e 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 singl