diplomatic representatives of the States, than a federal government.

In the case of Lane County v. Oregon,1 decided by the U. S. Supreme Court in 1868, Chief Justice Chase said concerning the lack of the taxing power in the Articles of Confederation:

Both the States and the United States existed before the Constitution. The people, through that instrument, established a more perfect union by substituting a national government, acting with ample power directly upon the citizens, instead of the Confederate government, which acted with powers, greatly restricted, only upon the States. . . To the existence of the States, themselves necessary to the existence of the United States, the power of taxation is indispensable. It is an essential function of government. It was exercised by the Colonies; and when the Colonies became States, it was exercised by the new governments. Under the Articles of Confederation the government of the United States was limited in the exercise of this power to requisitions upon the States, while the whole power of direct and indirect taxation of persons and property, whether by taxes on polls, or duties on imports, or duties on internal production, manufacture, or use, was acknowledged to belong exclusively to the States, without any other limitation than that of non-interference with certain treaties made by Congress.

The Constitution of the United States.

2

In the case of U. S. v. Cruikshank, decided in 1875 by the U. S. Supreme Court, Chief Justice Waite said:

Experience made the fact known to the people of the United States that they required a national government 7 Wallace (U. S.) Rep., 71, 78.

29 Wheaton (U. S.) Rep., 316, 403.

for national purposes. The separate governments of the separate States, bound together by the Articles of Confederation alone, were not sufficient for the promotion of the general welfare of the people in respect to foreign nations, or for their complete protection as citizens of the confederated States.

These impossible governmental conditions made imperative the establishment of a more effective national system. Therefore, on January 21, 1787, the Congress of the Confederation adopted the following resolution:

RESOLVED: That it is expedient that on the Second Monday in May next, a convention of delegates, who shall have been appointed by the several States, be held at Philadelphia, for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation, and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein, as shall, when agreed to in Congress, and confirmed by the States, render the Federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union.

In pursuance of this authority, the legislatures of twelve of the original States sent delegates to Philadelphia to the Federal Convention, which drafted the Constitution of the United States.

In the case of McCulloch v. Maryland,' decided in 1819 by the U. S. Supreme Court, Chief Justice Marshall described the establishment of the present United States Government in the following words:

The convention which framed the Constitution was, indeed, elected in most cases by the State legislatures. 1 4 Wheaton, U. S. Rep., 316.

But the instrument, when it came from their hands, was a mere proposal, without obligation, or pretensions to it. It was reported to the then existing congress of the United States, with a request that it might "be submitted to a convention of delegates, chosen in each State, by the people thereof, under the recommendation of its legislature, for their assent and ratification." This mode of proceeding was adopted; and by the convention, by congress, and by the State legislatures, the instrument was submitted to the people. They acted upon it, in the only manner in which they can act safely, effectively, and wisely, on such a subject, by assembling in convention. . . . From these conventions the Constitution derives its whole authority. The government proceeds directly from the people; and is "ordained and established" in the name of the people. . . The assent of the States, in their sovereign capacity, is implied in calling a convention, and thus submitting that instrument to the people. But the people were at perfect liberty to accept or reject it; and their act was final. It required not the affirmance, and could not be negatived by the State governments. . . . The government of the Union. . . is emphatically and truly a government of the people. Its powers are granted by them, and are to be exercised directly on them, and for their benefit.

CHAPTER III

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE STATE GOVERNMENTS

The First State Governments.

During the agitations which preceded the War for Independence, rudimentary forms of government were established in all of the colonies except Rhode Island and Connecticut, which continued to use their old royal charters. For example, in 1772, while the tea tax was still in dispute, Governor Hutchinson refused to convene the Massachusetts legislature to decide how the salaries of public officers should be paid. Samuel Adams organized a committee of correspondence composed of residents of the different towns to consult about public affairs by means of letters. Similar committees were organized in Virginia and in other colonies. In 1774 and 1775, provincial congresses composed of members of the existing assemblies met in Massachusetts, in Virginia, in New York, and in some other colonies in defiance of royal authority, and took such measures as were necessary to continue the opposition to the British government. On May 10, 1776, the Second Continental Congress adopted a resolution recommending that such of the colonies as then had no sufficient government should adopt "such governments

as should in the opinion of the representatives of the people, best conduce to the safety and happiness of their constituents in particular, and America in general." In pursuance of this resolution, except in Connecticut and Rhode Island, which used their royal charters as State constitutions, and in Massachusetts, where action was had by a regular convention composed of elected delegates, the legislatures of the different colonies, meeting as constitutional conventions, prepared constitutions establishing governments. In the case of Kamper v. Hawkins,' decided in 1793 by the General Court of Virginia, Justice Tucker described as follows the proceedings by which the people of Virginia established their first State government:

It will be remembered by all those who are conversant with the history of the rise and progress of the late glorious revolution [the War for Independence], that the measures which led to the final consummation of that important event, although they originated, in most instances, with the legal and constitutional assemblies of the different colonies, made but a small progress in that channel, particularly in this State. The dissolution of the Constitution assemblies, by the governors appointed by the Crown, obliged the people to resort to other methods of deliberating for the common good. . . . Hence the first introduction of conventions; bodies neither authorized by or known to the then constitutional government; bodies, on the contrary, which the constitutional officers of the then existing governments considered as illegal, and treated as such. Nevertheless, they met, deliberated, and resolved for the common good. They were the people, assembled by their deputies; not a legal, or constitutional assembly, or part of the government as then organized. Hence, they were not, nor could

II Virginia Cases, 20.