Page images
PDF
EPUB

dividuals generally, and not people as That the Constitution regards itself in

forming States; and that United States was used in a geographical and not a political sense, made out an argument of some plausibility, in favor of the conclusion that "we, the people of the United States of America," meant the aggregate population of the States regarded en masse, and not in their distinctive character as forming separate political communities. But in this gratuitous assumption, and the conclusion drawn from it, they overlooked the stubborn fact, that the very people who ordained and established the constitution, are identically the same who ratified it; for it was by the act of ratification alone that it was or dained and established, as has been conclusively shown. This fact, of itself, sweeps away every vestige of the argument drawn from the ambiguity of those terms, as used in the preamble.

In

the light of a compact, still existing between the States, after it was ordained and established; that it regards the union, then existing, as still existing; and the several States, of course, still members of it, in their original character of confederated States, is clear. Its seventh article, so often referred to, in connection with the arguments drawn from the preamble, sufficiently establishes all these points, without adducing others; except that which relates to the continuance of the union. To establish this, it will not be necessary to travel out of the preamble and the letter of the convention, laying the plan of the Constitution before the Congress of the confederation. enumerating the objects for which the Constitution was ordained and established, the preamble places at the head of the rest, as its leading object-" to form a more perfect union." So far, then, are the terms "ordained and established" from being incompatible with the union, or having the effect of destroying it, the Constitution itself declares that it was intended "to form a more perfect union." This, of itself, is sufficient to refute the assertion of their incompatibility. But it is proper here to remark that it could not have been intended, by the expression in the preamble, "to form a more perfect union," to declare that the old was abolished, and a new and more perfect union established in its place: for we have the authority of the convention which formed the Constitution, to prove that their object was to continue the then existing I do not deem it necessary to discuss union. In their letter, laying it before the question whether there is any compat- Congress, they say, "In all our deliberibility between the terms "ordained and ations on this subject, we kept steadily established" and that of "compact," on in our view that which appears to us the which the whole argument rests; although greatest interest of every true American, it would be no difficult task to show that the consolidation of our union." "Our it is a gratuitous assumption, without any union" can refer to no other than the foundation whatever for its support. It then existing union, the old union of is sufficient for my purpose to show that the confederacy, and of the revoluthe assumption is wholly inconsistent with tionary government which preceded it. the Constitution itself-as much so, as of which these States were confederated the conclusion drawn from it has been members. This must, of course, have shown to be inconsistent with the opinion of the convention which formed it. Very little will be required, after what has been already stated, to establish what I propose.

They next rely, in support of their theory, on the expression, ordained and established this Constitution." They admit that the Constitution, in its incipient state, assumed the form of a compact; but contend that “ordained and established," as applied to the Constitution and government, are incompatible with the idea of compact; that, consequently, the instrument or plan lost its federative character when it was ordained and established as a Constitution; and, thus, the States ceased to be parties to a compact, and members of a confederated union, and became fused into one common community, or nation, as subordinate and dependent divisions or corporations.

been the union to which the framers referred in the preamble. It was this, accordingly, which the Constitution intended to make more perfect; just as the confederacy made more perfect that of the

revolutionary government. Nor is there But however strong be the proofs of anything in the term "consolidation," used its federal character derived from this by the convention, calculated to weaken the conclusion. It is a strong expression; but as strong as it is, it certainly was not intended to imply the destruction of the union, as it is supposed to do by the advocates of a national government; for that would have been incompatible with the context, as well as with the continuance of the union, which the sentence and the entire letter imply. Interpreted, then, in conjunction with the expression used in the preamble, “to form a more perfect union," although it may more strongly intimate closeness of connection, it can imply nothing incompatible with the professed object of perfecting the union, still less a meaning and effect wholly inconsistent with the nature of a confederated community. For to adopt the interpretation contended for, to its full extent, would be to destroy the union, and not to consolidate and perfect it.

source, that portion which provides for the amendment of the Constitution, furnishes, if possible, still stronger. It shows, conclusively, that the people of the several States still retain that supreme ultimate power called sovereignty—the power by which they ordained and established the Constitution; and which can rightfully create, modify, amend, or abolish it, at its pleasure. Wherever this power resides, there the sovereignty is to be found. That it still continues to exist in the several States, in a modified form, is clearly shown by the fifth article of the Constitution, which provides for its amendment. By its provisions, Congress may propose amendments, on its own authority, by the vote of two-thirds of both Houses; or it may be compelled to call a convention to propose them, by twothirds of the legislatures of the several States: but, in either case, they remain, when thus made, mere proposals of no validity, until adopted by three-fourths of the States, through their respective

