canee, than that of asserting that as all the powers of government being derived from the people, the States, before ratifying the Constitution, had been authorized to do so by the people of the several States in con ventions assembled. The expression was so understood at the time. The vigilant eye of Patrick Henry, who was ever on guard over American liber ties, when the document was presented for ratification in the Virginia convention, im mediately detected the words, " We the people," and gave warning that they would some day be used to misinterpret the nature and functions of the Constitution. The words, " This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof etc., shall be the supreme law of the land etc.," occurring in the sixth article of the Constitution, have al ways been a rallying point to which " Na tionals " have resorted to defend their claim that all ultimate paramount authority resides in a central government. In that war of Titans — the contest in the United States Senate, January 22, 1833, be tween Daniel Webster and John C. Calhoun over the nullification resolutions of South Carolina, Mr. Webster dwelt with a great emphasis upon the sporadic expressions in the preamble and sixth article. Through the sheer power of eloquence he fixed upon them a meaning and importance never before claimed or intended. Of all the statesmen of his day, no other enjoyed the confidence of the people, North and South, to a greater degree than Daniel Webster. He was justly regarded by the people of both sections as a patriot of the highest order. To him, perhaps next to the advent of the Messiah, no other event ap peared more fraught with blessings to the human race than the creation of the Ameri can Union. Embracing and safeguarding so much of human rights and civil liberties, he looked upon this fabric of the fathers with an admiration akin to that of the Evangelist
in Patmos, beholding in vision the New Jeru salem. From a heart welling with love for the Union issued the impassioned utterances of that memorable speech. But it was vain for him to base an argu ment in support of centralism upon desul tory expressions in the written instrument. The mighty waves of his eloquence pounded against these stubborn, immovable rocks — the facts of the Constitution's history. To the invincible array of facts presented by Mr. Calhoun, and the deductions of his marvellous logic, Mr. Webster made no specific reply; and, while the issues of that debate have since been settled by the war as far as secession is concerned, the argu ment of Mr. Calhoun has never been an swered by the processes of reason. It was the misfortune of Mr. Calhoun that he applied his well-proven case of State sovereignty to the indefensible doctrine of nullification — a procedure which contem plated the right of a State to remain within the Union, in the enjoyment of its benefits and protection, while acting in defiance of its laws. Mr. Webster subsequently receded from the extreme views uttered in this debate, and almost conceded all Mr. Calhoun had claimed as to the federal character of the Constitu tion and the rights of the States. In the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Bank of Augusta v. Earl (13 Peters' Reports, p. 559), he said: "The Constitution treats States as States, and the United States as the United States, and by a careful enumeration, declares all the powers that are granted to the United States, and all the rest are reserved to the States"; and again, "the States of the Union, as States, are subject to all the sove reignty and customary law of nations." In his speech at Capon Springs, Virginia, June 28, 1851, replying to a toast, "The Union and the States," he said : " How absurd it is to suppose that when different parties enter into a compact for certain pur
