"In compiling the opinions, on constitutional questions, delivered in congress, by some of the most enlightened senators and representatives, the files of the New York and Philadelphia newspapers, from 1789 to 1800, had to be relied on; from the latter period to the present, the National Intelligencer is the authority consulted for the desired information." It is from such stuff as this, collected and published thirty-five and forty years after the constitution was adopted--stuff very suitable for constitutional dreams to be made of--that our courts and people now make their constitutional law, in preference to adopting the law of the constitution itself. In this way they manufacture law strong enough to bind three millions of men in slavery.] CHAPTER X. THE PRACTICE OF THE GOVERNMENT. The practice of the government, under the constitution, has not altered the legal meaning of the instrument. It means now what it did before it was ratified, when it was first offered to the people for their adoption or rejection. One of the advantages of a written constitution is, that it enables the people to see what its character is before they adopt it; and another is, that it enables them to see, after they have adopted it, whether the government adheres to it, or departs from it. Both these advantages, each of which is indispensable to liberty, would be entirely forfeited, if the legal meaning of a written constitution were one thing when the instrument was offered to the people for their adoption, and could then be made another thing by the government after the people had adopted it. It is of no consequence, therefore, what meaning the government _have_ placed upon the instrument; but only what meaning they were _bound to place upon it_ from the beginning. The only question, then, to be decided, is, what was the meaning of the constitution, _as a legal instrument_, when it was first drawn up, and presented to the people, and before it was adopted by them? To this question there certainly can be but one answer.--There is not room for a doubt or an argument, on that point, in favor of slavery. The instrument itself is palpably a free one throughout, in its language, its principles, and all its provisions. As a legal instrument, there is no trace of slavery in it. It not only does not sanction slavery, but it does not even recognize its existence. More than this, it is palpably and wholly incompatible with slavery. It is also the supreme law of the land, in contempt of any state constitution or law that should attempt to establish slavery. Such was the character of the constitution when it was offered to the people, and before it was adopted. And if such was its character then, such is its character still. It cannot have been changed by all the errors and perversions, intentional or unintentional, of which the government may have since been guilty. CHAPTER XI. THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE PEOPLE.