If anything could add to the disgust and detestation which the monstrous
falsifications of the constitution, already described, should excite
towards the court that resorts to them, it would be the fact that the
court, not content with falsifying to the utmost the constitution
itself, _goes outside of the constitution, to the tyrannical practices
of what it_ calls the "_sovereign_" governments of "_other civilized
nations_," to justify the same practices by our own.
It asserts, over and over again, the idea that our government is a
"_sovereign_" government; that it has the same rights of
"_sovereignty_," as the governments of "other civilized nations";
especially those in Europe.
What, then, is a "sovereign" government? It is a government that is
"sovereign" over all the natural rights of the people. This is the only
"sovereignty" that any government can be said to have. Under it, the
people have no _rights_. They are simply "subjects,"--that is, slaves.
They have but one law, and one duty, _viz._, obedience, submission. They
are not recognized as having any _rights_. They can claim nothing as
their own. They can only accept what the government chooses to give
them. The government owns them and their property; and disposes of them
and their property, at its pleasure, or discretion; without regard to
any consent, or dissent, on their part.
Such was the "sovereignty" claimed and exercised by the governments of
those, so-called, "civilized nations of Europe," that were in power in
1787, 1788, and 1789, when our constitution was framed and adopted, and
the government put in operation under it. And the court now says,
virtually, that the constitution intended to give to our government the
same "sovereignty" over the natural rights of the people, that those
governments had then.
But how did the "civilized governments of Europe" become possessed of
such "sovereignty"? Had the people ever granted it to them? Not at all.
The governments spurned the idea that they were dependent on the will or
consent of their people for their political power. On the contrary, they
claimed to have derived it from the only source, from which such
"sovereignty" could have been derived; that is, from God Himself.
In 1787, 1788, and 1789, all the great governments of Europe, except
England, claimed to exist by what was called "Divine Right." That is,
they claimed to have received authority from God Himself, to rule over
their people. And they taught, and a servile and corrupt priesthood
taught, that it was a religious duty of the people to obey them. And
they kept great standing armies, and hordes of pimps, spies, and
ruffians, to keep the people in subjection.
And when, soon afterwards, the revolutionists of France dethroned the
king then existing--the Legitimist king, so-called--and asserted the
right of the people to choose their own government, these other
governments carried on a twenty years' war against her, to reestablish
the principle of "sovereignty" by "Divine Right." And in this war, the
government of England, although not itself claiming to exist by Divine
Right,--but really existing by brute force,--furnished men and money
without limit, to reestablish that principle in France, and to maintain
it wherever else, in Europe, it was endangered by the idea of popular
rights.
The principle, then, of "Sovereignty by Divine Right"--sustained by
brute force--was the principle on which the governments of Europe then
rested; and most of them rest on that principle today. And now the
Supreme Court of the United States virtually says that our constitution
intended to give to our government the same "sovereignty"--the same
absolutism--the same supremacy over all the natural rights of the
people--as was claimed and exercised by those "Divine Right" governments
of Europe, a hundred years ago!
That I may not be suspected of misrepresenting these men, I give some of
their own words as follows:
It is not doubted that the power to establish a standard of
value, by which all other values may be measured, or, in other
words, to determine what shall be lawful money and a legal
tender, is in its nature, and of necessity, a governmental
power. _It is in all countries exercised by the
government._--_Hepburn vs. Griswold, 8 Wallace 615._
The court call a power,
To make treasury notes a legal tender for the payment of _all_
debts [private as well as public] _a power confessedly
possessed by every independent sovereignty other than the
United States_.--_Legal Tender Cases, 12 Wallace, p. 529._
Also, in the same case, it speaks of:
That general power over the currency, _which has always been an
acknowledged attribute of sovereignty in every other civilized
nation than our own_.--_p. 545._
In this same case, by way of asserting the power of congress to do any
dishonest thing that any so-called "sovereign government" ever did, the
court say:
Has any one, in good faith, avowed his belief that even a law
debasing the current coin, by increasing the alloy [and then
making these debased coins a legal tender in payment of debts
previously contracted], would be taking private property? It
might be impolitic, and unjust, but could its constitutionality
be doubted?--_p. 552._
In the same case, Bradley said:
As a government, it [the government of the United States] was
invested with _all the attributes of sovereignty_.--_p. 555._
Also he said:
Such being the character of the General Government, it seems to
be a self-evident proposition _that it is invested with all
those inherent and implied powers, which, at the time of
adopting the constitution, were generally considered to belong
to every government, as such_, and as being essential to the
exercise of its functions.--_p. 556._
Also he said:
Another proposition equally clear is, _that at the time the
constitution was adopted, it was, and for a long time had
been, the practice of most, if not all, civilized governments_,
to employ the public credit as a means of anticipating the
national revenues for the purpose of enabling them to exercise
their governmental functions.--_p. 556._
Also he said:
It is our duty to construe the instrument [the constitution] by
its words, _in the light of history, of the general nature of
government, and the incidents of sovereignty_.--_p. 55._
Also he said:
The government simply demands that its credit shall be accepted
and received by public and private creditors during the pending
exigency. _Every government has a right to demand this, when
its existence is at stake._--_p. 560._
Also he said:
These views are exhibited ... for the purpose of showing that
it [the power to make its notes a legal tender in payment of
private debts] _is one of those vital and essential powers
inhering in every national sovereignty_, and necessary to its
self-preservation.--_p. 564._
In still another legal tender case, the court said:
The people of the United States, by the constitution,
established a national government, _with sovereign powers,
legislative, executive_, and judicial.--_Juilliard vs.
