[3] The Supreme Court of Mississippi in Sproule _v._ Fredericks, 69 Miss. 898 (1892), decided that the Constitutional Convention of that State (1890) “wielded the powers of sovereignty specially delegated to it, for the purpose and the occasion, by the whole electoral body, for the good of the whole Commonwealth.” The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in Wells _v._ Bain, 75 Pa. St. 39 (1874), decided that the Convention of 1872 was “not a co-ordinate branch of the government,” and possessed only “delegated powers.” The Supreme Court of the United States, through Marshall, C. J., decided in McCulloch _v._ Maryland, 4 Wheaton, 316 (1819), that the Constitution which came from the hands of the Federal Convention of 1787 “was a mere proposal, without obligation, or pretensions to it. By the Convention, by Congress, and by the State Legislatures, the instrument was submitted to the people. They acted upon it, in the only manner in which they can act safely, effectively, and wisely, on such a subject, by assembling in convention. It is true they assembled in their several States; and where else should they have assembled? No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American people into one common mass. Of consequence when they act, they act in their States. But the measures they adopt do not, on that account, cease to be the measures of the people themselves, or become the measures of the State governments. From these conventions the Constitution derives its whole authority. The government proceeds directly from the people; is “ordained and established” in the name of the people; and is declared to be ordained, “in order to@ form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and to their posterity.” The assent of the States in their sovereign capacity is implied in calling a convention, and thus submitting that instrument to the people. But the people were at perfect liberty to accept or reject it; and their act was final. It required not the affirmance, and could not be negatived by the State governments. The Constitution when thus adopted was of complete obligation, and bound the State sovereignties.” The character of the Constitution, its purport and principles, is examined in Martin _v._ Hunter’s Lessee, 1 Wheaton, 304 (1816). Decision by Story, J. [4] No. xxxix. [5] Art. v. [6] Constitution (1780 to date) Pt. I. Art. iv. The words “substitutes and agents” may be considered equivalent to the modern words “administrative officers.” [7] Art. iv., 4. [8] McCulloch _v._ Maryland, note, _supra_. [9] McCulloch _v._ Maryland, note, _supra_. [10] _Idem._ (The language of the Court slightly paraphrased.) [11] Art. v. [12] _The Federalist_, No. lxii. [13] McCulloch _v._ Maryland. [14] Art. i., 8: 1; but see Amendment XVI. [15] McCulloch _v._ Maryland.