Being fully of opinion that the embargo law was unconstitutional, the people of New England were yet equally clear in the opinion, (it was a matter they did doubt upon,) that the question, after all, must be decided by the judicial tribunals of the United States.  Before those tribunals, therefore, they brought the question.  Under the provisions of the law, they had given bonds to millions in amount, and which were alleged to be forfeited.  They suffered the bonds to be sued, and thus raised the question.  In the old-fashioned way of settling disputes, they went to law.  The case came to hearing and solemn argument; and he who espoused their cause, and stood up for them against the validity of the embargo act, was none other than that great man, of whom the gentleman has made honorable mention, Samuel Dexter.  He was then, Sir, in the fulness of his knowledge, and the maturity of his strength.  He had retired from long and distinguished public service here, to the renewed pursuit of professional duties, carrying with him all that enlargement and expansion, all the new strength and force, which an acquaintance with the more general subjects discussed in the national councils is capable of adding to professional attainment, in a mind of true greatness and comprehension.  He was a lawyer, and he was also a statesman.  He had studied the Constitution, when he filled public station, that he might defend it; he had examined its principles that he might maintain them.  More than all men, or at least as much as any man, he was attached to the general government and to the union of the States.  His feelings and opinions all ran in that direction.  A question of constitutional law, too, was, of all subjects, that one which was best suited to his talents and learning.  Aloof from technicality, and unfettered by artificial rule, such a question gave opportunity for that deep and clear analysis, that mighty grasp of principle, which so much distinguished his higher efforts.  His very statement was argument; his inference seemed demonstration.  The earnestness of his own conviction wrought conviction in others.  One was convinced, and believed, and assented, because it was gratifying, delightful, to think, and feel, and believe, in unison with an intellect of such evident superiority.

Mr. Dexter, Sir, such as I have described him, argued the New England cause.  He put into his effort his whole heart, as well as all the powers of his understanding; for he had avowed, in the most public manner, his entire concurrence with his neighbors on the point in dispute.  He argued the cause; it was lost, and New England submitted.  The established tribunals pronounced the law constitutional, and New England acquiesced.  Now, Sir, is not this the exact opposite of the doctrine of the gentleman from South Carolina?  According to him, instead of referring to the judicial tribunals, we should have broken up the embargo by laws of our own; we should have repealed