2. Each state is a distinct and independent body of people, with its own name, inhabitants, geography, and political organism, and is as separate and complete in existence as a man, an island, or a

star.

3. Each of these commonwealths has a mind, which it exercises in all acts of government, and it gathers information, reasons, judges, and wills, as to defence and welfare, just as a man does.

4. The action of this mind, in constituting and administering government, is functional, just as the self-governing action of a man's mind is.

5. Hence, as separate minds cannot unite by welding themselves, but must associate and co-operate, the union of states called "the united states" is necessarily a federation or league of states.

The denial of these propositions is untruth. The "moral persons' do yet exist intact, and their continued existence is essential to the continuance of American institutional liberty.

"Free, Sovereign, and Independent." This phrase, so often. used unqualifiedly in our history, as to the status of a commonwealth [e. g. in the constitution of Massachusetts; first federal constitution; treaty of 1783; act of Virginia, ceding northwestern territory; ordinance of 1787 as to same; several state constitutions], means that she is "free" in mind, to think and determine as she pleases; " sovereign" in will, and beyond all earthly control; and "independent" in organism and existence; so that, without coercion, any other union or association than a voluntary one is a moral and political impossibility.

Nay, more, the word "state," as we have seen, means, when applied by the fathers and the constitution to New York or Delaware, precisely what it does when it refers to England or France. "When the constitution uses well-known words," says Webster, it uses them “in their well-known sense." [See Constitution, Art. III., § 2 ; Amendment XI.]

The States not under Control of the Government. They alone have inherent and original right of existence and authority. The institution called "the government" has no right of control over them, because it springs from their will, and has only the authority they delegate; besides that, it is personally composed of their subjects, and must use their own men and means to execute coercion upon them.

As heretofore quoted (p. 37), Daniel Webster declared that, in North America, sovereignty is ever in the people, and never in the government. And George T. Curtis says: "The American doctrine is, that all supreme power resides originally in the people, and that

all governments are the depositaries and agents of that power." [Hist. Constitution.]

But "Change" by Usurpation threatens us. — I submit, in conclusion of this chapter, that the "change" so persistently asserted by Story, Webster, and the federal supreme court, from a federation to another system, neither was nor could be made; but that, through perversion, fraud, and perjured usurpation, the factitious and fraudulent change is coming over us, that Burke, as heretofore quoted, speaks of a "change from a state of procuration and delegation to a course of acting as from original power, the very way," continues he, “in which all the free magistracies of the world HAVE BEEN PERVERTED FROM THEIR PURPOSES" !

CHAPTER VIII.

THE STATES ACT AS SOVEREIGNS IN THE UNION.

JUDGING from New York's declarations and action, under our fedlity, she way well be called, in a second sense,

"the em

pire state"; for surely no power of earth did ever more imperially assert herself, or act with more absolute sovereignty, than she has done in the federal union. Indeed, her whole history and record, and all her action as will be seen consist with and support the doctrine of this book.

I have already illustrated, in the case of Pennsylvania [see ch. I. of this Part], the transition from colonial or provincial dependence to statehood; and shown that it is precisely the acquisition of "freedom, Sovereignty, and independence," that distinguishes a state from a province or other dependency.

New York's Record on the Subject. She had been an organized society, governed with entire separateness from every other, for over one hundred years, when she established her first constitution, in the year 1777. She then held a convention for this purpose exclusively elected and empowered by herself. Asserting and acting with supreme authority, she then declared herself to be the supplanter of the whole British sovereignty — king, lords, and commons. That constitution after recounting the steps towards sundering the ties of New York to Britain - introduces the declaration of independence as part of her fundamental law. In that declaration, her delegates, and those of her sisters in congress assembled, declared that their thirteen constituents are of right "free and independent states"; are absolved from all political connection with, and allegiance to, the British crown; and "have full power," as "free and independent states, to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do." This could be predicated of each state only, because there could be no mind to do such things except in the "moral persons" then existent, and by name designated. We must keep it in view, that all affirmations in the history and records of these matters

refers to certain entities political bodies - "moral persons,” that then included all the people and covered all the territory, leaving thereout no powers, people, or acres, to make a nation of; and that these bodies, which have existed through all our history, do exist now, as distinct as trees in a grove, islands in the sea, stars in a group, or men in a corporation. These ideas once held, we require proof of the end or change of such entities. The onus is on the "school."

