Alexandria gazette & daily advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1817-1822, 1819-07-09

C. T. Chapman, Cashier.
A rRIEND OF THE cossTiTuTIoN.--No. VII.
proceed nos to those doctrines, which,
according to Hanpden, SHOW the govern.
ment to be, in the opinion Of the court, a
consolidated, and not federal govern
meat"
Differing from the court entirely" he
says, ION this subject, he will give his Owl
view of it,"
We must, of course, suppose his view ia
be in proportion to that from which he
differs.
In stating this difference. he tells US,
.sThe constitution Of the United States was
not adopted BY the people Of the United
States as one people, it was adopted by
the several states," &c. And be then pro-
ceeds TO show that the constitution was a.
dop,ed by the people Of the several states
acting in separate conventions.
This is precisely what the court had pre-
viously said. 1t is to be recollecied that
the Question discussed by the court, was,
not whether the constitution was the act Ut
the people in mass, or in states ; but whe'
Their il ~ as the act Of the people, or OF the
state governments In discussing this
question, the court says, "Ihe constitu'
ton was reported to the then existing con.
gress Of the United States, with request
that it might be submitted 10 convention
of delegates, chosen in each state by the
people thereof, under the Recommendation
of its Legislature, for their assent and rati-
fication. This mode of proceeding Was a.
dopted."
Language, think, cannot be more ex.
plicit than this nor more entirely repug'
nant to til. idea that the people acted IN
one body, and not by states.
Hampden also alleges in support oil this
plain perversion of the language and
meaning of the court, the stress laid ON the
words I'VE, the people OF the United
S,.t4s,' in the pre- Gamble of.he constitution.
The opinion cannot be inspested with
out perceiving that these words are not
quoted, as importing" in the constta-
ton, The people Of America in exclusion
OF ,nose OF the several states," but as i'm
porting the people, in exclusion Of their
governments.
The court then has not denied, but has
affirmed, that the constitution was adopted
by The people acting as states.
Were it even otherwise, this error res
pecting the origin Of the government.
would not have proved it ITO be in the
opinion ofthe court, consolidated, ana
not federal government
The character of a government depends
on its constitution {; hot on its being adopt
ed by the people acting in single body,
or in single bodies. The kingdom OF Great
Britain and Ireland is consolidated king.
dom. Yet il formerly consisted OF three
distinct Acknowledgment, Scotland, 4
Ireland and this union was effected by
their several parliaments, acting separate
" in each kingdom.
The convention OF France, which was as
sembIed in 1899, consisted OF single body
elected by the people ofthe whole nation.
Had the faction OF the Gironde prevailed,
and a federal republic been established,
Il would not have been the less federal
republic, because it was adopted by the
representatives OF the whole people, acting
n mass.
Ifthen the judges had made the asser-
.ion ascribed to them, they would have
advanced doctrine equally untrue aud
absurd, but not one which would show
that, in their opinion, our government IS
consolidated, and not federal"
The fact alleged then. and the conciu-
sim drawn from It, are equally erroneous. |
Hampden states many arguments which !
be supposes The court might urge in favor /
of CONSOLIDATION, all of v hich be ingenious
ly reiutes but as tina court has not itself
urged one OF these arguments, and has not,
in the most distant manner, suggested
sinsIe idea 10 favor Of consolidation. I
shall be excused for passing them ever |
without aconmsat :