nts only "on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of
the States." And it is not perceived that the terms presented in the
address are more practicable than those referred to in the message.

It will not escape attention that the conditions on which it is said in
the address of the convention they "would be willing to acquiesce" form
no part of the ordinance. While this ordinance bears all the solemnity
of a fundamental law, is to be authoritative upon all within the limits
of South Carolina, and is absolute and unconditional in its terms, the
address conveys only the sentiments of the convention, in no binding or
practical form; one is the act of the State, the other only the
expression of the opinions of the members of the convention. To limit
the effect of that solemn act by any terms or conditions whatever, they
should have been embodied in it, and made of import no less
authoritative than the act itself. By the positive enactments of the
ordinance the execution of the laws of the Union is absolutely
prohibited, and the address offers no other prospect of their being
again restored, even in the modified form proposed, than what depends
upon the improbable contingency that amid changing events and increasing
excitement the sentiments of the present members of the convention and
of their successors will remain the same.

It is to be regretted, however, that these conditions, even if they had
been offered in the same binding form, are so undefined, depend upon so
many contingencies, and are so directly opposed to the known opinions
and interests of the great body of the American people as to be almost
hopeless of attainment. The majority of the States and of the people
will certainly not consent that the protecting duties shall be wholly
abrogated, never to be reenacted at any future time or in any possible
contingency. As little practicable is it to provide that "the same rate
of duty shall be imposed upon the protected articles that shall be
imposed upon the unprotected," which, moreover, would be severely
oppressive to the poor, and in time of war would add greatly to its
rigors. And though there can be no objection to the principle, properly
understood, that no more revenue shall be raised than is necessary for
the constitutional purposes of the Government, which principle has been
already recommended by the Executive as the true basis of taxation, yet
it is very certain that South Carolina alone can no