In the Pennsylvania Convention, Mr. Wil-
son said:
"But in the Constitution the citizens of the
United States appear dispensing a part of
their original power in what manner and
what proportion they think fit. They never
part with the whole, and they retain the right
of recalling what they part with."
This must of course be understood as af-
firmed of the people of the several States, in
their separate sovereign capacity.
Col. Mason said: " If the government is
to be lasting it must be founded in the confi-
dence and affections of the people; and must
be so constructed as to obtain these. The
majority will be governed by their interests.
The Southern States are the minority in both
Houses. Is it to be expected that they will
deliver themselves bound, hand and foot, to
the Eastern States, and enable them to ex-
claim, in the words of Cromwell, on a certain
occasion, 'the Lord hath delivered them into
our hands?' "—3 Madison Papers, 1453.
In 1795 the Supreme Court of the United
States decided a case, reported in 3 Dallas, p.
54, (Penhallow vs. Doanes administrators,)
involving the validity of an act of the New
Hampshire legislature, passed 3d July, 1776,
erecting a prize court for the trial of cap-
tures, &c., and also the powers of the Revolu-
tionary Congress, After enumerating the
powers exercised by that Congress, Justice
Patterson said:
'' These high acts of sovereignty were sub-
mitted to, acquiesced in, and approved of, by
the people of America." He proceeds to ar-
gue that New Hampshire was bound by the
acts and proceedings of Congress, and among
other reasons, "that she continued to be
bound because she continued in the Confederacy.
As long as she continued to be one of the
Federal States, it must have been on equal
terms. If she would not submit to the exer-
cise of the act of sovereignty contended for
by Congress and the other States, she should
have withdrawn herself from the Confederacy."
Justice Iredell, in his opinion in the above
case, says: "Two principles appear to me
to be clear. 1. That the authority was not
possessed by Congress, unless given by all the
States. 2. if once given, no State could, by
any act Of its own, disavow and recall the au-
thority previously given, without withdrawing
from the Confederation."
Judge Iredell, in this opinion, remarks
upon the distinct, separate political character
of each of the Colonies, and that they " were
no otherwise connected with each other than
as being subject to the same common sov-
ereign."
Justice Blair, in the same case, said: " But
it was said New Hampshire had a right to
revoke any authority she may have consented
to give to Congress, and that by "her acts? of
Assembly she did in fact revoke it. if it ever
were given. To this a very satisfactory an- |
swer was given , if she had such a right, there
was but one way of exercising it, that is, by
withdrawing herself from the Confederacy ;
while she continued a member, and had rep-
resentatives in Congress, she was certainly
bound by the acts of Congress."
I shall be able to state only the proposi-
tions, which 1 intended to argue and illus-
trate, if I had the time necessary for that
purpose. I intended to show :
That the people of the United States are,
under the Constitution, a Confederation of
Sovereign States, as contra-distinguished from
a consolidated people into one nation without
regard to their separate State organization.
That this is shown in the organization of
each of the three departments of the Govern-
ment of the United States.
In the Legislative department, because it
consists of two branches, in one of which (the
Senate) the States are all equally represented,
and no law can pass without a concurrence of
the Senate.
in the Executive, because the President and
Vice-President are elected by electors chosen
by the people of each State, equal in number
to the number of its representatives and sen-
ators. And if no election by electors, then
by the House of Representatives as to Presi-
dent, where each State has one vote, and a
majority of States must concur in the election;
and in the Senate the Vice-President is elected
by a majority of the Senate.
In the Judiciary, because the judges are ap-
pointed on the nomination of the President, by
and with the advice and consent of the Senate,
thus giving a majority of the States control
of the appointments.
So also in the mode of amendment.
It requires two-thirds of both Houses to
propose amendments, and they are not valid
till ratified by three-fourths of the States, with-
out regard to population. Each State has
agreed, by the act of ratifying the Constitu-
tion, that as to alterations and amendments,
she will yield with her co-States, such por-
tion of her reserved powers as in the judg-
ment of three-fourths other co-States, the in-
terest and safety of all the States may require.
I intended to show further that,
There is no reason why the people of a sov-
ereign State should retain the right, univer-
sally admitted, of resuming the powers dele-
gated to their State governments, and of
readjusting and redistributing them in a new
Constitution, when the old has failed to an-
swer their purposes, which does not apply
with equal force for resuming the powers
delegated to the Federal Government in the
Constitution of the United States whenever,
in their deliberate judgment, that compact
has been so far and so persistently broken by
the co-States, that all hope of other redress
has failed, and the liberty and safety of the
people of such State, are manifestly endangered.
The purposes the people of the States |
