CHAPTER IV.

NEW YORK FEDERALIZES HERSELF.

THE ELEVENTH TO RATIFY-VOTE, 30 TO 27-DATE, JULY 26, 1788.

N the convention of this state, the contest was long, severe, and

in the constitution, of the principles now asserted by the Massachusetts school. These were then urged as serious charges. Indeed, two of her delegates, Yates and Lansing, had left the federal convention because they were "opposed to any system," however modified, which had in view the "consolidation of the united states into one government." And, as they feared that the system proposed by the convention had a tendency to that evil, they strove to have it rejected by their state.

What her Statesmen thought of the System. The views taken and the defence made by the federalists of Massachusetts, were repeated in the convention of New York. The leading constitutionists, with masterly ability, refuted the said charges, and showed that the states were to be preserved intact, as the very basis, nay, as the "essential component parts of the union," and were, as absolute sovereigns, then dividing the powers they chose to delegate, between their state governments and their federal (or league-al) one; the subject then in hand being the creation and endowment of the latter by the compacting sovereign states.

JOHN JAY, the first chief justice under the new constitution, said, in his address to the people of New York, early in 1788, to induce them to adopt the new system: "The proposed government is to be the government of the people: all its officers are to be their officers, and to exercise no rights but such as the people commit to them. The constitution only serves to point out that part of the people's business, which they think, proper by it to refer to the management of the persons therein designated. These persons are to receive that business to manage, not for themselves and as their own, but as the agents and overseers for the people, to whom they are constantly responsible, and by whom they are to be appointed." In the same address to the people of New York, from which these words are

quoted, Mr. Jay said: "The states of Georgia, Delaware, New Jersey, and Connecticut, have adopted the present plan ;" and he earnestly advised the state of New York to do so. [I. Ell. Deb. 496.] In the ratifying convention, Mr. Jay called the system provided for in the compact, a "union of states," and said "the objects of the general government comprehended the interests of the states, in relation to each other, and in relation to foreign powers." His view obviously was that the states, as sovereign bodies, were compacting and creating a governmental agency, which was to remain subordinate to them, and act as their servitor in " providing for the common defence and promoting the general welfare." [II. Ell. Deb. 282 et seq.]

ROBERT R. LIVINGSTON, the chancellor of the state, said, in the same convention: "A republic may very properly be formed by a league of states; but the laws of the general legislature must act and be enforced upon individuals. I am contending for this species of government." [II. Ell. Deb. 274.]

He said further: "Our existence as a state depends on a strong and efficient federal government; but " we [the people of New York] must see that the power we "entrust to our rulers be so placed as to insure our liberties and the blessings of a well-ordered government." And after stating the fact that "the American people were all agreed upon the great principle of government," that "all power is derived from the people," he spoke as follows: "They consider the state and federal governments as different deposits of that power. In this view, it is of little moment to them whether that portion of it which they must, for their own happiness, lodge in their rulers, be invested in the state governments only, or shared between them and the councils of the union. The rights they reserve are not diminished, and probably their liberty acquires additional security from the division." [II. Ell. Deb. 210.] What people did he mean? Who were dividing their powers, delegating some and reserving others? Of course, the people of the state, whose convention he was then addressing and advising.

66

ALEXANDER HAMILTON, in the same convention, characterized the new political system as a confederacy of states, in which the supreme legislature has only general powers, and the civil and domestic concerns of the people are regulated by the laws of the several states." [II. Ell. Deb. 353.] "While the constitution continues to be read and its principles known, the states must, by every rational man, be considered as essential component parts of the union." [Ibid. 304.] "The destruction of the states must be at once a political suicide. Can the national government be guilty of this madness?" [Ibid. 353.] "The question of the division of powers between the general and

state governments is a question of convenience. It becomes a prudential inquiry into the proper objects of the two governments. This is the criterion by which we shall determine the just distribution of powers." "We" who? "Determine". what? Evidently "the people" of New York, in convention, were determining "the just distribution" of their "powers." Hamilton did not see "the nation" then establishing a "distribution of powers between this, their general government, and their several state governments."

John Lansing, the chief opponent of the new system, admitted, in the ratifying convention, that the framers of the federal system designed the senators "to represent" and "to protect the sovereignty of the several states;" but he charged and argued that the operation and tendency of the system would be contrary to the design. [Ibid. 289, 290.]

Ratification in Confidence of Amendments. All their arguments, however, would have been futile, but for the understanding that the much dreaded danger would be specially forefended by amendment. In the circular letter to the other states, dated July 28, 1788, signed by Governor George Clinton, "by unanimous order of the convention," it was stated that "several articles" were "so exceptionable to a majority of us, that nothing but the fullest confidence of obtaining a revision, . . . and an invincible reluctance to separating from our sister states, could have prevailed upon a sufficient number to ratify it without stipulation for previous amendments." [II. Ell. Deb. 413.]

