Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1867-03-02


re will Of the people. Whenever that wi
se cbanges, whatever Of contract there W.
I'd among the individual grains OF the mas
to / changes or disappears. twas acontrat
e, only in so far as the people agreed anon
r themselves what the popular will an
s. Judgment for the time were. The pr6
le visions OF the constitution are there, be
" cause the people then thought them fc
e, the best. It agreed not to change ther
?. except in a certain way with whom
= one Individual with another; it simpl
Y willed SO: the agreement simply determ
b ined its viii for the time. To-day il
u particles agree otherwise. They chrys
d taIlize in another form. They agree wit
l. each other that its viii shall be other
e wise. So soon as tho people ceases {
;, think the guarantees " for the best, the.
disappear.
T The people of England once agreed
= not by majority vote, but in some sucl
: way as that in which the fraction o
e | the people living IN Delaware gave a
t stout q vote upon ratifying the eonstitu
i ton, as the twenty times larger Fraction
a ia New York, that tie BOroughs should
I be represented in Parliament, Manehes
ter and Sheffield having no vote therein
I / Does any one doubt the power OF th'
: people Of England to revoke tha
: agreement Cannot the people of the
ri United States, with the same right, re
t woke the agreement by which Delaware
! has two Senators and New York but
f two?
I'll Cannot the one people OF France
change the constitution OF France when
= It plaases, so that, Republic yesterday, il
] may be Empire to-day and Kingdom TO-
/ morrow? To talk OF the social con
tract among the iu0tigifRGls of a
, people, as the foundation of every
f government, IL idle. Always, the terms
{ OF that contract depend on the popular
viii, the majority Of individual wills, al
bottom. Always the people have the
right TO change or alter that. Thus it is
plain, that unless the States are parties
to the constitution, it contains no guar
a1tees.
ct has been urged that a national gov
eminent, consisting of the three depart
ments, completely negatives all idea OF
league, and compact, ami confederation.
The Convention Of 1857 at first resolved
that a national government ought to
be established and Mr., Webster said
that terms could nSt be chosen mora fit
to express an intention to establish a
national government, and TO Danish
forever all notion of compact be-
tween sovefeign States But, be-
sides that the style Gf thig FesolH
ton was afterwards altered, lest the
word " national " nlight lead to mis-
/ apprehension, and the words, " the gov
ernment Of the United States We're sub
stitUted, il is strange that Mr.. Webster
should not have known, or, knowing,
| not have limited, that the words nation -
aud " national lad not been considered
! By the Congress OF the Confederation, or
| by Hamilton, Madison, FitzsimmOns,
| Monroe, Spaight, Houston, johnson and
| King, OF by the commissioners who met
/ at Annapolis as lnapplioabls TO the
| United States under the Confederation.
Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Con-
vention, ia l7SS, opposing the ratification
of the Constitution, fOresaw the use that
could ge made OF the expression - we the
people of the United States, and urged
It as a reason against ratification. II, he
said, the convention had said, we, the
States the government would have
been a Confederation otherwise, con-
solidated government. The question" "
he said, turns on that poor little
thing,-the expression, I'VE, the peO-
pie, instead Of the States of |
America" 1t was the argument IF |
an opponent of the constitution, re-
sorting to any available ground of |
objection, and making the most of |
any. But the use is made of the phrase, |
and the disastrous consequences prove |
that he was right 70 sbject to the ratifi- |
cation of an instrument III any wise
ambiguous, even by a single word, on
that most important point. Mr.. Madi-
son, the next day, replied, that the
people were parties TO the constitution,
but not the people as composing one
great body, but the people as comprising
thirteen sOVereiguties. With that uu-
derstanding, the consent of Virginia to
ratification was obtained. If that eans
sent was obtained by fraud and misrep-
resentatiOn, or given under a mistake,
she had. at any time, by the elearest
principles Of law, a right to revoke her
ratification. She has at length done so,
not being barred by any statute Of limit
aIion.
IG mas even been asserted, chat the
States never acted upon the constitution
aE States that the legislatures we're in
vested by the States with the power, FOR
instance, TO levy and collect duties, and
the State could not, ia its organised ca
paeity, through the Legislature, delegate
that power TO Congress but this could
only be dons by the people of the State,
in cOtUeHllpa, as fraction Of the whole
people II all the States: though the
lUhOle ~ pie Of the United States could
not dOSit, because then il would be a
different set of people to take that power
away, from the one who gave it, Aud
this argument was made by a Senator
who had been Judge of a respectable Su-
preme Court Of a State.
The substance Of this is, that when the
people of State act in convention, its
action is not the action of the State.
Yet the constitution positively declares
that the States are to ratify II they did
not, it has never been in force at all.
Amendments to the constitution are to
be ratified by the Legislatures of the
States or by conventions in each, accord
ing as Congress may propose. Can any
one gravely argue that in one case the
State acts, and in the other, the people
Of the State, as a fraction Of the whole
people of the United States?
The simple fact is, that as it was pro-
posed, by the constitution, to transfer
certain of the powers OF government
from the States, which then held and
exercised them, it was considered that,
il the Legislature did this, it would not
be the act of the State, because not within
the scope Of the powers committed to the
and the Executive; and
that, for this purpose, the people of the
State, in convention, could alone be re-
garded as the State. 1t was certainly
not imagined that the act Of the con-
ventiOn was not, what the constitution
itself expressly declares it to be, the act
Of The State in the most solemn possible
form.
Another supposed reason for the resort
to conventions was mentioned by Ham
iltOn, in the I'D mum Der Of the Federal
ist. He there said that it had not little
to the inlirmities of the
system under the Confederation, that it
never had ratification by the people
but, resting only on the consent of the
several Legislatures, It had been eX-
posed to frequent and intricate questions
the validity of its powers,
giving birth, in some instances, to the
enormous doctrine of right Of legisla-
tive repeal upon the argument that,
rs il owed its ratification to the law of a
State, the same authority might repeal
the law by which il was ratified. How
ever gross heresy, he said, it might be
to maintain that party TO a compact
has a right TO revoke that compact, the
doctrine bad had respectable advocates
and, he said, +" the possibility of a ques-
ion of this nature proves the necessity
1f laying the foundations of our national
government deeper man IN the /
mere sanction Of delegated au-
thority. The fabric of American
Empire ought to rest on the solid ,
basis of the consent of the people.
The streams of national power ought
10 flow immediately from that pure orig
nal fountain Ofall legitimate authority
The question had been, whether the Slate
was so committed and bound, by law ,
enacted by the Legislature, even when !
it thereby acceded 10 a Confederation, 7
that it could not repeal the law, and
thereby withdraw from the ConfedeTa-
ton. The national government needed ,
q better foundation than the sanction Of
authority delegated by a State or its peO-
pie 10 the legislature of the State. 1t
needed the sanction of the people of the
Stare-the consent Of that people The
remedy needed only to be commensurate
with the evil. It did not require the
sanction Of the people Of all the States TO
bind one State, Mr.. Hamilton could not
have meant that.
4 German Emperor.
The Prussian parliament has voted to
the king of Prussia the title Of Germany,
thus reviviBg one of the oldest titles in
Europe, which was dropped in 1906, upon
the formation Of the confederation of the