of surveying it, and in extending the jurisdiction of the State over it, in effect rendered it subject to the intrusion of any person.

The laws of the States thus came directly in conflict with those of the United States, and as the President had determined not to execute the law of Congress, when it conflicted with State sovereignty, he in that manner adopted the State laws as part of the national policy, and this bill thus passed by Congress, although not in

terms, yet in effect came in aid of the local policy of those three Southwestern States, sanctioned as that policy was, by the new Federal Administration.

The Cherokees, however, refused to acquiesce in this policy, and determined to maintain, by all the means in their power, their rights as guarantied by treaty.

In this unsettled, and unhappy condition they remained at the close of the period about which we are treating.

6*

THE tendency of the two parties, into which the American people were divided, to assume a local character has been noticed in the previous volumes of the Register, and it may be remarked as a general proposition, that the Southern States have, with the exception of South Carolina, been uniformly hostile to the exercise of power by the Federal Government. This State, although voting with the adjacent States on all local and on most national questions, had on some occasions, as in 1816, been foremost in asserting the right of Congress to legislate on certain disputed points. Among these were the subjects of Internal Improvement, the United States Bank and the Tariff. A change of opinion had now taken place there, and it began to go beyond any of the advocates of State rights, in its assertion of State sovereignty. A vehement opposition to the tariff, both in

1824 and on the subsequent modification in 1828, had been led by the talented delegation from South Carolina in Congress, and when they were defeated in the Halls of Legislation, with characteristic energy they renewed their efforts to overturn the system and to render it unpopular with the people.

At first it was contemplated on its passage to resign their seats in Congress; and a meeting of the delegation was held at Washington with the view of deciding upon the steps which should be taken. This proposition was discussed, together with that of declaring the law to be void and of no effect within the State, and the chances of a successful resistance to the Federal Government were freely canvassed.

The delegation, however, did not concur in adopting violent measures, and it was determined to endeavor upon their return home to

rouse their constituents to a more effectual opposition to the protecting system. No exertions were spared to excite public feeling against the law. It was denounced as a measure local in its character, partial and oppressive in its operation, and unconstitutional in principle.

Having convinced themselves of this, they began to question the right of the Federal Government to require obedience, and almost simultaneously with the legislature of Georgia, which, December 24th, 1827, resolved to submit only to its own construction of the Federal Compact; the Senate of South Carolina instituted a committee to inquire into the powers of the Federal Government, in reference to certain subjects then agitated.

The report of this committee, which received the sanction of the State Senate on the twelfth and of the House on the nineteeth of December, 1827, asserted that the Federal Constitution was a compact originally formed, not between the people of the United States at large, but between the people of the different States as distinct and independent sovereignties; and that when any violation of the letter or spirit of that compact took place, it is not only the right of the people, but of the State Legislatures to remonstrate against it; that the Federal Government was responsible to the people whenever it abused or injudiciously exercised powers intrusted to it, and that it was responsible to the State Legislatures, whenever it assumed powers not conferred.

Admitting that, under the Constitution a tribunal was appointed to decide controversies, where the United States was a party, the report contended that some questions must occur between the United States and the States, which it would be unsafe to submit to any judicial tribunal. The Supreme Court had already manifested an undue leaning in favor of the Federal Government; and when the Constitution was violated. in its spirit, and not literally, there was peculiar propriety in a State Legislature's undertaking to decide for itself, inasmuch as the Constitution had not provided any remedy.

The report then proceeded to declare all legislation for the protection of domestic manufactures to be unconstitutional, as being in favor of a local interest and that Congress had no power to legislate except upon subjects of general interest. The power to construct roads and canals, within the limits of a State, or to appropriate money for that purpose, was also denounced as unconstitutional, as was all legislation for the purpose of meliorating the condition of the free colored or the slave population of the United States.

On this last topic, it was intimated that no reasoning could take place between the United States and South Carolina. It was a question of feeling, too intimately connected with their tranquillity and safety to be discussed.

In remonstrating against these violations of the Constitution, the State should appear as a sovereign, and not as a suppliant before the National Legislature, and

resolutions, expressive of the approbation of the State Legislature of these principles, having passed both Houses, they were transmitted, with the report, to the delegation in Congress, to be laid before that body, then engaged in the consideration of the tariff.

