manner alienate, the powers or functions | place in the formation of what chemists delegated to them by the people. This is the reason why the States, after having assisted to frame the Constitution, did not attempt to ratify the instrument, but submitted it to the people, whom they had severally represented in the Convention from whom it emanated. The clause, indeed, by which the powers not delegated to the government by the Constitution, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people;' sufficiently indicates the federal origin of the instrument, as no such reservation would have been necessary, had it emanated from the people in their collective character.* The power or sovereignty of the people, being inherent and inalienable, requires not to be specially reserved, and hence no such saving clause is inserted, or to be found, in any part of the State constitutions. The dissolution of long existing governments, and the off-hand formation of a nation, are not quite such easy processes, Mr. Editor, as your correspondent supposes them to be,t as the jealousy manifested by the States towards each other in the arrangements and compromises of the Constitution plainly show and convincingly prove. But while, as we have already said, a nation cannot unite with itself, an union of States may be readily formed; but it is obvious that it must be composed of distinct and sovereign communities, preserving each its separate attributes and independence; as otherwise, the so-called Union would prove a real dissolution of their political existence, or a coalescence of different and jarring elements into one civil body, hastily formed, incompact, and incapable of long duration. The process in such a case would be similar to that which takes * This the author himself admits in the follow ing passage: "It is true the power is not granted or retained by the people. And there needed no record of the fact to show it.” As appears in the following passage: "The powers of this government were chiefly of the kind called national; and the Constitution was, in that respect, a consolidated union of the particular States." Quite an off-hand and easy operation this, by which thirteen States were consolidated into one; and communities of people removed a thousand miles from each other, and differing in origin, religion, and habits, were summarily amalgamated and fused into a nation, one and indivisible. term a neutral mixture, which acquires and exhibits qualities wholly different from those of the original ingredients of which it is composed. The Union, then, which it was the object of the Constitution to render "more perfect," would have been dissolved the instant that the States either lost or parted with any of the high and essential attributes, by virtue of which they were enabled to enter into those engagements, and afford those firm guaranties and pledges to each other which render the compact mutually advantageous and reciprocally binding upon them. The Constitution does not comprise a surrender of these attributes, but a delegation of powers, revocable, limited, and stipulative, as they are deprived of all sanction, and cease to be available to the general government, the instant that the latter either wilfully transcends, or ignorantly misuses them. As the people, in forming their State constitutions, did not part with any portion of their inherent sovereignty, or original rights and attributes; neither did they do so in framing that greater federal charter, in which they have delegated the exercise of the same high powers to their common agent, the general government. The people of the States, acting in their separate and independent capacity, have in this way created two distinct and equally accredited agents. First, the local governments, who form a species of ministers of the interior, amenable to them respectively, and acting under their immediate supervision and control; and secondly, the federal government their joint and general agent, appointed to manage the foreign affairs, and responsible to them only in their federative character. The communities, therefore, of which the States are composed, form, under this view, a confederated people, and not a collective body or nation, as is contended by your correspondent, and as was maintained by Mr. Webster, in the celebrated "encounter of wits" between that great senator and the illustrious Hayne, whose eloquence in that debate still shows, like the after-glow of the descended sun, the place where a luminary has left the sky. Your correspondent maintains that "there are some truths which no man is at liberty to ques tion, or to claim charitable construction of | he is something more, or properly, the his conduct in the matter, if he does. President of the People, and not a mere "The federal system," he tells us, "is a representative, or the single executive officer government, and not a confederacy, or of the government, charged with the plain league of friendship." This is one of and limited duty, of carrying into effect, those truths. It is a government estab- the measures of Congress. Those who lished by the people, as its own caption support