si m 4 mm ft dm^l wlm the wuzm ti 1 c '"' ' r " n ft 1 ' w!l '"'' '' t vcr w,i " lnl '" 1 " ' ' ' "*''"'<• x,.--,xx to nil lie of inequality which lii.l no response in theheart ol 1 e 1 ,.,•„, and which will be evaded with little romorsa 1 no wibdord ol legislation in especial seen in grafting laws on conscience r ckanning - r ■ - - m vol xiv • nil ti.u by kl n b villi jr ] salisbury row '. county v c . monday 11 nn '•> i8j3 r ; m/s statute bocaoae by the constitution theso i rea ties had boon oxprcasly mads the su promo law of the land therefore the statute docs not profess lorepeal thorn by any enactmont biut declares simply ihat they wero no longer obligat irv upon us " of right because llioy had hoan previ lusly and repoatndly violated by france 80 shewing conclusively that the viola lion of 1 cou tract by ono f tho sovereign parlies to 11 is siifliciont to absolve tho other party from all its obligations iftliii bthor party , i iosi s tu a inpt that c mr nnw surely 111 ono will contend 1 ial ivhiit o irj individu.il does and may of right do in 1 our i t,i his contracts ; what every slate has done and hns iln'he right fully in regard to their arguments is for hidden to i lone hy any ol these sovor eign status in relerence i iheir coi ennnl with their co-states it mav ic denied ns the author of ihis proclamation does deny tint any l theso statos is a sover eign it may he denied hint thoy have entered into nnv covenant with each oth er ; r tl t tho i institution oftho i nited states is such acovonant li maj he ie nit that this covenanl has ever been bro ken : nr thut unv state is responsible to taiiy other for anv breach of it but if all these thin js be granted nyd in tbe ques tion prop mil id ti ley are all us-.unit.-el il follows necessarily that a violation ofthe covenant by my ofthe states leaves ev ery other state who is a party to it the right to vacate the covenant as tj itself also very article lho enn.enl of every state was ii ,■ ary to mite anv alteration whatever in 1h.1l instruin int n.,r from hi 1.1 1 |. u nma si,.i 1 fi 1 constitutt 1 i mujurtt of all tho states if so seven i.,i is would h vi heen sufficient : and moreover the old artir.lt n nl confedera dun nn _; h t iinie been put into operation in the year 177s when th"y were agreed to by n majority of lho states ihreo years boforu they went into actual opera tion by tho agreement of all the slat a i'i miner wus tlet ivod iii this unv t lie uld articles of < unl'ederatio.i bud h len vio li.te.l iii tin us modes by the refusal or loct ufsevi nil of hie states t comply with lho re pn it ions uud recommendations of congress made tn pursuance of that covenant these repeated violations of it had given every party to it the perfect right lo declare that it wns no lotigi 1 obll gatory upon them jul altli iugh thi 1 w theii cl iii right pi u.lnnee md p die 1 i intel that they sh uld 11 1 exert this right until tbey had provided a substitute fur lhe old ( lovenanl ; and un'il tnis t>uh liltite should have received tho itoncurreuco l ul le.i j ; nnn uf ihe sniics this being done their right of vacating he old instrument winch had been perfect before was then prudently exercised s that ihis ver federal constitutiofl grows out bf the con ceded right of a state to declaro tho obli gations ofa covcnutit uo longer obligatory up in itself when that covenant has been broken b other parties t , it ken 1 ov ant is " in f.rrn n more perfee l nion is the right ofsm i:--i neilhel more nor less ant therein sn that until the ll h i lure will be graciously pleased tn repctll l i i , ■ i r law uverv individual in tht ' i ■•',-, iiriv he compelled to go thr ugh ihfl sum tedious nnd expensive proceedings nnd lu incur the samo hazards in l"r to hi ml relief aguinst an acl cif tli gover menl which has heen aln i i deci l-d tha arbiter to be dri untiuti.urized i*i p.itl t lawless power now what ., .