LETTER IV.

OCTOBER 12TH, 1787.

DEAR SIR,

It will not be possible to establish in the federal courts the jury trial of the vicinage so well as in the state courts.

Third, there appears to me to be not only a premature deposit of some important powers in the general government—but many of those deposited there are undefined, and may be used to good or bad purposes as honest or designing men shall prevail. By Art. 1, Sec. 2, representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states, &c.——same art. sect. 8, the congress shall have powers to lay and collect taxes, duties, &c. for the common defence and general welfare, but all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United States: By the first recited clause, direct taxes shall be apportioned on the states. This seems to favour the idea suggested by some sensible men and writers that congress, as to direct taxes, will only have power to make requisitions; but the latter clause, power to lay and collect taxes, &c. seems clearly to favour the contrary opinion, and, in my mind, the true one, the congress shall have power to tax immediately individuals, without the intervention of the state legislatures, in fact the first clause appears to me only to provide that each state shall pay a certain portion of the tax, and the latter to provide that congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, that is to assess upon, and to collect of the individuals in the state, the states quota; but these still I consider as undefined powers, because judicious men understand them differently.

It is doubtful whether the vice-president is to have any qualifications; none are mentioned; but he may serve as president, and it may be inferred, he ought to be qualified therefore as the president; but the qualifications of the president are required only of the person to be elected president. By art. 2, sect. 2, “But the congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers as they think proper in the president alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of the departments.” Who are inferior officers? May not a congress disposed to vest the appointment of all officers in the president, [29] under this clause, vest the appointment of almost every officer in the president alone, and destroy the check mentioned in the first part of the clause, and lodged in the senate. It is true, this check is badly lodged, but then some check upon the first magistrate in appointing officers, ought it appears by the opinion of the convention, and by the general opinion, to be established in the constitution. By art. 3, sect. 2, the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction as to law and facts with such exceptions, &c. to what extent is it intended the exceptions shall be carried—Congress may carry them so far as to annihilate substantially the appellate jurisdiction, and the clause be rendered of very little importance.

4th. There are certain rights which we have always held sacred in the United States, and recognized in all our constitutions, and which, by the adoption of the new constitution in its present form, will be left unsecured. By article 6, the proposed constitution, and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby; anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

It is to be observed that when the people shall adopt the proposed constitution it will be their last and supreme act; it will be adopted not by the people of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, &c., but by the people of the United States; and wherever this constitution, or any part of it, shall be incompatible with the ancient customs, rights, the laws or the constitutions heretofore established in the United States, it will entirely abolish them and do them away: And not only this, but the laws of the United States which shall be; made in pursuance of the federal constitution will be also supreme laws, and wherever they shall be incompatible with those customs, rights, laws or constitutions heretofore established, they will also entirely abolish them and do them away.

By the article before recited, treaties also made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law: It is not said that these treaties shall be made in pursuance of the constitution—nor are there any constitutional bounds set to those who shall make them: The president and two-thirds of the senate will be empowered to make treaties indefinitely, and when these treaties shall be made, they will also abolish all laws and state constitutions incompatible with them. This power in the president and senate is absolute, and the judges will be bound to allow full force to whatever rule, article or thing the president and senate shall establish by treaty, whether it be [30] practicable to set any bounds to those who make treaties, I am not able to say; if not, it proves that this power ought to be more safely lodged.

The federal constitution, the laws of congress made in pursuance of the constitution, and all treaties must have full force and effect in all parts of the United States; and all other laws, rights and constitutions which stand in their way must yield: It is proper the national laws should be supreme, and superior to state or district laws; but then the national laws ought to yield to unalienable or fundamental rights——and national laws, made by a few men, should extend only to a few national objects. This will not be the case with the laws of congress: To have any proper idea of their extent, we must carefully examine the legislative, executive and judicial powers proposed to be lodged in the general government, and consider them in connection with a general clause in art. 1, sect. 8, in these words (after enumerating a number of powers) “To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.”——The powers of this government as has been observed, extend to internal as well as external objects, and to those objects to which all others are subordinate; it is almost impossible to have a just conception of their powers, or of the extent and number of the laws which may be deemed necessary and proper to carry them into effect, till we shall come to exercise those powers and make the laws. In making laws to carry those powers into effect, it is to be expected, that a wise and prudent congress will pay respect to the opinions of a free people, and bottom their laws on those principles which have been considered as essential and fundamental in the British, and in our government: But a congress of a different character will not be bound by the constitution to pay respect to those principles.

It is said that when people make a constitution, and delegate powers, that all powers are not delegated by them to those who govern, is reserved in the people; and that the people, in the present case, have reserved in themselves, and in their state governments, every right and power not expressly given by the federal constitution to those who shall administer the national government. It is said, on the other hand, that the people, when they make a constitution, yield all power not expressly reserved to themselves. The truth is, in either case, it is mere matter of opinion, and men usually take either side of the argument, as will best answer their purposes: But the general [31] presumption being, that men who govern, will in doubtful cases, construe laws and constitutions most favourably for increasing their own powers; all wise and prudent people, in forming constitutions, have drawn the line, and carefully described the powers parted with and the powers reserved. By the state constitutions, certain rights have been reserved in the people; or rather, they have been recognized and established in such a manner, that state legislatures are bound to respect them, and to make no laws infringing upon them. The state legislatures are obliged to take notice of the bills of rights of their respective states. The bills of rights, and the state constitutions, are fundamental compacts only between those who govern, and the people of the same state.

In the year 1788 the people of the United States made a federal constitution, which is a fundamental compact between them and their federal rulers; these rulers, in the nature of things, cannot be bound to take notice of any other compact. It would be absurd for them, in making laws, to look over thirteen, fifteen, or twenty state constitutions, to see what rights are established as fundamental, and must not be infringed upon, in making laws in the society. It is true, they would be bound to do it if the people, in their federal compact, should refer to the state constitutions, recognize all parts not inconsistent with the federal constitution, and direct their federal rulers to take notice of them accordingly; but this is not the case, as the plan stands proposed at present; and it is absurd, to suppose so unnatural an idea is intended or implied. I think my opinion is not only founded in reason, but I think it is supported by the report of the convention itself. If there are a number of rights established by the state constitutions, and which will remain sacred, and the general government is bound to take notice of them—it must take notice of one as well as another; and if unnecessary to recognize or establish one by the federal constitution, it would be unnecessary to recognize or establish another by it. If the federal constitution is to be construed so far in connection with the state constitution, as to leave the trial by jury in civil causes, for instance, secured; on the same principles it would have left the trial by jury in criminal causes, the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus, &c. secured; they all stand on the same footing; they are the common rights of Americans, and have been recognized by the state constitutions: But the convention found it necessary to recognize or re-establish the benefits of that writ, and the jury trial in criminal cases. As to _expost facto_ laws, the convention has done the same in one case, and gone further in another. It is a part of the com- [32] pact between the people of each state and their rulers, that no _expost facto_ laws shall be made. But the convention, by Art. 1, Sect. 10, have put a sanction upon this part even of the state compacts. In fact, the 9th and 10th Sections in Art. 1, in the proposed constitution, are no more nor less, than a partial bill of rights; they establish certain principles as part of the compact upon which the federal legislators and officers can never infringe. It is here wisely stipulated, that the federal legislature shall never pass a bill of attainder, or _expost facto_ law; that no tax shall be laid on articles exported, &c. The establishing of one right implies the necessity of establishing another and similar one.

On the whole, the position appears to me to be undeniable, that this bill of rights ought to be carried farther, and some other principles established, as a part of this fundamental compact between the people of the United States and their federal rulers.

It is true, we are not disposed to differ much, at present, about religion; but when we are making a constitution, it is to be hoped, for ages and millions yet unborn, why not establish the free exercise of religion, as a part of the national compact. There are other essential rights, which we have justly understood to be the rights of freemen; as freedom from hasty and unreasonable search warrants, warrants not founded on oath, and not issued with due caution, for searching and seizing men’s papers, property, and persons. The trials by jury in civil causes, it is said, varies so much in the several states, that no words could be found for the uniform establishment of it. If so, the federal legislation will not be able to establish it by any general laws. I confess I am of opinion it may be established, but not in that beneficial manner in which we may enjoy it, for the reasons beforementioned. When I speak of the jury trial of the vicinage, or the trial of the fact in the neighborhood, I do not lay so much stress upon the circumstance of our being tried by our neighbours: in this enlightened country men may be probably impartially tried by those who do not live very near them: but the trial of facts in the neighbourhood is of great importance in other respects. Nothing can be more essential than the cross examining witnesses, and generally before the triers of the facts in question. The common people can establish facts with much more ease with oral than written evidence; when trials of facts are removed to a distance from the homes of the parties and witnesses, oral evidence becomes intolerably expensive, and the parties must depend on written evidence, which to the common people is expensive and almost [33] useless; it must be frequently taken ex porte, and but very seldom leads to the proper discovery of truth.

The trial by jury is very important in another point of view. It is essential in every free country, that common people should have a part and share of influence, in the judicial as well as in the legislative department. To hold open to them the offices of senators, judges, and offices to fill which an expensive education is required, cannot answer any valuable purposes for them; they are not in a situation to be brought forward and to fill those offices; these, and most other offices of any considerable importance, will be occupied by the few. The few, the well born, &c. as Mr. Adams calls them, in judicial decisions as well as in legislation, are generally disposed, and very naturally too, to favour those of their own description.

The trial by jury in the judicial department, and the collection of the people by their representatives in the legislature, are those fortunate inventions which have procured for them, in this country, their true proportion of influence, and the wisest and most fit means of protecting themselves in the community. Their situation, as jurors and representatives, enables them to acquire information and knowledge in the affairs and government of the society; and to come forward, in turn, as the sentinels and guardians of each other. I am very sorry that even a few of our countrymen should consider jurors and representatives in a different point of view, as ignorant, troublesome bodies, which ought not to have any share in the concerns of government.

I confess I do not see in what cases the congress can, with any pretence of right, make a law to suppress the freedom of the press; though I am not clear, that congress is restrained from laying any duties whatever on printing, and from laying duties particularly heavy on certain pieces printed, and perhaps congress may require large bonds for the payment of these duties. Should the printer say, the freedom of the press was secured by the constitution of the state in which he lived, congress might, and perhaps, with great propriety, answer, that the federal constitution is the only compact existing between them and the people; in this compact the people have named no others, and therefore congress, in exercising the powers assigned them, and in making laws to carry them into execution, are restrained by nothing beside the federal constitution, any more than a state legislature is restrained by a compact between the magistrates and people of a county, city, or town of which the people, in forming the state constitution, have taken no notice.

It is not my object to enumerate rights of inconsiderable [34] importance; but there are others, no doubt, which ought to be established as a fundamental part of the national system.

It is worthy of observation, that all treaties are made by foreign nations with a confederacy of thirteen states—that the western country is attached to thirteen states—thirteen states have jointly and severally engaged to pay the public debts.—Should a new government be formed of nine, ten, eleven, or twelve states, those treaties could not be considered as binding on the foreign nations who made them. However, I believe the probability to be, that if nine states adopt the constitution, the others will.

It may also be worthy our examination, how far the provision for amending this plan, when it shall be adopted, is of any importance. No measures can be taken towards amendments, unless two-thirds of the congress, or two-thirds of the legislature of the several states shall agree.—While power is in the hands of the people, or democratic part of the community, more especially as at present, it is easy, according to the general course of human affairs, for the few influential men in the community, to obtain conventions, alterations in government, and to persuade the common people that they may change for the better, and to get from them a part of the power. But when power is once transferred from the many to the few, all changes become extremely difficult; the government, in this case, being beneficial to the few, they will be exceedingly artful and adroit in preventing any measures which may lead to a change; and nothing will produce it, but great exertions and severe struggles on the part of the common people. Every man of reflection must see, that the change now proposed, is a transfer of power from the many to the few, and the probability is, the artful and ever active aristocracy, will prevent all peaceful measures for changes, unless when they shall discover some favorable moment to increase their own influence. I am sensible, thousands of men in the United States, are disposed to adopt the proposed constitution, though they perceive it to be essentially defective, under an idea that amendments of it, may be obtained when necessary. This is a pernicious idea, it argues a servility of character totally unfit for the support of free government; it is very repugnant to that perpetual jealousy respecting liberty, so absolutely necessary in all free states, spoken of by Mr. Dickinson.—However, if our countrymen are so soon changed, and the language of 1774, is become odious to them, it will be in vain to use the language of freedom, or to attempt to rouse them to free enquiries: But I shall never believe this is the case with them, whatever present appearances may be, till I shall have very strong evidence indeed of it.

Your’s, &c.

THE FEDERAL FARMER.

[35] LETTER V.

OCTOBER 15th, 1787.

DEAR SIR,

Thus I have examined the federal constitution as far as a few days leisure would permit. It opens to my mind a new scene; instead of seeing powers cautiously lodged in the hands of numerous legislators, and many magistrates, we see all important powers collecting in one centre, where a few men will possess them almost at discretion. And instead of checks in the formation of the government, to secure the rights of the people against the usurpations of those they appoint to govern, we are to understand the equal division of lands among our people, and the strong arm furnished them by nature and situation, are to secure them against those usurpations. If there are advantages in the equal division of our lands, and the strong and manly habits of our people, we ought to establish governments calculated to give duration to them, and not governments which never can work naturally, till that equality of property, and those free and manly habits shall be destroyed; these evidently are not the natural basis of the proposed constitution. No man of reflection, and skilled in the science of government, can suppose these will move on harmoniously together for ages, or even for fifty years. As to the little circumstances commented upon, by some writers, with applause—as the age of a representative, of the president, &c.—they have, in my mind, no weight in the general tendency of the system.

There are, however, in my opinion, many good things in the proposed system. It is founded on elective principles, and the deposits of powers in different hands, is essentially right. The guards against those evils we have experienced in some states in legislation are valuable indeed; but the value of every feature in this system is vastly lessened for the want of that one important feature in a free government, a representation of the people. Because we have sometimes abused democracy, I am not among those men who think a democratic branch a nuisance; which branch shall be sufficiently numerous to admit some of the best informed men of each order in the community into the administration of government.

While the radical defects in the proposed system are not so soon discovered, some temptations to each state, and to many classes of men to adopt it, are very visible. It uses the democratic language of several of the state constitutions, particularly that of Massachusetts; the eastern states will receive advantages so far as the regulation of trade, by a bare majority, is committed to it: Connecticut and New Jersey will receive their share of a [36] general impost: The middle states will receive the advantages surrounding the seat of government; The southern states will receive protection, and have their negroes represented in the legislature, and large back countries will soon have a majority in it. This system promises a large field of employment to military gentlemen, and gentlemen of the law; and in case the government shall be executed without convulsions, it will afford security to creditors, to the clergy, salary-men and others depending on money payments. So far as the system promises justice and reasonable advantages, in these respects, it ought to be supported by all honest men; but whenever it promises unequal and improper advantages to any particular states, or orders of men, it ought to be opposed.

I have, in the course of these letters observed, that there are many good things in the proposed constitution, and I have endeavored to point out many important defects in it. I have admitted that we want a federal system—that we have a system presented, which, with several alterations may be made a tolerable good one—I have admitted there is a well founded uneasiness among creditors and mercantile men. In this situation of things, you ask me what I think ought to be done? My opinion in this case is only the opinion of an individual, and so far only as it corresponds with the opinions of the honest and substantial part of the community, is it entitled to consideration. Though I am fully satisfied that the state conventions ought most seriously to direct their exertions to altering and amending the system proposed before they shall adopt it—yet I have not sufficiently examined the subject, or formed an opinion, how far it will be practicable for those conventions to carry their amendments. As to the idea, that it will be in vain for those conventions to attempt amendments, it cannot be admitted; it is impossible to say whether they can or not until the attempt shall be made; and when it shall be determined, by experience, that the conventions cannot agree in amendments, it will then be an important question before the people of the United States, whether they will adopt or not the system proposed in its present form. This subject of consolidating the states is new: and because forty or fifty men have agreed in a system, to suppose the good sense of this country, an enlightened nation, must adopt it without examination, and though in a state of profound peace, without endeavouring to amend those parts they perceive are defective, dangerous to freedom, and destructive of the valuable principles of republican government—is truly humiliating. It is true there may be danger in delay; but there is danger in adopting the system in its present form; and I see the danger in either case will arise principally from the conduct and views of [37] two very unprincipled parties in the United States—two fires, between which the honest and substantial people have long found themselves situated. One party is composed of little insurgents, men in debt, who want no law, and who want a share of the property of others; these are called levellers, Shayites, &c. The other party is composed of a few, but more dangerous men, with their servile dependents; these avariciously grasp at all power and property; you may discover in all the actions of these men, an evident dislike to free and equal government, and they will go systematically to work to change, essentially, the forms of government in this country; these are called aristocrats, m——ites, &c. &c. Between these two parties is the weight of the community; the men of middling property, men not in debt on the one hand, and men, on the other, content with republican governments, and not aiming at immense fortunes, offices, and power. In 1786, the little insurgents, the levellers, came forth, invaded the rights of others, and attempted to establish governments according to their wills. Their movements evidently gave encouragement to the other party, which, in 1787, has taken the political field, and with its fashionable dependants, and the tongue and the pen, is endeavoring to establish in a great haste, a politer kind of government. These two parties, which will probably be opposed or united as it may suit their interests and views, are really insignificant, compared with the solid, free, and independent part of the community. It is not my intention to suggest, that either of these parties, and the real friends of the proposed constitution, are the same men. The fact is, these aristocrats support and hasten the adoption of the proposed constitution, merely because they think it is a stepping stone to their favorite object. I think I am well founded in this idea; I think the general politics of these men support it, as well as the common observation among them, that the proffered plan is the best that can be got at present, it will do for a few years, and lead to something better. The sensible and judicious part of the community will carefully weigh all these circumstances; they will view the late convention as a respectable body of men—America probably never will see an assembly of men, of a like number, more respectable. But the members of the convention met without knowing the sentiments of one man in ten thousand in these states respecting the new ground taken. Their doings are but the first attempts in the most important scene ever opened. Though each individual in the state conventions will not, probably, be so respectable as each individual in the federal convention, yet as the state conventions will probably consist of fifteen hundred or two thousand men of abilities, and versed in the science of government, [38] collected from all parts of the community and from all orders of men, it must be acknowledged that the weight of respectability will be in them.—In them will be collected the solid sense and the real political character of the country. Being revisers of the subject, they will possess peculiar advantages. To say that these conventions ought not to attempt, coolly and deliberately, the revision of the system, or that they cannot amend it, is very foolish or very assuming. If these conventions, after examining the system, adopt it, I shall be perfectly satisfied, and wish to see men make the administration of the government an equal blessing to all orders of men. I believe the great body of our people to be virtuous and friendly to good government, to the protection of liberty and property; and it is the duty of all good men, especially of those who are placed as sentinels to guard their rights—it is their duty to examine into the prevailing politics of parties, and to disclose them—while they avoid exciting undue suspicions, to lay facts before the people, which will enable them to form a proper judgment. Men who wish the people of this country to determine for themselves, and deliberately to fit the government to their situation, must feel some degree of indignation at those attempts to hurry the adoption of a system, and to shut the door against examination. The very attempts create suspicions, that those who make them have secret views, or see some defects in the system, which, in the hurry of affairs, they expect will escape the eye of a free people.

