Page:EB1911 - Volume 19.djvu/878

 Lambert, 1867, L.R. 3 Eq. 409). A private nuisance, differing in this respect from a public nuisance, may be legalized by uninterrupted use for twenty years. It used to be thought that, if a man knew there was a nuisance and Went and lived near it, he could not recover, because, it was said, it is he that goes to the nuisance and not the nuisance to him. But this has long ceased to be law, as regards both the remedy by damages and the remedy by injunction.

 NUKHA, a town of Russian Caucasia, in the government of Elizavetpol, and previous to 1819 the capital of the khanate of Sheki, lying 57 m. N.E. of the town of Elizavetopol, at the S. foot of the main chain of the Caucasus. Pop. (1861) 22,618; (1897) 24,811; mainly Tatars, with some Armenians. The cupola of the church in the fortress is 2455 ft. above the sea-level, in 41° 12′ 18″ N. and 47° 12′ 7″ E. The fortress, a square enclosure, erected in 1765, contains the palace, built in 1790 in the original Persian style. The leading industry is the breeding of silkworms and the spinning of silk. Nukha was a mere village down to the middle of the 18th century, when it was chosen by Hajji Chelyabi, the founder of the khanate of Sheki, as his residence. The Russian occupation dates from 1807, though the annexation was not completed till 1819.

NULLAH (Hindostani for an arm of the sea, stream or watercourse), a steep narrow valley. Like the wadi of the Arabs, the nullah is characteristic of mountainous or hilly country where there is little rainfall. In the drier parts of India, and in many parts of Australia there are small steep-sided valleys penetrating the hills, clothed with rough brushwood or small trees growing in the stony soil. During occasional heavy rains torrents rush down the nullahs and quickly disappear There is little local action upon the sides, while the bed is lowered, and consequently these valleys are narrow and steep.

NULLIFICATION, the process of making null or of no effect (Lat. nullus, none). In United States history the term is applied to the process by which a state either (a) in fact suspended, or (b) claimed a constitutional right of suspending, the operation of a federal law within its own territory. The doctrine of nullification as a constitutional theory was probably never held by a majority of the states or of the American people at any one time, though before 1860 most of the states asserted or practised it. The belief in nullification was based on the theory that the union of the states was a voluntary one, each member retaining its sovereignty, though for purposes of convenience delegating certain powers of government to an agent—the federal government. The powers of this agent were strictly limited by the Constitution, and should it transcend these powers the states must interpose to protect their rights. This view held that the Supreme Court created by the Constitution was not a proper tribunal to decide causes arising beyond the Constitution or relating to the nature of the Union, but that its jurisdiction was limited to cases arising under the Constitution. If the Federal government usurped a right belonging to the state, the latter, being a sovereignty, must judge for itself.

As later perfected by (q.v.), the theory of nullification required a practice as follows. A state aggrieved by a law of the Federal congress might, in constituent convention, suspend the operation of the objectionable law, and report its action to the other states. If three-fourths of them should decide that the law in question was not unconstitutional, then in effect it became ratified (see United States Constitution, art. v.). The dissatisfied state must then submit or must draw out of the union by the act of secession (see, and ). This theory of the right of nullification was considered by those who held it to be in accord with the principles laid down in the Constitution. It must be distinguished from secession, which was considered a sovereign right, one above the Constitution; yet nullification presumed the sovereignty of the state.

The earliest assertions of the doctrine of nullification are found in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798–1799, written respectively by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in protest against the Alien and Sedition Acts of Congress. Nullification was first practised in 1809 by Pennsylvania, the governor ordering out the state troops to resist the execution of a decree of a Federal court. In the New England states, 1809–1815, the United States laws relating to embargo, non-intercourse and army enlistments were nullified by state action. From 1825–1829 the state of Georgia forcibly prevented the execution of Federal laws and court decrees relating to the Indians within her borders and in Alabama, 1832–1835, there was a similar nullification. The only example of nullification in which theory and practice coincided was the nullification in 1832 by South Carolina of the Federal tariff laws. In this the state acted upon the theory outlined above which was perfected by Calhoun. In the last decade before the Civil War fourteen of the Northern states in the so-called “Personal Liberty laws” nullified the Federal statutes relating to slaves and slavery by making it a crime for their citizens to obey these laws and by setting the state administration against the Federal officials. Since the Reconstruction the Southern states have in practice effected a nullification of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution providing for negro suffrage.

NUMANTIA, an ancient hill fortress in northern Spain, in the province of Soria (Old Castile), overhanging the village of Garray, near the town of Soria, on the upper Douro. Here, on a small isolated high plateau in the middle of the valley, was the stronghold which played the principal part in a famous struggle between the conquering Romans and the native Spaniards during the years 154–133 Numantia was especially concerned in the latter part of this war from 144 onwards. It was several times unsuccessfully besieged. Once the Roman general Hostilius Mancinus with his whole army was compelled to surrender (137). Finally, Scipio Aemilianus, Rome’s first and only general in that age, with some 60,000 men drew round the town 6 m. of continuous entrenchments with seven camps at intervals. After 15 months (134–133) he reduced by hunger the 6000-8000 Numantine soldiers, much as Caesar afterwards reduced Alesia in Gaul. The result was regarded as a glorious victory, and in Roman literature the fall of Numantia was placed beside the fall of Carthage (149 ). In truth, the maintenance in effective condition of so large a Roman force in so remote and difficult a region was in itself a real achievement and such as at that time no one but Scipio could have performed. He redeemed by organized strategy the vacillations and follies of statesmen who had sat at home and sent out inadequate expeditions or incompetent commanders. The site was, under the Roman Empire, occupied by a Roman town called Numantia, and the Itinerary tells of a Roman road which ran past it. It is to-day a “Monumento Nacional” of Spain, and has yielded remarkable discoveries to the skilful excavations of Dr Schulten