It is a striking fact, and as true as it is striking, that at this very moment, among all the principal civilized states of the world, that Government is most secure against the danger of popular commotion, which is itself entirely popular. It seems, indeed, that the submission of every thing to the public will, under Constitutional restraints, imposed by the people themselves, furnishes, itself, security that that will will desire nothing wrong.

Certain it is, that popular Constitutional liberty, as we enjoy it, appears, in the present state of the world, as sure and stable a basis for government to rest upon, as any government of enlightened states can find, or does find. Certain it is, that, in these times of so much popular knowledge, and so much popular activity, those governments which do not admit the people to partake in their administration, but keep them under and beneath, sit on materials for an explosion, which may take place at any moment, and blow them into a thousand atoms.

Gentlemen, let any man who would degrade and enfeeble the National Constitution-let any man who would nullify its laws, stand forth and tell us what he would wish. What does he propose? Whatever he may be, and whatever substitute he may hold forth, I am sure the people of this country will decline his kind interference, and hold on by the Constitution which they possess. Any one who would willingly destroy it, I rejoice to know, would be looked upon with abhorrence. It is deeply entrenched in the regards of the people. Doubtless, it may be undermined by artful and long-continued hostility; it may be imperceptibly weakened by secret attack; it may be insidiously shorn of its powers by slow degrees; the public vigilance may be lulled, and when it awakes, it may find the Constitution frittered away. In these modes, or some of them, it is possible that the Union of the States may be dissolved.

But if the general attention of the people be kept alive-if they see the intended mischief before it is effected-they will prevent it by their own sovereign power. They will interpose themselves between the meditated blow and the object of their regard and attachment. Gentlemen, next to the controlling authority of the people themselves, the preservation of the Government is mainly committed to those who administer it. If conducted in wisdom, it cannot but stand strong. Its genuine original spirit is a patriotic, liberal, and generous spirit; a spirit of conciliation, of moderation, of candor, and charity; a spirit of friendship, and not a spirit of hostility, with the States; a spirit, careful not to exceed, and equally careful not to relinquish, its just powers. While no interest can or ought to feel itself shut out from the benefits of the Constitution, none should consider those benefits as exclusively its own. The interests of all must be con

sulted, and reconciled, and provided for, as far as possible, that all may perceive the benefits of a united government.

Among other things, we are to remember, that, since the adop tion of the Constitution, new States have arisen, possessing already an immense population, spreading and thickening over vast regions, which were a wilderness when the Constitution was adopted. Those States are not like New York, directly connected with maritime commerce. They are entirely agricultural, and need markets for consumption, and they need, too, access to those markets. It is the duty of the Government to bring the interests of these new States into the Union, and incorporate them closely in the family compact. Gentlemen, it is not impracticable to reconcile these various interests, and so to administer the Government as to make it useful to all. It was never easier to administer the Government than it is now. We are beset with none, or with few, of its original difficulties; and it is a time of great general prosperity and happiness. Shall we admit ourselves incompetent to carry on the Government, so as to be satisfactory to the whole country? Shall we admit that there has so little descended to us of the wisdom and prudence of our fathers? If the Government could be administered in Washington's time, when it was yet new, when the country was heavily in debt, when foreign relations were threatening, and when Indian wars pressed on the frontiers, can it not be administered now? Let us not acknowledge ourselves so unequal to our duties.

Gentlemen, on the occasion referred to, it became necessary to consider the judicial power, and its proper functions under the Constitution. In every free and balanced government, this is a most essential and important power. Indeed, I think it is a remark of Mr. Hume, that the administration of justice seems to be the leading object of institutions of government; that Legislatures assemble, that armies are imbodied, that both war and peace are made, with a sort of ultimate reference to the proper administration of laws, and the judicial protection of private rights.-The judicial power comes home to every man. If the Legislature passes incorrect or unjust general laws, its members bear the evil as well as others. But judicature acts on individuals. It touches every private right, every private interest, and almost every private feeling. What we possess is hardly fit to be called our own, unless we feel secure in its possession; and this security, this feeling of perfect safety, cannot exist under a wicked, or even under a weak and ignorant administration of the laws. There is no happiness, there is no liberty, there is no enjoyment of life, unless a man can say, when he rises in the morning, I shall be subject to the decision of no unjust judge to-day.

But, Gentlemen, the judicial department, under the Constitution of the United States, possesses still higher duties. It is true

that it may be called on, and is occasionally called on, to decide questions, which are, in one sense, of a political nature. The General and State Governments, both established by the people, are established for different purposes, and with different powers. Between those powers, questions may arise; and who shall decide them? Some provision for this end is absolutely necessary. What shall it be? This was the question before the Convention; and various schemes were suggested. It was foreseen, that the States might inadvertently pass laws inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, or with acts of Congress. At least, laws might be passed, which would be charged with such inconsistency. How should these questions be disposed of? Where shall the power of judging, in cases of alleged interference, be lodged? One suggestion, in the Convention, was, to make it an executive power, and to lodge it in the hands of the President, by requiring all State laws to be submitted to him, that he might negative such as he thought appeared repugnant to the general Constitution. This idea, perhaps, may have been borrowed from the power exercised by the crown over the laws of the colonies. It would evidently have been not only an inconvenient and troublesome proceeding, but dangerous, also, to the powers of the States. It was not pressed. It was thought wiser and safer, on the whole, to require State Legislatures and State Judges to take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, and then leave the States at liberty to pass whatever laws they pleased, and if interference, in points of fact, should arise, to refer the question to judicial decision. To this end, the judicial power, under the Constitution of the United States, was made co-extensive with the legislative power. It was extended to all cases arising under the Constitution and the laws of Congress. The judiciary became thus possessed of the authority of deciding, in the last resort, in all cases of alleged interference, between State laws and the Constitution, and laws of Congress.

