[1070] Marshall to Story, Sept. 26, 1823, Story MSS. Mass. Hist. Soc.
[1071] Niles, xxvii, 242. The Senate of South Carolina resolved by a vote of six to one that the duty of the State to "guard against insubordination or insurrection among our colored population ... is paramount to all laws, all treaties, all constitutions ... and will never, by this state, be renounced, compromised, controlled or participated with any power whatever."
Johnson's decision is viewed as "an unconstitutional interference" with South Carolina's slave system, and the State "will, on this subject, ... make common cause with ... other southern states similarly circumstanced in this respect." (Niles, xxvii, 264.) The House rejected the savage language of the Senate and adopted resolutions moderately worded, but expressing the same determination. (Ib. 292.)
[1072] For the facts in Osborn vs. The Bank of the United States, see supra, 328-329.
[1073] See, for instance, speech of John Carter of South Carolina. (Annals, 18th Cong. 1st Sess. 2097; and upon this subject, generally, see infra, chap. x.)
[1074] Who appeared for Ohio on the first argument is not disclosed by the records.
[1075] 9 Wheaton, 795-96.
[1076] 9 Wheaton, 818-19.
[1077] Ib. 819-21.
[1078] 9 Wheaton, 823.