convention, and of the ratifying convention of Connecticut, declared that "the government of the United States was instituted by a number of SOVEREIGN states for the better security of their rights, and the advancement of their interests." 1

Would not the Shermans of to-day find this Revolutionary worthy and his compatriots the best guides? Why turn the people away from old beacons, to follow will-o'-the-wisps?

OLIVER ELLSWORTH, who was afterward chief-justice of the United States, spoke of the union as a "confederation," and said: "the constitution does not attempt to coerce SOVEREIGN bodies states in their political capacity," but only provides for legal coercion of individual citizens. [II. Ell. Deb. 197.]

CHANCELLOR PENDLETON, the president of the ratifying convention of Virginia, spoke of the people of Virginia as "the fountain of all power," and said: "If we [Virginia] find it to our interest to be intimately connected with the other twelve states, to establish one common government, and bind in one ligament the strength of the thirteen states, we shall find it necessary to delegate powers proportionate to that end; for the delegation of adequate powers in this government is no less necessary than in our state government." [III. Ell. Deb. 297.]

JOHN MARSHALL, afterwards the celebrated chief-justice of the United States, said, in the same convention, in reference to the fear expressed by Henry and Mason, that "a state might be called at the bar of the federal court," and judicial coercion be attempted, "it is not rational to suppose that THE SOVEREIGN POWER should be dragged before a court." [Ibid. 555.]

JAMES IREDELL, one of the chief statesmen of North Carolina, afterwards on the supreme bench of the union, expressed similar views, and said he thought the federal senate "necessary to preserve completely the SOVEREIGNTY of the states." [IV. Ell. Deb. 133.]

FISHER AMES, the great orator of Massachusetts, afterwards her senator in Congress, and one of her most eminent statesmen, said in her convention: "The senators represent the SOVEREIGNTY of the states . . . in the qualities of ambassadors." [II. Ell. Deb. 46.]

THEOPHILUS PARSONS, "the celebrated chief-justice" of Massachusetts, one of the ablest and most influential members of her convention, said that the senate was designed "to preserve the SOVEREIGNTY of the states." [See Memoirs of Parsons, p. 98.]

CHRISTOPHER GORE, also one of her leading statesmen, said, on the same occasion: "The senate represents the SOVEREIGNTY of the states.' [II. Ell. Deb. 18.]

1 The citation for this is misplaced; but in VI. Life and Times of John Adams, 440 will be found the same statement of Sherman's views, with but slight verbal changes.

GOVERNOR JAMES BOWDOIN said, in the same convention, in advocacy of the new system, that "without a confederacy, the several states, being distinct sOVEREIGNTIES, would determine the disputes that

might arise,

.. by the law of nature, which is the right of the strongest." [II. Ell. Deb. 129.]

GEORGE CABOT, another statesman of high rank in Massachusetts, said, in his argument for the constitution: "The senate is a representation of the SOVEREIGNTY of the individual states." [Ibid. 26; see also Memoirs of Parsons.]

Only a Federation of Sovereignties was Possible. Many more such extracts might be presented, but these will suffice; for, among the leading fathers, there was no dissent. Indeed, there could be, on this subject, no difference of opinion, since the states were equal. No authority was above them; sovereignty belonged to each commonwealth as an essential part of her nature; every organic law expressed or implied it; and the solemn league between the states declared that each retained her sovereignty. This all comprehensive right must have remained in her till she completed the work, and, of course, afterwards. The established status of these commonwealths, and the law of their beings, absolutely controlled the action of the fathers. Moreover, these were members, citizens, subjects, and servants of their respective states, and had no authority whatever to bind them, and, a fortiori, none to impair their integrity and sovereignty. The said states associated, and bound themselves by name, as distinct and complete political bodies [Art. I. § 2, and Art. VII.], declared their compact of association to be established "between the states so [i.e. by their respective conventions] ratifying the same " [Art. VII.], and provided for governing themselves in federal matters, by electing and empowering their own citizens and subjects, as their servants and agents, to perform governmental duties. [Art. I. §§ 2, 3; Art. II. § 1.]

I show, then, in this chapter, not only that the fathers declared the union to be a federation of "soVEREIGNTIES," but that equal, distinct, and sovereign states could not combine for general government by any other system. And we shall see that all federal history supports me. The views of the great architects will be hereinafter given more at length.

The very authors of the great movement for a more perfect union," and "a more efficient general government," were the men that made the above utterances. They were the very men who laboriously matured each and all of the provisions of the constitution; who represented the people, knew their will, and tried to do it; whose every explanation was corroborated, and position sustained, by the final sovereign acts of their respective states, as will be quoted and shown;

and who were all selected afterward by the people to carry the organized system into effect. Not a molehill can be built up opposite to this mountain of testimony.

