Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

purely voluntary; they met as equals; and they were sovereign political communities, whom no power could rightfully coerce into a change of their condition." This being so, it seems to require stronger evidence than a mere epithet to prove that each of them abdicated this sovereignty, and, beyond this, to explain also to whom it passed.

And when a phrase is used it would seem natural to take the whole of the words, which are these: "We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union." A Union of what? If formed by the Constitution into a single State, or if existing as a single people, of what could there be a union? Union without plurality is a contradiction of ideas. Thus we are invited to attach a meaning to an epithet opposed to the sense of the terms. The words, "We, the people," are used collectively to say, "We, the communities known as the United States, in order to form between ourselves a more perfect Union." We say, "The people of Germany," but this would not mean a consolidated State; on the contrary, the term may be used with propriety, although it would embrace kingdoms and republics entirely apart in domestic politics. There is also evidence of the true meaning of the phrase in this fact. When the first draft of the Constitution was reported by the "Committee of Detail," it stood thus: "We, the people of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts," &c., reciting the

names of all the States at length. But on consideration, it was obvious that some might not ratify; indeed, this was expected. Hence, to avoid the inconvenience of reciting those who afterwards might not actually become parties to it, the title was abbreviated. Its true meaning is here plainly seen; and equally plain it is that a mere abbreviation could not alter the intention of the parties.

It has also been endeavoured to impart a peculiar force to this epithet by the deduction that it proved the popular action, and so gave the sanction of its being a direct manifestation of the people's will. The defect in this argument is that of being directly opposed to historical record. It is the fact that after the Constitution was framed by delegates of the States, approved by the Congress appointed by the States, and referred to the Legislatures of the States, it was finally ratified by a Convention called in each State for the purpose. This Convention was elected by such of the people of the State as were then electors, or rather by those of them who cared to vote; for in Pennsylvania, out of seventy thousand voters, it is stated that the majority who voted for ratification was elected by six thousand eight hundred only. The decision, whether to ratify or not, was left absolutely to these Conventions; they acted independently, on their own judgment. Their decision, therefore, was an act of the people, simply as a vote of the House of Commons may

be called an act of the people, and in no other sense. And not only is the argument founded on popular action apart from the fact, but directly opposed to it. Had the Constitution been referred to the popular will, to the general suffrage, as in France, it cannot be doubted that it would have been rejected by a large majority. It was framed by men in advance of their age, desirous to secure the welfare of the people by framing a code, they well knew to be opposed to the popular passions of the day. As we have seen, they sat with closed doors, with precautions to secure secrecy, and with such apprehensions of the difficulty of obtaining popular ratification, as to provide against one-third of the States absolutely refusing to ratify.

Of all the members of the Convention which framed the Constitution, the ablest was, unquestionably, Madison. It may be said it was his calm judgment and indomitable perseverance that eventually achieved success. Hamilton was, indeed, the master spirit, but Madison was the able workman. It so happens that we have on record hist interpretation of this very phrase. In the ratifying Convention of the State of Virginia, Patrick Henry objected strongly to the words, "We, the people," on the ground that the very construction might be given to them which is attempted at the present day. But Madison at once showed such construction to be erroneous. He replied in these words: "The parties to it were to be the people,

but not the people as composing one great society, but the people as composing thirteen sovereignties." Not contented with giving the true meaning of the phrase, he adduced an argument to prove it by adding: "If it were a purely consolidated government, the assent of a majority of the people would be sufficient to establish it. But it was to be binding on the people of a State only by their own separate consent." This argument seems conclusive; and as an interpreter of the meaning of the terms none will attempt to compare the authority of Mr. Motley, or of Webster, with that of Madison.

We have seen that the modern interpretation of the phrase is contradicted by the rest of the sentence; but a still plainer contradiction will be found at the close of the Constitution. Those who desire to discover who are the parties to an instrument usually refer to the signatures. On doing so, we find the Constitution thus attested : Art. 7. "The ratifications of the Conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution, between the States so rati

fying the same." "Done in Convention by the unanimous consent of the States present." Here follow the names of each of the twelve States who were parties in the Convention, and under each name those of the delegates who represented and signed for it.

It will be observed that the first of these two sentences contains a remarkable expression; it not

only requires ratification by the States, as States, but describes the Constitution as established, not over the people, but "between the States." In the face of such evidence as this, in the most important part of the instrument, it appears strange that an epithet should be selected from the preamble, a part of the document merely introductory, and an interpretation given it does not bear, in order to disprove that the States are the parties to the compact, whose names, signed for each by its commissioners, appear at the foot of the instrument.

If we turn to the clauses of the Constitution, we find them directly opposed to this theory of a single people or State. Were it founded in fact, the first result, under a republican government, would be uniformity of suffrage. The Constitution leaves it to each State to ordain what suffrage it may please. One State may have the most aristocratic, and another the most democratic, of electoral constituencies, without the slightest power in the Federal Government to interfere with either.

Representatives are allotted in the ratio of population; at first, one to 33,000, now, one to 127,381. Were there but one single State, or people, the division would simply be made throughout, for the difficulties are obvious when the ratio is applied to each State as a separate and distinct population. There are now three States that have not the number required for a single

« ZurückWeiter »