The Examiner, and Journal of Political Economy/Volume 2/Number 13/The Genuine Book of Nullification/4
CHAPTER IV.
MASSACHUSETTS NULLIFICATION.
1st. Judge Parsons.—Having shown from the reports in the law books, the complete exemplification of this sovereign and rightful remedy of the States, on the part of Pennsylvania, citing in support of the principle the able opinion of Chief Justice Tilghman, I now proceed to exhibit sundry assertions of this doctrine in the State of Massachusetts, and first by Chief Justice Parsons whose words upon this subject, in his speech in the Massachusetts Conventions, (Jany. 1788) are as follows:—
"There is another check, founded on the nature of the Union, superior to all the parchment checks that can be invented. If there should be an usurpation, it will not be upon the farmer and merchant occupied solely with their several pursuits—It will be upon thirteen Legislatures completely organized, possessed of the confidence of the people, and having the means, as well as the inclination to oppose it successfully. Under these circumstances none but madmen would attempt an usurpation.—But Sir, the People themselves, have it in their power effectually to resist usurpation, without being driven to an appeal to arms. An act of usurpation is not obligatory—it is not law!! Any man may be justified in his resistance to it. Let him be considered as a criminal by the General Government—yet his own fellow citizens alone can convict him.—They are his Jury; and if they pronounce him innocent not all the powers of Congress can hurt him—and innocent they certainly will pronounce him, if the supposed law which he resisted, was an act of usurpations."
2d. Gov. Hancock.—This stern Republican Patriarch has given one of the first instances of practical nullification on record, in his resistance to Federal usurpation, as early as 1793, by refusing to obey a summons of the U. S. Courts for the appearance of Massachusetts to a suit then commenced against her.
3d. The Embargo.—The Senate of Massachusetts in one of their official documents, dated February 3d, 1808, used the following language—"We beg leave to observe that those rights which the people have not chosen to part with, should be exercised with much delicacy, and only at times of great danger, not with distraction or confusion, not to oppose the Laws—but to prevent Acts being respected as Laws which are unwarranted by the commission given to their Rulers. On such occasions passive submission would, on the part of the people, be a breach of their allegiance, and, on our part, treachery and perjury—For the people are bound, by their allegiance, and we are additionally bound by our oaths, to support the Constitution and the State—and we are responsible to the people and to our God for the faithful execution of the trust."
Again, the Legislature of Massachusetts, in 1809, passed the following resolution:
"Resolved, That the said Act of Congress passed on the 9th of January, in the present year, for enforcing the Act laying an embargo, and the several Acts supplementary thereto, are in the opinion of this Legislature, in many respects unjust, oppressive and unconstitutional, and not legally binding on the citizens of this State."
Thus we find the Legislature of a State, whose citizens are now abusing us as traitors, absolutely and entirely absolving her citizens from obedience to this regular war measure of Congress, passed in perfect conformity with their powers under the Constitution—and thus practising most unrighteously the very doctrine, at the bare mention of which, in our case, [so fully warranting its adoption,] these worthy people pretend to be so greatly horrified. See Appendix. Note C.