nation or people, or that they have ever been so united in any one stage of their political existence; that the people of the several States composing the Union have not, as members thereof, retained their Sovereignty; that the allegiance of their citizens has been transferred to the General Government; that they have parted with the right of punishing treason through their respective State Governments; and that they have not the right of judg ing in the last resort as to the extent of the powers reserved, and of consequence of those delegated,—are not only without foundation in truth, but are contrary to the most certain and plain historical facts, and the clearest deductions of reason; and that all exercise of power on the part of the General Government, or any of its departments, claiming authority from such erroneous assumptions, must of necessity be unconstitutional,-must tend, directly and inevitably, to subvert the Sovereignty of the States, to destroy the Federal character of the Union, and to rear on its ruins a consolidated Government, without Constitutional check or limitation, and which must necessarily terminate in the loss of liberty itself."

PROF. NORTON. Yes, these are the Resolutions I refer to, and now let me read such parts of Mr. Webster's speech against them as I think utterly demolish them and the whole superstructure of your argument, which is but an attempt to sustain the principles set forth in these Resolutions.

MR. STEPHENS. Only so far as they maintain the proposition that the Constitution of the United States is a Compact between the States, and that the Government instituted by it is a Federal or Confederated Republic. This is the position which I maintain that I have established.

PROF. NORTON. Well, then, only to the extent of utterly

demolishing that position will I read from Mr. Webster's speech.

"The Resolutions," said Mr. Webster, "introduced by the gentleman, were apparently drawn up with care, and brought forward upon deliberation. I shall not be in danger, therefore, of misunderstanding him, or those who agree with him, if I proceed at once to these Resolutions, and consider them as an authentic statement of those opinions upon the great Constitutional question, by which the recent proceedings in South Carolina are attempted to be justified.

"These Resolutions are three in number.

"The third seems intended to enumerate, and to deny, the several opinions expressed in the President's proclamation, respecting the nature and powers of this Government. Of this third Resolution, I purpose, at present, to take no particular notice.

"The first two Resolutions of the honorable member affirm these propositions, viz. :

"1. That the political system under which we live, and under which Congress is now assembled, is a Compact, to which the people of the several States, as separate and Sovereign communities, are the parties.

"2. That these Sovereign parties have a right to judge, each for itself, of any alleged violation of the Constitu tion by Congress; and in case of such violation, to choose, each for itself, its own mode and measure of redress.

"It is true, sir, that the honorable member calls this a 'Constitutional' Compact; but still he affirms it to be a Compact between Sovereign States. What precise meaning, then, does he attach to the term Constitutional? When applied to Compacts between Sovereign States, the term Constitutional affixes to the word Compact no definite idea. Were we to hear of a Constitutional league

or treaty between England and France, or a Constitutional Convention between Austria and Russia, we should not understand what could be intended by such a league, such a treaty, or such a Convention. In these connections, the word is void of all meaning; and yet, sir, it is easy, quite easy, to see why the honorable gentleman has used it in these Resolutions. He cannot open the book, and look upon our written frame of Government, without seeing that it is called a Constitution. This may well be appalling to him. It threatens his whole doctrine of Compact, and its darling derivatives, Nullification and Secession, with instant confutation. Because, if he admits our instrument of Government to be a Constitution, then, for that very reason, it is not a Compact between Sovereigns; a Constitution of Government and a Compact between Sovereign powers being things essentially unlike in their very natures, and incapable of ever being the Yet the word Constitution is on the very front of the instrument. He cannot overlook it. He seeks, therefore, to compromise the matter, and to sink all the substantial sense of the word, while he retains a resemblance of the sound. He introduces a new word of his own, viz., Compact, as importing the principal idea, and designed to play the principal part, and degrades Constitution into an insignificant, idle epithet, attached to Compact. The whole then stands as a Constitutional Compact!" And in this way he hopes to pass off a plausible gloss, as satisfying the words of the instrument. But he will find himself disappointed. Sir, I must say to the honorable gentleman, that, in our American political grammar, CONSTITUTION is a noun substantive; it imports a distinct and clear idea of itself; and it is not to lose its importance and dignity, it is not to be turned into a poor, ambiguous, senseless, unmeaning adjective, for the pur

same.