In the course of our remarks, we shall generally employ the term _annul_, in preference to the new-fashioned word _nullify_. The meaning of the two, as given in the dictionaries, is exactly the same, but the former is in better use, and presents to most minds a more distinct idea than the latter. It is well known that one of the most frequent sources of obscurity and confusion in reasoning, is the use of terms which, from whatever cause, are in any degree vague; and we have very little doubt that in the present controversy, the error of the Carolina statesmen may be attributed in part to the unfortunate substitution of the new-fangled terms _nullify_ and _nullification_, for the corresponding good old English words _annul_ and _annulling_. Many a professed _nullifier_ would, we suspect, shrink from the assertion that a State has a right to _annul_ an act of the General Government. Mr. Calhoun seldom employs the latter term, and states expressly, that he does 'not claim for a State the right to _abrogate_' an act of the General Government. Now, according to Johnson, the meaning of _abrogate_ is to _take away from a law its force_, to _repeal_, to _annul_. To _annul_, according to the same authority, is to _make void_, to _nullify_, to _reduce to nothing_: and finally, to _nullify_ is to _annul_, to _make void_. The meaning of the three words, in correct usage, is exactly the same; and Mr. Calhoun, in disclaiming the right of a State to _abrogate_ an act of the General Government, really disclaims the right to _annul_ or _nullify_ such an act, in any proper sense of those terms, and abandons in a single sentence the doctrine which he is at so much pains to establish in the rest of his exposition. In disclaiming the use of the word _abrogate_, abstaining generally from that of _annul_, and taking refuge in what Governor Lumpkin very properly calls the _mystical_ terms _nullify_ and _nullification_, the Vice President has, we think, betrayed a secret consciousness of the weak point in his cause. The controversy is, however, not about words, but things. The right which the Vice-President disclaims under the name of _abrogating_, but claims for a State under that of _nullifying_ an act of the General Government, is thus stated by himself in the letter alluded to above. 1. 'A State has a right, in her sovereign capacity in Convention, to declare an unconstitutional act of Congress to be null and void; and such declaration is obligatory on her citizens, and conclusive against the General Government; which would have no right to enforce its construction of its powers against that of the State.' 2. Upon the exercise of this right by a State, 'it would be the duty of the General Government to abandon the power, at least as far as the nullifying State is concerned, and to apply to the States themselves, according to the form prescribed by the Constitution, to obtain it by a grant.'