If we turn from the preamble and the ratifications, to the body of the Constitution, we shall find that it furnishes most conclusive proof that the government is legislatures; or by conventions, called by federal, and not national. I can discover nothing, in any portion of it, which gives the least countenance to the opposite conclusion. On the contrary, the instrument, in all its parts, repels it. It is, throughout, federal. It everywhere recognizes the existence of the States, and invokes their aid to carry its powers into execution. In one of the two Houses of Congress the members are elected by the legislatures of their respective States; and in the other by the people of the several States, not as composing mere districts of one great community, but as distinct and independent communities. General Washington vetoed the first act apportioning the members of the House of Representatives among the several States, under the first census, expressly on the ground that the act assumed, as its basis, the former and not the latter construction. The President and Vice-President are chosen by electors, appointed by their respective States; and, finally, the judges are appointed by the President and the Senate; and, of course, as these are elected by the States, they are appointed through their agency.

them for the purpose. Thus far, the several States, in ordaining and establishing the Constitution, agreed, for their mutual convenience and advantage, to modify, by compact, their high sovereign power of creating and establishing constitutions, as far as it related to the Constitution and government of the United States. I say, for their mutual convenience and advantage; for without the modification, it would have required the separate consent of all the States of the Union to alter or amend their constitutional compact; in like manner as it required the consent of all to establish it between them; and to obviate the almost insuperable difficulty of making such amendments as time and experience might prove to be necessary, by the unanimous consent of all, they agreed to make the modification. But that they did not intend, by this, to divest themselves of the high sovereign right (a right which they still retain, notwithstanding the modification) to change or abolish the present Constitution and government at their pleasure, cannot be doubted. It is an acknowledged principle, that sovereigns

ports on the foreign trade in the fiscal year ending June 30, 1900, showed at the ports of Humboldt, Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco, imports of merchandise, $49,441,831; exports, $43,361,078; imports of gold and silver coin and bullion, $13,734,348; exports, $9,528,309. The production of the precious metals in the calendar year of 1899 was: Gold, $15,197,800; silver, $494,580. In 1900 the total assessed valuation of taxable property was $1,218,228,588, and the total bonded debt was $2,281,500, nearly all of which was held in State educational funds. The population in 1890 was 1,208,130; in 1900, 1,485,053.

may, by compact, modify or qualify the a remarkable development of other minexercise of their power, without impair- eral resources, especially petroleum. Reing their sovereignty; of which the confederacy existing at the time furnishes a striking illustration. It must reside, unimpaired and in its plenitude, somewhere. And if it do not reside in the people of the several States, in their confederated character, where so far as it relates to the Constitution and government of the United States-can it be found? Not, certainly, in the government; for, according to our theory, sovereignty resides in the people, and not in the government. That it cannot be found in the people, taken in the aggregate, as forming one community or nation, is equally certain. But as certain as it cannot, just so certain is it that it must reside in the people of the several States; and if it reside in them at all, it must reside in them as separate and distinct communities; for it has been shown that it does not reside in them in the aggregate, as forming one community or nation. These are the only aspects under which it is possible to regard the people; and, just as certain as it resides in them, in that character, so certain is it that ours is a federal, and not a national government. California, the largest of the Pacific coast States; noted for its admirable climate, its production of gold, its large commerce, and its great yield of fruit,

[subsumed][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]

which now finds a market even in Europe. In recent years the production of gold has decreased, but there has been

11.-C

In 1534 HERNANDO CORTEZ (q. v.) sent Hernando de Grijalva on an errand of discovery to the Pacific coast, who probably saw the peninsula of California. Twenty-five years before the Spanish leader discovered the country, a romance was published in Spain in which are described the doings of a pagan queen of Amazons, who brought from the right hand of the Indies" her allies to assist the infidels in their attack upon Constantinople. The romance was entitled Esplandian, the name of an imaginary Greek emperor, living in Stamboul, the ancient name of Constantinople. The Amazonian queen was named Calafia, whose kingdom, rich in gold, diamonds, and pearls, was called California. The author probably derived the name from Calif, the title of a successor of Mohammed. The author says: "Know that on the right hand of the Indies there is an island, called California, very close to the Terrestrial Paradise, and it was peopled by black women without any man among them, for they lived in the fashion of the Amazonia. They were of strong and hardy bodies, of ardent courage, and of great force. Their island was the strongest in all the world, with its steep cliffs and rocky shore. Their arms were all of gold, and so was the harness of the wild beasts which they tamed and rode. For in the whole island there was no metal but gold. They lived in caves wrought out of the rocks with much labor. They had many ships with which they sailed out to other countries to obtain booty." Both 33

[graphic]
[graphic][merged small]

Cortez and Grijalva believed, as everybody then believed, that they were in the neighborhood of the coast of Asia; and, as the aspect of the country corresponded with the description in the romance, they named the peninsula California. In the Gulf of California were found pearls; so the description of the country of the black Amazons-a country filled with gold and pearls-suited the actual condition of the region explored.

