Mr. Kane suggested a modification of the amendment, so as to extend it to the limitation of all suits arising under the act which shall be pending at its expiration.

Mr. Forsyth accepted the modification. He did not look at the propriety or impropriety of other provisions of the bill, as a permanent and general measure. He viewed them only as applicable to a particular state of things. He did not like the judicial provisions. They were more objectionable than the military provisions, in his opinion.

Mr. Webster briefly noticed the effects of this amendment. The provisions of the bill which it was now proposed to limit, were the judicial processes intended to counteract those of the state of South Carolina. The provisions of that state were permanent in their character; and if the provisions of this bill were to be limited, after the expiration of that limit, there would be no remedy in existence against the measures of the state. He was quite willing that the sections, placing in the hands of the executive the military force, should be limited to the termination of the next session; but the proceedings of the courts, intended to countervail those of the courts of South Carolina, ought not to be limited, as the provisions of S. Carolina were unlimited. To limit these provisions to a single year, would be to defeat the object altogether, as there are certain proceedings to which they refer, which cannot arise within the year. The bill

would always be within the reach of congress to amend or repeal, whenever it might be deemed proper so to do. If any limitation were to be fixed, he would prefer to make it for a longer period. He desired to see these judicial provisions established as a part of our permanent system; and he believed, that had such been the case bcfore, this contingency would never have occurred. He hoped the amendment would not prevail.

Mr. Calhoun asked if he had understood the senator from Georgia, as stating that his colleague had acquiesced in the judicial provisions of the bill? He said that he should vote for this amendment; but he believed that every part of the bill was a violation of the constitution, and that it was all throughout, liable to the strongest objections.

Mr. Forsyth said, that what he understood was, that the senator from South Carolina had principally objected to the provisions of the bill which were most directly warlike in their character; and had regarded the provisions providing for countervailing civil process as less odious. He regarded the objections of the senator from Massachusetts as applicable as well to the other provisions of the bill, as those now under consideration. For himself, he did not wish to view the bill, in any of its provisions, as a permanent measure. He had no desire to blend it into the permanent judicial system of the country. If it should ever be the desire of

Mr. Grundy stated, that the senator from South Carolina was more competent than any other person to determine whether or not there would be any necessity for the employment of force. If the authorities of the state of South Carolina should offer resistance to the laws, then would arise the necessity for the employment of force. But he was of opinion, that unless it was produced by the act of South Carolina, there would be no collision; and no expenditure would be necessary, unless there should be collision. The committee hoped that no such collision would arise; but if it should, provision could be made for the expenditure by the next

congress.

Mr. Calhoun said that the whole of this business indicated an unsoundness of legislation. The bare possibility of a collision ought to be deemed sufficient to induce the committee to make the appropriation. Unsound legislation ! He had never seen any instance of a nation hurrying so rapidly towards a state of despotism. The gentleman had said that there would be no expenditure unless resistance should be commenced by South Carolina. What did the senator mean by resistance? It would be seen that in this bill, the president had the power to interrupt the civil process in the state courts. Did the senator suppose that the state of South Carolina would acquiesce in this interruption? No! If the president had the power to interrupt the process,

he would also have the power to close the courts, and to close the hall of legislation. He might treat the legislature as a lawless assemblage, and what course, then, could be left to the state but resistance? She would be forced into resistance. Yes, she would be thus compelled to resist. But the question of time was a far different question. He thanked God that this question was in other hands to decide. South Carolina, in deciding this question, would make the issue with a deliberate judgment, but with irresistible firmness. He was amazed at the course which had been taken. The provisions of this bill went beyond any thing he could have conceived. He would reverse the argument of the senator from Tennessee, and say there could be no collision, unless it proceeded from the conduct of the general government.

Mr. Smith referred to the course which had been pursued, in reference to the dispute with Pennsylvania, when similar powers were vested in the president, and the military force was called out. An appropriation was made at the following session to defray the expenditures caused by that disturbance. He did not apprehend the occurrence of any war. He believed that the very first section of the bill put it out of the power of South Carolina to go to war. There could be no fighting, as a sufficient guard was provided against the state of South Carolina getting hold of any property which could produce such an evil.

The question was then taken, and decided as follows:

Yeas, 5; nays, 41.

A motion was then made by Mr. Bibb, to limit the expenditure under the bill to $3,000,000, which was negatived; ayes 4; nays 38.

Mr. Bibb then moved an amendment, to authorize a defendant in any action under the second section, to take issue upon the question, whether the tariff of 1832 was enacted as a revenue act, or as a protecting act and certain other amendments, altering materially the

character of the bill; but they were negatived, ayes 7, nays 32. The bill was then ordered to a third reading, ayes 32, nays 8.

The debate was further continued in opposition to the bill the next day, by Mr. Poindexter, and on the 20th Mr. Grundy and Mr. Ewing replied to him. The question was then taken on its passage, and its opponents having generally withdrawn, it passed by the following vote: ayes 32, nay, Mr. Tyler, and was sent to the house for concurrence.