Chapter 24

From this brief view of the nature and intention of the resolve, I think it is evident that the people ought, _without delay_, to signify their approbation of the Constitution by _a petition to the legislature_, to the end that the legislature, which is called upon by the Convention and Congress to recommend to the people to choose Delegates to ratify it, may have the _authority of the largest and most promising commercial and manufacturing Town in the State_ to countenance so _important a recommendation_. But _Caution_ thinks a petition _improper_ and _unnecessary_; because, says he, “your Delegates will move for, and exert themselves to procure, the calling a Convention.” Admitting your Delegates to move to have a Convention called, does it follow that they will add to their motion these _essential words, to confirm and ratify the Constitution_? Does it not rather appear, from the tenor of this writer’s remarks, that your Delegates ought to leave these words out of their motion? But the _propriety_ and _necessity_ of a petition does not depend on what your Delegates may, or may not do. It is _proper_ at this time, because the Constitution meets your approbation. It is _necessary_ at this time, because wanted as an inducement to the legislature to call upon the people to appoint a Convention to carry into effect the object of the resolution. In other words, as the recommendation for a Convention _involves the legislature in a complete approbation of the Constitution_, there is the greatest _propriety_ and _necessity_ for your telling the legislature _that it meets your approbation_.

I am sorry to find, by _Caution’s_ publication and insinuations, which I am told are circulated with great industry, that an opposition is opened against the Constitution. I did not, I confess, expect to see it adopted without some opposition; but I could not bring myself to believe, that this opposition could have originated in Baltimore, which is _so peculiarly interested in its speedy adoption_. But what I intended to say on this point, is so well expressed in a late speech of Mr. Wilson, to the people of Philadelphia, previous to their election for representatives, that I shall take the liberty of closing with it.

“After all, my fellow-citizens, (says this excellent politician) it is neither extraordinary nor unexpected, that the Constitution offered to your consideration should meet with opposition. It is the nature of man to pursue his own interest in preference to the _public good_; and I do not mean to make any personal reflection, when I add, that it is _the interest of a very numerous, powerful and respectable body to counteract and destroy the excellent work produced by the late Convention_. All the offices of government, and all the appointments for the administration of justice, and the collection of the public revenue, which are transferred from the individual to the aggregate sovereignty of the States, will necessarily turn the stream of influence and emolument into a new channel. _Every person, therefore, who either enjoys, or expects to enjoy, a place of profit under the present establishment, will object to the proposed innovations, not, in truth, because it is injurious to the liberties of his country; but because it affects his schemes of wealth and consequence._ I will confess, indeed, that I am not a blind admirer of this plan of government, and _that there are some parts of it_, which, if my wish had prevailed, would certainly have been altered. But, when I reflect how widely men differ in their opinions, and that every man (and the observation applies likewise to every state) has an equal pretension to assert his own, I am satisfied that anything _nearer to perfection_ could not have been accomplished. If there are errors, _it should be remembered_, that the seeds of reformation are sown in the work itself, and the concurrence of two-thirds of the Congress may, at any time, introduce _alterations and amendments_. Regarding it, then, in every point of view, with a candid and disinterested mind, I am bold to assert, that is the _best form of government which has ever been offered to the world_.”

A FRIEND TO THE CONSTITUTION.

_Baltimore, October 13, 1787._

THE LETTERS OF LUTHER MARTIN.

Printed In The Maryland Journal, January-March, 1788.

Note.

Luther Martin, afterwards nick-named the “bull-dog of federalism,” was at this time the leading Anti-federalist in Maryland. From his pen came the pamphlet entitled _Genuine Information ... Relative to the Proceedings of the General Convention_; and when the “Landholder,” (see _Ante_, page 135), attacked Elbridge Gerry, he began this series of articles in defense of that gentleman, but eventually, by the replies, was compelled to continue the series as a personal vindication. According to a letter of Daniel Carrol, Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer replied in the newspapers to Martin, but I have not been able to identify this.

In the _New York Journal_ for June 17, 1788, is a comparison of the constitution as agreed upon early in the convention, with that finally framed, which was probably written by Martin.

Luther Martin, I.

The Maryland Journal, (Number 1004)

FRIDAY, JANUARY 18, 1788.

