. Suppose some timid, time-serving whig had, during its progress, addressed the public, and, adverting to the discord which prevailed, and to the expediency of restoring harmony in the land, had proposed to abandon or postpone the establishment of our liberty and independence, until all should agree in asserting them? The late war was opposed by a powerful and talented party; what would have been thought of president Madison, if, instead of a patriotic and energetic message, recommending it, as the only alternative, to preserve our honor and vindicate our right, he had come to congress with a proposal that we should continue to submit to the wrongs and degradation inflicted upon our country by a foreign power, because we were, unhappily, greatly divided? What would have become of the settlement of the Missouri question, the tariff, the Indian bill of the last session, if the existence of a strong and almost equal division in the public councils ought to have prevented their adoption? The principle is nothing more nor less than a declaration, that the right of the majority to govern, must yield to the perseverance, respectability, and numbers of the minority. It is in keeping with the nullifying doctrines of South Carolina, and is such a principle as might be expected to be put forth by such a cabinet. The government of the United States, at this juncture, exhibits a most remarkable spectacle.It is that of a majority of the nation having put the powers of government into the hands of the minority.If any one can doubt this, let him look back at the elements of the executive, at the presiding officers of the two houses, at the composition and the chairmen of the most important committees, who shape and direct the public business in congress. Let him look, above all,at measures, the necessary consequences of such an anomalous state of things—internal improvements gone, or going; the whole American system threatened, and the triumphant shouts of anticipated victory sounding in our ears. Georgia, extorting from the fears of an affrighted majority of congress an Indian bill, which may prostrate all the laws, treaties, and policy which have regulated our relations with the Indians from the commencement of our government; and politicians in South Carolina, at the same time, brandishing the torch of civil war, and pronouncing unbounded eulogiums upon the president, for the good he has done, and the still greater good which they expect at his hands, and the sacrifice of the interests of the majority.

Another reason assigned in the Maysville message is, the desire of paying the national debt. By an act passed in the year 1817, an annual appropriation was made of ten millions of dollars, which were vested in the commissioners of the sinking fund, to pay the principal and interest of the public debt. That act wasprepared and carried through congress by one of the most estimable and enlightened men that this country ever produced, whose premature death is to be lamented on every account, but especially because, if he were now living, he would be able, more than any other man, to check the extravagance and calm the violence raging in South Carolina, his native state. Under the operation of that act, nearly one hundred and fifty millions of the principal and interest of the public debt were paid, prior to the commencement of the present administration. During that ofMr.Adams, between forty and fifty were paid, whilst larger appropriations of money and land were made, to objects of internal improvements, than ever had been made by all preceding administrations together. There only remained about fifty millions to be paid, when the present chief magistrate entered on the duties of that office, and a considerable portion of that cannot be discharged during the present official term.

The redemption of the debt is, therefore, the work of congress; the president has nothing to do with it, the secretary of the treasury being directed annually to pay the ten millions to the commissioners of the sinking fund, whose duty it is to apply the amount to the extinguishment of the debt. The secretary himself has no more to do with the operation, than the hydrants through which the water passes to the consumption of the population of this city. He turns the cock on the first of January, and the first of July, in each year, and the public treasure is poured out to the public creditor from the reservoir, filled by the wisdom of congress. It is evident, from this just view of the matter, that congress, to which belongs the care of providing the ways and means, was as competent as the president to determine what portion of their constituents’ money could be applied to the improvement of their condition. As much of the public debt as can be paid, will be discharged in four years by the operation of the sinking fund. I have seen, in some late paper, a calculation of the delay which would have resulted, in its payment, from the appropriation to the Maysville road, and it was less than one week! How has it happened, that, under the administration ofMr.Adams, and during every year of it, such large and liberal appropriations could be made for internal improvements, without touching the fund devoted to the public debt, and that this administration should find itself baulked in its first year?

The veto message proceeds to insist, that the Maysville and Lexington road is not a national, but a local road, of sixty miles in length, and confined within the limits of a particular state. If, as that document also asserts, the power can, inno case, be exercised until it shall have been explained and defined by an amendment of the constitution, the discrimination of national and local roads would seem to be altogether unnecessary. What is or isnot a national road, the message supposes may admit of controversy, and is not susceptible of precise definition. The difficulty which its authors imagine, grows out of their attempt to substitute a rule founded upon the extent and locality of the road, instead of theuseandpurposesto which it is applicable. If the road facilitates, in a considerable degree, the transportation of the mail to a considerable portion of the union, and at the same time promotes internal commerce among several states, and may tend to accelerate the movement of armies, and the distribution of the munitions of war, it is of national consideration. Tested by this, the true rule, the Maysville road was undoubtedly national. It connects the largest body, perhaps, of fertile land in the union, with the navigation of the Ohio and Mississippi rivers, and with the canals of the states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York. It begins on the line which divides the state of Ohio and Kentucky, and, of course, quickens trade and intercourse between them. Tested by the character of other works, for which the president, as a senator, voted, or which were approved by him only about a month before he rejected the Maysville bill, the road was undoubtedly national.

