any colour be ascribed to it. Religion, speaking and writing, were placed beyond the power of law, because the first
appertained to the sovereignty of the deity, and the two last
to the sovereignty of the people. Why does not the constitution reserve a right to think? Because that faculty
could not be taken away, and it was reserving a national and political faculty, which could be taken away;
being that, by which alone nations can supervise governments, retain sovereignty, or perform political functions.
A political national mind, required a protection against the usurpation of governments. The mind of an individual was beyond its reach; but a congeries of expressions constituting national mind, was within it. If the latter species of mind does not exist, how inconsistent are those, who talk of national opinion. Where does it reside? It is not the opinion of an individual. It is not the opinions of any number of separate and solitary individuals. If it can exist without discussion, it cannot without disclosure; and the freedom of speech and of the press, is as necessary for the latter purpose, as for the former.
An objection is urged against the idea of national sovereignty, with a degree of plausibility, unable to avoid the detection of a degree of consideration. Are not the people, it is said, subject to law; and is not their sovereignty inconsistent with this subjection?
The repetition necessary to answer this objection, is not painful, because it will impress a principle of the last importance to the policy of the United States.
The people, by our policy, are considered as possessing two capacities, political and civil. Under one, they are susceptible of the rights which nations can exercise; such as those of forming, reforming and supervising governments. Under the other, they are susceptible, individually, of such rights and duties, as an individaal may hold or owe. As an individual cannot hold or exercise the first class of rights, a nation must be considered in the light of an asso-
