which may be considered extravagant, but in which history will fully bear me out, that we have no knowledge of any people where the power of arresting the improper acts of the Government, or what may be called the negative power of Government, was too strong, except Poland, where every freeman possessed a veto. But even there, although it existed in so extravagant a form, it was the source of the highest and most lofty attachment to liberty, and the most heroic courage: qualities that more than once saved Europe from the domination of the crescent and cimeter. It is worthy of remark, that the fate of Poland is not to be attributed so much to the excess of this negative power of itself, as to the facility which it afforded to foreign influence in controlling its political movements.

"I am not surprised that, with the idea of a perfect Government which the Senator from Massachusetts has formed-a Government of an absolute majority, unchecked and unrestrained, operating through a representative body-he should be so much shocked with what he is pleased to call the absurdity of the State veto. But let me tell him that his scheme of a perfect Government, as beautiful as he conceives it to be, though often tried, has invariably failed,-has always run, whenever tried, through the same uniform process of faction, corruption, anarchy, and despotism. He considers the representative principle as the great modern improvement in legislation, and of itself sufficient to secure liberty. I cannot regard it in the light in which he does. Instead of modern, it is of remote origin, and has existed, in greater or less perfection, in every free State, from the remotest antiquity. Nor do I consider it as of itself sufficient to secure liberty, though I regard it as one of the indispensable meansthe means of securing the people against the tyranny and

oppression of their rulers. To secure liberty, another means is still necessary-the means of securing the different portions of society against the injustice and oppressions of each other, which can only be effected by veto, interposition, or Nullification, or by whatever name the restraining or negative power of Government may be called."

The

He followed with a

This is quite enough of Mr. Calhoun's reply. I have read all of it that bears directly upon the main points in issue between them. On these points never was a man more completely answered than Mr. Webster was. argument is a crusher, an extinguisher, an annihilator! PROF. NORTON. Where is Mr. Webster's rejoinder? MR. STEPHENS. He made none. few remarks only, disavowing any personal unkind feelings to Mr. Calhoun, explaining how he had used the term "Constitutional Compact," in 1830; and attempting to parry one or two of the blows, but he never made any regular set reply or rejoinder. He never came back at his opponent at all on the real questions at issue. Mr. Calhoun stood master of the arena. This speech of his was not answered then, it has not been answered since, and in my judgment never will be, or can be answered while truth has its legitimate influence, and reason controls the judgment of men !

The power and force of this speech must have been felt by Mr. Webster himself. He was a man of too much reason and logic not to have felt it. This opinion I am the more inclined to from the fact, that he not only did not attempt a general reply to it at the time, but from the further fact, that in after life he certainly, to say the least of it, greatly modified the opinions held by him in that debate.

PROF. NORTON. To what do you refer?

MR. STEPHENS. I refer specially to a speech made by him before the Supreme Court of the United States, in 1839, and to his speech at Capon Springs, in Virginia, in 1851, as well as some other matters. But, if it is agreeable to all, we will suspend the investigation for the present, take our evening's walk, and resume the subject to-morrow. Reading aloud is much more exhausting than talking, even with the same tone of voice.

COLLOQUY IX.

SUBJECT CONTINUED-WEBSTER'S SPEECH BEFORE THE SUPREME COURTHIS LETTER TO BARING BROTHERS & CO-HIS CAPON SPRINGS SPEECHTHE SUPREME COURT ON STATE SOVEREIGNTY-INTERNATIONAL COMITY— DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE UNION OF THE STATES AND THE UNION OF ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND-EXPOSITION OF THE CONSTITUTION BY THE SENATE IN 1838-CALHOUN'S PRINCIPLES OF 1833 SUSTAINED BY TWO THIRDS OF THE STATES IN 1838-EXPOSITION OF THE CONSTITUTION BY THE SENATE IN 1860-JEFFERSON DAVIS.

PROF. NORTON. Well, Mr. Stephens, we are all ready to resume the subject we were last upon. That was the modification of Mr. Webster's opinions upon the issue between him and Mr. Calhoun in their great debate which we have been reviewing.

MR. STEPHENS. Yes, I have just looked up the argument of Mr. Webster, before the Supreme Court of the United States, to which I referred. I will first call your attention to that, and then some other expressions of opinion by him, bearing on the same subject. The case the Court had under consideration was the The Bank of Augusta vs. Earle. In this case the nature of the General Government and the nature of the State Governments in their relations to each other, came up for adjudication. This was in January, 1839, six years after the discussion with Mr. Calhoun in the Senate. Here is what he then said :*

"But it is argued, that though this law of comity exists as between independent Nations, it does not exist

*13 Peters's Reports, p. 559.

between the States of this Union. That argument appears to have been the foundation of the judgment in the Court below.

"In respect to this law of comity, it is said, States are not Nations; they have no National Sovereignty; a sort of residuum of Sovereignty is all that remains to them. The National Sovereignty, it is said, is conferred on this Government, and part of the municipal Sovereignty. The rest of the municipal Sovereignty belongs to the States. Notwithstanding the respect which I entertain for the learned Judge, who presided in that Court, I cannot follow in the train of his argument. I can make no diagram, such as this, of the partition of National character between the State and General Governments. I cannot map it out, and say, so far is National, and so far municipal; and here is the exact line where the one begins and the other ends. We have no second La Place, and we never shall have, with his Mechanique Politique, able to define and describe the orbit of each sphere in our political system with such exact mathematical precision. There is no such thing as arranging these Governments of ours by the laws of gravitation, so that they will be sure to go on forever without impinging. These institutions are practical, admirable, glorious, blessed creations. Still they were, when created, experimental institutions; and if the Convention which framed the Constitution of the United States had set down in it certain general definitions of power, such as have been alleged in the argument of this case, and stopped there, I verily believe that in the course of the fifty years which have since elapsed, this Government would have never gone into operation.

"Suppose that this Constitution had said, in terms after the language of the Court below-all National Sove