this was the unanimous sentiment and sine qua non of Massachusetts. Her idea was that, by virtue of her sovereignty, which was essentially characteristic and inalienable (as her constitution then declared, and as indeed it declares now), she delegated powers just as a principal would to his agent, to be used for her benefit, and still belonging to her, and subject to her resumption at will; and ex abundante cautela, she declared that all not delegated were reserved. Nay, more, the whole agency was necessarily composed of citizens and subjects of the allied sovereigns, elected by them. The wide distinction between the sovereign right of delegating authority, and the powers imparted by delegation, was afterwards forcibly expressed by Samuel Adams in a letter to Richard Henry Lee, dated July 4, 1789, as to the object and importance of this very amendment. It is, said he," that the good people may clearly see the distinction - for there is a distinction between the federal powers vested in congress, and the sovereign authority belonging to the several states, which is the palladium of the private and personal rights of the citizens." He said further, he hoped for some judicious amendments, "so that the whole people may, in every state, contemplate their own safety on solid grounds, and the union of the states be perpetual." [This, and a like letter to Elbridge Gerry, are in III. Life of S. Adams.]

Now while Hancock, Adams, Ames, Parsons, Bowdoin, and others, were incessantly denying consolidation, and assuring the state that her sovereignty was to be absolute in the new system, why did not some of the Danes, Storys, Websters, and Curtises of that day, get up and remark: "Oh, no, it is not the states, but the nation that is sovereign; it is the people of the states in the aggregate, that now ordain this constitution; and therein they establish a distribution of their powers between this, their general government, and their several state governments; and so far as this constitution goes, 'so far state sovereignty is effectually controlled'"? Suppose the great men I have quoted had, arguendo, uttered these Websterian dogmas, would a single vote have been obtained? But no such idea could have been felt by anybody. Why? Because Massachusetts, at that moment, had a standing declaration in her organic law — as well as in the then existing "federal constitution" that she was a "sovereign, free, and independent state;" and she then was, in the precise character indicated by these superlative and unambiguous words, in convention, determining her will — independently of all the world — as to a federation for herself and other agreeing states, and a general government for their people; and, in that precise character, she was then and there "delegating"not sovereignty, but "powers" to "delegates," "representatives," "substitutes," "agents," "servants," tees," etc., as they were uniformly called.

"❝ trus

The quotations I have produced were dissented from by no friend of the constitution; they entirely contradict the utterances of the Massachusetts expounders; and we can now see, that a reader must ask himself at every line of the record: "Is this why Story, Webster, and Curtis never quoted from so proper a source of authority as the debates of the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention?"

The Sole Ordaining was by Massachusetts. The convention ratified the constitution, as follows: "In convention of the delegates of the people of the commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1788. The convention, having impartially discussed and fully considered the constitution for the united states of America, reported to congress by the convention of delegates, . . . and submitted to us, by a resolution of the general court of the said commonwealth, passed the 25th of October, last, . . . do, in the name, and in behalf, of the people of the commonwealth of Massachusetts, assent to and ratify the said constitution for the united states of America."

66

Not in the name and behalf of any nation, or part of a nation, did the convention deliberate upon, assent to, and ratify the instrument, but it was for the body of people called Massachusetts, a body at the moment absolutely sovereign. As to her, the passage of the above ordinance completed the compact; and it was ESTABLISHED when eight other states did likewise; for, as Article VII. declares, it was RATIFICATION" by nine states (i. e. nine ratifications) that was to be "SUFFICIENT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT of this constitution between the states so ratifying the same." The federal compact, therefore, received its whole life and validity from Massachusetts and the other ratifying states. She and they must have been "the people of the united states that did ordain and establish the constitution." There were no other people in the country than such states, and consequently no ordainers but them. And as to her territory and people, she alone gave it existence, and its authorities jurisdiction, over them. It was not "the people" as individual voters that ratified, but "the people" as states or nations. Massachusetts spoke her sovereign will through her convention, and remained Massachusetts. No institution, nor anything organic, was changed. Pre-existent states simply made a compact, and the federal system became an addition to the political institutions of the country; and, as it was created by, it belonged absolutely to, the states. Nay, more, the administration of it was to be wholly and solely by the subjects of the said states. So that its status is, and must be, simply that of a servant or agent. We have found, then, in the history and records of Massachusetts, one absolute sovereign, acting in the formation of the federal system, or the republic of republics. Now let us look for another.

TH

CHAPTER III.

CONNECTICUT FEDERALIZES HERSELF.

THE FIFTH TO RATIFY -VOTE 128 TO 40-DATE, JAN. 9, 1788.

