the land. These will be merely acts of
usurpation, and will deserve to be treated
as such. Hence we perceive that the clause
which declares the supremacy of the laws
of the Union, like the one we have just be-
fore considered, only declares a truth which
flows immediately and necessarily from the
institution of a Federal Government. It
will not I presume have escaped observa-
tion that it expressly confines this supre-
macy to laws made pursuant to the Consti-
tution , which I mention merely as an in-
stance of caution in the Convention, since
that limitation would have been to be
understood, though it had not been ex-
pressed."
In the New York Convention to ratify
the Constitution, Hamilton said: " The
State governments are essentially neces-
sary to the form and spirit of the general
system. As long, therefore, as Congress
have a full conviction of this necessity they
must, even upon principles purely na-
tional, have as firm an attachment to the
one as to the other. This conviction can
never leave them unless they become mad-
men. While the Constitution continues to
be read, and its principles known, the
States must, by every rational man, be
considered as essential component parts of
the Union; and therefore the idea of sacri-
ficing the powers to the latter is totally in-
admissible." " When Congress
shall meditate any infringement of the
State Constitutions, the great body of the
people will naturally take part with their
domestic representatives. Can the General
Government withstand such a united oppo-
sition? Will the people suffer themselves
to be stripped of their privileges? Will
they suffer their legislatures to be reduced
to a shadow and a name? The ideals
shocking to common sense."
A more elaborate statement of the same
view will be found in 2 vol. Ham. Works,
459 to 462, where he says :
"With regard to the jurisdiction of the
two governments, I shall certainly admit that
the Constitution ought not to be go formed as
to prevent the States providing for their own
existence; and I maintain that it is so formed
that their power of providing for themselves
is sufficiently established. This is conceded
by one gentleman, and in the next breath the
concession is retracted. He says Congress
have but one exclusive right in taxation, that
of duties on imports. Certainly then, their
other powers are concurrent. But to take off
the force of this obvious conclusion, he im-
mediately says, that if the laws of the United
State are supreme, those of the States must
28 |
be subordinate, because there cannot be two supremes.
This is a curious sophistry. That
two supreme powers cannot act together is false.
They are inconsistent only when aimed at
each other or at one individual object. The
laws of the United States are supreme as to
all their proper constitutional objects. The
laws of the States are supreme in the same
way. These supreme laws may act on differ-
ent objects without clashing, or they may
operate on different parts of the same common
object with perfect harmony." "I wish the
committee to remember that the Constitution
under consideration is framed upon truly
republican principles, and that as it is ex-
pressly designed to provide for the common
protection and the general welfare of the
United States, it must be utterly repugnant
to this Constitution to subvert the State Gov-
ernments or oppress the people."
Jefferson in his letter of 1811, (5 vol. Jeff.
Works, 570,) says:
"But the true barriers of our liberty in
this country are our State governments: and
the wisest conservative power ever contrived by
man, is that of which our revolution and
present government found us possessed. Sev-
enteen distinct States amalgamated into one,
as to their foreign concerns, but single and
independent as to their internal administra-
tion, regularly organized, with a Legislature
and Governor, resting in the choice of the
people, and enlightened by a free press, can
never be so fascinated by the arts of one man
as to submit voluntarily to his usurpation."
Mr. Madison, in the 39th No. of the Feder-
alist, also presents the true theory of the Con-
stitution in the most elaborate and masterly
manner, utterly repudiating the idea that the
government which it formed was a vast, con-
solidated and centralized power, in which
the States should have only a nominal exis-
tence.
The gentleman who spoke on Saturday,
read from Patrick Henry's speeches in the de-
bates of the Virginia Convention. Let me
ask, if in so citing him, he was citing Pat-
rick Henry in support or in derision of the
views he presented. The gentleman did not
read enough of what Patrick Henry said,
Let me read it :
"You are not to inquire how your trade
may be increased, nor how you are to become
a great and powerful people, but how your
liberties can be secured; for liberty ought to
be the direct end of your government," * *
" I am not well versed in history, but I will
submit to your recollection, whether liberty
has been destroyed most often by the licen-
tiousness of the people, or by the tyranny of
rulers? I imagine, sir, yon will find the
balance on the side of tyranny. Happy will
you be if you miss the fate of those nations,
who, omitting to resist the oppressors, or neg-
ligently suffering their liberty to be wrested
from them, have groaned under intolerable |
