the powers of the Federal Government as
resulting from the compact to which the States
are parties, as limited by the plain sense and
intention of the instrument constituting that
compact, as no further valid than they are
authorized by the grants enumerated in that
compact," &c.
And the Kentucky Resolutions prepared by
Thomas Jefferson:
" Resolved, That the several States compris-
ing the United States of America, are not united
on the principle of unlimited submission to
their General Government; but that by com-
pact, under the style and title of a Constitu-
tion for the United States, and of amend-
ments thereto, they constituted a General
Government for special purposes, delegated to
that Government certain definite powers, re-
serving each State to itself the residuary mass
of right to their own self-government; and
that whenever the General Government as-
sumes undelegated powers, its acts are unau-
thoritative, void, and of no force; that to
this compact each State acceded as a State,
and is an integral party," &c.
And although Mr. Webster in his great
controversy with Mr. Hayne, denied that the
Constitution was formed by compact, or that
it is a compact, yet he lived to revise his
opinion, and Massachusetts in 1851, through
the eloquent tongue of the great expounder
of the Constitution, declared in his speech at
Capon Springs, in 1851, that it is a compact,
in these words:
"I do not hesitate to say and repeat, that
if the Northern States refuse, wilfully and de-
liberately, to carry into effect that part of
the Constitution which respects the restora-
tion of fugitive slaves, the South would no
longer be bound to observe the compact. A
bargain broken on one side is a bargain
broken on all sides."
Because, Mr. President, this Constitution
was formed by compact, and by the States, it
does not follow that our forefathers did not
design the form of government to be perpetual
and lasting. It contained no germ or seed
for its own destruction. And when the Con-
stitution was ratified by the States, they
thereby created a Government. Certain powers
were delegated to the General Government,
and to the extent of the powers delegated the
Government was clothed with sovereignty, and
allegiance henceforth became due—to the ex-
tent of the sovereign powers conferred-—to the
Constitution and Government of the United
States. The States remained no longer sov-
ereign as before. By the formation of the
Constitution, and by entering into the com
pact, they parted with a portion of their
powers of sovereignty, viz: the power to
regulate commerce, the power to form trea-
ties and alliances, the power to keep standing
armies in time of peace, and other power
which it is unnecessary now to recapitulate
Treason was defined, and if treason could be |
committed against the Constitution and Gov-
ernment of the United States then as Presi-
dent Jackson said in his proclamation of De-
cember 10th, 1833, allegiance was due to the
extent of the powers conferred.
But no paramount allegiance was given.
The States, except within the limits and to
the extent within which they restricted their
powers, still retained the residue of their soy-
ereign powers. Treason could be still com-
mitted against the State. The doctrine of
paramount allegiance is never once tolerated.
I have looked, and looked in vain, to find
language used by any expounder of the Con-
stitution or writer upon the subject; I have
carefully examined even the order of General
Schenck—and nowhere have I found the doc-
trine of paramount allegiance announced as
due to the Federal Government.
And as showing that I am maintaining no
doctrine subversive of our government, but
the true doctrine of the sovereignty of the
Government of the United States within the
limits of the Constitution and the allegiance
due thereto, I refer to one passage from the
speech of Hon. Montgomery Blair, on the revo-
lutionary schemes of the ultra-abolitionists,
in which he asks: " is not the Union and its
Constitution identified as 'that corporate ex-
istence ' within the States which makes them
all—those trodden down and those standing
up—component members of our Union of
States? How can the Union, which is the
guaranty of the government of every republic
of which it consists, admit, whilst it lives, that
any part of it is dead ?'' Accept the doctrine
of the gentleman from Baltimore city, (Mr.
Stirling), and I say the State of Maryland, as
a State, is dead. She may be part of a con-
solidated government to which you owe para-
mount allegiance, but the State, as a State,
is dead from that hour. She may exist on
sufferance by the General Government; but
the existence of States by sufferance is no ex-
istence at all. Mr. Blair goes on to say: "It
does not admit it. it is at war in every
State in the Union at this moment, co-ope-
rating with the loyal in each, entitled by its
special sovereignty to crush the traitors who
violate it." I quote to show that he uses the
term " special" sovereignty, not paramount
sovereignty. Paramount sovereignty in-
volves the death of " the parts "—the States.
My doctrine preserves the life and true legal
status of both—the States and the Federal
Government.
To further confirm this doctrine, I refer to
Mr. Webster's opinion—4 Elliot, 499 :
''The States are, unquestionably, sovereign,
so far as their sovereignty is not affected by
this supreme law. But the State Legisla-
tures, as political bodies, however sovereign,
are yet not sovereign over the people. So far
as the people have given power to the Gene-
ral Government, so far the grants are unques-
tionably good, and the Government holds of |
