Oath to sup stitution. 3. The senators and representatives before-mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and port the Conjudicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this constitution: Religious test. but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. ARTICLE VII. 1. The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this constitution between the states so ratifying the same. Done in convention, by the unanimous consent of the states present, the seventeenth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America, the twelfth. In witness whereof, we have hereunto subscribed our names. NEW HAMPSHIRE. John Langdon, MASSACHUSETTS. Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus King. CONNECTICUT. GEORGE WASHINGTON, DELAWARE. George Read, Gunning Bedford, jun. MARYLAND. James M'Henry, Daniel of St. Tho. Jenifer, VIRGINIA. John Blair, James Madison, jun. NORTH CAROLINA. William Blount, Richard Dobbs Spaight, SOUTH CAROLINA. John Rutledge, C. Cotesworth Pinckney, GEORGIA. William Few, Abraham Baldwin. WILLIAM JACKSON, Secretary. Ratification. stock held by the citizens of such state in common those powers who are capable of making treaties. with the property of the same description through--Worcester v. State of Georgia, 6 Peters, 521. out the state.-McCulloch v. The State of Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316. Osborn v. The U. S. Bank, 9 Wheat. 859. See Com'wealth of Kentucky v. James Morrison, 2 Marshall, 75. 8. The constitution, by declaring treaties already made, as well as those to be made, the supreme law of the land, has adopted and sanctioned the previous treaties with the Indian nations, and consequently admits their rank among VOL. I. 9. The Court of Appeals of Kentucky is bound by the decision of the Supreme Court of the U. States, settling a construction of the constitution or laws of the United States, in cases where the Supreme Court possesses revising jurisdiction" over the decisions of that court.-Bodley v. Gaither, 3 Mon. 58. See Fisher y. Cockerill, 5 Mon. 132. The Comm'wealth of Kentucky v. Morrison, 2 Mar. 75. Judge Rowan dissenting. 6 [The Articles of Confederation being found inadequate to all the wants of the Government, and great dissatisfaction existing throughout the Union, the Legislature of Virginia, in January, 1786, appointed commissioners, "to meet such commissioners as were, or might be appointed by the other states in the Union, at such time and place as should be agreed upon by said commissioners, to take into consideration the trade and commerce of the United States; to consider how far an uniform system, in their commercial intercourse and regulations, might be necessary to their common interest and permanent harmony; and to report to the several states such an act relative to this great object, as when unanimously ratified by them, would enable the United States in Congress assembled, effectually to provide for the same." It was afterwards agreed that this meeting should be held at Annapolis, in Maryland, in September of the same year. Commissioners from the States of Virginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, alone attended. In consequence of so partial a representation of the States, the commissioners present thought it most advisable to propose a second Convention. They accordingly recommended to all the States to concur "in the appointment of commissioners, to meet at Philadelphia, on the second Monday in May, 1787, to take into consideration the situation of the United States, to devise such further provisions as should appear to them necessary, to render the Constitution of the Federal Government adequate to the exigences of the Union." In February of the same year, Congress, by a resolution, sanctioned and advised the proposed Convention, "for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation, and reporting to Congress and the several Legislatures, such alterations and provisions therein, as shall, when agreed to in Congress, and confirmed by the States, render the Federal Constitution adequate to the exigences of Government, and the preservation of the Union." Delegates were accordingly appointed by all the States, except Rhode Island, and met in Convention at Philadelphia, and framed the present Constitution. It was then recommended to the several States for adoption, with the subjoined letter from GENERAL WASHINGTON. During the years 1787 and 1788, the Constitution was adopted, without amendment, by the State Conventions of all the thirteen States, with the exception of Rhode Island and North Carolina. The ratification by the requisite number of States, having been laid before Congress, an act was passed on the 13th of September, 1788, providing for the appointment of the Electors of President, &c. and the 4th day of March, 1789, was fixed as the time, and the City of New York as the place, for commencing proceedings under the new Constitution. Rhode Island and North Carolina afterwards acceded to the Union; and the several amendments to the Constitution were afterwards adopted.] IN CONVENTIOΝ. SEPTEMBER 17, 1787. SIR: We have now the honor to submit to the consideration of the United States in congress assembled, that Constitution which has appeared to us the most advisable. The friends of our country have long seen and desired, that the power of making war, peace, and treaties-that of levying money, and regulating commerce, and the correspondent executive and judicial authoritics, should be fully and effectually vested in the general government of the Union; but the impropriety of delegating such extensive trust to one body of men is evident-hence results the necessity of a different organization. It is obviously impracticable in the federal government of these states, to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all. Individuals entering into society must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained. It is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line between those rights which must be surrendered, and those which may be reserved; and, on the present occasion, this difficulty was increased by a difference among the several states as to their situation, extent, habits, and particular interests. In all our deliberations on this subject, we kept steadily in our view that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety—perhaps our national existence. This important consideration, seriously and deeply impressed on our minds, led each state in the convention to be less rigid on points of inferior magnitude, than might have been otherwise expected; and thus, the Constitution which we now present, is the result of a spirit of amity, and of that mutual deference and concession, which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensable. That it will meet the full and entire approbation of every state, is not perhaps to be expected; but each will doubtless consider, that had her interest alone been consulted, the consequences might have been particularly disagreeable or injurious to others; that it is liable to as few exceptions as could reasonably have been expected, we hope and believe; that it may promote the lasting welfare of that country so dear to us all, and secure her freedom and happiness, is our most ardent wish. With great respect, we have the honor to be, sir, your Excellency's most obedient and humble servants. By the unanimous order of the Convention, GEORGE WASHINGTON, President. HIS EXCELLENCY THE PRESIDENT OF CONGRESS. AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. [The following Amendments were proposed at the first Session of the first Congress of the United States, which was begun and held at the City of New York, on the 4th of March, 1789, and were adopted by the requisite number of States. 