nicate the foregoing Preamble and Resolutions to the Governor of the State, with a request that they be communicated to the Legislature of that State, or any Convention of its citizens, or give them such other directions as in his judgment may be best calculated to promote the objects which this Commonwealth has in view; and that the said Commissioner be authorized to express to the public authorities and people of our sister State, in such manner as he may deem most expedient, our sincere good will to our Sister State, and our anxious solicitude that the kind and peaceful recommendations we have addressed to her, may lead to an accommodation of all the difficulties between that State and the General Government. [Resolutions of transmission.]

92.

South Carolina's Final Action.
March 18, 1833.

As South Carolina continued her preparations for resistance to force (see call for volunteers, Niles, XLIII, 312), and the President showed his determination to enforce the tariff laws in his special message of January 16, 1833, an armed conflict seemed imminent as the critical date, February 1, drew near. Owing to the failure of the other Southern States to support South Carolina, and the indications that Congress would adopt a Force Bill, as well as the prospect of a modification of the tariff, the leading nullificationists determined to avoid a resort to force. Accordingly, a meeting of citizens at Charleston, January 21, informally suspended the nullification ordinance pending the action of Congress. (Niles, XLIII, 380-382.) At the solicitation of the Commissioner from Virginia, B. W. Leigh, who presented the resolutions of the Legislature of that State, the President of the Convention, James Hamilton, Jr., on February 13, issued a call for the reassembling of that body on March 11. Before the Convention met, Congress, after a notable discussion, adopted both the Force Bill and the Compromise Tariff Bill. (For speeches of Webster and Calhoun of February 15 and 16, on nullification and the Force Bill, see Cong. Debates, 553-587, 750-774; Webster, Works, III, 448-505, Calhoun, Works, II, 197-309; Johnson, Amer. Orations, I, 303-319. The text of the Force Act is in U. S. Stat. at L., IV, 632-635; reprinted in MacDonald, 284-289.) At the second session of the South Carolina Convention the ordinance nullifying the tariff laws was repealed March 15, but a new ordinance nullifying the "Force Bill ” was adopted March 18. The text of the new ordinance, which follows, is found in S. C. Stat. at L., I, 400, 401; Acts of S. C., 1834, Appx. ii. The Journal of the second session of the Convention (Columbus, 1833) is reprinted

in State Papers on Nullification, 321-375. The important documents are also given in S. C. Stat. at L., I, 377-389. The correspondence of B. W. Leigh and the Reply of the Convention to Virginia are also contained in the above; see also ante, p. 185. For South Carolina's celebrations and comments upon the result of the controversy see Niles, XLIV, 58, 89, 107, 114, 126 128, 383; XLV, 23, 129. Gov. Hayne's message of congratulation of November 26, 1833, is in Legislative Proceedings, 1833, 1–8.

An Ordinance

To Nullify an Act of the Congress of the United States, entitled "An Act further to provide for the Collection of Duties on Imports," commonly called the Force Bill.

We, the People of the State of South Carolina in Convention assembled, do Declare and Ordain, that the Act of the Congress of the United States, entitled "An Act further to provide for the collection of duties on imports," approved the second day of March, 1833, is unauthorized by the Constitution of the United States, subversive of that Constitution, and destructive of public liberty; and that the same is, and shall be deemed, null and void, within the limits of this State; and it shall be the duty of the Legislature, at such time as they may deem expedient, to adopt such measures and pass such acts as may be necessary to prevent the enforcement thereof, and to inflict proper penalties on any person who shall do any act in execution or enforcement of the same within the limits of this State.

We do further Declare and Ordain, That the allegiance of the citizens of this State, while they continue such, is due to the said State; and that obedience only, and not allegiance, is due by them to any other power or authority, to whom a control over them has been, or may be delegated by the State; and the General Assembly of the said State is hereby empowered, from time to time, when they may deem it proper, to provide for the administration to the citizens and officers of the State, or such of the said officers as they may think fit, of suitable oaths or affirmations, binding them to the observance of such allegiance; and abjuring all other allegiance; and, also, to define what shall amount to a violation of their allegiance, and to provide the proper punishment for such violation.

The North-Eastern Boundary Controversy.

1831-32.

