shadow of evidence that it did exist. Mr. Adams does Hamilton a great injustice when he declares with emphasis, "He did see it." No man without the best of evidence has a right to say Mr. Hamilton dead contradicts Mr. Hamilton living.

A very peculiar argument against the indisputable facts is this: "The only parties to the Constitution, contemplated by it originally were the thirteen Confederated States"; that the "States have 'exclusive possession of sovereignty over their own territory; and the United States Constitute "The American Confederacy. As between the original States the representation rests on compact and plighted faith."" This method of defense was presented in a memorial to Congress by the citizens of Boston, Dec. 15, 1819, relative to the admission of Missouri. Daniel Webster at that time held to this view, and so did John Quincy.

When mature years came and with them a more mature judgment, and a more thorough information as to the facts no man was truer to the Constitution as construed by Washington, Hamilton, Madison and Marshall, than Webster. In 1851, at Capon Springs, Virginia, in a speech he said: "If the South were to violate any part of the Constitution intentionally or systematically, and persisted in so doing year after year, and no remedy could be had, would the North be any longer bound to the rest of it? If the North deliberately, habitually, and of fixed purposes, were to disregard one part of it, would the South be bound any longer to observe its other obligations? I have not hesitated

to say, and I repeat, that, if the Northern States refuse, willfully and deliberately, to carry into effect that part of the Constitution which respects the restoration of fugitive slaves, and Congress provide no remedy,the South would no longer be bound to observe the compact. A bargain cannt be broken on one side, and still bind the other side. (This contradicts Lincoln's inaugural.)

When were these utterances of the immortal Webster made? Just nine years before the election of Abraham Lincoln. Did not fourteen Northern States willfully and deliberately refuse to carry into effect that part of the Constitution. They were so willful and deliberate that they refused by enacting laws to that

effect. (Curtis's Life of Webster, Chap. 37, Vol. 2, pp. 518-519). The suns of another year did not rise and set before the great American statesman went to his final rest, at the age of three score and ten. He was looking to the west and not the east. All of a most brilliant life lay behint him. It was the time of sober thought, and sober utterance. Who can deny the sincerity of these dying words of the greatest of American orators?

In 1851 the immortal Webster wrote beneath the testimony of Washington, Hamilton, and Marshall, "Well Done and Well Said," and before another year had counted all her seasons he sank into an honored grave, loved, revered, and lamented by a great nation.

THE ORDINANCES OF THE STATES RATI

FYING THE CONSTITUTION.

We have just been dealing in facts. The South banks on facts. They are the fearless and impartial defenders of the truth; and the truth is all the South demands. Truth is imperial. "The eternal ages are hers." But what are fictions They are "the golden apples kept by a dragon." Fictions are air-castles; facts realities. Facts declare the Constitution to be the backbone of the Government, and the supreme law of the land; fiction declares some imaginary invention to be better, and to have taken the place of the Constitution. Facts declare the Constitution can be supplanted or amended only as it prescribes; fiction declares it can be amended or supplanted by an imaginary or assumed change of public opinion, or by public ignorance.

As the South takes no stock in fictions, but depends for her defense upon the facts and the teachings of history, which are only expositions of facts, we shall now proceed to have the States testify to the facts in their ratifications of the Constitution.

The first to ratify the Constitution was little Delaware. It was on the 7th day of December 1787. It was most significant. Because Delaware alone had given special instructions to her delegates to demand equal representation in Congress. Equal representation was the synonym of a free, independent and sovereign State. Thus Delaware speaks in no uncertain words.

The next was Pennsylvania, five days later, on the 12th of December, 1787. Thus Pennsylvania gives her voice against "we the people in the aggregate," and in favor of State sovereignty and states-rights.

Six days after the approving voice of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, on the 18th day of December, by a unanimous vote, ratified the Constitution. This unanimity was very significant. For New Jersey had led the Convention in behalf of the statesrights, or Federal idea. Defending this position, William Pat

terson. afterwards Governor of the State, said, "Can we, on this ground, form a National Government? I fancy not. Our commissions give a complexion to the business......We are met here as the deputies of thirteen independent sovereign States for Federal purposes. Can we consolidate their sovereignty and form one nation, and annihilate the sovereignties of our States, who have sent us here for other purposes?" (Italics ours). "Can we as representatives of independent States annihilate the essential powers of independency? Are not the votes of this Convention taken on every question under the idea of dependency?"

Is it any wonder that Charles Francis Adams, in combating states-rights, says, "It is not by verbal construction?" For words have meaning, and words are supposed to convey their own meaning. "We are met here as the deputies of thirteen independent sovereign States," strikes a death blow at Centralism. A verbal construction here would be fatal. Therefore it must be shunned. Ponder well these other words: "Can we consolidate their sovereignty? Can we form one nation and annihilate the sovereignties of the States?" Let false fiction be never so false and it can not change the meaning of these words: "Can we as representatives of independent States annihilate the essential powers of independency?" They speak the same unerring language; and all the way through the same strong clear words express their meaning in the independency and sovereignty of the States.

The ordinance upon which the Convention of New Jersey cast her unanimous vote in ratifying the Constitution, has these words: "having maturely deliberated on and considered the aforesaid proposed Constitution, do hereby, for and on behalf of the people of the State of New Jersey, agree to ratify and confirm the same, and every part thereof."

"Done in the Convention, by the unanimous consent of the members present, this 18th day of December, A. D., 1787." There was therefore no hasty action, but calmn deliberation on the part of this State in ratifying the Constitution.

This

deliberation was to be expected of a State that led the Convention in demanding states-rights.

.in

On the 2nd of January, 1788, Georgia followed New Jersey by a unanimous vote. The record declares it was through "the delegates of the State of Georgia in the convention met, pursuant to the provisions of the Legislature aforesaid,... virtue of the powers and authority given us by the people of the said State for that purpose," that they did "fully and entirely assent to, ratify and adopt the said Constitution." Note that it was "by virtue of the powers and authority given us by the people of the said State, and not by the people of all the States in the aggregate.

as

On the 9th day of January (one week later than Georgia) Connecticut ratified the Constitution with equal distincness to the source of her authority. It was "in the name of the people 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......do assent to, ratify and adopt the Constitution reported by the Convention of delegates in Philadelphia."

Massachusetts followed on the 7th of February, 1788, after a warm contest due to her extreme jealousy as to State Independence and State Sovereignty. The Convention subjected the Constitution to "a close, critical and rigorous examination with reference to this very point." It was finally adopted by the close vote of 187 to 168; and then only by guarding against any sacrifice or compromise, of State Sovereignty, being assured by the advocates of the Constitution that their proposed amendments would be adopted. The tenth amendment of the Constitution is the result of the demand of the Convention of Massachusetts; and this tenth amendment was designed to take the place of the second article in the Constitution of the Confederation. And that article is the emphatic assertion of the continued freedom, sovereignty and independence of the United States. If Chas. Francis Adam's "Pious fraud" had the least claim to reality, this tenth amendment took its breath, and killed it dead. That amendment is in these words: "The powers not