the general welfare" which the preamble to the Constitution declares to be its object? Has it not, on the contrary, been a constant cause of discord and jealousy between the different sections of the country? Did it not almost produce an insurrection in South Carolina during the administration of Jackson, and did it not greatly aid political demagogues in estranging the North and the South, of which the final result has been our present conflict? The numerous government officials required to collect duties on imports, are withdrawn from useful productive occupations, whilst the cost of maintaining them becomes a burden on the industry of the country. Besides which, the increase of the government patronage that Custom Houses entail, is one of the principal causes of the corruption and demoralization of political parties, who seek to obtain possession of the government solely for the sake of the power and patronage it confers.

Under sanction of the power to regulate commerce and to coin money and regulate its value, the Government claims, and some courts have decided that it possesses, the right to interfere with contracts, even after one of the parties to them has fulfilled his part of the obligation. The Government also claims that it possesses the power to authorize the liquidation of an obligation in a different currency from that stipulated in it; and that it can replace money by mere government promises to pay money at a future indefinite period of time! This not only impairs the obligations of contracts, which the framers of the Constitution evidently never intended to sanction, since they expressly forbid the States from doing so, but it further deprives the community of a sound currency, an instrument indispensable to the exchanges of commodities and services, the want of which invariably diminishes production; for production is affected by everything that impedes exchanges.

The power to establish post-offices and post-roads, although one of the functions exercised by all governments, is certainly a very needless and improper one. Private enterprise, if permitted, will carry letters more promptly and more economically than any government. The Post-office greatly increases the patronage of Government, and therefore the means of corruption within reach of political demagogues.

The people of the United States have not been benefited by the power to grant patents to inventors. Patent laws are now condemned by the most intelligent thinkers of Europe, as well as of this country. Michel Chevalier has recently expressed himself as entirely opposed to patent laws. Science and art require no protection from governments. They, like industry and commerce, flourish best when uninterfered with, in any manner, by governments.

Nor have the people of the United States been benefited by the stipulation that the importations of slaves should not be prohibited by Congress prior to 1808, but that a duty of $10 per person might be imposed on their importation. Here again we find human law and government sanctioning and legalizing that which the individual condemns. The perpetration of a crime was here made the.source of revenue to the Government!

The clause authorizing Congress "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in Congress and in the Federal Government," has been made the source of the astounding claim that Congress can enact any law, and the President of the United States exercise any power, which may be deemed conducive to the well-being of the people! If this assumption be warranted, what is the meaning and intent of the ninth and tenth articles of the amendments of the Constitution, which expressly stipulate that "the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people," and that "the powers not dele. gated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people"?

The Constitution has thus been considered to authorize a centralized national government, whereas its great merit is really as a compact between independent States-as a new and almost perfect code of international law, based on a fuller and broader recognition of the inherent rights of humanity, as established by natural laws, than is to be found in any code of international law. Were the principles of the Constitution recognized by all nations, and accepted as the rule of action of all states, most of the evils of human governments, as heretofore

conducted, would disappear, and humanity would realize a happiness and well-being hardly dreamed of by the most sanguine.

It is as a compact between independent States that the Constitution has conferred most of the benefits which the people of the United Sates have enjoyed under it, whilst all its evils and difficulties have risen, without exception, from those parts which are applicable to the functions of an ordinary government, and which attempt to control the individual actions of the people. We know that the doctrine that the States are sovereign is unpopular at this moment, and will be said to be the Southern State rights doctrine; but when correctly understood it will be found that there is a radical difference between our theory and the Southern doctrine of State rights. The latter holds that a State, when dissatisfied, may withdraw from the Union, and resume the powers delegated to the Federal Government; whilst we hold that there is nothing whatever in the Constitution to warrant this. The only thing that can have given rise to this theory appears to be, that portion of the Declaration of Independence which says that "Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends (the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." But the Declaration of Independence preceded the Constitution by more than eleven years, and, very naturally, defended the right of revolution, to which the States had just resorted. The Constitution itself is really a new code of international law, to which all the States gave their deliberate assent; and one of the well-established principles of international law is, that it can neither be abrogated nor modified by the will of one or more states. Every alteration in international law requires the unanimous, or nearly unanimous, assent of all the states that are to be controlled by it. But even if the Constitution be considered as the organic law of an ordinary government, it must be remembered that no goverh

ment can recognize in its fundamental structure the right of any one to destroy it by violence. The Constitution, therefore, neither recognizes nor authorizes the right of secession; in fact, it even allows no possible excuse for the resort to revolution, since it establishes legal modes of redressing every possible grievance that may arise, by means of amendments to the Constitution itself, and by resort to the United States courts, which possess the power to declare unconstitutional any law of Congress or any act of the Government officials. All the powers conferred by the Constitution on Congress and on the Federal Government were undoubtedly intended to be supreme; to be exercised by no other authority, and to be neither resisted nor annulled by the individual action of the States. Nothing whatever can be found in the Constitution to sustain the Southern doctrine of State rights. But the States, nevertheless, were sovereign states previous to the adoption of the Constitution; and after its adoption still remained sovereign in regard to their reserved rights, precisely as the individual remains sovereign in regard to his natural rights delegated neither to the State nor to the Federal Government. That this is so, is beyond all question, for articles IX and X of the amendments to the Constitution are clear and explicit on this subject. And the rights they expressly reserve to the States and to the people are infinitely more numerous and important than those delegated to the Federal Government, since they comprise nearly all those which affect the actions and the property of the citizens.

The Federal Government was undoubtedly organized mainly with a view to the foreign relations of the States, and for the common defence against foreign aggressions. The War of Independence gave importance to these relations, otherwise it is doubtful whether any confederation would ever have been formed between communities so thoroughly imbued with ideas of local and individual liberty and independence as were the old colonies.

The Constitution of the United States created a central government, to which were delegated certain powers, to be exercised for the common good of all the States. All powers not expressly delegated are reserved to the States or to the

individuals composing each State. In both the State and Federal Governments, the individual is recognized as the true and proper source of all power.

The real effective powers delegated to the Federal Government are merely :

1st. The power to negotiate with foreign nations.

2d. The power to declare war and maintain an army and

navy.

3d. The regulation of commerce.

4th. The right to coin money.

5th. The transportation of the mails.

The States are prohibited from maintaining armies and navies-from levying taxes or duties on commodities imported or exported-from making anything but gold and silver a legal tender-and all questions between the States are to be submitted for adjudication to tribunals, the United States courts, whose decisions are final.

Now it is evident that if the principles of the Constitution of the United States were incorporated into a code of international law-and if this new code were recognized and submitted to by all civilized nations, nearly all the powers delegated to the Federal Government would lapse from nonuse; for,

1st. All states or nations consenting to submit their grievances against each other to the decision of tribunals, no standing armies or navies would be required. The local police and the local militia would be ample to maintain local order everywhere.

2d. All states or nations being prohibited from imposing any obstacle to the free exchange of commodities, all custom houses, and all necessity for regulating commerce, would disappear at once.

3d. The moment all international disputes are to be settled by tribunals, there would be no negotiations to be carried on between states, and consequently there would be neither ambassadors nor consuls to be maintained at the expense of the people.

4th. As to the right of coining money, the several States being prohibited from making anything but gold and silver a