Yet,even within those limits,he has brought together a variety of historical facts of great interest,and has presented them in a condensed form,well calculated to make a lasting impression on the memory.The brief sketch which he has given of the settlement of the several colonies,and of the charters from which they derived their rights and powers as separate governments,contains much to enable us to understand fully the relation which they bore to one another and to the mother country.This is the true starting point in the investigation of those vexed questions of constitutional law which have so long divided political parties in the United States.It would seem almost impossible that any two opinions could exist upon the subject;and yet the historical facts,upon which alone all parties must rely,although well authenticated and comparatively recent,have not been understood by all men alike.Our author was well aware of the importance of settling this question at the threshold of his work.Many of the powers which have been claimed for the Federal Government,by the political party to which he belongs,depend upon a denial of that separate existence,and separate sovereignty and independence,which the opposing party has uniformly claimed for the States.It is,therefore,highly important to the correct settlement of this controversy,that we should ascertain the precise political condition of the several colonies prior to the Revolution.This will enable us to determine how far Judge Story has done justice to his subject,in the execution of the first part of his plan;and by tracing the colonies from their first establishment as such,through the various stages of their progress up to the adoption of the Federal Constitution,we shall be greatly aided in forming a correct opinion as to the true character of that instrument.
It appears to be a favorite object of Judge Story to impress upon the mind of the reader,at the very commencement of his work,the idea that the people of the several colonies were,as to some objects,which he has not explained,and to some extent which he has not defined,"one people."This is not only plainly inferable from the general scope of the book,but is expressly asserted in the following passage "But although the colonies were independent of each other in respect to their domestic concerns,they were not wholly alien to each other.On the contrary,they were fellow-subjects,and for many purposes one people.Every colonist had a right to inhabit,if he pleased,in any other colony,and as a British subject he was capable of inheriting lands by descent in every other colony.The commercial intercourse of the colonies,too,was regulated by the general laws of the British empire,and could not be restrained or obstructed by colonial legislation.
The remarks of Mr.Chief Justice Jay are equally just and striking:"All the people of this country were then subjects of the King of Great Britain,and owed allegiance to him,and all the civil authority then existing or exercised here flowed from the head of the British empire.They were in a strict sense fellow-subjects and in a variety of respects one people.
When the Revolution commenced,the patriots did not assert that only the same affinity and social connection subsisted between the people of the colonies,which subsisted between the people of Gaul,Britain,and Spain,while Roman provinces,to wit,only that affinity and social connection which results from the mere circumstance of being governed by the same prince.'"
In this passage the author takes his ground distinctly and boldly.The first idea suggested by the perusal of it is,that he discerned very clearly the necessity of establishing his position,but did not discern quite so clearly by what process of reasoning he was to accomplish it.If the passage stood alone,it would be fair to suppose that he did not design to extend the idea of a unity among the people of the colonies beyond the several particulars which he has enumerated.Justice to him requires that we should suppose this;for,if it had been otherwise,he would scarcely have failed to support his opinion by pointing out some one of the "many purposes,"
for which the colonies were,in his view of them,"one people."The same may be said of Mr.Chief Justice Jay.He also has specified several particulars in which he supposed this unity to exist,and arrives at the conclusion,that the people of the several colonies were,"in a variety of respects,one people."In what respect they were "one,"except those which he has enumerated,he does not say and of course it is fair to presume that he meant to rest the justness of his conclusion upon them alone.The historical facts stated by both of these gentlemen are truly stated;but it is surprising that it did not occur to such cool reasoners,that every one of them is the result of the relation between the colonies and the mother country,and not the result of the relation between the colonies themselves.Every British subject,whether born in England proper or in a colony,has a right to reside anywhere within the British realm;and this by the force of British laws.Such is the right of every Englishman,wherever he may be found.
