all, that they do not want to pay allegiance
to. What does "Government' 'mean? Web-
ster defines it to be "that organization in
which the political power rests." It is " the
political being; capable," as lie says, "of
having a will, and having the power to exer-
cise that will." That is Mr. Webster's defi-
nition; and to be exact about it, I will read
it from his speeches. Some of these gentle-
men used to be of the school of Mr. Webster,
I do not know what has come over them
lately, but they seem now to be repudiating
all that he ever said or did.
"The government of a State is that organ-
ization in which the political power resides.
It is the political being created by the Con-
stitution or fundamental law. The broad
and clear difference between a government
and a league or compact, is, that a govern-
ment is a body politic; it has a will of its
own; and it possesses powers and faculties to
execute its own purposes. Every compact
looks to some power to enforce its stipula-
tions."
Gentlemen do not want to swear allegiance
to that government, and do not want to say
in the Constitution whether they owe allegi-
ance to it or not, because there may be a con-
flict between the State and the Government.
If so, I wish to say in an organic law, that
the allegiance is due first to the General
Government.
But that is not the difficulty. Gentlemen
would be willing to swear allegiance to the
Constitution of the United States as the su-
preme law of the land, and the laws made in
pursuance thereof, provided each State had
the right to decide for itself 'whether they
were made in pursuance thereof. When we
say we owe paramount allegiance to the Gov-
ernment,. we mean to the laws made by Con-
gress, which are the laws of the land until
the Supreme Court of the United States de-
cides that they are not. We mean to be
held by this; and we want to put it into oar
Constitution, that we owe allegiance to the
laws of the United States, as made by the
Congress of the United States, and that the sep-
arate States are not to construe the laws, or
to say what laws are and what laws are not
in pursuance of the Constitution of the Uni-
ted States. It is as plain as daylight that
that is the doctrine of the Constitution.
What does the Constitution say in reference
to the Supreme Court? It says of the Su-
preme Court of the United States ;
"The judicial power shall extend to all
cases in law and equity arising under the Con-
stitution, the laws of the United States," &c.
The Constitution of the United States then
says upon its face what we ask the gentlemen
to say. When laws are passed by Congress,
those laws are presumed to be in conformity
with the Constitution of the United States,
until the department especially created to
decide upon those laws, shall decide to the |
contrary. Have not the gentlemen a fair
chance before the Supreme Court? As Mr.
Stephens said, they have had the majority of
the Court for I know not how many years.
They had the large majority of the judges,
and the control of the Supreme Court even at
the time of this great revolution. Gentlemen
do not object to the Supreme Court when
Judge Taney decides a habeas corpus or a
Dred Scott case. It is all right then, and
gentlemen appeal to this great power. But
one gentleman from Prince George's, (Mr.
Belt, ) went so far as to say that the Supreme
Court of the United States was of no authority
in questions of this sort, because it was an
arm of the Government created by the Gov-
ernment, and could not decide upon questions
relating to the Government, or if it did, it
was a tyrannical usurpation. That is going
agreat deal farther than Calhoun ever went.
He utterly ignores the power and jurisdiction
of the Supreme Court. It was necessary for
him to ignore it in order to sustain the States'
Rights doctrine; for I shall proceed presently
to show not only that the Constitution bears
these internal proofs of its own power, but that
this is a consolidated Government with power
to coerce if it shall become necessary. When
we come to the decisions of the Supreme
Court, the whole becomes plain as daylight,
for they describe the power of this Govern-
ment and declare it to be a sovereign power;
that within their own spheres, but merely
within them, the States have the power to
rule and to regulate
Now let me show for a moment, that the
very doctrines gentlemen are now advocating
are Calhoun's doctrines. They are no new
doctrines. I wish to read Mr. Calhoun's
resolutions, upon which Mr. Webster made
his great speech; and I will stake my rep-
utation upon the point, that they not only
coincide with the doctrines now urged, in
the main, but that they do not go quite so
far as some of them. They may be found in
vol. 3 of the Works of Daniel Webster, p. 448.
" Resolved," &c., " That whenever the Gen-
eral Government assumes the exercise of pow-
ers not delegated by the compact, its acts are
unauthorized, and are of no effect, and that
the same Government is not made the final
judge of the powers delegated to it,"—
That is Mr. Belt's doctrine.
—"since that would make its discre-
tion, and not the Constitution, the measure
of its powers; but that as in all other cases
of compacts among sovereign parties, without
any common judge,"—
And I understood the other gentleman
from Prince George's, (Mr. Clarke,) to say
that we bad no common arbiter.
—"each has an equal right to judge for
itself, as well of the infraction as of the mode
and measure of redress."
" Resolved, That the assertions, that the peo-
ple of these United States taken collectively |
