had in view in ordaining the Constitution of
the United States were " 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 pos-
terity." The people in all the States were as-
sured that the Constitution would certainly
insure all these. Many good and true men
doubted and opposed the ratification; many
others doubted and were reluctantly persuaded
to try ''the experiment," (as General Wash-
ington called it;) whilst in only the three
States of New Jersey, Delaware and Georgia
was the ratification by the State Conventions
unanimous In the States of Pennsylvania
Connecticut, Maryland and South Carolina,
it was ratified by large majorities; but in the
other six States it was carried by small ma-
jorities, and in Massachusetts, New York and
Virginia by only a few votes, in fact, the
first Convention called in North Carolina in
August, 1778, refused to ratify the Constitu-
tion, and Rhode Island refused even to call a
Convention, in 1778, to consider the question,
The eleven States that adopted the Constitu-
tion. did by that act separately secede from
the Articles of Confederation, leaving North
Carolina and Rhode Island still united under
those articles. The eleven States proceeded
to organize the new government, elected
their Congress and President, and the new
government went into full operation in March
and April, 1789, North Carolina and Rhode
Island remained out of the new Union, and
in the full enjoyment of every right as sover-
eign States, till North Carolina adopted the
new Constitution in November, 1789, and
Rhode Island in May, 1790. No one doubted
that any State had the unquestioned right to
remain permanently in the enjoyment of their
separate sovereignty.
Those who are compelled to admit all this,
try to evade the force of the facts in construing
the Constitution of the United States, by in-
sisting that the Confederation was a compact
between the several State governments, but that
the Constitution of the United States was or-
dained by the people of the States themselves.
Much stress is laid upon this statement. But
what real difference does it make? The State
governments represented the people of the States
in authorizing their commissioners to agree to
the Articles of Confederation, as fully to all
intents and purposes, as the State' Conventions
did in ratifying the Constitution of the United
States. The one was the general agent whose
authority was fully recognized and acquiesced
in, and the other the special agent specially
appointed for the one particular purpose. * *
In both cases it was the act of the people of
the several States in their separate, sovereign
capacity. The act done, in each case, was by
each of thirteen sovereign States, in entering
into a compact with the co-States; and the
question is how can it vary the rules of con- |
struction of that compact, whether the act
was done by general or special agents. The
inquiry is, what' powers were delegated in the
one case to the confederation, in the other to
the Federal Government. On examination of
the two instruments, the powers will be found
nearly identical. The principal difference will
be found in their distribution and mode of
exercise. Instead of all the powers being
exercised by Congress or an Executive Com-
mittee, they were by the Constitution, vested
in three departments of government, execu-
tive, legislative and judicial, with authority
to lay taxes, and execute all the delegated
powers directly upon the individual citizen.
The reservation of powers not delegated in
the second article of the confederation, and in
the tenth amendment of the Constitution, is
substantially the same. The implied obliga-
tion that no State could ever secede because
the Constitution was a government and there-
fore intended to be perpetual, could not be
more binding than the express agreement with
the confederation that the articles should be
inviolably observed by every State; that the
Union should be perpetual; and that no al-
terations should be made in any of the arti-
cles, unless agreed to by Congress, and con-
firmed by the Legislatures of every State.
Yet within seven years from the time the last
State formally agreed to the confederation,
twelve States, without Rhode Island, pro-
ceeded to form a new government, and eleven
of them afterwards seceded from the confed-
eration, against the consent of North Caro-
lina and Rhode Island, and in utter violation
of the compact. Their right so to do, when
the compact, in the judgment of each, had
failed to answer its purpose, was not denied
or doubted. As Justice Marshall says in
McCulloch vs. Maryland, 4 Wheaton, 316,
"Surely the question whether they (the peo-
ple) may resume and modify the powers'
granted to government does not remain to be
settled in this country."
That was supposed to be settled by the Rev-
olution, and to be inseparable from the idea
of self-government by sovereign States.
It is a principle of public law, in grants of
franchises by government, that " nothing
passes by implication." "The object and
end of all government is to promote the hap-
piness and prosperity of the community by
which it is established; and it can never be
assumed that the government intended to
diminish its power of accomplishing the end
for which it was created."
8 Peters, 738.
11 Peters, 420.
A fortiori, the right of the people of a sov-
ereign State "to resume and modify the pow-
ers granted to government," when the com-
pact is broken and the government utterly
fails to secure the safety, happiness and pros-
perity of the community, cannot be taken
away by implication. |