Professors of Fact, as well as of Law, wanted. - In conclusion of this chapter, I must express the hope that certain of our professors of constitutional law, will become professors of constitutional facts, and in future editions of the " History of the Constitution," the "Constitutional Convention," the "Political Grammar," etc., quote and comment on the foregoing, and numerous other kindred passages which the records of the country contain, and which must appear in any true history or unsophistical exposition of our federal system; also that our lawyers, editors, politicians, and so-called statesmen may learn from the above and subsequent extracts, what few of them seem to know, namely, that state sovereignty is not a mere deduction, made by Jefferson and others, after the federal compact was formed, and expressed originally in the Resolutions of 1798 and 1799, but is a great and indestructible fact or entity, which was recognized by all the fathers as essential and vital to each commonwealth of the federalized states, and as an integral part of such state's being. Jefferson only bore the relation to state sovereignty, that the advocate does to the pre-existent truth he utters or expounds.

4

INDI

CHAPTER VIII.

THE SUBJECT IS FACTS.

an exposition of our general polity, we have mainly to do with pre-existent sovereign states, and their actions, as facts; with their general constitution as a fact; with testimonies as to its character, derived from public records and historic statements; with contemporaneous explanations of meanings and understandings by statesmen and states; and, finally, with technical definitions by publicists. These are all matters of fact, and our system - fully evidenced by them is itself a stupendous fact or entity to be described.

Interpretation comes after Establishment. — After the constitution was established and completed as a political entity, and was susceptible of being characterized and technically named, the congress of the states, on the 13th of September, 1788, recommended to the several commonwealths that they should proceed to appoint electors of President, and elect their delegations to the congress; and that, on the 4th March, 1789, "THE CONGRESS, TOGETHER WITH THE PRESIDENT, should, without delay, proceed TO EXECUTE THIS CONSTITUTION."

When they "proceeded to execute" their duties, these sworn officials, upon finding some word, phrase, sentence, or clause that was ambiguous or otherwise doubtful, reached for the first time the field of interpretation. But this could have nothing to do with the pre-established system in which they were to work. A law under a monarchy, aristocracy, or republic, would require one and the same construction to determine its meaning, if couched in the same language; and the ascertaining of duty or rights, from doubtful words or phrases, by functionaries, is a very different thing from describing and characterizing the political system or form of government. The essentials and the character of the system were fixed and passed in the beginning, as facts or truths; but interpretation will go on to the last syllable of language, and of recorded time.

So-called Schools of Interpretation. While commenting on this subject, I will use as a text, an erroneous statement of Hon.

George T. Curtis, especially as he is now considered the best representative if not the chief teacher, of the so-called "Massachusetts School." In a letter dated July 25th, 1868, is the following passage: "There have always been, in this country, two schools of interpretation, taking opposite views of the constitution of the united states," etc.

I shall now try to show that this assertion is incorrect, and likely to mislead. Whether the constitution is a compact or not; and whether it makes a federation of the states, or nationalizes them into one state—are questions of fact, to be settled by the instrument and historical evidences. Look at the map, and reflect a moment upon the states there represented; we see communities, each thoroughly organized and capacitated to do every possible act of a nation. They are political entities, established facts, as palpable and distinct as the stones of a pavement or the pillars of a colonnade. We find, in the historical records, that each state, at the very time that all were framing, discussing, and ratifying the constitution, was sovereign, and was so described by herself in her organic law, and by all the states in the federal compact, just as George III. had done by treaty. We find also, in the same records, that each of the states, in ratifying the constitution, did it in her own time, place, and convention, and by her own absolute vote, the first state ratifying December 7, 1787, and the last, May 20, 1790. And, lastly, we find from Article VII. that the constitution was to be "established between the states so [i. e. by conventions] ratifying." These are facts which even Deity cannot destroy or impair; and they, according to all publicists, precisely fill up the definition of a league or union of states, just as, according to all lawyers, certain facts fill the definition of murder or larceny.1

Now, a class of persons in our country have persistently asserted these facts in political writings, speeches, state papers, commentaries, party platforms, and law books. They recognize as so many absolute political entities the united republics of America, in other words, "the United States of America," this being the descriptive phrase of the constitution, the title of the federation. They simply repeat the truth. They neither form nor belong to any "school of interpretation."

But after forty years had passed over our federal system, during

1 Jeremy Bentham in his "Fragment on Government" [p. 12] says that any one who speaks or writes on the subject of law, takes on himself two characters, that of expositor, and that of censor. "It belongs to the former to explain what he supposes the law is; to the latter to tell us what he thinks it ought to be. The former, therefore, is principally occupied in stating, or in inquiring after, facts, the latter in discussing

reasons."