THE CONSTITUTION AND ITS INTERPRETATION.
The Constitution is not what it ought to be, not what we wish it to
be; not what is consistent with sound morals, but simply what its
words meant in 1789,--nothing more, nothing less.
The Constitution of the United States was drawn up by a Convention, of
which Washington was president. The people, assembled in their State
Conventions, adopted the draft, because it aptly expressed the kind of
union they wished to have, because it fully and exactly expressed their
meaning. In order, therefore, to ascertain the character of our
political union with the Slave States, we have only to ascertain the
true meaning of the words of the Constitution, or their plain, obvious,
and common meaning, at the time the Constitution was adopted. Every
writer who wishes to be understood uses his words in their usual
signification. Every one supposes that we mean just what our words
commonly mean now. When we read Chaucer, or Shakspeare, or Dr. Johnson,
we understand him to mean just what his words commonly meant at the time
he wrote, unless such meaning is repelled or qualified by the context,
in which case we adopt this new or qualified meaning. In like manner,
the people of the United States are to be understood to mean, by the
words of the Constitution, just what those words commonly meant when the
Constitution was adopted, unless such meaning is repelled or qualified
by the context; in which case, a regard for truth obliges us to adopt
this new or qualified meaning.
This simple, true, and universally practised rule is thus laid down by
Judge Story (Comm. on Const. Abr. Sec. 210):--
"Every word employed in the Constitution is to be expounded in its
plain, obvious, and common sense, unless the context furnishes some
ground to control, qualify, or enlarge it. Constitutions are not
designed for metaphysical or logical subtleties, for niceties of
expression, for critical propriety, for elaborate shades of meaning,
or for the exercise of philosophical acuteness or juridical
research. They are instruments of a practical nature, founded on the
common business of human life, adapted to common wants, designed for
common use, and fitted for common understandings. The people make
them; the people adopt them; the people must be supposed to read
them, with the help of common sense; and cannot be presumed to admit
in them any recondite meaning, or any extraordinary gloss."--Sec.
212: "Where technical words are used, the technical meaning is to be
applied to them, unless it is repelled by the context. But the same
word often possesses a technical and a common sense. In such a case,
the latter is to be preferred, unless some attendant circumstance
points clearly to the former."
The Constitution was also framed and adopted with reference to the
actual political, social, and local condition of the people. It grew out
of their wants and wishes. The steps which finally led to its adoption
grew out of one of the many defects in the articles of confederation.
Consequently, to arrive at the true meaning of the Constitution, we must
bear in mind the political, social, and local condition of the people at
the time of its adoption, and, among many other similar facts, the very
general existence of domestic slavery.[V]
Keeping in view these, the very simplest rules of interpretation, we
will show what the Constitution is according to the common meaning of
its terms; what its framers intended to make it; what, in point of fact,
it has been considered to be in the practice of the government; and,
finally, what it has been adjudged to mean by that body which it has
itself pointed out as the final arbiter of its meaning. And, if all
these unite in giving the Constitution but one character, we, as
reasonable men, seeking the truth, cannot deny that such is its true
character.