The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-08-15
"we, the People,"

HfOW Te HuSNHtgtoH CfTONtcJe.
When distinguished member of the Con-
vention which framed the Constitution of the
United States was congratulated upon the
prospect of happiness and prosperity appa-
rently secured by it, he replied, "That de-
pends upon the construction that may be put
upon the Constitution" The sentiment in
favor of National Government was by no
means unanimous. There were local reasons
of State power and policy, and jealouses of
State politicians, as well as fears of the novelty
of this new Government, of great but untried
powers, that arrayed against it a powerful
minority, many of whose members had been
leaders of the revolution for independence.
The necessities of the situation proved supe-
rior to their arguments. The confederation
was powerless and contemplate at home and
abroad. State Jurisprudence was very un-
satisfactory, creditors complained that JUS
tice was not secure; commerce languished; the
States refused to obey Congressional requi-
sitions, and there was no power to enforce
them; civil war was imminent, and could
only be prevented by the organization of
National Government. The Government of
the United States then was the offspring of
an exigency, the legitimate sequence of the
war of independence. The Declaration was a
charter of principles, the Constitution an at
tempt to organize government in accordance
with them. Abstract theories must take the
shape of law before they can become effective
in government and the obstacles interposed by
vested interests frequently place governments
in an attitude of hostility to the accepted faith
| of the nation they represent. This arises espe-
cially from the habit inculcated and perpetu-
ated by monarchical and aristocratc govern
ments of regarding time -honored privilege as a
right and sanctfying property over man. Free
dom and progress are in constant struggle to
break through the demonstrations of ages of
despotism to which men have become habitu-
ated. 1t is much harder to secure intellectual
emancipation, to get mems minds out of the
old habits of thought, than to win victories
upon the battlefield. Hence the rarity of
revolutionary triumph and the tendency to
reaction. The war of independence had been
made successful by united effort of the peo-
pie of all the colonies; their unity had been
cemented by common danger. When the
danger was passed, the "spirit of America" +"
as it was called, subsided, and local jealousies
interrupted the harmony and threatened the
existence of the Union. The Convention was
therefore necessity-the Constitution was its
consequence; and that was made to conform as
nearly to the principles of the revolution as
State rivalry and other obstacles would
permit.
Great objection was made by the opponents
of the National Government to the sentence
with which the preamble begins, eve, the
people," 1t was the object of constant attack,
and it is, therefore, well to keep in mind the
importance of that sentence in establishing the
character of our Government. If we look at
the debates of the Virginia Convention, we
will find that nearly all of the distinguished
men in that body earnestly participated in the
discussion regarding the term "aOe, the people,
and their deliberations enable us to come to a
Just conclusion as to the construction put upon
it. Patrick Henry, leader of the revolution,
and the most effective orator OF his day, having
become imbued with the idea that extent Of
territory was dangerous to liberty, that liberty
could only be secure in small commonwealth,
vehemently opposed the adoption of the Con-
stitution. OF this little clause, eve, the peo-
ple," he said, "What right had they tC
say, ace, the people? My political curiosity
exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the
public welfare, leads me to ask who autho
rized them to speak the language of we, the
, people, instead of we, the States States are
the characteristics and soul of confedera
ton. If the States be not the agents of this
compact, it must be one great consolidated
, national Government of the people of all the
States" This was as strong a method O
J presenting the obnoxious feature of the
, Constitution as this great orator and advo
cate of State sovereignty could devise. TC
similar faith it was startling and conclu
sive. But how was it received by the
/ friends of the Government Did they
shrink away from the issue, alarmed at the
} prospect of creating grand CONSOLIDATED
] nationality? No. Governor Randolph re
I plied-'The gentleman then proceeds, AM
I inquiries why we assumed the language, zoe
t the people, | ask, why not The Govern
: ment is for the people; and the misfortune wa
i that the people had no agency in the Govern
d ment before. X What harm is there Il
consulting the people on the construction of
70 Government by which they are to be bound
II Is it unfair Is it unjust If the Govern
n ment is to be binding on the people, are nc
10 the people the proper persons to examine II
l. merits or defects?'
re Assailed again by Mr.. George Mason, VIII
lg denounced it as creating national Govern
eT ment, Mr.. Pendleton followed in its defense
OF especially against Mr. Henry's assault. ii
y sald;-"Who but the people have a right {
er form government The expression is CON
K, mon one, and favorte one with me; tn
Sc representatives Of the people, by their authC
ly rity, is mode wholly inessential. IL the oil
'el lection be that the Union ought to be not
on the people but of the State Governments
ar then think the choice of the former yer
ia happy and proper. What have the Stat
to Governments to do with itY Were they
lal determine, the people would not in that cas-
M be the judges upon what terms il wa
80 adopted"