Although parts of the present territory of the State are believed to have been discovered about 1534, settlements in Old or Lower California were first made in 1683 by Jesuit missionaries. New or Upper California was discovered later, and the first mission there (San Diego) was planted in 1768. For many years the government of California, temporal and spiritual, was under the control of monks of the Order of St. Francis. It was not until about 1770 that the Bay of San Francisco was discovered, and in 1776 a mission was established there. At the beginning of the nineteenth century eighteen missions had been established in California, with over 15,000 converts. The

Spanish power in California was overthrown by the Mexican revolution in 1822, when the government was permanently seeularized. In 1843-46 many thousand emigrants from the United States settled in California; and when the war with Mexico broke out in 1846, the struggle for the mastery in that Pacific coast province speedily ended in victory for the Americans in 1847. By the treaty of peace at GUADALUPE HIDALGO (q. v.), California and other territory were ceded to the United States. In the month of February, 1848, gold was discovered in California, on the Sacramento River, by John W. Marshall, who was working for JOHN A. SUTTER (q. v.), and as the news spread abroad, thousands of enterprising and energetic men flocked thither, not only from the United States, but from South America, Europe, and China, to secure the precious metal. Very soon there was a mixed population of all sorts of characters in California of at least 250,000 persons. The military governor called a convention to meet at Monterey, Sept. 1, 1849, to frame a State constitution. One was formed by which slavery was to be excluded from the

new State; and this document revived in Congress, in great intensity, debates on the subject of slavery in 1849-50. See KEARNY, STEPHEN WATTS; STOCKTON, ROBERT FIELD.

Prior to the assembly of the constitutional convention the people of California, in convention at San Francisco, had voted against the admission of the slave-labor system in that country. The constitution adopted at Monterey also had a provision to exclude slavery from the State. Thus came into political form the crude elements of a State, the birth and maturity of which seems like a strange dream. All had been accomplished within twenty months from the time when gold was discovered at Sutter's Mill. Under this constitution JOHN CHARLES FREMONT (q. v.), and WILLIAM GWYNN (q. v.) were chosen by the State legislature United States Senators. Edward Gilbert and G. H. Wright were elected to the House of Representatives. When Frémont and Gwynn went to Washington, they took the State constitution with them, and presented a petition (February, 1850) asking for the admission of California into the Union as a free and independent State. The article in its constitution which excluded slavery became a cause of violent debate in Congress and of bitter feeling in the South against the people of the North. The Union, so strong in the hearts of the people, was shaken to its centre. Mr. Clay again appeared as a compromiser for the sake of peace and union. It seemed that some compromise was needed to avoid serious difficulty, for already the representatives of the slave interest had taken action, and the Southern members in Congress boldly declared their intention to break up the Union if California should be admitted under such a constitution. A joint resolution was adopted to appoint a committee of thirteen (six Northern and six Southern members, who should choose the thirteenth) to consider the subject of a territorial government for California, New

Mexico, and Utah, with instructions to report a plan of compromise embracing all the questions thus arising out of the subject of slavery. Henry Clay was made chairman of that committee. He had already presented (Jan. 25, 1850) a plan of compromise to the South, and spoke eloquently in favor of it (Feb. 5); and on May 8 he reported a plan of compromise in a series of bills, intended to be a pacification. This was called the OMNIBUS BILL (q. v.). It made large concessions to the slave-holders, and yet it was not satisfactory to them. For months a violent discussion of the compromise act was carried on throughout the country, and it was denounced upon diametrically opposite grounds. It finally became a law, and on Sept. 9, 1850, California was admitted into the Union as a State.

So lawless were a large class of the population at this time, that nothing but the swift operations of "Vigilance Committees" could control them and preserve social order. The first vigilance committee of San Francisco was organized in 1851. Finally, these committees assumed

[graphic]

CATHEDRAL ROCKS, YOSEMITE VALLEY.

« PreviousContinue »