which all its friends held the idea of associated states, and the kindred idea that the people were sovereign commonwealths which, in self-government, separately attended to all home affairs, and jointly to a few general and all foreign affairs, there arose and grew, under the auspices of Nathan Dane, Joseph Story, and Daniel Webster, what is called "the Massachusetts school." The Chief Expounders. - DANE was an original enemy of the constitution, and he probably wished his strictures to pass as expositions STORY, broad-minded, thought a grand nation, and power among nations, might, could, would, and should grow from construction, and he was in the potential mood; and, moreover, his construction meant fabrication: while WEBSTER, as the advocate, aimed at the triumph and pecuniary advantage of his state and section; and directed his great intellect and luminous logic to the sophistical disproof of his own principles; viz., that "the original parties to the constitution were the thirteen confederated states," and that their constitutional obligations "rest on compact and plighted faith.” These are his very words, which, when he approached his final account, he substantially reiterated, but alas! too late; for he had then produced those "public convictions," as Mr. Curtis calls them, which brought war and woe! As to MR. CURTIS, he seems merely to repeat and amplify what the others have written or said. The "School" was one of Perversion. Even this was not a "school of interpretation," as Mr. Curtis would fain have us believe, for its dogmas were not the result of interpretation, but were assertions of fact which were true or false, and which, at the time the constitution was being established "between the states ratifying the same," were charged upon the federal system by its enemies, and disproved by its friends. : Daniel Webster taught the said dogmas in 1830-33, substantially as follows that the constitution was made by the people of all the states, acting as one state or nation; that they therein divided the powers they chose to grant, between their general and local governments; that their said constitution, as far as it went, "effectually controlled state sovereignty," - thus reducing states to provinces, or counties, but "expressly reserving" to them, such "political rights and powers" as they the said nation-wished them to possess; and that the right of determining the extent of its powers, belonged to the government itself. Story's teachings were similar. Lincoln substantially repeated these ideas in 1861, as did the Philadelphia convention of 1866, and the "New York World," in its issue of June 3d, 1868! All these expounders assert that the constitution contains these ideas, though in fact no words of it express or imply them. Nor can they be evolved by construction. They were, as facts, true or untrue, when the constitution was discussed by the states, and, a fortiori, when it was ratified by nine of them, and thereby established. Hence the proof of the action of the commonwealths, and the solemn statements of the fathers, herein faithfully given and to be presented, are of infinite importance, for they end doubt, and the pseudo "school of interpretation," at the same time. In 1787-88 these very ideas were unavailingly urged as charges against the federal system by Lowndes, Henry, Martin, Yates, Lansing, and other enemies thereof; and but for the disproof of them by Hamilton, Madison, Wilson, Dickinson and others, the said system. would have been overwhelmingly defeated. The constitution was fully established, and it formed a federation or not, in July, 1788. Such a thing as practical interpretation could not then arise, for it was thereafter that the government provided for had to be elected, organized, installed, and set to work under the constitution; and it was only after these things were done that, in congress and the courts, interpretations to find the intent of specific articles or clauses could be had or were needed. Hence the peculiar views concerning our polity which distinguish "the Massachusetts school," do not entitle it to be called a "school of interpretation." It asserts as a fact that our federal instrument constitutes a state or nation, when the truth is, it constitutes a union of states or federation. Should we not call it a school of fiction, or school of perversion? "School" is a Misnomer, except in the Sense of Flock. - Nor do the professed exegetical efforts of the faculty on leading questions seem to entitle them to be called a "school," in any sense, for 1st. They assert, as a fact, that the united states are a national unity or state, because the preamble says: "We, the people of the United States, do ordain and establish this constitution;" when the phrase itself disproves the assertion, necessitating, as it does, preexistent commonwealths, which, being independent, must voluntarily have come together, as thirteen persons would, for a common purpose, without the associates losing their individuality. This alone is decisive; and the phrases that signify "union of states" and "citizens of states;" the fact that the states are named in the instrument; the seventh and characterizing article; and the numerous historical proofs of the error of the assertion, need not be adduced. 