What can be the views of those gentlemen in Pennsylvania, who precipitated decisions on this subject? What can be the views of those gentlemen in Boston, who countenanced the Printers in shutting up the press against a fair and free investigation of this important system in the usual way. The members of the convention have done their duty——why should some of them fly to their states——almost forget a propriety of behaviour, and precipitate measures for the adoption of a system of their own making? I confess candidly, when I consider these circumstances in connection with the unguarded parts of the system I have mentioned, I feel disposed to proceed with very great caution, and to pay more attention than usual to the conduct of particular characters. If the constitution presented be a good one, it will stand the test with a well informed people: all are agreed that there shall be state conventions to examine it; and we must believe it will be adopted, unless we suppose it is a bad one, or that those conventions will make false divisions respecting it. I admit improper measures are taken against the adoption of the system as well for it——all who object to the plan proposed ought to point out the defects [39] objected to, and to propose those amendments with which they can accept it, or to propose some other system of government, that the public mind may be known, and that we may be brought to agree in some system of government, to strengthen and execute the present, or to provide a substitute. I consider the field of enquiry just opened, and that we are to look to the state conventions for ultimate decisions on the subject before us; it is not to be presumed, that they will differ about small amendments, and lose a system when they shall have made it substantially good; but touching the essential amendments, it is to be presumed the several conventions will pursue the most rational measures to agree in and obtain them; and such defects as they shall discover and not remove, they will probably notice, keep them in view as the ground work of future amendments, and in the firm and manly language which every free people ought to use, will suggest to those who may hereafter administer the government, that it is their expectation, that the system will be so organized by legislative acts, and the government so administered, as to render those defects as little injurious as possible. Our countrymen are entitled to an honest and faithful government; to a government of laws and not of men; and also to one of their chusing—as a citizen of the country, I wish to see these objects secured, and licentious, assuming, and overbearing men restrained; if the constitution or social compact be vague and unguarded, then we depend wholly upon the prudence, wisdom and moderation of those who manage the affairs of government; or on what, probably, is equally uncertain and precarious, the success of the people oppressed by the abuse of government, in receiving it from the hands of those who abuse it, and placing it in the hands of those who will use it well.

In every point of view, therefore, in which I have been able, as yet, to contemplate this subject, I can discern but one rational mode of proceeding relative to it: and that is to examine it with freedom and candour, to have state conventions some months hence, which shall examine coolly every article, clause, and word in the system proposed, and to adopt it with such amendments as they shall think fit. How far the state conventions ought to pursue the mode prescribed by the federal convention of adopting or rejecting the plan in toto, I leave it to them to determine. Our examination of the subject hitherto has been rather of a general nature. The republican characters in the several states, who wish to make this plan more adequate to security of liberty and property, and to the duration of the principles of a free government, will, no doubt, collect their opinions to certain points, and accurately define those [40] alterations and amendments they wish; if it shall be found they essentially disagree in them, the conventions will then be able to determine whether to adopt the plan as it is, or what will be proper to be done.

Under these impressions, and keeping in view the improper and unadvisable lodgment of powers in the general government, organized as it at present is, touching internal taxes, armies and militia, the elections of its own members, causes between citizens of different states, &c. and the want of a more perfect bill of rights, &c. I drop the subject for the present, and when I shall have leisure to revise and correct my ideas respecting it, and to collect into points the opinions of those who wish to make the system more secure and safe, perhaps I may proceed to point out particularly for your consideration, the amendments which ought to be ingrafted into this system, not only in conformity to my own, but the deliberate opinions of others—you will with me perceive, that the objections to the plan proposed may, by a more leisure examination be set in a stronger point of view, especially the important one, that there is no substantial representation of the people provided for in a government in which the most essential powers, even as to the internal police of the country, is proposed to be lodged.

I think the honest and substantial part of the community will wish to see this system altered, permanency and consistency given to the constitution we shall adopt; and therefore they will be anxious to apportion the powers to the features and organizations of the government, and to see abuse in the exercise of power more effectually guarded against. It is suggested, that state officers, from interested motives will oppose the constitution presented——I see no reason for this, their places in general will not be effected, but new openings to offices and places of profit must evidently be made by the adoption of the constitution in its present form.

Your’s, &c.

THE FEDERAL FARMER.

_To the_ REPUBLICAN.

The Objections of the / Hon. George Mason, / to the proposed Foederal Constitution. / Addressed to the Citizens of Virginia. /..... / Printed by Thomas Nicholas.

Folio, Broadside.

George Mason was a member of the Federal Convention, but refused to sign the Constitution, and was a leader of the opposition to its ratification in the Virginia Convention.

“I take the liberty to enclose to you my objections to the new Constitution of government, which a little moderation and temper at the end of the convention might have removed.... You will readily observe, that my objections are not numerous (the greater part of the enclosed paper containing reasonings upon the probable effects of the exceptionable parts), though in my mind some of them are capital ones.” Mason to Washington, October 7th, 1787.

Madison’s letter to Washington of October 18th, 1787, contains a cursory answer to Mason’s “Objections,” and a more elaborate one by James Iredell is printed in this volume.

P. L. F.

There is no declaration of rights: and the laws of the general government being paramount to the laws and constitutions of the several states, the declarations of rights, in the separate states, are no security. Nor are the people secured even in the enjoyment of the benefit of the common law, which stands here upon no other foundation than its having been adopted by the respective acts forming the constitutions of the several states.

In the House of Representatives there is not the substance, but the shadow only of representation; which can never produce proper information in the legislature, or inspire confidence in the people.—The laws will, therefore, be generally made by men little concerned in, and unacquainted with their effects and consequences.(66)

The Senate have the power of altering all money-bills, and of originating appropriations of money, and the salaries of the officers of their appointment, in conjunction with the President of the United States—Although they are not the representatives of the people, or amenable to them. These, with their other great powers, (viz. their powers in the appointment of ambassadors, and all public officers, in making treaties, and in trying all impeachments) their influence upon, and connection with, the supreme executive from these causes, their duration of office, and their being a constant existing body, almost continually sitting, joined with their being one complete branch of the legislature, will destroy any balance in the government, and enable them to accomplish what usurpations they please, upon the rights and liberties of the people.

The judiciary of the United States is so constructed and extended, as to absorb and destroy the judiciaries of the several states; thereby rendering laws as tedious, intricate, and expensive, and justice as unattainable by a great part of the community, as in England; and enabling the rich to oppress and ruin the poor.

The President of the United States has no constitutional council (a thing unknown in any safe and regular government,) he will therefore be unsupported by proper information and advice; and will generally be directed by minions and favorites—or he will become a tool to the Senate—or a council of state will grow out of the principal officers of the great departments—the worst and most dangerous of all ingredients for such a council, in a free country; for they may be induced to join in any dangerous or oppressive measures, to shelter themselves, and prevent an inquiry into their own misconduct in office. Whereas, had a constitutional council been formed (as was proposed) of six members, viz., two from the eastern, two from the middle, and two from the southern states, to be appointed by vote of the states in the House of Representatives, with the same duration and rotation of office as the Senate, the executive would always have had safe and proper information and advice; the president of such a council might have acted as Vice-President of the United States, _pro tempore_, upon any vacancy or disability of the chief magistrate; and long continued sessions of the Senate, would in a great measure have been prevented. From this fatal defect of a constitutional council, has arisen the improper power of the Senate, in the appointment of the public officers, and the alarming dependence and connexion between that branch of the legislature and the supreme executive. Hence, also, sprung that unnecessary officer, the Vice-President, who, for want of other employment, is made President of the Senate; thereby dangerously blending the executive and legislative powers; besides always giving to some one of the states an unnecessary and unjust pre-eminence over the others.

The President of the United States has the unrestrained power of granting pardon for treason; which may be sometimes exercised to screen from punishment those whom he had secretly instigated to commit the crime, and thereby prevent a discovery of his own guilt. By declaring all treaties supreme laws of the land, the executive and the Senate have, in many cases, an exclusive power of legislation, which might have been avoided, by proper distinctions with respect to treaties, and requiring the assent of the House of Representatives, where it could be done with safety.

By requiring only a majority to make all commercial and navigation laws, the five southern states (whose produce and circumstances are totally different from those of the eight northern and eastern states) will be ruined: for such rigid and premature regulations may be made, as will enable the merchants of the northern and eastern states not only to demand an exorbitant freight, but to monopolize the purchase of the commodities, at their own price, for many years, to the great injury of the landed interest, and the impoverishment of the people: and the danger is the greater, as the gain on one side will be in proportion to the loss on the other. Whereas, requiring two-thirds of the members present in both houses, would have produced mutual moderation, promoted the general interest, and removed an insuperable objection to the adoption of the government.

Under their own construction of the general clause at the end of the enumerated powers, the Congress may grant monopolies in trade and commerce, constitute new crimes, inflict unusual and severe punishments, and extend their power as far as they shall think proper; so that the state legislatures have no security for the powers now presumed to remain to them; or the people for their rights. There is no declaration of any kind for preserving the liberty of the press, the trial by jury in civil cases, nor against the danger of standing armies in time of peace.

The state legislatures are restrained from laying export duties on their own produce—the general legislature is restrained from prohibiting the further importation of slaves for twenty odd years, though such importations render the United States weaker, more vulnerable, and less capable of defence. Both the general legislature, and the state legislatures are expressly prohibited making _ex post facto_ laws, though there never was, nor can be, a legislature, but must and will make such laws, when necessity and the public safety require them, which will hereafter be a breach of all the constitutions in the union, and afford precedents for other innovations.

This government will commence in a moderate aristocracy; it is at present impossible to foresee whether it will, in its operation, produce a monarchy, or a corrupt oppressive aristocracy; it will most probably vibrate some years between the two, and then terminate in the one or the other.

GEO. MASON.

[Answers to Mr. Mason’s objections to the new Constitution, recommended by the late Convention. By Marcus. Newbern: Printed by Hodge and Wills. 1788.]

By James Iredell, member of the first North Carolina Convention. This argument was originally published in the _State Gazette of North Carolina_, and was republished in pamphlet form, together with pieces by Archibald Maclaine and William R. Davie. The most careful search has not enabled me to find the pamphlet, so I am forced to reprint the “answers” from McRee’s _Life of James Iredell_, a work of considerable rarity; and in consequence the above title is certainly not that of the pamphlet.

“I have read with great pleasure your answer to Mr. Mason’s objections; and surely every man who read them, and on whom Mr. Mason’s observations, or indeed the arguments of those in opposition in general have had any effect, must be convinced that the objections to the constitution are without foundation.” _Witherspoon to Iredell, April 3, 1788._

P. L. F.

I. OBJECTION.

“There is no declaration of rights, and the laws of the general government being paramount to the laws and constitutions of the several States, the declarations of rights in the separate States are no security. Nor are the people secured even in the enjoyment of the benefit of the common law, which stands here upon no other foundation than its having been adopted by the respective acts forming the Constitutions of the several States.”

ANSWER.

1. As to the want of a declaration of rights. The introduction of these in England, from which the idea was originally taken, was in consequence of usurpations of the Crown, contrary, as was conceived, to the principles of their government. But there no original constitution is to be found, and the only meaning of a declaration of rights in that country is, that in certain particulars specified, the Crown had no authority to act. Could this have been necessary had there been a constitution in being by which it could have been clearly discerned whether the Crown had such authority or not? Had the people, by a solemn instrument, delegated particular powers to the Crown at the formation of their government, surely the Crown, which in that case could claim under that instrument only, could not have contended for more power than was conveyed by it. So it is in regard to the new Constitution here: the future government which may be formed under that authority certainly cannot act beyond the warrant of that authority. As well might they attempt to impose a King upon America, as go one step in any other respect beyond the terms of their institution. The question then only is, whether more power will be vested in the future government than is necessary for the general purposes of the union. This may occasion a ground of dispute—but after expressly defining the powers that are to be exercised, to say that they shall exercise no other powers (either by a general or particular enumeration) would seem to me both nugatory and ridiculous. As well might a Judge when he condemns a man to be hanged, give strong injunctions to the Sheriff that he should not be beheaded.(67)

2. As to the common law, it is difficult to know what is meant by that part of the objection. So far as the people are now entitled to the benefit of the common law, they certainly will have a right to enjoy it under the new Constitution until altered by the general legislature, which even in this point has some cardinal limits assigned to it. What are most acts of Assembly but a deviation in some degree from the principles of the common law? The people are expressly secured (contrary to Mr. Mason’s wishes) against _ex post facto_ laws; so that the tenure of any property at any time held under the principles of the common law, cannot be altered by any future act of the general legislature. The principles of the common law, as they now apply, must surely always hereafter apply, except in those particulars in which express authority is given by this constitution; in no other particulars can the Congress have authority to change it, and I believe it cannot be shown that any one power of this kind given is unnecessarily given, or that the power would answer its proper purpose if the legislature was restricted from any innovations on the principles of the common law, which would not in all cases suit the vast variety of incidents that might arise out it.

II. OBJECTION.

“In the House of Representatives there is not the substance, but the shadow only of representation; which can never produce proper information in the legislature, or inspire confidence in the people; the laws will therefore generally be made by men little concerned in, and unacquainted with their effects and consequences.”

ANSWER.

This is a mere matter of calculation. It is said the weight of this objection was in a great measure removed by altering the number of 40,000 to 30,000 constituents. To show the discontented nature of man, some have objected to the number of representatives as being too large. I leave to every man’s judgment whether the number is not sufficiently respectable, and whether, if that number be sufficient, it would have been right, in the very infancy of this government, to burthen the people with a great additional expense to answer no good purpose.(68)

III. OBJECTION.

“The Senate have the power of altering all money bills, and of originating appropriations of money, and the salaries of the officers of their own appointment, in conjunction with the President of the United States; although they are not the representatives of the people or amenable to them.—These, with their other great powers (viz. their powers in the appointment of Ambassadors, and all public officers, in making treaties and trying all impeachments) their influence upon and connection with the supreme Executive, from these causes, their duration of office, and their being a constant existing body almost continually sitting, joined with their being one complete branch of the legislature, will destroy any balance in the government, and enable them to accomplish what usurpations they please upon the rights and liberties of the people.”

ANSWER.

This objection, respecting the dangerous power of the Senate, is one of that kind which may give rise to a great deal of gloomy prediction, without any solid foundation: An imagination indulging itself in chimerical fears, upon the disappointment of a favorite plan, may point out danger arising from any system of government whatever, even if angels were to have the administration of it; since I presume none but the Supreme Being himself is altogether perfect, and of course every other species of beings may abuse any delegated portion of power. This sort of visionary scepticism therefore will lead us to this alternative, either to have no government at all, or to form the best system we can, making allowance for human imperfection. In my opinion the fears as to the power of the Senate are altogether groundless, as to any probability of their being either able or willing to do any important mischief. My reasons are,

1. Because, though they are not immediately to represent the people, yet they are to represent the representatives of the people who are annually chosen, and it is therefore probable the most popular, or confidential, persons in each State, will be elected members of the Senate.

2. Because one-third of the Senate are to be chosen as often as the immediate representatives of the people, and as the President can act in no case from which any great danger can be apprehended without the concurrence of two-thirds, let us think ever so ill of the designs of the President, and the danger of a combination of power among a standing body generally associated with him, unless we suppose every one of them to be base and infamous (a supposition, thank God, bad as human nature is, not within the verge of the slightest probability), we have reason to believe that the one-third newly introduced every second year, will bring with them from the immediate body of the people, a sufficient portion of patriotism and independence to check any exorbitant designs of the rest.

