affairs! Was there not prescience in it-the foresight, alike of the prophet and the patriot? But there is yet more, equally fruitful of prophetic warning and philosophic examination, in the prospective history of the country. "I have already intimated to you," says he, "the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitu tions of government; but, the constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all." Thus much upon Mr. Calhoun's first principle, and here we might well dismiss the controversy, for if the premises are controverted, the inference, of course, rests unsupported. But we will go farther, and demonstrate from expressions of Mr. Jefferson, too unequivocal to be for a moment misunderstood, that he deemed (what Mr. Calhoun denies) the "right of elec tion" to be a sufficient safeguard-that he knew of no other and that the minority principle found no supporter in him. We quote from his Inaugural Address of 1801, delivered two years after he penned his celebrated Kentucky Resolutions, from which he has been claimed as the corner stone of Nullification: with how much truth this extract will in some measure shew. In enumerating the "essential principles of our government, and consequently, those which ought to shape its administration," he mentions-a jealous care of the right of election by the people, a mild and safe corrective of abuses, which are lopped by the sword of revolution where peaceable remedies are unp.ovided: ABSOLUTE acquiescence in the decisions of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which there is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism."

Again-in dwelling upon them more at length, he says: These principles form the bright constellation,

which has gone before us, and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. The wisdom of our sages, and blood of our heroes have been devoted to their attainment:-they should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civic instructions, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust, and should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps, and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty and safety."

"Nor ought they to overlook, in considering the question, the different character of the claims of the two sides. The one asks from the Government no advantages, but simply to be let alone in the undisturbed possession of their natural advantages, and to secure which, as far as was consistent with the other objects of the Constitution, was one of their leading motives in entering into the Union; while the other side claims, for the advancement of their prosperity the positive interference of the Government. In such cases on every principle of fairness and justice, such interference ought to be restrained, within limits strictly compatible with the natural advantages of the other."

We unequivocally subscribe to the sentiment of the extract above, as just, and in the true spirit of the Constitution; but we cannot perceive its accordance with, at least, our version of the doctrine in question. It is an undisputed maxim in Law, Legislation and Politics-Conveniet nulli quad secum dissidit ipse"that when inconsistency can be clearly stamped upon any position, it is ipso facto fundamentally rotten and not to be relied on. We proceed to the test. The high toned, latitudinarian spirit of construction, which prevails in our federal legislature, authorizing every encroachment upon the rights of a minority that an overbearing majority may in their infallibility deem proper, has been justly complained of by the Republican States; and by none more clamorously than SouthCarolina. The practice of Congress on this point is so well known, that it is hardly necessary to advert to it.

They assume, in their omnipotency, a power, not expressly ceded to the charter, and refuse to yield it, unless three-fourths of the States, met in Convention, abrogate the assumption. That this is a disingenuous subterfuge, subscribing to the letter, but violating the spirit of the Constitution, South-Carolina has never ccased to exclaim. And yet, even by the varnished account of Gen. Hayne, this is the very method for the adoption of South-Carolina. She is to assume a doubtful power, and retain it unless forced to yield it to the mandate of three-fourths of a Convention. Here are the two horns of a dilemma-choose either and the case is the same. If this is not resorting to that most sophistical and uncandid mode of reasoning-viz. arguing in a circle-we must confess our utter inadequacy to determine what moral reasoning is. We call upon the supporters of this doctrine to leap over this barrier-io extricate their protege from between these two fires-from the talons of the Hawk, on the one hand, and the beak of the Buzzard, on the other.* We think that South-Carolina must either retract her malediction of the General Government, because of the assumption of doubtful powers, or admit, that her contemplated course is parallel, and equally unconstitutional. But we go further, and believe it can be shewn, that the doctrine is subversive of the very State Sovereignty it professes to support. We do not here intend, that Mr. Calhoun countenances, or even admits by implication this result; but it can be clearly deduced from language from a very high quarter, and is another proof of the vague and dangerous nature of the proposed remedy. We do not here, also, intend, that State Rights (eo nomine) are relinquished by the appeal to threefourths of the assembled Confederates, for what we term State Rights emanate from that source alone. Nor do we mean that State Sovereignty, which is in

The reader in here reminded of the vulgar adage—“Betwixt Hawk and Buzzard."

alienable, is yielded up. We simply mean to point out the inconsistency and disingenuousness of a doctrine, which professes to submit to the jurisdiction of a court of stockholders, rights that flow from nature, and can be relinquished only with life. This we are fully aware is a serious charge against the llifiers-men, many of them, of undoubted patrien and intelligence, and in whose ranks are arrayede of the most distinguished sons of Carolina, and the South. It is for this very reason, that we have so long intruded upon the patience of our readers. It is because they are strong, and are respectable, and are influential, that we have made an humble effort against, what we conceive, their honest errors, and unintentional haliucination. We feel no disposition to support the cause we have espoused, by branding our adversaries with the epithet Traitors" or "Disunionists." We believe the contrary;-wo be. lieve that both parties are true to their country, and that they are striving for what they believe, its political salvation. They differ only as regards the remedy. This, indeed, so far as the entire South is concerned, is the point of difference, yet in issue, and now for settlement; and this, by the way, is difference enough. But, let us to the point in hand, without further digression.

"Sovereignty," say they---Mr. Senator Hayne, among them--is a something too high and majestic to be submitted to the jurisdiction of a Court! God and our right hands are the only arbiters. Any other doctrine leads to abject submission." If this language means any thing-if it means to imply in the term Sovereignty, those prime essentials of civil and religious liberty which our forefathers fondly imagined they bequeathed to their children-we say with them. Their determination is ours, and we flatter ourselves that we should be among the very last to yield up, whatever the disparity of force, any portion, however slight, of that high patrimony. But how is Nullification consis

tent with a determination so made-with an obligation so imperative. The inconsistency is before us-sufficiently gross, and he who runs may read." The veto doctrine has little in it of this glorious and manful resolution. It is a poor device, and that must be indeed a beggarly sovereignty which looks to it for sustenance and shelter.

The remedy contended for. be it remembered is not final-is not absolute. It is conditional. It annuls the law not in toto-not forever-but only till three fourths of the State resort to it. They claim a sovereign, reserved, constitutional, right, and then yield it up. They give to three fourths of a Convention the unlimited, arbitrary, uncontrollable power of an Aulic Council, and pledge themselves to abide by its decree, however unjust and unconstitutional. They say, the Tariff Law is intolerable, it is grinding us to the dust, it is oppressive and unjust-it is a "deliberate, palpable and dangerous violation" of the Constitution-and we will nullify it. But if three-fourths met in Convention decide, that it is not so that BLACK IS WHITE, AND WHITE BLACK-that it is constitutional and politic, we will submit-thought it be intolerable--we are bound to submit.

If this is not yielding up the Sovereignty of the States and to the very worst hands too, we candidly confess our utter inability to understand the first and plainest. principles of logic. What has the South, and especially South-Carolina to hope from such a change in the Constitution? It has been justly said, that we contributed more than any people of America to build up the magnificent structure at Washington under whose weight we feel, or think, ourselves sinking. Let us not pull it in ruins over ourselves. If it must fall, let it bury our oppressors.

"No one," says Mr. Calhoun, "can have a higher respect for the maxim, that a majority ought to govern, than I have, taken in its proper sense, subject to the