UNITED STATES BANK-FOOT'S RESOLUTION.

663

XLVIII

though they acted in accordance with the law of the land, CHAP. as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States, in refusing to take the oath of allegiance to the State.

Chief Justice Marshall, in pronouncing the opinion of the court, declared the act of the State to be "repugnant to the Constitution, treaties and laws of the United States; and therefore void, and ought to be reversed and annulled," and the prisoners discharged. Yet these men obtained no redress on their appeal to the General Government. either for themselves or the Indians.

When at length liberated from prison, the missionaries accompanied the Indians to their distant homes beyond the Mississippi, there to labor for their good.

The President, in his first message to Congress, intimated his hostility to the Bank of the United States, and his design of refusing his signature to any bill renewing its charter.

However, when the stockholders of the Bank applied to Congress, a bill to renew its charter passed both Houses, and the President refused to sign it. He gave, as a reason, his opinion that Congress had no constitutional authority to charter such an institution, and moreover he deemed it inexpedient to continue the Bank.

As the bill could not obtain the requisite two-thirds vote to become a law, the Bank was forced to close its affairs, when its charter should expire.

1829.

1836.

Senator Foot, of Connecticut, submitted a resolution of inquiry as to the disposal of the public lands. The de- 1830. bate on the resolution took a wide range, in the course of which the young and brilliant Senator, Robert Y. Hayne, of South Carolina, avowed the opinion that any State had a right, as a sovereign power, to declare null and void any act of Congress, which that State deemed unconstitutional. 'This was the first time that the doctrine of nullification

UNITED STATES BANK-FOOT'S RESOLUTION.

663

XLVIII

though they acted in accordance with the law of the land, CHAP. as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States, in refusing to take the oath of allegiance to the State.

Chief Justice Marshall, in pronouncing the opinion of the court, declared the act of the State to be "repugnant to the Constitution, treaties and laws of the United States; and therefore void, and ought to be reversed and annulled,” and the prisoners discharged. Yet these men obtained no redress on their appeal to the General Government. either for themselves or the Indians.

When at length liberated from prison, the missionaries accompanied the Indians to their distant homes beyond the Mississippi, there to labor for their good.

The President, in his first message to Congress, intimated his hostility to the Bank of the United States, and his design of refusing his signature to any bill renewing its charter.

However, when the stockholders of the Bank applied to Congress, a bill to renew its charter passed both Houses, and the President refused to sign it. He gave, as a reason, his opinion that Congress had no constitutional authority to charter such an institution, and moreover he deemed it inexpedient to continue the Bank.

As the bill could not obtain the requisite two-thirds vote to become a law, the Bank was forced to close its affairs, when its charter should expire.

1829.

1836.

Senator Foot, of Connecticut, submitted a resolution of inquiry as to the disposal of the public lands. The de- 1830. bate on the resolution took a wide range, in the course of which the young and brilliant Senator, Robert Y. Hayne, of South Carolina, avowed the opinion that any State had a right, as a sovereign power, to declare null and void any act of Congress, which that State deemed unconstitutional. 'This was the first time that the doctrine of nullification

XLVIII.

CHAP, had been openly maintained in the councils of the nationthe sentiments rather of Calhoun the Vice-President than 1832. of the speaker himself: a doctrine based upon the assumption that the National Government was a compact between the States, and that any of them could at pleasure recede from the Union.

Daniel Webster at once pointed out the injurious results to the Union if these principles were acted upon.

This debate, continued for several days, and not only from the masterly manner in which it was conducted, but from the influence it exerted upon the minds of the American people, was one of the most important that ever occurred in the Halls of Congress. Webster clearly exposed the fallacy of the argument adduced to prove that the National Government was a compact of sovereign, independent States; or that any of them were at liberty to withdraw from the Union, without the consent of the others. On the contrary, he urged that the Constitution was the work of the people themselves, not as members of each independent State, but as members of all the States; and that the Supreme Court was the tribunal authorized to decide in cases of conflict between the States and the General Government. Says the venerable Chancellor Kent in reference to the discussion, and especially Webster's speech: "It turned the attention of the public to the great doctrines of national rights and national union. Constitutional law was rescued from the archives of our tribunals and the libraries of our lawyers, placed under the eye, and submitted to the judgment of the American people." And heartily did they respond to the sentiment that the "Union must be preserved." The importance of the subject awakened an intense interest in the nation, and the reports of the discussion were read and commented upon by millions. This debate really settled the question of nullification; and its influence upon the public mind

REVISION OF THE TARIFF-NULLIFICATION.

665

XLVIII

created a moral power which gave a death-blow to the CHAP. dangerous design then in existence.

1832.

Congress, in revising the tariff, instead of diminishing, increased the duties on many articles. This gave still July. greater offence to the cotton-growing States, who complained, that they in consequence paid exorbitant prices, especially for cottons and woollens. The question became in some respects a sectional one. The North on the one hand had accommodated her industry to manufactures; she had acquired skill, and was unwilling to sacrifice this and also an immense amount of invested capital. She thought it unjust that her interests should be injured, if not ruined, by a change of the policy under which she had been compelled to turn her attention to that particular sphere of industry. On the other hand, the South, pointing to her exhausted fields, especially in the Atlantic States, and their diminution of population, exclaimed: See what the tariff has done! Says McDuffie of South Carolina, on the floor of Congress: "Look, sir, at the present aspect of the Southern States. In no part of Europe will you see the same indications of decay. Deserted villages, houses falling to ruin, impoverished lands thrown out of cultivation." The reason that the South did not derive benefit from the imposition of a tariff was admitted by Hayne himself. "The slaves," said he in the Senate," are too improvident, too incapable of minute, constant, delicate attention, and the persevering industry which is essential to the success of manufacturing establishments." Similar sentiments were expressed by other members of Congress.

The States of Virginia, Georgia and South Carolina were the most opposed to the measure, but only the latter took the responsibility of openly resisting the collection of duties imposed by this law of Congress. She published an ordinance to that effect, and denied the authority of