3. Because in their legislative capacity they can do nothing without the concurrence of the House of Representatives, and we need look no farther than England for a clear proof of the amazing consequence which representatives of the people bear in a free government. There the King (who is hereditary, and therefore not so immediately interested, according to narrow views of interest which commonly govern Kings, to consult the welfare of his people) has the appointment to almost every office in the government, many of which are of high dignity and great pecuniary value, has the creation of as many Peers as he pleases, is not restricted from bestowing places on the members of both houses of Parliament, and has a direct negative on all bills, besides the power of dissolving the Parliament at his pleasure. In theory would not any one say this power was enormous enough to destroy any balance in the constitution? Yet what does the history of that country tell us?—that so great is the natural power of the House of Commons (though a very imperfect representation of the people, and a large proportion of them actually purchasing their seats) that ever since the revolution the Crown has continually aimed to corrupt them by the disposal of places and pensions; that without their hearty concurrence it found all the wheels of government perpetually clogged; and that notwithstanding this, in great critical emergencies, the members have broke through the trammels of power and interest, and by speaking the sense of the people (though so imperfectly representing them) either forced an alteration of measures, or made it necessary for the Crown to dissolve them. If their power, under these circumstances, is so great, what would it be if their representation was perfect, and their members could hold no appointments, and at the same time had a security for their seats? The danger of a destruction of the balance would be perhaps on the popular side, notwithstanding the hereditary tenure and weighty prerogatives of the Crown, and the permanent station and great wealth and consequence of the Lords. Our representatives therefore being an adequate and fair representation of the people, and they being expressly excluded from the possession of any places, and not holding their existence upon any precarious tenure, must have vast influence, and considering that in every popular government the danger of faction is often very serious and alarming, if such a danger could not be checked in its instant operation by some other power more independent of the immediate passions of the people, and capable therefore of thinking with more coolness, the government might be destroyed by a momentary impulse of passion, which the very members who indulged it might for ever afterwards in vain deplore. The institution of the Senate seems well calculated to answer this salutary purpose. Excluded as they are from places themselves, they appear to be as much above the danger of personal temptation as men can be. They have no permanent interest as a body to detach them from the general welfare, since six years is the utmost period of their existence, unless their respective legislatures are sufficiently pleased with their conduct to re-elect them. This power of re-election is itself a great check upon abuse, because if they have ambition to continue members of the Senate they can only gratify this ambition by acting agreeably to the opinion of their constituents. The House of Representatives, as immediately representing the people, are to _originate_ all money bills. This I think extremely right, and it is certainly a very capital acquisition to the popular representative. But what harm can arise from the Senate, who are nearly a popular representative also, proposing amendments, when those amendments must be concurred with by the original proposers? The wisdom of the Senate may sometimes point out amendments, the propriety of which the other House may be very sensible of, though they had not occurred to themselves. There is no great danger of any body of men suffering by too eager an adoption of any amendment proposed to any system of their own. The probability is stronger of their being too tenacious of their original opinion, however erroneous, than of their profiting by the wise information of any other persons whatever. Human nature is so constituted, and therefore I think we may safely confide in the free admission of an intercourse of opinion on the detail of business, as well as to taxation as to other points. Our House of Representatives surely could not have such reason to dread the power of a Senate circumstanced as ours must be, as the House of Commons in England the permanent authority of the Peers, and therefore a jealousy, which may be well grounded in the one case would be entirely ill-directed in the other. For similar reasons I dread not any power of originating appropriations of money as mentioned in the objection. While the concurrence of the other House must be had, and as that must necessarily be the most weighty in the government, I think no danger is to be apprehended. The Senate has no such authority as to awe or influence the House of Representatives, and it will be as necessary for the one as for the other that proper active measures should be pursued: And in regard to appropriations of money, occasions for such appropriations may, on account of their concurrence with the executive power, occur to the Senate, which would not to the House of Representatives, and therefore if the Senate were precluded from laying any such proposals before the House of Representatives, the government might be embarrassed; and it ought ever to be remembered, that in our views of distant and chimerical dangers we ought not to hazard our very existence as a people, by proposing such restrictions as may prevent the exertion of any necessary power. The power of the Senate in the appointment of Ambassadors, &c., is designed as a check upon the President. They must be appointed in some manner. If the appointment was by the President alone, or by the President and a _Privy_ Council (Mr. Mason’s favorite plan), an objection to such a system would have appeared much more plausible. It would have been said that this was approaching too much towards monarchical power, and if this new Privy Council had been like all I have ever heard of, it would have afforded little security against an abuse of power in the President. It ought to be shown by reason and probability (not bold assertion) how this concurrence of power with the President can make the Senate so dangerous. It is as good an argument to say that it will not as that it will.(69) The power of making treaties is so important that it would have been highly dangerous to vest it in the Executive alone, and would have been the subject of much greater clamor. From the nature of the thing, it could not be vested in the popular representative. It must therefore have been provided for with the Senate’s concurrence, or the concurrence of a Privy Council (a thing which I believe nobody has been mad enough to propose), or the power, the greatest monarchical power that can be exercised, must have been vested in a manner that would have excited universal indignation in the President alone.—As to the power of trying impeachments:—Let Mr. Mason show where this power could more properly have been placed. It is a necessary power in every free government, since even the Judges of the Supreme Court of Judicature themselves may require a trial, and other public officers might have too much influence before an ordinary and common court. And what probability is there that such a court, acting in so solemn a manner, should abuse its power (especially as it is wisely provided that the sentences shall extend only to removal from office and incapacitation) more than any other court? The argument as to the possible abuse of power, as I have before suggested, will reach all delegation of power, since all power may be abused when fallible beings are to execute it; but we must take as much caution as we can, being careful at the same time not to be too wise to do any thing at all.—The bold assertions at the end of this objection are mere declamation, and till some reason is assigned for them, I shall take the liberty to rely upon the reasons I have stated above, as affording a belief that the popular representative must for ever be the most weighty in this government, and of course that apprehensions of danger from such a Senate are altogether ill-founded.

IV. OBJECTION.

“The judiciary of the United States is so constructed and extended, as to absorb and destroy the judiciaries of the several States; thereby rendering law as tedious, intricate and expensive and justice as unattainable by a great part of the community, as in England; and enabling the rich to oppress and ruin the poor.”

ANSWER.

Mr. Mason has here asserted, “That the judiciary of the United States is so constructed and extended, as to absorb and destroy the judiciaries of the several States.” How is this the case? Are not the State judiciaries left uncontrolled as to the affairs of that _State_ only? In this, as in all other cases, where there is a wise distribution, power is commensurate to its object. With the mere internal concerns of a State, Congress are to have nothing to do: In no case but where the Union is in some measure concerned, are the federal courts to have any jurisdiction. The State Judiciary will be a satellite waiting upon its proper planet: That of the Union, like the sun, cherishing and preserving a whole planetary system.

In regard to a possible ill construction of this authority, we must depend upon our future legislature in this case as well as others, in respect to which it is impracticable to define every thing, that it will be provided for so as to occasion as little expense and distress to individuals as can be. _In parting with the coercive authority over the States as States, there must be a coercion allowed as to individuals. The former power no man of common sense can any longer seriously contend for; the latter is the only alternative._ Suppose an objection should be made that the future legislature should not ascertain salaries, because they might divide among themselves and their officers all the revenue of the Union.(70) Will not every man see how irrational it is to expect that any government can exist which is to be fettered in its most necessary operations for fear of abuse?

V. OBJECTION.

“The President of the United States has no constitutional Council (a thing unknown in any safe and regular government), he will therefore be unsupported by proper information and advice, and will generally be directed by minions and favorites—or he will become a tool to the Senate—or a Council of State will grow out of the principal officers of the great departments; the worst and most dangerous of all ingredients for such a Council in a free country, for they may be induced to join in any dangerous or oppressive measures, to shelter themselves, and prevent an inquiry into their own misconduct in office: Whereas, had a constitutional Council been formed (as was proposed) of six members, viz., two from the eastern, two from the middle, and two from the southern States, to be appointed by a vote of the States in the House of Representatives, with the same duration and rotation of office as the Senate, the Executive would always have had safe and proper information and advice: The President of such a Council might have acted as Vice-President of the United States, _pro tempore_, upon any vacancy or disability of the Chief Magistrate, and long-continued sessions of the Senate would in a great measure have been prevented. From this fatal defect of a constitutional Council has arisen the improper power of the Senate, in the appointment of public officers, and the alarming dependence and connection between that branch of the legislature and the Supreme Executive. Hence also sprung that unnecessary and dangerous officer, the Vice-President, who for want of other employment, is made President of the Senate; thereby dangerously blending the Executive and Legislative powers; besides always giving to some one of the States an unnecessary and unjust pre-eminence over the others.”

ANSWER.

Mr. Mason here reprobates the omission of a particular Council for the President, as a thing contrary to the example of all safe and regular governments. Perhaps there are very few governments now in being deserving of that character, if under the idea of safety he means to include safety for a proper share of personal freedom, without which their safety and regularity in other respects would be of little consequence to a people so justly jealous of liberty as I hope the people in America ever will be. Since however Mr. Mason refers us to such authority, I think I cannot do better than to select for the subject of our inquiry in this particular, a government which must be universally acknowledged to be the most safe and regular of any considerable government now in being (though I hope America will soon be able to dispute that pre-eminence). Every body must know I speak of Great Britain, and in this I think I give Mr. Mason all possible advantage, since in my opinion it is most probable he had Great Britain principally in his eye when he made this remark, and in the very height of our quarrel with that country, so wedded were our ideas to the institution of a Council, that the practice was generally if not universally followed at the formation of our governments, though we instituted Councils of a quite different nature, and so far as the little experience of the writer goes, have very little benefited by it. My inquiry into this subject shall not be confined to the actual present practice of Great Britain; I shall take the liberty to state the Constitutional ideas of Councils in England, as derived from their ancient law subsisting long before the Union, not omitting however to show what the present practice really is. By the laws of England(71) the King is said to have four Councils,—1, The High Court of Parliament; 2, The Peers of the realm; 3, His Judges; 4, His Privy Council. By the first, I presume is meant, in regard to the making of laws; because the usual introductory expressions in most acts of Parliament, viz., “By the King’s most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords spiritual and temporal, and Commons,” &c., show that in a constitutional sense, they are deemed the King’s laws, after a ratification in Parliament. The Peers of the realm are by their birth hereditary Counsellors of the Crown, and may be called upon for their advice, either in time of Parliament, or when no Parliament is in being: They are called in some law books _Magnum Concilium Regis_ (the King’s Great Council). It is also considered the privilege of every particular Peer to demand an audience of the King, and to lay before him anything he may deem of public importance. The Judges, I presume, are called “Council of the King,” upon the same principle as the Parliament is, because the administration of justice is in his name, and the Judges are considered as his instruments in the distribution of it. We come now to the Privy Council, which I imagine, if Mr. Mason had any particular view towards England when he made this objection, was the one he intended as an example of a _Constitutional Council_ in that kingdom. The Privy Council in that country is undoubtedly of very ancient institution, but it has one fixed property invariably annexed to it, that it is a mere creature of the Crown, dependent on its will both for number and duration, since the King may, whenever he thinks proper, discharge any member, or the whole of it, and appoint another.(72) If this precedent is of moment to us, merely as a precedent, it should be followed in all its parts, and then what would there be in the regulation to prevent the President being governed by “minions and favorites?” It would only be the means of riveting them on constitutional ground. So far as the precedents in England apply, the Peers being constitutionally the _Great Council_ of the King, though also a part of the legislature, we have reason to hope that there is by no means such a gross impropriety as has been suggested in giving the Senate, though a branch of the legislature, a strong control over the Executive. The only difference in the two cases is, that the Crown in England may or may not give this consequence to the Peers at its own pleasure, and accordingly we find that for a long time past this great Council has been very seldom consulted; under our constitution the President is allowed no option in respect to certain points wherein he cannot act without the Senate’s concurrence. But we cannot infer from any example in England, that a concurrence between the Executive and a part of the legislative is contrary to the maxims of their government, since their government allows of such a concurrence whenever the Executive pleases. The rule, therefore, from the example of the freest government in Europe, that the Legislative and Executive powers must be altogether distinct, is liable to exceptions; it does not mean that the Executive shall not form a part of the Legislative (for the King, who has the whole Executive authority, is one entire branch of the legislature, and this Montesquieu, who recognizes the general principle, declares is necessary); neither can it mean (as the example above evinces) that the Crown must consult neither House as to any exercise of the Executive power. But its meaning must be, that one power shall not include _both authorities_. The King, for instance, shall not have the sole Executive and sole Legislative authority also. He may have the former, but must participate the latter with the two Houses of Parliament. The rule also would be infringed were the three branches of the legislature to share jointly the Executive power. But so long as the people’s representatives are altogether distinct from the Executive authority, the liberties of the people may be deemed secure. And in this point surely, there can be no manner of comparison between the provisions by which the independence of our House of Representatives is guarded, and the condition in which the British House of Commons is left exposed to every species of corruption. But Mr. Mason says, for want of a Council, the President may become “a tool of the Senate.” Why? Because he cannot act without their concurrence. Would not the same reason hold for his being “a tool to the Council,” if he could not act without their concurrence, supposing a Council was to be imposed upon him without his own nomination (according to Mr. Mason’s plan)? As great care is taken to make him independent of the Senate as I believe human precaution can provide. Whether the President will be a tool to any persons will depend upon the man, and the same weakness of mind which would make him pliable to one body of control, would certainly attend him with another. But Mr. Mason objects, if he is not directed by minions and favorites, nor becomes a tool of the Senate, “a Council of State will grow out of the principal officers of the great departments; the worst and most dangerous of all ingredients for such a Council in a free country; for they may be induced to join in any dangerous or oppressive measures, to shelter themselves, and prevent an inquiry into their own misconduct in office.” I beg leave to carry him again to my old authority, England, and ask him, what efficient Council they have there but one formed of their great officers. Notwithstanding their important _Constitutional Council_, everybody knows that the whole movements of their Government, where a Council is consulted at all, are directed by their _Cabinet Council_, composed entirely of the principal officers of the great departments; that when a Privy Council is called, it is scarcely ever for any other purpose than to give a formal sanction to the previous determinations of the other, so much so that it is notorious that not one time in a thousand one member of the Privy Council, except a known adherent of administration, is summoned to it. But though the President under our constitution may have the aid of the “principal officers of the great departments,” he is to have this aid, I think, in the most unexceptionable manner possible. He is not to be assisted by a Council summoned to a jovial dinner perhaps, and giving their opinions according to the nod of the President; but the opinion is to be given with the utmost solemnity _in writing_. No after equivocation can explain it away. It must for ever afterwards speak for itself, and commit the character of the writer, in lasting colors, either of fame or infamy, or neutral insignificance, to future ages, as well as the present. From those _written reasons_, weighed with care, surely the President can form as good a judgment, as if they had been given by a dozen formal characters, carelessly met together on a slight appointment; and this further advantage would be derived from the proposed system (which would be wanting if he had constitutional advice to screen him), that the President must be _personally responsible_ for everything—for though an ingenious gentleman has proposed, that a Council should be responsible for _their opinions_, and the same sentiment of justice might be applied to these opinions of the great officers, I am persuaded it will in general be thought infinitely more _safe_, as well as more _just_, that the President who _acts_ should be responsible for his _conduct_, following advice at his peril, than that there should be a danger of punishing any man for an erroneous opinion which might possibly be sincere. Besides the morality of this scheme, which may well be questioned, its inexpediency is glaring, since it would be so plausible an excuse and the insincerity of it so difficult to detect, the hopes of impunity this avenue to escape would afford would nearly take away all dread of punishment. As to the temptation mentioned to the officers joining in dangerous or oppressive measures to shelter themselves, and prevent an inquiry into their own misconduct in office, this proceeds upon a supposition that the President and the great officers may form a very wicked combination to injure their country, a combination that in the first place it is utterly improbable, in a strong respectable government should be formed for that purpose, and in the next, with such a government as this constitution would give us, could have little chance of being successful, on account of the great superior strength and natural and jealous vigilance of one at least, if not both the weighty branches of legislation. This evil, however, of the possible depravity of _all public officers_, is one that can admit of no cure, since in every institution of government the same danger in some degree or other must be risked; it can only be guarded against by strong checks, and I believe it be difficult for the objectors to our new Constitution to provide stronger ones against any abuse of the Executive authority than will exist in that. As to the Vice President, it appears to me very proper he should be chosen much in the same manner as the President, in order that the States may be secure, upon any accidental loss by death or otherwise of the President’s service, of the services in the same important station of the man in whom they repose their second confidence. The complicated manner of election wisely prescribed would necessarily occasion a considerable delay in the choice of another, and in the mean time the President of the Council, though very fit for the purpose of advising, might be very ill qualified, especially in a critical period, for an active Executive department. I am concerned to see, among Mr. Mason’s other reasons, so trivial a one as the little advantage one State might accidentally gain by a Vice President of their country having a seat, with merely a casting vote, in the Senate. Such a reason is utterly unworthy of that spirit of amity, and rejection of local views, which can alone save us from destruction. It was the glory of the late Convention, that by discarding such they formed a general government upon principles that did as much honor to their hearts as to their understandings. God grant, that in all our deliberations, we may consider America as _one_ body, and not divert our attention from so able a prospect to small considerations of partial jealousy and distrust. It is in vain to expect upon any system to secure an exact equilibrium of power for all the States. Some will occasionally have an advantage from the superior abilities of its members; the field of emulation is however open to all. Suppose any one should now object to the superior influence of Virginia (and the writer of this is not a citizen of that State), on account of the high character of General Washington, confessedly the greatest man of the present age, and perhaps equal to any that has existed in any period of time; would this be a reason for refusing a union with her, though the other States can scarcely hope for the consolation of ever producing his equal?

VI. OBJECTION.

“The President of the United States has the unrestrained power of granting pardons for treason; which may be sometimes exercised to screen from punishment those whom he had secretly instigated to commit the crime, and thereby prevent a discovery of his own guilt.”

ANSWER.

Nobody can contend upon any rational principles, that a power of pardoning should not exist somewhere in every government, because it will often happen in every country that men are obnoxious to a lawful conviction, who yet are entitled, from some favorable circumstances in their case, to a merciful interposition in their favor. The advocates of monarchy have accordingly boasted of this, as one of the advantages of that form of government, in preference to a republican; nevertheless this authority is vested in the Stadtholder in Holland, and I believe is vested in every Executive power in America. It seems to have been wisely the aim of the late Convention, in forming a general government for America, to combine the acknowledged advantages of the British constitution with proper republican checks to guard as much as possible against abuses, and it would have been very strange if they had omitted this, which has the sanction of such great antiquity in that country, and if I am not mistaken, a universal adoption in America.(73) Those gentlemen who object to other parts of the constitution as introducing innovations, contrary to long experience, with a very ill grace attempt to reject an experience so unexceptionable as this, to introduce an innovation (perhaps the first ever suggested) of their own. When a power is acknowledged to be necessary, it is a very dangerous thing to prescribe limits to it, for men must have a greater confidence in their own wisdom than I think any men are entitled to, who imagine they can form such exact ideas of all possible contingencies as to be sure that the restriction they propose will not do more harm than good. The probability of the President of the United States committing an act of treason against his country is very slight; he is so well guarded by the other powers of government, and the natural strength of the people at large must be so weighty, that in my opinion it is the most chimerical apprehension that can be entertained. Such a thing is however possible, and accordingly he is not exempt from a trial, if he should be guilty or supposed guilty, of that or any other offence. I entirely lay out of the consideration of the probability of a man honored in such a manner by his country, risking like General Arnold, the damnation of his fame to all future ages, though it is a circumstance of some weight in considering whether for the sake of such a remote and improbable danger as this, it would be prudent to abridge this power of pardoning in a manner altogether unexampled, and which might produce mischiefs the full extent of which it is not perhaps easy at present to foresee. In estimating the value of any power it is possible to bestow we have to choose between inconveniences of some sort or other, since no institution of man can be entirely free from all. Let us now therefore consider some of the actual inconveniences which would attend an abridgment of the power of the President in this respect. One of the great advantages attending a single Executive power is the degree of secrecy and dispatch with which on critical occasions such a power can act. In war this advantage will often counterbalance the want of many others. Now suppose, in the very midst of a war of extreme consequence to our safety or prosperity, the President could prevail on a gentleman of abilities to go into the enemy’s country, to serve in the useful, but dishonorable character of a spy. Such are certainly maintained by all vigilant governments, and in proportion to the ignominy of the character, and the danger sustained in the enemy’s country, ought to be his protection and security in his own. This man renders very useful services; perhaps by timely information, prevents the destruction of his country. Nobody knows of these secret services but the President himself; his adherence however to the enemy is notorious: he is afterwards intercepted in endeavoring to return to his own country, and having been perhaps a man of distinction before, he is proportionably obnoxious to his country at large for his supposed treason. Would it not be monstrous that the President should not have it in his power to pardon this man? or that it should depend upon mere solicitation and favor, and perhaps, though the President should state the fact as it really was, some zealous partisan, with his jealousy constantly fixed upon the President, might insinuate that in fact the President and he were secret traitors together, and thus obtain a rejection of the President’s application. It is a consideration also of some moment, that there is scarcely any accusation more apt to excite popular prejudice than the charge of treason. There is perhaps no country in the world where justice is in general more impartially administered than in England, yet let any man read some of the trials for treason in that country even since the revolution; he will see sometimes a fury influencing the judges, as well as the jury, that is extremely disgraceful. There may happen a case in our country where a man in reality innocent, but with strong plausible circumstances against him, would be so obnoxious to popular resentment, that he might be convicted upon very slight and insufficient proof. In such a case it would certainly be very proper for a cool temperate man of high authority, and who might be supposed uninfluenced by private motives, to interfere and prevent the popular current proving an innocent man’s ruin. I know men who write with a view to flatter the people, and not to give them honest information, may misrepresent this account as an invidious imputation on the usual impartiality of juries. God knows no man more highly reverences that blessed institution than I do; I consider them the natural safeguard of the personal liberties of a free people, and I believe they would much seldomer err in the administration of justice than any other tribunal whatever. But no man of experience and candor will deny the probability of such a case as I have supposed sometimes, though rarely, happening; and whenever it did happen, surely so safe a remedy as a prerogative of mercy in the Chief Magistrate of a great country ought to be at hand. There is little danger of an abuse of such a power, when we know how apt most men are in a republican government to court popularity at too great an expense, rather than do a just and beneficient action in opposition to strong prevailing prejudices among the people. But says Mr. Mason, “The President may sometimes exercise this power to screen from punishment those whom he had secretly instigated to commit the crime, and thereby prevent a discovery of his own guilt.” This is possible, but the probability of it is surely too slight to endanger the consequences of abridging a power which seems so generally to have been deemed necessary in every well regulated government. It may also be questioned, whether supposing such a participation of guilt, the President would not expose himself to greater danger by pardoning, than by suffering the law to have its course. Was it not supposed, by a great number of intelligent men, that Admiral Byng’s execution was urged on to satisfy a discontented populace, when the administration, by the weakness of the force he was entrusted with, were perhaps the real cause of the miscarriage before Minorca? Had he been acquitted, or pardoned, he could have perhaps exposed the real fault: as a prisoner under so heavy a charge his recrimination would have been discredited, as merely the effort of a man in despair to save himself from an ignominious punishment. If a President should pardon an accomplice, that accomplice then would be an unexceptionable witness. Before, he would be a witness with a rope about his own neck, struggling to get clear of it at all events. Would any men of understanding, or at least ought they to credit an accusation from a person under such circumstances?(74)

VII. OBJECTION.

“By declaring all treaties the supreme law of the land, the Executive and the Senate have, in many cases an exclusive power of legislation; which might have been avoided by proper distinctions with respect to treaties, and requiring the assent of the House of Representatives, where it could be done with safety.”

