eleven seceding states to withdraw from the "perpetual Union." Such a right had never been denied until men arose who thought fiction of higher rank than fact. The eleven seceding States earnestly desired the accession of the two Union States, but never questioned their freedom of action.

To show the friendly relationship between one of these two "perpetual Union States," and the States of the New Confederation attention is invited to the following correspondence between Rhode Island and the New United States.

"United States, September 26, 1789.

"Gentlemen of the Senate:

"Having yesterday received a letter written in this month by the Governor of Rhode Island, at the request and in behalf of the General Assembly of that State, addressed to the President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives of the eleven United States of America in Congress assembled. I take the earliest opportunity of laying a copy of it before you. George Washington." (No exception was taken to the term, 'the eleven United States of America in Congress assembled')—that is the eleven States united were assembled in Congress."

The communication to which President Washington referred is as follows in part:

"State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantation,

In General Assembly, September Session, 1789. "To the President, the Senate and the House of Representatives of the eleven United States of America in Congress Assembled:

"The critical situation in which the people of this State are placed engages us to make these assurances, on their behalf, of their attachment and friendship to their sister States, and of their disposition to cultivate mutual harmony and friendly intercourse. They know themselves to be a handful, comparatively viewed, and although they now stand as it were alone, they have not separated themselves, or departed from the principles of that Confederation which was formed by their sister States in their struggle for freedom in the hour of danger.... "Our not having acceded to or adopted the new system of

to us.

Government formed and adopted by most of our sister States, we doubt not, has given uneasiness to them. That we have not seen our way clear to it, consistently with our idea of the principles upon which we all embarked together, has also given pain We have not doubted that we might thereby avoid present difficulties, but we have apprehended future mischief.. "Can it be thought strange that, with these impressions the people should wait to see the proposed system organized and in operation? To see what further checks and securities would be agreed to and established by way of amendments, by Government for themselves and their posterity?......

"We are induced to hope that we shall not be altogether considered as foreigners having no particular affinity or connection with the United States; but that trade and commerce, upon which the prosperity of the State much depends, will be preserved as free and open between this State and the United States, as our different situations at present can possibly admit......

"We feel ourselves attached by the strongest ties of friendship, and interest, to our sister States; and we can not, without the greatest reluctance, look to any other quarter for those advantages of commercial intercourse which we receive to be more natural and reciprocal between them and us.

"I am at the request and in behalf of the General Assembly your most obedient, humble servant,

"JOHN COLLIS, Governor,"

(American State Papers Vol. 1, Miscellaneous.)

This letter of Governor Collis shows that the people of Rhode Island "had not departed from the principles of that Confederation which was formed by their sister States in their struggle for freedom, and in the hour of danger;" that Rhode Island considered herself as a distinct nation, separated from the United States, Francis Newton Thorpe and others to the contrary notwithstanding. As such she expresses a hope that the United States will not regard her in the same light as foreigners usually are. The Governor says in substance, "Nominally we are foreigners, but it is hoped that on account of our former peculiar relations we shall not be altogether considered in the light

of such.

We are now indeed two distinct nations, but on most friendly terms; distinct, but kindred in blood and political ties. We are two distinct nations to-day, but, as it were, We did not You seceded from us. yesterday, we were one. leave you. It is therefore hoped that you will so treat with us that trade and commerce will be preserved as free and open between us."

This is a most touching and pathetic appeal of one sovereign State to eleven sovereign states united under a common bond. It must have touched in a tenIt borders on the romantic. der spot every heart of the members of that historic Congress of the eleven seceding States.

This letter of Governor Collis adds its undying testimony to that of the other States in their ratifying ordinances, each of which declares in the plainest terms it was ordained "in the name and in behalf of the people of the said State." Whoever does not read State-Sovereignty here in the testimony of the thirteen States and that of Governor Collis read through the blind eyes of prejudice.

THE REAL NATURE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

The thirteen ratifying ordinances of the thirteen states speak with a clearness and with an emphasis seldom, if ever, equaled. The voice of one is the voice of all. The conspicuous lesson taught by all is their earnest desire, in entering the Union, to preserve intact their sovereignty. This fact stands out on the page of history like a mountain on the plain. In their ratifying ordinances these thirteen States proposed no less than one hundred and forty-five (145) amendments to the Constitution, and no less than ninety-three (93) bills of right. All these proposed amendments and all these proposed bills of right declare with an intense emphasis for the sovereignty of the States. Nor are these the mere utterances of individuals. They are the promulgations of States; not only of States, but States in their highest and most auhoritative capacity,—that of State Contions. It is therefore testimony of the highest character. If these States knew their own will they reserved their sovereignty, and so declared in terms admitting of no doubt.

Who drew lines about the Federal Government, saying to it, "thus far shalt thou go and no further?" It was the States. Upon what authority did they limit the powers of the Federal Government? It was upon their own. Whence did these States receive this power? It was inherent. There were no other sovereignties to confer it. Did this power to create the Federal Government and prescribe its limits imply supreme authority on the part of the States? It can mean no less unless the creature is above its creator; or even "the servant is above his lord and master."

How did he Federal Government originate? It was not self-existent. It must therefore be the product of some pre-existing force or forces. Did it not originate, as already intimated, through the creative power of the States? This is the teaching of the Philadelphia Convention, that framed the Constitution, and of the State ordinances of ratification. Did the

States confer any sovereign powers on the Federal Government? No man can deny that they did. Could these States grant what they did not have? Were they not therefore sovereign political organizations? The conclusion is inevitable that they were. In conferring powers of sovereignty on the Federal Government did they not of necessity limit their own powers of sovereignty? The fact admits of no doubt. Were not the sovereign powers of the Federal Government also limited? It is also beyond doubt that they were. Divided powers are necessarily limited powers.

Does it not therefore follow that both the Federal and State Governments were limited as to powers of sovereignty? There can be but one answer and that answer is in the affirmative. Are the sovereign powers of these two classes of Governments identical? They cannot be. They are neither identical nor common. What the States retained they did not grant. The powers they granted away they could not exercise. Nor could the Federal Government exercise powers not granted by the States. No State or other organization can exercise a power it does not possess. How are we to judge which is the more authoritative, the sovereign powers of the Federal Government or those of the State? If we consider the powers, per se, and the question be determined by the sources of these powers, are not the powers of the State inherent, while those of the Federal Government are mere grants, and grants from the States at that? If it be determined by the limitations of these powers, were it not the States that drew the lines? If we consider powers rightfully belonging to the States exercised by the States, and powers rightfully belonging to the Federal Government and exercised by the Government, they are necessarily on the same high plain of right and equally authoritative in their proper spheres. Did the Federal Government have any choice, or exercise any authority in deciding the limitations of its own sovereign powers? No more than did created man in the limitations of his own powers.

From all these considerations we conclude that this is a Government of States, and hence is properly called a Federal Gov

ernment.