full force and unchanged for a long time after the adoption of the Constitution. The constitution of New York was not changed (save by certain amendments made in 1801 and relating exclusively to matters of local administration) till the year 1823. The constitution of Massachusetts remained entirely unaltered till 1820, and with the exception of some amendments, relating likewise to local matters, the same constitution continues in force to the present day. I copy two of its paragraphs, which yet remain a part of the fundamental law of that State, whose senator has now discovered that it is merely a political corporation.

"The people of this Commonwealth have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves, as a free, sovereign and independent State, and do and forever hereafter shall exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not or may not hereafter be BY THEM DELEGATED to the United States of America in Congress assembled."-Declaration of Rights, Article IV.

"The people inhabiting the territory formerly called the Province of Massachusetts Bay do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other to form themselves into a free, sovereign and independent body politic or State, by the name of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts."-Preamble to Form of Government.

In New York, we find in the constitution adopted

in 1846, the following: "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."-Article I., Section II.

The legislation of the two States has been equally explicit.

"The General Statutes of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts," enacted in the year 1859, contain the following, which is a transcript from a law which has been reënacted in the same manner at every revision of the statutes of Massachusetts, since the foundation of the Government.

"The sovereignty and jurisdiction of the Commonwealth extend to all places within the boundaries thereof, subject to the rights of concurrent jurisdiction granted over places ceded to the United States."-Part I., Chap. I., Title 1, Sec. 2.

A statute of equal antiquity in the State of New York, reënacted for the last time in 1828, provides, "The sovereignty and jurisdiction of this State extend to all 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."-R. S., Part I. Chap. I., Title 2, Sec. 1.

By subsequent sections it is made the duty of the Governor "to maintain and defend its sover

eignty and jurisdiction," and "if any suit be commenced to recover lands held under a title derived from the State under pretence of any claim inconsistent with its sovereignty and jurisdiction," it is made the duty of the Governor to provide for the defence of such suit.

But if these assertions of their own sovereignty, made by the States, notwithstanding the number of years during which they have passed unchallenged, are unsatisfactory to the discoverers of the new political theory that no such sovereignty exists, I will adduce in further evidence, an act of the same character to which the national Govern ment was a party. I refer to the proceedings by which the district of Boston Corner was ceded by the State of Massachusetts to the State of New York, and the consent of Congress was given to the cession.

The Massachusetts statute, passed May 14, 1853, commences as follows: "Be it enacted, &c., Sec. 1, Sovereignty and jurisdiction over that portion of this commonwealth known as the district of Boston Corner, situate, &c., is hereby ceded to the State of New York, with all the powers, &c., now exercised over the same by this commonwealth."

The New York statute, passed July 21, 1853 commences also:

"The people, &c., do enact as follows: Sover eignty and jurisdiction over that portion of the ter

ritory of the commonwealth of Massachusetts known as the district of Boston Corner, situate, &c., ceded to the State of New York by an act of the legis lature of said commonwealth passed, &c., and entitled, &c., is hereby accepted by the State of New York."

Each of these acts was by its terms to take effect only upon the consent of Congress being procured, it being somewhat doubtful whether the third section of the fourth article of the Constitution would not apply to such a case. Such consent was accordingly given by an act passed January 3, 1855, which recites that "whereas the commonwealth of Massachusetts by an act, &c., ceded the sovereignty and jurisdiction over that portion of territory known, &c., to the State of New York . . . and, whereas, the State of New York, by an act, &c., accepted the sovereignty and jurisdiction over that portion of the territory of Massachusetts above described Therefore, be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the consent of the Congress of the United States be and the same is hereby given to SAID CESSION and annexation."

If, therefore, the author of " Our Domestic Relations" is worthy of the honorable appellation of the great man whose seat in the Senate he fills, we have here the extraordinary spectacle of the legis

latures of two of the principal States of the Union, the Congress and President of the United States, ignorantly or wickedly uniting to disgrace the statute books by an affirmation of the correctness of a doctrine which contravenes the whole theory of the Constitution, strikes at the very root of sound government, and if made the basis of practical action, would subject its advocates to the penalties of treason. For Mr. Sumner tells us distinctly that "the Constitution. can bear no sovereignty but itself;" that "there is but one sovereignty recognized, and that is the sovereignty of the United States;" that "State sovereignty has disappeared and been lost in the supremacy of the national Government, so that it can no longer be recognized;" and that when "the Constitution was adopted. . . the miserable pretension of State sovereignty was discarded.”

Who were the men through whose ignorance or corruption, if these sentences enunciate political truths, such a foul wrong was done to the majesty of the nation? I will not allude to the members of the two Houses of the Legislature or the governors of the two States, or to the Federal House of Representatives. I will content myself with referring to the United States Senate, a body which then comprised, to say nothing of men of lesser note, or men whose southern residence might lead to their rejection as expounders of constitutional