lowing absolute declarations of sovereign right - principles essential to liberty, and the same yesterday, to-day, and forever! Considering herself to be the supplanter of British sovereignty, she declared as follows: "All power whatever therein, [i. e. in the state of New York] hath reverted to the people thereof; and this convention hath, by their suffrages and free choice, been appointed and authorized. to institute and establish a government, . . . 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." She began the century recently closed, with this declaration; and, though her fundamental law has been several times reconstructed, the declaration stands now! and it will stand forever! for no authority but hers is ever to be exercised on her soil! She further declares, in her present organic law of government, that "the sovereignty and jurisdiction of this state extend to all places within the boundary thereof, . . . but the extent of such jurisdiction, over places that have been or may be ceded to the united states, shall be qualified by the terms of such cession." [Const. N. Y.]1 1 She also declares it to be "the duty of the Governor, and all subordinate officers, to maintain and defend her sovereignty and jurisdiction." [N. Y. Rev. Stat., Ch. I., Tit. 2.] She also declares as follows, concerning the Lordship of the Soil, or Eminent Domain. "The people of this state, in their right of sovereignty, are deemed to possess the original and ultimate property in, and to, all lands within the jurisdiction of this state; and all lands, the title of which shall fail from a defect of heirs, shall revert or escheat to the people." [Const. N. Y., Art. I., Sect. 2.] Virginia expresses it as follows: "All escheats, penalties, and forfeitures, heretofore going to the king, shall go to the commonwealth" [Const. Va.]; and Judge Kent states the American doctrine to be, that "the state steps in place of the feudal lord, by virtue of its sovereignty, as the original and ultimate proprietor of all the lands within its jurisdiction." [All the above italics are mine.] 1 On this subject, Massachusetts declares as follows: "The sovereignty and jurisdiction of the commonwealth, extend to all places within the boundaries thereof; subject only to such rights of concurrent jurisdiction, as have been, or may be granted over any places ceded by the commonwealth to the united states." [See Rev. Stat. of Mass., ed. 1836, p. 56.] Federal Sites. The treatment of Uncle Sam by these high and mighty potentates, is quite consistent with their imperial words. Massachusetts and New York grant to the united states (not to the nation or government, but to the said states) sites for arsenals, forts, navy-yards, light-houses, post-offices, etc., relying on their solemnly plighted faith, not only to guaranty and secure the states, in being and acting as republics, or absolutely self-governing peoples, but to use the said sites solely for the defence "and welfare" of said states. The sites of forts Warren, Lafayette, Delaware, Monroe, Moultrie, and others, are acquired and held by the united states, from the respective states in which they are situated, on conditions such as the following, in the act ceding the use and jurisdiction of the site of the Brooklyn Navy-yard: "The united states are to retain such use and jurisdiction, so long as said tract shall be applied to the defence and safety of the city and port of New York, and no longer ["defence and safety of the said state, and no longer," are the words in the Watervleit arsenal cession]. . . . But the jurisdiction hereby ceded, and the exemption from taxation herein granted, shall continue, in respect to said property, and to each portion thereof, so long as the same shall remain the property of the united states, and be used for the purposes aforesaid, and no longer" [see also statutes of Mass., June 17, 1800; June 20, 1816; April 23, 1847; April 21, 1848; May 4, 1853: Stat. Pa., April 18, 1795; Feb. 1, 1796: Stat. Va., March 1, 1821; and Stat. S. C., December 19, 1805.] There are over 50 of these acts in the statutes of Massachusetts, and over 150 in those of New York. Summing up the Testimony. Let us now analyze and reduce to averments of fact, the statement of these august witnesses. They show conclusively : ... 1. That "all power is inherent in the people" of the state; and that the phrases, the "sovereign and independent body-politic," "the commonwealth," "the state," and "the people," are all used in one and the same declaration as synonymous. And, to preclude doubt, Massachusetts redeclares her sovereignty with still greater emphasis, as follows: "The people of this commonwealth have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state." 2. That no power ever goes out of the state, except by delegation; that all power belongs to the state as much after delegation as before; and that delegated powers must necessarily be used, for the state, by her "substitutes and agents." 3. That all the powers in the general government are delegated by, and derived from, the "sovereign and independent bodies-politic," that is to say, "the commonwealths" or "the states" "the people" having no political existence, or capacity for political action, except as such "bodies-politic," or "states." Said DANIEL WEBSTER: "No such thing as sovereignty of government," "is known in North America.” "With us, all power is with the people." [Speech of 1833.] 4. That the said "people," "body-politic," "commonwealth," or "state" have an "inalienable and indefeasible right to institute, reform, alter, or totally change government," whenever they think. proper. 5. That no authority can be exercised in the state but that derived from the people thereof, i. e. from "the sovereign body-politic," "the commonwealth,” ""the state." The Constitution is Law in a State by her Will. It follows, as will be shown more fully hereafter, that the general government or its functionaries enter Massachusetts or New York solely by her permission; that they command or control persons or things in her territory solely for her, and by virtue of her authority; and that "the united states" (not the government, except as an agent or instrument of the united states) hold use and jurisdiction of sites for forts, navy-yards, etc. from her, for the sole purpose of her and her sisters' defence and safety, under her grant, and subject to her conditions. The fact of state supremacy will be more plain, if we note and weigh the only act which makes the federal constitution law in Massachusetts. These are the ordaining words: "The convention, in behalf of the people of the commonwealth of Massachusetts, do assent to, and ratify the constitution." New York, and all the other original states, ordained the supreme law in the same way. The truth is, the states are sovereign, and all the institutions and rulers of the union are subordinate. The states are, as Hamilton said, the "essential component parts of the union" of states, or "the united states;" and the federal government is merely the creation, the instrument, and the subject of the states, the declaration of the Philadelphia Convention of 1866, that "the Government" has "absolute supremacy," and that both people and states are alike allegiant to it, being hardly entitled to respect or refutation. Still less worthy of notice though of far higher origin — is that queer figment or fanciful notion of Webster and Curtis, as to the social compact forming the people of the united states into a state. Exposure of the Fallacy of a New Social Compact.