Year: 1874

March 10th, 1874.


Editor Democrat: t.gs,..I.


In my last letter l proposed that


in this would continue the examina-


ton of the subject in reference to the


exercise of the right of sovereignty


by the several States in the formation


and adoption of the Federal Con-


stitution. --


And in the first place l will en-
deavor to remove what seems to


many stumbling block in the way


of a proper and impartial inyestigas


ton OF this subject; point beyond


which too many have shown on un-
willingness to venture in search of
truth, but at which they have been


too willing to stop, content to adopt
as their theory that the Constitution


was made and adopted by "We, the
people of the United States" The


preamble to the Constitution is the


stumbling block to which aIp refer,
and is an obstacle too few Aase SEEM
ed willing to try to surmount, / do
not propose to remove, but to ex-
plain it. 1t is true it does read,


"We, the people of the United


States, in order to form more per-
feet Union, establish justice, insure
domestic tranquility, provide for the


common defence, promote the gen
eral welfare, and secure the blessing
of liberty to ourselves and our
posterity, do ordain and establish
this constitution for the United
States Of America. Whilst 1 am
unwilling to attach that importance
to the preamble that many seem dis
posed to accord to it, I will give it
all the weight the trainers of the
Constitution intended it should pos
sess. They did not, it seems to me,
adopt it as part or parcel Of the


Constitution, nor did they suppose it
was necessary to the validity of the
Constitution, Or that. it was not just
as much a Constitution without it as
with it. 1t is apreamble to the Con-
stitution and no more, and for our
purposes it need be no less. admit
that the preamble to a statute may
be referred to to construe the statute,
and the same rule will doubtless ap-
ply to the preamble to Constitution,
WHICH is the organic law; but it
would hardly be adopted as conclu-
sive against the facts Of history. But
suppose it is a part of the Constitu-
ton, as much SO as Article /, or any
other one article of it, what is its
effect? What power or right is grant
ed by the States or acquired by the
General Government? Does it create
any department of government or
define its duties? Does it augment
the authority of the people Of the
United States as an aggregate peopleY
If so, how is that authority to be
exercised? There is no way pointed
out in the Constitution by which the
people of the United States, as one
people, can act-not even in the
choice of Chief Magistrate. Each
citizen is restricted to the geographi-
cal limits of his own State in the ex-
ercise of all his political rights, and
he can exercise none then but by the
authority Of the State in which he is
'domiciled and has gained a residence;
so it was under the articles Of Con-
federation; so it was prior to indie
pendence, and if the principle of
State rights can maintain the ascend
ancy, so it will ever be in the United
Stutes. We have already seen, by
the 9Th article of the Constitution,
quoted in my last letter, that the
Convention did not intend that the
Constitution should, for its adoption,
be submitted to the people Of the
United States at large. 1t was not
SO ordered, nor was it SO adopted,
but was submitted to and adopted
and ratified by the several States as
heretofore .shown--the approval of
nine States being necessary to make
it Constitution at all, and then it
affected only such States as ratified
bit, and embraced no other portion of
the people Of the United States out
side Of the limits of the States SO
approving and adopting it.


We maybe able to gather some
light upon this branch of the subject
from histomcalfacts. The first draft
of the Constitution as reported to the
Convention by the appointed Com
mittees, adopted nearly the same pre-
anible as that to the Articles of Con-
federation, reciting all the States by
name, and the Convention unani-
mously adopted the preamble, care
fully preserving and recognizing thus
far the sovereignty of the States; and
after the various provisions of that
draft Of the Constitution we're discuss
ed and the alterations agreed to--no
change being made or proposed in
the phraseology Of the preamble
the whole draft thus agreedto IN Con-
Uention was referred to committee
of fye-with what powerP "to revise
the style of and arrange the articles
agreed to by the house" 1t is mani
fest this Committee had no power to
change the meaning or sense of any
article in that Constitution, but sim
ply "to revise the style of and arrange
the matters in proper order" The
Committee reported the present pre-
amble instead Of the original, and
why? Was il intended thereby to
merge the sovereignty of the States
into that Of the General Government?
The consolidationists seem to regard |
such as the effect Of the language |
used, but I can hardly think the
members Of that august body would
feel themselves Aattered by such a |
doubtful compliment were they to
hear such construction given it. If |
they had provided for submitting the |
Constitution to the whole people Of
the United States for ratification in
stead Of the several States, as provid- /
ed for in the 7th Article, no violence
would then perhaps be done TO the |