were delegated to the United States Govern-
ment. There was no power under the old
confederation to punish treason against the
United States That power was in the State
governments. The State governments had
laws punishing treason against the United
States and against the old States. I think
Pennsylvania had three sorts of treason in her
laws; and no doubt other States were simi-
larly circumstanced. When the Constitution
of the United States was formed, and it was
deemed expedient to define the crime of trea-
son against the United States Government,
and give the punishment of it to Congress, was
It not perfectly manifest taht in this case, as in
all other cases where the laws of the State gov-
ernments conflicted with the powers delegated
to the Government of the United States, the
laws of the State governments must necessarily
give way? It was necessary that the different
States should modify their own laws to make
them conform to the Constitution of the
United States. One single clause covered the
whole matter. They agreed that the Consti-
tution, and the laws and treaties made in
pursuance thereof, should be the supreme law
of the land, because there could be no other
way to attain this object. The power of the
people to make these laws in the several States
had never been doubted. These Conventions
which adopted the Constitution of the United
States were above the State governments, and
had the right to say that all these laws that
had previously existed as State laws on these
subjects, and all the provisions relating to
them in the State Constitutions, should be
abrogated, so far as they might conflict with
the powers delegated by the Constitution of
the United States to another department of
the Government.
That was the reason that clause was adopted,
to prevent any conflict. When it was so
adopted, there was but one law. There are
not two laws; not a paramount law and a
subordinate law. There can be but one law
The Constitution and the laws made in pur-
suance thereof are the law, and the only law.
There cannot be anything in the laws or con-
stitutions of the States to conflict with this
law; for if there were, by the very terms of
the Constitution, it would be a nullity, and
must be pronounced null and void.
I therefore submit to gentlemen upon the
other side, that I have not heard, from the
beginning of the debate to the present time,
one solitary authority, one solitary saying of
any statesman, of any commentator upon the
Constitution, or of any individual who hats
been known as deserving of consideration for
his legal opinions of constitutional law in this
country, for the doctrine that is now at-
tempted to be incorporated in the bill of
rights. If there has been any such authority,
if there hag been any .such suggestion from
any source, I most respectfully submit that I
have not heard one syllable of it in this de- |
bate, and I should be glad to have it pointed
out. I therefore submit, in the absence of
any such authority, and in view of the opin-
ions to which I have invited the attention of
the Convention, the word "allegiance" is to
be used as synonymous with "obedience,"
and it is due to the people of the several
States, as sovereign communities, and that
support, defence, protection and obedience is
due to the laws and Constitution of the United
States, and the treaties of the United States,
according to the provisions of the clause
which I have quoted; and there is no conflict,
and can be no conflict, provided the several
departments, the several servants of the peo-
ple, obey the charter of their rights and pow-
ers, and do not come unnecessarily into colli-
sion. There is no such thing as paramount
and subordinate allegiance: no such idea
that I have ever seen entertained anywhere.
There is local allegiance and national allegi-
ance, although I do not understand that there
is paramount allegiance and subordinate al-
legiance. I do not understand that it is
due, except to the highest sovereign power.
There can be in one community but one
sovereign power. There cannot be two. This
does not at all detract from the power, the
dignity, the efficiency, or the usefulness of the
Government of the United States, that it is a
limited power, that it is an agent of the sev-
eral sovereign States, in all the magnitude
and magnificence of its foreign and external
powers delegated to it, and of its domestic
powers which are also delegated to it. It ex-
ists, because brought into being by the people
of the several States. The Constitution of
the United States sustains and furnishes it
with all the powers it exercises, because the
people of the States so will it.
Therefore the Government of the United
States is perfectly secure in the affections and
obedience of the people of the several States,
so long as the Government of the United
States keeps within the powers delegated to
it, and so long as it affords the people the pro-
tection which that government, in its forma-
tion, was designed to afford. This idea of
paramount authority and paramount allegi-
ance has received no sanction from any states-
man. On the contrary, it is expressly nega-
tived by statesmen of both schools, for it is
well known that there were two schools, two
political opinions, of State and Federal pow-
ers before the Constitution was formed.
Even in the first Congress that framed the
articles of confederation, during the whole
period of the existence of that confederation,
during the period of consultation in the Con-
ventioni that framed the Constitution, during
the period of the Conventions which adopted
the Constitution, and from that time to the
present, there have been two parties, one
holding to the paramount necessity of strength-
ening the arm of the Federal Government, and
the other insisting upon the necessity of main- |
