of a delinquent State, the deficiency of its contribution.  But this would be war; and it was evident that a confederacy could not long hold together, which should be at war with its members.  The Constitution was adopted to avoid this necessity.  It was adopted that there might be a government which should act directly on individuals, without borrowing aid from the State governments.  This is clear as light itself on the very face of the provisions of the Constitution, and its whole history tends to the same conclusion.  Its framers gave this very reason for their work in the most distinct terms.  Allow me to quote but one or two proofs, out of hundreds.  That State, so small in territory, but so distinguished for learning and talent, Connecticut, had sent to the general Convention, among other members, Samuel Johnston and Oliver Ellsworth.  The Constitution having been framed, it was submitted to a convention of the people of Connecticut for ratification on the part of that State; and Mr. Johnston and Mr. Ellsworth were also members of this convention.  On the first day of the debates, being called on to explain the reasons which led the Convention at Philadelphia to recommend such a Constitution, after showing the insufficiency of the existing confederacy, inasmuch as it applied to States, as States, Mr. Johnston proceeded to say:—­

“The Convention saw this imperfection in attempting to legislate for States in their political capacity, that the coercion of law can he exercised by nothing but a military force.  They have, therefore, gone upon entirely new ground.  They have formed one new nation out of the individual States.  The Constitution vests in the general legislature a power to make laws in matters of national concern; to appoint judges to decide upon these laws; and to appoint officers to carry them into execution.  This excludes the idea of an armed force.  The power which is to enforce these laws is to be a legal power, vested in proper magistrates.  The force which is to be employed is the energy of law; and this force is to operate only upon individuals who fail in their duty to their country.  This is the peculiar glory of the Constitution, that it depends upon the mild and equal energy of the magistracy for the execution of the laws.”

In the further course of the debate, Mr. Ellsworth said:—­

“In republics it is a fundamental principle, that the majority govern, and that the minority comply with the general voice.  How contrary, then, to republican principles, how humiliating, is our present situation!  A single State can rise up, and put a veto upon the most important public measures.  We have seen this actually take place; a single State has controlled the general voice of the Union; a minority, a very small minority, has governed us.  So far is this from being consistent with republican principles, that it is, in effect, the worst species of monarchy.