Nullification.
Mr. JOHNSTON. The right of a state to annul a law of Congress must depend on their showing that this is a mere confederation of states; which has not been done, and cannot be said to be true, although it should not appear to be absolutely a government of the people. It is by no means necessary to push the argument, as to the character of the government, to its utmost limit; the ground has been taken, and maintained with great force of reasoning, that this government is the agent of the supreme power, the people. It is sufficient for the argument, that this is not a compact of states. It may be assumed that it is neither strictly a confederation nor a national government: it is compounded of both; it is an anomaly in the political world; an experiment growing out of our peculiar circumstances; a compromise of principles and opinions: it is partly federal, partly national.
"The proposed Constitution is, in strictness, neither national nor federal; it is a composition of both; in its foundation it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of the government are drawn, it is partly federal, partly national; in the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal; in the mode for amendment, it is neither wholly federal nor wholly national."—Federalist.
The following list will exhibit the nature and number of the causes decided, [in the Supreme Court.] The same case is sometimes counted under different heads:
| 1. Declaring acts of Congress unconstitutional, | 2 | 8. Acquiescing in appeal jurisdiction, | 21 | |||
| 2. Constitutional, | 9. States parties, really and nominally, | 6 | ||||
| 3. Declaring state laws constitutional, | 9 | 10. States parties, incidentally, | 4 | |||
| 4. Declaring state laws unconstitutional, | 26 | 11. Opinions against the President, | 2 | |||
| 5. Affirming judgments of state courts, | 14 | 12. Opinions in favor of the President, | 2 | |||
| 6. Annulling judgments of state courts, | 14 | 13. Opinions against the Secretary of State, | 2 | |||
| 7. Assenting to appeal jurisdiction, | 7 |
They have decided twenty-six state laws to be unconstitutional; that is, interfering with the rights of the general government; which, considering these as twenty-four states, are not equal to the number of decisions against the acts of Congress. * * *
The [Supreme] Court has annulled the judgments of state courts in fourteen cases, which drew in question the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States; but has affirmed as many; which shows they have no bearing against the rights of states, and which, if it has had no other effect, has preserved the uniformity so essential to the administration of justice under them. * * *
Indian "Treaties."
Mr. SPRAGUE. These contracts with aboriginal communities have been denominated treaties from the first settlement of this country. It has been their peculiar and appropriate name without even an alias dictus. Great Britain made treaties with the Indians; the several colonies formed many, and gave them the same appellation. The Continental Congress, from the time it first assembled until it was merged in the present national government, uniformly called them treaties. They did so in 1775, 1776, 1778, 1783, 1784, 1785, 1786, 1787, 1788, and even to the day of the formation and adoption of the Constitution. We find them repeatedly and particularly mentioned in July, August, and October, 1787, the Constitution being formed in September of the same year.
