which the States have parted. The original
draft of the Constitution which was made,
and which was the form in which the Con-
stitution stood until the whole Constitution
was framed and agreed upon, was to this ef-
fect; "we, the people of New Hampshire,
Massachusetts Bay, Rhode lsland and Prov-
idence Plantations "—and so on, until the
thirteen States were named—" do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the United
States of America." Afterwards, inasmuch
as it was decided by the Convention that the
Constitution was to go into effect only as be-
tween the nine States which should ratify it,
and as it was possible that the preamble
might contain the names of some State or
States that might not ratify it, the committee
of revision thought it best to strike out the
name of the individual States—which was
the form in which it was first adopted by the
Convention—and put in the common phrase
"the people of the United States"; which
has force as being equivalent to the phrase
originally adopted, and of course means "the
people of the several States."
And lastly I am opposed to the adoption
of this article, because it tends to the theory
of consolidation; and because I think the
theory of consolidation is the one great curse
which has visited this country. I had intend-
ed to argue against this consolidation theory
upon the construction of the relative powers
Of the Confederation and of the Union, i in
order to show that the powers which are re-
garded commonly as the most sovereign, were
the very powers which the Confederation
had, and were powers which were common
to both. The Confederation could exclusively
declare war, make treaties of peace, coin
money, regulate commercial intercourse, fix
the standard of weights and measures, es-
tablish post-offices and roads, make treaties
of alliance, raise armies and support navies,
or consent to its being done by States, and
make rules and regulations for the govern-
ment of land and naval forces, etc., etc., as
will appear more fully by reference to Nos.
38 and 40 of the Federalist. The powers in
which the Confederation was restricted will
show that it was no more restricted in refer-
ence to all that. is called sovereign power than
in the present Federal Government.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I perceive that the time al-
lowed to the gentleman from Prince George's,
(Mr. Belt), according to the rule, is nearly
out. I move that the rule be suspended, in
order to allow him more time.
The PRESIDENT. If there is no objection,
the gentleman will be allowed to go on.
Mr. ABBOTT. I object to the suspension of
the rule. I withdrew my amendment to the
hour rule which we adopted yesterday, with
the express understanding that the rule would
be adhered to, and not suspended on any
ground.
The question being taken upon the motion |
to suspend the rule limiting speeches of mem-
bers to one hour each, upon a division, it
was agreed to—ayes 48, noes not counted.
Mr. BELT. I am greatly indebted to the
Convention for a courtesy which I bad no
right to expect. I will nut abuse the con-
fidence which it reposes in me, because I
shall hurry over my argument so as to finish
now in a very few minutes.
I was stating my last reason for opposing
the introduction of this article into our bill
of rights and our Constitution. I am op-
posed to it because it favors that consolida-
tion theory which, as a practical proposition,
I am opposed to. My objection to consolida-
tion arises even from the word itself. I am
opposed to the idea of having one common
government—fur this best expresses the idea
—for all our varying and conflicting inter-
ests; the having one Legislature to control
and regulate the local interests of the several
States and communities in this country, and
which I contend can only exist and contribute
to our highest happiness by the very last de-
gree of disintegration into which legislative
powers can be divided. In my opinion no
system of consolidation in the world can
properly and practically meet the wants of
the people.
Still, I am free to say, and I mean it, that
if you want a consolidated government in
this country, you may try it, with my as-
sent. Change the form of government, if
you will; let it, for the time being, cease to
be a government of States; let there be one
political community; let there be created,
what does not exist now, a consolidated gov-
ernment. That was one point I omitted a
while ago, and to which I wish now to recur;
the impossibility of sovereignty being con-
ceded by these States to the Federal Govern-
ment, because there was no body to receive
it. We cannot say in our system that there
is any body in which sovereignty resides. It
is not in the crown, as in England; in this
country it is in the people; that is its only
location. The people of Maryland possess
the sovereignty of the Government of Mary-
land. Upon the theory that Maryland ever
parted with any portion of her sovereignty,
to whom did she give it? Not to the Federal
Government, for no government is sov-
ereign, or can accept sovereignty, or can ever
possess sovereignty. Maryland did not give
it to " the people of the United States," be-
cause, in fact and in law, there is no such
aggregate political community known as
"the people of the United States."
I defy any man to put his finger on any
power or any function exercised by the Gov-
ernment of the United States, through the
direct agency of the people of the United
States. The people of the United States do
not, as such, elect their President. Who
vote for President? The people in each State
who are entitled, by the laws thereof, to vote |