But this view of the matter, however satisfactory it ought to be, is imperfect. It will be admitted, that the Cumberland road is national. It is completed no farther than Zanesville, in the state of Ohio. On reaching that point, two routes present themselves for its further extension, both national, and both deserving of execution. One leading northwestwardly, through the states of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, to Missouri, and the other southwestwardly, through the states of Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Alabama, to the Gulf of Mexico. Both have been long contemplated. Of the two, the southwestern is the most wanted, in the present state of population, and will probably always be of the greatest use. But the northwestern route is in progress of execution beyond Zanesville, and appropriations towards part of it, were sanctioned by the president at the last session. National highways can only be executed in sections, at different times. So the Cumberland road was and continues to be constructed. Of all the parts of the southwestern route, the road from Maysville to Lexington is most needed, whether we regard the amount of transportation and travelling upon it, or the impediments which it presents in the winter and spring months. It took my family four days to reach Lexington from Maysville, in April, 1829.

The same scheme which has been devised and practiced to defeat the tariff, has been adopted to undermine internal improvements. They are to be attacked in detail. Hence the rejection of the Maysville road, the Fredericktown road, and the Louisville canal. But is this fair? Ought each proposed road to be viewed separately and detached? Ought it not to be considered in connection with other great works which are in progress of execution,or are projected? The policy of the foes indicates what ought to be the policy of the friends of the power.

The blow aimed at internal improvements has fallen with unmerited severity upon the state of Kentucky. No state in the union has ever shown more generous devotion to its preservation and to the support of its honor and its interest, than she has. During the late war, her sons fought gallantly by the side of the president, on the glorious eighth of January, when he covered himself with unfading laurels. Wherever the war raged, they were to be found among the foremost in battle, freely bleeding in the service of their country. They have never threatened nor calculated the value of this happy union. Their representatives in congress have constantly and almost unanimously supported the power, cheerfully voting for large appropriations to works of internal improvements in other states. Not one cent of the common treasure has been expended on any public road in that state. They contributed to the elevation of the president, under a firm conviction, produced by his deliberate acts, and his solemn assertions, that he was friendly to the power. Under such circumstances, have they not just and abundant cause of surprise, regret, and mortification, at the late unexpected decision?

Another mode of destroying the system, about which I fear I have detained you too long, which its foes have adopted, is to assail the character of its friends. Can you otherwise account for the spirit of animosity with which I am pursued? A sentiment this morning caught my eye, in the shape of a fourth of July toast, proposed at the celebration of that anniversary in South Carolina, by a gentleman whom I never saw, and to whom I am a total stranger. With humanity, charity, and christian benevolence, unexampled, he wished that I might be driven so far beyond the frigid regions of the northern zone, that all hell could not thaw me! Do you believe it was againstme, this feeble and frail form, tottering with age, this lump of perishing clay, that all this kindness was directed? No, no, no. It was against the measures of policy which I have espoused, against the system which I have labored to uphold, that it was aimed. If I had been opposed to the tariff, and internal improvements, and in favor of the South Carolina doctrine of nullification, the same worthy gentleman would have wished that I might be ever fanned by soft breezes, charged with aromatic odors—that my path might be strewed with roses, and my abode be an earthly paradise. I am now a private man, the humblest of the humble, possessed of no office, no power, no patronage, no subsidized press, no postoffice department to distribute its effusions, no army, no navy, no official corps to chant my praises, and to drink, in flowing bowls, my health and prosperity. I have nothing but the warm affections of a portion of the people, and a fair reputation, the only inheritance derived from myfather, and almost the only inheritance which I am desirous of transmitting to my children.

The present chief magistrate has done me much wrong, but I have freely forgiven him. He believed, no doubt, that I had done him previous wrong. Although I am unconscious of it, he hadthatmotive for his conduct towards me. But others, who had joined in the hue and cry against me, had no such pretext. Why then am I thus pursued, my words perverted and distorted, my acts misrepresented? Why do more than a hundred presses daily point their cannon at me, and thunder forth their peals of abuse and detraction? It is not against me. That is impossible. A few years more, and this body will be where all is still and silent. It is against the principles of civil liberty, against the tariff and internal improvements, to which the better part of my life has been devoted, that this implacable war is waged. My enemies flatter themselves, that those systems may be overthrown by my destruction. Vain and impotent hope! My existence is not of the smallest consequence to their preservation. They will survive me. Long, long after I am gone, whilst the lofty hills encompass this fair city, the offspring of those measures shall remain; whilst the beautiful river that sweeps by its walls, shall continue to bear upon its proud bosom the wonders which the immortal genius of Fulton, with the blessings of Providence, has given; whilst truth shall hold its sway among men, those systems will invigorate the industry, and animate the hopes, of the farmer, the mechanic, the manufacturer, and all other classes of our countrymen.

People of Ohio here assembled—mothers—daughters—sons, and sires, when reclining on the peaceful pillow of repose, and communing with your own hearts, ask yourselves, if I ought to be the unremitting object of perpetual calumny? If, when the opponents of the late president gained the victory on the fourth of March, 1829, the war ought not to have ceased, quarters been granted, and prisoners released? Did not those opponents obtain all the honors, offices, and emoluments of government; the power, which they have frequently exercised, of rewarding whom they pleased, and punishing whom they could? Was not all this sufficient? Does it all avail not, while Mordecai, the Jew, stands at the king’s gate?

I thank you, fellow-citizens, again and again, for the numerous proofs you have given me of your attachment and confidence. And may your fine city continue to enjoy the advantages of the enterprise, industry, and public spirit of its mechanics and other inhabitants, until it rises in wealth, extent, and prosperity, with the largest of our Atlantic capitals.

Back to IndexNext