this idea. "The united states," said he, "may adopt any one of four different systems. They may become consolidated into one government, in which the separate existence of the states shall be entirely absorbed. They may reject any plan of union or association, and act as separate and unconnected states. They may form two or more confederacies. They may unite in one federal republic. Which of these systems ought to have been formed by the convention?" After showing the inadmissibility of the first three, he proceeds: "The remaining system which the American states may adopt is a union of them under one confederate republic. . . . This is the most eligible system that can be proposed." Quoting from Montesquieu, he proceeds to say: "Its description is a convention by which several states agree to become members of a larger one which they intend to establish. It is a kind of assemblage of societies which constitute a new one, capable of increasing by means of further association.'" above extracts, see II. Ell. Deb. 421-8.]

[For the

In these extracts, Wilson recognizes the states as the absolute actors, and necessarily the sovereigns, and gives no support to the idea of Story, Webster, and Curtis, that a nation ratified and established the constitution, though the last named seems to quote from him with great partiality in support of the national theory. The reader will please note, also, that Wilson here recognizes the idea of republics uniting in a republic of republics, i. e. of "societies which constitute a new one." One more extract will suffice. Early in October, 1787, he said in a speech at Philadelphia: ". . . Let it be remembered, then, that the business of the federal convention was not local but general; not limited to the views and establishments of a single state, but coextensive with the continent, and comprehending the views and establishments of thirteen independent sovereignties." [Mass. Centinel, October 24, 1787; also Am. Museum.] This and several other equally striking passages from Wilson's speeches, Mr. Curtis failed to quote in the "History of the Constitution."

DR. FRANKLIN, who was at the time the president of Pennsylvania, proposed in the federal convention, a second branch of the congress, in which "each state should have equal suffrage," "in all cases or questions wherein the sovereignties of the individual states may be affected, or whereby their authority over their own citizens may be diminished." [V. Ell. Deb. 266.]

Whom did she mean by "We, the People." - CHIEF JUSTICE MCKEAN, afterwards governor, said in the ratifying convention: "The power of this convention is derived from the people of Pennsylvania." The members, he said, had been "chosen by the people, for the sole purpose of assenting to, or ratifying, the constitution proposed for the

future government of the united states, with respect to their general and common concerns, or of rejecting it." "It has been moved that you resolve to assent to and ratify this constitution.' Three weeks have been spent in hearing objections, . . . and it is now time to determine whether they are of such a nature as to overbalance any benefits or advantages that may be derived to the state of Pennsylvania by your accepting it." [II. Ell. Deb. 530.]

Said JAMES WILSON, in the same body, on this subject: "The single question to be determined is, shall we assent to and ratify the constitution proposed? As this is the first state whose convention has met on the subject, and as the subject itself is of great importance, not only to Pennsylvania but to the united states, it was thought proper, fairly, openly, and candidly to canvass it. . . . We were sent here to express the voice of our constituents on the subject." [II. Ell. Deb. 494.] And in his speech at Philadelphia, Oct. 6, 1787, in showing that a bill of rights was not needed, he said: "It would have been superfluous and absurd to have stipulated with a federal body of our own creation, that we should enjoy those privileges of which we are not divested, either by the intention or the act that has brought that body into existence." [Mass. Centinel, October 24, 1787.]

These remarks of McKean and Wilson, which met no dissent, are enough to show the idea of all to be that the state, ex mero motu, was acting as a sovereign. But the proof is made complete by the ordinance of ratification, the substantial words of which follow: "In the name of the people of Pennsylvania. Be it known unto all men, that we, the delegates of the people of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in general convention assembled, by these presents do, in the name and by the authority of the same people, and for ourselves, assent to and ratify the foregoing constitution for the united states of America. Done in convention at Philadel[I. Ell. Deb. 319.]

...

phia, the 12th of December, 1787." In conclusion, we find that the federal history of Pennsylvania gives no support whatever to the Massachusetts school. The false and dangerous notions of Dane, Story, Webster, and Curtis, which then appeared as charges by foes, were despised and repudiated, and the elder and better Massachusetts ideas prevailed, that sovereign states were the actors in forming and empowering the new system; that it was a confederacy of states, or republic of republics, that was being formed; that the constitution of it was the concurrent written will of the self-associated states; and that the agency, or administrative body of the system, was composed exclusively of the members and "subjects" of the states.

We find Pennsylvania, then, to be another absolute sovereign of our federation.

CHAPTER VII.

DELAWARE AND MARYLAND FEDERALIZE THEMSELVES.

THES

HESE two states will be disposed of together, as they made but a small record, owing to the readiness of their accession. But their acts of ratification afford us two more proofs of the federal (or league-al) system. Let us first give the case of

DELAWARE.

-

The first to Ratify Vote unanimous - Date, December 7, 1787.— This little state figures in American history as the first to ratify the constitution. Her ready adoption is strong evidence that the system was a federation of equals, for she was determined to preserve herself. Moreover, her chief men gave her such explanations and assurances as the following from John Dickinson, who had been her as well as Pennsylvania's president, who was a member of the federal convention, and one of the great political writers of that period. He habitually called the new system "a confederation of the states," and he said it was the duty of the congress under the system, "to reconcile in their determinations, the interests of several sovereign states." [II. Pol. Writings of J. D.]