■■■ ar biter must he in who o d etsion fa vor of one ,,| the part a is bind g a d obligatory but ifmado ngnjust that p ny isof no avail to terminate ihe subj ■ i if difference the vtestbr v c i noij\r v i published once a week al two dollars per a , it if paid irithin three month ,-,• or tiro ,; i iifig n nts if paid at any nth ( , itlitt the year v piiju-r will ;, , itiiiiiil until nil arrearages arr .,, unless ni tl eilitor'td icretion - \ tscripuon will bc received for a less j •• lh rt onr if nr i / lilm-t tn notify thr fjitor nf a wistt to it xcontinue om iniiu'li before the expira tion of a pear will br considered tis a „,.,■ , ttgageiiu nl l/iu person procuring six soleent sub tcriber tn tl carolinian shall imoe a „,-■ i'ii paper gratis — advertising at the lie i ntiii this arbiter is said t he the supreme court nf the united states to this objection which it founded boon the supposed existence of a commnn arbiter authorized and capable to decide nil in fract ms ofthe constitution of which any state mav have cause t'i complain many answers innv l,e given all equally conclu sive 1 tn show that no such arbiter clothed with such authority cither tines or ought to i expeotod to oxiat lie ii denies lhi ri;lit must ,,„.|, n,l thai 1 majority nf the slates containing i majority nl lie p iple may break this constitution nt iheir will and ih it the inin tin t iho states nn i people i bound 1 i i i t'ti.h -.,:,-'. of right ill to obaerve t on their part i'i il m uneniistituti in nl law lie oil passed the s.',!iii,,n law for example it enn never bo repealed with out the c ncurrenc • of b i utilises bf congress thrfl 1 toady williout the con currence ofa uiajm it ,,'' !!;.■ states in the senate ami ofa innjnrilv nf tho penplc ii hn ilouse of representatives nay this is nut all fur no umcndmnnt of the con stitution can i lade t 1 tire 1 tho grie vance however groat thai llev 1 ; ibr if ■■ ven only of thoso stat 1 refti 10 tn ratify ilie in ni in inn ni the other seventoon nol cmstiiutirig throo fourths of nil the states cannot in ike tho nnn h lint nl valid thoro 1 ni ins linn no roliof fur rm oppressed minority hoivovor real that may bo however cruel and unrighteous nnd wan ton niiiy he tho oppressiun hut t nppeal to the tod df buttles and lo assert their i o ins in arms i he first of tht -'• answers is tha accor ding to no legal possibility cmim the case supposed to exist ever be presented to the supreme court fnr its decision even il the sovereign parties were contonl to abide by hint decision the judges ofthe supra ne court like nil , llu t judgt s are appointed to decide cases nnd not tn amuse them selves er to edify mankind as th presi rl nl • icks to dr hi this proclamation with , : -. r il.i tn or with public lectures com municating the results t their lucubrb lions upon more questions of laxt of poli tics orof any othor art or science — theso cases too according to the very terms of tho constitution must ih 1 cases iii law and oquity ;" nnd we have iho au thority ofthis courl itself for saying that th eannol exist any case in law or equi ty but one presented to n court by the representation of parties tbo low pro feasor in every c illego nay the v ry uri dor graduates of his class may deliver theses and dissertations tipon questions of sovereign , of politics r of luw and iiiinv amuse und improve themselves hy imagining sui brought by john doo versus richard it to try these ipics tinns but it would he a high contempt ot evory court to attempt to steal from it an opinion upon anv question presented iu n case brought hv such imngitiary parties and out a less contempt nl public justice if a ju,|oe should wan ler out nf hie ease be lore him to prejudice sumo other or tu de tormine any mere abstract proposition nnl necessary tn the decision of the matter submitted f,.r lis dstermination now lho ease supposed tu exist in the ease of a covenant uf union believed by one of ihe parties to bo.violatod hv ibe government ofthe unite states lhe agent of nil hie parties in such a case tin act couiptai iied of being already done by the govern ment the united states would have no need to become acttirt or to go before any court to assert the notver licit l.is heen already exerted ; and it would u difficult ;•> lind lhe authority under which mv ono us in actor in iy inipl.aid 1,0 u states in their own courts hut here it miy he said perhaps as ft often said that the government oftho un ite slates can only acl !.\ i idlviduals and upon individuals j and ia the courts ire al ways pen tn such parties all questions of constitutional right may so ren lily be r i_;!it ef , i'e tin supremo court i'o ihis common place assertion i oppose u flat denial the evi complained of may the next answer to this object i n ii thisi where a cine in law or !