Greenman, 110 U. S. Reports, p. 438._
Also it calls the constitution:
A constitution, establishing a form of government, declaring
fundamental principles, _and creating a national sovereignty_,
intended to endure for ages.--_p. 439._
Also the court speaks of the government of the United States:
_As a sovereign government._--_p. 446._
Also it said:
It appears to us to follow, as a logical and necessary
consequence, that congress has the power to issue the
obligations of the United States in such form, and to impress
upon them such qualities as currency, for the purchase of
merchandise and the payment of debts, _as accord with the usage
of other sovereign governments_. The power, as incident to the
power of borrowing money, and issuing bills or notes of the
government for money borrowed, of impressing upon those bills
or notes the quality of being a legal tender for the payment of
private debts, _was a power universally understood to belong to
sovereignty, in Europe and America, at the time of the framing
and adoption of the constitution of the United States_. The
governments of Europe, acting through the monarch, or the
legislature, according to the distribution of powers _under
their respective constitutions_, had, and have, as _sovereign_
a power of issuing paper money as of stamping coin. This power
has been distinctly recognized in an important modern case,
ably argued and fully considered, in which the Emperor of
Austria, as King of Hungary, obtained from the English Court of
Chancery an injunction against the issue, in England, without
his license, of notes purporting to be public paper money of
Hungary.--_p. 447._
Also it speaks of:
Congress, as the legislature of a _sovereign_ nation.--_p.
449._
Also it said:
The power to make the notes of the government a legal tender in
payment of private debts, _being one of the powers belonging to
sovereignty in other civilized nations_, ... we are
irresistibly impelled to the conclusion that the impressing
upon the treasury notes of the United States the quality of
being a legal tender in payment of private debts, is an
appropriate means, conducive and plainly adapted to the
execution of the undoubted powers of congress, consistent with
the letter and spirit of the constitution, etc.----_p._ 450.
On reading these astonishing ideas about "sovereignty"--"sovereignty"
over all the natural rights of mankind--"sovereignty," as it prevailed
in Europe "at the time of the framing and adoption of the constitution
of the United States"--we are compelled to see that these judges
obtained their constitutional law, not from the constitution itself, but
from the example of the "Divine Right" governments existing in Europe a
hundred years ago. These judges seem never to have heard of the American
Revolution, or the French Revolution, or even of the English Revolutions
of the seventeenth century--revolutions fought and accomplished to
overthrow these very ideas of "sovereignty," which these judges now
proclaim, as the supreme law of this country. They seem never to have
heard of the Declaration of Independence, nor of any other declaration
of the natural rights of human beings. To their minds, "the sovereignty
of governments" is everything; human rights nothing. They apparently
cannot conceive of such a thing as a people's establishing a government
as a means of preserving their personal liberty and rights. They can
only see what fearful calamities "sovereign governments" would be liable
to, if they could not compel their "subjects"--the people--to support
them against their will, and at every cost of their property, liberty,
and lives. They are utterly blind to the fact, that it is this very
assumption of "sovereignty" over all the natural rights of men, that
brings governments into all their difficulties, and all their perils.
They do not see that it is this very assumption of "sovereignty" over
all men's natural rights, that makes it necessary for the "Divine Right"
governments of Europe to maintain not only great standing armies, but
also a vile purchased priesthood, that shall impose upon, and help to
crush, the ignorant and superstitious people.
These judges talk of "the _constitutions_" of these "sovereign
governments" of Europe, as they existed "at the time of the framing and
adoption of the constitution of the United States." They apparently do
not know that those governments had no constitutions at all, except the
Will of God, their standing armies, and the judges, lawyers, priests,
pimps, spies, and ruffians they kept in their service.
