The home journal. (Winchester, Tenn.) 1858-188?, 1870-11-17

but one compact, and that was the old coy
and. certainly, the gentIpman
does not intend to assert that the present.
constitution rests upon that. What. tho
Is his meal ing! What can it be, but that
the Constitution itself is a compactY ImSI
how will his language read when farIu
but that the constitution VA
a compact. but Is no longera compactY If
had. by some means or another, changoi
its nature, or become dcfunct.
ale next states that
"a man is almost untrue to his copr,,,
who calls the constitution Il compact.'
Il fear the senator in calling it .com.
pact, a bargai has called down thishen
denunc iiition on his own head. He finoll,.
states that
"'It is founded on compact, but no, =
compact III Is the result OF Il compact"
40 what are we to attribute this STRANGE
confusion of words! The senator Ln.ss
mind CT high order. and perfectly trained
to the most exact use Of language. No man
knows better the precise import of thn
words he uses. The difficulty is not in hin,
but in his subject. He who undertakes +"
prove that this constitution is nor A com.
pact. undertakes task which, be hi.
strength ever so great, must Cypress him
by its weight. Taking the whole of the
argument OF the senator together. wOull
say that it Is his impression that the con-
stitution i not compact, and will now
proceed 10 consider the reason which he
has assigned for this opinion.
He thinks there is an incompatbilitv
| between constitution and compact. To
prove This. he adduces the words srloin
and establish. contained in the preamble
OF the constitution. | confess that am
] ln tt iut IN,
these words are incompatible with the idea
that the constitution is compact. Tie
senator Will admit that a single State NAV
Ordain constitution; and where is the
difficulty. where the incompatiDility, of
two states concurrng in ordain.ny and
establishing Il constitution. AS between
the states themselves. the instrument
would be II compact; but in reference to
the Government, and those on whom it
operates, IL would he ordained and e,tab-
li>ned-oruailed and established by the
joint authority Of two. instead of the sin
gc authority OF one.
The next argument which the senator
advances to show that the language of the
constitution is irrccOnciable with the idea
OF its being compact. i, taken from that
portion of the Instrument which imposes
, prohibitions on the authority of the States,
lie said that the language used. in impos-
, ing tie prohibitions, is the language of
, superior to an inferior; and that. therefore,
il was not the language of Il compact,
hch implies the equality OF the parties.
Asa prGOt. the senator cited several clauses
p of .nc constitution which provide that no
Stare shall enter into treaties of alliance
, and confederation. lay imposts, etc, with
/ ont the consent of Congress. If he had
: turned to the Articles of the Old Lonieder-
!, alton, which he acknowledges TO have
been compact. he would have found that
a those very prOlibitOry articles of the con-
, ,titution were borrowed from that instru-
; meut: tuat the language. which he now
. lcou,idtr> rs implying superiority. was Ia
ken rerJasim from it. Ii he had extended
!, his researches still further. he would have
found that it is the habitual language used
= in treaties. whenever stipulation Is made
. against the performance of any act.
Among many instances which | could cite
= if If were necessary. refer the senator TO
!. the celebrated treaty negotiated by Mr..
r Jay with Great Britain. in 1893. in which
Il the very language used i'll the constitution
h Is employed.
- To prove that the constitution is nota
=, compact. tie senator next observe. that 1t
# stipulates nothing and asks. with an air Of
If triumph. Where are the evidences of the
II SupnlatlOl, between tie statcs' must
Il EXPIRE my surprise nc TINS ihtcrro@atGr!'
l. coming from 20 intelligent source LA.
% the Senator never seen the ratification Of
/ the constitution by the several States:
II Did he not cite them on this very ocCa-
, sion? DO they contain no evidence Of
,tpulatiOus on the part at tie States:
=, Nor is the assertion less strange that the
constit1t on contains no stipulatiOns.
80 far from regarding 1t III the II lit IN
=. which the senator regards II. consider TIC
- whole Instrument nut mass OF 'lipula-
Il tiOns. W hat Is t'at out stlPuia'loh 10
which the senator refers When lie states. IN
the course Of his argument, that each State
:. had agreed TO participate IN liic sovereign
of ty OF the others.
But the principal argument On "".I
10 Oh" senator relied to show that the cpn>Ii-
y tuition is not compact. rests on tie proy!-
Sicn, IL that Instrument which declares
u that this constitution. and law, made III
l. pr r-Uance thereof. and treatic. mac" I'M
i5 Der l.-ir authority. are the supreme laws
- Of ~" 'Ind.' lie asked, with mA!heI en-
~ pbH-. Can compact be Tie supreme IA"
=. OF ,'!e iaAG: liis ar-t'ien,, IN iay'' d.
:. conii'tFe'F proves 'hht .ie"I.', s'r a no'
coiniT''. - 'iat the co'n't''!u' ! 'o ft
= coi'W't. l might rest t'e i>,"c VI, 'Iis
V derlsi answer; but is L Hcs'tt 10 l'"ao
- 40. shadow o. DOUBT on 'l'> inP'I',n'
+, point. snail follow the gentleman III Tue
:" cOGi,e ot hi reasoning.
.'c Gc'ncs constitution 70 De lirua-
= m"Et1l law, which organizes tnt ''.'vrn'
u ment. and points out the mode OF lt' ac-
'e ton. will not object TO the uennl.io.,
le though, in my opinion a more apProptia.o
VI one. or at least. one better adapttu -
- American ideas. could be gwen Wy op,
'e lection is not TO the definition buI 10 ,ne
! attempt to prove that the fundamental laN'
t. Of state cannot he compact. a. the '.m'
:. ator seems to suppose. hoid the yer! ~
e verse to he the case; ana thal. acroiViH-
- To tie most approved writers on tue ruu-