with a veto on the legislative acts of the States, together with many other similar features, which naturally alarmed the majority of the convention and of the people, who declared that such a Constitution would violate the fundamental principles on which the Union had been formed. Mr. Hamilton's draft of a constitution was therefore very summarily dismissed from the attention of the Convention.

Mr. Randolph's previous outline of a constitution was also negatived; although it was less objectionable to the popular party than the one offered by Mr. Hamilton. It provided for a limited presidential term, but what was especially distasteful to the majority, it provided for the election of the Senate-which now represents the people of the States as independent political bodiesby the House of Representatives of Congress. Mr. Randalph's draft of a constitution therefore met with little favor by the advocates of State Sovereignty.

The outline of a Constitution presented by the popular party, simply confined the General Government to "the right of regulating commerce between foreign nations and between the States-gave it the power of executing its laws directly upon the people of the States, without the intervention of their respective legislatures -also, gave it the power of legislating upon all subjects which involved the interest of more than one State, to which the legislature of a single State was necessarily inadequate, and for the want of which powers the government of the Confederation had in a great measure failed."

You now see how the two parties in the Constitutional Convention had taken their ground, preparatory to the debates which followed.

But, besides these, there was a third draft of a constitution, submitted by Mr. Pinckney, possessed of certain features of both the other parties, but in which the centralism was intended to be held in safe check by the localism of State Sovereignty.

From the fact that Mr. Pinckney's draft became the basis of the present Constitution, you will plainly discover which party held the supremacy during all the debates, to the final action of the Convention which established the Constitution of our country,

It is proper, however, to say that, in consequence of the great talents of the leaders of the Nationalists, or Consolidationists, they made a powerful show in the Convention, from its opening, in May, until the 25th of June, when they received a severe and unexpected blow. They had kept a resolution before the convention that a "National Government ought to be established."

On the 25th of June it was moved to strike out the word " National," and insert in its place "United States," which passed in the affirmative.

Up to this time the Consolidationists had kept the word "National" constantly before the mind of the Convention.

But, by the 18th of August, three months from the assembling of the Convention, we find that this word. “National” was entirely driven from the floor of the Convention, and that of United States inserted in stead.

This fact plainly enough shows you the mind of the Convention that was forming our Constitution, and proves that Consolidationism was already defeated at this early period.

But the battle was not yet over.

On the 18th of August just named, the advocates of Consolidation and the friends of "State Individuality'

had a severe conflict, which resulted in the discomfiture of the consolidationists.

On that day they made their last effort at Consolidation by introducing a series of resolutions, tending to aggrandize the General Government at the expense of the reserved sovereignty of the States, which proposed to invest the General Government with the following powers:

To grant charters of incorporation in cases where the public good might require it, and the authority of a State would be incompetent."

"To establish a University."

"To encourage by proper premiums and provisions the advancement of useful knowledge and discoveries." "To establish seminaries for the promotion of literaure, and the arts and sciences."

"To grant charters of incorporation."

"To grant patents for useful inventions." "To secure to authors exclusive rights."

"To establish public institutions, rewards and immunities, for the promotion of agriculture, commerce, and manufactures.'

All these propositions of the Consolidationists were rejected by the Convention, except one. And, with that single exception, none of them find a place in our Constitution.

The ground on which these propositions were rejected was, that no powers should be given to the General Government which could be exercised by the States in their separate soveregnities.

The defeated Consolidationists never again rallied in the Convention with sufficient force to give the friends of State individuality any effective opposition.

The Constitution was completed, and finally became

the supreme law of the Union on the 4th March, 1789, three years after the first meeting of the Convention.

We have seen that our fathers tenaciously adhered to their originally cherished principle of local sovereignty and state independence.

It must be clear to your minds that they never meant to impart to the general government any powers inconsistent with this principle, which they had watched as the apple of their eye.

And the text of the constitution to which they gave their assent everywhere inculcates that the United States government, as its very name imports, is a government of State legislatures, instead of being a government of the people, viewed as one consolidated nation.

1st. The President is not chosen by the people of the United States as one consolidated people, but he is chosen by electors, who represent the State sovereignties.

You will realize the truth of this assertion when I remind you that a man may be legally elected President of the United States, when an immense majority of the votes of the whole people are against him.

President Lincoln was constitutionally elected president, while a majority of almost two-thirds of all the people of the United States voted against him.

Thus the very office of the President represents, not the sovereignty of the people as a consolidated body, but of the States by whose electors he is chosen.

2d. So, the Senate, the highest legislative branch of the general government, is elected, not by the people, as one consolidated nation, but by the legislatures of the States, and it, too, represents State sovereignties.

3d. The House of Representatives, the lower branch of the federal legislature, represents the State sove

reignties. Article 1. Section II. of the constitution reads: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States, and the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. You perceive that this article of the constitution recognizes no such body politic as the people of the United States as a consolidated people. The House of Representatives is the organ of the State governments, and represents their sovereignty. The election of these representatives is ordered by the independent action of the States. There is neither uniformity in the time nor in the qualifications of their election. In some States a property qualification is required—in some, not. One State requires one duration of residence within the State-another, another duration. The States are entirely sovereign in this election.

And to show you how entirely independent the States are in this particular, I will mention the fact that the States have power to annihilate the general government, by refusing to send members to the United States Congress, or by refusing to choose presidential electors.*

* If a certain number of the States should refuse to send senators to the General Congress, the General Government would fall by the lack of a constitutional quorum, and there is no way of compelling these States to send their senators. And should the Senate proceed without a quorum it would violate the constitution, and all its acts would be null and void. It would not be a Senate. and its doings would possess no legal claim to the obedience of the people.

And so, if a certain number of States should refuse to choose Presidential Electors, the General Government would fall for the want of an Executive head. Terrible as such a state of things would be, there is no remedy provided by the constitution.

The reason is this-our Government is based upon the voluntary principle, upon the consent of the governed, and our fathers could discover no way of pre. serving that principle, and, at the same time, of adopting the monarchical principle of compelling States against their own legislative will.

On this account we hear many say that our fathers formed a government which was "a rope of sand." By no means. The very strength of a Republic is in the faithful adherence of all parties to the voluntary principle. Our fathers saw that no other principle could possibly exist with a republic, for the Norman force principle, as Mr. Hamilton pointed out in the Convention, "would bring the nation at war with itself, and prove the dissolution of the Union." This Government proved itself to be not a rope of sand, while all the parties to