Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

because our language is determined by the ordinary and more frequent transactions of society. Hence we naturally speak of making or entering into leagues and compacts in conformity with the every-day use of language. But when compacts relate to the institution of a new government, and when all their terms and articles and stipulations are agreed upon, then we enter into them by ordaining them as Constitutions. Is not this so?

Every compact is not a Constitution. But the Articles of Confederation, which are admitted to be a compact, were a Constitution. This is clear from Mr. Webster's own definition. "What is a Constitution?" says he; and he replies, it is "a fundamental law." Now, most assuredly the articles in question constituted the "fundamental law" of the old Union. They are, as we have already seen, very properly called by Dr. Paley "a code of fundamental ordinances, which were to be considered by succeeding generations not merely as laws and acts"....."but as limitations of power, which were to control and regulate the future legislation." This is, indeed, the definition of a Constitution; and hence Dr. Paley calls those "terms and conditions of the Confederation" a "Constitution."

But on this point there is much higher authority than that of Dr. Paley. The "Address of the Annapolis Convention," penned, as is well known, by Alexander Hamilton, recommends commissioners to meet at Philadelphia, "to take into consideration the condition of the United States, and to devise such further provisions as shall appear to them necessary to render the Constitution of the Federal government adequate to the exigencies of the Union."* Again, he says, in the ratifying convention of New York, "The Confederation was framed amidst the agitation and tumult of society. It was composed of unsound materials put together in haste. Men of intelligence discovered the feebleness of the structure in the "Hamilton's Works," vol. ii., p. 339.

first stages of its existence; but the great body of the people, too much engrossed with their distresses to contemplate any but the immediate causes of them, were ignorant of the defects of their constitution."* Mr. Madison also speaks of "the Federal Constitution under the old Confederation.†

"The Constitution," says Mr. Webster, "speaks of that political system which is established as 'the government of the United States.' Is it not doing strange violence to language to call a league or compact between sovereign powers a government?" Is it not, I reply, requiring too much of a compact to be both the Constitution and the government? No one pretends that either a compact or the Constitution is the government of the United States. Mr. Webster himself makes the distinction in the two next sentences. "The government of a state," says he, "is that organization in which the political power resides. It is the political being created by the Constitution or fundamental law." Thus the government is created by the Constitution; and if a compact were both Constitution and government, then the creature would be its own creator. All I contend for is, that in this particular case the compact is a Constitution, and the Constitution is a compact. Neither the one nor the other is the govThe Constitution is neither the executive, nor the legislature, nor the judiciary, nor any other conceivable functionary of the government of which it is the supreme law.

ernment.

But the design of Mr. Webster's argument is to prove that no government was established by the old articles of Union, or under the compact of the Confederation. In designating those powers which he deems essential to the very existence of a government, he specifies those which

* Hamilton's Works, vol. ii., p. 445.

"Madison Papers." Index, cxi., "Convention to revise the Federal Constitution. 587, 617, 619."

did not belong to the legislature of the Confederacy, or which he supposes did not belong to it; and then he adds, "when it ceases to possess this power it is no longer a government," and consequently it is doing strange violence to language to call it one.

We have already seen that Alexander Hamilton, in speaking of the Confederacy, calls it the "Federal government." "We saw the deputation of the people," says Dr. Paley, "deliberating and resolving upon a form of government, erecting a public legislature, distributing the functions of sovereignty, establishing and promulgating a code of fundamental ordinances." We cannot open "Curtis's History of the Constitution," and turn to the appropriate heads, without seeing that he discusses the "Nature of the government established by the Confederation," or the form of the government established by it;"† or without perceiving that the same thing is habitually and familiarly called a government. Nor can we look into the commentaries of Mr. Justice Story, and cast our eyes over the pages in which he treats of the first Confederation, without discovering that he frequently speaks of the "general government," or the "national government "§ established by it. In the very first sentence of "The Federalist," as well as in various other sentences of the same work, "the existing Federal government" is spoken of just as if no one entertained a doubt as to its real nature or its name.

* Vol. i., chap. vi., p. 142.

+ Ibid, p. 148.

Vol. i.. Book II., chap. i., p. 180; Book III., chap. ii., p. 280. * Ibid, Book III., chap. ii., p. 260.

[blocks in formation]

MR. WEBSTER admits that the Constitution is "founded on consent or agreement, or on compact;" meaning no more by that word than "voluntary consent or agreement." But he denies that it is itself a compact. "The Constitution is not a contract," says he, "but the result of a contract; meaning no more by contract than assent. Founded on consent it is a government proper." Now, Mr. Webster himself being the judge, the Constitution is not a government at all; for a government is, says he, "the political being created by the Constitution or fundamental law." But "founded on consent," not on implied or necessitated, but on "voluntary consent," it is a compact proper. Mr. Webster is compelled to call the Constitution a government, in direct violation of his own definitions and principles, in order to keep from calling it a compact.

In what manner the Constitution is founded on consent, on a deliberate and voluntary consent, Mr. Webster has himself told us, only a few pages in advance of the above admission. "It is to be remarked," says he, "that the Constitution began to speak only after its adoption. Until it was ratified by nine States it was but a proposal, the mere draft of an instrument. It was like a deed drawn but not executed." This is most exactly and perfectly true. The Constitution was a dead letter, a powerless and inoperative thing, until the ratification or solemn "voluntary assent" of nine States breathed into it the breath of

life. It was from this consent, from this compact of nine States, that "the Constitution resulted" as a living or an authoritative document. But when the nine States assented to that "proposal or mere draft of an instrument," and ratified the same by signing it, then each and every article therein specified and written became an article of agreement between the parties to it. "It was like a deed drawn but not executed." But when executed or ratified it was then like a deed signed by the parties; and all the written articles thereof became articles of agreement between the parties. Thus the Constitution not only resulted from the compact of the nine States, but became itself the compact; or, in other words, the written expression of the terms, the conditions, and the articles of the compact. This is what we mean by calling the Constitution a compact between the States. And is not this the language of truth?

Now, on what conditions, or in what cases, does such voluntary consent become a compact proper? Each of the nine States, as it assented to and ratified the Constitution, agreed to all its terms and articles. It agreed to forego the exercise of various powers, and to assume various important liabilities, in consideration that eight other States would do precisely the same thing. And it also agreed that the powers thus delegated by the nine States, or conferred on the general government to be erected for the common good, should be distributed, exercised, limited, and controlled, according to the terms and articles of the Constitution. Is not this a compact proper? Have we not here mutual promises, each State parting with what it possessed, and, in consideration thereof, seeking to derive some benefit from the others? If so, then is not this a compact in the proper sense of the word?

The same idea is perfectly expressed by Mr. Webster, in the speech before us. "On entering into the Union," says he, "the people of each State gave up a part of their

« AnteriorContinuar »