cause of his knowledge of the French language, and of his influence with the Canadians."

We may never know the reasons why this mission failed. Possibly religious prejudices stood in the way of their cooperating with the Puritans of New England; possibly the defeat and expulsion from Canada of the expeditions under Arnold and Montgomery in Decem ber, 1775, had its influence; and possibly Hildreth gives the true reason (Vol. III, p. 33) in the following paragraph:

"A fifth act of Parliament, passed April 15, 1774, known as the Quebec Act, designed to prevent that newly acquired Province from joining with the other Colonies, restored in civil matters the old French law-the custom of Paris-and guaranteed to the Catholic Church the possession of its ample property, amounting to a fourth part or more of the old French grants, with the full freedom of worship," etc.

The absence of Georgia's delegates may be accounted for by remembering that she was farthest removed from the storm centre, and, therefore, less easily brought under its influence. Alden's Cyclopædia (Art. Massachusetts) says: "From the beginning of her great struggle against oppression, Massachusetts had the active sympathy of her sister Colonies, who had far less cause for complaint than she." But there is danger of confounding sympathy for the suffering poor with sympathy for the "rebels"; the latter was a plant of slow growth in many of the Colonies.

As to Georgia's grounds for complaint against England, this Cyclopædia (Art. Georgia) says: "It was acknowledged at the time, and the claim has since been substantiated beyond question, that the people of Georgia had no cause for personal or Colonial dissatisfaction with England during the exciting days that preceded the Revolution. The relations between the Colony and the home gov ernment had been wholly amicable, and none of the acts of oppres sion of which the New England Colonies particularly complained had been enforced against Georgia."

CHAPTER III.

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION, AND THE CONSTITUTION.

The Declaration, Etc.

The Declaration of Independence opens with a general proposition as to the right of "one people to dissolve the political bands," etc.

Applying this general truth to the case in hand, it proceeds with a general statement of the abuses which constrain" these Colonies" to "alter their former systems of government." Then, after detailing the particular abuses of which the Colonies complained, it declares that: "These United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is, and ought to be, totally dissolved," etc.

It recognized no government here except that of each Colony, and it warrants no inference that it contemplated any other government.

The Articles and the Constitution.

For the most satisfactory study of the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, it is necessary that we compare them as we proceed.

Under the Articles, all powers granted by the States were to be under the direction of the Congress of the States the United States, in Congress assembled "';

1 The enacting clause of every act of Congress-"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled"-recognizes the truth that the Congress under the Constitution is a Congress of States.

under the Constitution, the powers granted were vested in three separate and independent departments-the Legislative, Judicial and Executive.

Under the Articles, the Legislature consisted of only one House, in which each State could cast only one vote; under the Constitution, the Legislature consists of two Houses, namely, the Senate, in which the equality of the States is preserved by each State's having two Senators, and the House of Representatives, in which each is represented according to its population, except that a State must be allowed at least one member however small its population may be.

Under the Articles, each State supported its own members; under the Constitution, they are supported out of the Federal treasury.

Under the Articles, the States bound themselves to collect and transmit to the Federal treasury the sums of money required of them, on an established apportionment, by the Congress; under the Constitution, the Congress is empowered to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; provided that all direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States according to their representative population, and that all other taxes shall be uniform throughout the States.

Under the Articles, the "Committee of the States " executed the laws when the Congress was not in session; under the Constitution, the President of the United States executes the laws.'

1The oath of the President "to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," was understood by Mr. Lincoln to be an oath to preserve the Union. In his first inaugural address he said: "You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to 'preserve, protect and defend it.'" And this is the view of that oath presented to the youth of the Union by even so fair a writer as Montgomery.-Am. Hist., page 286.

Under the Articles, the Congress appointed all neces sary officers, civil, military and judicial; under the Constitution, the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate-that is, the States, since in that body the States have "equal suffrage"-appoints all the officers except some inferior ones, whose appointment the Congress may vest in the President alone, in the Judges, or in the heads of departments, except also that the President is Commander-in-Chief of the army and navy,' and except also, as under the Articles, all officers of State troops furnished for the common defense, of and below the rank of Colonel, shall be appointed by the States.

Now let us compare the mutual covenants of the States to be found in both instruments; and then the delegations of power by the States to be found in both.

In the first, each State retained its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every right, power and jurisdiction which it did not expressly delegate to the United States in Congress assembled 2; in the second, all

1The following remarks by Mr. Hamilton in No. LXVII of the Federalist, intended to silence those who had objected to the creation of the office of President, which they had "inveighed against with less candor," and "criticised with less judgment" than any other provision of the Constitution, may amuse the reader: "Calculating upon the aversion of the people to monarchy, they have endeavored to enlist all their jealousies and apprehensions in opposition. To establish the pretended affinity, they have not scrupled to draw resources even from the regions of fiction. The authorities of a magistrate, in few instances greater, in some less, than those of a Governor of New York, have been magnified into more than royal prerogatives."

* * *

2 Notwithstanding this clear language, of the meaning of which no school boy could have any doubt, John Fiske, a representative of the culture of New England, says on page 94 of his Critical Period, etc., that by the Articles "the sovereignty of the several States was expressly limited and curtailed in many important particulars.' And Mr. Fiske seems unconscious of the inconsistency of this im

powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, were reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In the first, the States bound themselves under a firm league of friendship to labor for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, etc.; in the second, the object in view was declared to be to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty, etc.

In the first, each State was to have one vote in determining all questions; in the second, the equal power of the several States was preserved in the Senate, wherein "equal suffrage" is secured to each, of which it can not be deprived without its consent.

In both, the citizens of each State were to be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.'

In both, full faith and credit should be given in each State to the public records of the other States.

plied admission of the existence of "the sovereignty of the several States," with the assertion on the same page (94) that "in severing their connection with England these Commonwealths (sic) entered into some sort of union which was incompatible with their absolute sovereignty taken severally."

But after John A. Andrew, the Governor of Massachusetts, announced the doctrine, in the Altoona Address, that the people of the States are "the subjects of the National Government," political vagaries in that quarter should not surprise us.

'On September 25, 1898, one hundred free citizens of the State of Alabama reached Virden in the State of Illinois, having been employed to work in coal mines in that locality; but threats of shooting them drove them back to Alabama. Again, on October 12, of the same year, two hundred free citizens of Southern States went to the same place for the same purpose; but they were met by rifle shots instead of threats. In both instances Governor Tanner, of Illinois, declined to insure to these people the enjoyment of the privileges and immunities of free citizens of Illinois.