"We, the People" of Delaware. Space will not permit extensive quotations, so I will conclude her case by presenting her idea of what "we, the people," meant, just as she then, by and in the act of ratifying, impressed it upon the world. The Pennsylvania Gazette, of Dec. 20, 1787, says that "while Delaware acted thus speedily, Pennsylvania is debating the ground by inches, having been in session almost a month, and being yet engaged on the first article." The Massachusetts Centinel, of Dec. 26, 1787, has the following: "DELAWARE. The deputies of the state convention of Delaware, met at Dover, on Monday, the 3d inst., and, a house being formed, they elected James Latimer, Esq., president. On Thursday, they ratified the federal constitution by a unanimous vote, and on Friday, every member signed the ratification, as follows: We, the deputies of the

people of Delaware state, in convention met, having taken into our serious consideration the federal constitution proposed and agreed upon, by the deputies of the united states, at a general convention held at the city of Philadelphia, on the 17th day of September, A. D. 1787, have approved of, assented to, and ratified and confirmed, and by these presents, do, in virtue of the powers and authority to us given for that purpose, for, and in behalf of ourselves and constituents, fully, freely, and entirely approve of, assent to, ratify and confirm the said constitution. Done in convention at Dover, Dec. 7, 1787." [See also I. Ell. Deb. 319.]

This was a complete and final act of sovereign will, by a state, as such; and when the constitution, according to its terms, went into effect, it was this and twelve other like acts that gave it all the life and validity it ever had, or could have, as to the thirteen united or associated states. And it was from these acts that the entire existence and jurisdiction of the high and mighty "government" flowed. Moreover, this "government" was composed personally and entirely of the citizens and subjects of the ratifiers. It is, then, obviously both fallacious and absurd to say that so far as this constitution goes, "so far state sovereignty is effectually controlled." It is equally so to say that the people, as republics, are not above the constitution of government they have created, and elected their own subjects to operate or administer.

MARYLAND.

The Seventh to Ratify

Vote, 63 to 11

Date, April 28, 1788. When the convention of this state met, the federal plan had been before the people of the country, under close investigation and elucidating debate, for six months. Not only did the advocates everywhere explain the design to be "a confederation of the states," but "the people "could themselves see that the bodies-politic to which they all belonged, and to which they had ever yielded absolute obedience in all things, were associating themselves as such, and were named and recognized as absolute parties to the compact and actors under it. It was plain to Marylanders that Maryland was a republic, - that is, that she, as a commonwealth, had all original power, or, in other words, the absolute right of self-government; and, moreover, that no power was to be out of her but what was delegated, - that is, entrusted, for her use and behoof, to an agency. Moreover, the understanding had become general, that if the constitution should be adopted, there would soon be added the new safeguards to state integrity already proposed by Massachusetts.

"We, the People" of Maryland. — It was probably these consid

erations and reflections that had made the thoughtful and prudent people of Maryland so ready to ratify. Determinedly self-governing, they reasoned for themselves, and many districts of them, having concluded the matter, sent deputies to the convention simply to ratify "the proposed constitution" "as speedily as possible," "and to do no other act." [II. Ell. Deb. 548.] And the convention voted down all attempts at delay and amendment was only in session a few days — and ratified, by a vote of 63 to 11, in the following terms: "In convention of the delegates of the people of the state of Maryland, April 28, 1788. We, the delegates of the people of Maryland, having fully considered the constitution of the united states of America, reported to congress by the convention of deputies . . . held in Philadelphia, on the 17th day of September, 1787, of which the annexed is a copy, and submitted to us by a resolution of the general assembly of Maryland, in November session, 1787, do, for ourselves, and in the name, and on the behalf of the people of this state, assent to, and ratify the said constitution." [I. Ell. Deb. 324.]

Luther Martin's Letter. The most elaborate and instructive argument made against the new system was made by this great Marylander. He was her attorney-general, and a member of both federal and state conventions. His charges against the compact were mainly the same we have constantly seen. He feared lurking causes of danger in its various provisions, which, in later years, might emerge to destroy liberty, and he warmly urged its rejection. He would, he said, make every personal sacrifice, "if, on those terms only, he could procure his country to reject those chains which are forged for it!" However, the chains he inveighed against did not exist in the constitution. They were "forged" in the intellects of modern expounders, and foisted on the constitution in after years, the unfounded charges and arguments made by Martin, Henry, and others to defeat it, being the very materials from which, as we shall see, the sophistical "chains" were "forged." [For Martin's letter, see I. Ell. Deb. 344.] The above sovereign act of Maryland was independent, absolute, and complete. It gave the federal constitution of government full force and effect in Maryland, according to the terms of it. Not a shade of life and power did it ever otherwise get. We have here, then, the seventh sovereign of the constituted league, the seventh of the thirteen absolute constituents of the republic of republics.