ever calumniated and slandered. Few have made greater sacrifices to maintain them, and none is more anxious to perpetuate them to the latest generation; but they can and ought to be perpetuated only on the condition that they fulfil the great objects for which they were created-the liberty and protection of these states.

As for ourselves, I feel no apprehension. I know to the fullest extent the magnitude of the danger that surrounds us. I am not disposed to underestimate it. My colleague has painted it truly. But, as great as is the danger, we have nothing to fear if true to ourselves. We have many and great resources; a numerous, intelligent, and brave population; great and valuable staples; ample fiscal means; unity of feeling and interest, and an entire exemption from those dangers originating in a conflict between labour and capital, which at this time threatens so much danger to constitutional governments. To these may be added, that we would act under an imperious necessity. There would be to us but one alternativeto triumph or perish as a people. We would stand alone, compelled to defend life, character, and institutions. A necessity so stern and imperious would develop to the full all the great qualities of our nature, mental and moral, requisite for defence-intelligence, fortitude, courage, and patriotism; and these, with our ample means, and our admirable materials for the construction of durable free states, would ensure security, liberty, and renown.

With these impressions, I ask neither sympathy nor compassion for the slaveholding states. We can take care of ourselves. It is not we, but the Union which is in danger. It is that which demands our caredemands that the agitation of this question shall cease here-that you shall refuse to receive these petitions, and decline all jurisdiction over the subject of abolition in every form and shape. It is only on these terms that the Union can be safe. We cannot remain here in an endless struggle in defence of our character, our property, and institutions.

I shall now, in conclusion, make a single remark as to the course I shall feel myself compelled to pursue, should the Senate, by receiving this petition, determine to entertain jurisdiction over the question of abolition. Thinking as I do, I can perform no act that would countenance so dangerous an assumption; and, as a participation in the subsequent proceedings on this petition, should it unfortunately be received, might be so construed, in that event I shall feel myself constrained to decline such participation, and to leave the responsibility wholly on those who may

assume it.

XIII.

SPEECH ON THE BILL TO PROHIBIT DEPUTY POSTMASTERS FROM RECEIVING AND TRANSMITTING THROUGH THE MAIL CERTAIN PAPERS THEREIN MENTIONED, APRIL 12, 1836.

I AM aware, said Mr. Calhoun, how offensive it is to speak of one's self; but as the senator from Georgia on my right (Mr. King) has thought proper to impute to me improper motives, I feel myself compelled, in self-defence, to state the reasons which have governed my course in reference to the subject now under consideration. The senator is greatly mistaken in supposing that I was governed by hostility to General Jackson. So far is that from being the fact, that I came here at the commencement of the session with fixed and settled principles on the subject under discussion, and which, in pursuing the course that the senator condemns, I have but attempted to carry into effect.

As soon as the subject of abolition began to agitate the South last summer, in consequence of the transmission of incendiary publications through the mail, I saw at once that it would force itself on the notice of Congress at the present session, and that it involved questions of great delicacy and difficulty. I immediately turned my attention, in consequence, to the subject, and, after due reflection, arrived at the conclusion that Congress could exercise no direct power over it; and that, if it acted at all, the only mode in which it could act, consistently with the Constitution and the rights and safety of the slaveholding states, would be in the manner proposed by this bill. I also saw that there was no inconsiderable danger in the excited state of the feelings of the South; that the power, however dangerous and unconstitutional, might be thoughtlessly yielded to Congress, knowing full well how apt the weak and timid are, in a state of excitement and alarm, to seek temporary protection in any quarter, regardless of after-consequences, and how ready the artful and designing ever are to seize on such occasions to extend and perpetuate their power.

With these impressions I arrived here at the beginning of the session. The President's message was not calculated to remove my apprehensions. He assumed for Congress direct power over the subject, and that on the broadest, most unqualified, and dangerous principles. Knowing the influence of his name, by reason of his great patronage and the rigid discipline of party, with a large portion of the country, who have scarcely any other standard of Constitution, politics, and morals, I saw the full extent of the danger of having these dangerous principles reduced to practice, and I determined at once to use every effort to prevent it. The senator from Georgia will, of course, understand that I do not include him in this subservient portion of his party. So far from it, I have always considered him as one of the most independent. It has been our fortune to concur in opinion in relation to most of the important measures which have been agitated since he became a member of this body, two years ago, at the commencement of the session during which the deposite question was agitated. On that important question, if I mistake not, the senator and myself concurred in opinion, at least as to its inexpediency, and the dangerous consequences to which it would probably lead. If my memory serves me, we also agreed in opinion on the connected subject of the currency, which was then incidentally discussed. We agreed, too, on the question of raising the value of gold to its present standard, and in opposition to the bill for the distribution of the proceeds of public land, introduced by the senator from Kentucky (Mr. Clay). In recurring to the events of that interesting session, I can remember but one important subject on which we disagreed, and that was the President's protest. Passing to the next, I find the same concurrence of opinion on most of the important subjects of the session. We agreed on the question of executive patronage, on the propriety of amending the Constitution for a temporary distribution of the surplus revenue, on the subject of regulating the deposites, and in · support of the bill for restricting the power of the executive in making removals from office. We also agreed in the propriety of establishing branch mints in the South and West-a subject not a little contested at the time.