That law having passed, the State Legislature, at the next session, sanctioned a protest, against it as unconstitutional, oppressive and unjust, which was transmitted to their Senators in Congress to be entered upon the journal of the Senate. This was done on the 10th of February, 1829. The change which took place in the Federal Government caused a belief that some satisfactory modification would be made of the tariff; and during the summer of 1829 the excitement appeared to be directed less against the administration and more concentrated against the law itself. The doctrine, however, of the fight of a State to nullify an act of Congress was not relinquished, although it seemed to be conceded that it would be best to attempt first to procure the repeal of the obnoxious law. In these opinions the State Government of Georgia fully concurred. . As a measure of policy, the tariff was equally unpopular, and the controversy respecting the Indians had been carried to that length, as to bring the State in collision with a law of Congress, and to induce the Legislature to declare that it should be disregarded and held void.

The Legislature of Virginia also declared its assent to the same principle of nullification by a vote

of 134 to 68; and judging from the opinions expressed by the public functionaries of those States, the time appeared to be near at hand when the Union was about to be dissolved by the determination of a large section not to submit to the laws of the Federal Government, nor to any common tribunal appointed to decide upon their constitutionality.

A check was indeed given to this spirit by the State of North Carolina, which, although not less averse to the policy of the tariff, declared itself against all violent measures in opposition to it.

The State of Alabama also in 1828, when remonstrating against the passage of the tariff, conceded the right of Congress to pass revenue laws, although the incidental effect might be to protect domestic manufactures. In 1829, indeed, it went farther and assumed nearly the same ground with Virginia, South Carolina and Georgia; still the qualified opposition first made to the law proved, that the South was not united in the unconstitutional stand taken by some of the States on that subject, and that the injustice and oppression which were so vehemently denounced, were not so plainly and generally felt as to render resistance to the tariff a popular step. Indeed it was doubted. whether the feelings of the people in the three States, which had declared in favor of nullification, were not misrepresented by the local legislatures. However decidedly they might have disapproved of the policy of protection, no sufficient evidence had yet been given that they deemed it a

greater evil than disunion, and the declarations and resolutions put forth by the State Governments were justly considered as the sudden ebullitions of violent feelings or as efforts on the part of leading men to excite a ternpest in the public mind for political effect. This movement was not rendered less dangerous by the motives of those who made it. When the storm began to rage, it would be impossible to control it. It might as easily break down the barriers of the Constitution and overturn the government, as annul an unpopular law. The federative principle of the Constitution and the whole authority of Congress and of the Federal Judiciary were put in issue by the question now started, and however unwilling the leaders might be to destroy the Union; still experience had too clearly shown the difficulty of restraining an excited people, not to create apprehension as to the result of these efforts to throw off the authority of the General Government. Similar movements in another portion of the Union, also originating in local interests, and aiming at an extension of State sovereignty, to the detriment of the just claims of the Federal Government, gave additional ground for these apprehensions. Efforts had been made of late years in some of the Western States, to induce thern to claim, under pretence of their rights as sovereign States, the public lands belonging to the United States within their several limits.

The lands, forming the public domain of the country, were acquired by the Federal Government in two modes.

The portion west of the Mississippi, forming much the larger part is held under the Louisiana treaty, having been acquired by purchase from France. The residue was acquired at the treaty of 1783, the fruits of conquest from the crown of Great Britain. Several of the States set up claims to these lands, then lying beyond the farthest frontier settlements and west of the Alleghanies and inhabited only by Indian tribes; but after some dispute these claims were relinquished (New York setting the example) and the right of the United States acknowledged to all these lands, which were divided into the Northwest and Southwest or Mississippi terri

tories.

Out of these territories, new States have been from time to time erected and admitted into the Union under certain conditions. and stipulations inserted in the act of Congress, authorizing the inhabitants to form constitutions. These States have been settled chiefly by emigrants from the old thirteen States and the titles to their land have been derived mostly from the United States. Prior to the adoption of the Federal Constitution, but few sales had been made.

Three large tracts were sold, one called the triangle, north of Pennsylvania, east of Ohio and west of New York, on lake Erie, consisting of 202,187 acres, which was sold to the State of Pennsylvania, September 4th, 1778; one tract on the Ohio and Muskingum rivers, to the Ohio company, originally containing two million acres, but afterwards reduced by consent to 964,285 acres; and a