MR. WILLIAM GODDARD:

_Sir_,

As the Publication under the Signature of the Connecticut Landholder is circulating remote from the place of Mr. Gerry’s residence, and is calculated not only to injure the honourable gentleman in his private character, but also to weaken the effect of his opposition to the government proposed by the late convention, and thereby promote the adoption of a System which I consider destructive of the rights and liberties of the respective states and of their citizens, I beg leave, through the channel of your Paper, to declare to the Public that from the time I took my seat in convention, which was early in June, until the fourth day of September, when I left Philadelphia, I am satisfied I was not ten minutes absent from convention while sitting (excepting only five days in the beginning of August, immediately after the committee of detail had reported, during which but little business was done). That during my attendance I never heard Mr. Gerry or any other member introduce a proposition for the redemption of continental money according to its nominal or any other value, nor did I ever hear that such a proposition had been offered to consideration or had been thought of. I was intimate with Mr. Gerry, and never heard him express, in private conversation or otherwise, a wish for the redemption of continental money, or assign the want of such a provision as a defect. Nor did I ever hear in Convention, or anywhere else, such a motive of conduct attributed to Mr. Gerry. I also declare to the Public that a considerable time before I left the convention Mr. Gerry’s opposition to the System was warm and decided; that in a particular manner he strenuously opposed that provision by which the power and authority over the militia is taken away from the States and given to the general government; that in the debate he declared if that measure was adopted it would be the most convincing proof that the destruction of the State governments and the introduction of a king was designed, and that no declarations to the contrary ought to be credited, since it was giving the states the last coup de grace by taking from them the only means of self preservation. The conduct of the advocates and framers of this system towards the thirteen States, in pretending that it was designed for their advantage, and gradually obtaining power after power to the general government, which could not but end in their slavery, he compared to the conduct of a number of jockeys who had thirteen young colts to break; they begin with the appearance of kindness, giving them a lock of hay, or a handful of oats, and stroaking them while they eat, until being rendered sufficiently gentle they suffer a halter to be put round their necks; obtaining a further degree of their confidence, the jockeys slip a curb bridle on their heads and the bit into their mouths, after which the saddle follows of course, and well booted and spurred, with good whips in their hands, they mount and ride them at their pleasure, and although they may kick and flounce a little at first, nor being able to get rid of their riders, they soon become as tame and passive as their masters could wish them. In the course of public debate in the convention Mr. Gerry applied to the system of government, as then under discussion, the words of Pope with respect to vice, “that it was a monster of such horrid mien, as to be hated need but to be seen.” And some time before I left Philadelphia, he in the same public manner declared in convention that he should consider himself a traitor to his country if he did not oppose the system there, and also when he left the convention. These, sir, are facts which I do not fear being contradicted by any member of the convention, and will, I apprehend, satisfactorily shew that Mr. Gerry’s opposition proceeded from a conviction in his own mind that the government, if adopted, would terminate in the destruction of the States and in the introduction of a kingly government.

I am, sir, your very obedient servant,

LUTHER MARTIN.

_Baltimore, January 13, 1788._

Luther Martin, II.

The Maryland Journal, (Number 1018)

FRIDAY, MARCH 7, 1788.

MR. GODDARD:

