tion in 1787 two or three important facts
which bear on this subject.
1st. One prominent unquestioned historic
fact in regard to that Convention is that
each State, whether large or small, whether
represented by one or many delegates, cast
one vote on all questions arising in that
body.
2d. That various plans or forms of gov-
ernment were proposed by different mem-
bers—some looking to a strong central,
consolidated government, and others to a
government purely Federal, and others
still to mere amendations or alterations and
improvements of the old Articles of Con-
federation.
3d. That of all the plains proposed that
which went the furthest towards consolida-
tion and centralization. was that of Alex-
ander Hamilton, who advocated the adopt-
ion of a form of government which he
admitted was an elective monarchy, and in
which he plainly and boldly advocated the
almost total overthrow and subversion of
the State governments.
4th. That all such plans looking to a
purely and absolutely consolidated govern-
ment, were, after full debate, rejected as
inadmissible and inconsistent with Repub-
lican liberty, and the present Constitution
was adopted as the result of a compromise
between conflicting views and interests,
the result being a Government neither
purely National, nor purely Federal, but
one in which the federal features predomi-
nated, being in fact a government federa-
tive in form, not consolidated, but yet
clothed with full authority to render that
government effective within its specified
sphere, and leaving the States supreme in
the exercise of all their reserved rights—
equally supreme within their specified
spheres.
Finally, let me for one moment refer, in
order to show that they did not design to
make a government purely national, to
Elliot's Debates, vol. 4, pages 76 and 78.
The resolution under consideration was the
following:
"Resolved, That it is the opinion of this
committee that a National Government
ought to be established, consisting of a su-
preme legislature, judiciary and execu-
tive."
When that resolution was under consid-
eration, Mr. Ellsworth, of Connecticut,
moved, seconded by Mr Gorham. of Mas-
sachusetts, to expunge the word " nation-
al," from that resolution, and to place in |
the room of it, " Government of the United
States," which was carried, and this is the
first grand case of expunging that the re-
cords afford us.
When this Constitution came before the
people of the several States for their ratification,
it was assailed on various grounds,
and among others, that it formed a National
Government, which regarded the Union as
a consolidation of the States. This objection
was met by its friends with a power of rea-
soning utterly unanswerable—the fears of
the timid were overcome, and the clamor
of its enemies silenced. Among those most
prominent in its advocacy, as well as its
formation, were Alexander Hamilton and
James Madison. Now, what do they say
on this subject ?
First, Hamilton, in the Federalist, says :
"An entire consolidation of the States into
one complete national sovereignty, would
imply an entire subordination of the parts;
and whatever powers might remain in
them, would be altogether dependent on
the general will. But as the plan of the
Convention aims only at a partial union or
consolidation, the State governments would
clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty
which they before had, and which were
not by that act exclusively delegated to the
United States. But it is said that the laws of
the Union are to be the supreme laws of the
land. What inference can be drawn from
this, or what would they amount to, if they
were nut to be supreme? It is evident
they would amount to nothing. A law, by
the very meaning of the term, includes su-
premacy. It is a rule which those to whom
it is prescribed are bound to observe. This
results from every political association. If
individuals enter into a state of society the
laws of that society must be the supreme
regulator of their conduct. If a number
of political societies enter into a large po-
litical society, the laws which the latter
may enact, pursuant to the powers in-
trusted to it by its Constitution, must ne-
cessarily be supreme over those societies,
and the individuals of whom they are com-
posed. It would otherwise be a mere
treaty, dependent on the good faith of the
parties, and not a government which is
only another word for political power and su-
premacy. But it will not follow from this
doctrine that acts of the larger society
which are not pursuant to its constitutional
powers, but which are invasions of the
residuary authorities of the smaller socie-
ties, which will become the supreme law of |