Even at the present session we have not been so unfortunate as to disagree entirely. We have, it is true, on the question of receiving abolition petitions, which I regret, as I must consider their reception, on the principle on which they were received, as a surrender of the whole ground to the Abolitionists, as far as this government is concerned. It is also true that we disagreed, in part, in reference to the present subject. The senator has divided, in relation to it, between myself and General Jackson. He has given his speech in support of his message, and announced his intention of giving his vote in favour of my bill. I certainly have no right to complain of this division. I had rather have his vote than his speech. The one will stand forever on the records of the Senate

(unless expunged) in favour of the bill, and the important principles on which it rests, while the other is destined, at no distant day, to oblivion.

I now put to the senator from Georgia two short questions. In the numerous and important instances in which we have agreed, I must have been either right or wrong. If right, how could he be so uncharitable as to attribute my course to the low and unworthy motive of inveterate hostility to General Jackson? But if wrong, in what condition does his charge against me place himself, who has concurred with me in all these measures? (Here Mr. King disclaimed the imputation of improper motives to Mr. C.) I am glad to hear the gentleman's disclaimer, said Mr. C., but I certainly understood him as asserting that, such was my hostility to General Jackson, that his support of a measure was sufficient to ensure my opposition; and this he undertook to illustrate by an anecdote borrowed from O'Connell and the pig, which, I must tell the senator, was much better suited to the character of the Irish mob to which it was originally addressed, than to the dignity of the Senate, where he has repeated it. But to return from this long digression. I saw, as I have remarked, that there was reason to apprehend that the principles embraced in the message might be reduced to practice-principles which I believe to be dangerous to the South, and subversive of the liberty of the press. The report fully states what those principles are, but it may not be useless to refer to them briefly on the present occasion.

The message assumed for Congress the right of determining what publications are incendiary and calculated to excite the slaves to insurrection, and to prohibit the transmission of such publications through the mail; and, of course, it also assumes the right of deciding what are not incendiary, and of enforcing the transmission of such through the mail. But the senator from Georgia denies this inference, and treats it as a monstrous absurdity. I had (said Mr. C.) considered it so nearly intuitive, that I had not supposed it necessary in the report to add anything in illustration of its truth; but as it has been contested by the senator, I will add, in illustration, a single remark.

.The senator will not deny that the right of determining what papers are incendiary, and of preventing their circulation, implies that Congress has jurisdiction over the subject; that is, of discriminating as to what papers ought or ought not to be transmitted by the mail. Nor will he deny that Congress has a right, when acting within its acknowledged jurisdiction, to enforce the execution of its acts; and yet the admission of these unquestionable truths admits the consequence asserted by the report, and so sneered at by the senator. But, lest he should controvert so plain a deduction, to cut the matter short, I shall propound a plain question to him. He believes that Congress has the right to say what papers are incendiary, and to prohibit their circulation. Now, I ask him, if he does not also believe that it has the right to enforce the circulation of such as it may determine not to be incendiary, even against a law of Georgia that might prohibit their circulation? If the senator should answer in the affirmative, I then would prove by his admission the truth of the inference for which I contend, and which he has pronounced to be so absurd; but if he should answer in the negative, and deny that Congress can enforce the circulation againt the law of the state, I must tell him he would place himself in the neighbourhood of nullification. He would, in fact, go beyond. The denial would assume the right of nullifying what the senator himself must, with his views, consider a constitutional act, when nullification only assumes the right of a state to nullify an unconstitutional act.

But the principle of the message goes still farther. It assumes for Congress jurisdiction over the liberty of the press. The framers of the Constitution (or, rather, those jealous patriots who refused to consent to its adoption without amendments to guard against the abuse of power) have, by the first amended article, provided that Congress shall pass no law abridging the liberty of the

press, with the view of placing the press beyond the control of congressional legislation. But this cautious foresight would prove in vain, if we should concede to Congress the power which the President assumes of discriminating, in reference to character, what publications shall not be transmitted by the mail. It would place in the hands of the General Government an instrument more potent to control the freedom of the press than the sedition law itself, as is fully. established in the report.

Thus regarding the message, the question which presented itself on its first perusal was, How to prevent powers so dangerous and unconstitutional from being carried into practice? To permit the portion of the message relating to the subject under consideration to take its regular course, and be referred to the Committee on Postoffices and Post-roads, would, I saw, be the most certain way to defeat what I had in view. I could not doubt, from the composition of the committee, that the report would coincide with the message, and that it would be drawn up with all that tact, ingenuity, and address, for which the chairman of the committee and the head of the postoffice department are not a little distinguished. With this impression, I could not but apprehend that the authority of the President, backed by such a report, would go far to rivet in the public mind the dangerous principles which it was my design to defeat, and which could only be effected by referring the portion of the message in question to a select committee, by which the subject might be thoroughly investigated, and the result presented in a report. With this view I moved the committee, and the bill and report which the senator has attacked so violently are the result.