_Sir_,

In consequence of the justice I did Mr. Gerry, on a former occasion, I find myself complimented with an Address in your last Paper. Whether the Landholder of the Connecticut Courant, and of the Maryland Journal,(57) is the same person, or different, is not very material; I however incline to the former opinion, as I hope for the honour of human nature, it would be difficult to find more than one individual who could be capable of so total a disregard to the principles of truth and honour. After having made the most unjust and illiberal attack on Mr. Gerry, and stigmatized him as an enemy to his country, and the basest of mankind, for no other reason than a firm and conscientious discharge of an important trust reposed in that gentleman, had I not come in for a share of his censure, I confess I should have been both disappointed and mortified. It would have had at least the appearance, that the Landholder had discovered something in my principles, which he considered congenial with his own. However great may be my political sins, to be cursed with his approbation and applause, would be a punishment much beyond their demerit. But, Sir, at present I mean to confine myself to the original subject of controversy, the injustice of the charges made against Mr. Gerry. That my veracity will not be questioned when giving my negative to anonymous slander, I have the fullest confidence. I have equal confidence that it will be as little questioned by any who know me, even should the Landholder vouchsafe to give the Public his name—a respectable name I am sure it cannot be. His absolute want of truth and candour in assertions meant to injure the reputation of individuals, whose names are given to the public, and to hold them up to the indignation of their fellow citizens, will ever justify this assertion, even should the name belong to one decorated with wealth, or dignified by station. But the Landholder wishes it to be supposed, that though my veracity should not be doubted, yet my evidence ought to be rejected, and observes, that to comprehend what credit ought to be given to it, by which I suppose he means its sufficiency if credited, it ought to be known how long I was absent from Convention, as well as the time I attended. I believe Sir, whoever will read my former publication will in a moment perceive, that I there “stated” all the “information” on this subject that was necessary or material, and that I left no defect for the Landholder to supply. I there mentioned that “I took my seat early in June, that I left Philadelphia on the fourth of September, and during that period was not absent from the convention while sitting, except only five days in the beginning of August, immediately after the Committee of Detail had reported.” I did not state the precise day of June when I took my seat—it was the ninth, not the tenth—a very inconsiderable mistake of the Landholder. But between that day and the fourth of September he says that I was absent ten days at Baltimore, and as many at New York, and thereby insinuates that an absence of twenty days from the Convention intervened during that period, in which time Mr. Gerry might have made and failed in his motion concerning continental money. A short state of facts is all that is necessary to shew the disingenuity of the Landholder, and that it is very possible to convey a falsehood, or something very much like it, almost in the words of truth. On the twenty-fifth of July the Convention adjourned, to meet again on the sixth of August. I embraced that opportunity to come to Baltimore, and left Philadelphia on the twenty-seventh; I returned on the fourth of August, and on the sixth attended the Convention, with such members as were in town, at which time the Committee of Detail made their report, and many of the members being yet absent, we adjourned to the next day. Mr. Gerry left Philadelphia to go to New York the day before I left there to come to Baltimore; he had not returned on Tuesday, the seventh of August, when I set out for New York, from whence I returned and took my seat in Convention on Monday, the thirteenth. It is true that from the twenty-fifth of July to the thirteenth of August eighteen (not twenty) days had elapsed, but on one of those days I attended, and on twelve of them the Convention did not meet. I was, therefore, perfectly correct in my original statement that from early in June to the fourth of September I was absent but five days from the Convention while sitting, and in that statement omitted no “necessary information.” It is also true that of those eighteen days Mr. Gerry was absent twelve or thirteen, and that one of those days when he was not absent was Sunday, on which day the Convention did not meet. Thus, Sir, by relating facts as they really occurred, we find the only time between early in June and the fourth of September when such a motion could have been made by Mr. Gerry without my being present is narrowed down to four, or at most five days, as I originally stated it, although Landholder wishes it should be supposed there were twenty days during that period when it might have taken place without my knowledge, to wit, ten while I was at Baltimore, and as many more while at New York. The Landholder also states that the Convention commenced the fourteenth day of May, and that I did not take my seat till the tenth day of June, by which, if he means anything, I presume he means to insinuate that within that portion of time Mr. Gerry’s motion might have been made and rejected. He is here, Sir, equally unfortunate and disingenuous. Though the Convention was to have met by appointment on the fourteenth of May, yet no material business was entered upon till on or about the thirtieth of that month. It was on that day that the Convention, having had certain propositions laid before them by the Honourable Governor of Virginia, resolved to go into a consideration of these propositions. In this fact I am confident I am not mistaken, as I state the day not merely from my own recollection but from minutes which I believe to be very correct, in my possession, of the information given by the Honourable Mr. McHenry to the assembly. The truth is, Sir, that very little progress had been made by the Convention before I arrived, and that they had not been more than ten days, or about that time, seriously engaged in business. The first thing I did after I took my seat was carefully to examine the journals for information