of Congress to protect manufactures, and that the actual prosperity of the country attests the wisdom of such acts. Resolved, as the sense of the Senate and House of Representatives, that any diminution of the protection now afforded to iron, would be impolitic and injudicious legislation. Resolved, as the sense of the Senate and House of Representatives, that the Constitution of the United States authorises, and experience sanctions, the twenty-fifth section of the act of Congress, of September, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine, and all others, empowering the federal judiciary to maintain the supreme laws. Resolved, as the sense of the Senate and House of Representatives, that whereas the bank of the United States, has tended in a great degree, to maintain a sound and uniform currency, to facilitate the financial operations of the government, to regulate foreign and domestic exchange, and has been conducive to commercial prosperity, the legislature of Pennsylvania recommends a renewal of its charter, under such regulations and restrictions, as to the power of the respective states, as Congress may deem right and proper. Resolved, as the sense of the Senate and House of Representatives, that as soon as the national debt shall be paid, the most equitable and just mode of disposing of the surplus funds which may remain in the treasury of the United States, after defraying the ordinary expenses of the government, and the payment of appropriations which may be made to objects of great national importance, will lay a distribution amongst the several states, in proportion to their representation in the Congress of the United States; and that the executive veto was properly exercised on the bill making an appropriation to the Maysville and Lexington Road. Progress of Nullification in South Carolina and 1830. While the citizens of South Carolina were unanimous in their opposition to the tariff law, they were not united in their support of the doctrine of nullification. As early as the fall of 1828 the "Friends of Union" began to organize, but did not prevent the adoption of the "exposition" of 1828. Hope of relief as a result of the election of Jackson for a time abated the excitement and postponed the issue. After an interval of a year, the theory of nullification was again brought to the front by Hayne in the great debate with Webster in the Senate in January, 1830. (Cong. Debates, 21 Cong., I sess., VI, Pt. I, 58-93; accessible reprints of extracts are in Elliot's Debates, IV, 496-519; MacDonald's Documents, 239-259; Johnson, Amer. Orations, I, 233-302; Amer. Hist. Leaflets, No. 30. For history of debate, Harris, 156-187; Houston, 86-96; Schouler, III, 482-491; McMaster, VI, ch. LIV; Thorpe, U. S., II, 389–397.) Jackson's veto of the Maysville Road bill, May 27, 1830 (Richardson's, II, 483-493), for the moment seemed to reassure the South, and his action was hailed with enthusiastic praise.1 Hayne declared "that it opened to the Southern States the first dawning of returning hope," and other prominent Southerners joined with him in the prediction that "the tariff will not long survive the death of internal improvement." (Niles, XXXVIII, 308–315, 319–321, 379.) With the opening of the summer there began in South Carolina a campaign for the calling of a convention to pronounce upon the question of nullification. "The State Rights and Union Party" opposed this project, and in their efforts they had the moral support of the President. (Letter of Jackson, Oct. 26, 1830, Penna. Mag. of Hist., XII, 277.) The notable speeches of Hayne and Governor Miller in favor of, and that of Drayton and the address of Senator Smith against nullification, clearly defined the issue between the two parties. Smith, who had drawn the first anti-tariff resolutions of 1824, was defeated for re-election to the United States Senate by Miller. (Niles, XXXVIII, 375, 380; XXXIX, 117-119, 243-248, 250; Hunt, in Pol. Sci. Quar. VI, 232-247.) In the Legislature a bill for the calling a convention failed to receive the necessary two-thirds vote. (Senate, yeas 23, nays 12; House, yeas, 60, nays 56. Niles, XXXIX. 