1st Volume of the Laws of the United States, page 72.] ARTICLE I. 1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. ARTICLE II. Right to bear arms. Soldiers not to be quartered. People to be secured against unreasonable searches and seizures, &c. Criminal 1. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. ARTICLE III. 1. No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war but in a manner to be prescribed by law. ARTICLE IV. 1. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. (n) ARTICLE V. 1. No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise proceedings infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand regulated. jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia when in actual service, in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject, for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; (o) nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. (p) Private prop erty not to be taken, &c. Trial by jury ARTICLE VI. 1. In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right secured in crim- to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and inal proceedings, &c. district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation: to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favour; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence. (n) This article has no application to warrants issued by state officers, and cannot affect proceedings under the authority of states, It was adopted to limit the power of the United States, and prescribe fixed rules relative to searches and seizures under the authority of the national government.-Reed, &c. v. Rice, 2 J. J. Mar. 45. (0) In a capital case, if the jury are unable to make a verdict, the court may in its discretion discharge them, without its being a bar to a subsequent trial for the same offence. This discretion, however, cught to be exercised with great caution, or the ends of public justice might oth erwise be defeated.-United States v. Percs, 9 Wheat. 579. (p) The provision in the above amendment, declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation, is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the states. Limitations of power, if expressed in general terms, are necessarily applicable to the government created by the instrument, and not to distinct governments framed by different persons and for different purposes.-Barron v. The Mayor of Baltimore, 7 Peters, 243. ARTICLE VII. Trial by jury in common law cases, when to 1. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury (q) shall be preserved; and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined be had. in any court of the United States, than according to the rules at the common law. ARTICLE VIII. 1. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines im- Excessive bail. posed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. ARTICLE IX. 1. The enumeration in the constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. ARTICLE X. 1. The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. [The following Amendment was proposed at the second Session of the third Congress. It is printed in the Laws of the United States, 1 vol. p. 73, as article 11.] ARTICLE XI. + Rights retained by people. Powers not &c. granted, are reserved. States not to 1. The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by be sued, &c. citizens or subjects of any foreign state. (r) (4) The act of Maryland of 1793, incorporating the Bank of Columbia, and giving a summary process to the corporation by execution, in the nature of an attachment, without the intervention of a jury, against its debtors, who, by express consent in writing, made the bonds, bills, or notes, by them drawn or endorsed, negotiable at Bank, is not repugnant to the above clause. Bank of Columbia v. Oakley, 4 Wheat. 240. (r) In the case of Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419, it was decided that assumpsit might be maintained against a state by a citizen of a different state, and the state of Massachusetts being sued among others proposed the above amendment, which was duly ratified.-1 Tucker's Blackstone, 153. 2. This amendment, however, does not affect controversies between two or more states. See, for example, New York v. Connecticut, 4 Dall. 3, or between a state and foreign states. 3. The above amendment is construed, not only to prohibit the bringing of suits against a state by citizens of another state, or aliens, from the period of its adoption, but to put an end to all such suits then depending.-Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 Dall. 378. See 2 Dall. 480, note. 4. A suit between individuals, where the state is not necessarily a defendant, although it may lay claim to, or suggest title in itself to the sum demanded, is not within this amendment.-U. States v. Peters, 5 Cranch, 115. 5. In all cases where jurisdiction depends on the party, it is the party named in the record. It was accordingly held, that a suit could be maintained against the auditor of the state of Ohio, who, acting under a law of that state taxing the Bank of the United States, entered the banking house at Chillicothe and took therefrom $100,000, as the state was not a party on record, and as the law, under which the auditor acted, was unconstitutional.-Osborn v. U. S. Bank, 9 Wheat. 857. 6. A writ of error, which is sued out from the Supreme Court to bring up a judgment in a state court rendered in favour of the state against one of its own citizens, is not a suit within this amendment.--Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 412. 7. It is said that this amendment is confined strictly to suits at law or in equity, and does not embrace suits of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.—U. States v. Bright, &c. 3 Hall's Law Jour. 225. Sergeant's Constitutional Law, 418. 8. That a state is a member of a private corporation, does not communicate thereby its priv |