new governments of their own choice, they were eareful to provide for the secure and permanent enjoyment of these their natural rights, and of the civil privileges designed for their maintenance, or substituted as their equivalents. As additional safeguards for their protection, they established, moreover, those great engines of modern opinions, freedom of speech and the liberty of the press, uncontrolled by any but proper moral restraints. But while some of the states expressly recognised, and others tactily accepted, as a part of their municipal code, those portions of the common law which had been previously in force in the colonies, and were now farther modified by the change of government, they universally abolished, either by their constitutions, or by statutes deemed fundamental, that feature of the English system of real property which, in its character of a mere civil regulation, is, nevertheless, like most others of the same feudal origin, powerfully and essentially political in its effects-I mean the right of PRIMOGENITURE. This harsh and inequitable regulation, which, indeed, is not peculiar to England, but prevails in most of the feudal monarchies of Europe, was rèjected in all the American States, and each state enacted its own law of descents, differing, indeed, in their details, but agreeing in the general principle of equal distribution.

The frequent violation of the natural and social rights of the colonists by both king and Parliament, and the repeated denials of redress, were set forth in the Declaration of Independence as the cause and justification of dissolving the mutual ties of sovereignty and allegiance; and upon forming the state constitutions, these rights were in some form or other, and with a greater or less degree of particularity and precision, enumerated, and declared inalienable, and reserved inviolably to every citizen.

Such were the institutions of the several states, and such the rights of their individual citizens, when they conjointly became parties to the federal compact. The same great principle of representation, which had been imbodied in the state constitutions, was adopted as the foundation of the new government established for the Union; and the same natural, political, and civil rights and privileges which had been declared to be the inalienable inheritance of the people, as citizens of the respective states, were asserted to belong to them as citizens of the Union; among which, as we have seen, are included such provisions of the common law as were applicable to their situation and circumstances. There are, besides, many recognitions of the existence, at least, of the common law, both in the Constitution of the United States, and in the articles by which it has been amended; and both contain frequent references to the principles, provisions, and terms peculiar to that system of jurisprudence.

It has, nevertheless, been a subject of much discussion, whether the United States, in their national capacity, have actually adopted it; and to what extent, if at all, it may be considered as forming a part of the national jurisprudence. But whatever may be the doubts—whether the common law, in its broadest sense, and to the same extent, mutatis mutandis, as it prevails in England, was recognised as the common law of the Union-it cannot be denied that it forms the substratum of the laws of all the original members of the confederacy; nor that the Constitution of the United States, as well as the constitutions and laws of the several states, were made in reference to the pre-existing validity of the common law, in the colonial and state governments. In many cases, the language of these public acts would be inex

plicable without recourse to the common law of Eng. land; and not only is the existence of that system supposed by the Constitution of the United States, but it is constantly appealed to for the construction of powers granted to the Federal Government. The general question, however, as to the application and influence of the system, in reference to our national institutions, has not been settled upon clear and definite principles, and may still be regarded, especially in civil cases, as open for farther judicial investigation. The prevailing opinion at present seems to be, that, under the Federal Government, the common law, considered as a source of jurisdiction, was never in force, but considered merely as a means or instrument of exercising the jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution, it does exist in full validity, and forms a safe and beneficial portion of our national code.

The Constitution erected on this basis, and from these materials, is declared, by its preamble, to be "ordained and established by the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity." By the terms, therefore, of this compact, the states are no longer known to each other merely in their sovereign and corporate capacities; but, without destroying their previous organization, the people of the respective states united with each other in founding a new government, operating directly on themselves as individuals, for the attainment of objects for which neither the states separately, nor the former confederation had been found competent. The principle of representation is applied in it, not only to the individual citizens of the respective states as citizens of the United States,

but also to the individual states themselves; and it pervades the three great departments of which the government consists.

Besides a general delegation of the legislative, executive, and judicial powers to distinct departments, so far as necessary to effect the purposes of national union, the Constitution specially defines the powers and duties of each of those branches of the government. This was essential to peace and safety, in a government invested with specific powers for national objects, and formed from the union of several independent states, as well as of the individuals composing them; each of the former yielding for that purpose the requisite portion only of its sovereignty, while they retained the executive control of their local concerns.

In analyzing the Federal Constitution, it may therefore be considered, as has already been indicated, under two principal points of view, viz. :

First. With regard to the particular structure and organization of the government, and the distribution of its powers among the several branches, in reference to which, the necessary provisions for their organization into separate departments, for making, executing, and expounding the laws; for rendering efficient those powers, and for confining them to their respective spheres, as well as for ascertaining the limits between the national and state jurisdictions, are all contained in that instrument. Besides which, it comprises the necessary regulations in respect,

Secondly. To the nature, extent, and limitation of the powers conferred on the government of the Union, and the restraints imposed on the state governments.

All the powers requisite to secure the objects of national union are vested in the Federal Government, while those powers only, which are not essen

tial to these objects are reserved to the state governments, or to the people. In all other respects, the sovereignty of the individual states remains unaltered. The respective obligations of duty and allegiance to them are unimpaired, except that, in all cases within the range of its jurisdiction, the higher obligations of duty and allegiance to the General Government necessarily supersedes that which would otherwise have remained to the separate states. From the nature of the case, the national and state sovereignties cannot be coequal; for two governments of concurrent right and authority in every respect, cannot exist in the same society. The supremacy was, consequently, conferred on the Federal Government, as the government of the whole, rather than on the governments of the constituent parts; otherwise, the establishment of the former, instead of "promoting domestic tranquillity," would have produced perpetual discord and disorder. The Con vention therefore declared, in the name of the people, that the "Constitution, and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties” made under the authority of the Union, should be the supreme law of the land.

The powers thus conferred on the government of the United States may be reduced to different classes, as they relate to different objects, each of which will be the subject of distinct, full, and particular investigation, under their appropriate heads and subdivis ions. But from the view already presented of the fundamental principles of the Federal Government, in connexion with the general outline exhibited of its organization, it may be perceived that the Constitution of the United States was erected on the foundation of those inalienable rights, which the people of the several states derive, in common with all man