these innovatory doctrines; do declares, and as the historical fact of its not see very clearly, we think, where they ultimate adoption shows conclusively. are carrying them, and to what they will This is another. Hayne, however, and lead. In changing the federal mode of Calhoun, and others of our great states- electing the President, by electors chosen men, have felt themselves at liberty to by the legislatures of the States, and giving question these alleged truths; and for it to the people; (as if it was in the power ourselves, humble as we are, we claim a of the demagogues who have promoted "charitable construction of our conduct," this innovation to give the people anything) in venturing to follow their example. -a stride was made towards consolidation, which will soon be followed by the heaping of further tribute upon the altar of this false god, or national idol, who has already drawn off so many worshippers from that sacred Federal Shrine, at which the patriots and sages of the Revolution knelt, and on which they swore to devote their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, to the cause of Independence, Liberty, and the Union. * strange language in the following passage, which is indeed the commencement of a strain of unintelligible reasoning, and metaphysical refinements, in which the writer seems as much lost, as every reader must find himself to be, who attempts to follow him. Your correspondent first assumes, that the federal system, is not a confederacy; which is pretty much like saying, that a monarchical government, is not a monarchy. A confederacy, he will probably admit, is a system; but a federal system he tells us, is not a confederacy. Be it so, we will not stop to chop logic with your correspondent on this point; but will proceed to notice his next position, or the second inexpugnable truth which he Your correspondent, (we wish he had thinks no man is at liberty to question-adopted a signature,) uses somewhat which is, that the government was established by the people. Now, though according to our casuist, "a federal system is not a confederacy;" we think he will admit, that a popular, is not necessarily a national government. We then fully agree with him, that the Constitution was established by the people; but must be permitted to add the qualification, that it was by the people of the different States, acting in federal conventions, and not as a national body. Among the other results of the popular theory, we now find the President claiming to be the Representative of the People-a pretension, under color of which, a Jackson and a Polk, arrogated to themselves, legislative functions, and unceremoniously used the Veto power, as a casting vote on every measure of Congress, that came in conflict with their party views, or that interfered with any of the pledges which they had chosen to give their partisans before coming into office. This, however, was a modest pretension, for according to your correspondent, * A monarchy so called is not always a monarchy proper, nor a federal government a confederacy proper.-Ed. VOL. IV. NO. III. NEW SERIES. "The States," he maintains, 66 are in no respect the constituents of federal senators, much less of other functionaries in the federal system, whose election is by other agencies, or by the people directly." On this strange position, we have only to remark, that such at least is not the account given of the Constitution and purposes of the Senate, by the writers of the " Federalist;" and we may safely leave the author of the above paradox, "to battle the watch" with Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, with whom he is at open war, in many other parts of his essay; as we might easily show, if we had time for the purpose. In the ensuing extract, we have an attempt to explain this new reading of the Constitution; which, however, we think, rather serves to "darken council," than to enlighten the reader, or extricate the writer from the labyrinth of his constitutional. 20 metaphysics. terpreting their grants with rigor, is counterbalanced by a reason of equal force on the other, for a liberal and generous construction of them, to the end that the people's settlement thus made on themselves, (the language is professional, but descriptive and true,) may not be disappointed." Thus, the only rule of legislation that need be observed by the member, is, that his measures should be professedly designed to promote the good of the people; a sufficiently liberal rule certainly, and one that has the advantage of rendering constitutional provisions, and even any legal restraints upon those in power, wholly unnecessary, or mere inconvenient obstacles in their way, that hamper their actions, and prevent them from benefiting the nation and advancing its interests as effectual as they might otherwise do. Ulysses had the comfort of being assured by the Cyclops, (who would thus seem to have had some touch of kindness about them;) that he should be the last he would devour-intending, no doubt, thereby, to leave him the choice of being the first, if this alternative should happen to have his preference. The people of this