10 [ Doc. No. 82. ] only objected to the details. Maryland, lying between Virginia and Penfi" sylvania, is naturally divided on every sectional question. The New England delegation stood fifteen for the bill, and twenty-eight against it. They brought forward the measure, and then opposed its adoption, because it did not take exactly the form most conducive to their sectional interests.” Can any thing better prove, than the votes on this important occasion, that this was purely a question of compromise and sectional interests, and that the interests of the minority were wholly disregarded? And what can have a more certain tendency to corrupt and overthrow our institutions, than the exercise of such irresponsible power against the dearest rights and interests of the minority? It was the exercise of irresponsible power which broke into fragments the great nations of the earth. Look to Rome, whose conquering eagles overshadowed the remotest countries of the known world; and what produced the dissolution and consequent downfall of this empire? It Was the exercise of irresponsible power. The governors of the provinces were not responsible to the people over which they ruled, and their tyranny was intolerable. What but the exercise of the same kind of irresponsible power caused the emancipation of the United States? Did not the colonies deny the right of the British Parliament to tax them, unless through the medium of their own responsible representatives? and even if a small representation had been allowed them in the British Parliament, still they would have been entirely unprotected on all subjects relating to conflicting interests between the colonies and the mother country, for their representation would ever have been in a minority. Are not these circumstances, then, well worthy of the gravest consideration of the majority, and sufficient to make it pause in its car eer? I o they not open to our view the very exposed condition of minorities in our country, and the absolute necessity for the utmost forbearance and circumspection on the part of majorities? A majority in our country, no matter when and how formed, should ever bear those things in mind, and recollect that there are some features in the absolute rule of a majority, even worse than the power of a monarch or an aristocracy. In the first place, a sectional majority is impervious to the public opinion of the minority; then the majority and minority are permanent, and, consequently, there is no hope of relief for the latter: and, lastly, majorities are peculiarly liable to be governed by narrow and selfish considerations. We have now, we hope, shown the tendency which there must ever be in a Government consituted like ours, to partial and even vicious Legislation, when meddling with the conflicting and hostile interests of the community. We have shown, upon these grounds, that the repeal of the tariff is loudly called for. Let us now inquire at what time this repeal should, commence; and to this we have no hesitation in saying, the next session of Congress will be much the most appropriate time. We concur in the sentiments of the memorial respecting the duty of acquiescence in the will of the majority, if it be restricted, as we suppose it must be understood to be restricted, to acts within the limits of their constitutional powers. It does not derogate from a majority, or from any earthly power, to suppose them liable to err. It is the condition of humanity. Men err from ignorance and weakness, and are misled by their interests and their passions; and no passion more universally actuates men, than the desire of power, and to free themselves from the restrictions which limit its exertions*
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=