304, 330.) However, a series of resolutions on federal relations, consisting of the first four paragraphs of the Virginia resolutions and the first paragraph of the Kentucky resolutions of 1798, prefixed to the following resolve were reported. All were 1 This veto had the effect of calling out new protests against internal improvement acts, or resolutions endorsing Jackson's position. The following are typical: Georgia, Dec. 22, 1830, Acts of Ga., 1830, 256; Ex. Doc., 2x Cong., 2 sess., II, No. 37; Dec. 24, 1832, approving Res. of Tenn., House Ex. Doc., 22 Cong., a sess., II, No. 91; Maine, March 30, 1831, and of Tenn., Sept. 20, 1831, in Four. of Penna. House of Rep., 1831-32, II, 31–39, 673; New Hampshire, June 22, 1832, Senate Doc., 22 Cong., 2 sess., I, No. 53. For counter replies, see ante, p. 158; also reply of Mass. to Tenn. and Ga., March 23, 1833, Res. of Mass., 1832– 34, 424-432. adopted, Dec. 17, 1830. (Acts of S. C., 1830, 59; Stat. at L., I, 303, 304; Niles, XXXIX, 305; Amer. Annual Reg., 1830-31, 253-255.) During the contest two letters of Madison's appeared denying that the resolutions of 1798 gave any sanction to the nullification doctrine. (No. Amer. Review, XXXI, 537-546 (1830); reprinted in Works, IV, 95-107; Elliot's Debates, IV, 600608; Niles, XLIII, sup., 25-28. For Governor Hamilton's comment see Niles, XL, 277; XLI, 101.) These resolutions of South Carolina, based on those of 1798, may be considered as their reply. For other letters of Madison for the years 1828-30, on the tariff and nullification, see Works, esp. III, 636-658, 663; IV, 5, 42-49, 61-66. 81. Extract from Resolutions of the Legislature, December 17, 1830. Resolved, That the several acts of the Congress of the United States now of force, imposing duties upon imports, for the protection of domestic manufactures, have been and are, deliberate and highly dangerous and oppressive violations of the constitutional compact, and that whenever any State, which is suffering under this oppression, shall lose all reasonable hope of redress from the wisdom and justice of the Federal Government, it will be its right and duty to interpose, in its sovereign capacity, for the purpose of arresting the progress of the evil occasioned by the said unconstitutional acts. Notes on the Tariff Controversy. 1831. The tariff controversy in 1831 was marked in the country at large by the holding of general conventions by the Free Traders and the Protectionists. Both had in view the influencing of legislation. "The Free Trade Convention" was held at Philadelphia, Sept. 30-October 7. Some two hundred delegates from fifteen States were in attendance. It adopted an address and appointed a committee to draw up a memorial to Congress. Gallatin prepared the latter. His motion to strike out that portion of the address which declared a protective tariff unconstitutional was rejected 35 to 159. The Journal of the Free Trade Convention, and their address to the People of the United States (Phila., 1831, 75 pp.), contain the proceedings; given also in Niles, XLI, 105-107, 135-141, 156-158, 166. The Memorial is given in Senate Doc., 22 Cong., I sess., I, No. 55; also in Taussig, State Papers and Speeches on the Tariff, 108-213 (Camb., 1892). "The Friends of Domestic Industry" assembled at New York, Oct. 26-Nov. 1. There were present nearly five hundred delegates from twelve States. They likewise issued an "Address to the People of the United States,' prepared various reports on different industries, and memoralized Congress. Their official publications were Journal of the Proceedings of the Friends of Domestic Industry, Hezekiah Niles, Principal Secretary (Baltimore, 1831, 44 pp.); Reports of Committees and Memorial to Congress (197 pp). The former is also published in Niles, XLI, 25, 180-192, 204-216; the latter forms the "Addendum" to Niles, Vol. XLI, 64 pp. While the national agitation was taking place the local contest in South Carolina between the Unionists and the Nullificationists witnessed important developments. During the summer and fall Calhoun prepared a series of papers, restating and elaborating the nullification doctrine. The first of these, "The Address on the Relation of the States and the Federal Government," appeared in July. (Works, VI, 59–94; Niles, XL, 437-445; Jenkins' Calhoun, 161-187.) This was followed later by "The Address to the People of South Carolina" (Works, VI, 122–144) and "The Report on Federal Relations" (Works, VI, 94-123). Both were prepared for members of the Legislature. The contest between "The Union and the