— Nay, more, this theory is so egregious a mistake, that ridicule is only disarmed by pity, while argument turns away with scorn. The very object of forming men into society, and giving them a collective capacity to act, is government. Hence, in sending deputies to devise, in holding conventions to consider and ratify, and in electing agents to administer, the general constitution, the states were exercising the God-given right of self-government, and doing only natural and functional acts; and were not dissolving themselves, or yielding their sovereignty. Accordingly, we find no hint in all American history, tending to show that the people, or the states, were in 1787 and 1788, forming society; while all history, and all the records of the country show that they were establishing government for preformed and pre-existent societies. So much for the Webster and Curtis social compact, and involuntary union! Again, these societies had, by successful revolt, changed themselves from provinces to "free, sovereign, and independent states;" that is to say, they had gained the right of self-government, that peculiar thing that alone distinguishes a state from a province or county. These states had this right in 1787, and then voluntarily acted with and according to it, each with her own separate will, in her own separate time, and through her own separate convention, ratifying, and, as to herself, ordaining the constitution. When did each state lose the great right referred to? When did the voluntary union become an involuntary one? The states, Politically the People exist and act as a State. and their absolute individuality, being stubborn facts, that will not "down" at any "bidding" whatever, no one can argue correctly on these subjects, who does not start with a conception of them as "moral persons," each with mind and will, and only capacitated to act on political matters, as such persons, and through such minds. Says VATTEL (p. 14): "A state or political society is a moral person, inasmuch as it has an understanding and a will, of which it makes use for the conduct of its affairs, and is capable of obligations and rights." Again (p. 1): "The authority of all over each member, essentially belongs to the body-politic or state." Blackstone and Montesquieu teach the same idea. Said WILLIAM H. SEWARD, at Auburn, N. Y., October 20, 1865: "This absolute existence of the states, which constitute the republic, is the most palpable of all the facts which the American statesman has to deal with. . . . The states were, before the American union Our federal republic forever must exist, through, not the creation, but the combination, of these several free, self-existing, stubborn states. . . . They are living, growing, majestic trees, whose roots are widely spread and interlaced within the soil, and whose shade covers the earth." was.... As will be seen, all history and all the fathers show that the commonwealths must be kept in mind, in all reasoning on political subjects, as "the most palpable of all the facts the American statesman has to deal with." They must be kept in mind as "the parties to the compact;" the members of "the confederacy;" the “essential component parts of the union ;" and "the sovereigns" of their respective territories. These are the phrases of that other great son of New York, Alexander Hamilton, used in reference to the present system. The Stumbling-block of the "Expounders." —The Massachusetts school are loth to admit "the people" and "the sovereign body-politic or state" to be one and the same, and that the collective people in question form a "moral person," and must act as such in government. They seem to think that the existence and action of distinct and free political minds, make the union "a rope of sand;" and they are unwilling to admit that the said association depends on moral cohesive force, instead of coercive power. They simply fail to "rise to the height of the great argument" of God and our fathers, that the people are capable of self-government, and that the union is one of pre-existent and absolutely distinct commonwealths, uniting themselves voluntarily, on the grounds alone of amity and mutual in terest. The "Sacred Ties" according to Washington. GEORGE WASHINGTON, in his letter to R. H. Lee, August 22, 1785, says: "There is nothing which binds one country or state to another, but interest: without this cement, the Western inhabitants can have no predilection for us, and a commercial connection is the only tie we can have upon them." Two years afterwards, viz., July 19, 1787, he wrote to the same : "Till you get low down the Ohio, I conceive that it would be to the interest of the inhabitants thereof to bring their produce to our ports; and sure I am, there is no other tie by which they will long form a link in the chain of federal union." About five years afterward, and about three years after the federal system had gone into effect under his administration, viz., August 26, 1792, he wrote to Hamilton, counselling mutual forbearance, conciliation, and accommodation, "and such healing measures as may restore harmony to the discordant members of the union." "Without these," continued he, "I do not see how the union of the states can much longer be preserved." These extracts, and the whole Farewell Address, promulgated in 1796, show his idea to have been, that amicable feeling and mutual interest were principal among "the sacred ties that bind together the various parts." After showing the sentimental cohesion, he speaks thus: "But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibilities [italics mine], are greatly outweighed by those which |