•,;•!. ist properly brought before tho cob t l.j ,,- ntiii buitorb if in lho progr ■ of tin st.ltj it is found to involve a question '•'.' lho i disci ■• t exercise of political power confessedly granted ihe judges litem selves acknowledge hat this tp.ostinn they i.r incompetent t docide but bs t ail such matter thoy ar boudd jurari t - , / ' 1 mn iniri and to say as judges that whatevi r is is righti although ns in dividual every line of tlulii mny l.m v timt ll i.s not so while l,.iil.t cxi-t whether the political power exercised ts granted or hot lha court may give nn opinion upon the bubject hut let it be once conceded that the power has heen granted by lhe constitution and the court is then compelled to say that it has imih ing to do with tbe question of policy nor is authorized to ask why such power inis been exerted if congress declares war olthou i forthe most unrighteous purpose fir which war ever wi'.s declared bj lhe veriest t rant that ever disgraced a throne il.e judiciary must apply lhe sanctions f the law to jill acts done e nlr.iry to thii wicked will f thc legislature if tlm president and sgnate make treaties sup ping the very foundations of tlm consntil lion the judiciary cannot <!• c'are llienl void r prevent iheii execution b the executive if congress wantdnly h-vy duties and jmposts for a:iv pup ise w it ever he ju licial pow ir is hi iploss i af ford relief they cannot enjoin the march ing of armies the sailing of heels the slaughter of innocent nian the levi f raxes r the mveeutit of tr-'l h yt it is precisely in such eases th it tl.e inter position of tee sovereign parties i , iho covenant will,probnbly oval be ne easary it is idle then lu say hint the mn nut interpose t vu in these , ages nl i ■ i fof the reason given por the verv f tin,la tion uf thn objection to such interposition is that as there is a common arbiter ap pointed lodeeido the case the parties may nut rightfully usouuiu tb decide it each fur itself usin rates ll letters addressed to the editor musi i noil paid or ilt".i will not '" attended /,.. llie.se lei ins will bu strictly adhor eil 1 1 political kiiom ll'j-l nohfolk uekald i'll lu dent's proclama i'lon in mv lust number i endeavored to . trove that b thoir several ratifications q f die constitution of the united states th sovereign states ofthe union i he rob f s iblisbed entered into a covenant vith f.i . oilier fo support this constitution — t for ihe i.bservunce if tins ( loveiiant suite pledjfo'd rta laiih toco-states a i ibis i mil must bu kept by all j , iv o d to pmve further that none c , i violate the faith plighted by the co venant save so ne of the sovereign parties o ii ; but that they might do so either di r cily by tlieir own acts or omissions or indirectly by adopting as their own tho lets or omissions nfatij others over whom they ulight lawfully exercise control i tail ms brought to enquire what is the cu ... that may bo rightflifty pursued hv am slate should lis co-states break their fan ll pledged to it by doing directly an ait tu vi nation of that pledge or by adop ting as theirs any such act done by oth ers amenable to their authority i i present tho question in this abstract form purposely ; because 1 wish to avoid far the present the investigation unv otlier matter not necessarily involved it the inquiry immediately before mo hence inst iid of stopping to examine whethei tny particular uet is or is not a violation of th constitution or what is or is nut the bowion by a state pf such an uet when n„t 1 me directly by itself — or whether hio agents by whom the act has been per ncinii 1 are or are not under its control i , ao assilmed thnt the net dona is a l)latinn of tlio constitution — that it is i ..-.. ■ i a stain directly or when done by te i oilier is adopted bv it as its own net •—.,., i tii.it the net adopted as its own act i lone by such as are amenable to its au tli-rity thus tlm question of mere right v in naked before us auj su presented lum hn ve a direct answer vj 11 and was it for this thtlt i forefathers i 1 hi an i bled i was il fur ihis lhal tho '..!