Here is the proper place to brand a certain falsehood, nowadays commonly taught, viz., that the understanding was, that the nascent states were to be "sovereign, free, and independent" only as united states, each and all the states being subordinate to The United States, or the nation. If such understanding ever existed, it would have been done away with by the second article of the confederation of 1778, declaring that "each state retained its sovereignty." But it is entirely false, as New York herself shows, in the following continuation of the said instrument :

"And whereas, having taken this declaration [of independence] into their most serious consideration, [they] did, on the 9th day of July last past, unanimously resolve, that the reasons assigned by the continental congress for declaring the united colonies free and independent states, are cogent and conclusive, and that while we lament the cruel necessity, . . . we approve the same, and will, at the risk of our lives and fortunes, join with the other colonies in supporting it. By virtue of which several acts, declarations, and proceedings, mentioned and contained in the afore-recited resolves of the general congress of the united American states, and of the congresses or conventions of this state, all power whatever therein [i. e. in the state] hath reverted to the people thereof [i. e. of the state], and this convention hath by their suffrages and free choice been appointed, and, among other things, authorized to institute and establish such a government as they shall deem best calculated to secure the rights and liberties of the good people of this state. . .

...

"1st. This convention, therefore, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this state, doth ordain, determine, and declare: That no authority shall, on any pretence whatever, be exercised over the people or members of this state, but such as shall be derived from or granted by them."

"All powers whatever" "reverted to the people" of New York! and "no authority," "on any pretence whatever," was to "be exercised over the people or members of this state," but their own!1

1 President Lincoln-misled by New York and Massachusetts expounders said the union made New York a state, and that she had no status or rights whatever, except what the national constitution reserved to her. Professor Jameson of Chicago may

New York now Sovereign. We shall now see that New York retains this very self-assertion in full force to-day, and holds herself to be the absolute sovereign, who gives the federal agency its sole existence and authority on her domain, and uses it and its means as her instruments, and for her purposes; and that the said government has no right to exist, no right to act, no jurisdiction or control over citizens, and no right to hold, administer, or use property even for federal purposes without the sovereign authority, the grant, and the permission of that state, and subject to her conditions and her defeasance.

Through her deputized subjects in federal convention, she assisted in devising the federal compact. In her own home convention she carefully examined it, asking herself if it was to her interest, safety, and welfare to adopt it; and finally, after due deliberation, her judgment barely inclined her will to make it her "supreme law," and to command her "members" (i. e. her citizens and subjects) to obey it. Barely, I say, for the majority in her convention was only three, after a long and excited contest.

Her ordaining words were as follows: "We, the delegates, in the name and behalf of the people of the state of New York, do by these presents assent to and ratify the said constitution."

Hereby the only vitality and validity the said compact ever had, or could have, in the state of New York, was given. Thenceforward, her subjects were to obey the federal agency by her command; for standing then in her imperial law was the declaration, that "no authority" but her own was to "be exercised over" her "people or members," on any pretence whatever."

66

- These greatest sons

What say Jay, Hamilton and Livingston? of New York were most influential in causing her to federalize herself. They probably knew as much of the character of the proposed system, and the intent of New York, as any of her later "expounders" and so-called "historians."

JAY said "a union of states" was being formed, and that the federal functionaries were 66 agents and overseers of the people." 1

have taught him -or vice versa. The said professor also teaches, that in making their constitutions, and governing themselves, the states perform for the nation, and under its authority, delegative functions: and it is more than intimated by some, and perhaps by himself, that they have done so from the beginning. It is a waste of time, however, even to notice such contentions. He and Professor Mansfield of Cincinnati more than intimate that states are unnecessary except in the capacity of counties.

1 Contrast, now, these views of the first Chief Justice and his compatriots with those of the present Chief Justice, who dares to say of the same constitution, in the very capital of his leagued sovereigns, that he and the other federal ephemera (h's co-agents and co-servants) are supreme over the said sovereigns, i. e. over the states as states - in consonance with the treasonable declaration of the Philadelphia convention of 1866, that the government has absolute supremacy" over allegiant states.