If, in a matter so serious as this, it were worth while to pay much attention to forms of expression, the language of this document would afford ample room for criticism. To begin with the very title: _an Ordinance_. It has been well observed, that the Convention could hardly have given to the paper expressing their intentions a less auspicious name, than this obsolete vestige of the French _ancien regime_, the last example of which, known to us in this country, was the celebrated Ordinance to nullify the liberty of the press and the right of suffrage. The result of this attempt at nullification by Charles X. was hardly such as to encourage imitation, or to bring the phraseology employed by him into very good odor.--_An Ordinance to nullify_,--why substitute the affected term _nullify_, of which no one knows the real meaning, for the standard English word _annul_, which every body understands? Obviously for no other purpose, than to _mystify_ the good people of Carolina into a course, which, if the true character of it were honestly presented to them, they would shrink from with horror. The use of this term is an improvement, at the suggestion of Mr. Turnbull, upon the title as originally reported by Mr. Harper, which ran thus:--_an Ordinance to provide for arresting the operation of certain acts, &c._ This was at least intelligible. Again: _an Ordinance to nullify certain acts of Congress purporting to be laws_. Why _purporting_ to be laws?--They are laws. The Acts of the General Government are, as such, laws. They may be inexpedient, oppressive, unconstitutional,--but they are still _laws_. This is their appropriate name as Acts of the Government, and has no connexion with the question of their validity. The phraseology of the first sentence of the Ordinance is still more singular:--_Whereas the Congress of the United States, by various Acts purporting to be Acts laying duties and imposts on foreign imports, but in reality intended for the protection of domestic manufactures._ Purporting to be acts laying duties and imposts on foreign imports! Can any one doubt that they are Acts laying duties on foreign imports? The objection to them is, that they lay duties for a purpose not recognised by the Constitution; but no man in his senses can pretend to doubt, that they do in fact lay duties on foreign imports. The rest of the Ordinance is about as correctly drawn, as the title and the first sentence: but, without enlarging on mere phraseology, let us proceed to considerations of a more substantial character. The questions that naturally suggest themselves on a perusal of this extraordinary document are, What is its immediate operation? What measures will it call for, on the part of the General Government? What will be its ultimate effect upon the political situation of the country?