ཐ། ན

;

SECTION XIV.

ONE OF THE PEOPLE.

It has appeared that a respectable party in favour of a mo narchical or national form of government, existed in the United States, from the commencement of the revolutionary question, down to the meeting of the convention, and that it predominated for a time in this body. Whether the monarchical branch of it still subsists, must be left to the fact, that it is constantly perceivable in large territories, and generally in small; so that we may conclude, that this imperishable alloy is incorporated with human nature. It being on record that a majority of the convention was in favour of a supreme national government, though we should admit that the portion of this majority, which then preferred the monarchical form, has emigrated, to a man, into the portion which preferred a republican form of national govern. ment, because the people were not ripe for monarchy; yet it, may be safely concluded, that this emigration has not destroyed the predilection for a supreme national government in one or the other of these forms, then entertained by many eminent men, whose talents insured to them a great share of the power to be obtained. The allurements of anticipated power, can hardly be greater than those of restricted power in possession, united with a consciousness of integrity; and if a prospect of power generated a wish for some national form of government, it would be rather inflamed than extinguished by a limited acquisition. This natural inclination suggested the division of power between the federal and state departments, their mutual independence, and all the precautions in the structure of the state and federal governments, for the preservation of civil liberty.

But if all these facts are insufficient to prove that the influence of power prospective or possessed, will generate a longing after a form of government which will increase it; others ascertain,

that the party to be expected from this natural cause, universally operating, does yet exist, and will probably exist forever. Exclusive of the encroachments of the federal government upon the rights of the states, many pamphlets and essays have appeared, for the purpose of proving that a supreme national government was, or ought to have been, established by the constitution. These demonstrate, that an active, intelligent, and numerous party, similar to that formed in the convention by the junction of the two parties in favour of a government, either monarchical or national, is still in operation; and to the doc trines of this party, the people must apply the most mature consideration, if they wish to understand a subject upon which their liberty depends.

The first proof of this fact to which I shall recur, is a pamphlet by "One of the People," in South-Carolina. If the author neither possesses nor anticipates power; if he is too old for office, and beyond the reach of that species of ambition and avarice which feeds upon nations; if he is dead to fame and alive to moral rectitude; we shall have to examine arguments urged by a spirit of moderation and veracity. But if he is young, and burning with hope, which raises before his eyes all the allurements of wealth and power; we must expect the vehemence and vituperation, inspired by personal interest or corrupted by zeal. By the word people, used in contrariety to the word government, we mean that numerous portion of society, which neither possesses nor has a prospect of obtaining offices; and if the writer of this pamphlet really belongs to this class, his signature is a fair solicitation for popular confidence, by ⚫the strong argument of a perfect similarity between this class and himself in point of interest; but if not, the signature is a good reason for distrust. Being ignorant of the fact, this observation is not made for the purpose of weakening his arguments, but merely to remove the prepossession which the signature suppli cates, and bespeak an unprejudiced consideration of the opinions he advances.

Extracts from " National and state rights considered, by one "of the people." Pages 1 and 2. "The general government is "as truly the government of the whole people, as the state go

"vernment is of a part of the people. The constitution, in the "language of its preamble, was ordained and established by the "people of the United States. The moment the people met in ❝convention, all the elements of political power returned to "them, to receive a new modification and distribution, by their ❝sovereign will. What security then, did the convention, or "in other words, "the people of the United States," provide, "to restrain their functionaries from usurping powers not dele"gated, and from abusing those with which they are really in"vested? Was it by the discordant clamours and lawless re"sistance of the state rulers, that they intended to insure domes"tick tranquillity, and form a more perfect union? No, the "constitution will tell you what is the real security they pro"vided. It is the responsibility of the officers of the general (6 government to themselves, the people. The states, as political "bodies, have no original, inherent rights." Does this string of coarse assertions, bottomed upon the ingenious though erroneous distinctions in the Federalist, which its authors would have viewed with derision, contain a solitary truth, or even a plausible suggestion? Has the federal government the same powers over all the people of the statcs, as the state governments possess over the people of each state? Was the constitution established by each state, that is, a people of each state, or by a consolidated American nation? Did the meeting of state conventions possess all the elements of political power, to be modified or distributed by the sovereign will of an American nation, or did these conventions possess only the naked right of adopting or rejecting the constitution? Did an American nation meet in a convention and invest the federal government with powers, to be exercised under no other control, but the responsibility of its officers to this nation? Can such a nation diminish or extend the powers of the federal government, and if not, must not the substantial control over its usurpations, reside where the power of doing both resides? Does the federal government derive its powers from the federal compact, or from a convention of a consolidated nation? Does the constitution consider state rulers as discordant, clamorous, and lawless, or recognise them as securi