And the convention, in the very act of ratifying the constitution, did "declare and made known" the following, among 34 articles, declaratory of the understanding of New York:

I. "That all power is originally vested in, and, consequently, derived from, the people; and that government is instituted by them for their common interests, protection, and security."

III. "That the powers of government may be re-assumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness; that every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not, by the said constitution, clearly delegated to the congress of the united states, or the departments of the government thereof, remains to the people of the several states, or to their respective state governments, to whom they may have granted the same; and that those clauses in the said constitution, which declare that congress shall not have or exercise certain powers, do not imply that congress is entitled to any powers not given by the said constitution, but such clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified powers, or as inserted for greater caution." [I. Ell. Deb. 327.]

What people were then "delegating powers" for "their happiness and "security"? The people of the state, of course. By what people, then, was the power at that moment being "delegated," to be "re-assumed" when "necessary to their happiness"? The nation "re-assuming" power "delegated" by the state is a gross solecism, and by this single sentence the whole argument against the right of secession is scattered to the winds!

Decisive Proof that "we, the People,” means New York. - To conclude the case of New York, I quote the ordaining words of her act of ratification, and beg the reader to reflect that there is no breath of federal existence, or shade of federal power, in New York, except what comes therein by virtue of these words:

"We, the delegates of the people of the state of New York, duly elected and met in convention, having maturely considered the constitution of the united states of America; . . . in the name and behalf of the people of the state of New York, do, by these presents, assent to, and ratify the said constitution."

In the body of the ordinance, and as a part thereof, the convention declare that they ratify, with the understanding that "the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated;" that "the explanations" made are consistent with the constitution; and that they do it, in confidence that the amendments "proposed " will receive an early and mature consideration. The ratification was carried by a majority of 3 in a membership of 57. Suppose Dane, Story, and Webster had been there, to talk of the nation or aggregate sovereign people "distributing their powers between their state governments and their general government," the said nation sovereign and the states subordinate, -why, they would have been derided, and the federal plan spurned from the convention!

Here is the decisive act of the political body called New York, "assenting to and ratifying" the constitution, with her own free and absolute will, precisely as any sovereign state of Europe would have given her assent to any agreement with co-equal states. This ordinance is the only possible act of sovereign authority putting in force in New York the federal compact and its resultant government. It was the will of New York, and not that of any nation, that then and there made and finished the "supreme law." From her, and her sister sovereigns, the government then received its existence, its status, and the power it was to exercise in trust "for the common defence and the general welfare." It is absurd to suppose this delegated authority could ever become coercive authority over the sovereigns, principals, and masters that had delegated it; or to suppose that such authority did not remain simple legal jurisdiction, to be enforced by legal

means, over the individual citizens of the states,

being derived, as aforesaid, solely from the said sovereigns, whose subjects all citizens respectively are. York remained, as she intended to be the union.

Hence we see that New an absolute sovereign in

Her Present Autocratical Declarations. New York now repeatedly declares, in her fundamental laws, her absolute sovereignty in the union, even rivalling Massachusetts in her imperial self-assertion. Exempli gratia, she declares, in her constitution, adopted November 3, 1846, that "the people of this state, in their right of sovereignty, are deemed to possess the original and ultimate property, in and to all lands within the jurisdiction of the state." [Const. of N. Y. § 2.]

She also declares, as part of her fundamental law, that "the sovereignty and jurisdiction of this state extend to all the places within the boundaries thereof, as declared in the preceding title; but the extent of such jurisdiction over places that have been, or may be, ceded to the united states, shall be qualified by the terms of such cession." [I. Rev. Stat. N. Y.] Note that it is "jurisdiction," and not sovereignty, that is to be qualified. We shall hereafter see that the federal government has foothold, to exist and act, in any state, only by permission and grant of the sovereign commonwealth, and strictly according to the terms of such grant.

She declares, further, that "it shall be the duty of the governor, and of all the subordinate officers of the state, to maintain and defend its sovereignty and jurisdiction." [Ibid.]

She further declares, that "no member of this state shall be disfranchised, or deprived of any of the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof, unless by the law of the land, or the judgment of his peers;" and that "no authority can, on any pretence whatsoever, be exercised over the citizens of this state, but such as is, or shall be, derived from, and granted by, the people of this state." [Const. N. Y. Art I. § 1; Rev. Stat. ch. IV. § 1.]

Judging, then, from her own federal history and present declarations, no more absolute sovereign than New York exists on earth. She alone has the supreme right of government upon her soil, and the federal government exists and acts there solely as her agent.