of a single, consolidated State. We have already seen that unity does exist in a popular, in a commercial, and also in a political sense, so far as external relations are concerned. Does it exist in the domestic politics of the Union, the sole point in question? There is an unsatisfactory feature common to those who argue against the right of secession. They endeavour to convey impressions of a fact which they refrain from stating in plain terms. It is clear that the phrase," We, the people," can have no bearing on the question, unless it indicate a single community, a consolidated State. This is the belief to be conveyed, the theory on which the whole argument is built; yet no one of those using it has the courage to state it plainly as a fact, and say the Constitution created a single, consolidated State. Either it did. so, or it did not. The question is far too large to be solved by part of a sentence, so interpreted as to contradict the rest of it. We must search into the facts, and weigh the tenor of the Constitution itself; and this is the more important, as we may find in the end that the question of secession as a right may turn upon this point in one view to be

taken of it.

We have seen that the present is not the first Constitution of the Union. The Convention appointed to revise the "Articles of Confederation had no general authority. It was summoned by an act of Congress, which strictly defined its object and powers in these words:

"For the purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation, and for reporting to the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as should, when agreed to in Congress, and confirmed by the States, render the Federal compact adequate to the exigencies of Government, and the preservation of the Union." There is clearly no authority here to frame a new system, or effect organic change, but simply to make "alterations and provisions,"-to effect a vigorous reform. It will be observed, too, there is no mention of the people, but invariably of the States. The limits of their powers were not overlooked by the members of the Convention; they are continually referred to in their debates. They could not desire to exceed their authority, seeing that the next step was to refer the instrument to Congress for its approval to the very source of their authority, whose sanction was essential to the success of their labours.

Now the "Articles of Confederation" expressly declare that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence." They mutually acknowledge each other as distinct, sovereign communities; and in this capacity they send delegates to a Convention for the purpose of reforming the Government-their agent-and effecting such improvements in its machinery and details as would render it efficient. Curtis remarks: "We must observe the position of the States, when thus assembled in Convention. Their meeting was

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 his 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,

૨