to the Constitution (the articles of union) and to the government which it constituted. It failed, and the present structure was reared in its place, combining, for the first time in a confederation, the absolute with the concurring majority; and thus uniting the justice of the one with the energy of the other.

The new government was reared on the foundation of the old, strengthened, but not changed. It stands on the same solid basis of the concurring majority, perfected by the sanction of the people of the states directly given, and not indirectly through the state governments, as their representatives, as in the old confederation. With that difference, the authority which made the two Constitutions--which granted their powers, and ordained and organized their respective governments to execute them—is the same. But, in passing from the Constitution to the government (the law-making and the law-administering powers), the difference between the two becomes radical and essential. There, in the present, the concurring majority is dropped, and the absolute substituted. In determining, then, what powers ought to be granted, and how the government appointed for their execution ought to be organized, the separate and concurring voice of the states was required-the union being regarded, for this purpose, in reference to its various and distinct interests; but in the execution of these powers (delegated only because all the states had a common interest in their exercise), the union is no longer regarded in reference to its parts, but as forming, to the extent of its delegated powers, one great community, to be governed by a common will, just as the states are in reference to their separate interests, and by a government organized on principles similar to theirs. By this simple but fortunate arrangement, we have ingrafted the absolute on the concurring majority, thereby giving to the administration of the powers of the government, where they were required, all the energy and promptness belonging to the former, while we have retained in the power granting and organizing authority (if I may so express myself) the principle of the concurring majority, and with it that justice, moderation, and full and perfect representation of all the interests of the community which belong exclusively to it.

Such is the solidity and beauty of our admirable system, but which, it is perfectly obvious, can only be preserved by maintaining the ascendency of the

CONSTITUTION-MAKING AUTHORITY OVER THE LAW-MAKING-THE CONCURRING

OVER THE ABSOLUTE MAJORITY. Nor is it less clear that this can only be effected by the right of a state to annul the unconstitutional acts of the government-a right confounded with the idea of a minority governing a majority, but which, so far from being the case, is indispensable to prevent the more energetic but imperfect majority which controls the movements of the government, from usurping the place of that more perfect and just majority which formed the Constitution and ordained government to execute its powers.

Nor need we apprehend that this check, as powerful as it is, will prove excessive. The distinction between the Constitution and the law making powers, so strongly marked in our institutions, may yet be considered as a new and untried experiment. It can scarcely be said to have existed at all before our system of government. We have yet much to learn as to its practical operation; and, among other things, if I do not mistake, we are far from realizing the many and great difficulties of holding the latter subordinate to the former, and without which, it is obvious, the entire scheme of constitutional government, at least in our sense, must prove abortive. Short as has been our experience, some of these, of a very formidable character, have begun to disclose themselves, particularly between the Constitution and the government of the Union. The two powers there represent very different interests: the one, that of all the states taken separately; and the other, that of a majority of the states as forming a confederated community. Each acting under the impulse of these respective and very different interests, must necessarily strongly tend to come into collision, and, in the conflict, the advantage will be found almost

exclusively on the side of the government or law-making power. A few remarks will be sufficient to illustrate these positions.

The Constitution, while it grants powers to the government, at the same time imposes restrictions on its action, with the intention of confining it within a limited range of powers, and of the means of executing them. The object of the powers is to protect the rights and promote the interests of all; and of the restrictions, to prevent the majority, or the dominant interests of the government, from perverting powers intended for the common good into the means of oppressing the minor interests of the community. Thus circumstanced, the dominant interest in possession of the powers of the government, and the minor interest on whom they are exercised, must regard these restrictions in a very different light: the latter, as a protection, and the former, as a restraint, and, of course, accompanied with all the impatient feelings with which restrictions on cupidity and ambition are ever regarded by those unruly passions. Under their influence, the Constitution will be viewed by the majority, not as the source of their authority, as it should be, but as shackles on their power. To them it will have no value as the means of protection. As a majority they require none. Their number and strength, and not the Constitution, are their protection; and, of course, if I may so speak, their instinct will be to weaken and destroy the restrictions, in order. to enlarge the powers. He must have a very imperfect knowledge of the human heart who does not see, in this state of things, an incessant conflict between the government or the law-making power and the Constitution-making power. Nor is it less certain that, in the contest, the advantage will be exclusively with the former.

The law-making power is organized and in constant action, having the control of the honours and emoluments of the country, and armed with the power to punish and reward; the other, on the contrary, is unorganized, lying dormant in the great inert mass of the community, till called into action on extraordinary occasions and at distant intervals; and then bestowing no honours, exercising no patronage, having neither the faculty to reward nor to punish, but endowed simply with the attribute to grant powers and ordain the authority to execute them. The result is inevitable. With so strong an instinct on the part of the government to throw off the restrictions of the Constitution and to enlarge its powers, and with such powerful faculties to gratify this instinctive impulse, the law-making must necessarily encroach on the Constitution-making power, unless restrained by the most efficient check-at least as strong as that for which we contend. It is worthy of remark, that, all other circumstances being equal, the more dissimilar the interests represented by the two, the more powerful will be this tendency to encroach; and it is from this, among other causes, that it is so much stronger between the government and the Constitution-making powers of the Union, where the interests are so very dissimilar, than between the two in the several states.