If these judges had lived in Russia, a hundred years ago, and had
chanced to be visited with a momentary spasm of manhood--a fact hardly
to be supposed of such creatures--and had been sentenced therefor to the
knout, a dungeon, or Siberia, would we ever afterward have seen them, as
judges of our Supreme Court, declaring that government to be the model
after which ours was formed?
These judges will probably be surprised when I tell them that the
constitution of the United States contains no such word as "sovereign,"
or "sovereignty"; that it contains no such word as "subjects"; nor any
word that implies that the government is "sovereign," or that the people
are "subjects." At most, it contains only the mistaken idea that a power
of making laws--by lawmakers chosen by the people--was consistent with,
and necessary to, the maintenance of liberty and justice for the people
themselves. This mistaken idea was, in some measure, excusable in that
day, when reason and experience had not demonstrated, to their minds,
the utter incompatibility of all lawmaking whatsoever with men's natural
rights.
The only other provision of the constitution, that can be interpreted as
a declaration of "sovereignty" in the government, is this:
This constitution, and the laws of the United States _which
shall be made in pursuance thereof_, and all treaties made, or
which shall be made, under the authority of the United States,
_shall be the supreme law of the land_, and the judges in every
State shall be bound thereby, _anything in the constitution or
laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding_.--_Art._ VI.
This provision I interpret to mean simply that the constitution, laws,
and treaties of the United States, shall be "the supreme law of the
land"--_not anything in the natural rights of the people to liberty and
justice, to the contrary notwithstanding_--but only that they shall be
"the supreme law of the land," "_anything in the constitution or laws of
any State to the contrary notwithstanding_,"--that is, whenever the two
may chance to conflict with each other.
If this is its true interpretation, the provision contains no
declaration of "sovereignty" over the natural rights of the people.
Justice is "the supreme law" of this, and all other lands; anything in
the constitutions or laws of any nation to the contrary notwithstanding.
And if the constitution of the United States intended to assert the
contrary, it was simply an audacious lie--a lie as foolish as it was
audacious--that should have covered with infamy every man who helped to
frame the constitution, or afterward sanctioned it, or that should ever
attempt to administer it.
Inasmuch as the constitution declares itself to have been "ordained and
established" by
We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more
perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity,
provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare,
and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our
posterity,
everybody who attempts to administer it, is bound to give it such an
interpretation, and only such an interpretation, as is consistent
with, and promotive of, those objects, if its language will admit of
such an interpretation.
To suppose that "the people of the United States" intended to declare
that the constitution and laws of the United States should be "the
supreme law of the land," _anything in their own natural rights, or in
the natural rights of the rest of mankind, to the contrary
notwithstanding_, would be to suppose that they intended, not only to
authorize every injustice, and arouse universal violence, among
themselves, but that they intended also to avow themselves the open
enemies of the rights of all the rest of mankind. Certainly no such
folly, madness, or criminality as this can be attributed to them by any
rational man--always excepting the justices of the Supreme Court of the
United States, the lawmakers, and the believers in the "Divine Right" of
the cunning and the strong, to establish governments that shall deceive,
plunder, enslave, and murder the ignorant and the weak.
Many men, still living, can well remember how, some fifty years ago,
those famous champions of "sovereignty," of arbitrary power, Webster and
Calhoun, debated the question, whether, in this country, "sovereignty"
resided in the general or State governments. But they never settled the
question, for the very good reason that no such thing as "sovereignty"
resided in either.
And the question was never settled, until it was settled at the cost of
a million of lives, and some ten thousand millions of money. And then it
was settled only as the same question had so often been settled before,
to wit, that "the heaviest battalions" are "sovereign" over the lighter.
The only real "sovereignty," or right of "sovereignty," in this or any
other country, is that right of sovereignty which each and every human
being has over his or her own person and property, so long as he or she
obeys the one law of justice towards the person and property of every
other human being. This is the only _natural_ right of sovereignty, that
was ever known among men. All other so-called rights of sovereignty are
simply the usurpations of impostors, conspirators, robbers, tyrants, and
murderers.
It is not strange that we are in such high favor with the tyrants of
Europe, when our Supreme Court tells them that our government, although
a little different in form, stands on the same essential basis as theirs
of a hundred years ago; that it is as absolute and irresponsible as
theirs were then; that it will spend more money, and shed more blood, to
maintain its power, than they have ever been able to do; that the people
have no more rights here than there; and that the government is doing
all it can to keep the producing classes as poor here as they are
there.