ANSWER.

Did not Congress very lately unanimously resolve, in adopting the very sensible letter of Mr. Jay, that a treaty when once made pursuant to the sovereign authority, _ex vi termini_ became immediately the law of the land? It seems to result unavoidably from the nature of the thing, that when the constitutional right to make treaties is exercised, the treaty so made should be binding upon those who delegated authority for that purpose. If it was not, what foreign power would trust us? And if this right was restricted by any such fine checks as Mr. Mason has in his imagination, but has not thought proper to disclose, a critical occasion might arise, when for want of a little rational confidence in our own government we might be obliged to submit to a master in an enemy. Mr. Mason wishes the House of Representatives to have some share in this business, but he is immediately sensible of the impropriety of it, and adds “where it can be done with safety.” And how is it to be known whether it can be done with safety or not, but during the pendency of a negotiation? Must not the President and Senate judge whether it can be done with safety or not? If they are of opinion it is unsafe, and the House of Representatives of course not consulted, what becomes of this boasted check, since, if it amounts to no more than that the President and Senate may consult the House of Representatives if they please, they may do this as well without such a provision as with it. Nothing would be more easy than to assign plausible reasons, after the negotiation was over, to show that a communication was unsafe, and therefore surely a precaution that could be so easily eluded, if it was not impolitic to the greatest degree, must be thought trifling indeed. It is also to be observed, that this authority, so obnoxious in the new Constitution (which is unfortunate in having little power to please some persons, either as containing new things or old), is vested indefinitely and without restriction in our present Congress, who are a body constituted in the same manner as the Senate is to be, but there is this material difference in the two cases, that we shall have an additional check, under the new system of a President of high personal character chosen by the immediate body of the people.

VIII. OBJECTION.

“Under their own construction of the general clause at the end of the enumerated powers, the Congress may grant monopolies in trade and commerce, constitute new crimes, inflict unusual and severe punishment, and extend their power as far as they shall think proper; so that the State Legislatures have no security for the powers now presumed to remain to them: or the people for their rights. There is no declaration of any kind for preserving the liberty of the press, the trial by jury in civil causes, nor against the danger of standing armies in time of peace.”

ANSWER.

The general clause at the end of the enumerated power is as follows:—

“To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the _foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the United States, or in any department or office thereof_.”

Those powers would be useless, except acts of legislation could be exercised upon them. It was not possible for the Convention, nor is it for any human body, to foresee and provide for all contingent cases that may arise. Such cases must therefore be left to be provided for by the general Legislature as they shall happen to come into existence. If Congress, under pretence of exercising the power delegated to them, should in fact, by the exercise of any other power, usurp upon the rights of the different Legislatures, or of any private citizens, the people will be exactly in the same situation as if there had been an express provision against such power in particular, and yet they had presumed to exercise it. It would be an act of tyranny, against which no parchment stipulations can guard; and the Convention surely can be only answerable for the propriety of the powers given, not for the future virtues of all with whom those powers may be intrusted. It does not therefore appear to me that there is any weight in this objection more than in others. But that I may give it every fair advantage, I will take notice of every particular injurious act of power which Mr. Mason points out as exercisable by the authority of Congress under this general clause.

The first mentioned is, “That the Congress may grant monopolies in trade and commerce.” Upon examining the constitution I find it expressly provided, “That no preference shall be given to the ports of one State over those of another;” and that “citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.” These provisions appear to me to be calculated for the very purpose Mr. Mason wishes to secure. Can they be consistent with any monopoly in trade and commerce?(75) I apprehend therefore, under this expression must be intended more than is expressed, and if I may conjecture from another publication of a gentleman of the same State and in the same party of opposition, I should suppose it arose from a jealousy of the eastern States very well known to be often expressed by some gentlemen of Virginia. They fear, that a majority of the States may establish regulations of commerce which will give great advantage to the carrying trade of America, and be a means of encouraging New England vessels rather than Old England. Be it so. No regulations can give such advantage to New England vessels, which will not be enjoyed by all other American vessels, and many States can build as well as New England, though not at present perhaps in equal proportion.(76) And what could conduce more to the preservation of the Union than allowing to every kind of industry in America a peculiar preference! Each State exerting itself in its own way, but the exertions of all contributing to the common security, and increasing the rising greatness of our country! Is it not the aim of every wise country to be as much the carriers of their own produce as they can be? And would not this be the means in our own of producing a new source of activity among the people, giving to our fellow-citizens what otherwise must be given to strangers, and laying the foundation of an independent trade among ourselves, and of gradually raising a navy in America which, however distant the prospect, ought certainly not to be out of our sight. There is no great probability however that our country is likely soon to enjoy so glorious an advantage. We must have treaties of commerce, because without them we cannot trade to other countries. We already have such with some nations; we have none with Great Britain, which can be imputed to no other cause but our not having a strong respectable government to bring that haughty nation to terms. And surely no man, who feels for the honor of his country, but must view our present degrading commerce with that country with the highest indignation, and the most ardent wish to extricate ourselves from so disgraceful a situation. This only can be done by a powerful government which can dictate conditions of advantage to ourselves, as an equivalent for advantages to them; and this could undoubtedly be easily done by such a government, without diminishing the value of any articles of our own produce; or if there was any diminution it would be too slight to be felt by any patriot in competition with the honor and interest of his country.

As to the constituting of new crimes, and inflicting unusual and severe punishment, certainly the cases enumerated wherein the Congress are empowered either to define offences, or prescribe punishments, are such as are proper for the exercise of such authority in the general Legislature of the Union. They only relate to “counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States,” to “piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations,” and to “treason against the United States.” These are offences immediately affecting the security, the honor or the interest of the United States at large, and of course must come within the sphere of the Legislative authority which is intrusted with their protection. Beyond these authorities, Congress can exercise no other power of this kind, except in the enacting of penalties to enforce their acts of legislation in the cases where express authority is delegated to them, and if they could not enforce such acts by the enacting of penalties those powers would be altogether useless, since a legislative regulation without some sanction would be an absurd thing indeed. The Congress having, for these reasons, a just right to authority in the above particulars, the question is, whether it is practicable and proper to prescribe limits to its exercise, for fear that they should inflict punishments unusual and severe. It may be observed, in the first place, that a declaration against “cruel and unusual punishments” formed part of an article in the Bill of Rights at the revolution in England in 1688. The prerogative of the Crown having been grossly abused in some preceding reigns, it was thought proper to notice every grievance they had endured, and those declarations went to an abuse of power in the Crown only, but were never intended to limit the authority of Parliament. Many of these articles of the Bill of Rights in England, without a due attention to the difference of the cases, were eagerly adopted when our constitutions were formed, the minds of men then being so warmed with their exertions in the cause of liberty as to lean too much perhaps towards a jealousy of power to repose a proper confidence in their own government. From these articles in the State constitutions many things were attempted to be transplanted into our new Constitution, which would either have been nugatory or improper. This is one of them. The expressions “unusual and severe” or “cruel and unusual” surely would have been too vague to have been of any consequence, since they admit of no clear and precise signification. If to guard against punishments being too severe, the Convention had enumerated a vast variety of cruel punishments, and prohibited the use of any of them, let the number have been ever so great, an inexhaustible fund must have been unmentioned, and if our government had been disposed to be cruel their invention would only have been put to a little more trouble. If to avoid this difficulty, they had determined, not negatively what punishments should not be exercised, but positively what punishments should, this must have led them into a labyrinth of detail which in the original constitution of a government would have appeared perfectly ridiculous, and not left a room for such changes, according to circumstances, as must be in the power of every Legislature that is rationally formed. Thus when we enter into particulars, we must be convinced that the proposition of such a restriction would have led to nothing useful, or to something dangerous, and therefore that its omission is not chargeable as a fault in the new Constitution. Let us also remember, that as those who are to make those laws must themselves be subject to them, their own interest and feelings will dictate to them not to make them unnecessarily severe; and that in the case of treason, which usually in every country exposes men most to the avarice and rapacity of government, care is taken that the innocent family of the offender shall not suffer for the treason of their relation. This is the crime with respect to which a jealousy is of the most importance, and accordingly it is defined with great plainness and accuracy, and the temptations to abusive prosecutions guarded against as much as possible. I now proceed to the three great cases: The liberty of the press, the trial by jury in civil cases, and a standing army in time of peace.

The liberty of the press is always a grand topic for declamation, but the future Congress will have no other authority over this than to secure to authors for a limited time an exclusive privilege of publishing their works.—This authority has been long exercised in England, where the press is as free as among ourselves or in any country in the world; and surely such an encouragement to genius is no restraint on the liberty of the press, since men are allowed to publish what they please of their own, and so far as this may be deemed a restraint upon others it is certainly a reasonable one, and can be attended with no danger of copies not being sufficiently multiplied, because the interest of the proprietor will always induce him to publish a quantity fully equal to the demand. Besides, that such encouragement may give birth to many excellent writings which would otherwise have never appeared.(77) If the Congress should exercise any other power over the press than this, they will do it without any warrant from this constitution, and must answer for it as for any other act of tyranny.

In respect to the trial by jury in civil cases, it must be observed it is a mistake to suppose that such a trial takes place in all civil cases now. Even in the common law courts, such a trial is only had where facts are disputed between the parties, and there are even some facts triable by other methods. In the Chancery and Admiralty Courts, in many of the States, I am told they have no juries at all. The States in these particulars differ very much in their practice from each other. A general declaration therefore to preserve the trial by jury in all civil cases would only have produced confusion, so that the courts afterwards in a thousand instances would not have known how to have proceeded.—If they had added, “as heretofore accustomed,” that would not have answered the purpose, because there has been no uniform custom about it.—If therefore the Convention had interfered, it must have been by entering into a detail highly unsuitable to a fundamental constitution of government; if they had pleased some States they must have displeased others by innovating upon the modes of administering justice perhaps endeared to them by habit, and agreeable to their settled conviction of propriety. As this was the case it appears to me it was infinitely better, rather than endanger everything by attempting too much, to leave this complicated business of detail to the regulation of the future Legislature, where it can be adjusted coolly and at ease, and upon full and exact information. There is no danger of the trial by jury being rejected, when so justly a favorite of the whole people. The representatives of the people surely can have no interest in making themselves odious, for the mere pleasure of being hated, and when a member of the House of Representatives is only sure of being so for two years, but must continue a citizen all his life, his interest as a citizen, if he is a man of common sense, to say nothing of his being a man of common honesty, must ever be uppermost in his mind. We know the great influence of the monarchy in the British government, and upon what a different tenure the Commons there have their seats in Parliament from that prescribed to our representatives. We know also they have a large standing army. It is in the power of the Parliament, if they dare to exercise it, to abolish the trial by jury altogether. But woe be to the man who should dare to attempt it. It would undoubtedly produce an insurrection, that would hurl every tyrant to the ground who attempted to destroy that great and just favorite of the English nation. We certainly shall be always sure of this guard at least upon any such act of folly or insanity in our representatives. They soon would be taught the consequence of sporting with the feelings of a free people. But when it is evident that such an attempt cannot be rationally apprehended, we have no reason to anticipate unpleasant emotions of that nature. There is indeed little probability that any degree of tyranny which can be figured to the most discolored imagination as likely to arise out of our government, could find an interest in attacking the trial by jury in civil cases;—and in criminal ones, where no such difficulties intervene as in the other, and where there might be supposed temptations to violate the personal security of a citizen, it is sacredly preserved.

The subject of a standing army has been exhausted in so masterly a manner in two or three numbers of the Federalist (a work which I hope will soon be in every body’s hands) that but for the sake of regularity in answering Mr. Mason’s objections, I should not venture upon the same topic, and shall only presume to do so, with a reference for fuller satisfaction to that able performance. It is certainly one of the most delicate and proper cases for the consideration of a free people, and so far as a jealousy of this kind leads to any degree of caution not incompatible with the public safety, it is undoubtedly to be commended. Our jealousy of this danger has descended to us from our British ancestors; in that country they have a Monarch, whose power being limited, and at the same time his prerogatives very considerable, a constant jealousy of him is both natural and proper. The two last of the Stuarts having kept up a considerable body of standing forces in time of peace for the clear and almost avowed purpose of subduing the liberties of the people, it was made an article of the bill of rights at the revolution, “That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with the consent of Parliament, is against law;” but no attempt was made, or I dare say even thought of, to restrain the Parliament from exercise of that right. An army has been kept on foot annually by authority of Parliament, and I believe ever since the revolution they have had some standing troops; disputes have frequently happened about the number, but I don’t recollect any objection by the most zealous patriot, to the keeping up of any at all. At the same time, notwithstanding the above practice of an annual vote (arising from a very judicious caution), it is still in the power of Parliament to authorize the keeping up of any number of troops for an indefinite time, and to provide for their subsistence for any number of years. Considerations of prudence, not constitutional limits to their authority, alone restrain such an exercise of it—our Legislature however will be strongly guarded, though that of Great Britain is without any check at all. No appropriations of money for military services can continue longer than two years. Considering the extensive services the general government may have to provide for upon this vast continent, no forces with any serious prospect of success could be attempted to be raised for a shorter time. Its being done for so short a period, if there were any appearance of ill designs in the government, would afford time enough for the real friends of their country to sound an alarm, and when we know how easy it is to excite jealousy of any government, how difficult for the people to distinguish from their real friends, those factious men who in every country are ready to disturb its peace for personal gratifications of their own, and those desperate ones to whom every change is welcome, we shall have much more reason to fear that the government may be overawed by groundless discontents, than that it should be able, if contrary to every probability such a government could be supposed willing, to effect any designs for the destruction of their own liberties as well as those of their constituents; for surely we ought ever to remember, that there will not be a man in the government but who has been either mediately or immediately recently chosen by the people, and that for too limited a time to make any arbitrary designs consistent with common sense, when every two years a new body of representatives with all the energy of popular feelings will come, to carry the strong force of a severe national control into every department of government. To say nothing of the one-third to compose the Senate coming at the same time, warm with popular sentiments, from their respective assemblies. Men may be sure to suggest dangers from any thing, but it may truly be said that those who can seriously suggest the danger of a premeditated attack on the liberties of the people from such a government as this, could with ease assign reasons equally plausible for mistrusting the integrity of any government formed in any manner whatever; and really it does seem to me, that all their reasons may be fairly carried to this position, that inasmuch as any confidence in any men would be unwise, as we can give no power but what may be grossly abused, we had better give none at all, but continue as we are, or resolve into total anarchy at once, of which indeed our present condition falls very little short. What sort of a government would that be which, upon the most certain intelligence that hostilities were meditated against it, could take no method for its defence till after a formal declaration of war, or the enemy’s standard was actually fixed upon the shore? The first has for some time been out of fashion, but if it had not, the restraint these gentlemen recommend, would certainly have brought it into disuse with every power who meant to make war upon America. They would be such fools as to give us the only warning we had informed them we would accept of, before we would take any steps to counteract their designs. The absurdity of our being prohibited from preparing to resist an invasion till after it had actually taken place(78) is so glaring, that no man can consider it for a moment without being struck with astonishment to see how rashly, and with how little consideration gentlemen, whose characters are certainly respectable, have suffered themselves to be led away by so delusive an idea. The example of other countries, so far from warranting any such limitation of power, is directly against it. That of England has already been particularly noticed. In our present articles of confederation there is no such restriction. It has been observed by the Federalist, that Pennsylvania and North Carolina appear to be the only States in the Union which have attempted any restraint of the Legislative authority in this particular, and that their restraint appears rather in the light of a caution than a prohibition; but notwithstanding that, Pennsylvania had been obliged to raise forces in the very face of that article of her bill of rights. That great writer from the remoteness of his situation, did not know that North Carolina had equally violated her bill of rights in a similar manner. The Legislature of that State in November, 1785, passed an act for raising 200 men for the protection of a county called Davidson county against hostilities from the Indians; they were to continue for _two years_ from the time of their first rendezvous, unless sooner disbanded by the Assembly, and were to be subject to the same “rules with respect to their government as were established in the time of the late war by the Congress of the United States for the government of the Continental army.” These are the very words of the act. Thus, from the examples of the only two countries in the world that I believe ever attempted such a restriction, it appears to be a thing incompatible with the safety of government. Whether their restriction is to be considered as a caution or a prohibition, in less than five years after peace the caution has been disregarded, or the prohibition disobeyed.(79) Can the most credulous or suspicious men require stronger proof of the weakness and impolicy of such restraints?

IX. OBJECTION.

“The State Legislatures are restrained from laying export duties on their own produce.”

ANSWER.

