was finally summoned by Congress to meet at Philadelphia, in February, 1787, to revise the Articles of Confederation and to report to Congress and the several States such amendments as should be adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union. To the meeting of this body came as delegates the most distinguished men in all the States except one, which was not represented. It was presided over by Washington, himself the most ardent advocate of union, and was an assembly of uncommon dignity and ability. Its discussions were protracted and earnest. A wide diversity of opinion appeared, principally between those disposed to conservative views and those inclined towards democracy. There were also to be reconciled what were thought to be the conflicting interests of the different States. The convention finally abandoned altogether the Articles of Confederation, as hopeless of amendment, and instead of them on the 17th of September, 1787, adopted by a considerable majority the original Constitution substantially as it now stands, and submitted it to the people of the several States for ratification, under a proviso that the assent of nine States should be sufficient to render it binding between the ratifying States. Each State called a convention of its own to consider the proposal, in which prolonged discussions took place. There was more or less opposition in many quarters, and upon many grounds. But it was finally ratified and formally adopted by the thirteen States, at different times. Meanwhile, after eleven States had assented to it, on the 30th of April, 1789, the government it established was organized. The two remaining States ratified the Constitution

and came into the Union-one in November, 1789, the other in May, 1790.

The State of Vermont, in which settlements had been begun before the Revolution commenced, upon land titles acquired under the New Hampshire grants from the Crown, had fought through the war on the American side without becoming a member of the Union formed by the Articles of Confederation. At the close of the war land titles were attempted to be asserted against those of the settlers, under the grant to the Duke of York, by which a large part of New York was held. The boundaries of both grants were so loosely defined that each covered a part of what was embraced in the other. The Vermonters resisted these claims, set at defiance the legal process from the New York courts, and in defence of their lands maintained the independence of their State, under a constitution of their own, until 1791, when, their titles having been conceded, they applied for admission and were received into the Union.

All the territory now under the jurisdiction of the United States government, and not embraced within these fourteen States, including that afterwards derived from France, from Spain, and from Mexico, became subject to the exclusive control of the Federal government. As the various parts of it were occupied or acquired, territorial governments were from time to time organized by Congress and administered under the national authority, until such time as these Territories, or successive portions of them, were admitted by Congress into the Union as States, on the same footing, under the Constitution, with the original States. Texas alone was admitted as a State when it

was first annexed to the United States, never having been made a Territory. There are now thirty-eight States in the Union, and seven organized Territories, which will in time, as their population becomes sufficient, be admitted as States. Each State has a constitution and a complete system of government of its

own.

From this meagre outline of a most interesting chapter in history it will be perceived that the States which originally adopted the Constitution were independent and separate, and entered the Union voluntarily, on a footing of entire equality. There was no subordinate and no superior, nor any conquest or compulsion of one by the others. And the cardinal idea upon which the Constitution is founded is that every State which becomes subject to it is independent of the other States, and retains its full sovereignty, except so far as by the express terms of the Constitution, or by necessary implication, certain powers are relinquished by the States, or conferred upon the Federal government. In determining, therefore, in which jurisdiction any governmental power resides, the inquiry is whether it has been parted with by the States, under the provisions of the Constitution, and, if so, whether it has been granted to the national government. There are certain powers that are prohibited to the States, but which that government has not acquired.

The most serious question under the Constitution that has ever arisen was that which involved the nature of the compact upon which it was founded-whether the Union thus formed could be dissolved by some of the States that were parties to it, and they be allowed to withdraw without the consent of the others. No discus

sion of a constitutional question in America was ever so prolonged, so excited, and so bitter as this. It culminated finally in the Civil War of 1861, and then received its final settlement. It was contended on the part of the Southern States, in which slavery existed when the Constitution was adopted, that the Union was virtually a partnership of States, voluntarily entered into, and depending for its existence upon the continued consent of the parties; that those who made the compact could dissolve it; and that no power was conferred upon the Federal government by the Constitution to compel States to remain under its authority, or to continue an alliance from which they found it to their interest to withdraw. This view was urged with great earnestness by Southern statesmen, under the leadership of Mr. Calhoun. In the earlier stages of the discussion it was plausible, and not without force, and Southern sentiment was generally, though not universally, in its favor. But in the great debate on the subject in the United States Senate, in 1830, the answer to this construction of the Constitution was brought forward by Mr. Webster with extraordinary and convincing power. No speech in America was ever so widely read, so striking in its immediate effect, so lasting in its ultimate results. From that time there has been no difference in opinion among the Northern people as to the question involved. It was shown that the compact of the Constitution was of a far higher and more enduring character than a mere dissoluble partnership existing upon sufferance; that it was a national government, permanent and perpetual in its nature, not contracted for by the States, but ordained by the people; that while the assent to it

in the first instance was voluntary, and was expressed through the medium of the State governments, it was an assent that, once given and acted upon, could not be recalled; from which no power of recession was reserved, or could exist, consistently with the object of the contract, or the nature of the government; and that the States, though retaining their independence and sovereignty in many particulars, had parted with their right to a political existence separate from the government they had created.

When this question finally came to the arbitrament of arms, there was no hesitation in the minds of the Northern people touching the merits of the quarrel, or the indispensable necessity of maintaining it. Nor did the theory of the right of secession command universal acceptance in the Southern States. Four of them declined to join the Confederacy, and remained on the Union side through the war. Since the war, this question is at an end. It is not likely ever to recur. With the disappearance of slavery, no reason for asserting a right of secession remains. No respectable vote could be obtained in any Southern State to-day in favor of a dissolution of the Union.

The Constitution of the United States reproduces, under a different form of government, and under different conditions, all the principles of English liberty and the safeguards of English law. These are the foundations upon which it rests, and the model upon which it is constructed. It affords the highest proof that those principles are neither local nor national in their character, nor dependent upon the form of government under which they exist, so long as it is in its nature a free government. Sovereignty is distributed,