country, may perhaps, in the end, have something of a similar choice left them, between disunion and consolidation— though we trust that matters have not come to that pass; and, as according to an old adage, the feeling of despair should never be encouraged by the friends of the Republic, we shall be the last to express any views calculated to dishearten the patriot, or give confidence to the enemies of our freedom and Union. It is to be hoped, however, that the people will reflect with fear and awe, that the stream of liberty, which bears on its bosom the ark of their safety and happi It is true, our federal senators have their appointments from the State legislatures. But they are not the servants of those legislatures, any more than members of the lower house of Congress are servants of the particular local districts that elect them. The rule of service and of representation is not settled by forms of constituency; it has absolutely nothing to do with them. Members of Congress have as broad a field of duty as the chief magistrate himself; their representative character is as large as his. How belittling to hold them up as tools of the particular district electors. On that principle, the federal judges would be tools of the President and Senate ; federal senators tools, not of the States, but of their respective legislative houses, &c. &c." All this appears to us, is a deliberate mistification of a plain subject; it being sufficiently obvious that the people of the States, have through the Constitution, delegated to the President and Senate, or rather imposes on them the duty of appointing the federal judges; who, therefore, as your correspondent very truly observes, with out apparently understanding "the reason why," are not the tools of those from whom they received their appointment. The writer being a consolidationist, is of course, also latitudinarian in his mode of construing the Constitution, or in his views as to the rules which should govern its interpretation. "A good deal," he observes, depends upon the rule of construction, to be applied to the special grants of power, by which the officers of the federal economy have been endowed. Some will have it that they must be taken strictly. This, however, is a comparatively modern notion, and of party origin. Why are these, (the actual grants of power,) to be narrowed down to limits lessness; if not carefully confined within than a fair and liberal criticism would have assigned them? Is it because the people are the grantors? Nay, but for whose benefit? Admit the people have raised the trusts of all federal officers; have they not done it for their own advantage exclusively? And so to every beneficial purpose, they are grantees also. And then the supposed reason, on the one hand, for in * * its proper channel-ever ends, whatever course it may deviously take-in the Dead Sea of Despotism-on whose shore no flower blooms, and whose waters spread over the ruins of many an engulfed empire; or of those nations whose crimes and follies have provoked the wrath, and called down on their heads the avenging judgment of Heaven. ATHENION. READ'S POEMS.* LITERATURE, like philosophy, has its wonders. To the ordinary reader no distinction might seem more obvious than that between prose and poetry. It would savor strongly of affectation or ignorance, to affirm that any particular production may belong to either of these great classes; for how different in style is Campbell's Wyoming or Spencer's Faery Queen from the masterpieces of Robertson, Burke, or Prescott. The well-defined peculiarities of genius necessary to the production of each of these is discernible alike to reader and critic. Yet the difference lies not in the subject. Two writers may describe the same event; each may be profound or comprehensive, diffuse or concise-in short, possess the tangible qualities of authorship in a nearly equal degree. But around the one description is thrown a subtle, nondescript halo-a shadow which may be felt, but not grasped-and it is poetry. The other, wanting this, is simply prose. The fact that criticism, with its nicety of penetration, cannot detect this inspiring essence, is no more proof of its not existing than that animals have not a vital principle, because organic chemistry has as yet failed to find it. Still this easy classification of prose apart from poetry forms but a general rule; prose is sometimes very like poetry, and poetry very like prose. In literature, as in animated creation, classes lose their peculiarities, and intermingle in proportion as they approach each other. The extremities of each class may be weak and insignificant; they may be monstrous; yet they form exceptions; and as the sponge or zoophyte, by its very ambiguity, has gained no small attention from philosophers, so our literary monsters from the mere fact of their being monsters are entitled to no small attention from the critic. They form the exceptions to our general rule. One of these occurs when the author dresses poetical thoughts in the garb of prose; when sentiments, which sound through the soul like true poetry, produce the same effects, and draw forth the same response