That the framers of the Constitution were aware of the danger which I have described, we have conclusive proof in the provision to which I have so frequently alluded—I mean that which provides for amendments to the Constitution.

I have already remarked on that portion of this provision which, with the view of strengthening the confederated power, conceded to three fourths of the states a right to amend, which otherwise could only have been exercised by the unanimous consent of all. It is remarkable, that, while this provision thus strengthened the amending power as it regards the states, it imposed impediments on it as far as the government was concerned. The power of acting, as a general rule, is invested in the majority of Congress; but, instead of permitting a majority to propose amendments, the provision requires for that purpose two thirds of both houses, clearly with a view of interposing a barrier against this strong instinctive appetite of the government for the acquisition of

power. But it would have been folly in the extreme thus carefully to guard the passage to the direct acquisition, had the wide door of construction been left open to its indirect; and hence, in the same spirit in which two thirds of both houses were required to propose amendments, the Convention that framed the Constitution rejected the many propositions which were moved in the body with the intention of divesting the states of the right of interposing, and, thereby, of the only effectual means of preventing the enlargement of the powers of the government by construction.

It is thus that the Constitution-making power has fortified itself against the law-making; and that so effectually, that, however strong the disposition and capacity of the latter to encroach, the means of resistance on the part of the former are not less powerful. If, indeed, encroachments have been made, the fault is not in the system, but in the inattention and neglect of those whose interest and duty it was to interpose the ample means of protection afforded by the Constitution.

To sum up in few words, in conclusion, what appears to me to be the entire philosophy of government, in reference to the subject of this communication.

Two powers are necessary to the existence and preservation of free states: a power on the part of the ruled to prevent rulers from abusing their authority, by compelling them to be faithful to their constituents, and which is effected through the right of suffrage; and a power to COMPEL THE PARTS OF SOCIETY TO BE JUST TO ONE ANOTHER, BY COMPELLING THEM TO CONSULT THE INTEREST OF EACH OTHER, which can only be effected, whatever may be the device for the purpose, by requiring the concurring assent of all the great and distinct interests of the community to the measures of the government. This result is the sum-total of all the contrivances adopted by free states to preserve their liberty, by preventing the conflicts between the several classes or parts of the community. Both powers are indispensable. The one as much so as the other. The rulers are not more disposed to encroach on the ruled than the different interests of the community on one another; nor would they more certainly convert their power from the just and legitimate objects for which gov. ernments are instituted into an instrument of aggrandizement, at the expense of the ruled, unless made responsible to their constituents, than would the stronger interests theirs, at the expense of the weaker, unless compelled to consult them in the measures of the government, by taking their separate and concurring assent. The same cause operates in both cases. The constitution of our nature, which would impel the rulers to oppress the ruled, unless prevented, would in like manner, and with equal force, impel the stronger to oppress the weaker interest. To vest the right of government in the absolute majority, would be, in fact, BUT TO IMBODY THE WILL OF THE STRONGER INTEREST IN THE OPERATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT, AND NOT THE WILL OF THE WHOLE COMMUNITY, AND TO LEAVE THE OTHERS UNPROTECTED, A PREY TO ITS AMBITION AND CUPIDITY, just as would be the case between rulers and ruled, if the right to govern was vested exclusively in the hands of the former. They' would both be, in reality, absolute and despotic governments: the one as much so as the other.

They would both become mere instruments of cupidity and ambition in the hands of those who wielded them. No one doubts that such would be the case were the government placed under the control of irresponsible rulers; but, unfortunately for the cause of liberty, it is not seen with equal clearness that it must as necessarily be so when controlled by an absolute majority; and yet, the former is not more certain than the latter. To this we may attribute the mistake so often and so fatally repeated, that TO EXPEL A DESPOT IS TO ESTABLISH LIBERTY-a mistake to which we may trace the failure of many noble and generous efforts in favour of liberty. The error consists in considering communities as formed of interests strictly identical throughout, instead of be

ing composed, as they in reality are, of as many distinct interests as there are individuals. The interests of no two persons are the same, regarded in reference to each other, though they may be, viewed in relation to the rest of the community. It is this diversity which the several portions of the community bear to each other, in reference to the whole, that renders the principle of the concurring majority necessary to preserve liberty. Place the power in the hands of the absolute majority, and the strongest of these would certainly pervert the government from the object for which it was instituted, the equal protection of the rights of all, into an instrument of advancing itself at the expense of the rest of the community. Against this abuse of power no remedy can be devised but that of the concurring majority. Neither the right of suffrage nor public opinion can possibly check it. They, in fact, but tend to aggravate the disease. It seems really surprising that truths so obvious should be so imperfectly understood. There would appear, indeed, a feebleness in our intellectual powers on political subjects when directed to large masses. We readily see why a single individual, as a ruler, would, if not prevented, oppress the rest of the community; but are at a loss to understand why seven millions would, if not also prevented, oppress six millions, as if the relative numbers on either side could in the least degree vary the principle.

