The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-11-11

people. n popular nlSIorN u Undoubtedly
IL. intended MT merely to he consulted by
tho student. but to he read with pleasure
bv the man in the st reet. Neve heless.
for those who Themselves possess some
information on the subjects treated. there
are abundant evidences in everV chapter
of independent and careful research and
Of conscientious v~rifcaiion. Il is now.
as IL wss at the outset. tho authors aim to
do for the United States whit Macaulay
hoped 70 do for England. produce a history
that even novel readers could be tempted
TO perise. We would not be accused Of
n perbolei we certainiy do not mean to sav
thai Mr.. McMastar's St. IL hns all the charm
of Macaulav's. bur H. Is fluent. vivacious.
agreeable. and at times impressive.
Il Z. we'll known that the speechea deliv-
erred nv Wehster and ITavns in the famous
debate between those Senators we're rare
fully revised before they were allowed to
appear In the newspapers. Our author
POINTS ont that this revision accounts for
the tact that We find TIayne answering parts
of a preaching speech Of WehstAr's which.
in the printed copv the latter seems not
to have delirrred: rs when IIavno says. "He
tells TIE he hears Of nnt hing hut the tariff!
the tariff! and il a word conld be found to
rhyme with il, he presumes IL would he
celehratAd in verse and sct IN muSic."> II is
less generally known that profound a. was
the impression made by the speeches de-
livered in January. 1880. Of Webster and
Tayne. and especially Ivy the formers sec
ond speech, which left all who heard il con-
rinoed that he was by far the greatest man
in Congress, not a word that fell from the
lips OF either speaker appeared even in the
Washington Journals for two weeks. Feb
ruaTy came ere the people of Baltimore and
Philadelphia read Haynes first reply to
Webster. A whole month passed before
Wehster's second reply TO Hay ne began to
be published in the newspapers Of Phila-
delphia, and March opened before it was
read in Boston. Then, indeed, the demand
Tor IL became enormous. The sneAches had
been held hack. a. we have said. for careful
revision, and as a matter OF fact mono
except those who heard the speeches knew
what Hayne and Webster had actually said.
Yet, effective as Webeter's two speeches
seem when read, We have the Testimony Of
eye and ear Witnesses that they were far
rrore effective when uttered. Our author
brings out the difference when he SAYS:
Were il possible 10 put on paper the manner
in which the speech was delivered. to infuse
into the printed words the curl of the lips,
the fash OF the eye. the flush OF the cheeks.
the one OF sarcasm, which enlivensd,
elucidated, enforced the language of tbs
orator, then. but not till then. could those
who did not hear the speech be mad SEN
sible OF the banquet they hal lost
Another fact often overlooked ia that late
In the are year. 1882, the heated discussion
OF the nature and purport Of the Federal
Constitution started by Webster and Hayne
drew forth a announcement on the subject
from ex- President Madison. then in his
eightieth year. No man then living was so
we'll qualified to explain what the Constitu-
ZION vas intended to be by j. authors, for
he had taken a conspicuous oart not only
in framing it at Philadelphia but in de-
tending and expounding it in the Federdlist
and in the Virginia State convention. As
early as June, 1897, Webster wrote to Jere-
miah Mason: Some time ago you expressed
q wish that Mr.. Madison might come
against this multiplying doctrine. That OBJ
ject is secured. In due time the public will
have the benefit of his opinion in the most
satisfactory manner Tbs views ex-
pressed by Madison some months later are
summarized in the book before Us. He
began by saying that the Constitution did
not provide a consolidated Government,
nor a confederated Government, but a
mixture Of both. 1t was not formed by the
Governments OF the component States, as
was the Federal Government it supplsnted.
Nor was il formed by a majority OF the
people OF the United States, considered and
acting as a single community. Il was
formed by the people in each Of the States,
acting in their highest sovereign capacity,
or. in other words. formed by the same
authority which formed the State Consti-
tuition. Being thus derived from the same
sources as the Constitutions OF the States,
the Federal Constitution had within zach
State the sane authority as the Constitu-
ton OF that State. With this essential
difference, however-Madison hlstened to
add that. being a CO nplct betussn the
States, and continuing the people thereof
n people for certain purposes, IL could
not be altered or annulled at the will OF the
people Of a given State Individually, as the
Constitution OF that State may be. It had
not escaped the attention OF the trainers.
Madison said. that between these different
constitutional Governments. the one oper-
ating in all the States. the other operating
separately in each State. the powers OF
government being divided between them,
controversies would arise, and some pro-
vision would have To be made for their
settlement. That notification could be a
proper mode OF settling such disputes
Madison denied. TIE Constitution, he in
Sisted. Is q compact, and it's text must be
expounded according to the provisions for
ezpourding 10 that make a part Of the con-
tract zone Of the parties could rightfulIy
renounoe this part, any more than another
part OF the compact. Should the provisions
OF the Constitution be found not to protect
the rights Of the States against an acc,I-
invitation OF ~usurpations and abuses on the
part OF the United States. the final resort
was an mend nent to the Constitution.
We should bear in mind. nevertheless, that,
wh.le Madison denied the right Of nullifca-
ton or the right OF secession be maintained
the right OF revolution For, in conclusion,
he said that in the event OF a failure Of
every constitutional resort and an accumu-