-• ii and the be i wore convened t lin ine and adopt n constitution stuffed ivith checks and limitations of power iu every line ? win ever wanted any guar nit uf tlie right of revoh.t ' that ex ists ujivays it is inherent in and unnlitiea bit b in in compact i cither gives or can lake it away — froo government i bul ti levice to prevent the necessity of i ■ ■■ irit ng tn this natural right the con stitution of i ., i railed tales iu separating the sovereignty from tin n ivern nont ma king , veruin il res upon u covnnan ii i sover 1 states tbomselves : , which covenant lho government creu ind i ,, i no party but a ifiere agon ol the parties una in thin coiisti.uliug onch pitti the judgt of the observa:ice of this covenant with the right of declaring il nu longer obligatory upon itself when br iken dtri ctly or indirectly hy any other party was i proud monument of human vis.lnrri rob it of these qualities and it i.e lines a simple institution by which all |. iwer is transferred lo lho m j irity who u ty rule the minority according to the unchecked will of the majority without account blli.y to any ut mr than itself — tho threadbare garment of ancient d.ns inng since east iff becnuso it was always l iniil worthless to shelter right against power — nu , so sun as ofliiclt follow their cans s musi i hard military despotism speedily succeed to such a government in such a country as ties 1 will close the number with this re mark wherever the object of the cov enant is toostablish union r association l"i any purpose between different parties designing tu preserve thoir seporate exis tence tin lur the covenant alier it is made seeessi n is one of the remedies lhal may always he resorted in by any of these par ties fur a breach of this covenant by any other and is nothing more than a declar ation of that fact li 7se eleven state seceded from tlm union established by the ild articles of confederation ani estab lished tlm present constitution fir all the dim who might choose tu ratify the mini lu 17'js the united stntoa sec ded from lhe alliance established '•>/ thoir treaty wilh fiance lu either case tho acl proceeded fiom the same came in neilhor case did this act produce any oth er consequence than it was designed to produce by those who ad pled ll : a mere diaaolutiuii ofthe fbrntei l ind ol union or association as to themselves nor in any ii can buy olher consoquenco rightful i ii result from it on fhe part of ih slate declaring its secession although it is pos sible lhal oiher f cts may ftw fro n tbe course ofthe iher pany i'lless effect shall cunslitule the subject of my next numbers a virginian a i n,,r can l!m exercise by a state of this right of declaring a broken covenant no longer obligatory upon itself or its ciii ii ascribed with nnv propriety to tho high and indefensible right of revolution which abides with every people tins last is a mere individual rinlu ; it stands upon the great matin snlvs pdpuli ct supremo lex i i is the right of self-defence which man cani.ot alienate although ho may forbear to exert it this high riolii rides over nil olhers whatever they in ay he ft claims to legitimate the dethrone ment of s iveroigns the severance ,,| km pi res the dissolution of ancient societies the breach of allegiance and even of faith itself cut the right of declaring a cove nant broken hy one ofthe parties no longer obligatory upon another is tbo very re verse of all this it constitutes the foun d.iiioiiof all society lo sccdre it all gov eminent of ull kinds were instituted and upon its preservation depends sovereignty itself upon il rests the efficacy even if tins holy right of revolution - for unless min can confide in ins fellow resistance of power w ul i be vnin ; nor can any one cnn'ide in another il their mutual pledges may be broket by one and remain oblig , lory upon thn <>. ur against ins will il must he suid that ihe rtiolesol con fedi*»»tion wore the act of.he state legis lature and tho n w co .-■ . utiou lhe ... i if he people nl lha several sl ies mn thai the lath r ahrogutcd lh • former boouuse it proceeded irom a bupoi-tor power l'he i'enple of the several statea l.v a v lung acquaintance had adopted tne art clos of confederation as their own act — under those artidles manj treaties had been c included many other engagements had been bntered ir.to war had be in oar ried nn nnd peace made in thoir name an i with their approbation ail these were ucts that coidd only mv been 1 • , hv acknowledged agents and roprescniu lives nf the sovereignty ivhioh,ns has boon shewn then n bided in the people of the several btal •*, in their corporate chantcter .,' in ites in i was specially reserved t them as such in this