Imágenes de páginas

Mitchell, of Philadelphia, Pa.; C. I. Bradley, of Rhode Island; John W. May, deceased, of Boston, Mass.; James McM. Shafter, of California; Hugh Buchanan, of Newnan, Ga.; Hiram A. Gillett, of Valparaiso, Ind. ; Matthew Hale, of Albany, N.Y.; George Denison, of St. Louis, Mo.; L. Crounse, Nebraska. College Presidents, Sidney H. Marsh, deceased, of Salem, Or.; Israel W. Andrews, of Marietta, Ohio. Professors, Dr. Francis Lieber, deceased, of New York; and James Denison, of the National Deaf Mute College, Washington, D.C. The Hon. John C. Hurd, New York; Francis L. Barlow, New York; W. G. De Saussure, Charleston, S.C.; James M. Barrett, Cincinnati, Ohio; Edward Cantwell, Wilmington, N. C.; Edward I. Golladay, Nashville, Tenn.; W. O. Tuggle, Georgia; B. D. Silliman, New York; William P. Wells, Detroit, Mich. ; Edward Russell, Leavenworth, Kan. ; R. D. Benedict, New York; H. F. Prentiss, deceased, Milwaukee, Wis.; J. Hammond Trumbull, Hartford, Conn.; H. B. Dawson, New York; Charles E. Gorman, Providence, R. I. ; George S. Denison, deceased, New Orleans; John H. Sahler, Omaha, Neb.; W. P. Ballinger, Austin, Tex.; W. W. Wilshire, Little Rock, Ark.; R. N. Ely, Atlanta, Ga.; S. B. McCracken, Detroit, Mich.; and R. T. Merrick, deceased, Washington, D. C., Esquires. Charles Reed, late State Librarian of Vermont, and John Langdon Sibley, deceased, late Librarian of Harvard College, Cambridge, Mass., and the Secretaries of State of nearly all the States in the Union. To those gentlemen the thanks of the author are due for many and valued courtesies in supplying him with detailed information and often with important documents. JOHN A. JAMESON.

Chicago, May, 1887.



of SovieReignty.

Direct manifestations through public opinion, and through the irregular exhibi-

tion of power. § 23.

Indirect manifestations of sovereignty, through governmental agencies, as, the

electors, the legislative, executive, and judicial departments, and the Constitu-

tional Convention. $ 24. -

Relative rank of these five systems of agencies. § 24.

The doctrine of constitutional presumptions stated. § 25.

Corollaries by their aid deduced from the foregoing principles. § 25.

The location of sovereignty, as a question of fact: —

I. In foreign states. § 26.

II. In the United States of America. §§ 27–53.

(a). The question considered from the point of view of the elementary

principles above developed. §§ 27–29.

The definition of sovereignty considered and applied. § 27.

The marks or tests of sovereignty, given by Austin, applied. § 28.

The additional marks or tests before stated, applied. § 29.

•(b). The question considered from the point of view of historical

facts and principles tending to determine the question of Amer-

ican nationality. §§ 30–50.

What it is to be a nation. § 30.

What it is not to be a nation. § 31.

In the light of these definitions, that the United States consti-

tute a nation, inferred— -

1. From the fact, that, in their development, there is ob-

servable a perfect conformity to the method of Na-

ture in the genesis of nations. §§ 32–35.

The method of Nature exemplified. §§ 33, 34.

Capital steps in the progress of the United States, speci-

fied. §§ 34, 35.

2. From the mode of ratification of the Federal Consti-

tution. §§ 36–38. - -

View of the “States Rights School.” $ 37. -

Observations on the mode of ratification adopted. § 38.

3. From the expressed opinions of contemporary states-

men, friends as well as enemies of the Constitution.

§§ 39–41.

4. From the arguments employed to defeat the Federal
Constitution in the Conventions called to ratify it.
§§ 42–45.

5. From judicial decisions and the opinions of statesmen,

historians, and publicists subsequent to the establish-

ment of the Constitution. §§ 46–48.

Opinion of Mr. Justice Wilson, of the Supreme Court

of the United States. $46.

Opinions of Washington, Dr. Ramsay, C. C. Pinckney,

and Charles Pinckney. § 47.

Opinions of Mr. Grimke, Chancellor Kent, John Quincy

Adams, and Judge Story. § 48.

Opinion, expressed by Madison, that the States never

were sovereign. § 49.

Decision to the same effect by the Supreme Court of

the United States. § 50. *

Observations on the foregoing authorities, and conclu-

(sion stated, that sovereignty resides in the American

people, or nation. § 51.

The question of allegiance and of State sovereignty

considered. § 52. -

Qualified allegiance, as due to the States, absurd. $53.

Allegiance due to the people of the United States only.

- §§ 52, 53.

How sovereignty inheres in the people of the United States, §§ 54–61.

Two answers to the question, namely: –

(a.) That sovereignty resides in the people, considered simply, that is, as a

unit, without State or other internal discriminations; and

(b.) That it resides in the people only as discriminated into, and acting in,

groups, by States. §§ 54—61.

The exercise of sovereignty distinguished from the possession of origi-

nal sovereign powers. § 55.

The regular distinguished from the irregular, though possible, exercise

of sovereignty. § 56.

Application of these principles to the United States. § 57.

Judging by the regular exercise of sovereignty under the Federal

Constitution, sovereignty resides in the people of the United States

as discriminated into groups, by States. § 57.

Judging by the possible exercise of sovereignty, that power resides in

the people simply, without State or other internal discriminations.-

§ 57. --

The capacity in which the States, under the existing Federal Constitution,

exercise sovereignty, - sometimes in that of State Governments, and some-

times in that of subordinate peoples, together constituting the American

nation. §§ 58, 59.

View of John Austin. § 60.

View of Dr. Brownson. § 61.

Meaning of the term “sovereign” when used in reference to the States

of the Union. § 62.

The term “Constitution ” defined. Constitutions discriminated into two

kinds—Constitutions as organic growths, and Constitutions as instruments of

ecidence. § 63.

Constitutions “as they ought to be,” framed for imaginary commonwealths,
contrasted with Constitutions as organic growths. § 64.

I. Nature of Constitutions, as organic growths, considered; and herein, prin-

« AnteriorContinuar »