Gentlemen, this is the actual Constitution-this is the law of the land. There may be those who think it unnecessary, or who would prefer a different mode of deciding such questions. But this is the established mode, and, till it be altered, the courts can no more decline their duty, on these occasions, than on other occasions. But, Gentlemen, can any reasonable man doubt the expediency of this provision, or suggest a better? Is it not absolutely essential to the peace of the country, that this power should exist somewhere? Where can it exist, better than where it now does exist? The national judiciary is the common tribunal of the whole country. It is organized by the common authority, and its places filled by the common agent. This is a plain and practical provision. It was framed by no bunglers, nor by any wild

theorists. And who can say that it has failed? Who can find substantial fault with its operation or its results? The great question is, whether we shall provide for the peaceable decision of cases of collision. Shall they be decided by law, or by force? Shall the decisions be decisions of peace, or decisions of war?

On the occasion which has given rise to this meeting, the proposition contended for, was, that every State, under certain supposed exigencies, and in certain supposed cases, might decide for itself, and act for itself, and oppose its own force to the execution of the laws. By what argument, do you imagine, Gentlemen, it was, that such a proposition was maintained? I should call it metaphysical, and subtle; but these terms would imply at least ingenuity, and some degree of plausibility; whereas the argument appears to me plain assumption, mere perverse construction of plain language, in the body of the Constitution itself. As I understand it, when put forth in its revised and most authentic shape, it is this: that the Constitution provides that any amendments may be made to it, which shall be agreed to by three fourths of the States: there is, therefore, to be nothing in the Constitution to which three fourths of the States have not agreed. All this is true; but then comes this inference, viz. that when one State denies the constitutionality of any law of Congress, she may arrest its execution as to herself, and keep it arrested, till the States can all be consulted, by their Conventions, and three fourths of them shall have decided that the law is Constitutional. Indeed, the inference is still stranger than this; for State Conventions have no authority to construe the Constitution, though they have authority to amend it; therefore the argument must prove, if it prove any thing, that when any one State denies that any particular power is included in the Constitution, it is to be considered as not included, and cannot be found there, till three fourths of the States agree to insert it. In short, the result of the whole is, that, though it requires three fourths of the States to insert any thing into the Constitution, yet any one State can strike any thing out of it. For the power to strike out, and the power of deciding, without appeal, upon the construction of what is already in, are substantially and practically the same.

And, Gentlemen, what a spectacle should we have exhibited under the actual operation of notions like these! At the very moment when our Government was quoted, praised, and commended all over the world; when the friends of Republican Liberty, every where, were gazing at it with delight, and were in perfect admiration at the harmony of its movements, one State steps forth, and, by the power of nullification, breaks up the whole system, and scatters the bright chain of the Union into as many sundered links as there are separate States!

Seeing the true grounds of the Constitution thus attacked, I

raised my voice in its favor, I must confess, with no preparation, or previous intention. I can hardly say that I embarked in the contest from a sense of duty. It was an instantaneous impulse of inclination, not acting against duty, I trust, but hardly waiting for its suggestions. I felt it to be a contest for the integrity of the Constitution; and I was ready to enter into it, not thinking, or caring, personally, how I might come out.

Gentlemen, I have true pleasure in saying that I trust the crisis has, in some measure, passed by. The doctrines of nullification have received a severe and stern rebuke from public opinion. The general reprobation of the country has been cast upon them. Recent expressions of the most numerous branch of the National Legislature are decisive and imposing. Every where, the general tone of public feeling is for the Constitution. While much will be yielded every thing, almost, but the integrity of the Constitution, and the essential interests of the country-to the cause of mutual harmony, and mutual conciliation, no ground can be granted, not an inch, to menace, and bluster. Indeed, menace and bluster, and the putting forth of daring unconstitutional doctrines, are, at this very moment, the chief obstacles to mutual harmony, and satisfactory accommodation. Men cannot well reason, and confer, and take counsel together, about the discreet exercise of a power, with those who deny that any such power rightfully exists, and who threaten to blow up the whole Constitution, if they cannot otherwise get rid of its operation. It is matter of sincere gratification, Gentlemen, that the voice of this great State has been so clear and strong, and her vote all but unanimous, on the most interesting of these occasions, in the House of Representatives. Certainly such respect to the Union becomes New York. It is consistent with her interests and her character. That singularly-prosperous State-which now is, and is likely to continue to be, the greatest link in the chain of the Union-will ever be, it is to be hoped, the strongest link also. The great States which lie in her neighborhood agreed with her fully in this matter. Pennsylvania, I believe, was loyal to the Union, to a man; and Ohio raises her voice, like that of a lion, against whatsoever threatens disunion and dismemberment. This harmony of sentiment is truly gratifying. It is not to be gainsaid that the union of opinion, in this great central mass of our population, on this momentous point of the Constitution, augurs well for our future prosperity and security.

I have said, Gentlemen, what I verily believe to be true—that there is no danger to the Union, from open and avowed attacks on its essential principles. Nothing is to be feared from those who will march up boldly to their own propositions, and tell us that they mean to annihilate powers exercised by Congress. But, certainly, there are dangers to the Constitution, and we ought not to