The States of Maine and Massachusetts were very much alarmed for fear that the recommendations of the King of Holland, arbitrator in the North Eastern boundary controversy, would be accepted. This would have deprived Maine of a considerable portion of the territory she claimed, and Massachusetts of the ownership of certain tracts of lands. Accordingly the Legislatures of both States passed resolutions protesting against the decision, and declaring that its acceptance would be null and void. The award was not accepted, and subsequently the boundary was determined by the Webster-Ashburton treaty (Treaties and Conventions, 432-438.) For other reports, resolves and additional documents, see Resolves of Maine, 1820-28, 659–797; Ibid., 1829-35, 243-246, 449-500; Resolves of Mass., 1832-35, 76-97; see also Amer. An. Reg., 1826-27, 438-440; Ibid., 1830-31, 306–316; Ibid., 1831-32, 229–234; Niles, XLI, 227, 228; XLII, 100-104, 460-464; McMaster, V, 463-476; Thorpe, Const. Hist. of Amer. People, I, 340, 341, note.

93. Extract from Resolutions of the Legislature of the State of Maine, January 19, 1832.

Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States does not invest the General Government with unlimited and absolute powers, but confers only a special and modified sovereignty, without authority to cede to a foreign power any portion of territory belonging to a State, without its consent.

Resolved, "That if there is an attribute of State Sovereignty which is unqualified and undeniable, it is the right of jurisdiction to the utmost limits of State Territory; and if a single obligation under the Constitution rests upon the Confederacy, it is to guarantee the integrity of this territory to the quiet and undisturbed enjoyment of the States."

Resolved, That the doings of the King of Holland, on the subject of the boundary between the United States and Great Britain, are not a decision of the question submitted to the King of the Netherlands; and that his recommendation of a suitable or convenient line of boundary is not obligatory upon the parties to the submission.

Resolved, That this State protests against the adoption, by the Government of the United States, of the line of boundary recommended by the King of Holland as a suitable boundary between Great Britain and the United States; inasmuch as it

191] THE NORTH-EASTERN BOUNDARY CONTROVERSY

59

will be a violation of the rights of Maine,-rights acknowledged and insisted upon by the General Government,—and will be a precedent, which endangers the integrity, as well as the independence, of every State in the Union.

Resolved, That while the people of this State are disposed to yield a ready obedience to the Constitution and laws of the United States, they will never consent to surrender any portion of their territory, on the recommendation of a Foreign Power. [Resolves of Maine, 1829-35, 343.]

94. Extracts from Resolutions of Massachusetts,
February 15, 1832.

Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives, in General Court assembled, that the Government of the United States possesses the constitutional right to ascertain and settle; by negotiation with foreign powers, arbitration, or otherwise, such parts of the boundary lines of the said States, as were left doubtful by the Treaty of Peace of 1783, but that the said Government does not possess the constitutional right to alter, by negotiation with foreign powers, arbitration, or otherwise, the boundary lines of the said States so far as the same were ascertained and settled by the said treaty, to the prejudice of the territorial or other rights of any State, without the consent of such State previously obtained.

*

Resolved * that the Government of the United States, in permitting the same to be made a question by the said Commissioners, and to be by them submitted to the arbitration of the King of the Netherlands, without the consent of Massachusetts and Maine previously obtained, exceeded its constitutional powers, and that any decision which the said King might have given upon said question, would have been entirely null and void, for want of constitutional power in the Government of the United States to make the submission.

Resolved, That the Government of the United States has no constitutional right to cede any portion of the territory of the States composing the Union to any foreign power, or to deprive any State of any land, or other property without the consent of

such State, previously obtained; and that the adoption of the aforesaid new boundary line, recommended, as aforesaid, by the King of the Netherlands, without the consent, previously obtained, of the States of Massachusetts and Maine, would be a violation of the rights of jurisdiction and property, belonging respectively to the said States, and secured to them by the Federal Constitution; and that any act, purporting to have such effect, would be wholly null and void, and in no way obligatory upon the Government or People of either of the said States.

Resolved, That as the adoption, by the Government of the United States, of the aforesaid new boundary line, so recommended by the said King of the Netherlands, would deprive the Commonwealth of Massachusetts of large tracts of land, without equivalent, it is not expedient for the said Commonwealth to give consent thereto; and that the General Court hereby solemnly protest against such adoption, declaring, that any act, purporting to have such effect, will have been performed without the consent of the Commonwealth, and in violation of the rights thereof, as secured by the Federal Constitution, and will be consequently null and void and in no way obligatory upon the Government or people.

Resolved, That the General Court have received with satisfaction the communication made to them through His Excellency the Governor, from the Government of the State of Maine, of the proceedings of the said Government, upon this subject;that they reciprocate the friendly sentiments, which have been expressed on this occasion, by that Government, and will readily and cheerfully coöperate with the State of Maine, in such measures as shall be best calculated to prevent the adoption, by the Government of the United States, of the new boundary line recommended, as aforesaid, by the King of the Netherlands.