at the time abundantly show. That they did not consider the Declaration of Independence as a National act, or put any such construction upon it, as Judge Story has done, appears clearly from what they were then doing. At the very time the Declaration of Independence was made, a Committee, consisting of one delegate from each State, was organized to prepare articles of Confederation between the States, as separate, distinct Sovereign political Communities.* That Committee, which was appointed on the 11th of June, even before the Declaration of Independence was agreed to, and in anticipation of it, reported the Articles of Confederation, before referred to, which, Mr. Curtis says, was the first written Constitution of the United States. The title of these Articles speaks for itself. It is in these words: "Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia." After stating the style of the Confederacy to be "The United States of America," the very first clause in these Articles of Union is in these words: "Each State retains its Sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this Confederacy expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled." These Articles were reported on 12th day of July, eight days after the Declaration.† Moreover, this argument and conclusion of Judge Story ale utterly inconsistent with the facts acknowledged and set forth in the treaty of Peace with Great Britain, in 1783. The very first article of that treaty is in these words:‡

* Curtis's His. Com., vol. i, p. 53. † Curtis's His. Con., vol. i, p. 53. ↑ Statutes at Large, vol. viii, p. 89.

"His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz.: New Hampshire, Massachusetts-Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, to be free, Sovereign and Independent States; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claim to the Government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof."

The fifth article of the treaty clearly shows how the States, the other party to it, understood it. This is in these words:

"It is agreed that the Congress shall earnestly recommend it to the Legislatures of the respective States, to provide for the restitution of all estates, rights and properties, which have been confiscated, belonging to real British subjects, and also of the estates, rights and properties of persons resident in Districts in possession of his Majesty's arms, and who have not borne arms against the said United States. And that persons of any other description shall have free liberty to go to any part or parts of any of the thirteen United States, and therein to remain twelve months, unmolested in their endeavors to obtain the restitution of such of their estates, rights and properties, as may have been confiscated; and that Congress shall also earnestly recommend to the several States a reconsideration and revision of all acts or laws regarding the premises, so as to render the said laws or acts perfectly consistent, not only with justice and equity, but with that spirit of conciliation, which on the return of the blessings of peace should universally prevail. And that Congress shall also earnestly recommend to the several States, that the estates, rights and proper

ties of such last mentioned persons, shall be restored to them, they refunding to any persons who may be now in possession, the bona fide price (where any has been given) which such persons may have paid on purchasing any of the said lands, rights or properties, since the confiscation. And it is agreed, that all persons who have any interest in confiscated lands, either by debts, marriage settlements, or otherwise, shall meet with no lawful impediment in the prosecution of their just rights."

So far from the Federal Government assuming a national character at that time, it would not presume to bind the States or enter into an obligation upon matters that related to their own separate Sovereign Jurisdiction. That Government only engaged to use its influence in recommending to the Sovereign States respectively certain stipulations. This statement of Judge Story is the more remarkable, because it is in direct conflict with numerous decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States.

This Court, in the case of McIlvaine vs. Coxe, 2d Peters's Condensed Reports, page 86, in 1805, held that, "on the 4th of October, 1776, the State of New Jersey was completely a Sovereign, Independent State, and had a right to compel the inhabitants of the State to become citizens thereof." In delivering the opinion of the Court in this case, Mr. Cushing says: "the Court deems it unnecessary to declare an opinion upon a point which was much debated in this case, whether a real British subject, born before the 4th of July, 1776, who never from the time of his birth resided within any of the American Colonies or States, can upon the principles of the common law take lands by descent in the United States; because Daniel Coxe, under whom the lessor of the plaintiff claims, was born in the Province of New Jersey, long

before the Declaration of Independence, and resided there until some time in the year 1777, when he joined the British forces.

"Neither does this case produce the necessity of discriminating very nicely the precise point of time, when Daniel Coxe lost his right of election to abandon the American cause and adhere to his allegiance to the King of Great Britain; because he remained in the State of New Jersey, not only after she declared herself a Sovereign State, but after she had passed laws by which she pronounced him to be a member of, and in allegiance to the new Government. The Court entertains no doubt, that after the 4th of October, 1776, he became a member of the new Society, entitled to the protection of its Government, and bound to that Government by the ties of allegiance."

One of the points in this case was citizenship, and to what power allegiance was due; or in other words, where Sovereignty or Paramount authority under our system then resided—that is, under the Confederation. These, as we settled in the beginning, belong to Sovereignty and follow it. In this case the Supreme Court of the United States decided that both citizenship and allegiance, in 1776, after the Declaration of Independence, belonged to the States severally and respectively. Further on, in the same case, the Court say: "If then, at the period of the treaty of peace, the laws of New Jersey, which made Daniel Coxe a subject of that State, were in full force, and were not repealed, or in any manner affected by that instrument-if, by force of these laws, he was incapable of throwing off his allegiance to the State, and derived no right to do so by virtue of the treaty, it follows that he still retains the capacity he possessed before. the treaty," etc.

That capacity was the right to claim citizenship of the State of New Jersey, with all its privileges and immunities, with their accompanying obligations, amongst which was allegiance to her Sovereignty, which he could not throw off.

In another case decided by the same Court, in February, 1796, nine years before Ware, etc., vs. Hylton, etc., 3 Dallas, 199, Chase, Justice, in delivering his opinion, says:

"The first point raised by the counsel for the plaintiff in error was, that the Legislature of Virginia had no right to make the law of the 20th of October, 1777, above in part recited. If this objection is established, the judgment of the Circuit Court must be reversed, because it destroys the defendant's plea in bar, and leaves him without defence to the plaintiff's action,

"I would also remark, that the law of Virginia was made after the Declaration of Independence by Virginia, and also by Congress, and several years before the Confederation of the United States, which, although agreed to by Congress on the 15th of November, 1777, and assented to by ten States in 1778, was only finally completed and ratified on the first of March, 1781.

"I am of opinion that the exclusive right of confiscating, during the war, all and every species of British property, within the territorial limits of Virginia, resides only in the Legislature of that Commonwealth. * * *** It is worthy of remembrance, that delegates and representatives were elected by the people of the several counties and corporations of Virginia, to meet in general Convention, for the purpose of framing a new Government, by the authority of the people only; and that the said Convention met on the sixth of May, and continued in session until the fifth of July, 1776; and, in virtue of