In stating what I have, I have but repeated the experience of ages, comprehending all free governments preceding ours, and ours as far as it has advanced. The PRACTICAL operation of ours has been substantially on the principle of the absolute majority. We have acted, with some exceptions, as if the General Government had the right to interpret its own powers, without limitation or check; and though many circumstances have favoured us, and greatly impeded the natural progress of events, under such an operation of the system, yet we already see, in whatever direction we turn our eyes, the growing symptoms of disorder and decay-the growth of faction, cupidity, and corruption; and the decay of patriotism, integrity, and disinterestedness. In the midst of youth, we see the flushed cheek, and the short and.feverish breath, that mark the approach of the fatal hour; and come it will, unless there be a speedy and radical change -a return to the great conservative principle which brought the Republican party into authority, but which, with the possession of power and prosperity, it has long ceased to remember.

I have now finished the task which your request imposed. If I have been so fortunate as to add to your fund a single new illustration of this great conservative principle of our government, or to furnish an additional argument calculated to sustain the state in her noble and patriotic struggle to revive and maintain it, and in which you have acted a part long to be remembered by the friends of freedom, I shall feel amply compensated for the time occupied in so long a communication. I believe the cause to be the cause of truth and justice, of union, liberty, and the Constitution, before which the ordinary party struggles of the day sink into perfect insignificance; and that it will be so regarded by the most distant posterity, I have not the slightest doubt. With great and sincere regard, I am yours, &c., &c., JOHN C. CALHOUN.

His Excellency JAMES HAMILTON, Jun.,

Governor of South Carolina.

ར.

SPEECH AGAINST THE FORCE BILL.

MR. PRESIDENT-I know not which is most objectionable, the provision of the bill, or the temper in which its adoption has been urged. If the extraordinary powers with which the bill proposes to clothe the executive, to the utter prostration of the Constitution and the rights of the states, be calculated to impress our minds with alarm at the rapid progress of despotism in our country; the zeal with which every circumstance calculated to misrepresent or exaggerate the conduct of Carolina in the controversy, is seized on with a view to excite hostility against her, but too plainly indicates the deep decay of that brotherly feeling which once existed between these states, and to which we are indebted for our beautiful federal system, and by the continuance of which alone it can be preserved. It is not my intention to advert to all these misrepresentations, but there are some so well calculated to mislead the mind as to the real character of the controversy, and hold up the state in a light so odious, that I do not feel myself justified in permitting them to pass. unnoticed. Among them, one of the most prominent is the false statement that the object of South Carolina is to exempt herself from her share of the public burdens, while she participates in the advantages of the government. If the charge were true-if the state were capable of being actuated by such low and unworthy motives, mother as I consider her, I would not stand up on this floor to vindicate her conduct. Among her faults, and faults I will not deny she has, no one has ever yet charged her with that low and most sordid of vices-avarice. Her conduct, on all occasions, has been marked with the very opposite quality. From the commencement of the Revolution-from its first breaking out at Boston till this hour, no state has been more profuse of its blood in the cause of the country, nor has any contributed so largely to the common treasury in proportion to wealth and population. She has in that proportion contributed more to the exports of the Union, on the exchange of which with the rest of the world the greater portion of the public burden has been levied, than any other state. No: the controversy is not such as has been stated; the state does not seek to participate in the advantages of the government without contributing her full share to the public treasury. Her object is far different. A deep constitutional question lies at the bottom of the controversy. The real question at issue is, Has the government a right to impose burdens on the capital and industry of one portion of the country, not with a view to revenue, but to benefit another? and I must be permitted to say that, after the long and deep agitation of this controversy, it is with surprise that I perceive so strong a disposition to misrepresent its real character. To correct the impression which those misrepresentations are calculated to make, I will dwell on the point under consideration for a few moments longer.

The Federal Government has, by an express provision of the Constitution, the right to lay duties on imports. The state has never denied or resisted this right, nor even thought of so doing. The government has, however, not been contented with exercising this power as she had a right to do, but has gone a step beyond it, by laying imposts, not for revenue, but for protection. This the state considers as an unconstitutional exercise of power-highly injurious and oppressive to her and the other staple states, and has, accordingly, met it with the most determined resistance. I do not intend to enter, at this time, into the argument as to the unconstitutionality of the protective system. It is not necessary. It is sufficient that the power is nowhere granted; and that, from the journals of the Convention which formed the Constitution, it would seem that it was refused. In support of the journals, I might cite the statement of Luther