at this session, on the subject of the tariff, in which Mr. Clay, in favor of it, and Mr. Hayne, against it, were the principal speakers. By both, the effects of protecting duties on imports on the price of cotton, were greatly overrated. According to Mr. Hayne, but for the tariff the consumption of cotton goods would be greatly increased in the United States by their greater cheapness, and consequently there would be a greater demand for the raw material, which must raise its price. According to Mr. Clay, the consumption of the raw material was increased by the demand for its use in domestic manufactures, in addition to the foreign demand.

The national gain or loss was probably not materially affected. The gain to the planter would be greater, if he could buy in the cheapest market; but, on the other hand, the gain to the manufacturers is increased by the monopoly of the home market. This class can thus buy more cotton fabrics, by reason of their extra gains; and the Southern planter can buy less, from his diminished profits. The objection, on the score of justice, to tax one part of the community for the benefit of another, and that general one of a national loss, from diverting capital and labor into a channel which was artificially made the most profitable, by taxing its rivals, remain in full force; so that the arguments of Mr. Hayne, as to present gains, had predominance. The only ground on which Mr. Clay's policy could be defended was, that the loss here adverted to was a temporary one; and that, after foreign labor and capital were excluded from all rivalry with domestic labor and capital, the competition at home, with the gradual increase of skill and capital, and improvements in the division of labor, would make the domestic fabrics eventually cheaper than they would have been if there had been no protection.

The case of Messrs. Worcester and Butler, who had been sentenced to imprisonment in Georgia for residing in the Cherokee territory, contrary to the laws of the State, having been duly discussed in the Supreme Court, on the third day of March, Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Court.

As the authority of a State was called in question, and of that State which had always been very prompt to assert its rights in opposition to the General Government, the opinion was a very long one, prepared with great care, and expressed in a tone of great moderation.

After a full statement of the facts and proceedings in Georgia, the Chief Justice examines into the foundation of the right which Europeans claimed to the lands of the aborigines; and he recognized what was called by them the right of discovery, as the one which was conventionally established among themselves, and which they were not at liberty to contest. This merely gave the exclusive pre-emptive power to purchase, but did not deny the right of the possessors to sell.

He shows that Great Britain considered the Indians as nations capable of maintaining the relations of peace and war, of governing themselves under her protection, and she as such made treaties with them.

Such also were the acknowledged principles of the United States under the old Congress.

He then historically reviews the condition of the Cherokees, and shows the recognition of their national and independent character, by treaties and other solemn acts of the Government.

He concludes, then, that the Cherokee nation is a distinct community, and that the citizens of the United States had no right to enter their territory without their consent that the law of Georgia is therefore void, and

the judgment of its court a nullity: that the plaintiffs in error can avail themselves of these circumstances. He concludes with the opinion that the judgment of the court of Georgia, condemning Worcester and Butler to the penitentiary, is repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, and laws of the United States; is therefore void, and ought to be reversed and annulled. That a mandate be ordered that all proceedings on the indictment against the plaintiffs cease, and that they be discharged.

Judge M'Lean agreed with the Court, but gave his reasons separately, and at great length. Judge Baldwin dissented from the opinion of the Court.

The State of Georgia, as might be expected, was not disposed tamely to acquiesce in this decision. This subject was referred to a committee of its Legislature, who made a report on it, in the previous December.

They justify the law of the State, not merely on the ground of policy, but even of necessity; and say that she had, moreover, carried out the avowed policy of the General Government, when, acting in loco parentis to the Indians, she prohibited the residence of whites among the Cherokees.

That Messrs. Worcester and Butler were religious mis sionaries, had been admonished by the Governor against violating the law of the State, and time given them to remove, but they refused. They were then arrested, tried, and convicted.

The committee insist that the rights, both of property and jurisdiction in the Cherokee lands, is in the State of Georgia; and, consequently, that there is no limit to her right of penal enactment. They justify all the authorities of Georgia, and direct copies of this report to be transmitted to the Georgia delegation in Congress.

The Republican members of the Legislature of New

York, resenting the rejection of Mr. Van Buren, which they regarded as "an indignity to the character of the State, in the person of its favorite son," addressed the President on the occasion, in which they extolled his administration, his appointment of Mr. Van Buren, first as his Secretary of State, and then as Minister to Great Britain, and eulogized Mr. Van Buren himself.

In his reply, the President took occasion to declare that Mr. Van Buren "had no participation whatever in the occurrences relative to himself and the second officer of the Government (Mr. Calhoun), or in the dissolution of the late Cabinet; and that there was no ground for imputing to him the having advised those removals from office which, in the discharge of the President's constitutional functions, he had deemed it proper to make."

He further states that those parts of the instructions (in which he says there is nothing derogatory to the national dignity or honor, or is improper) which have been used to justify his rejection by the Senate of the United States, "proceeded from his own suggestion; were the result of his own deliberate investigation and reflection;" and now, as well as when they were dictated, appear to him "entirely proper, and consonant to public duty."

He then defends his course with no little skill, saying that, upon no ground of duty or policy, could he be called upon to justify the course of the preceding Administration, which that Administration had itself waived; and he could not reconcile it to his sense of public duty, or of national dignity, that the United States should suf fer continued injury or injustice, because a former Administration had insisted upon terms which it had subsequently waived, or had failed seasonably to accept an offer which it had afterwards been willing to embrace." "To announce," he said, "distinctly to Great Britain.

that we would not submit to a continued injustice, on the ground of any objection to the past conduct of the American Government, whether it were right or wrong, was the obvious import of the whole instructions."

The course pursued by Mr. Van Buren, thus taken upon himself by General Jackson, and thus plausibly supported, was not likely to affect him much in the eyes of the mass of the American people, so many of whom are scarcely able to appreciate sentiments of national dignity and self-respect, while the severity of the punishment inflicted on him could be understood by all; and it very soon produced a lively feeling of resentment with the Jackson party throughout the nation. It strongly recommended him to the people for the office of VicePresident; and at the convention which met in Baltimore in May, to nominate a Vice-President to serve under General Jackson's administration for a second term, Mr. Van Buren received two hundred and eight of two hundred and eighty-three votes-Philip P. Barbour, of Virginia, having received forty-nine votes, and Richard M. Johnson, of Kentucky, twenty-six votes. Mr. Van Buren was accordingly unanimously recommended for that office; and in the election in the subsequent autumn, he received one hundred and eighty-nine votes of the two hundred and eighty-eight Electors in the United States.

In February, an elaborate report from the Committee of Ways and Means was presented by Mr. M'Duffie, its Chairman, relative to the duties on imports, which the Committee think unjust and injurious to the planting States, and proportionally advantageous to the manufacturing States.

The report contained an ingenious argument, to show that the tax on imports was as much a tax on the