This language, in which the Constitution is called a compact, is not confined to Morris, and Gerry, and Madison, and the Webster of 1830. Mr. Chief Justice Jay, of the Supreme Court of the Union, in the case of "Chisholm vs. State of Georgia," expressly declares that "the Constitution of the United States is a compact." "Our Constitution of the United States," says John Quincy Adams, the sixth President of the Republic, "and all our State Constitutions, have been voluntary compacts, deriving all their authority from the free consent of the parties to them." The Virginia Resolutions of 1798, already referred to as expressing the opinion of Mr. Madison, assert that "Virginia views the powers of the Federal Government as resulting from the compact to which the States are parties." Again, in the Virginia Report of 1800, it is said, "The States being parties to the Constitutional compact," &c. Edmund Pendleton, President of the ratifying Convention of Virginia, in 1788, in the course of his argument in favor of the new Constitution, says, "This is the only Government founded in real compact." Judge Tucker, in his commentaries on Blackstone, repeatedly calls the Constitution in question "a compact between the States" of the Union. The third President of the United States, ocean in repose than in action; and, as is well known, his habitual indolence often induced him to rely on others for political informa tion. No one who will attentively compare his speech of 1833 with book III., chap. 3, of Story's "Commentaries on the Constitution,' can be at any loss to account for the origin of his "new political grammar," his "new rules of syntax," and his new vocabulary.'' If he applies these epithets to the doctrines of Morris, and Gerry, and Madison, it is because old things have become new with him, and new things old. The secret of this revolution will be found, as we shall soon prove, in the work of Mr. Justice Story, which work was not written in 1830. Indeed it was not published until 1833; but then the first volume, containing book III., chap 3, was prepared, if not printed, before the speech of Mr. Webster, with whom the author was on the most intimate terms. It would have been well for the fame of Webster, in the eye of posterity, if he had more carefully examined such a question for himself.

† 3 Dall. R. p. 419.

Elliot's Debates, vol. iii., p. 57.

66

as well as the sixth, Thomas Jefferson as well as John Quincy Adams, considered the Constitution "a compact." "The States," says Jefferson, "entered into a compact, which is called the Constitution of the United States.* The Convention of Massachusetts, which was called to ratify the Constitution of the United States, was, if possi ble, still more emphatic and decided in the expression of the same opinion. "Having impartially discussed, and fully considered," say they, "the Constitution of the United States of America," we acknowledge, "with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Supreme Ruler of the Universe in affording the people of the United States an opportunity, deliberately and peaceably, without fraud and surprise, of entering into an explicit and solemn compact with each other, by assenting to and ratifying a new Constitution," &c. Yet, in the face of all these high authorities, and of a hundred more that might be easily adduced, running from James Madison in the Convention of 1787 to Daniel Webster in the great debate of 1830, and embracing the lights of all sections and of all parties, it is asserted by this celebrated statesman, though certainly not as a statesman, that the term compact, as applied to the Constitution, is "a new word," is a part and parcel of "the unconstitutional language," of the "new vocabulary," which has been invented to obscure the fundamental principles of the Government of the United States, and to justify secession! Can posterity admire such an exhibition of his powers!

So far, indeed, is this from being a new mode of speech, that it is one of the most familiar words known to the fathers of the Constitution itself, or to its more early expounders. Even the Federalist, in submitting the Constitution to the people, sets it before them as "the compact." The man," says Mr. Webster, "is almost untrue to his country who calls the Constitution a compact."

*Correspondence. Vol. iv., p. 415. No. XXXIX.

were, indeed, much nearer the truth to say that the man is not only almost but altogether untrue to himself, as well as to the most solemn records of his country, who can assert that the term compact, as applied to the Constitution, is "a new word," or the exponent of a new idea.

The arguments of Mr. Webster to prove that the Constitution is not a compact, are, if possible, as unfortunate as his assertions. If words be not things in reality, as well as in effect, then it will be found that his arguments possess an exceedingly small value. There are two words, in particular, in the use of which he displays far more of rhetorical legerdemain than of rigid logic. These are the two words "compact" and "Constitution."

No one pretends, for a moment, that every compact is a Constitution. There are compacts about soap and candles, about pepper and calicoes, or some such trifling thing, which no one would call a Constitution. It is only when a compact has for its object the institution or organization of a political society, or a civil government, that it is properly denominated a Constitution. Hence, in the ordinary acceptation of the words, compact falls far below the high-sounding noun substantive Constitution; a circumstance of which any rhetorician may, if he choose, very easily avail himself. Mr. Webster has done so, and that, too, with no little popular effect. "We know no more of a Constitutional compact between sovereign powers," says he, "than we do of a Constitutional indenture of partnership, a Constitutional deed of conveyance, or a Constitutional bill of exchange. But we know what the Constitution is," &c. Perhaps we do, and perhaps we do not; that is the very point in dispute. But certain it is, that if we do know what the Constitution is we need not seek to illustrate its nature or to exhibit its history by any such deceptive use of words. Akin to this sort of reasoning, or rhetoric, is all that is said by Mr. Webster and Mr. Justice Story about lowering the Constitution by considering it as

a "mere compact," or as "nothing but a compact." It is, indeed, something more than a compact, something more high, and holy, and honorable. Though in its nature it is a mere compact, yet in its object, which is no less than to institute or organize a political society, it is the most solemn and sacred of all earthly transactions. Such compacts should not be despised, nor should they be explained away, or trampled under foot by the powerful; they involve the destiny of millions.

CHAPTER VI.

The Constitution of 1787 a Compact.

"A Constitution," says Mr. Webster, "is certainly not a league, compact, or confederation, but a fundamental law. ..........Do we need to be informed in this country what a Constitution is? Is it not an idea perfectly familiar, definite, and well settled? We are at no loss to understand what is meant by the Constitution of one of the States; and the Constitution of the United States speaks of itself as being an instrument of the same nature." Now it is a very remarkable fact that Alexander Hamilton was just as clearly and decidedly of opinion that the Constitution of a' State is a compact, as Mr. Webster was of the opposite notion. Thus, says he, in relation to the Constitution of New York, "The Constitution is the compact made between the society at large and each individual. The society, therefore, cannot, without breach of faith and injustice, refuse to any individual a single advantage which he derives under the compact, no more than one man can refuse to perform an agreement with another. If the community have good reason for abrogating the old compact and establishing a new one it undoubtedly has a right to do it; but until the compact is dissolved with the same solemnity and certainty with which it was made, the society, as well as individuals, are bound by it."* Indeed, this idea, that the Constitution of an American State is a compact, made and entered into, was far more familiar to * Hamilton's Works, vol. ii., p. 322.