States for their quota of militia to suppress insurrection, and the rendition of fugitives from justice, by the action of the State executive, may be supposed to be exceptions are not founded upon any idea that State authority is a controlling force in the government of the United States, but exist for special reasons applicable to the particular instances; that of the election of Senators being designed to guard against too great a preponderance of the larger States in the national councils; that in relation to the militia being a matter of convenience, because the militia is officered, and mainly organized, through the action of the several States; and that of the rendition of fugitives from justice arising from the fact that it is a matter between the State demanding and that rendering, rather than one which concerns the general welfare. State lines furnish convenient divisions for the purposes of the government; and in many instances, doubtless, State pride and State interests have had a controlling influence, shaping the provisions of the Constitution and laws so that State prosperity would be subserved; but this is merely incidental, through the action of individuals. It is none the less true, that the States have no control over any of the departments of the general government. They do not direct their action, in the first instance, nor is there, by the Constitution, any appeal to State judgment, or State sanction, through which errors are corrected, or the action of the departments is affirmed or reversed. In the matter of the election of Senators, before adverted to, reliance is placed upon State action, and if no such action was had, for a sufficient length of time, a Senate could not be organized. But so it would be in a State, if no State senators were elected. That there is nothing peculiar in the government of the United States, in this regard, is evident from the fact, that if one or a dozen of the States should refuse or neglect to elect Senators, the Senate would be organized legally, notwithstanding the omission.

At the same time that there is nothing to show that the

States, as such, have any control over the United States, or the government established under the Constitution, that instrument is full of provisions by which the States are prohibited from the exercise of powers which they would otherwise possess, and their authority as States is made subject and subordinate to the authority of the United States. In many important particulars, to the extent to which powers are granted to the government established by the Constitution, to the same extent the sovereignty of the States is expressly taken away; the powers granted being exclusive in the United States. In other particulars this is so by a necessary implication, because a power being expressly granted to the United States, the exercise of a similar power by a State would be inconsistent with the grant.

The Constitution declares that itself, the laws of the United States made in pursuance of it, and treaties made under its authority, shall be the supreme law of the land, by which the judges of every State shall be bound, anything in the laws or constitution of the State to the contrary notwithstanding. It is a perversion of terms to call the "supreme law of the land" a compact between the States, which any State may rescind at pleasure. It is not itself an agreement, but is the result of an agreement. And in the absence of an express declaration, or reservation, it is an entire subversion of all legal principles to maintain that the subordinate may at pleasure set itself free from the restrictions imposed upon it by the fundamental law constituting the superior, even if the subordinate have in other particulars an uncontrolled authority. The judges of each State being expressly bound by the Constitution and laws of the United States, anything in the constitution or laws of the State to the contrary, how can a State law (or ordinance, which is but another name for a law) relieve them from the obligation? And if they are bound, the State and the people are bound also. The judges are expressly named, the more surely to prevent a conflict of jurisdiction and decision.

The clause of the Constitution providing for amendments adds another to the arguments which show it to have the character of an organic law, and not of a compact. Whether regarded as the one or the other, it is clear that it could not become obligatory upon a State, or the people of a State, until adopted by them. The people of one State could not ratify and adopt it for the people of another State. But, being adopted by all, it contains a clause binding upon all, providing that "the Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to the Constitution, or, on application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress.'

Now, considered as an organic law, the Constitution may be altered and amended in any mode which may be agreed upon and prescribed by the instrument itself; and this is a mode by which, through the action of certain political bodies, and certain legislative or popular majorities of a required number, the whole people are represented in the adoption of amendments, which become parts of the organic law. This mode, rather than a direct vote of the whole people, was doubtless agreed upon in order to make reasonable assurance that no amendment should be adopted affecting the rights and interests of the States, except by such a concurrence of State action as would fairly guard State interests, at the same time that there was a suitable representation of the whole people. It may be regarded as combining a representation of the States and of the people. It is an exemplification of the democratic dogma that the majority represent and express the will of the people, the mode of expression provided in this case being supposed to be that best adapted to the particular purpose.

But if the Constitution is a compact between the States, any

amendment which becomes a part of the Constitution is also a compact between the States, and the question arises, How is it that three fourths of the States, voting in favor of an amendment, are to make a compact with the other fourth, voting at the same time against it, and thus refusing to enter into the compact? How is it that the States voting to adopt, represent the States refusing to adopt, so that, by the vote of adoption, they make a compact between themselves and the others, against the will of the others expressed at the same time. Those voting to adopt act in their own behalf, thereby being one party to the bargain, and thus far it is well; but, on the compact theory, they must at the same time represent those who vote against the adoption, and thus make them another party to the bargain; when the others at the same time represent themselves, and refuse to make the bargain. Or if we state the compact theory with somewhat more of precision, each State is a party to the compact, agreeing with all the others, and one agrees with all the others notwithstanding she and several of the others refuse to agree. Thus, South Carolina, for instance, votes against a proposed amendment, and thereby refuses to enter into the new compact, but does still become a party to that compact, and agrees with the other States to adopt it, being represented by the others, several of them also voting against it, and at the same time not only making the contract for themselves, but aiding in making it for South Carolina also.

Will the advocate of the compact theory say that the provision relative to amendments, in the Constitution as first adopted, constitutes the States agents of one another, so that three fourths of the whole number may thus make an agreement for all, against the will of their principals, acting at the same time and dissenting? If this is so, we must add a new chapter to the law of Agency.

But without extending the argument, two or three illustrations may serve to exemplify the utter absurdity of a construction of the Constitution which should sanction the alleged right of secession.

The clause of the Constitution providing for amendments adds another to the arguments which show it to have the character of an organic law, and not of a compact. Whether regarded as the one or the other, it is clear that it could not become obligatory upon a State, or the people of a State, until adopted by them. The people of one State could not ratify and adopt it for the people of another State. But, being adopted by all, it contains a clause binding upon all, providing that "the Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to the Constitution, or, on application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress."

Now, considered as an organic law, the Constitution may be altered and amended in any mode which may be agreed upon and prescribed by the instrument itself; and this is a mode by which, through the action of certain political bodies, and certain legislative or popular majorities of a required number, the whole people are represented in the adoption of amendments, which become parts of the organic law. This mode, rather than a direct vote of the whole people, was doubtless agreed upon in order to make reasonable assurance that no amendment should be adopted affecting the rights and interests of the States, except by such a concurrence of State action as would fairly guard State interests, at the same time that there was a suitable representation of the whole people. It may be regarded as combining a representation of the States and of the people. It is an exemplification of the democratic dogma that the majority represent and express the will of the people, the mode of expression provided in this case being supposed to be that best adapted to the particular purpose.

But if the Constitution is a compact between the States, any