5. Laws applying to the District of Columbia or the Territories, which

conflict with State laws, shall not be enforceable within State jurisdiction. (Niles, XXI, 404.) [1052] _Annals_, 17th Cong. 1st Sess. 1682. [1053] _Ib._, 18th Cong. 1st Sess. 28. [1054] _Annals_, 18th Cong. 1st Sess. 336. [1055] _Ib._ 419. [1056] _Ib._ 915. [1057] Webster, from the Judiciary Committee, which he seems to have dominated, merely reported that Wickliffe's proposed reform was "not expedient." (_Annals_, 18th Cong. 1st Sess. 1291.) [1058] March 7 to 13, 1822, inclusive. [1059] 8 Wheaton, 75. [1060] 8 Wheaton, 93. Johnson dissented. (_Ib._ 94-107.) Todd of Kentucky was absent because of illness, a circumstance that greatly worried Story, who wrote the sick Justice: "We have missed you exceedingly during the term and particularly in the Kentucky causes.... We have had ... tough business" and "wanted your firm vote on many occasions." (Story to Todd, March 24, 1823, Story, I, 422-23.) [1061] Niles, XXV, 203-05. [1062] _Ib._ 206. [1063] Niles, XXV, 205. [1064] _Ib._ 261. [1065] _Ib._ 275-76. [1066] _Ib._ XXIX, 228-29. [1067] _Ib._ XXV, 12; and see Elkison _vs._ Deliesseline, 8 _Federal Cases_, 493. [1068] Niles, XXV, 13-16. [1069] _Ib._ 12; and see especially _ib._ XXVII, 242-43. [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. [1079] _Ib._ 823-24. [1080] _Ib._ 824-25. [1081] 9 Wheaton, 846-47. [1082] _Ib._ 847. [1083] Marshall here refers to threats to resist forcibly the execution of the Tariff of 1824. See _infra_, 535-36. [1084] 9 Wheaton, 847-48. [1085] 9 Wheaton, 848-49. [1086] 9 Wheaton, 849. [1087] _Ib._ 852-53. [1088] 9 Wheaton, 857. (Italics the author's.) [1089] _Ib._ 858. [1090] See _supra_, chap, VI. [1091] 9 Wheaton, 859. [1092] _Ib._ 859-60. [1093] 9 Wheaton, 861-62. [1094] _Ib._ 862-63. [1095] 9 Wheaton, 866. [1096] _Ib._ 868-69. [1097] _Ib._ 871. [1098] 9 Wheaton, 871-72. (Italics the author's.) In reality Johnson is here referring to the threats of physical resistance to the proposed tariff law of 1824. (See _infra_, chap. X.) [1099] _Ib._ 875-903. [1100] _Annals_, 18th Cong. 1st Sess. 2514. [1101] _Ib._ 2519-20. [1102] _Ib._ 2527. This debate was most scantily reported. Webster wrote of it: "We had the Supreme Court before us yesterday.... A debate arose which lasted all day. Cohens _v._ Virginia, Green and Biddle, &c. were all discussed.... The proposition for the concurrence of five judges will not prevail." (Webster to Story, May 4, 1824, _Priv. Corres._: Webster, I, 350.) [1103] _Annals_, 18th Cong. 1st Sess. 2538. [1104] _Ib._ 2539. [1105] _Annals_, 18th Cong. 1st Sess. 2541. Throughout this session Webster appears to have been much disturbed. For example, as early as April 10, 1824, he writes Story: "I am exhausted. When I look in the glass, I think of our old New England saying, 'As thin as a shad.' I have not vigor enough left, either mental or physical, to try an action for assault and battery.... I shall call up some bills reported by our [Judiciary] committee.... The gentlemen of the West will propose a clause, requiring the assent of a majority of all the judges to a judgment, which pronounces a state law void, as being in violation of the constitution or laws of the United States. Do you see any great evil in such a provision? Judge Todd told me he thought it would give great satisfaction in the West. In what phraseology would you make such a provision?" (Webster to Story, April 10, 1824, _Priv. Corres._: Webster, I, 348-49.) [1106] See next chapter.