The Vice-President indulges in another course of remarks of considerable extent, which, though not directly applicable to the leading points of the argument, are of too serious a cast to be passed over without notice. He undertakes to show, that the Government of the Union would not be authorized to employ force against a State which should annul one of their acts; and, anticipating the objection that nullification is equivalent to a secession from the Union, which would place the seceding State in the attitude of a foreign one, he proceeds to reply to it by pointing out what he considers the distinction between _nullification_ and _secession_. Secession is the actual retirement of one of the partners to a common concern; nullification is the refusal of the same partner to be bound by an act of the common agent. The object of the former is to dissolve the partnership,--of the latter, to confine it to its proper object. The right to secede, that is, to avoid the obligation of all the acts of the partnership, supposes the right to nullify, that is, to avoid the obligation of one: and there is therefore an obvious inconsistency in the theory of those, who, as the Vice-President tells us is the case with many persons, admit the former and deny the latter. For himself, he liberally concedes both: a State, according to him, has a right at discretion either to exempt itself by its own act from the obligation to obey any particular act of the General Government, or to nullify the whole, Constitution and all, at one fell swoop, and secede entirely from the Union.