The scattering votes in these statements are not given.

Of whom the three first were returned to the house, and no one of them having a majority of the whole number of votes, the selection devolved upon the house of representatives, and it terminated in the choice of Mr. Adams.

We annex a statement, to explain the manner in which this constitutional power is exercised, by which it will be seen, that the votes of a majority of the members of each state constitute the vote of the state.

Thus 13 states voted for Adams, 7 for Jackson, and 4 for Crawford.

John C. Calhoun was elected vice president by a great majority of the electoral colleges.

In the election of 1828, the great majority of votes, in favour of Andrew Jackson, rendered a recourse to the house of representatives unnecessary.

Of the 261 electors, 178 voted for General Jackson and 83 for Mr. Adams. John C. Calhoun obtained 171 votes for vice

president, 83 were given for Richard Rush, and 7 for William Smith of South Carolina.

The consequences of an absolute secession cannot be mistaken, and they would be serious and afflicting.

The seceding state, whatever might be its relative magnitude, would speedily and distinctly feel the loss of the aid and countenance of the Union. The Union losing a proportion of the national revenue, would be entitled to demand from it a proportion of the national debt. It would be entitled to treat the inhabitants and the commerce of the separated state, as appertaining to a foreign country. In public treaties already made, whether commercial or political, it could claim no participation, while foreign powers would unwillingly calculate, and slowly transfer to it, any portion of the respect and confidence borne towards the United States.

Evils more alarming may readily be perceived. The destruction of the common band would be unavoidably attended with more serious consequences than the mere disunion of the parts.

Separation would produce jealousies and discord, which in time would ripen into mutual hostilities, and while our country would be weakened by internal war, foreign enemies would be encouraged to invade with the flattering prospect of subduing in detail, those whom, collectively, they would dread to

encounter.

Such in ancient times was the fate of Greece, broken into numerous independent republics. Rome, which pursued a contrary policy, and absorbed all her territorial acquisitions in one great body, attained irresistible power.

But it may be objected, that Rome also has fallen. It is true; and such is the history of man. Natural life and political existence alike give way at the appointed measure of time, and the birth, decay, and extinction of empires only serve to prove the tenuity and illusion of the deepest schemes of the statesman, and the most elaborate theories of the philosopher. Yet it is

demand a candid and punctual compliance with engagements constitutionally and fairly made.

"Our national Constitution having committed to us the management of the national concerns with foreign states and powers, it is our duty to take care that all the rights which they ought to enjoy within our jurisdiction by the laws of nations and the faith of treaties, remain inviolate. And it is also our duty to provide that the essential interests and peace of the whole confederacy, be not impaired or endangered by deviations from the line of public faith, into which any of its members may from whatever cause be unadvisedly drawn.

"Let it be remembered, that the thirteen independent sovereign states have, by express delegation of power, formed and vested in us a general though limited sovereignty, for the general and national purposes specified in the confederation. In this sovereignty they cannot severally participate, (except by their delegates,) nor with it have concurrent jurisdiction; for the ninth article of the confederation most expressly conveys to us the sole and exclusive right and power of determining on war and peace, and of entering into treaties and alliances, &c.

"When therefore a treaty is constitutionally made, ratified and published by us, it immediately becomes binding on the whole nation, and superadded to the laws of the land, without the intervention of state legislatures. Treaties derive their obligation from being compacts between the sovereign of this and the sovereign of another nation; whereas laws or statutes derive their force from being the acts of a legislature competent to the passing of them. Hence it is clear that treaties must be implicitly received and observed by every member of the nation; for as state legislatures are not competent to the making of such compacts or treaties, so neither are they competent in that capacity, authoritatively to decide on, or ascertain the construction and sense of them. When doubts arise respecting the construction of state laws, it is not unusual nor

improper for state legislatures, by explanatory or declaratory acts, to remove those doubts: but, the case between laws and compacts or treaties is in this widely different; for when doubts arise respecting the sense and meaning of a treaty, they are so far from being cognizable by a state legislature, that the United States in congress assembled, have no authority to settle and determine them for as the legislature only, which constitutionally passes a law, has power to revise and amend it, so the sovereigns only, who are parties to the treaty, have power by mutual consent and posterior articles, to correct or explain it.

"In cases between individuals, all doubts respecting the meaning of a treaty, like all doubts respecting the meaning of a law, are in the first instance mere judicial questions, and are to be heard and decided in the courts of justice having cognizance of the causes in which they arise, and whose duty it is to determine them according to the rules and maxims established by the laws of nations for the interpretation of treaties. From these principles it follows of necessary consequence, that no individual state has a right by legislative acts to decide and point out the sense in which their particular citizens and courts shall understand this or that article of a treaty.

"It is evident that a contrary doctrine would not only militate against the common and established maxims and ideas relative to this subject, but would prove no less inconvenient in practice than it is irrational in theory; for in that case the same article of the same treaty might by law be made to mean one thing in New Hampshire, another thing in New York, and neither the one nor the other of them in Georgia.

"How far such legislative acts would be valid and obligatory even within the limits of the state passing them, is a question which we hope never to have occasion to discuss. Certain, however it is, that such acts cannot bind either of the contracting sovereigns, and consequently cannot be obligatory on their respective nations.