hich is not by this Constitution expressly delegated to
the United States."

This was in May, 1790, when nearly three years had been given to
discussion and explanation of the new Government by its founders and
others, when it had been in actual operation for more than a year, and
when there was every advantage for a clear understanding of its nature
and principles. Under such circumstances, and in the "full confidence"
that this language expressed its meaning and intent, the people of Rhode
Island signified their "accession" to the "Confederate Republic" of the
States already united.

No objection was made from any quarter to the principle asserted in
these various forms; or to the amendment in which it was finally
expressed, although many thought it unnecessary, as being merely
declaratory of what would have been sufficiently obvious without
it--that the functions of the Government of the United States were
strictly limited to the exercise of such powers as were expressly
delegated, and that the people of the several States retained all
others.

Is it compatible with reason to suppose that people so chary of the
delegation of specific powers or functions could have meant to surrender
or transfer the very basis and origin of all power--their inherent
sovereignty--and this, not by express grant, but by implication?

Mr. Everett, following, whether consciously or not, in the line of Mr.
Webster's ill-considered objection to the term "compact," takes
exception to the sovereignty of the States on the ground that "the
_word_ 'sovereignty' does not occur" in the Constitution. He admits that
the States were sovereign under the Articles of Confederation. How could
they relinquish or be deprived of their sovereignty without even a
mention of it--when the tenth amendment confronts us with the
declaration that _nothing_ was surrendered by implication--that
everything was reserved unless expressly delegated to the United States
or prohibited to the States? Here is an attribute which they certainly
possessed--which nobody denies, or can deny, that they _did_
possess--and of which Mr. Everett says no mention is made in the
Constitution. In what conceivable way, then, was it lost or alienated?

Much has been said of the "prohibition" of the exercise by the States of
certain functions of sovereignty; such as, making treaties, declaring
war, coining money, etc. This is only a part of the general compact, by
which the contract