The southern press. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1851-10-15


and II the preamble be equivocal, with how
much greater force will be applied the principle
that the words Of preamble can never contra
diet the lang iage Of the instrument much less
the nets or the parties to Il? And how much
stronger is this case, where II is sought TO give
\ construction to the word Of the preambl de-
scribing the authority creating that instrument,
bv which the parties adopting It, would be diff
fsrant from those who really did so? In other
words. by this construction, the party adopting
the Constitution, would be a people, one people,
when the fact was, that IL was adopted by many
people or States. This construction thus fals-
fees the facts of history, and hence, cannot be
sustained. htt
But the history Of. the form finally adopted,
conclusiyely confirms the views already taken.
The old confederacy was called The United
States Of A merica" Art Of Confed., lst clause
This Constitution was, according to the Pream.
HE. adopted by "ihe people of the United States"
for aThe United States Of America J" that il, for
that yery confederacy which bore this name; and
by the people Of that confederacy, in contradis-
tincton to it's being adopted, as the old articles
had been. by the legislature Of each State.
Rut this view, conclusive as It il, is placed
bevond the reach of cavil, by this further fact.
The 6rst form Of the preamble was: 1--WE, the
reoule Of New Hampshire, Massachusetts" &c
&c' naming each State, form unanimously
odopted. This form would clearly have ex-
pressed the idea for which contend, and have
excluded the one oppose. Journal OF Con-
ven., ais, 23l
Now the committee OF revision, 70 whom
were referred the various clauses separately
adopted, to reduce them to proper FORM re-
norted the present preamble, which was agreed
- Nom CON. The inference is inevitable. A
form expressing the action of separate States,
,t,,o,,;,oas SIN adopted at lime, would scarcely
have heen changed at another mem. con, TO one
az pressing the action of one nation, of which the
States were only fragments; especially when IL
was only "a question OF fact stated by the pre-
amble. The only rational conclusion is, that the
convention regarded the two forms as synony-
nous in their meaning, and the one adopted as
preferable. 1t was a better form for two rea-
sons.
lat. The States, if they had been named,
would have been the very States who, at tnat
period. were t. rmed by the old articles OF con-
federation, and known as The United States OF
America" What more natural or proper than to
waive the separate naming Of the States, for an
express ion which more clearly showed the fed
eratiye character Of the present Constitution, by
its reference to their clearly defined federal con-
necton previously!
"a. Another reason may have been, that as
other Suites were to be admitted into the pres.
ent Union, it was improper to insert the original
names, when subsequent ones cou.d not, con-
sistenty with proprie,y, be Incorporated into the
instrument
But another view, as have stated, has been
taken of these words that they created con-
solidstion where separation bad. previously
existed. This is easily answered. It's absurd
TO suppose that the recital of the parties to the
Constitution 10 its preamble, can refer to their
future relations instituted by it, or should refer
to anything except their reationsat the moment
of and prior to It's execution; the question al
ready sufficiently discussed.
do not think claim more than is Legitimate
from the facts thus presented, when say that
thu federal Constitution 10 a compact, originally
established and now subsisting betioeen sovereign
S,a,es. as parties thereto each Of whom, by it,
supreme authority, imposed it upon its own citi
zeus. nor. as have shown, Is this conclusion
of n continuing sovereignty, affected 10 any de-
Gree by In, creation of State and federal agen
cies, as reither can have any authority upon the
citizen, exc, pit as II speaks the supreme power
ofthe State.
The fsds-.i Constitution imposes upon each
State two relations or classes OF obligations
and only two, as is evident from the facts already
adduced
1. Its relation, as principal, TO the govern
ment. its agent, and the common agent Il all the
State. [See Form of Va Ratification referred
10. and Others also, 10th Amendment 10 e.
u. ST.
q It's relation TO the others rs co contractors
upon the terms Of the constitutional compact
The question which am now discussing, the
right under this Constitution cfa State TO secede
from the Uhion IL resolved, therefore, into this
how far is such right inconsistent with either oi
the relations above statedi DO either forbid II
And here waive the inference in favor OF this
right. derivabe from the fact, that the State u
bound by these two relations for no set or pre-.
seribed period Of time; that this has been done
under a contract not irrevocable in its nature OF
on is face that no such agency or league -
ever held binding. except at the discretion OF
other than revocsble at the will Of the principal
or contracting parties.
4 narrow the question Of right 10 case Of .
violation Of the compact by sister Staie, OF
usurpation Of power by the government. In re
spect TO such, say, that unless the Constitution
forbids the right Of tie State finally for itself "a
lodge whether such infrnction or usorpation has
been perpetrnted, and upon it- dec sion that ei
thcr has been, 10 secede at pleasure or unless
10 delegates sucn power etciu-iNeiy 10 tOe gov
eminent; II L. not only consistent with, bit ex.
pres-ly securel by the terms Of the compact to
each State For unless prohibited To the State
or delegated 10 the government, Thu, as every
other power Is reserved by the Constitution "a
the State. 10th Amendment Fed. Con, Rsti
fcation Of N. York, Virginia and Rhode Island
before referred 10.
All political right must at last rest in, and b.
determined BY, opinion orjudgmeut. The ques
ton Of infrsction or usurpation, therefore, must
practically depend only upon the decision Of
the tribunal 10 whom il may properly be sub
n,itted.
The right Of "a State 70 secede upon any such
infrsction or usurpation, must. therefore, resl
mon the existence Of one still further removed
Has State the right to decide finally for itself
upou the violation OF the Constitution in eitheI
OF the cases suggested For IL the State ha,
sucb right Of final decision, and decides that q
yiolntion has been perpetrated, is right To de-
terrnine its SCENTS authority. abused by usurpa
ton, or TO annu compact broken by one o
the other parties, will not and cannot be de.