the confidence that they would concur with that commonwealth, that the acts aforesaid," (the Alien and Sedition Laws) are unconstitutional and that the necessary and proper measures would be taken by each for co-operating with Virginia," &c. [Where is the necessity of "CO-OPERATION" between the States, if ONE State possessed the power to nullify and so SAFE, PEACEABLE and EFFICIENT a power too?] "It appears to your committee," (concludes the report,) "to be a plain principle," &c. "that the parties themselves must be the rightful judges in the last resort," &c. [Does not the very first blush of the affair furnish irrefragable proof? Not ONE. says the report, but ALL, or a REQUISITE NUMBER of the parties.] "Nullification by these sovereigntics," in General Convention: [Not by ONE sovereignty,] vide Report.

Considering this point, though of sufficient force in itself, in a comparative point of view, as of little import- . ance to the true merits of the question, we have argued it in the simplest manner. It was our object to take our adversaries upon their own ground; and we have, even there, as we believe, convicted them by their own showing-from the very resolutions upon which they have raised their fabric-of its shadowy instability. If, after reading this protest with the calm composure of men, regarding truth, and disregarding party. any one can believe it to have any other import than, that in the case of a dangerous exercise of powers, not granted, to the General Government, the States, acting collectively, may discard an oppressive Government, and substitute another in its stead, we must say of his commentary with BAYES in the CRITIC-Egad! the interpreter is the harder to be understood of the two."

To dwell upon Mr. Madison's (usually called the Virginia) Resolutions of '98, as a support of the Carolina Doctrine of the Veto, would be entirely unnecessary for two reasons. The case, according to our Nullifiers, must be one of a "deliberate, palpable and dange

rous violation" of the charter; such as they believe the Tariff of '28 to be. Now Mr. Madison expressly and unequivocally advocates the entire constitutionality of said law. How is this? Can we adopt his opinion in the one case and reject it with disdain in the other? Can any man of common honesty argue so shamelessly Found the circle? But our evidence is far from being merely presumptive. It is well known, that Mr. Ma dison denounces as the revery of moon-struck Politicians, the modern and partial construction of his draft, and disavows the doctrine of the Veto in every shape: that he protests against the perversion of his name and opinions, and regards in "mute astonishment" the newfangled remedy, which has been artfully misnamed the "Carolina Doctrine." The language, which, in his letter of June, 1830, to the Editor of the North American Review, he holds on this subject is not to be mistaken; and it was only at a period of time, in which "madness ruled the hour" that the clear and able productions, recently, of that distinguished statesman, could be set at nought, and charged upon him as the fruit either of a moral or mental imbecility, and indeed of both-an imputation, sufficiently answered by the history of the country, and the folly of which is too notorious and self evident to need remark or rebuke.

That the Legislature of Virginia," says the veteran statesman, "could not have intended to sanction such a doctrine (as that of Nullification in the sense in which it is understood by some of the South-Carolina politicians) is to be inferred, he says, "from the debates in the House of Delegates, and from the Address of the two Houses to their constituents, on the subject of the Resolutions. The tenor of the debates discloses no reference whatever to a constitutional right in an individual State to arrest by force the operation of a law of the United States-Concert among the States for redress against the Alien and Sedition Laws, as acts of usurped power, was a leading sentiment; and the attain.

ment of a concert, the immediate object of the course adopted by the Legislature, which was that of inviting the other States "to concur in declaring the acts to be unconstitutional, and to co-operate in the necessary and proper measures, in maintaining, unimpaired, the authorities, rights and liberties reserved to the States respectively, and to the people. That by the necessary and proper measures to be concurrently and co-operatively taken, were meant measures, known to the Constitution, particularly the ordinary control of the people and Legislatures of the States, over the Government of the United States, cannot be doubted."

