[92] Again, on a subsequent day, after stating that he was not there to pursue his own sentiments of government, but of those who had sent him, he had asked:
Can we, as representatives of independent States, annihilate the essential powers of independency? Are not the votes of this Convention taken on every question under the idea of independency?The fact that this state, which, through her representatives, had taken so conspicuous a part in the maintenance of the principle of state sovereignty, ratified the Constitution with such readiness and unanimity, is conclusive proof that, in her opinion, that principle was not compromised thereby. The conclusion of her ordinance of ratification is in these words:
Now be it known that we, the delegates of the State of New Jersey, chosen by the people thereof for the purpose aforesaid, having maturely deliberated on and considered the aforesaid proposed Constitution, do hereby, for and on behalf of the people of the said State of New Jersey, agree to, ratify, and confirm the same, and every part thereof. Done in convention, by the unanimous consent of the members present, this 18th day of December, A. D. 1787.Georgia next, and also unanimously, on January 2, 1788, declared, through “the delegates of the State of Georgia, in convention met, pursuant to the provisions of the [act of the] Legislature aforesaid, . . . in virtue of the powers and authority given us [them] by the people of the said State, for that purpose,” that they did “fully and entirely assent to, ratify, and adopt the said Constitution.” Connecticut (on the 9th of January) declares her assent with equal distinction of assertion as to the source of the authority: “In the name of the people of the State of Connecticut, we, the delegates of the people of the said State, in General Convention assembled, pursuant to an act of the Legislature in October last . . . . do assent to, ratify, and adopt the Constitution reported by the Convention of delegates in Philadelphia.” In Massachusetts there was a sharp contest. The people of that state were then—as for a long time afterward—exceedingly tenacious of their state independence and sovereignty. The proposed Constitution was subjected to a close, critical, and rigorous examination with reference to its bearing upon this very point. The convention was a large one, and some of its leading members were very distrustful of the instrument under their consideration. It was ultimately adopted by a very close vote (187 to 168), and then only as accompanied by certain proposed amendments, the object of which was to guard more expressly against any sacrifice or