as does poetry, are yet written in the ordinary narrative style. Such are many translations of oriental manuscripts, some of the Sacred Writings, Fenelon's Telemachus, and Ossian. Here is suggested the vexed question-more interesting to the critical than to the general reader-"Can that be poetry which is not versified ?" To escape the flood of disputation occasioned by this cavil, most modern poets, whatever be their talents for prosody, have thought proper to deliver their inspirations in rhyme; and thus every diminutive genius who aches to perceive his name enrolled in the book of fame, even though on the debtor page, discharges the responsibilities of his station, and benefits his generation by a small volume of "Songs," "Lines," Thoughts," "Sketches' dramatic and non-dramatic-and sundry nameless forms of poetry, all versified. Not unfrequently the reader of such is forced to exclaim, "Is this poetry!" Here, then, in the poetry without verse, and the verse, which would avoid such an innovation, we have exceptions to our general rule. 66 "Na Others are generated by writings of a different class. Their authors have discovered that the elaborate style of Walter Scott, Pope, or Milton, is by no means worth the labor of perfecting it. ture," say these, "is the great teacher. Art only fetters and cripples her. Poetry, like the human mind, is progressive: and he whose verses do not conform to the spirit of his age is unworthy of her laurels." If Milton supposed that the epic dignity is best sustained by the iambic line of ten syllables, this can be no reason why the modern heroic poem * Lays and Ballads. BY THOMAS BUCHANAN READ. Philadelphia. G. S. Appleton & Co. 1849. should not be composed of single spondees, alexandrines, and trochaics, alternating according to the dictates of nature. If the frequent echo of sound to sense was condemned by Shakspeare, still the modern dramatist, (deeply as he reverences Shakspeare,) sees no reason why an entire tragedy should not be merely an echo. If Spenser, by the force of original genius, turned spirits and hobgoblins into men, our poets, by the same force, may turn men into hobgoblins. Old things have passed away, all things become new. Egregiously, therefore, does that reader err, who, in a volume of this modern poetry, hopes to find anything similar to what he had been accustomed to consider the result of poetic laws. His first question must therefore be, "Is this poetry ?" his last, the same. 66 How or to include in one succient definition, or The proem seems naturally to claim our attention first. Turning to it, we find a small production of nine stanzas, written with marked deference to the usual rules of poetry. As futurity could easily be made to atone for this sacrifice of origin fetter his genius for a moment out of compliment to the friend to whom this proem is inscribed. Yet even here are there glimmerings of the better day; and these, in connection with the author's disclosure of being "weird," give earnest that his genius will not long be fettered. On the "cool autumnal eves" the friend is invited around the "magic rings" on the hearth, for the purpose of hearing or seeing (which does not clearly appear) the author "weave athwart the mystic gloom The foregoing remarks seem necessary to a proper understanding of the real nature of the work before us. The title "Lays and Ballads" would appear an index to that species of light poetry, which, treating of antique subjects in an antique style, is designed as a pleasing and ro-ality, our author was probably willing to mantic picture of days gone by. Not so however. Names, plans, and styles are alike peculiarly original. Imitating, we suppose, the variety of nature, our author has written on all kinds of subjects, and conglomerated in the same "ballad" lines of every possible length, sound, strength, and meaning. Words which affectation or prejudice has hitherto confined to lobbies and street corners are here elevated to important uses. Figures on which Dr. Blair never lectured sparkle in profusion on every page. Lays, whose performance would require a new order of music, are scattered with lavish hand. There is no allusion to mythology or classic lore, but the reader's whole attention may be given to understand the author-no mean task, if we may believe the latter's assertion, "I know the secret springs Where the spirit wells and sings Till it overflows the brain." 66 Bright webs of fancy from the golden loom But lest this fearful feat, of weaving a fabric out of gloom and fancy, might either terrify through that peculiar influence inspired by supernatural events, or savor of the Signor Blitz character, the careful poet cautions both friend and reader in the most particular manner. So interesting is the whole process, that the two friends do not for a moment hear the sheltered hound answer in his dream" to the "whine" of the "unkennelled winds," nor the "troubled noises" "going through the house," nor the cricket "weaving his So hasty a glance at our poet's "Bal-making lads" might result in ranking them under the last-named exception. But it is difficult to characterize heterogeneous masses, |