the delegates, but by the votes of a majority
of the States, the delegates from each State
casting one vote. Then clearly this para-
mount power cannot be claimed from the ar-
ticles of confederation.
We come now to the Declaration of Inde-
pendence. Let us look at the preamble of
that. Is it a declaration of the people of the
United States? Is it a declaration of the peo-
ple of America? Is it a declaration of the
people of any country, or of any nation
whatever? No, sir; the language is "The
unanimous declaration of the thirteen United
States of America." That is the Declaration
of Independence. When they stated these
great fundamental truths, which gentlemen
have said "are obsolete ideas;" when they
enunciated these fundamental doctrines which
lie at the very foundation of all rightful gov-
ernment, they did not do it as the declara-
tion of a mass, of a community, or of a free
people in the aggregate. They did it as " the
unanimous declaration of the thirteen United
States of America," and they signed it in the
same way; it was not signed in alphabetical
order, nor was it signed promiscuously—one
representative of one State signing here and
another there; but the delegates from each
State, under the name of the State, affixed
their signatures to it, and it was adopted by
States, This doctrine of paramount allegi-
ance, then, is not to be found in the country
as colonies, nor in the articles of confedera-
tion, nor in the Declaration of Independence.
Where, then, is the source from which it is
derived? The only other source is the Con-
stitution of the United States. It is there
that Mr. Webster claimed to have found it;
and it is there that all who have followed
him in the maintenance of this doctrine claim
to find it. Now let us look at it. The pre-
amble reads:
"We the people of the United States, in
order to form a more perfect Union, establish
justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide
for the common defence, promote the general
welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to
ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the United
States of America."
Now, sir, I have already said, and it can be
shown, and with the permission of the Con-
vention, I will show in the reporter's notes,
that the Congress which adopted the Articles
of Confederation and the Declaration of In-
dependence, was clothed with almost the
identical powers, was given almost the same
instructions, originated in the same way,
operated upon by the same motives, as the
Congress that adopted the Constitution, and
the proof of this is to be found in the " Reso-
lutions'' of the several States, in Convention
appointing them. They used substantially
the same language, and every consideration
of reason and of law must lead us to the in-
evitable conclusion that the same interpreta- |
tion must be put upon the same language.—
Having in the Articles of Confederation, after
enumerating the States by name, declared
that the title of the Confederacy shall be
"The United States of America," it seems
to me that the conclusion follows inevitably
that "The United States of America" in the
preamble of the Constitution meant the peo-
ple of the States individually, as in the Arti-
cles of Confederation.
Did the framers of that Constitution estab-
lish a national government? Did they mean
to say that we were one people for the pur-
poses of government enumerated in this Con-
stitution, and that the existence of the separate
States was ignored? Where are the national
features in the Constitution that would sanc-
tion and sustain that idea? Do yon find it
in the first article referring to "all legisla-
tive powers herein granted ?' ' Does an origi-
nal, inherent, existing people, existing ipso
facto, by the mere force of their natural right
as a people, does such a people, assuming a
government, say "all legislative power herein
granted?" Is that the way a Constitution is
made by a people existing of themselves ?—
Sir, nationality does not grant powers. A
nationality makes laws, not in accordance
with and because of grants of power, but be-
cause they have the right within themselves.
'' All legislative powers herein granted
shall be vested in a Congress of the United
States, which shall consist of a Senate and
House of Representatives."
Does the Senate present any national fea-
tures? Why, sir, Rhode Island and Dela-
ware stood side by side of, and the peers of,
Virginia, Pennsylvania and New York, and
they stand there this day, the equals of the
proudest States in this Union.
There was an idea which escaped me at the
time in reference to the preamble, which I
think is conclusive. It is this—in the first
report that was made, as will be seen by ref-
erence to Elliots Debates, the preamble read:
" We, the people of New Hampshire, Massa-
chusetts Bay," &c., naming all the States.—
That stood adopted upon the records as the
preamble until the committee of revision was
appointed, and that committee reported the
present language: " We, the people of the
United States." Why was that change made?
Because the Convention had adopted a clause
which required the approval of nine States
before the Constitution should go into opera-
tion, and they could not say that all the several
States enumerated in the preamble would
adopt it. But they would be the people of
the United States, or the States united, when-
ever nine states should adopt the Constitu-
tion, no matter what nine States they were.
And there was an obvious impropriety in
saying that the States of New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Virginia, &c.,
ordained and established the Constitution,
when the Constitution had not been submit- |
