STATES' RIGHTS. 



581 



eliciting any discussion tending to show that any im- 

 portant interests were regarded as in any way con- 

 nected with their use or omission, and that the 

 change was formal merely, such as might have been 

 induced by the consideration that descriptive words 

 were not necessary to define the nature of a govern- 

 ment whose jurisdiction and powers had been fully 

 set forth in its constitution. 



It has been claimed in public discussion that the 

 plan of a national government was rejected by the 

 convention as inconsistent with the proper indepen- 

 dence of the States, but this is obviously an error. 

 Mr. Madison, whose report of the proceedings of the 

 convention is accepted as standard authority, was in 

 later years an advocate of the doctrine of States' 

 rights, and it is not to be assumed that he either in- 

 tentionally or accidentally suppressed so important 

 a feature of the discussion. The discussions and 

 action of the convention show that no other idea 

 than that of a national government was entertained ; 

 that the subjection of the people of the States to the 

 authority of the general government in all matters 

 committed to that government was fully intended to 

 be direct, so that the necessity of coercjng the polit- 

 ical governments of the States coulu never arise. 

 Such a direct governmental relation between the 

 general government and the people of the States 

 constitutes the authority exercisable through it as 

 sovereign, and that implies power to determine its 

 own limits of authority, subject only to the ultimate 

 right of popular revolution. 



The differences between those who adhered to a 

 strict and those who advocated a liberal construction 

 of the Constitution were brought into discussion in 

 the first Congress, in 1791, on the occasion of the 

 incorporation by Congress of the Bank of the United 

 States. Mr. Madison opposed the measure as beyond 

 the competency of Congress. It was claimed by the 

 advocates of the measure that such a financial insti- 

 tution was a necessary and proper means of enabling 

 the government to exercise the functions conferred 

 upon Congress by the Constitution. The position 

 assumed by Mr. Madison was that a case of strict 

 necessity must appear, to wan-ant the exercise of the 

 power as within the class of incidental powers, and 

 that it was not sufficient to justify its exercise that 

 the facilities afforded by such an institution would 

 be a convenience to the administration of the gov- 

 ernment. His view was that nothing was to bo 

 added by implication to the specific powers con- 

 ferred upon Congress unless such implication arose 

 out of actual necessity incident to the exercise of 

 such specific powers, and that the fitness of the 

 means proposed to attain its end was not the test of 

 the propriety of the implication, but the circum- 

 stance that without such means tho power could not 

 be properly exercised. The charter of the bank was 

 granted by Congress, and the institution was in op- 

 eration many years before the discussion as to the 

 validity of the authority under which its powers 

 were exercised again attracted general attention. 



In 1792 Mr. Madison opposed the granting by 

 Congress of bounties to promote the cod fisheries 

 upon the ground that it was not within the power of 

 Congress. It had been contended that the authority 

 of Congress to provide for the general welfare justi- 

 fied th i exercise of the power claimed. Mr. Madi- 

 son held that the authority of Congress to provide 

 for the general welfare was limited to pases in which 

 the general welfare was involved in some question 

 relating to the specific subjects committed to the 

 jurisdiction of that body. The discussion of this 

 construction was renewed at a later day under cir- 

 cumstances giving it a wider and more interesting 

 range, that will be mentioned. 



The passage by Congress of the laws known as the 

 Alien and Sedition laws was the first of a series of 



important public events that brought into general 

 discussion the nature and extent of the powers of Con- 

 gress, and the means possessed by the States for con- 

 fining the government of the United States within 

 its legitimate sphere and restraining it from encroach- 

 ments upon the reserved rights of the States, the 

 succeeding events being the attempted nullification 



! by South Carolina in 183'2 of certain revenue laws, 



I and the attempted secession from the Union of cer- 

 tain States in 1861. 



The popular sympathy which in this country was 

 ardently excited during the early stages of the French 

 revolution in behalf of the condition and aspirations 

 of our late ally gave place to apprehension for tho 

 safety of our own institutions and our amicable re- 

 lations to foreign powers, as the instability of popu- 

 lar institutions in France was made apparent. Dan- 

 ger was apprehended from intrigues engaged in by 

 resident aliens, and Congress authorized the Presi- 

 dent to remove from the United States aliens found 

 here, upon such evidence of public danger arising 

 from their presence as might be satisfactory to his 

 own mind. At the same time a law was passed by 

 Congress to punish sedition committed or attempted 

 in the United States and the publication of state- 

 ments and opinions hostile to the action of the gov- 

 ernment. 



The warmth of discussion that followed tho enact- 

 ment of these laws was not alone due to the fact 

 thaj; to many it seemed that Congress had designedly 

 overstepped the limits of its authority, and had en- 

 tered upon a scheme of consolidating the national 

 power by the destruction of tho liberties of the 



j States, but was due in part to the approaching politi- 

 cal crisis that transferred public authority from tho 

 hands of the Federalists to those who, under the name 

 of Republicans, were to control its destinies for many 

 years, and also in part to tho belief of many that the 

 laws in question overthrew certain barriers indis- 

 pensable for the protection of individual liberty, 

 such as the right of trial by jury, tho freedom of 

 speech, of the press, and of religion. 



The legislature of Kentucky in 1798 passed cer- 

 tain resolutions, of which tho firs 1 , containing tho 

 statement of principles on which they were based, 



j was as follows : 



"1. Resolved, That the several States composing; 

 the United States of America are not irniled on tho 



I principle of unlimited submission to their general 



' government ; but that, by compact, \mdcr the stylo 

 and title of a constitution for the United States, and 

 of amendments thereto, they constituted a general 



! government for special purposes, delegated to that 

 government certain definite powers, reserving, each 

 State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their 

 own self-government ; and that whensoever the gen- 

 eral government assumes undelegated powers, its 

 nets are unauthoritative, void, and of no force ; that 

 to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is 

 an integral party ; that this government, created by 

 this compact, was not the exclusive or final judge of 

 the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since 

 that would have made its discretion, and not tho 

 constitution, the measure of its powers ; but that, as 

 in all other cases of compact among parties, having 

 no common judge, each party has an equal right to 

 judge for itself as well of infractions as of the mode 

 and manner of redress." 



The remaining resolutions of the series declare 

 certain acts of Congress, including the alien and se- 

 dition laws, to be in excess of the authority of Con- 

 gress and void, as highly dangerous to the liberties 

 of the States and the people, that immediate redress 

 was demanded, and provide for the transmission of 

 the resolutions to Congress and to the other States. 



It is noticeable that these resolutions indicate no 

 mode of redress, although claiming that each State had 



