Page:Examiner, Journal of Political Economy, v2n14.djvu/1



AND

DEVOTED TO THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE CAUSE OF STATE RIGHTS AND FREE TRADE. The Powers not Delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People. . . ''Amendments to the Constitution, Art. X.''

Freedom of Industry, as sacred as freedom of speech or of the press. . . Jefferson.

THE GENUINE BOOK OF NULLIFICATION.

Being a true—not an apochryphal—history, chapter and verse, of the several examples of the recognition and enforcement of that sovereign State remedy, by the different States of this confederacy, from 1798 down to the present day. (As originally published in the Charleston Mercury.) To which are added the opinions of distinguished statesmen, on State rights doctrines. By HAMPDEN.

GEORGIA NULLIFICATION.

In the case of Chisolm vs. Georgia.—In this case, as early as the year 1792 the energetic and truly Republican State of Georgia nullified the proceedings of the Supreme Court as completely and effectually as she has lately done in the case of Tassels in that Court, or as she has done with the Acts and Treaties of Congress in relation to the Cherokees.

The case of Chisolm vs. Georgia, is reported at length in 2 Dallas, 419, from which Report it appears that on the 11th July, 1792, the United States Marshal served copies of his process on the Governor and Attorney General of Georgia at the suit of one—Chisolm—of which process no notice was deigned to be taken. On the 11th of August, 1792, the Attorney General of the United States moved "that unless the State of Georgia shall, after reasonable notice of this motion cause an appearance to be entered in behalf of said State on the fourth day of next term, or shall then show cause to the contrary, judgment shall be entered against the said State, and a writ of inquiry of damages be awarded." But the consideration of this motion was postponed to February term 1793, in order to avoid the appearance of precipitancy and to give the State time for deliberation on the measures which she ought to adopt.

Accordingly in February Term 1793, the case was called up, and the State of Georgia sent in a solemn protest against all jurisdiction of the case by the United States Court, and refused to enter into any argument whatever.

The United States Attorney General then argued the case seriatim, and the court proceeded to decide against the State on the question of Jurisdiction—All the Judges agreeing, except the independent and magnanimous judge Iredell, who boldly declared the States to be the creators and superiors of the General Government and consequently not subject to their courts—nor to any courts—at the same time ably elucidating the distinction between a Sovereign State and a mere corporation, and conclusively showing that the only remedy against the former is by petition to the Legislative or Executive power—whilst that against the latter is by suit at Law.

In pursuance of the decision, an order was entered for the plaintiff to proceed with his pleadings and to serve copies of them on the Governor and Attorney General of Georgia, and that Judgment should be entered by Default against that State if she did not come in by the first day of the next Term.

To none of these proceedings did Georgia condescend to pay the least regard, and in February Term, 1794, Judgment was rendered against her by default, and a Writ of Enquiry ordered, but this Writ was never attempted to be executed.

This case of Nullification produced a proposition in Congress to amend the Constitution of the United States so as to preclude, by express terms, the U. States Courts from assuming jurisdiction against a sovereign State at the suit of citizens of another State or subjects of Foreign States—which amendment was accordingly made by the States, (who alone have the power of amending)—thereby affirming the views of Georgia and of Judge Iredell, and nullifying the forced constructions and implications of the Supreme Court—by declaring—what?—Not that this court should no longer have the power claimed—not using words of revocation, to take away the jurisdiction asserted—but showing by the very terms employed, that they considered this court as never having possessed the power assumed, except as usurped by their usual plastic construction—for the words of this (the 11th,) amendment of the Constitution, are "the judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States, by citizens of another State or by citizens or subjects of any Foreign State."

Thus was this grasping Tribunal peremptorily restrained from further interference with the Sovereign Rights of the States. How well this injunction has been obeyed subsequent events have shown. In proof of the assertion that the 11th Amendment of the Constitution was caused by this Nullification of Georgia, I refer to the history of the times and to the case of Hollingsworth, vs. Virginia, 3 Dallas, 378, where it is state in the opening of the caes that "Chisolm & georgia" had produced the amendment of the Constitution referred to.

. In the case of the Tariff.—The State of