of what had already been done or proposed. I was also furnished with notes of the debates which had taken place, and can with truth say that I made myself “minutely informed” of what had happened before that period. In the same manner, after my return from New York, I consulted the journals (for we were permitted to read them, although we were not always permitted to take copies). If the motion attributed to Mr. Gerry had been made and rejected, either before I first took my seat or while at New York, it would have there appeared, and that no such motion was made and rejected during either of these periods I appeal to the highest possible authority. I appeal to those very journals, which ought to have been published, and which we are informed are placed in the possession of our late Honourable President. But why, Sir, should I appeal to these journals, or to any other authority? Let the Landholder turn to his eighth number, addressed to the Honourable Mr. Gerry; let him blush, unless incapable of that sensation, while he reads the following passage: “Almost the whole time during the sitting of the Convention, and until the Constitution had received its present form, no man was more plausible and conciliating on every subject than Mr. Gerry,” &c. Thus stood Mr. Gerry, till towards the close of the business he introduced a motion respecting the redemption of paper money. The whole time of the sitting of the Convention was not almost past. The Constitution had not received its present form, nor was the business drawing towards a close, until long after I took my seat in Convention. It is therefore proved by the Landholder himself that Mr. Gerry did not make this motion at any time before the ninth day of June. Nay more, in the paper now before me he acknowledges that in his eighth number he meant (and surely no one ought to know his meaning better than himself) to fix Mr. Gerry’s apostacy to a period within the last thirteen days. Why then all this misrepresentation of my absence at Baltimore and New York? Why the attempt to induce a belief that the Convention had been engaged in business from the fourteenth of May, and the insinuation that it might have happened in those periods? And why the charge that in not stating those facts I had withheld from the public information necessary to its forming a right judgment of the credit which ought to be given to my evidence. But, Sir, I am really at a loss which most to admire—the depravity of this writer’s heart, or the weakness of his head. Is it possible he should not perceive that the moment he fixes the time of Mr. Gerry’s motion to the last thirteen days of the Convention, he proves incontestably the falsehood and malice of his charges against that gentleman—for he has expressly stated that this motion and the rejection it received was the cause, and the sole cause, of his apostacy; that “before, there was nothing in the system, as it now stands, to which he had any objection, but that afterwards he was inspired with the utmost rage and intemperate opposition to the whole system he had formerly praised;” whereas I have shown to the clearest demonstration, that a considerable time before the last thirteen days, Mr. Gerry had given the most decided opposition to the system. I have shown this by recital of facts, which if credited, incontestibly prove it—facts which, I again repeat, will never be contradicted by any member of the Convention. I ground this assertion upon the fullest conviction that it is impossible to find a single person in that number so wicked, as publicly and deliberately to prostitute his name in support of falsehood, and at the same time so weak as to do this when he must be sure of detection. But the Landholder is willing to have it supposed that Mr. Gerry might have made the motion in a “committee,” and that there it might have happened without my knowledge; to such wretched subterfuges is he driven. This evasion, however, will be equally unavailing. The business of the committees were not of a secret nature, nor were they conducted in a secret manner; I mean as to the members of the Convention. I am satisfied that there was no committee while I was there, of whose proceedings I was not at least “so minutely informed,” that an attempt of so extraordinary a nature as that attributed to Mr. Gerry, and attended with such an immediate and remarkable revolution in his conduct, could not have taken place without my having heard something concerning it. The non-adoption of a measure by a committee did not preclude its being proposed to the Convention, and being there adopted. Can it be presumed that a question in which Mr. Gerry is represented to have been so deeply interested, and by the fate of which his conduct was entirely influenced, would for want of success in a committee have been totally relinquished by him, without a single effort to carry it in Convention! If any other proof is wanting, I appeal again to the Landholder himself. In his eighth number he states that the motion was rejected “by the Convention.” Let it be remembered also, as I have before observed, in the paper now before me, he declares it was his intention in that number to fix Mr. Gerry’s apostacy to a period within the last thirteen days; and in the same number he observes that Mr. Gerry’s resentment could only embarrass and delay the completion of the business for a few days; all which equally militate against every idea of the motion being made before he left Philadelphia, whether in Committee or in Convention. The Landholder hath also asserted, that I have “put into Mr. Gerry’s mouth, objections different from any thing his letter to the legislature of his State contains, so that if my representation is true, his must be false.” In this charge he is just as well founded as in those I have already noticed. Mr. Gerry has more than once published to the world, under the sanction of his name, that he opposed the system from a firm persuasion that it would endanger the liberties of America, and destroy the freedom of the States and their citizens. Every word which I have stated as coming from his mouth, so far from being inconsistent with those declarations, are perfectly correspondent thereto and direct proofs of their truth. When the Landholder informed us that Mr. Gerry was “face to face with his colleagues in the Convention of Massachusetts,” why did he not, unless he wished to mislead the public, also inform us for what purpose he was there?