Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1863-10-16

plainly intimatine that the Convention transcend
ed its powers. ~.
l. need not argue the negative of this proposition
for the benefit Of President Davis or " Marion, as
that has already been done by one Of the most EN-
inent statesmen of their own political persuasion,
or from whom at least they profess to have learned
their doctrines, Ghough think they do him much
Injustice as will appear befoe / close this) and
| whom they regard as " the father of the Consttu-
tion," Mr.. Madison. In the Fsderdlist, No. 40, he
| says: " $50.
1.-The powers of the Convention ought in strict
ness to be determined by an inspection of the COM
missions given to the members by their respective
constituents As all Of these, however, had refer
enee either to the recommendation from the meet:
Ing at Annapolis in September, 1856, or that from
Congress, in February 1887 it will be sufficient to
recur to these particular acts.
| The act from Annapolis recommends the ap-
pontment of commissioners to take into considera-
ton the situation of the United States to devise
\ such further pr0cisi0ns as shall appear to them
necessary to render the Constitution of the Federal
government adequate to the erigsnces Of the Union;
and to report such an act for that purpose, to the
! United States in Congress assembled, as when
agreed to by them, and afterwards confirmed by the
Legislature of every State, will eGsctaaEty provide
| for the same.
The recommendatory act of Congress is in the
words followiDg Whereas, there IS provision III
the Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union
for making alterations therein, by the assent OF
Congress of the United States, and of the Legsla-
turesbf the several States and whereas, experience
hsth,eyinced that there defects in the present
Confederation, as smeans to remedy which several
of the States, and particularly the State OF New
York, by express instructions to their delegates 10
Congress- have suggested Convention Tor the pur-
poses expressed in the following resolutions, and
such Convention appearing to be the most probable
means of establishing in these States frm nation
al government :"
Resolved That in the opinion of Congress- it is
expedient that on the I'd Monday in May next,
Convention of delegates who shall have been ap-
pointed by the several States be held at Philadel-
phia for the sole and express purpose of rerlSlng
the articles of Confederation, and reporting to
Congress and the several Legislatures such GIterd.
tiOnS and provisions therein as shall, when agreed
to in Congress, and confirmed by the States render
the Federal Constitution adequate to the erigencies
Of government, and the preserUatiOn Of the Union"
-" From these two acts it appears, LIST, that the
object of the Convention was to establish in these
States a firm national government; 3D. that this
government was to be such as would be adequate
to the erigsnees OF government and the preservation
Of the Union; Sd, that these purposes were to be
effected by alterations and provisions an the Ar
tieLeS of Confederation, as it is expressed in the
act Of Congress- or by such further provisions as
should appear necessary as it stands IN the recon-
mandatory act from Annapolis; 4th, that the al
terations and provisions were to be reported to
Congress and to the States, in order to be agreed
to by the former, and confirmed by the latter"
From a comparison and fair construction of
these several modes of expression is to be deduced
the authority under which the Convention acted
They were to frame national gGesrnment, adequate
to the ergenceS Of government and the Union, and
to reduce the articles of Confederation into such form
as to accomplish these purposes.
There are two rules Of construction dictated by
reason, as we'll as founded on legal axioms. The
one is, that every part Of tue expression ought if
possible, 10 be allowed some meaning, and be made
to conspire to some common end. The other is,
that when the several parts cannot be made to coin
eide the less important should give way to the more
important part; the means should be sacrificed to
the end rather than the end to the''means.
Suppose then that the expressions defining the
authority of the Convention were irreconcilaby at
variance with each other that national and Gde-
quate government could not possibly, in the judg-
ment of the Convention, be effected by alterations
and provisions in the articles Of Confederation;
which part of the definition ought to have been en-
bIace6, and which rejected? Which was the more
important, which the less important part Which
the end, which the means ? Let the most scrupu-
lous expositors of delegated powers; let the most
inveterate directors against those exercised by the
Convention, answer these questions. Let them de-
happiness of the people of America that the articles
of Confederation should be disregarded and ade-
quate government be provided, and the Union pre-.
serced or that an adequate government should be
omitted and the articles of Confederation preserved
Let them declare whether the preservation of these
articles was the end, for securing which reform of
the government was to be introduced as the means;
or whether the establishment of government ade-
quate to the national happiness, was the end at
which. Themselves U
and to which they ought as insufficient means, to
have BEEN sacri6ced.
But Is it necessary to- suppose that these ex-
pRessons are absolutely rreconclabe to each other;
that no alterations provisions in the articles Of
Confederation, could possibly mould them into
national and adequate government; into such
government as has been proposed by the Conven-
ton
No stress, it is presumed will, in this case, be
laid on the titles change of that could never be-
deemed an exercise of ungranted power. AIterG-
ti0ns in the body of the instrument are expressly
authorised Ne provisions therein also express
ly authorised. Here then is power to change the
title; to insert new articles toater old ones. Must
it OF necessity be admitted that this power is in
fringed, so long part of the old articles remanp
Those who maintain the affirmative ought at least
to mark the boundary between authorised and
usurped innovations between that degree of change
which lies within the compass of alterations and
further provisions and that which amounts to a
trGnsmutGtiOn of the government = = > The
truth is that the great principles of the Constitution
proposed by the Convention, may be considered less
absolutely new, than as the expansion of princi
pies which are found in the articles of Confedera-
ton. The misfortune under the latter system has
been that these principles feeble and confined
as to justify all the charges Of inefficency which
have been urged against it; and to require degree
OF enlargement which gives to the new system the
aspect of an entire transformation Of the old"
VIII Marion or anybody else undertake % answer
the above reasoning of Mr.. Madison, and show that
in presenting the plan they did, the Convention ex
ceeded their powers? Certainly, so long sany por-
ton of the principles of the old Constitution re-
manned, there was not total change; the power
to make proUisions and alterations had not been
transcribed But Marion asks twill Davidson as
sert that the Constitution is nothing more than
series of amendments to the,old Constitution ~.
Certainly not. It was not necessary for the Con-
IL. 80 Ia-1 khak