instrumont there fore the change of this c tvena.it made in a man or directly in opposition to one of its pro isi ni-i an i ngains iho will o r some nfthe parties cannot be jdstifiod upon this • r iinul : uul ui 1-e hn referred . i the oiher if 1 referred tho reason of that prov ., ifthe present constitution win li confine ! its operation to tlm states ratifying the same even arter it might be r;itiiie by nine s vs is obvious the oltl coven iinl being ami ill 1 th statos wero remit ted to their former coiiditi in nn 1 could nol then be bound by any new covenant to which ihov were n i purtios the in xt answer to ihis objection is that the evil oinpl uu i ot mux bo the not ofthe judiciary itself the enforcement nf ilie sedition law for example ur tl • ap plication uf lhe c million law of kug!n,i,l as a criminal code to the citizens of the u states iloth these cases hate occur red lore it would he monstrous to re fer to the judiciary to decide wh ther the judiciary itself hud done right ; and yet the objection npplic equ.dly to ii east s another answer is ihat iu this govern ment composed as it is of co ordinate de partments there exists no r nson why innr respect hh add lie paid to tile acts nf . f these departr.ieirts than to those . iuiv olher and if it ib admitted that in f theae depart ments i.s bound hv th f its co-ordinate it would ba strung f to say tin the sovereign fall it • , i by such an act now ibe objneti ■ • ■ f oi sorts thai tlie judiciary is nut boo y the acts of the legislature or of the j eui.ve ; and no one it is believed i i contend that either of tho other dc - ments is hound by the judgments ofthe 1 i dicibry however obligatory these rq&x 1st upon the p irin s | peak not of courl sy and respect but of obligation merely — shoiii i the judiciary declare nn acl i the legislative void socb a declaration as 1 have already suid eannol repeal the law although it may prevent its application to the particular tustslsu b judice congress nay establish otber courts or other jud • « i . execute the law or the presi lent a,.d senile inoxecution of such laws may m point additional judaea of lhe up o e court who may differ from iheir associ ates a i over rule the past ilecisi u iu iho lirsi new case thai comes before lliii court may the house of representatives miy iui|*!iti;h mil the senate condemn ihs judges f"'r ihis very docision given iu violation of ihe lawenaotad by them i lo not ni i i to iv bat i;iv of thestf things would be right j uul when reasonh ing upon the case ol n viola i f • tu lion i have a right lobuppobv that nil ' t i :• i uieiins wonl i l employed hv that viulaterb t make their violation onoctuuli in >, i so i prove that tbe judiciarj ■ . * hn the legislature w have the au tl.ori.y of ih ■ president liimsell for say in t that l,e feels himself as much bound ly lua oath • ■ sno|i(,ri the < ions.iuilion a auy one nl-i call do and therefore if eia .,..., -., y is required whether bj the is laliire or the ju,i ntrv to do any net winch he belli n i inc . li uti • e dl not he mule lo sill i|il,-t his own ton science snd to violate hit i uf ,.!■» pariiaaas used lo censure bim bi '■ r this u tfi/iinu : but ipi gevai uuiiu oug the assertion bv a slate of this right of declaring a broken covenant no lunger nb ligatorv u|ion itself or is people does ■, it nocessarily produce any other effect than tlieir ahsoliiiiuii fr uu all the obligations the exaraplo will illustrates vvliat a priori reasoning hud established that a v nt broken h ne party may by any olher parly lie rightfully declared no i mger obligatory upon itself and b i prac tical atitiullod ts to itself by the part naking this tie larati in — if thia was nol s iii the ease : ; i itos who car foresee ever but ofa wilful omission to act on ths iart of the government in such a case it cannot be pretended that there is any individual lo whom tho agrieved sufferer may resort lor redress by u suit in court or the evil complained nf may bo uu uel which although palpably wrong may not require the agency of any individuals or althoui i wantonly oppressive and cruelly unjust upon nil the inhabitants ofa state may nevertheless like every common nu isanr-e bo injurious lo no one of them in particular and therefore would be an acl not tehe redressed in any private suit suppose tor oxamplo congress should pass a i'tw'giviiig a p feroi.cb to the polls