Duties upon exports, though they may answer in some particulars a convenience to the country which imposes them, are certainly not things to be contended for, as if the very being of a State was interested in preserving them. Where there is a kind of monopoly they may sometimes be ventured upon, but even there perhaps more is lost by imposing such duties, than is compensated for by any advantage. Where there is not a species of monopoly, no policy can be more absurd. The American States, are so circumstanced that some of the States necessarily export part of the produce of neighboring ones. Every duty laid upon such exported produce operates in fact as a tax by the exporting State upon the non-exporting State. In a system expressly formed to produce concord among all, it would have been very unwise to have left such a source of discord open; and upon the same principle, and to remove as much as possible every ground of discontent, Congress itself are prohibited from laying duties on exports, because by that means those States which have a great deal of produce to export would be taxed much more heavily than those which had little or none for exportation.

X. OBJECTION.

“The general Legislature is restrained from prohibiting the further importation of slaves for twenty odd years, though such importation renders the United States weaker, more vulnerable; and less capable of defence.”

ANSWER.

If all the States had been willing to adopt this regulation, I should as an individual most heartily have approved of it, because even if the importation of slaves in fact rendered us stronger, less vulnerable and more capable of defence, I should rejoice in the prohibition of it, as putting an end to a trade which has already continued too long for the honor and humanity of those concerned in it. But as it was well known that South Carolina and Georgia thought a further continuance of such importations useful to them, and would not perhaps otherwise have agreed to the new constitution, those States which had been importing till they were satisfied, could not with decency have insisted upon their relinquishing advantages themselves had already enjoyed. Our situation makes it necessary to bear the evil as it is. It will be left to the future legislatures to allow such importations or not. If any, in violation of their clear conviction of the injustice of this trade, persist in pursuing it, this is a matter between God and their own consciences. The interests of humanity will, however, have gained something by the prohibition of this inhuman trade, though at a distance of twenty odd years.

XI. OBJECTION.

“Both the general Legislature and the State Legislatures, have expressly prohibited making _ex post facto_ laws, though there never was, nor can be, a legislature but must and will make such laws, when necessity and the public safety require them; which will hereafter be a breach of all the constitutions in the Union, and offer precedents for other innovations.”

ANSWER.

My ideas of liberty are so different from those of Mr. Mason, that in my opinion this very prohibition is one of the most valuable parts of the new constitution. _Ex post facto_ laws may sometimes be convenient, but that they are ever absolutely necessary I shall take the liberty to doubt, till that necessity can be made apparent. Sure I am, they have been the instrument of some of the grossest acts of tyranny that were ever exercised, and have this never failing consequence, to put the minority in the power of a passionate and unprincipled majority, as to the most sacred things, and the plea of necessity is never wanting where it can be of any avail. This very clause, I think, is worth ten thousand declarations of rights, if this, the most essential right of all, was omitted in them. A man may feel some pride in his security, when he knows that what he does innocently and safely to-day in accordance with the laws of his country, cannot be tortured into guilt and danger to-morrow. But if it should happen, that a great and overruling necessity, acknowledged and felt by all, should make a deviation from this prohibition excusable, shall we not be more safe in leaving the excuse for an extraordinary exercise of power to rest upon the apparent equity of it alone, than to leave the door open to a tyranny it would be intolerable to bear? In the one case, every one must be sensible of its justice, and therefore excuse it; in the other, whether its exercise was just or unjust, its being lawful would be sufficient to command obedience. Nor would a case like that, resting entirely on its own bottom, from a conviction of invincible necessity, warrant an avowed abuse of another authority, where no such necessity existed or could be pretended.

I have now gone through Mr. Mason’s objections; one thing still remains to be taken notice of, his prediction, which he is pleased to express in these words: “This government will commence in a moderate aristocracy; it is at present impossible to foresee, whether it will in its operation produce a monarchy, or a corrupt, oppressive aristocracy; it will most probably vibrate some years between the two, and then terminate in the one or the other.” From the uncertainty of this prediction, we may hope that Mr. Mason was not divinely inspired when he made it, and of course that it may as fairly be questioned as any of his particular objections. If my answers to his objections are, in general, solid, a very different government will arise from the new constitution, if the several States should adopt it, as I hope they will. It will not probably be too much to flatter ourselves with, that it may present a spectacle of combined strength in government, and genuine liberty in the people, the world has never yet beheld. In the meantime, our situation is critical to the greatest degree. Those gentlemen who think we may at our ease go on from one convention to another, to try if all objections cannot be conquered by perseverance, have much more sanguine expectations than I can presume to form. There are critical periods in the fate of nations, as well as in the life of man, which are not to be neglected with impunity. I am much mistaken if this is not such a one with us. When we were at the very brink of despair, the late excellent Convention with a unanimity that none could have hoped for, generously discarding all little considerations formed a system of government which I am convinced can stand the nicest examination, if reason and not prejudice is employed in viewing it. With a happiness of thought, which in our present awful situation ought to silence much more powerful objections than any I have heard, they have provided in the very frame of government a safe, easy and unexceptionable method of correcting any errors it may be thought to contain. Those errors may be corrected at leisure; in the mean time the acknowledged advantages likely to flow from this constitution may be enjoyed. We may venture to hold up our head among the other powers of the world. We may talk to them with the confidence of an independent people, having strength to resent insults; and avail ourselves of our natural advantages. We may be assured of once more beholding justice, order and dignity taking place of the present anarchical confusion prevailing almost every where, and drawing upon us universal disgrace. We may hope, by proper exertions of industry, to recover thoroughly from the shock of the late war, and truly to become an independent, great and prosperous people. But if we continue as we now are, wrangling about every trifle, listening to the opinion of a small minority, in preference to a large and most respectable majority of the first men in our country, and among them some of the first in the world, if our minds in short are bent rather on indulging a captious discontent, than bestowing a generous and well-placed confidence in those who we have every reason to believe are entirely worthy of it, we shall too probably present a spectacle for malicious exultation to our enemies, and melancholy dejection to our friends; and the honor, glory and prosperity which were just within our reach, will perhaps be snatched from us for ever.

MARCUS.

_January, 1788._

An / Address / to the / Freemen / of / South Carolina, / on the subject of the / Federal Constitution, / Proposed by the Convention, which met in / Philadelphia, May, 1787. / Charleston, / Printed by Bowen and Co., No. 31, Bay.

16 mo., pp. 12.

Written by Dr. David Ramsay, member of the Continental Congress and of the South Carolina State Convention which ratified the Constitution.

_Friends, Countrymen, and Fellow Citizens_:

You have, at this time a new federal constitution proposed for your consideration. The great importance of the subject demands your most serious attention. To assist you in forming a right judgment on this matter, it will be proper to consider,

1st. It is the manifest interest of these states to be united. Internal wars among ourselves, would most probably be the consequence of disunion. Our local weakness particularly proves it to be for the advantage of South Carolina to strengthen the federal government; for we are inadequate to secure ourselves from more powerful neighbours. [4]

2d. If the thirteen states are to be united in reality, as well as in name, the obvious principle of the union will be, that the congress, or general government, should have power to regulate all general concerns. In a state of nature, each man is free, and may do what he pleases: but in society, every individual must sacrifice a part of his natural rights; the minority must yield to the majority, and the collective interest must control particular interests. When thirteen persons constitute a family, each should forego everything that is injurious to the other twelve. When several families constitute a parish, or county, each may adopt what regulations it pleases with regard to its domestic affairs, but must be abridged of that liberty in other cases, where the good of the whole is concerned.

When several parishes, counties, or districts, form a state, the separate interests of each must yield to the collective interest of the whole. When several states combine in one government, the same principles must be observed. These relinquishments of natural rights, are not real sacrifices: each person, county, or state, gains more than it loses, for it only gives up a right of injuring others, and obtains in return aid and strength to secure itself in the peaceable enjoyment of all remaining rights. If then we are to be an united people, and the obvious ground of union must be, that all continental concerns should be managed by Congress—let us by those principles examine the new constitution. Look over the 8th section, which enumerates the powers of Congress, and point out one that is not essential on the before recited principles of union. The first is a power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the [5] common defence and general welfare of the United States.

When you authorised Congress to borrow money, and to contract debts, for carrying on the late war, you could not intend to abridge them of the means of paying their engagements, made on your account. You may observe that their future power is confined to provide _common defence and general welfare_ of the United States. If they apply money to any other purposes, they exceed their powers. The people of the United States who pay, are to be judges how far their money is properly applied. It would be tedious to go over all the powers of Congress, but it would be easy to show that they all may be referred to this single principle, “that the general concerns of the union ought to be managed by the general government.” The opposers of the constitution cannot show a single power delegated to Congress, that could be spared consistently with the welfare of the whole, nor a single one taken from the states, but such as can be more advantageously lodged in the general government, than in that of the separate states.

For instance, the states cannot emit money: This is not intended to prevent the emission of paper money, but only of state paper money. Is not this an advantage? To have thirteen paper currencies in thirteen states is embarrassing to commerce, and eminently so to travellers. It is _therefore_, obviously our interest, either to have no paper, or such as will circulate from Georgia to New Hampshire. Take another instance—the Congress are authorized to provide and maintain a navy.—Our sea-coast, in its whole extent needs the protection thereof; but if this was to be done [6] by the states, they who build ships, would be more secure than they who do not. Again, if the local legislatures might build ships of war at pleasure, the Eastern would have a manifest superiority over the Southern states. Observe, how much better this business is referred to the regulations of Congress. A common navy, paid out of the common treasury, and to be disposed of by the united voice of a majority for the common defence of the weaker as well as of the stronger states, is promised, and will result from the federal constitution. Suffer not yourselves to be imposed on by declamation. Ask the man who objects to the powers of Congress two questions, _is_ it not necessary that the supposed dangerous power should be lodged somewhere? And secondly, where can it be lodged, consistently with the general good, so well as in the general government? Decide for yourselves on these obvious principles of union.

It has been objected, that the eastern states have an advantage in their representation in Congress. Let us examine this objection—the four eastern states send seventeen members to the house of representatives, but Georgia, South-Carolina, North-Carolina and Virginia, send twenty-three. The six northern states send twenty-seven, the six southern thirty. In both cases, we have a superiority;—but, say the objectors, add Pennsylvania to the northern states, and there is a majority against us. It is obvious to reply, add Pennsylvania to the southern states, and they have a majority. The objection amounts to no more than that seven are more than six. It must be known to many of you, that the Southern states, from their vast extent of uncultivated country, are daily receiving new settlers; but in New England their country is [7] so small, and their land so poor, that their inhabitants are constantly emigrating. As the rule of representation in Congress is to vary with the number of inhabitants, our influence in the general government will be constantly increasing. In fifty years, it is probable that the Southern states will have a great ascendancy over the Eastern. It has been said that thirty-five men, not elected by yourselves, may make laws to bind you. This objection, if it has any force, tends to the destruction of your state government. By our constitution, sixty-nine make a quorum; of course, thirty-five members may make a law to bind all the people of South-Carolina.—Charleston, and any one of the neighboring parishes send collectively thirty-six members; it is therefore possible, in the absence of all others, that three of the lower parishes might legislate for the whole country. Would this be a valid objection against your own constitution? It certainly would not—neither is it against the proposed federal plan. Learn from it this useful lesson—insist on the constant attendance of your members, both in the state assembly, and Continental Congress; your representation in the latter, is as numerous in a relative proportion with the other states as it ought to be. You have a thirteenth part in both houses; and you are not, on principles of equality, entitled to more.

It has been objected, that the president, and two-thirds of the senate, though not of your election, may make treaties binding on the state. Ask these objectors—do you wish to have any treaties? They will say yes. Ask then who can be more properly trusted with the power of making them, than they to whom the convention have referred it? Can the state legislature? They would con- [8] sult their local interests.—Can the Continental House of Representatives? When sixty-five men can keep a secret, they may.—Observe the cautious guards which are placed round your interests. Neither the senate nor president can make treaties by their separate authority.—They must both concur.—This is more in your favour than the footing on which you now stand. The delegates in Congress of nine states, without your consent, can now bind you; by the new constitution there must be two-thirds of the members present, and also the president, in whose election you have a vote. Two-thirds are to the whole, nearly as nine to thirteen. If you are not wanting to yourselves by neglecting to keep up the state’s compliment of senators, your situation with regard to preventing the controul of your local interests by the Northern states, will be better under the proposed constitution than it is now under the existing confederation.

It has been said, we will have a navigation act, and be restricted to American bottoms, and that high freight will be the consequence. We certainly ought to have a navigation act, and we assuredly ought to give a preference, though not a monopoly, to our own shipping.

If this state is invaded by a maritime force, to whom can we apply for immediate aid?—To Virginia and North-Carolina? Before they can march by land to our assistance, the country may be overrun. The Eastern states, abounding in men and in ships, can sooner relieve us, than our next door neighbours. It is therefore not only our duty, but our interest to encourage their shipping. They have sufficient resources on a few months notice, to furnish tonnage enough to carry off all your exports; and they can afford, and doubtless will undertake [9] to be your carriers on as easy terms as you now pay for freight in foreign bottoms.

On this subject, let us consider what we have gained, also what they have lost, by the revolution. We have gained a free trade with all the world, and consequently a higher price for our commodities; it may be said, and so have they. But they who reply in this manner, ought to know, that there is an amazing difference in our favour; their country affords no valuable exports, and of course the privilege of a free trade is to them of little value, while our staple commodity commands a higher price than was usual before the war. We have also gained an exemption from quit-rents, to which the eastern states were not subjected. Connecticut and Rhode Island were nearly as free before the revolution as since. They had no royal governor or councils to controul them, or to legislate for them. Massachusetts and New Hampshire were much nearer independence in their late constitution than we were. The eastern states, by the revolution, have been deprived of a market for their fish, of their carrying trade, their ship-building, and almost of every thing but their liberties.

As the war has turned out so much in our favour, and so much against them, ought we to grudge them the carrying of our produce, especially when it is considered, that by encouraging their shipping, we increase the means of our own defence? Let us examine also the federal constitution, by the principles of reciprocal concession. We have laid a foundation for a navigation act. This will be a general good; but particularly so to our northern brethren. On the other hand, they have agreed to change the federal rule of paying the continental debt, according to the value of land, as laid down in the confede- [10] ration, for a new principle of apportionment, to be founded on the numbers of inhabitants in the several states respectively. This is an immense concession in our favour. Their land is poor; our’s rich; their numbers great; our’s small; labour with them is done by white men, for whom they pay an equal share; while five of our negroes only count as equal to three of their whites. This will make a difference of many thousands of pounds in settling our continental accounts. It is farther objected, that they have stipulated for a right to prohibit the importation of negroes after 21 years. On this subject observe, as they are bound to protect us from domestic violence, they think we ought not to increase our exposure to that evil, by an unlimited importation of slaves. Though Congress may forbid the importation of negroes after 21 years, it does not follow that they will. On the other hand, it is probable that they will not. The more rice we make, the more business will be for their shipping; their interest will therefore coincide with our’s. Besides, we have other sources of supply—the importation of the ensuing 20 years, added to the natural increase of those we already have, and the influx from our northern neighbours, who are desirous of getting rid of their slaves, will afford a sufficient number for cultivating all the lands in this state.

Let us suppose the union to be dissolved by the rejection of the new constitution, what would be our case? The united states owe several millions of dollars to France, Spain, and Holland. If an efficient government is not adopted, which will provide for the payment of our debt, especially of that which is due to foreigners—who will be the losers? Most certainly the southern states. Our ex- [11] ports, as being the most valuable, would be the first objects of capture on the high seas, or descents would be made on our defenceless coasts, till the creditors of the United States had paid themselves at the expense of this weaker part of the union. Let us also compare the present confederation with the proposed constitution. The former can neither protect us at home, nor gain us respect abroad; it cannot secure the payment of our debts, nor command the resources of our country, in case of danger. Without money, without a navy, or the means of even supporting an army of our own citizens in the field, we lie at the mercy of every invader; our seaport towns may be laid under contribution, and our country ravaged.

By the new constitution, you will be protected with the force of the union, against domestic violence and foreign invasion. You will have a navy to defend your coast.—The respectable figure you will make among the nations, will so far command the attention of foreign powers, that it is probable you will soon obtain such commercial treaties, as will open to your vessels the West-India islands, and give life to your expiring commerce.

In a country like our’s, abounding with free men all of one rank, where property is equally diffused, where estates are held in fee simple, the press free, and the means of information common, tyranny cannot reasonably find admission under any form of government; but its admission is next to impossible under one where the people are the source of all power, and elect either mediately by their representatives, or immediately by themselves the whole of their rulers.

Examine the new constitution with candor and liberality. Indulge no narrow prejudices to the disadvantage of your brethren of the [12] other states; consider the people of all the thirteen states, as a band of brethren, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, inhabiting one undivided country, and designed by heaven to be one people. Content that what regards all the states should be managed by that body which represents all of them; be on your guard against the misrepresentations of men who are involved in debt; such may wish to see the constitution rejected, because of the following clause, “no state shall emit bills of credit, make any thing but gold and silver coin, a tender in payment of debts, pass any _expost facto_ law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts.” This will doubtless bear hard on debtors who wish to defraud their creditors, but it will be real service to the honest part of the community. Examine well the characters and circumstances of men who are averse to the new constitution. Perhaps you will find that the above recited clause is the real ground of the opposition of some of them, though they may artfully cover it with a splendid profession of zeal for state privileges and general liberty.

On the whole, if the proposed constitution be not calculated to better your country, and to secure to you the blessings for which you have so successfully contended, reject it: but if it be an improvement on the present confederation, and contains within itself the principles of farther improvement suited to future circumstances, join the mighty current of federalism, and give it your hearty support. You were among the first states that formed an independent constitution; be not among the last in accepting and ratifying the proposed plan of federal government; it is your sheet anchor; and without it independence may prove a curse.

CIVIS.

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCE LIST OF THE HISTORY AND LITERATURE OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION 1787-1788.

NOTE.

The titles in the following list are arranged alphabetically, by the authors or editors names if known, or by the first word of the title, omitting participles, with the exception of the editions of the Constitution, which are brought together under that head, and the debates and journals of the State Conventions, which are placed under each State.

The initials which precede the numbers at the end of the description, indicate certain public libraries in which the work may be consulted.

A. signifies Astor Library. A. A. S. “ Am. Antiquarian Society Library. B. “ Boston Public Library. B. A. “ Boston Athenæum Library. B. M. “ British Museum Library. C. “ Library of Congress. H. “ Library of Harvard University. M. “ Mass. Historical Society Library. N. “ N. Y. Historical Society Library. P. “ Library Company of Philadelphia. P. H. S. “ Penn. Historical Society Library. S. “ New York State Library. S. D. “ Department of State Library. ... “ A line omitted in the title. ..... “ Two or more lines omitted in the title. + “ That what is omitted is already sufficiently given in title of previous edition.

