ments? It was answered, only so far, as the powers intended to be granted to the new Government, should clash with the States, when the latter were to yield."

The resolution, with this explanation and understanding, then passed in Committee, eight States only being present. But the refusal of the Committee to agree to the other two, or, rather, their abandonment without a division, shows very clearly, to all fair and right-thinking minds, that it was not the intention of the Convention, by the adoption of this third resolution in Committee, to abandon the Federal system, and institute a National Government, as Judge Story argues; and that the Convention did not intend or indicate any purpose, thereby, to travel out of, or beyond their powers, which confined them, in the main, to the sole purpose of revising and amending the terms of their Union, on the basis of a Confederation of Sovereign States. Now, when these first two resolutions, which contained the gist of the whole question, had been abandoned without a count, it is easy to conceive that any one might have supposed that the object of this resolution, after the explanation given, was barely to declare that such changes in the Articles of Confederation were intended by it, as Mr. Jefferson had foreshadowed-that is, that, in the changes to be made, there should be a division, in the powers delegated, into Legislative, Judicial and Executive, without any departure from the Federal basis of the Union. This is, also, strengthened by the fact that Delaware voted for the resolution. It is well known that that State never would have voted for the resolution, with the construction put upor its words which Judge Story puts upon them. The introduction of the word National may not have struck the minds of the Delegates from Delaware and others, as bearing, or being intended to bear, the import

now sought to be given to it, or which, upon close scrutiny, legitimately belongs to it. National was a word often loosely used in application to the Government under the Confederation, and even by the strictest adherents to the Sovereignty of the States. In the letter read yesterday from Mr. Jefferson, he spoke of the Government being so modelled as to make us one Nation as to all foreign powers, and yet separate and distinct Nations, as to ourselves. This Unity, or Nationality, as to foreign powers, was to be founded upon a Federal basis or Compact between the internal Nationalities. It is no strain of presumption, therefore, to suppose that this word was understood in this sense by many who voted for that resolution.

But the great controlling fact in the case, one that removes every particle of ground upon which Judge Story builds his entire theory of the Government, is, that subsequently, on the 20th of June, when the report of the Committee of the Whole was before the Convention, for consideration; after the whole plan, submitted by Governor Randolph, had been gone through with; after the ideas and objects of the members, generally, had been developed; and after the bearing of this word National, or the sense in which some used it, had been fully disclosed, and when eleven States were present, it was moved, by Mr. Ellsworth, of Connecticut, to strike out this resolution, that had been previously agreed to, as before stated, and to insert the following:

"Resolved, That the Government of the United States ought to consist of a Supreme Legislative, Judiciary and Executive."*

This resolution was agreed to; and, after this action

* Elliot's Debates, vol. i, p. 183.

of the Convention upon this resolution, the word "National," wherever it occurred, throughout Governor Randolph's whole plan, was stricken out, and the "Government of the United States," or its equivalent, inserted. So, the "fundamental proposition," upon which Judge Story built his whole superstructure, is completely knocked from under him. The grounds, upon which it temporarily rested for the short space of twenty-one days, were completely removed by the Convention itself. The truth is, the debates between the 30th of May and the 20th of June, had disclosed the fact that there were quite a number of Delegates in the Convention, who were in favor of doing what Judge Story would make the impression, or seems really to think, that they had done. They were, as clearly appears from Gouverneur Morris's first resolution, for doing away with the Federal system entirely, and for establishing one great National Government; or, in other words, they were for abandoning the whole idea of a Federal Union, and incorporating the several State Sovereignties into one National Sovereignty.

Among these, none were more prominent or zealous than Governor Randolph and Mr. Madison, of Virginia, Mr. Morris and Mr. Wilson, of Pennsylvania, Mr. King, of Massachusetts, and Mr. Hamilton, of New York. These differed widely amongst themselves, as to the form of Government which should be instituted upon this National basis. Governor Randolph and Mr. Wilson seemed to have been for a Consolidated Democratic Republic, with two Houses for Legislation, and an Elective Executive. In this view, Mr. Madison concurred. Hamilton and Mr. Morris were also for one single National Republic, but based upon different principles. Some thought their scheme looked toward Monarchy,

Mr.

but justice requires it to be stated, that nothing that fell from them, or either of them, in the debates, authorizes such a conclusion. They were all, however,-Randolph, Madison, Morris, Hamilton, Wilson and King-for a great National Republic, with a total departure from the Federal system. While the Nationals in the Convention. were so divided, an overwhelming majority of the Delegates, as well as a majority of the States, were utterly' opposed to either of their systems. Nothing could induce them to depart from the Federal system, or cause them to yield the equality of the States, as Sovereigns, in the Union, and the equality of their votes in all measures that might be passed upon by the new Government, as it was in the old. It was after this disclosure that the States agreed to the resolution of Mr. Ellsworth, to strike out "National Government," wherever it occurred in Governor Randolph's plan, and substitute for it, "Government of the United States." It was thus settled by the Convention, in their final action upon this very first resolution, that the work of their hands, whatever might be its details, was to be a plan, or organization, or Constitution, or Articles of Compact, call you it what you may, of a Government of States, of Sovereign States, formed and instituted by States and for States.

JUDGE BYNUM. You do not mean to say that the Government of the United States, under the Constitution as it was adopted, is nothing but a Government of States and for States?

Mr. STEPHENS. I mean to say that it is a Government instituted by States and for States, and that all the functions it possesses, even in its direct action on the individual citizens of the several States, spring from and depend upon a Compact between the States constituting it. It is, therefore, a Government of States

66

and for States. The final action upon the very first resolution, as we have seen, shows that the object of the Convention was to form a Government of States. "The Government of the United States" ought to consist, they declared, "of a Supreme Legislature, Judiciary and Executive." This is the same as if they had declared the Government of the States United, ought to consist," etc. The first Constitution, we have seen, was a Government of States. The States in Congress assembled passed all laws, made all treaties, and exercised all powers vested in them jointly. No measure could be passed without the equal voice of each State, however small. Delaware had the same influence as New York, Massachusetts, or Virginia, and in this respect I maintain there is no essential change in the new Constitution. Examine it! Sift it, and dissect it as you may, and you will find it to be nothing but a Government of States, as much so, in principle, as the old Confederation. The powers to be exercised by the States jointly, Legislatively, Judicially, and Executively, have been enlarged, and it does not require so many States now to determine many questions as before; but under the present Constitution no measure can be passed, no law can be enacted, if a majority of the States oppose it.

JUDGE BYNUM. Why, Mr. Stephens, that is a most extraordinary position.

MR. STEPHENS. Extraordinary! My dear sir, is it not undeniably true? Has not each State an equal vote in the Senate? Can any law be passed if a majority of the States in the Senate withhold their sanction? The Senators, two to each State, are selected by the States, severally, in their corporate and Sovereign capacity. Can any treaty be made, if any more than a bare