Mr. BROMWE L. I have known a man O into court, when he had repudiated and vio ated a partnership contract; and although it was proven in court that such was the case and he took no rights under the contract, he had to go out of court with the sheriff drawing this very kind of vitality out ofhim to pay the costs. It is a common occurrence for the court to issue a writ against just such a defendant as the violator of a compact. to bring out of his property the necessary expenses of putting him out of court. Why is it that men insist from dayto day that this compact of the Union cannot be violated? Was it not made by the consent of our people? Wasitnotratified by the people? Was it not ratified as all compacts are ratified? and does not every State which comes into the Union assume upon the moment allliabilities and all obligations which follow every right, to each other and to the whole? Let us consider this question for a moment. As I understand from tediscourse and questions of the gentleman, he would insist that this State of Ala ama, whichI happened to name, is toda a State of this Union, endowed with the rightand the power of afiecting by her legislative action in this Hall and in the Sen ate, the welfare of all the States of this Union. It cannot be questioned for a moment that this could not be said in relation to the parties to any other contract. No partner in any other contract could come into court and say that he had repudiated the contract and had acted upon that repudiation; had utterly despised every obligation under it had defied the other members of the partnership until he had been broughtinto court by the sheriff; and then say that re should be the 1st man to walk in and sit down to determine matters for the benefit of the firm. What principles of law thesegentlemen have discovered, with what legal spec tacles they have looked into this matter so as to discover a difference between the consent of these consenting States and the consent of any (lilther contracting parties, I am not able tote.