The numbers attached to certain titles in the reference list are cross references to the same title in the bibliography.

I am under obligation to Mr. C. A. Cutter, Mr. W. Eames, Mr. William Kelby, Mr. E. M. Barton and Mr. Bumford Samuels, for aid in compiling this list.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

_Account of the Grand Federal Procession. See Nos. 77-8. Additional number of Letters. See No. 90._

The / Address and Reasons of Dissent / of the / Minority of the Convention, / Of the State of Pennsylvania, to their Constituents. [Colophon] Philadelphia: Printed by E. Oswald, at the Coffee House.

Folio, pp. (3)A. A. S. 1

Reprinted in Carey’s _American Museum_, ii, 536, and answered by Noah Webster’s “To the Dissenting members of the late Convention of Pennsylvania,” in his “_Collection of Essays.... Boston_: 1790,” page 142.

Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of the State of Pennsylvania, to their Constituents. [Philadelphia: 1787.]

8vo. pp. 22. B. A. 2

Title from Sabin’s _Dictionary of Books relating to America_. See No. 108.

Address / to the / Citizens of Pennsylvania./ Calculated to shew the Safety,—Advantages—and Necessity of adopting the proposed Constitution of the / United States./ In which are included answers to the objections that have been made to it./ [Colophon] Philadelphia: Printed by Hall and Sellers.

Folio. pp. (4)N. 3 A Federalist compilation, containing

Reply to the Address of the seceding members of the Pennsylvania Legislature.

To the Freemen of Pennsylvania [in reply to the Address of the seceding members], by Federal Constitution.

Speech of James Wilson, October 6th, 1787.

Examination of the Federal Constitution, by An American [Tench Coxe.]

Circular Letter from the Federal Convention. _Address to the Freemen of S. C. See Nos_. 114-15.

_Address to the People of N. Y. See Nos_. 83-4 _and_ 120-21.

_American Citizen. See Nos_. 3, 21-2.

_Aristides. See Nos_. 74-5.

_Articles. See No. 6.

Baldwin (Simeon)._

An / Oration / pronounced before the / Citizens of New Haven,/ July 4th, 1788;/ in commemoration of the / Declaration / of / Independence / and establishment of the Constitution / of the / United States of America./ By Simeon Baldwin, Esquire,/ New Haven./ Printed by J. Meigs, / M,DCC,LXXXVIII.

8vo. pp. 16. 4

_Bancroft_ (_George_).

History / of the / Formation of the Constitution / of the / United States of America./ By George Bancroft./ In two volumes,/ Vol. 1./ New York:/ D. Appleton and Company,/ 1, 3, and 5 Bond Street,/ 1882.

2 Vols., 8vo. pp. xxiv, 520—xiv, 501(2).5

Each volume contains not only Mr. Bancroft’s History, but a series of hitherto unpublished “Letters and Papers,” adding greatly to the value of the work. In 1885 a one volume edition was published, from the same plates, but omitting these documents—pp. xxii., 495.

Reviewed by B. F. De Costa, in the _Mag. of Am. Hist_., viii, 669; and in _The Nation_, xxxiv, 524 and xxxvi, 127. _Bryan, Samuel. See No_. 108.

_Centinel_. _See No_. 108.

_Childs, Francis. See No_. 103.

_Citizen of America. See Nos_. 130-31.

_Citizen of New York. See No. 83_.

_Citizen of Philadelphia. See Nos_. 132-4.

_Civis. See Nos_. 82, 114-15.

_Columbian Patriot. See Nos_. 69-71.

_Constitution_.

In the following list of editions, I have only attempted to include such as were published during the discussion of the Constitution, prior to its ratification, and so conscious am I of its imperfections, that I should omit it altogether, were it not that no such list has ever been attempted, and this may make the task an easier one to some future bibliographer. It is almost certain that the Federal Convention, the Continental Congress, and each of the states printed public official editions, (of which, excepting Massachusetts, New York, and possibly Pennsylvania, I have been unable to trace copies) while the editions printed for the use of the people were undoubtedly numerous. The list includes every edition that I could find, in any bibliographies or library catalogues that I have examined, except the “Portsmouth, N. H. 1787” given in the Library of Congress catalogue, which cannot now be found. I have also included the two drafts (Nos. 19 and 20) used by the Convention, which, though not properly editions of the Constitution, nevertheless seemed best classed among them. The arrangement is alphabetical, by the first word of the title or caption participles excepted.

See also—View of the Proposed Constitution. No. 125.

_Constitution. New York_. 1787.

Articles agreed upon by the Federal Convention of the United States of / America, his Excellency, General Washington, Esq., President, / ... / New York: Printed by J. M’Lean, No. 41, Hanover Square [1787].

Folio, pp. 4.N. 6

_Constitution. Albany_. 1788.

De / Constitutie, / eenpariglyk gea ecordeerd by de / Algemeene Conventie, / gehonden in de / Stad von Philadelphia, / in ’t Jaar 1787: / en gesubmitteer aan hit / Volk de Vereenigde Staaten / van Noord-Amerika: / Zynde van ses derzelvir Staaten alreede / geadopteerd, namentlyk, / Massachusetts, Connecticut, Nieuw-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware en Georgia / Vertaald door Lambertus de Ronde, V. D. M. / Gedrukt by Ordervan de Federal Committee, in de Stad van Albany, / Door Charles R. Webster, in zyne Vrye Boek-/ Druking, No. 36, Staat-Straat, na by de / Engelsche Kirke in dezelvde Stad, 1788.

Sq. 12mo. pp. 32. B. 7

_Constitution. Boston_. 1787.

The / Constitution / or Frame of / Government, / For the United States of / America, / as reported by the Convention of Delegates, from the / United States, begun and held at Philadelphia on the / first Monday of May, 1787, and continued by Adjournments to / the seventeenth Day of September following—[Colophon at p. 16] Printed by Thomas and John Fleet, in Boston.

8vo. pp. 20 M. 8

Includes the resolves of the Continental Congress and the Massachusetts General Court. Sabin gives a copy “12mo, pp. 16,” but it is this edition, lacking the last four leaves, or the “resolves.”

_Constitution. Boston_. 1787.

The / Constitution / or Frame of / Government, / for the / United States / of / America. / As reported by the Convention of Delegates, from / the United States, begun and held at Philadel-/ phia, on the first Monday of May, 1787, and continued / by adjournments to the seventeenth Day of September fol-/ lowing.—Which they resolved should be laid before the / United States in Congress assembled; and afterwards be / submittted to a Convention of Delegates, chosen in each State,/ by the People thereof, under the recommendation of its Le-/ gislature, for their Assent and Ratification / Together with the Resolutions of the General Court of the / Commonwealth of Massachusetts, for calling said Convention, agreea-/ ble to the recommendation of Congress. / Published by order of Government. / Printed at Boston, Massachusetts, By Adams & Nourse, / Printers to the Honourable the General Court. / M,DCC,LXXXVII.

8vo. pp. 32. C. M., A. A. S. 9

_Constitution. Philadelphia_. 1787.

The / Constitution / proposed for / The Government of the United States of / America, by the Foederal Conven-/ tion, held at Philadelphia, in the / Year One Thousand Seven Hundred / and Eighty-seven. / To which is Annexed, / The Ratifications thereof by the Dele-/ gates of Pennsylvania in the / State Convention. / Philadelphia: Printed by Hall & Sellers. / M,DCC,LXXXVII.

8vo. pp. 24. C. 10

_Constitution. Philadelphia_. 1787.

The / Constitution / as formed for the / United States / by the / Foederal Convention, / Held at Philadelphia, / In the year 1787, / With the Resolves of / Congress, / and of the / Assembly of Pennsylvania / thereon. / Philadelphia: / Printed by T. Bradford, / in Front-Street, four doors below the Coffee House / M,DCC,LXXXVII.

12mo. pp. 16. C. H. S. 11

_Constitution. Richmond_. 1787 or 8.

The / Federal Constitution / for the United States of America, &c. [Colophon] Richmond: Printed by Augustin Davis.

4to. pp. 11. 12

_Constitution. London_. 1787.

Plan / of the / New Constitution / for the / United States of America, / Agreed upon in a / Convention of the States / with / a Preface by the Editor. / London: / Printed for J. Debrett, Piccadilly. / M.DCCLXXXVII.

8vo. pp. (2) 30,8. 13

_Constitution. Boston_. 1787.

(1) Proceedings / of the / Federal Convention. / [Colophon at p. 16] Printed by Thomas and John Fleet, in Boston.

8vo. pp. 20. P. 14

The Constitution, with the resolutions, etc., of the Massachusetts General Court. See No. 8.

_Constitution. Philadelphia_. 1787.

Proceedings / of the / Federal Convention. / Held at / Philadelphia / in the Year 1787. / And the Twelfth Year / of / American Independence. / Philadelphia: / Printed by T. Bradford, / in Front-street, four doors below the Coffee-House / M,DCC,LXXXVII

8vo. pp. 15. C. 15

_Constitution. Philadelphia_. 1787.

Results / of the Deliberations / of the / Federal Convention. / In Convention, Sept. 17, 1787 [Philadelphia:? 1787].

8vo. pp. 16. P. H. S. 16

_Constitution. New York_. 1787.

Supplement to the Independent Journal, / Saturday, September 22, 1787. / Copy of the Result of the Deliberations of the / Federal Convention / In Convention, September 17, 1787, / [New York: J. M’Lean. 1787].

Folio, pp. 4. S. L. 16*

_Constitution. Hartford_. 1787.

We the People / of the United /States, /...../ ... do ordain and esta-/ blish this Constitution for the United States of / America. / Hartford: / Printed and sold by Nathaniel Patten. / M,DCC,LXXXVII.

Sq. 16mo. pp. 16. P. H. S. 17

_Constitution. Poughkeepsie_. 1788.

We the People of the United States, in order to form a / more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tran-/ quility, provide for the common Defense, promote the ge-/ neral Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves / and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitu-/ tion for the United States of America. [Poughkeepsie: Nicholas Power, 1788.]

4to. pp. 20, S. 18

The official edition printed for the use of the New York Convention. The text is only printed on one side of page, to page 17—after that on both sides.

_Constitution. Philadelphia. 1787._

We, the People of the United States in order to form / a more perfect union, to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide / for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings / of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the / United States of America....

Folio, 4 11. S. D., C., M. 19

The “Report” of the “Committee on style and arrangement” of the Federal Convention, brought in September 13th, 1787. It was printed for the use of the members only and with the utmost secrecy.

_Constitution. Philadelphia. 1787._

We the People of the States / of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, / Rhode Island and Providence Plan-/ tations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Penn-/ sylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Caro-/ lina, South-Carolina, and Georgia, do ordain, declare / and establish the following Constitution for the Government of Ourselves and our Posterity.

Folio, 7 11. S. D., C., M. 20

The “Report” of the “Committee of five,” of the Federal Convention, brought in August 6th, 1787. Printed only for the use of the members, as a basis for a continuation of the discussion. Both these last two editions, it is needless to say, are of the greatest rarity, the number printed being probably not over sixty copies, and as confidential documents, were saved by few of the members. The Department of State possesses Washington’s copy of No. 19, and David Brearly’s and James Madison’s copies of both drafts. The Library of Congress possesses William Samuel Johnson’s copies, and the Massachusetts Historical Society has those of Elbridge Gerry. All of these contain Mss. alterations by their respective owners, and George Mason’s copy of No. 19 in the possession of Miss Kate Mason Rowland of Virginia, contains not only alterations, but the objections of Mason to the Constitution, in his own handwriting. What are apparently the original Mss. compilations from which these drafts were printed are in the Wilson Papers, now in the Pennsylvania Historical Society.

[_Coxe_ (_Tench_)].

An / Examination / of the / Constitution / for the / United States / of / America, / Submitted to the People / by the / General Convention, / at Philadelphia, the 17th Day of September, 1787, / and since adopted and ratified / by the / Conventions of Eleven States, / chosen for the purpose of considering it, being all / that have yet decided on the subject. / By an American Citizen. /To which is added, / a Speech / of the / Hon. James Wilson, Esquire. / on the same subject. / Philadelphia: / Printed by Zachariah Poulson, Junr. in Fourth / Street, between Market and Arch-Streets. / M.DCC.LXXXVIII.

8vo. pp. 33. P. 21

Reprinted in Ford’s _Pamphlets on the Constitution_ and in No. 3. and the Letters by “An American Citizen” are printed in No. 99, and in Carey’s _American Museum_, ii, pp. 301 and 387.

_Coxe_ (_Tench_).

[An Examination of the Constitution. Reprinted, Brooklyn, N.Y.: 1887.]

8vo.pp. 22. 22

A few copies separately printed from No. 68.

_Curtis_ (_George Ticknor_).

History / of the / Origin, Formation, and Adoption / of the / Constitution of the United States; / with / notices of its principal framers. / By /George Ticknor Curtis. / In two volumes. / Volume I. / New York: / Harper and Brothers, / Franklin Square. / 1854 [-8].

2 vols., 8vo. pp. xxxvi, 518—xvi, 663. 23

This work, which is by far the best history of our Constitution, has been for several years out of print, and is difficult to procure in second hand condition. There are issues with different dates. It was reviewed, by C. C. Smith, in _The Christian Examiner_, lviii, 75, lxv, 67; in _The Methodist Review_, xv, 187; in _The American Quarterly Church Review_, xv, 541; and in _The North American Review_, lxxx, 259, by A. P. Peabody.

[_Davie_ (_William Richardson and others_)].

[An Address to the People of North Carolina, by Publicola. Answer to George Mason’s Objections to the new Constitution recommended by the late Convention, by Marcus, etc. Newbern: Printed by Hodge and Wills. 1788.] pp. 24

A hypothetical title of a tract frequently alluded to in McRee’s _Life of James Iredell_, but which I have been able to find no other trace. William R. Davie wrote Publicola, James Iredell wrote Marcus, and Archibald Maclaine apparently contributed as well. See No. 81.

_Debates of the State Conventions_ (_Elliot_). _See Nos. 27-30._

_Decius’s Letters. See Nos. 100 and 105._

[_Dickinson_ (_John_)].

The / Letters / of / Fabius, / in 1788, / on the Federal Constitution, / and / in 1797, / on the present situation / of / public affairs. / Copy-Right Secured. / From the office of the Delaware / Gazette, Wilmington, / by W. C. Smyth. / 1797.

8vo. pp. iv, 202 (1).H. 25

Reprinted in _Political Writings of John Dickinson_, and the first series is in Ford’s _Pamphlets on the Constitution_.

See Washington’s _Writings_, xi, 354.

The first series of _Fabius_ were also printed in _The New Hampshire Gazette_, from which Mr. Dawson reprinted a single number in the _The Historical Magazine_, xviii, 359; apparently under the impression that it was an original New Hampshire essay.

_Dickinson_ (_John_).

[The Letters of Fabius, Brooklyn, N. Y.; 1888].

8vo. pp. 54. 26

A few copies separately printed from No. 68.

_Examination into the leading principles. See Nos. 130-1._

_Examination of the Constitution. See Nos. 21-2._

_Fabius. See Nos. 25-6._

_Federal Constitution. See No. 12._

_Federal Farmer. See Nos. 86-90._

_Elliot_ (_Jonathan_). _First edition._

The / Debates, / Resolutions, and other Proceedings, / in / Convention, / on the adoption of the / Federal Constitution, / as recommended by the / General Convention at Philadelphia, / on the 17th of September, 1787: / With the yeas and nays on the decision of the / main question. / Collected and revised, from contemporary publications, / by Jonathan Elliot. /.... / .... / Washington, / Printed by and for the Editor, / on the Pennsylvania Avenue. / 1827 [-30].

3 vols., 8vo. 27

“Volume I. / Containing the Debates in Massachusetts and New York.” pp. viii, 358, *8.

“Volume II. / Containing the Debates in the Commonwealth of Virginia.” pp. viii, 33-487.

“Volume III. / Containing the Debates in the States of North Carolina and Pennsylvania.” pp. (8), 17-322.

The star leaves in Volume I. were originally issued in Volume III., and are sometimes found bound in that volume. They are a fragment of the debates in the New York Convention.

An additional volume was issued in 1830, with the following title:

Journal / and / Debates of the Federal Convention, / Held at Philadelphia, from May 14, to September 17, 1787 / with the / Constitution / of the / United States, / illustrated by the opinions of twenty / successive Congresses, / and a / Digest of Decisions in the Courts of the Union, / involving constitutional principles: / thus shewing / the rise, progress, present condition, and practice / of the Constitution, / In the / National Legislature and Legal Tribunals of the Republic. / With / full indexes on all subjects embraced in the Work. / By Jonathan Elliot. / Volume IV. / (Supplementary to the State Constitutions, in 3 Vols. on adopting the Federal Constitution) / Washington, / Printed and sold by the Editor, / on the Pennsylvania Avenue. / 1830. /

8vo. pp. (8), 272, 404, (4). 28

Reviewed by Jared Sparks in the _North American Review_, xxv. 249.

_Elliot_ (_Jonathan_). _Second Edition._

The / Debates / in the several / State Conventions, / on the adoption of the / Federal Constitution, / as recommended by the / General Convention at Philadelphia, / in / 1787. / Together with / the Journal of the Federal Convention, Luther / Martin’s Letter, Yates’ Minutes, Congressional / Opinions, Virgina & Kentucky Resolutions of ’96-’99, / and other illustrations of the Constitution. / In four volumes—Volume I. / Second Edition, / with considerable additions, / collected and revised from contemporary publications, / by Jonathan Elliot. / Published under the Sanction of Congress. Washington: / Printed by and for the Editor, / on the Pennsylvania Avenue. / 1836.

4 vols. 8vo. 29

I. pp. vii, (3), xix-xxxii, 33-*79, 73-551. II. pp. III. pp. IV. pp. (4), vii-xvi, 33-662, xvi.

_Elliot_ (_Jonathan_). [_Third_] _Edition._

The / Debates / in the several / State Conventions, / on the adoption of the / Federal Constitution, / as recommended by the / General Convention at Philadelphia, in 1787. / together with the / Journal of the Federal Convention, / Luther Martin’s Letter, / Yates’ Minutes, / Congressional Opinions, / Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of ’98-’99, / and / other illustrations of the Constitution. / In Four Volumes. / Vol. I. / Second Edition, with considerable additions. / Collected and Revised from contemporary publications, / by Jonathan Elliot. / Published under the sanction of Congress. / Washington: Printed for the Editor. / 1836.

4 vols. 8vols. 30

I. pp. xvi, 508 Ante-Constitutional History, Journal of Convention, Martin’s Genuine Information, Yates’ Minutes, Ratifications and Amendments, Official letters of Delegates, Partizan arguments, and private letters.

II. pp. xi, 556. Debates in the Conventions of Massachusetts, Connecticut, (fragmentary), New Hampshire, (fragmentary). New York, and Pennsylvania (fragmentary.) Account of Maryland and Harrisburg Conventions.

