Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

as a Federal republic,-as such they continued. Seeing, then, that the Union pre-existed, we trace back to find the mutual relation of the States in it. This is declared in the preceding articles; and when we find by them that they existed in the Union as independent, sovereign powers, mutually acknowledged as such, we must hold that they so exist, unless there be evidence of abdication in the terms to which they assented in the new Federal compact. In those terms no such evidence appears. There is a clause reserving to each State the exercise of every right not expressly delegated. The possession of sovereignty is not named or conferred; and we shall shortly find it to be wholly incapable of transfer when inherent in a people. Hence in regard to the mutual relation of the States in the Union, the only existing evidence is that which declares the distinct sovereignty of each of the separate States.

In what manner is it possible that any change of this nature could have been effected by the Constitution? An agreement is made between the States, as to the amended powers they should allot to their agent, the general government, in order to render it more efficient. In this, there is nothing to affect their relations to each other. Had it been an agreement to form a consolidated State, then of course the powers would have been amalgamated with the people. We have seen, on ample evidence, that this was not intended and did not occur; and it follows that as there was

no fusion of the communities, there could be no fusion of the sovereignty, inherent in each one of them, separately.

Alluding to this subject, Curtis expresses himself thus: "Political sovereignty is capable of partition, according to the character of its subjects, so that powers of one class may be imparted to a Federal, and powers of another class remain in a State Constitution, without destroying the sovereignty of the latter." From this it would appear to be the opinion of this authority that the sovereignty of the State remains. But that which is spoken of as " capable of partition," is not really sovereignty, but simply the exercise of it. Sovereignty is altogether incapable of division, but it may act through several agents. A man may be the owner of a house in fee-simple. He may find it to his advantage that another person shall occupy part of it, and he may engage not to use that portion, but this in no respect voids his ownership, nor does it prove any division of that ownership. So, in this case, the original sovereignty in each State, the ownership of the power —the fee, is vested in the people of that State,it is there inalienable, and indivisible-but in place of exercising it through a single channel, the State divides its action between two agents, the one appointed exclusively by itself, for special objects, and the other appointed in conjunction with the sister States, for objects common to them all.

Indeed, if we consider what sovereignty really

is, it will be plain that it cannot be divided. It is the sum of the separate elements, which, when united, form absolute, uncontrollable power. The power of the sovereign with us is limited, that of the sovereignty-Queen, Lords and Commons is unbounded. This sovereignty pervades the State, as life pervades the body, incapable of division within it. A divided sovereignty would indeed be two sovereignties within one State-two powers both supreme-two lives in one body. By the constitutional principles of America, on which alone this subject must be judged, this sovereignty resides in the people alone, and is held to be inherent in them, and inalienable from them.

Now, if inalienable, it remains where it was, where we know it did exist-in the people of each separate State-bounded by the boundaries of that State, which define the individuality of that distinct community;-for that which is inalienable cannot be passed away, nor yet divided, which would pass part of it away. It is coextensive with the individuality of that people. And held to be inherent, born in that people, it must be the inheritance of the following generation, as well as the possession of the present one. The people are continuous, there is no gap between one generation and another, and that which is inherent in them. must clearly be continuous also.

So long as these tenets are the constitutional law of America, one generation cannot be born less sovereign than another; and the people of the

State of Georgia clearly continue in the Union under the Constitution, as they existed in the Union under the "Articles of Confederation,"united with others for certain purposes, but a distinct, independent, and sovereign community. In reality, every State has asserted its distinct sovereignty, on all occasions, and in peremptory terms. The leading supporters of the Union at the present day are citizens of Massachusetts. In 1793, that State was sued in an action brought in the Supreme Court. The Governor of the State, Hancock, declined to answer or appear, and took the very different course of issuing a proclamation, for a special meeting of the legislature of the State. He held it to be beneath the dignity of a sovereign State to answer to a suit; and the legislature agreed with him. The result was to enforce the addition of a clause, the eleventh of the amendments to the Constitution, expressly debarring the judicial power of the Government from any suit against one of the States. Again, in 1814, Governor Strong, of the same State, declared that "the Government of the United States is founded on the State governments, and must be supported by them. The State legislatures are the guardians, not only of individuals, but of the sovereignty of the respective States." Again Massachusetts proceeded to act, as well as to assert, and refused to comply with the behests of the Federal Government. Throughout the history of the Union every State, without ex

ception, whenever the occasion has arisen,-and there have been many,-has asserted its sovereignty in jealous and absolute terms; and we find no instance where the assertion has been denied or disputed by the Federal Government. There is a remarkable case at the present day in the conduct of the State of Kentucky, in declaring its neutrality whilst the Government was at war.

By virtue of this sovereignty, the States, when so disposed, call a Convention, which has the power to pass an ordinance, or to repeal a former one passed by a predecessor. The repealing ordinance of the State of Georgia runs thus: "An ordinance to dissolve the Union between the State of Georgia, and other States united with her, under the compact of Government, entitled the Constitution of the United States."

"We, the people of the State of Georgia, in Convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, that the ordinances adopted by the people of the State of Georgia, in Convention, in 1788, whereby the Constitution of the United States was assented to, ratified, and adopted, and also all acts, and parts of acts, of the general assembly, ratifying and adopting amendments to the said Constitution, are hereby repealed, rescinded, and abrogated.

"And we do further declare, and ordain, that the Union now subsisting between the State of Georgia, and other States, under the name of the United States, is hereby dissolved, and that the

« PředchozíPokračovat »