The case came to hearing, and solemn argu- nent and he who espousetl their cause, and ,tOod up for them against the validity of the l lct was mono other than that great than. of whom the gentleman has made honorable mention, SAMUEL DEXTER. He was then, sir, in the fullness of his knowledge and the of his strength. He had retired, ErOm long and distinguished public service here, to the renewed pursuit Of professional duties; carrying with him all that tenlargement and expansion, all the new strength and force, which an acquaintance with the more gener- al subjects discussed in the national councils IS capable of adding to professional attainment, in a mind of true greatness and cOmprchen- sion. He was a lawyer, and he was also a statesman. He had studied the Constitution, when he filed public station, that he might defend it; he had examined it's principles, that he might maintain them. More than all

 men, or at least as much as any man, he was attached to the General Government and t0 the Union of the States. His feelings and O. piniOns, all ran in that direction. question of Constitutional Law too, was, of all su5lects that one, which was best suited to his talents and learning. AlOOf from technicallly. ana

 unfettered by artificial rule, such question

 gave opportunity for that deep and clear anal

 ysis, that mighty grasp of principle, which so

 much distinguished his higher efforts. Ills

 very statement, was argument; hts inference,

 seemed demonstration. The earnsstness ot

 his own conviction, wrought conviction ID

 others. One was convinced, and believed,

 and assented, because it was gratifying, de-

 lightful to think. and feel. and believe, in

 unison with an intellect of such evident supc-

 liOrity.

 MT. Dexter, sir, such as l have described

 him, argued the New England cause. He

 put into his effort his W hole heart, as well as all the powers of his understanding for he

 had avowed, im the most public manRer, his

 entire concurrence with his nrighbOrs, on the

 point in dispute. He eargned the cause. it was

 lost, and New England submitted. The es- tablishrd tribunals pronounced the law con stitutionaI and New England acquiesccd.-

 Now. sir, is not this the exact opposite of the doctrine of the gentleman from South Caro- lina According to him, instead of referring to the judicial tribunals, we should have bro- ken up the embargo, by laws of our own: we should have repealed if. quoad New Eng tand for we had a strong. palpable, and OP- press;ve case. Sir. we believed the embargo unconstitutional; but still, that was matter of opinion. aud who was to decide 1t! We thought it a clear case but, nevertheless, wa

 

 cause we did not ,cish to bring about revotw-

 tion, nor to break up the Uuion for l main

 taio, that, bet tween submission to the decision

 of the constituted tribunals, and revolution,

 or disunion, there is n0 middle grOund-there

 is no ambiguous condition, half allegiance and

 half rebellion. .}~

 Aud, sir, how futile, how very futile it IS,

 to admit the right Of State interference, and

 then attempt to save it from the character of

 unlawful resistance, by adding terms of qual-

 ifcatiOn to the causes and occasions, leaving all these qualifications. like the case itseif,ln the discretion of the State Governments. It must

 be d clear caae. it is said; a deliberate case |;

 d dangerous case. But then the State is still

 left at liberty tO decide for herself, what ls

 clear. what is deliberate. what is palpabIe, what is Sangerous. Do adjectives and cpl

 lhets avail any thing! Sir, the human mind

 is 80 constituted, that the merits of both sides of d controversy appear very clear, and very palpable, to those who respectively espOuse them; and both sides usually grow clearer. as the controversy advances. South Caro- lima sees unconstitutionality in the Tariff; she sees oppression there also; and she sees dan ger. Pennsylvani with vision not less sharp, looks at the same Tariff. aud sees no such thing in it-she sees it all constitutional, all useful, all safe. The faith of South Caro- lina is strengthened by opposition. aud she now not only sees. hut Resolves, that the Ia riff is palpably unconstitutional. oppressive. and dangerous: hut Pennsylvania not to be behind her neighhors, and equally willing to strengthen her own faith by a confident as- severation, ResolUes also and gives |" every warm affirmative of South Carolina, plain. downright Pennsylvania negative. South Carolina, to shew the strength and unity of her opinion, brings her Assembly to unan- unity, within seven votes; Pennsylvania, not to he outdOne in this respect more than oth- CTS, reduces her dissentient fraction to five votes. Now sir, again I ask the gentleman what is to be dOne7 Are these States both right Is he bound to consider them hoth right? If not. which is in the wrong or rather which has the best right to decide And if he. and if l. are not to know what the Constitution means, and what 1t is, till those two State Legislatures. and the twen- ty.two others. shall agree in it's construction, what have we sworn to, when we have sworn to maintain it ! was f0rcibly struck, sir. with one reflection. as the gentleman went on in his speech. He quoted MT. MadisOn's resolutions to prove that State may inter- fere. in case Of deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of power not granted. The honorable member suppOses the Tariff law to be such an exercise of power; and that, consequently. a case has arisen in which the State may, if it see ft. interfere by its avn law. NNV if so hannanv nOverfh leas.