III. pp. xi, 663. Debates in the Virginia Convention.

IV. pp. xii, 639. Debates in the (first) North Carolina Convention and in the Legislature and Convention (fragment) of South Carolina, Opinions on Constitutional questions, 1789-1836.

In 1845 a supplementary volume was added, with the following title:

Debates / on the / adoption of the Federal Constitution, / in the Convention held at Philadelphia, / in / 1787;/ with a diary of the debates of / the Congress of the Confederation; / as reported / By James Madison, / a member, and deputy from Virginia. / Revised and newly arranged / By Johnathan Elliot. / Complete in one volume. Vol. V. / Supplementary to Elliot’s Debates. / Published under the sanction of Congress. / Washington: / Printed for the Editor. / 1845.

8vo. pp. xxii, 641. 31

Elliot’s Debates (especially this edition), in spite of its imperfections, is the great store house of American constitutional history. It is almost impossible to exaggerate its importance, and though Nos. 92 and 99 have rendered the portion relating to Massachusetts and Pennsylvania of little value, the remaining contents are only to be found in contemporary publications of greater or lesser rarity.

In 1858 the plates passed into the hands of J. B. Lippincott & Co., who have printed several issues, with change of date only.

The Foederalist. No. I. To the People of the State of New York....[signed] Publius.

32

This is the heading to the first of the series of eighty-five essays, now known as the _The Federalist_, and was first published October 27, 1787. With occasional breaks in its regularity, it continued to be published by at least two New York newspapers until August 16, 1788.

Nos. 1-7, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 26, 31, 33, 35, 37-8, 55, 65, 71, and 76 first appeared in _The Independent Journal_. Nos. 8, 12, 16, 18, 20, 22, 27, 29, 30, 32, 56, 64, 70, 72 and 75 first appeared in _The New York Packet_. Nos. 10 and 36 first appeared in _The Daily Advertiser_. Nos. 9, 14, 23-5, and 34 appeared simultaneously in two or more papers. Nos. 77-85 first appeared in the first edition in book form. The first publication of the remaining essays I have not been able to find.

Jay wrote Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 64; Madison, Nos. 10, 14, 37 to 48 inclusive; Nos. 18, 19 and 20 are the joint work of Madison and Hamilton; Nos. 49 to 58, 62 and 63 are claimed by both Madison and Hamilton; the rest of the numbers are by Hamilton. The authorship of the 12 numbers claimed by both Madison and Hamilton are fully discussed by Mr. Lodge in _The Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society for 1882_, and Volume ix of _The Works of Hamilton_; by Mr. Dawson and Mr. J. C. Hamilton in the introductions to their respective editions of _The Federalist_; by Mr. Rives in his _History of the Life and Times of James Madison_; by Mr. Bancroft, in the _History of the Formation of the Constitution_, ii, 236; and in _The Historical Magazine_, viii, 305.

“He is certainly a judicious and ingenious writer, though not well calculated for the common people.—_Maclaine to Iredell, March 4, 1788._

“In a series of essays in the New York Gazettes, under title of _Federalist_, it [the Constitution] has been advocated with great ability. _Washington to Luzerne_, Feb. 7, 1788.

“The Federalist, as he terms himself, or Publius, puts me in mind of some of the gentlemen of the long robe when hard pressed, in a bad cause, with a rich client. They frequently say a good deal, which does not apply; but yet if it will not convince the judge and jury, may perhaps, help to make them forget some part of the evidence—embarass their opponents, and make the audience stare.” _N. Y. Journal_, Feb. 14, 1788.

“It would be difficult to find a treatise, which, in so small a compass, contains so much valuable political information, or in which the true principles of republican government are unfolded with such precision.” _American Magazine_ for March, 1788.

See also,

A / List of Editions / of / “The Federalist.” / By / Paul Leicester Ford, / Brooklyn, N. Y., / 1886. 8vo, pp. 25.

_The Federalist. New York._ 1788.

The / Federalist: / A Collection / of / Essays, / written in Favour of the / New Constitution, / as agreed upon by the Federal Convention, / September 17, 1787. / In Two Volumes. / Vol. I. / New York: / Printed and Sold by J. and A. M’Lean, / No. 41, Hanover-Square. / M,DCC,LXXXVIII.

2 vols. 12mo, pp. vi, 227-vi, 384. C., P., N., B.A. 33

The first edition in book form. It is difficult to find in uncut condition, or on thick paper. Ordinary copies were priced by Leon at $30, and Hawkins’ copy sold for $48.

Reviewed in _The American Magazine_, 1788. 260, 327, 423, 503.

_The Federalist. Paris._ 1792.

Le Fédéraliste, / ou / Collection de quelques Ecrits en faveur de / la Constitution proposée aux États-Unis / de / l’Amérique, par la Convention convoquée / en 1787; / Publiés dans les États-Unis de l’Amérique par / MM. Hamilton, Madisson et Gay, / Citoyens de l’Etat de New York. / Tome Premier. / A Paris, / Chez Buisson, Libraire, rue Hautefeuille, / No. 20. / 1792.

2 vols., 8vo. pp. lii, 366—(4), 511. 34

2 vols., 8vo. pp. (5), xxii-lii, 366—(4), 511. S.

The two variations noted above are identical as to matter and composition, with the exception of the introduction, which is omitted in the second.

Translated by Trudaine de la Sablière, who added an Introduction, and Notes, most of which are merely explanatory of such parts of the text as would be unintelligible to the French reader.

“Both issues of this first French edition are of the utmost rarity. I have heard of but one example of the first issue, the imperfect copy in the library of Harvard College, referred to by Mr. Dawson. The second is almost equally rare. There is one copy in the New York State Library (mentioned by Mr. Dawson), another in the library of Yale College, and a third was sold at auction not long since, in Boston for twenty-five dollars a volume.” _Mr. Lodge’s Introduction to The Federalist._

_The Federalist. Paris._ 1795.

Le Fédéraliste, / ou / Collection de quelques Ecrits en faveur / de la Constitution proposée aux États-Unis / de l’Amérique, par la Convention convoquée / en 1788;/ Publiés dans les États-Unis de l’Amérique par / MM. Hamilton, Madisson et Jay./ Citoyens de l’Etat de New York./ Seconde Edition. / Tome Premier, / A Paris, / Chez Buisson, Librarie, rue Hautefeuille, No. 20. / An 3e. de la Republique.

2 vols., 8vo. pp. (5), xxii-lii, 366—(4), 511. 35

A reissue with new titles of the second issue of No. 34.

_The Federalist. New York._ 1799.

The / Federalist: / A Collection of / Essays, / written in favour of the / new Constitution, / as agreed upon by the / Federal Convention, / September 17, 1787. / In Two Volumes. / Vol. I. / New-York: / Printed and sold by John Tiebout, / No. 358 Pearl-Street. / 1799.

2 vols., 12mo. pp. vi, 227—vi, 384. 36

Of the first edition of _The Federalist_ a few copies remain unsold, which passed into the hands of John Tiebout, who reissued it with new titles only.

“It is said that in the year 1799, a new edition of _The Federalist_, the fifth in book-form, was published by John Tiebout.... The most diligent search has been made for a copy of that edition, but without finding it or obtaining any other information concerning it. It is not in any of the principal public libraries, nor, so far as can be learned, is a copy of it in any private library in this part of the country. The newspapers of that period—both Foederal and Republican—have been carefully examined, with the hope of finding the Proposals for its publication; personal enquiries have been made of Mr. Tiebout’s sons, and of several of the older inhabitants of the city; and those whose intimate knowledge of books entitles them to the respect of every student have been applied to on the subject; yet no trace whatever, beyond the single allusion above referred to, has been obtained from any quarter concerning this or any other edition of _The Federalist_ from the press of John Tiebout.” _Mr. Dawson’s Introduction to The Federalist_, lxvii

“Mr. Dawson, after the most exhaustive research, failed to find a copy, and only heard of one, or what appeared to be one, in the collection of Mr. Force, while his own volume was passing through the press, and he was therefore compelled to leave the existence of such an edition largely a matter of conjecture. This gap is now filled. There is a copy of this edition, probably unique, for the Force copy has disappeared, in the Long Island Historical Society.” _Mr. Lodge’s Introduction to The Federalist._

This copy mentioned by Mr. Lodge is however, imperfect, there being but one volume.

_The Federalist. New York._ 1802.

The / Federalist, / on the New Constitution. / By Publius. / Written in 1788. / To which is added, / Pacificus, / on the Proclamation of Neutrality. / Written in 1793. / Likewise, / The Federal Constitution, / with all the Amendments. / Revised and Corrected. / In Two Volumes. / Vol. I. / Copy-right secured. / New-York: / Printed and sold by George F. Hopkins, / At Washington’s Head. / 1802.

2 vols., 8vo pp. viii, 317, (I)—v, 351. C., H., N. 37

Mr. Dawson hazards the guess that this edition was edited by William Coleman, but by Mr. Hopkins statement, he appears in error.

“Mr. Hopkins informed me to-day that this edition was in the first instance corrected by John Wells, who compared it with the original edition, published by McLean [sic] in 1788, and that it was subsequently revised by my father, at whose casual suggestion Pacificus was printed with it.” _Memoranda by J. C. Hamilton, Feb. 6, 1847._

From the “prefatory remarks” prefixed to the Washington edition, it would appear that Mr. Jay also revised in this edition the numbers contributed by him. See No. 41.

“In the year 1802, Mr. Hopkins, printer, of this city, intending to publish a new edition of The Federalist, took this opportunity to apply to Gen. Hamilton, and solicit him to correct and revise the numbers, and, so far succeeded, as to obtain his consent to assist in the revisal, provided a gentleman of competent literary talents would undertake to make the first verbal corrections, for the original idea was to be strictly adhered to:—He then examined the whole with his own eye, previous to its being committed to the press, and saw that it was free from literary blemishes.” William A. Coleman in the _N.Y. Evening Post_, March 25, 1817.

_The Federalist. New York._ 1810.

The / Federalist, / on the New Constitution; / written in 1788,/ by Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Jay, and Mr. Madison. / To which is added, / Pacificus, / on the Proclamation of Neutrality; / written in 1793, / by Mr. Hamilton./ A new edition, with the Names and Portraits of the several Writers. / In Two Volumes. / Vol. I. / New-York: / Published by Williams & Whiting, / at their Theological and Classical Bookstore, / No. 118, Pearl-Street. / Printed by J. Seymour. / 1810.

2 vols., 8vo. pp. iv, 368, 2 portraits—iv, 368, portrait. 38

A separate edition of volumes ii. and iii. of the “_Works of Hamilton_,” as edited by John Wells, in 1810. It is identical in matter with No. 37, with the addition of the names of the authors from “a private memorandum in his (Hamilton’s) own handwriting.”

_The Federalist. Philadelphia_, 1817.

The / Federalist, / on the New Constitution; / written in 1788, / by Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Jay, and Mr. Madison, / A New Edition, / with the Names and Portraits of the several Writers. / Philadelphia: / Published by Benjamin Warner, No. 147, Market Street. / William Greer. Printer. Harrisburg. / 1817.

8vo. pp. 477, 3 portraits.

The first single volume edition. It follows the 1810 edition in text. 39

_The Federalist. Philadelphia._ 1818.

The / Federalist, / on the New Constitution; / written in 1788, / by Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Jay, and Mr. Madison. / A New Edition, / with the Names and Portraits of the several Writers. / Philadelphia: / Published by Benjamin Warner, No. 147, Market Street, / and sold at his stores, Richmond, Virginia, / and Charleston, South Carolina. / 1818.

8vo, pp, 504, 3 portraits. B. 40

Printed from the same forms as No. 39, with the addition of an appendix containing the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution.

_The Federalist. Washington._ 1818.

The / Federalist, / on / the New Constitution, / written in / the Year 1788, / by / Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Madison, and Mr. Jay, / with / an Appendix, / Containing / the Letters of Pacificus and Helvidius, / on the / Proclamation of Neutrality of 1793; / Also, the / Original Articles of Confederation, / and / the Constitution of the United States, / with the / Amendments made thereto. / A New Edition. / The Numbers written by Mr. Madison corrected by Himself. / City of Washington: / Printed and published by Jacob Gideon, Jun. / 1818.

8vo, pp. 671. 41

“The present edition of the Federalist contains all the numbers of that work, as revised by their authors, and is the only one to which the remark will apply. Former editions, indeed, it is understood, had the advantage of a revisal from Mr. Hamilton, and Mr. Jay, but the numbers written by Mr. Madison still remain in the state in which they originally issued from the press, and contain many inaccuracies. The publisher of this volume has been so fortunate as to procure from Mr. Madison the copy of the work which that gentleman had preserved for himself, with corrections of the papers of which he was the author, in his own hand.” Prefatory remarks by Jacob Gideon, Jr.

Mr. Madison claims the authorship, in this edition, of Nos. 18, 19 and 20, which Hamilton had given as their joint work; and 49 to 58, 62 and 63, which Mr. Hamilton had claimed for himself. In spite of the research and study devoted to the dispute, it is to-day impossible to give the authorship to either with any certainty.

_The Federalist. Washington._ 1821.

The / Federalist, / on / the New Constitution, / Written in / the Year 1788, / by / Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Madison, and Mr. Jay, / with / an Appendix, / Containing / the Letters of Pacificus and Helvidius, / on the / Proclamation of Neutrality of 1793; / Also, the / Original Articles of Confederation, / and / the Constitution of the United States, / with the / Amendments made thereto. / A New Edition. / The Numbers written by Mr. Madison corrected by Himself. / City of Washington: / Printed and published by Jacob Gideon, Jun. / 1821.

8vo. pp. 671. 42

A reissue of No. 41 with new titles only. It is not in Mr. Dawson’s list of editions.

_The Federalist. Hallowell._ 1826.

The / Federalist, / on the New Constitution, / Written in / the Year 1788, /by / Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Madison, and Mr. Jay: / With / an Appendix, / Containing / the Letters of Pacificus and Helvidius, / on the / Proclamation of Neutrality of 1793; / Also, the / Original Articles of Confederation, / and the / Constitution of the United States, / with the / Amendments made thereto. / A New Edition. / The Numbers written by Mr. Madison corrected by Himself. / Hallowell, (Me.): / Printed and published by Glazier & Co. / 1826.

8vo. pp. 582. H. 43

A reprint of Gideon’s edition of 1818.

_The Federalist. Philadelphia._ 1826.

The / Federalist, / on the New Constitution, / written in the year / 1788, / by / Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Madison and Mr. Jay: / With / an Appendix, / containing / The Letters of Pacificius and Helvidius / on the Proclamation of Neutrality of 1793; / Also the / Articles of Confederation, / and the / Constitution of the United States, / with the amendments made thereto. / A New Edition. / The numbers written by Mr. Madison corrected by himself. / Philadelphia: / Published by McCarty and Davis, / 171 Market-street. / 1826.

8vo. pp. 582. 44

Identical with No. 43, excepting title page. It is not in Sabin’s or Dawson’s lists, or in Ford’s _List of editions of “The Federalist.”_

_The Federalist. Hallowell._ 1831.

The / Federalist / on / the New Constitution,/ written in the Year 1788, /by / Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Madison, and Mr. Jay: / With / an Appendix, / Containing / the Letters of Pacificus and Helvidius, / on the / Proclamation of Neutrality of 1793; / also, the / Original Articles of Confederation, and the Con-/ stitution of the United States, / with the Amendments made thereto. / A New Edition. / The Numbers written by Mr. Madison corrected by Himself. / Hallowell: / Printed and published by Glazier, Masters & Co. / 1831.

8vo. pp. 542. 45

Not in Mr. Sabin’s _Dictionary of Books relating to America_, and Mr. Dawson, who had heard of such an edition, was unable to find a copy.

_The Federalist. Washington._ 1831.

The / Federalist, / on / The New Constitution, / written in / the Year 1788, / by / Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, / With an Appendix, / Containing the Original Articles of Confederation; the / Letter of General Washington, as President of the / Convention, to the President of Congress; the Consti-/ tution of the United States, and the Amendments to / the Constitution. / A New Edition, / with a Table of Contents, / and / a copious Alphabetical Index. / The Numbers written by Mr. Madison corrected by Himself. / Washington: / Published by Thompson & Homans. / Way & Gideon, Printers. / 1831.

12mo. pp. vii, 3-420. C. 46

The first edition with an index, prepared by Phillip R. Fendall.

_The Federalist. Hallowell._ 1837.

The / Federalist, / on / the New Constitution, / written in the year 1788, / by / Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Madison, and Mr. Jay: / with / an Appendix, / Containing / the Letters of Pacificus and Helvidius / on the / Proclamation of Neutrality of 1793; / also, / the Original Articles of Confederation, and the / Constitution of the United States, / with the Amendments made thereto. / A New Edition. / The Numbers written by Mr. Madison corrected by Himself. / Hallowell: / Glazier, Masters & Smith. / 1837.

8vo. pp. 500. A., C. 47

_The Federalist. Rio de Janeiro._ 1840.

O Federalista, publicado em inglez por Hamilton, Madison e Jay, cidadãos de Nova-York, e tradizido em portuguez por ... Rio de Janeiro: Typ. Imperial e Const, de J. Villeneuve & Ca. 1840.

3 vols. 8vo. pp. 244—285—246. 48

Title from Mr. Sabin’s _Dictionary of Books relating to America_. It is unknown to Mr. Dawson, and I have been unable to find a copy. From the misspelling of Madison’s name, it is apparently a translation of the Paris edition, No. 34.

_The Federalist. Hallowell._ 1842.

The / Federalist, / on / the New Constitution, / Written in 1788, / by / Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Madison, and Mr. Jay: / With / an Appendix, / Containing / the Letters of Pacificus and Helvidius / on the / Proclamation of Neutrality of 1793; / also, / the Original Articles of Confederation, / and the / Constitution of the United States. / A New Edition. / The Numbers written by Mr. Madison corrected by Himself. / Hallowell: / Glazier, Masters & Smith. / 1842.

8vo. pp. 484. 49

Reviewed by J. Parker, in the _North American Review_, xciv, 435.

_The Federalist. Washington._ 1845.

The / Federalist, / on / the New Constitution, / Written in / the Year 1788, / by / Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, / With an Appendix, / Containing / the Original Articles of Confederation; the Letter of General Wash-/ ington, as President of the Convention, to the President of Con-/ gress; the Constitution of the United States; the Amend-/ ments to the Constitution; and the Act of Congress in / Relation to the election of President, passed / January 23, 1845. / Sixth Edition, / with / a Copious Alphabetical Index. / The numbers written by Mr. Madison corrected by Himself. / Washington: / Printed by J. & G. S. Gideon. / 1845.

8vo. pp. (2), v, (1), 391. 50

Neither in Mr. Dawson’s nor Mr. Sabin’s lists of editions.