of one stiii over those of another which ihey nre expressly forbidden to do it the verv terms ofthe constitution itsell : whal individual could sue ur what individual might he implead for the perpetration of an act so ruinous to the injured stale 1 not he the oil 1 iv net what formerly imposed upon them by tho i iv anant while it subsisted as such li leaves them in tho sama/ptight as to t;i iii'iiter of tlio covenant m which t'i 1 '. were before it was entered into i.i the samo predicant ut iu which they would have been if it had never existed the covenant aa to the party tanking such a declaration becomes a mere nullity with out even any moral obligation upon that party who in declaring its o.'i motion from all the former obligations of the cov enant so abandons thereafter all shadow ol claim to oil privilege right nr benefit to which it mighl have l.eea eutill id ullder it the asser'ion involves no breach of faith on the par of the siute declaring the covenant broken by the olher parties — rso far from it it affirms a breach of faith by hem ; anri as in the case ol france it 1 justifies the act declaring its absolution from obligations already violated by oth is it disturbs no relations subsisting between anv others in lopendenl of itself but loaves to ih un fhe full and free exercise of nil the rights and prn ih'ges which the early va cating the c x unit hns claimed an 1 exer cise i tor itself nlone if they are content to ah.de hv the broken covenant still they ire free t . d . -,., whether they tbink it has been violates or not if ihr-y ch ,•,-■ lo follow the example set they have the same right i > do so as wns exercised by tli.se who set tb example vs tn the general answer to this quos i iu 1 had supposed until recently that no nun c mid doubt ijut as opinions upon hii subject very difforertf from mine have i ■ mured ol lute und from many and li i authorities too although my former confidence in irty own opinions is in no de j - thakon yet i foel compelled while re !•■ rung the u to endeavor to establish to ui by arguments which but a few b-'isks since 1 should have thought as un i — ii v as the attempt to prove nuy ux lum.itic truth — in the case of mere indi i luals ifi contract i made between them herein the performance of one party i ibv consideration for the petforirinnci ol bs other rfo lawyer no man can doubt unit if one of the parties does not comply willi such a contract ho has no shadow of h-'lil to usk or expect the observant of it oy tho other party — the failure to com ply by either leaves the oiher party the i iritoge f avoiding iiml vacating the con tract altogether ; or of tendering perform i n ins part claiming a compliance fr'.nr iho other party and if that is then iri'il of demanding sropetisation i jurj sustained by a breach ofthe ■.-' •■ nent exchange did rent portions of their n.rri tones : in v one of them retain that which it hus agree i to give and rightfully de nial,,i a the other the delivery of vvh.u has ihe equivalent commercial advan tiges lu hi received hs itself is one hound to give and not entitled t receive it seems monstrous to affirm these things hut vet such ai the inevitable consequen ces ofthe proposition that a broken covo na it is siill obligatory upon the faith ofthe partv by whom it has not been violate i — it will not do to sav that a parly injured hv a breach of a covenant may rightful ly enforce performance from the other — this is true only where the innocent par ly is desirous lo continue the obligations or the covenant but does not apply where he is content to take the other remedy of declaring ilm broken covenant no longi i obligatory upon hun either mode of re dress irta he rightfully resorted to by die , liurad party and his policy or discretion ui decide which in will adopt l.ul ho eannol rightfully take li th if tins w.is not so ihe rpiesnoii of in re right would necessarily he converted into no of brute fore •. and right uul power wnuld suuir be c ne the sum i two states nor f.i even in cases where the courts ralghi take cognizance nf the ict done because done by s nn • individual the judgmeul iu such ii ease culd hind lion a hut ihe par ties to the suit it would not repoul the unconstitutional act , and might n it even furnish anv compensation in the individual injured some agent l the law-makers in ex , , ition of iheir orders which aro in direct violation of lbe constitution does me a great injury i sue him th i court agrees with me thai the act was lawless and unauthorized the jury an iris an amount if damages to me as a just compensation for the wrong | have sustained the courl gives me a judg menl againal him for hut sum ihu tne .. g.