ties for social order, and supporters of civil liberty? And have the states no original, inherent rights?

By these assertions, the dogmas of the consolidating school are stated without being complicated by ingenuity, and the federal system is overturned, without any apparent consideration. The very title of the pamphlet settles every difficulty, assumes the existence of a national government, and buries in its capa city, both the rights of the states and the limitations of the con stitution. "National and state rights" is used as a phrase equi valent to "sovereign and corporate rights," and therefore, though the consideration of both is promised, the promise is not ful filled as to either; and the title of the pamphlet comprises the whole argument for its conclusion, "that the states, as political "bodies, have no original, inherent rights." The reservation of these nothings, being only a fraud to procure the ratification of the constitution, their consideration was precipitately promised, and unavoidably abandoned. The author, however, ought at least to have informed us how these no political rights have managed to create, sustain, or exercise, the whole mass of political rights existing in the United States.

Let us add a few other arguments to those before advanced upon a point which really includes the whole question. Under what authority have the several cessions of territory been made by particular states? One, I believe, has been made by Georgia, since the establishment of the federal constitution. A cession of territory is a very plain act of sovereignty. If the states had no original or inherent political rights, these cessions are void; if the cessions are good, the assertion is false.

Upon what principle has the constitution declared, that no new state shall be formed within the jurisdiction of another state, nor by uniting two states or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned, and of Con gress? Undoubtedly for combining a sovereign and a federal consent, to effect an act, by which both the sovereign and the federal interest might be affected. If a territorial dismemberment cannot take place, except by the consent of the state possessed of the territorial sovereignty, no dismemberment of any other rights possessed by the same sovereignty can take place,

except by its consent also; and the federal government or the federal court, might claim a power to regulate the territories of the states, upon as strong ground as they claim a power to regulate the other sovereign rights of the states, not ceded but reserved, like the sovereign right of territory. In short, by what tenure does the federal government hold the ten miles square, and the sites for forts, arsenals, and other federal buildings, if the states are not invested with sovereignty?

The doctrine "that the constitution has established a supreme "national government, and that the states are only corporations "having no inherent and original rights," would reach and destroy the state sovereign right of territory, if it can reach and destroy any other sovereign right reserved by the states. But Sovereignties and corporations are very easily distinguished. Sovereignty is distinctly seen in the rights to create a political society, to form leagues, to cede territory, to punish crimes, and to regulate property. Are corporations defined by such powers? As states and corporations have no resemblance in their origin or powers, a violent zeal for a consolidated government, can only mistake one for the other; just as some hidden light within makes us see strange sights without. The term corporation, implies a derivation from a sovereign power, and the term state, a sovereignty. One is associated with the idea of dependence, and the other, of independence. Common sense never thought of proclaiming to the world the sovereignty and independence of thirteen corporations. What a figure would they have cut with such a declaration to prepare the way for a treaty with France? Corporations are the creatures and subjects, and also proofs of sovereignty. Hence the states, being sovereign, can empower their governments to create counties and corporations, as objects like individuals for sovereign power to act upon; and corporations or counties being subjects, cannot create other corporations and counties, constitute a state, cede territory, regulate property, or pass laws for punishing crimes. The rights of towns, counties, or corporations, were not reserved, because they were subjects of sovereignties, whose rights were reserved. Whence did the reserved rights originate? Had they originated from an American nation, they would have been given and not reserved;