States Rights Party" and "The States Rights and Free Trade Party was renewed. Both held rival celebrations on July 4 at Charleston. Certain portions of Jackson's letter in reply to an invitation to attend the dinner of the Union party called from the Legislature, when it assembled in December, the rejoinder given below. (Jackson's letter is given in Niles, XLI, 350, 351.) The report was adopted by a vote of 64 to 52 in the House, and 24 to 15 in the Senate. (Legislative Proceedings of S. C., 1831, 60, 61, 68, 69.) The text is given in Acts of S. C., 1831, 57-59; Stat. at L., I, 305-308; extract in Niles, XLI, 334, 335; for report first adopted by the Senate, see Ibid., 334, 335. The Legislature also adopted, Dec. 8, a resolution declaring that "on the tariff of protection and the rights of the states" "the opinion of the Legislature is unchanged." (Acts of S. C., 1831, 28.) A "Memorial of the members of the Legislature opposed to Nullification," in favor of a reduction of the tariff, signed by sixty-one members of the minority, was presented to Congress. (Senate Doc., 22 Cong., I sess., I, No. 34.) For other features of the local contest, see documents in Niles, XLI, 13, 65, 258, 259; Letters of Hayne and Hammond, 1830-34, Amer. Hist. Rev., VI, 736-765; VII, 92-119; Correspondence of Calhoun, Amer. Hist. Assoc. Rept., 1899, Vol. II. An unexcelled and almost unused source for tracing the activity of the Union Party are the papers of the Poinsett collection (MS.) in the Penna. Hist. Soc. Library. A selection from these is shortly to to be published, edited by Professor John B. McMaster. For secondary accounts consult Hunt, Article in Pol. Sci. Quar., VI, 232–243; Houston, 98-104; Stille, Life of Joel R. Poinsett, in Penna. Mag. of Hist., XII, esp. 257-279; Amer. Annual Reg., 1831-32, 32-36; Lalor, II, 10501055; McMaster, VI, ch. LVI. Of contemporary pamphlets published in the interest of the Union movement the following are of interest: The Tariff-Its True Character and Effect Practically Illustrated (Charleston, 1830, 52 pp.); National and State Rights Considered by the Hon. George McDuffie under the signature of One of the People, etc. (Charleston, 1830, 40 pp.); a reprint of his article of 1821. The same was reprinted in a Phila. (2d) edition under the title, Defence of a Liberal Construction of the Power of Congress, etc. (Phila., June, 1832). 82. Report of Legislature in Reply to Jackson's Letter of June 14, December 17, 1831. [Commenting on the letter the Report declares:] The Committee, therefore, cannot but regard it, as the annunciation to the world by the President of the United States, that there is a plan of disorganization existing in South Carolina, against which, as chief executive of the United States, he has resolved to present an unsurmountable barrier. The Committee finds it difficult to find language at once suitable to the occasion and the dignity of the House. * * Is this Legislature to be schooled and rated by the President of the United States? Is it to legislate under the sword of the Commander-in-Chief? Is the will of one man to be substituted for deliberation-and the enactments of this body to be fashioned by an edict from a President, not only avowing a right to annul a law when passed, but practically assuming the right to interpose while it is yet under discussion? The executive of a most limited government; the agent of an agency, but a part of a creature of the states, undertakes to prescribe a line of conduct to a free and sovereign State, under a denunciation of pains and penalties. It cannot but be esteemed a signal instance of forebearance, calmly to enquire into this assumed power of the President over the States. Under no part of the Constitution, or penal law of Congress, known to the Committee, is the crime of disorganization recognized or made punishable. It is to be lamented, that in denouncing a crime aud threatening punishment, the President had not used terms of more definite import. If by the vague generality of the word disorganization be intended, as the context may perhaps indicate, that a plan of disunion existed in this State, it will be equally difficult to fix upon any constitutional or legal authority, or anything in the nature of our institutions, which imposes any duty or grants any power to the President to prevent it. This is a confederacy of |