-nt is insolvent or runs away mil 1 can n , i get the intended coirjpensalion will any one say tiial the court can compel those by whose orders the wicked deed wus dune und to test whose authority fir idiroctillg it lo hi duiii , t jhe__sujt was h led a^a while seeking to establish the right of a stale to secede from ao union formed by a .' iveuant tbe terms of which hu ■• beep broken by oilier iirties 1 was not unaware oftho objections that have been urged against tha existence ol such u right no onl by lhe author oftho 1'roc lamation bul l.v others pf tire school of cui.soh.luticiisis iiii 1 did it choose to break tbe thrafed of the arguuieati by replying to l hese objeolloos at that time therefore i smiiced ail the facts neces sary to present tie naked question of in tre right ii ivmg established tins 1 will now attend to these suggestions many ofthem have u-eu inifmmioini^daiidiiii 8j ioo in the ease of nationa absolutely independent ofe.icli other if a contract k inlerod into by them the failuro to c'.-iiji v with a iy of lhe provisi ms of the ting parties leaves tile other al liberty to vacate and annul the holecoi i is i itself or while affirming a r ' ! . •-.. ou its part to c intiilu us obsor v '. ■ oftho obligations to require of the iher party a like compliance in ilius ration if this ductriue i need but refer to i own avowed principles the icj of sly 1798 declared tbat tlm ut d «• - in if right freed and exhnfierated ■ i tho stipulations of tha treaties aqd if th consular convention heretofore c ; i lei be.weon thb united states and j ■• -■ : and lh ii the s i.n si ill n i hence regarded aa legally obligatory ap i,i le-giiverniiteii or citizens of lbe uni ' ! siaies i'i reason assigned for this bhifblioo in lha preamble ofthe set it if ii thai •• lhi se treaties have been re * i i \ vi dated nnthe port of the french jl inieni ij . i r f.is act if ' i ' th , ,,' pi mce t ' **•»<! u\t b>il ug ttu-.boniy to couci iiiia to lhe moralist nr iln jurist or the pub licisi tlf-i veil settled pr positions need no illii.tr ation by buy example tooth ers i will til ily 0 ie i i , i in mr nvn history the thir.eenth ofthe old arti ,.| , i ihis > ' en i , t!i iu shall ih inviola bly observe i hv every state and th ' un „,;, ahall i . ,, ir letual i mr hall any alter anon at anv time lioroalter be nbueinaiiy ofthem unless such alteration bo agreed tun i c ingress i i'n dnits i slates and !,'• all r wards coilftriped hv the lcgiala mre fevrv slat ■." vet did eleven only f lh thirl i u si ites in opposition to the will f tiie tut i others bier that solemn covenant by the present constitution of lbe united states and aaoordina w the provisions ol this hitter instrument nma sla.es onlv might have done so aa lo them selves ... legitimately as did the oleven pi ui whence was such a power which all ,- ,|,. to have lie i rightfully oiorciso i l,,,n ' ■ • io fro n the v of ui^-ciiuiuti tbsajielvofi far bv thui tbs conehi-i ms from these promises is that when ii ' oveiiiini entered into belweea u slat ■ and its co-si u os is violate i by aiiv of the parli-s to that coven mt any slufe mav nf ng'.t declare ihe coveoolil broken a hj su n i i argur obligatory up 1 itself in tlm vi ov fthe subject it is ., nomorhent whether the g vernmenl of lhl unitu.l states be c insi lered as a p:irtv ir the coven nit or u it because if the gov ornm n is a party then tho principle ap plies in terms ; and if not u party but only tlie ago it of the parlies who approve and sanction its acts the bcl of vu luting lhe answers hut there v ei been presented tion of this 1 propose uiimber a this objection k rightfully assume asv nan bus been in \., z s iti or act ipoii^fl c institution becomes by adoption the acl ofall the principals who approve snd sanc tion it and so fire mini nseqnencea i if low in either case thisrightofaootate in d icl ir :, covenant broken by s ime tj villi tit tioi.i'.m >| the covi t sun he other parlies no longer obligator nl on,iun.li^ivli':u uatjoxihu oijecuioj iuo br ter india ido ill suoti ; l ill ' dttcutfjiti the iuitlj