The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1881-12-07


electors or Senator'S and
he might have added that they could
refuse to district their States and elect
Representatives And he SAYS This
would be precisely equivalent to an
act OF secession" He actually sees and
confesses the existence Of State minds
thar can decisively cover all political ac-
ton. Now is the time for him TO show
the national mind and action. He also,
undoubtedly, sees, and he should con-
fess, the truth of voluntary union and
voluntary government. How can self
government be otherwise?
3.-THE STATES ESTABLISHED THE coEsTI-
TUITION.
Article VII proves beyond doubt that
/ the States, as powers. ordained and es-
tablished" the Constitution; The rati-
ifcation of the Convention of nine States
shall be sufficient for the establishments
of this Constitution between the States
so &. e., by Conventions1 ratifying the
same" 1t is certain, then, ID that rat
iicatlons were to establish (2l that
States were by Conventions to ratify !;
| 81 that, therefore, States were to es-
| tablish. By States, of course, is meant
the people as societies they only hav-
ing mind to act with, as such. Daniel
Webster said : s'Until the Constitution
was ratified by nine States it was but
mere proposaI-the draft of an instru-
ment. x x 1t was imperative
paper: x it had no authori-
| ty; it spoke no language" Surely,
Webster is good authority against SEN
ator Edmunds
4-WHAT DID THE FEDERAL CONGRESS DO
''The United States, in Congress as
sembled," did, on September 13, 1888,
declare as follows: "The Constitution
\ 4 has been ratified in the manner
| therein declared to be sufficient for the
establishment of the same, and such rati-
fcations, duly authenticated, have been
received by Congress, and are filed in
the office Of the Secretary" They then,
as the agency of the United States, go
on to provide that ''the States begin to
act under the new compact" to use the
words of Washington as to political
action under our present Constitution
Congress and Washington VS.. Senator
Edmunds Does the Senator reflect
that these State acts, preserved in the
sacred records of the country, are the
very muniments, and the only NUM-
ments, Of the Constitutions title to ex-
istence?
5-WHAT SAID THE CONVENTIONS OF
STATES,
(as Hamilton called it) of 1887? 1t
unanimously, by the pen of Washington,
wrote that the government aimed at,
was to be "the Federal government of
these States :" and that the Constitution |
was considered the 'sdelegating" of an
extensive trust" The Convention Of
1897 VS.. Senator Edmunds!
6.-THE TEsTAMoNY OF THE FEDERALIsT.
Hamilton, Jay and Madison, by the |
pen Of the latter, wrote in the Federallst |
mo. 39) that this "assent and ratifica-
tion is to be given by the people, not as
individuals composing one entire nation, |
but as composing the distinct and in
dependent States. x x The act, |
therefore, establishing the Constitution,
will not be a national but a Federal
act. 4 x Each State, in ratifying
the Constitution, is constituted as a
sovereign body, independent of all
others, and only to be found by its own
voluntary act. In this relation, then,
the new Constitution will, if established,
be Federal and not National Consti
tuition" The Federalist VS.. Senator
Edmunds
WHAT THE FATHERS SAY.
Part |, Chapter VII, of The Repub-
lie of Republics, gives the express
sions of just one score of the fathers, all
to the effect that our Union is fedora
ton ofsovereign States. For instance,
Washington called it ''the new confed-
eraey." Hamilton said it is IAN associa-
ton of States, or confederaey." Mad
ison said the States of the Union are
''distinct and independent sovereigns.
Morris, Wilson, Sherman, Bowdoin,
Pendleton, Marshall, Iredell Ames, Par
sons and others expressed themselves
in similar manner-all in the unquali
fed contradiction of Senator Edmunds.
1t could not be otherwise, as the very
expressions of tho fathers were in denial
and refutation of these very assertions
of Senator Edmunds, which were then
uttered by the foes of the Constitution
for the purpose of defeating it. The
Fathers VS.. Senator Edmunds! r. of
R., 43, 159.
6.-IF MORE EVIDENCE IS WANTED
as to whether the book or Senator Ed
munds' statement is "wholly unfound-
ed" he will find in Part II of the book
conclusive demonstration that no life, no
validity, and no powers whatever, did,
or could, get into the Constitution other
wise than by State action and that
there was, or could be, no exercise of
national authority in the premises.
And, moreover, if he will read Part LII
he will blush to find that his whole exc
gesis originated with the original foes of
the Constitution that it is now based
solely on falsifations and tricky exposi-
ton and that latter-day expounders
have, by their additions and blunders,
made ridiculous theory which the
great Webster-eonsiderin the place
and occasion-made sublime!
9.-MoNTEsoUIEU's ASSOCIATION OF REPUB-
Lies.
The book the Senator Podsnaps, s
proves overwhelmingly that the great
fear of the States and the people was
not aristocracy or monarchy, as he seems
to think, but that the effect of the Consti-
tuition would be to nationalize or consoli- /
date the States and it was only on be-
ing convinced that the States were to be /
in their sovereignty, and fed i
that the people adopted the {
system (see r. of r. PIP. so, 1922. The {
fathers not only cited Montesqu
theory as their guide, but they conform
ed to it. The people as organized are
To attend to selfgovern-