The terms "granted," "surrendered,"
"alienated," and the like, are well calculated
to mislead the mind, when they are applied
to the powers of government,
They are technical terms, belonging to the
science of law. They generally imply irre-
vocability, when used in connection with the
proper subjects of "grant," "surrender," or
" alienation," in matters of private contract.
Such terms, though frequently used in writing
and speaking upon questions of constitutional
construction of the powers of government,
must he understood to mean "delegated,"
which is the appropriate word when applied to
powers conferred by a principal upon an agent.
Hence, in the 1st section of 1st article of the
Constitution of the United States, the phrase
"powers herein granted," means powers
herein "delegated," as fully explained in the
10th article of amendments, viz:
" The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by
it to the States, are reserved to the States re-
spectively, or to the people,"
Here Mr. Jones's time expired, but on ex-
pressing a wish to read some extracts from
Rawle on the Constitution, on motion of Mr.
Daniel, further time was given.
In conclusion, I desire to read some passages
from a view of the Constitution of the United
States, by Wm. Rawle, L. L. D., ch. 32, " Of
the Permanence of the Union."
This work was first published at Philadel-
phia, in 1825, and a new edition was pub-
lished in 1829, in which the author says: "In
this edition the principles laid down in the
first remain unaltered. The author has seen
no reason for any change of them." The
author was one of the most eminent lawyers
of the Philadelphia bar, and had received the
degree of L. L. D. when such marked distinc-
tion was bestowed only upon pre-eminence.
He was for many years United States District
Attorney, appointed, it is said, by General
Washington, in politics he was always a
high-toned Federalist. In a time of profound
quiet in the politics of the country, this em-
inent lawyer and jurist, belonging to the
political school which had always inculcated
the necessity of maintaining the powers of the
Federal Government to the full extent that
construction would allow, treats the right of
State secession, as at that day a universally
admitted right, as will be seen from the fol-
lowing passages:
Page 302. "The secession of a State from
the Union depends on the will of the people
of such State. The people alone, as we have
already seen, hold the power to alter their
Constitution, The Constitution of the United
States is to a certain extent, incorporated into
the constitutions of the several States by the
act of the people. The State Legislatures
have only to perform certain organical opera-
tions in respect to it. To withdraw from the
Union comes not within the general scope of |
their delegated authority. There must be an
express provision to that effect inserted in the
State constitutions. This is not at present
the case with any of them, and it would per-
haps be impolitic to confide it to them. A
matter so momentous ought not to be in-
trusted to those who would have it in their
power to exercise it lightly and precipitately
upon sudden dissatisfaction, or causeless jeal-
ousy; perhaps against the interests and the
wishes of a majority of their constituents.
" But in any manner by which a secession
is to take place, nothing is more certain than
that the act should be deliberate, clear and
unequivocal. The perspicuity and solemnity
of the original obligation require correspond-
ent qualities in its dissolution. The powers
of the General Government cannot be de-
feated or impaired by an ambiguous or im-
plied secession on the part of the State,
although a secession may perhaps be condi-
tional. The people of the State may have
some reasons to complain in respect to the
acts of the General Government, they may in
such cases invest some of their own officers
with the power of negotiation, and may de-
clare an absolute secession in case of their
failure. Still, however the secession must in
such case be distinctly and peremptorily de-
clared to take place on that event, and in such
case—as in the case of an unconditional se-
cession—the previous ligament with the Union
would be legitimately and fairly destroyed.
But in either case the people are the only mov-
ing power."
Page 303. "It has been laid down that if
all the States, or a majority of them, refuse to
elect Senators, the legislative powers of the
Union will be suspended." (In a note—" it
is with great deference that the author ven-
tures to dissent from this part of the opinion
of the learned Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court in the case of Cohen vs. The State of
Virginia. 6 Wheaton, 390.")
"Of the first of these supposed cases there
can be no doubt. If one of the necessary
branches of legislation is wholly withdrawn,
there can be no further legislation; but if a
part, although the greater part of either
branch, should be withdrawn; it would not
affect the power of those who remained."
(This is error, if the greater part of the
Senate should bewithdrawn, there could be
no quorum.) '' In no part of the Constitution
is a specific number of States required for a
legislative act.* Under the articles of Con-
federation, the concurrence of nine States was
requisite for many purposes. If five States
had withdrawn from that Union, it would
have been dissolved, in the present Consti-
tution there is no specification of numbers af-
ter the first formation. It was foreseen that
there would be a natural tendency to increase
* But " a majority of each House shall constitute
& quorum to do business." |