He goes on to add-"It is worthy of remark, and explanatory of the intentions of the Legislature, “that the words not law, but, utterly, null, void and of no force and effect," which had followed in one of the Resolutions the word "unconstitutional," were struck out by common consent. Though the words were in fact synonymous with "unconstitutional," yet, to guard against a misunderstanding of this phrase as more than declaratory of opinion, the word "unconstitutional" alone was retained, as not liable to that danger. The Resolutions were Mr. Madison's and the fair inference is, that he knew something about them. It is to be supposed, that he knew their true meaning, and could put the correct construction upon them; but as the charge of inconsistency or duplicity, or both, to which we have already briefly referred, has been somewhat insisted upon by some of the illustrious obscures of our own day and region, it may be well, particularly as the means are in our power, to rebut the ungracious imputation.

In the session of the Virginia Assembly, following that when the resolves were passed, the responsive resolutions of the other States were referred to a committee, and from this committee Mr. Madison made his famous Report, reaffirming the principles of the resolutions of 1798. Towards the close of this Report,

he is led to inquire into the objections to the seventh resolution, and on this subject he speaks as follows:

"It is lastly to be seen, whether the confidence expressed by the resolution, that the necessary and proper measures would be taken by the other States, for co-operating with Virginia in maintaining the rights reserved to the States, or to the people, be in any degree liable to the objections which have been raised against it.

"If it be liable to objection, it must be because either the object or the means are objectionable.

"The object being to maintain what the Constitution has ordained, is in itself a laudable object.

The means are expressed in the terms, "the necessary and proper measures. A proper object was to be pursued, by means both necessary and proper.

"To find an objection, then, it must be shown that some meaning was annexed to these general terms, which was not proper; and, for this purpose, either that the means used by the General Assembly were an example of improper means, or that there were no proper means to which the terms could refer.

"In the example given by the State, of declaring the Alien and Sedition Acts to be unconstitutional, and of communicating the declaration to the other States, no trace of improper means has appeared. And if the other States had concurred in making a like declaration, supported too by the numerous applications flowing immediately from the people, it can scarcely be doubted, that these simple remarks would have been as sufficient, as they are unexceptionable.

"It is no less certain, that other means might have been employed, which are strictly within the limits of the Constitution. The Legislatures of the States might have made a direct representation to Congress, with a view, to obtain a rescinding of the two offensive acts; or, they might have represented to their respective Senators in Congress, their wish, that two-thirds thereof would propose an explanatory amendment to the Constitution; or two-thirds of themselves, if such had been their option, might by an application to Congress, have obtained a Convention for the same object.

"These several means, though not equally eligible in themselves, nor probably, to the States, were all constitutionally open for consideration. And if the General Assembly, after declaring the two acts to be unconstitution'

the first and most obvious proceeding on the subject, did not undertake to point out to the other States, a choico among the farther measures that might become quite necessary and proper, the reserve will not be misconstrued by liberal minds into any culpable imputation.

Here we see what sort of means were contemplated.They were first, declarations that the laws were unconstitutional; secondly, direct répresentations from the Legislatures of the States to Congress, to obtain the repeal of the laws; thirdly, requests to their Senators in Congress to propose an amendment of the Constitution; fourthly, a con currence of two thirds of the States to apply to Congress for a Convention to amend the Constitution. These are all the measures which Mr. Madison suggests, and he introduces them by saying, that they are all within the limits of the Constitution."

Independent, however, of these resolutions, the "Apostle of Liberty" has been claimed, from the expression of his private opinions, as the corner-stone of the doctrine. We put gentlemen We put gentlemen upon their resources and ask them when, and how, and where, Mr. Jefferson supported this doctrine? His letter to Mr. Rowan has been satisfactorily settled, as merely asserting the protecting influence of the Judiciary over the unconstitutional acts of Congress. But is it not enough to show that this truly great man never advocated such a papershame such unmanly and disingenuous subterfuge. We can also conclusively prove, that he pronounced his unequivocal denial of the existence of such a right. In December, 1825, not long before his death, Mr. Jefferson was consulted by Governor Giles, to ascertain the best mode of resisting the Congressional encroach. ments, which were becoming more and more alarming. We shall never forget the firm, direct and determined tone of his response. After deploring the invasions of the General Government, he continues and what is our resource for the preservation of the Constitution? Reason, and argument? You might as well reason with the marble pillar encircling them. Shall we then stand to our arms, with the hot-headel Georgian.