These are the reasons which governed me in the course I took, and not the base and unworthy motive of hostility to General Jackson. I appeal with confidence to my life to prove that neither hostility nor attachment to any man or any party can influence me in the discharge of my public duties; but were I capable of being influenced by such motives, I must tell the senator from Georgia, that I have not such regard for the opinion of General Jackson as to permit his course to influence me in the slightest degree, either for or against any

measure.

Having now assigned the motives which governed me, it is with satisfaction I add that I have a fair prospect of success. So entirely are the principles of the message abandoned, that not a friend of the President has ventured, and I hazard nothing in saying, will venture, to assert them practically, whatever they may venture to do in argument. They well know now that, since the subject has been investigated, a bill to carry into effect the recommendation of the message would receive no support even from the ranks of the administration, devoted as they are to their chieftain.

The senator from Georgia made other objections to the report besides those which I have thus incidentally noticed, to which I do not deem it necessary to reply. I am content with his vote, and cheerfully leave the report and his speech to abide their fate, with a brief notice of a single objection.

The senator charges me with what he considers a strange and unaccountable contradiction. He says that the freedom of the press and the right of petition are both secured by the same article of the Constitution, and both stand on the same principle; yet I, who decidedly opposed the receiving of abolition petitions, now as decidedly support the liberty of the press. To make out the contradiction, he assumes that the Constitution places the right of petitioners to have their petitions received and the liberty of the press on the same ground. I do not deem it necessary to show that in this he is entirely mistaken, and that my course on both occasions is perfectly consistent. I take the senator at his word, and put to him a question for his decision. If, in opposing the receiving of the abolition petitions, and advocating the freedom of the press, I have involved myself in a palpable contradiction, how can he escape a similar charge,

when his course was the reverse of mine on both occasions? Does he not see that, if mine be contradictory, as he supposes, his too must necessarily be so? But the senator forgets his own argument, of which I must remind him, in order to relieve him from the awkward dilemma in which he has placed himself in his eagerness to fix on me the charge of contradiction. He seems not to recollect that, in his speech on receiving the abolition petitions, he was compelled to abandon the Constitution, and to place the right, not on that instrument, as he would now have us believe, but expressly on the ground that the right existed anterior to the Constitution, and that we must look for its limits, not to the Constitution, but to the Magna Charta and the Declaration of Rights.

Having now concluded what I intended to say in reply to the senator from Georgia, I now turn to the objections of the senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Davis), which were directed, not against the report, but the bill itself. The senator confined his objections to the principles of the bill, which he pronounces dangerous and unconstitutional. It is my wish to meet his objections fully, fairly, and directly. For this purpose, it will be necessary to have an accurate and clear conception of the principles of the bill, as it is impossible, without it, to estimate correctly the force either of the objections or the reply. I am thus constrained to restate what the principles are, at the hazard of being considered somewhat tedious.

The first and leading principle is, that the subject of slavery is under the sole and exclusive control of the states where the institution exists. It belongs to them to determine what may endanger its existence, and when and how it may be defended. In the exercise of this right, they may prohibit the introduction or circulation of any paper or publication which may, in their opinion, disturb or endanger the institution. Thus far all are agreed. To this extent no one has questioned the right of the states; not even the senator from Massachusetts, in his numerous objections to the bill.

The next and remaining principle of the bill is intimately connected with the preceding, and, in fact, springs directly from it. It assumes that it is the duty of the General Government, in the exercise of its delegated rights, to respect the laws which the slaveholding states may pass in protection of their institutions; or, to express it differently, it is its duty to pass such laws as may be necessary to make it obligatory on its officers and agents to abstain from violating the laws of the states, and to co-operate, as far as it may consistently be done, in their execution. It is against this principle that the objections of the senator from Massachusetts have been directed, and to which I now proceed to reply.

His first objection is, that the principle is new; by which I understand him to mean, that it never has, heretofore, been acted on by the government. The objection presents two questions: Is it true in point of fact? and if so, what weight or force properly belongs to it? If I am not greatly mistaken, it will be found wanting in both particulars; and that, so far from being new, it has been frequently acted on; and that if it were new, the fact would have little or no force.

If our government had been in operation for centuries, and had been exposed to the various changes and trials to which political institutions, in a long-protracted existence, are exposed in the vecissitudes of events, the objection, under such circumstances, that a principle has never been acted upon, if not decisive, would be exceedingly strong; but when made in reference to our government, which has been in operation for less than half a century, and which is so complex and novel in its structure, it is very feeble. We all know that new principles are daily developing themselves under our system, with the changing condition of the country, and, doubtless, will long continue so to do in the new and trying scenes through which we are destined to pass. It may, I admit, be good reason even with us for caution-for thorough and careful investigation, if a principle proposed to be acted upon be new; for I have long since been