Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1867-03-06

sists In this, that Ia the former, IN
: powers operate on the political bodie
composing the Confederacy, in their po
4, litseaI capacities; but in the latter, oI
3 the individual citizens composing the ma
5 tion, in their individual capacities IL
y this respect he considered the govern
. ment as a national one: but as 70 th'
erte'lt Of its powers, he said, IL was ;, DOT
y national one: "since its jurisdiction
. extends TO certain enumerated object
y only, and leaves to the several states
: residuary and inviolable sovereignty
over all other Objects" They werei he
s said, +" no more subject, within their res
2 pective spheres, to the general authority
than the general authority is subject &c
= them within its own sphere"
In respect to the authority by which
! amendments are to be made, he consid-
r cred the constitution as neither wholly
Federal nor wholly National. If wholly
E Federal, he said, the concurrence ol
every State would be essential 70 any
alteration that should be binding on all.
r If wholly National, the majority Of the
people Of the Union could alter It. But
it is in this respect wholly federal. The
3 same power amends that makes, com
pact. The power is meme the less Fed;
eraL, because the States agree TO be bount
by the decision Of three-fourths OF them-
selves. It is a Federal power, because
exercised BY the States; whether the ae-
I ton of the State is taken by legislative
act or by the decision of the people Of the
} State in Convention.
Such was the Interpretation given the
Constitution, before it was ratified; for
these numbers were concluded when but
seven States had acted that is, before
1.-THE 23d Of May, l7SS. SO understanding
the instrument the States accepted H.
II they acted under . mistake, their con-
sent was not in reality given. II 1t were
what Mr.. Webster claimed it was, there
was nothing more from the beginning,
than q Union and a Government dc
fdcfo. and if it was really meant, at the
outset that the doctrine developed by
him should be the law Of the Union,
the consent and ratification Of the states
was procured by the mostpalpabie fraud.
To cannot be necessary TO pursue the
I argument much further. To argue fur
ther. against the proposition that tAe one
| De0DJs Of the United States made the
/ Constitution, would be to beat the air.
! The one people never acted as one people
in amending it. IF it made them one
! ueopie, to what purpose? They have
i never since done and never can do any
/ act a. one people, consttutionaliy that
I Is, the majority of the one people never
/ cOuctfrs in any national or political act.
I The people act only as state. N9thsng
Z has ever vet been determined, or can be
determined, by counting the individual
, votes Of the whole People of the United
States. There is no national power to
compel any State to permit all its
/ peGDle, or all its free white mail citizens
! over twenty-One years Of age TO vote on
I ann questions New York may elect
Z her Representatives, and vote for Presi-
dent. BY majority Of her legal voters,
which shall yet be a minority, according
TO universal Suffrage.
No Court can be expected to reply to
more than one argument Ike that OF
Judge Collamer. It is to engage IN the
formal refutatiOn of what IS too SELF
evident absurd to be entitled to serious
reply. If TO admit that the whole people
of the United States could not vote
together or hold one general Convention
to adopt the Consti ,utiOn, because the
people Of North Carolina alone, for
Instance, had invested their Legislature
with the power to levy and collect
duties. and therefore they alone could
take away that power, and place it else
where: and because a Convention OF
the 1rhOis people of all the States would
constitute a party different from the
party that gave the pOwer,-if THIS oe
not 10 admit that the people OF North
Carolina acted upon the Constitution as
a perfect, complete and separate unit, .
that is, as a State,-that North Carolina, /
and not a fraction of the one people OF
all the States did that act, took the /
mower in question away from the Legls- I
iature, and conferred it upon the Con- /
gresS,-theu there is little use, hereafter 1
ia political discussion or Jurisprudence, /
for logic or even common sense. Ii
the Constitution was 70 be law
enacted by the one people OF the
United States, and not compact De-
tween the States, why were not the /
votes Of the fractions added together 1
Why permit three -fOurths in number OF I
the fractions to amend the Constitution I
TO any extent, when those fractions, /
counting the individual voters, may not I
amount to One-half of 6 the people OF
the United States? If the one people
had the power to enact the law, why did .
they not do it as one people? Why let I
each fraction vote as a unit ? Why let I
those be excluded from voting, in South 1
Carolina. who in New York would have I
been entitled to vote?
1t il quite true that the majority Of Che I
people of q State might DO an act which /
would not be the act Of the State, ana |
irhich therefore lrOttld be nail. If, with |
out any act Of the Legislature to author /
ize It, a majority OF the people Of each I
county in a State were to come together, /
and elect delegates TO a convention, and /
these were to make a new constitution, /
10 would have no force for the plain /
reason that the minority would not be 4
bound by their action. They are only \
bound by what is done in accord /
ance with law. But they are
bound, because every law regular
ly passed, is the act and will, a law ot
every man in the State. The original 4
COMPACT makes it so but without that 4
Implied consent, the majority cannot 1
abTogate law or change the constitution, |
or bind a single individual by their
action because that action u not, IN
such case, the act Of the State. The ma
j0rity Of the people of North Carolina
could not vest the power Of governing 1
the minority elsewhere than IN the state
government, without the consent of the
minority that Is, unless the act was, in
law, the act Of the State. The majority
is not the State.
The argument of Mr.. " ebster was, at
bottom, that the States, confessedly
Free, Sovereign and Independent, could
not, by a compact Of union between
themselves, ratified by the people Of each
in order not to be a mere Legislative act
repealable at pleasure, create a govern
ment, with power to act directly upon
individuals, through joint agency OF
Departments and officers with appropri-
ate functions and specific powers. To
state the proposition is TO demonstrate
its absurdity. 1t is 20 say that state
could not agree to exercise, jointly 1cfth
the others, those powers Of sovereignty
over her own citizens, which, being SOW
ereign, she could have continued ID e1er-
else alone.
Such arguments as that, if the States
are the constituents Of the Federal IN
ion. the phrase We the people OF the
United States was 'inappropriately
used in the preamble to the constitution,
and therefore without purposes or mean
ing.' and that Washington meant /
nothing when, in his farewell address,
he spoke of The unity of government /
which constitutes you one people; are
entitled to no other replies, than, that,
since the Colonies, in I776, tce-e separate
and distinct political bodies, each declar-
ing itself a Free, Sovereign and lnde-
pendent State, and forming mere
league and Confederacy, by COM
nact between themselves as States,
thence Nle puEdSct AZ ehC he.AA-S 90
bv the authority of the good people
Of these C0lOnies,' was inappropriatey
used in the Declaration Of Independence,
and therefore without a purpose or
rneaning;' for the same people, in
whose name and by whose authority In
dependence was declared, made the
constitution and the latter argu-
ment.' TO this, that it is allowable TO
suppose that the United Colonies and the
United States during the Confederation
had some unity of government espe-
ciaIIv as it was considered on all hands
that there tCds a onion and a Federal I
Government.' and a National Govern
nept; and that it might, with pre- |
cisely the same good sense and fair
ness and logical force he said that,
there being thea only league or /
Confederacy Of the States, Washington /
meant nothing when, in 1883, upon
resigning his commission, he talked to l
Congress in such phrases as, service of
nv country the United States oecom-
ing a respectable Nation the supreme /
mower Of the UDion,' and 'the. interests
Of our dearest country; > and that all such
phrases, in those days, as the National
debt. the Nation 'the National char
aoter,' the National safety the people |
Of America, and especially this sentence,