HE record of this state agrees precisely with that of Massachusetts, in disproving the consolidation of the states, and proving their most anxious wish to preserve their integrity and sovereignty in the union. To establish this, I will adduce the testimony of her leading statesmen, and conclude with her sovereign decree of ratification, which, as to her, constituted the league called the federal consti

tution.

What her Statesmen said. A federation of sovereignties was the object of this state from the beginning, and the great men representing her in the federal convention, considered it accomplished in the constitution proposed. Having carefully guarded against consolidation, two of them, Ellsworth and Sherman, reported to the governor of the state, that the aim in the proposed system was "to provide for the energy of government on the one hand, and suitable checks on the other, to secure the rights of the particular states, and the liberties and properties of the citizens. We wish it may meet the approbation of the several states, and be a means of securing their rights, and lengthening out their tranquillity." [II. Ell. Deb. 491.]

ROGER SHERMAN, one of her greatest statesmen, said: "The government of the united states being federal, and instituted by a number of sovereign states for the better security of their rights, and the advancement of their interests, they may be considered as so many pillars to support it." He wrote to John Adams, July 20, 1789, that "it is optional with the people of a state, to establish any form of government they please, to vest the powers in one, a few, or many, and for a limited or unlimited time;" and "that they may alter their frame of government when they please, any former act of theirs, however explicit, to the contrary notwithstanding." [VII. Life of John Adams, 411, 440.]

1 The authority for this extract, which I once had, is lost; but the equivalent is in VI. Life and Times of John Adams, 440. Did he not use these words in the ratifying convention of Connecticut? I have seen it stated that he did.

OLIVER ELLSWORTH, afterwards Chief Justice of the United States, said in the ratifying convention: "A union is necessary for the purposes of a national defence. United we are strong; divided we are weak." He further speaks of "economy," the keeping of peace among the states, and the preservation of commutative justice among them, as among the motives of union. In the federal convention he moved to expunge the word "national" from the constitution, and substitute the words "government of the united states," which was agreed to, nem. con. In the ratifying convention of Connecticut, he characterized the union as a "confederation," and said, "the constitution does not attempt to coerce sovereign bodies, states in their political capacity;" but that the only coercion contemplated, was the same as that of the state governments, legal coercion of individual citizens. [II. Ell. Deb. 186, 197.]

OLIVER WOLCOTT, subsequently secretary of the treasury, and senator, said, in the ratifying convention: the constitution effectually secures the states in their several rights. It must secure them for its own sake; for they are the pillars which uphold the general system. . . . I am happy to see the states in a fair way to adopt a constitution, which will protect their rights, and promote their welfare. [II. Ell. Deb. 202.]

GOVERNOR HUNTINGTON spoke of the great movement as "the people meeting together by their representatives, and with calm deliberation framing for themselves a system of government." [II. Ell. Deb. 200.]

...

CHIEF JUSTICE LAW said: "The whole is elective; all dependent on the people. The president, the senate, the representatives, are the creatures of the people. . . . Some suppose that the general government, which extends over the whole, will annihilate the state governments. But consider that this general government rests upon the state governments [he probably meant states] for its support. It is like a vast and magnificent bridge, built upon thirteen strong and stately pillars. Now, the rulers who occupy the bridge cannot be so beside themselves as to knock away the pillars which support the whole fabric." [II. Ell. Deb. 201.]

"We, the People," means Connecticut. It is evident that she ratified because her statesmen asserted positively, and proved conclusively, that the "convention of states" had matured a federal system instead of a national one, and that the integrity and sovereignty of the states, as well as the limitation and subordination of the " delegated powers," were absolutely secured. Her convention adopted the constitution by a majority of 88 in 168 members, — such convention speaking as follows in the ratification: "In the name of the people of the

state of Connecticut, we, the delegates of the people of the said state, in general convention assembled, pursuant to an act of the legislature in October last, . . . by these presents, do assent to, ratify, and adopt the constitution, reported by the convention of delegates in Philadelphia, for the united states of America. Done in con

vention this 9th day of January, a. D. 1788.”

This is the only way the federal constitution got into Connecticut, and this ordinance is the only law by which it exists there; and yet Dane, Story, and Webster have ventured to represent that, instead of the constitution being voluntarily established by Connecticut within her borders, it was made by the people of all the states, as a mass or nation, and imposed on Connecticut as "the supreme law" over her. So far as this constitution goes, said Webster, "so far state sovereignty is effectually controlled."

It is unquestionable, then, that Connecticut ratified as a sovereign, and that, as a party, she remained above the said constituted league, above the "powers" she entrusted, and above the agency created for the exercise of those powers. It could not be otherwise, for the agency was to consist of the elected subjects of the federalized sovereigns, and could but be subordinate to them. We are not called upon to consider whether she could have merged herself, and extinguished her statehood, for the fact is proved that she did not do so. Here, then, is absolute sovereign No. II.