and prescribed duties.  They ordained such a government, they gave it the name of a Constitution, and therein they established a distribution of powers between this, their general government, and their several State governments.  When they shall become dissatisfied with this distribution, they can alter it.  Their own power over their own instrument remains.  But until they shall alter it, it must stand as their will, and is equally binding on the general government and on the States.

The gentleman, Sir, finds analogy where I see none.  He likens it to the case of a treaty, in which, there being no common superior, each party must interpret for itself, under its own obligation of good faith.  But this is not a treaty, but a constitution of government, with powers to execute itself, and fulfil its duties.

I admit, Sir, that this government is a government of checks and balances; that is, the House of Representatives is a check on the Senate, and the Senate is a check on the House, and the President a check on both.  But I cannot comprehend him, or, if I do, I totally differ from him, when he applies the notion of checks and balances to the interference of different governments.  He argues, that, if we transgress our constitutional limits, each State, as a State, has a right to check us.  Does he admit the converse of the proposition, that we have a right to check the States?  The gentleman’s doctrines would give us a strange jumble of authorities and powers, instead of governments of separate and defined powers.  It is the part of wisdom, I think, to avoid this; and to keep the general government and the State government each in its proper sphere, avoiding as carefully as possible every kind of interference.

Finally, Sir, the honorable gentleman says, that the States will only interfere, by their power, to preserve the Constitution.  They will not destroy it, they will not impair it; they will only save, they will only preserve, they will only strengthen it!  Ah!  Sir, this is but the old story.  All regulated governments, all free governments, have been broken by similar disinterested and well-disposed interference.  It is the common pretence.  But I take leave of the subject.

[Footnote 1:  Mr. Sprague.]

[Footnote 2:  Mr. Calhoun, when this speech was made, was President of the Senate, and Vice-President of the United States.]

[Footnote 3:  Mr. Forsyth.]

[Footnote 4:  Mr. McDuffie.]

[Footnote 5:  The letter of the Federal Convention to the Congress of the Confederation transmitting the plan of the Constitution.]

[Footnote 6:  Mr. Hillhouse, of Connecticut.]

THE CONSTITUTION NOT A COMPACT BETWEEN SOVEREIGN STATES.

A SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, ON THE 16TH OF FEBRUARY, 1833, IN REPLY TO MR. CALHOUN’S SPEECH ON THE BILL “FURTHER TO PROVIDE FOR THE COLLECTION OF DUTIES ON IMPORTS.”