2d. They assert that the article declaring the constitution to be "the supreme law of the land," makes the government which springs from the law, and is subject to the law, supreme over the law-maker. Stating their contention is the reductio ad absurdum. 3d. They say that while the "constitution" created a national sovereignty for certain "speci fied purposes, it expressly reserved to the states all other political rights and powers." [World, June 3, 1868; Lincoln, 1861.] As to the "national sovereignty," see the last point. A government in a republic cannot be a sovereignty at all. It can only have delegated powers, and be the creature and subordinate of the delegators. It (the constitution) reserves nothing; but the states that made it, "reserved" all they did not delegate. 4th. They speak of the "constitution prohibiting" states from "laying duties," "keeping troops without consent of Congress," "coining money," etc., etc. [See Mr. Curtis's letter to The Round Table, July 25, 1868]; whereas these so-called prohibitions are self-imposed restrictions upon the states, which the constitution merely evidences. These few of the numerous "interpretations" show what sort of a school the so-called interpreters of Massachusetts keep. If the word simply implies gregariousness, its propriety cannot be questioned, for the gathering and following have been large. But, aside from interest, the only reason for the following is best given by Jeremy Bentham, in his "Fragment on Government" [page 25]. "Under the sanction of a great name, every string of words, however unmeaning, will have a certain currency. Reputation adds weight to sentiments which, had they stood alone, might have drawn nothing, perhaps, but contempt. .. Wonderful is that influence which is gained over young minds by the man who, on account of whatever class of merit, is esteemed in the character of a preceptor. Those who have derived, or fancy they have derived, knowledge from what he knows, or appears to know, will naturally be for judging as he judges, reasoning as he reasons, approving as he approves, and condemning as he condemns." It is surprising, and indeed humiliating, to see how dependent and gregarious the most of our learned commentators, critics, editors, and statesmen are, even in matters of high and momentous duty, requiring independent and conscientious judgment. All must follow some bell. For instance, in our day we have numerous expositors getting an idea or prejudice from Webster or Story, and never looking at the basis of it, but spending the rest of their lives in obtaining sustenance for it, and passing by, in the groping and culling search, innumerable shining, aye, almost dazzling gems of counter-truth, without noticing them. A Passing Tribute to the Old Bay State. In proceeding to show that the whole ground of controversy between the federal and the national theories, is covered by averments of fact, or inferences therefrom; and that, as the one theory is plain truth, and the other plain untruth, the American people should stop the controversy at once, by branding as falsifiers one or the other of the two sets of dogmatists; it is but fair and dutiful to distinguish between the commonwealth of Massachusetts, and those unworthy sons who call themselves or are called "the Massachusetts school" of interpretation, while they sap her statehood, pervert her faith, and tarnish her name. In history she is the most conspicuous of the authors, vindicators, and exemplars of American institutional liberty. Her principles, firmly established and indelibly written by herself, are set forth in the preceding chapters; and the dogmas of the so-called "Massachusetts school" not only find no sanction in her early and genuine history, but are decisively refuted thereby. And though her record may now be suppressed, her wisdom silenced, and her patriotism lulled to sleep, by sophists and scheming politicians, yet her heart is the heart of humanity, whose impulses are pure and just; and it will finally prove to be as true to liberty as the needle is to the pole : "Compulsion, from its destined course, But, when no more withheld by force, The following Averments of Fact-Skeleton of Argument. propositions will show the subject to be exclusively one of fact, while they exhibit the scope of the present work. The nerves, sinews, veins, flesh and blood, will grow upon the skeleton in the subsequent pages, and, perhaps, make of it "a form of life and light.” THE REPUBLIC. 1. The state is the people thereof: they are the state. 2. No other organization of self-governing people exists. 5. So the state constitutions declare or imply. 6. Hence each state is sovereign, i. e. has the "all-power." 7. It is a completely organized, self-governing body. 8. The people are not sovereign as individuals. 9. Sovereignty is only predicable of the organized people. 19. Making constitutions and governing, are functional acts. 20. The state's mind is intact after, as before such action. THE REPUBLIC OF REPUBLICS. 21. The states in union are the republic of republics. 31. The convention of '87 called it a "delegation" and a trust." CITIZENSHIP AND ALLEGIANCE. 42. Citizens remained "citizens of different states." TREASON. 56. Treason is a citizen's breach of allegiance to his sovereign. 57. The society is the sovereign, and object of the crime. 58. "Treason against the U. S." is "levying war against THEM." |