Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1868-06-05

branches Of the Congress ought not to be
according to the rule established in the
Articles of Consideration, but according
to the whole number Ofwhite and other
free citizens and inhahitants,n etc. He
says that "the Government was thus
placed on the shoulders Of the people, in
stead of upon the supposed sovereignty
of the States, renouneing in direct and
positive words the rule of State repre-
sentstioD, as recognized in the Articles
of Confederation; and the Constitution
eDl6odyiRg that principle was reported
and subsequently adopted"
Now Judge Hunter certainly knew
that if that vote had stood unaltered,
the Convention would have been dis.
solved; that the small States and New
York refused to proceed unless it was re-
scinded or modified, and that, finally,
after fierce and prolonged struggle, 1t
was decided that the principle should be
abandoned, and representation in the
upper branch should be equal. How
much was thus conceded might be a
question to be argued; but it was cer-
tainly an abandonment of the principle
that the equality and sovereignty Of the
States were not to be recognized at all.
1t conceded the whole principle: it de-
stroyed the National feature of the plan,
and retained, in one branch, the federal
character of the Government. The res
olution asserted that representation
ought not to be equal in either branch.
That was according to the plan, and pre-
served its unity. The concession wrung
from the large States subsequently, re-
scinded the resolution as to one branch,
recognized the equality of the States,
and conceded the principle contended for
by the small States. The Delegates from
the large States confessed this, and &C
knowIedged it, with anger and mortifi-
fication, as defeat.
The language of Judge Hunter, which
we have quoted, is therefore deceptive
and unfair. The principle embodied in
the resolution quoted by him was not
embodied in the Constitution. The reso-
luton was In part Tescinded, and con-
trary principle, that of the equality and
sovereignty of the States, embodied in
that instrument.
Judge Hunter says that the Constitu-
ton was not adopted by the States, in
the form Of compact between them,
but by the people of the United States in
their capacity as citizens Of the United
States, uncontrolled and unaided by any
action on the part OF the States. To
prove this, he relies on the arguments
and objections of Henry and Martin,
counsel, as it were, using every argument
within their reach to defeat the Consti-
tuition,
The Constitution icds adopted by the
States, The people of each State, in
Convention, gave the separate assent Of
the State. II was to be, and it became,
in force, as soon as it had been ratified
By nine States. Conventions were re-
quired, because it was thought that rati-
fieation by the Legislatures would not,
for want Of authority so to act for the
States, be ratification by the States.
No one will deny that the amend
ments to the Constitution were made by
the States, and not by the people of the
United States st large. Three -fourths
of the States may now amend it, against
the will of an immense majority OF the
people of all. The amendments adopted
have become part of the Constitution.
Is that instrument, then, the work, in
part, Of the people of the United States,
and in part of the States themselves as
Did one power make
and does another add to and diminish by
amendment? Such q proposition is
absurd.
That the powers of the General Gov
eminent were greatly enlarged by the
Constitution in no way affects this ques-
tiop, The States, by compact between
themselves, es Established a political cor
poration, called the United States, in
which they were the corporators, having
unequal voices in one branch of the Di-
rectOry or Legislature, and an equal
voice each in the other branch, They
could confer on the corporation, and
did confer on it, such powers as they
pleased. All the Acts Of the Corporation
are their acts. They act by means of it.
So long as State continues to be cor
porator, the laws enacted for all, by the
corporate agent o. all, are supreme for
all and binding on the people of all
Treason against the nation so constituted
Of and by the States is so, because it is
treason against each respectively. Allie
glance is but the owing Of obedience, and |
he action of the State, in forming the |
or nation has bound its eiti- 1
lens to obey the laws enacted by herself
ointly with the other States. The States
nave not set superior over themselves,
my more thsn an ordinary corporation
s the superior Of the shareholders. In
dtU, the corporation is distinct from the
states in fact, they are the corporation:
,
is property is their property, its laws, its
lebts, its contracts, its treaties, are
heirs.
II a State, having thus become CO.
operator, can for sufficient cause with
lraw by resembling the compact, then
III these consequences of its union with
he others cease. That it can not with
lraw in an extreme case, when there is
10 other remedy left, and the Constitu-
ion and its own rights are grossly vio-
ated, Judge Hunter indeed asserts, but
ioes not attempt to prove. 1t would be
ar more satisfactory, if he would conds-
'cend to consider the arguments on the
)ther side, which he does not even notice.
As an attempt :" to supply great pub
ic want" as an exhaustive or even able
defence of Webster's theory of the Con-
ititution snd7Government, the pamphlet
q a