_The Federalist. Philadelphia._ 1847.

The / Federalist, / on / the New Constitution, / Written in / the Year 1788, / by / Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. / With an Appendix, / Containing / the Letters of Pacificus and Helvidius on the Proclamation of Neu-/ trality of 1793; the Original Articles of Confederation; the Let-/ ter of General Washington, as President of the Convention, to the President of Congress; the Constitution of the / United States; the Amendments to the Constitution; / and the Acts of Congress in Relation to the Elec-/ tion of President, passed January 23, 1845. / Sixth edition, / with / a Copious Alphabetical Index. / The Numbers written by Mr. Madison corrected by Himself. / Philadelphia: / R. Wilson Desilver, 18 South Fourth Street, / 1847.

8vo. pp. (2), v, 392, 102. B. M., 51

The “Letters of Pacificus and Helvidius,” has a separate title-page and pagination, and is often found as a separate work.

_The Federalist. Washington._ 1847.

The Federalist, on the New Constitution ... Washington: J. & G. S. Gideon 1847.

8vo. pp. 52

Title quoted by Sabin from “Mr. Bartlett’s List.”

_The Federalist. Hallowell._ 1852.

The / Federalist, / on / the New Constitution, / Written in 1788, / by / Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Madison, and Mr. Jay: / With / an Appendix, / Containing the / Letters of Pacificus and Helvidius / on the / Proclamation of Neutrality of 1793; / Also, / the Original Articles of Confederation, / and the / Constitution of the United States. / New Edition: / The Numbers written by Mr. Madison corrected by Himself. / Hallowell: / Masters, Smith, & Company. / 1852.

8vo. pp. 496. 53

_The Federalist. Hallowell._ 1857.

The / Federalist, / on the / New Constitution, / Written in 1788, / by / Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Madison, and Mr. Jay: / With / an Appendix, / Containing Letters of / Pacificus and Helvidius / on the / Proclamation of Neutrality of 1793; / Also, / the Original Articles of Confederation, / and the Constitution of the United States. / New Edition: / The Numbers written by Mr. Madison corrected by Himself. / Hallowell: / Masters, Smith, & Co. / 1857.

8vo. pp. 496. B. 54

_The Federalist. New York._ 1863.

The Foederalist: / A / Collection of Essays, Written in Favor / of the New Constitution, as / agreed upon by / the Federal Convention, / September 17, 1787. / Reprinted from the Original Text, / with an / Historical Introduction and Notes, / By Henry B. Dawson. / In Two Volumes. /

Vol. I. / New York: / Charles Scribner, 124 Grand Street, / London: Sampson Low, Son & Co. / 1863.

8vo. pp. cxlii, (2), 615, portrait. 55

All ever printed. This volume contains the text of _The Federalist_, entire, and an Introduction, containing a history of the origin, original publication, the controversy over the disputed numbers, and a bibliographical list of editions, all being treated with great thoroughness. It was Mr. Dawson’s intention to give, in the second volume, the alterations which had been made in the text of the various editions, and MSS. notes from copies of the work which had belonged to the authors and other statesmen. The Introduction gave offense to the Hamilton and Jay families, and occasioned the following pamphlets:

Correspondence / between / John Jay and Henry B. Dawson, / and between / James A. Hamilton and Henry B. Dawson, / concerning / The Federalist. / New York: / Printed by J. M. Bradstreet & Son./ 1864.

8vo. and 4to. pp. 48, covers. 56

Of the 4to. edition only 25 copies were printed. The title on the cover reads _Current Fictions tested by Uncurrent Facts_. Mr. Dawson advertised _Current Fictions No. II._, but it was never printed.

New Plottings in Aid of the Rebel Doctrine of / State Sovereignty. / Mr. Jay’s Second Letter / on / Dawson’s Introduction to the Federalist, / Exposing its Falsification of the History of the Constitution; its / Libels on Duane, Livingston, Jay and Hamilton; and / its relation to recent efforts by Traitors at home, and / Foes abroad, to maintain the Rebel Doctrine of State / Sovereignty, for the subversion of the Unity of / the Republic and the Supreme Sovereignty of / the American People / ..... / New York: / A. D. F. Randolph. / 1864. / 8vo. pp. 54, viii, covers. 57

[Same.] New York: / American News Company, 121 Nassau street. / London: / Trubner & Company, 60 Paternoster Row. / 1864. / 8vo, pp. 54. vii, covers. 58

[Same.] London: Samson Low ... 1864. 8vo. pp. 50. 59

All three editions were suppressed by Mr. Jay, and the bulk of the copies burnt. See _Current Fictions_, p. 26.

This edition is reviewed by H. W. Torrey in _The North American Review_, cxcviii, 586; and by Historicus in _The New York Times_, Feb. 17, 1864.

_The Federalist. New York._ 1864.

The Foederalist: / A / Collection of Essays, Written in Favor / of the New Constitution, as / agreed upon by / the Foederal Convention, / September 17, 1787. / Reprinted from the Original Text. / With an / Historical Introduction and Notes, / By Henry B. Dawson. / In Two Volumes. / Vol. I. / New York: / Charles Scribner & Co.... / ... 1864.

8vo. pp. cxlii, (2), 615, portrait. 60

_The Federalist. Morrisania._ 1864.

The Foederalist: / A Collection of Essays, written in Favor / of the New Constitution, as agreed / upon by the Foederal Conven-/ tion, September 17, 1787. / Reprinted from the Original Text, / with an / Historical Introduction and Notes / By Henry B. Dawson. / In Two Volumes. / Vol. I. / Morrisania, N.Y.: / 1864.

Royal 8vo. pp. cxlii, (2), 615, portrait. 61

Printed from the same plates as the New York editions of 1863 and 1864. 250 copies printed.

_The Federalist. Philadelphia._ 1865.

The / Federalist: / A Commentary / on the / Constitution of the United States. / A Collection of Essays, / By Alexander Hamilton, / Jay, and Madison. / Also, / The Continentalist, and other Papers, / By Hamilton. / Edited by / John C. Hamilton, / Author of “The History of the Republic of the United States.” / Philadelphia: / J. B. Lippincott & Co. / 1864.

8vo. pp. clxv, (1), 659, vi, portrait. B. A. 62

Many reissues, with a change of date only.

Contains an “Historical Notice,” which is an endeavor to prove Hamilton the author of the doubtful numbers; in fact, the whole tendency is to magnify Hamilton’s part of the work, even the names of the other authors being printed in much smaller type on the title page.

The alterations in the text made by the different editions is added, as also the papers signed “Philo-Publius” by William Duer.

Reviewed by Mr. Horace Binney in the following:

A Review of Hamilton’s Edition of the Federalist. Philadelphia: 1864.

8vo. pp. 8. 63

_The Federalist. Philadelphia._ 1865.

The / Federalist: / A Commentary / on the / Constitution of the United States. / A Collection of Essays / By Alexander Hamilton, / Jay, and Madison. / Also, / The Continentalist, and other Papers, / By Hamilton. / Edited by John C. Hamilton, / Author of “The History of the Republic of the United States.” / Vol. I. / Philadelphia: / J. B. Lippincott & Co. / 1865.

2 vols. Rl. 8vo. pp. clxv, (1), 242.—(2), 243-659, vi, portrait. 64

From the same plates as No. 62, but divided into two volumes, and printed on larger and finer paper. 100 copies only printed.

_The Federalist. New York._ 1876.

University Edition, / The Federalist: / A / Collection of Essays, written in Favor / of the New Constitution, as / agreed upon by / Federal Convention, / September 17, 1787 / Reprinted from the Original Text / under the Editorial Supervision of / Henry B. Dawson. / New York: / Scribner, Armstrong and Co. / 1876.

8vo. pp. lvi, 615. 65

Also issues with no date. A cheap edition from the plates of No. 55, with the omission of the Introduction, a short Preface taking its place.

_The Federalist. New York._ 1886.

The Works / of / Alexander Hamilton / Edited by / Henry Cabot Lodge / ... / Vol. IX. / New York & London / G. P. Putnam’s Sons / The Knickerbocker Press / 1886.

8vo. pp. xlv, 598. 66

_Federal Republican. See No. 119._

_Ford_ (_Paul Leicester_).

A List of the Members of the Federal Convention of 1787. By Paul Leicester Ford. Brooklyn, N. Y.: 1888.

67

100 copies privately printed.

“In 1819, when John Quincy Adams, by direction of Congress, edited and published the Journal of the Federal Convention, he drew up ... a list of the members.... This list was accepted and republished by Elliot, ... by Curtis ... and more recently in the Official Programme of the Constitutional Centenial, and no additions are promised in the forthcoming memorial of that celebration—Thus this list prepared in 1819, has become a fixture.... There are, however, several omissions and by reference to original documents, acts, etc., I have increased the list to seventy-four. To this I have added, in such cases as I have been able, the reasons of members for declining the appointment, and non-attendance of such as failed to be present in the Convention; the day of arrival of attending members; the absence of attending members; the date of leaving of those who failed to sign the Constitution, with their reasons, and the part the non-attending and non-signing members took in their own States in support or opposition to the ratification.” _Extract from preface._

_Ford_ (_Paul Leicester_).

Pamphlets / on the / Constitution of the United States / Published during / its discussion by the People / 1787-1788. / Edited / with notes and a bibliography / by / Paul Leicester Ford. / Brooklyn, N. Y.: / 1888.

8vo, pp. 68

Includes reprints of the following pamphlets, and a bibliography and reference list to the literature relating to the formation and adoption of the Constitution.

[GERRY (ELBRIDGE)]. Observations on the New Constitution, and on the Federal and State Conventions. By a Columbian Patriot.

[WEBSTER (NOAH)]. An Examination into the leading principles of the Federal Constitution. By a Citizen of America.

[JAY (JOHN)]. An Address to the People of the State of New York. By a Citizen of New York.

[SMITH (MELANCTHON)]. Address to the People of the State of New York. By a Plebeian.

[WEBSTER (PELATIAH)]. The Weakness of Brutus exposed: or some remarks in vindication of the Constitution. By a Citizen of Philadelphia.

[COXE (TENCH)]. An Examination of the Constitution of the United States of America. By an American Citizen.

WILSON (+James+). Speech on the Federal Constitution, delivered in Philadelphia.

[DICKINSON (JOHN)]. Letters of Fabius on the Federal Constitution.

[HANSON (ALEXANDER CONTEE)]. Remarks on the Proposed Plan of a Federal Government. By Aristides.

RANDOLPH (EDMUND). Letter on the Federal Constitution.

[Lee (Richard Henry)]. Observations on the System of Government proposed by the late Convention. By a Federal Farmer.

MASON (GEORGE). Objections to the Federal Constitution.

[IREDELL (JAMES)]. Observations on George Mason’s Objections to the Federal Constitution. By Marcus.

[RAMSAY (DAVID)]. An Address to the Freemen of South Carolina on the Federal Constitution. By Civis.

[_Gerry_ (_Elbridge_)].

Observations / On the new Constitution, and on the Federal / and State Conventions. / By a Columbian Patriot. / ... [Boston: 1788.]

12mo. pp. 19. C., M., B. A. 69

The above title is merely a caption on the first page. It is not advertised in any Massachusetts paper that I have been able to find, and was probably printed for Gerry for limited circulation only. It is reprinted in Ford’s _Pamphlets on the Constitution_, and as below.

[_Gerry_ (_Elbridge._)]

Observations / on the / New Constitution, / and on the / Foederal and State Conventions. / By a Columbian Patriot / ..., Boston Printed, New York Reprinted, / M,DCC.LXXXVIII.

8vo. pp. 22. N., C., S. 70

Printed by Thomas Greenleaf, in the N. Y. Journal, and reprinted, from the same forms, for the “New York [Anti] Federal Committee,” who distributed 1630 copies among the county committees in the State.

_Gerry_ (_Elbridge_).

[Observations on the New Constitution. Brooklyn, N. Y.: 1887].

8vo. pp. 23. 71

A few copies separately printed from No. 68.

_Hall, Aaron._

An / Oration, / delivered at the Request / of the / Inhabitants of Keene, June 30, 1788; / To Celebrate the Ratification / of the / Federal Constitution / by the / State of New-Hampshire. / By Aaron Hall, M. A. / Member of the late State Convention. / Keene: State of New-Hampshire: / Printed by James D. Griffith. / M,DCC,LXXXVIII.

8vo. pp. 15. B. A. 72

_Hamilton_ (_Alexander_). _See also Nos. 32-66._

Propositions / of Col. Hamilton, of New York, / In Convention for Establishing a Consti- / tutional Government for the / United States. / Also / a Summary of the Political Opinions of / John Adams, / ... / Pittsfield: Printed by Phineas Allen. 1802.

8vo. pp. 32. N. 73

[_Hanson_ (_Alexander Contee_)].

Remarks / on the / Proposed Plan / of a / Federal Government, / Addressed to the Citizens of the / United States of America, / and Particularly to the People of / Maryland, / By Aristides. / ... / ... / ... / ... / ... / Annapolis; / Printed by Frederick Green, / Printer to the State.

8vo. pp. 42. N., P. H. S., M. 74

Reprinted in Ford’s _Pamphlets on the Constitution_.

_Hanson_ (_Alexander Contee_).

[Remarks on the Proposed Plan of a Federal Government. Brooklyn, N. Y.: 1888].

8vo. pp. 39. 75

A few copies separately printed from No. 68.

_Hitchcock_ (_Enos_).

An / Oration: / delivered July 4, 1788, / at the request of the Inhabitants / of the / Town of Providence, / in / celebration / of the / Anniversary / of / American Independence, / and of / the accession of nine States / to the / Federal Constitution. / By Enos Hitchcock, A. M. / Providence: / Printed by Bennett Wheeler.

8vo. pp. 24. 76

[_Hopkinson_ (_Francis_)].

Account / of the / Grand Federal / Procession, / Philadelphia, July 4, 1788. / To which is added, / a / Letter / on the / same Subject. / ... / [Philadelphia:] M. Carey, Printer. [1788.]

8vo. pp. (2), 22. 77

Appeared originally in Carey’s _American Museum_, iv, 57, and the same forms were used to print this edition. Only the “Account” and Wilson’s speech are reprinted in Hopkinson’s _Miscellaneous Essays_, ii, 349, showing that the “Letter” is not by him.

[_Hopkinson_ (_Francis_)].

Account / of the / Grand Federal / Procession, / Philadelphia, July 4, 1788. / ... / To which is added, / Mr. Wilson’s [Sic] Oration, / and a / Letter / on the / Subject of the Procession. / [Philadelphia: M. Carey. 1788.]

8vo. pp. (2), 22. 78

An / Impartial / Address, / to the / Citizens / of the / City and County of Albany: / or, the / 35 Anti-Federal Objections / refuted. / By the Federal Committee / of the City of Albany. / Printed by Charles R. Webster, at / his Free Press, No. 36, State-street, near / the English Church, Albany.

12vo. pp. 28 S. 79

Interesting Documents, / Containing: / An Account of the Federal Procession, &c. July 23, 1788. / Sketch of the Proceedings of the Convention of the State of New York, which adopted the Constitution 2 days after the Procession. / The Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between Thirteen United States, as propounded by the Congress of the United States, 17th Nov. 1777, and approved by this State; Feb. 6, 1778. / The Constitution of the U. S. with all its Amendments. / The Constitution of the State of New-York, with its Amendments. / The Declaration of Independence, New York. / Published by John S. Murphy, Southwick & Pilsner, Print. 9 Wall St. 1819.

12vo. pp. 128 N. 80

_Introduction. See No. 105._

_Iredell_ (_James._) _See also No. 24._

Answers to Mr. Mason’s Objections to the New Constitution, recommended by the late Convention at Philadelphia. By Marcus. [Brooklyn, N. Y.: 1888.]

8vo. pp. 38. 81

Printed in Ford’s _Pamphlets on the Constitution_, from which a few copies were separately printed as above. The original tract is described in No. 24.

[_Jackson_ (_Jonathan_)].

Thoughts / upon the / Political Situation / of the / United States of America, / in which that of / Massachusetts / Is more particularly considered. / With some / Observations on the Constitution / for a / Federal Government. / Addressed to the People of the Union. / By a Native of Boston. / ... / ... / ... / Printed at Worcester, Massachusetts, / by Isaiah Thomas, MDCCLXXXVIII.

8vo. pp. 209. M., B. A., S. 82

Signed at end “Civis.” The authorship of this pamphlet is also frequently given to G. R. Minot, but both Sabin and Cushing give it as above. Reviewed in _The American Magazine_, 744 and 804.

[_Jay_ (_John_)]. _See also Nos. 32-66._

An / Address / to the / People / of the / State of New-York / On the Subject of the Constitution, / Agreed upon at Philadelphia, / the 17th of September, 1787. / New-York: / Printed by Samuel London, Printer to the State.

4to. pp. 19. N., B. A., C. S. 83

Reprinted in Ford’s _Pamphlets on the Constitution_.

_Jay_ (_John_).

An Address to the People of the State of New York, on the Subject of the Constitution. [Brooklyn, N. Y.: 1887.]

8vo. pp. 20. 84

A few copies separately printed from No. 68.

Journal, / Acts and Proceedings, / of the Convention, / assembled at Philadelphia, Monday, May 14, and dis-/ solved Monday, September 17, 1787, / which formed / The Constitution of the United States, / Published under the direction of the President of the United States, conformably to a / Resolution of Congress of March 27, 1818. / Boston: / Printed and Published by Thomas B. Wait. / 1819.

8vo. pp. 510. N., P., B., H. 85

Edited by John Quincy Adams. Reviewed in the _Southern Review_, ii, 432, and in Taylor’s _New Views of the Constitution_. _Washington_: 1823. See also No. 28.

[_Lee_ (_Richard Henry_)].

Observations / leading to a fair examination / of the / System of Government, / proposed by the late / Convention; / and to several essential and necessary / alterations in it. / In a number of / Letters / from the / Federal Farmer to the Republican. / Printed in the Year M,DCC,LXXVII.

8vo. pp. 40. A. A. S. 86

The _Letters of a Federal Farmer_, was, to the Anti-Federalists, what _The Federalist_ was to the supporters of the Constitution. Reprinted in Ford’s _Pamphlets on the Constitution_.

[_Lee_ (_Richard Henry_)].

Observations / leading to a fair examination / of the / System of Government, / proposed by the late / Convention; / and to several essential and neces-/ sary alterations in it. / In a number of / Letters / from the / Federal Farmer to the Republican. / Printed [in New York, by Thomas Greenleaf] in the Year M,DCC,LXXXVII.

8vo. pp. 40. B. A., H., A. A. S., N., C. 87

[_Lee_ (_Richard Henry_)].

Observations / leading to a fair examination / of the / System of Government; / proposed by the late / Convention; / and to several essential and necessary / alterations in it. / In a number of / Letters / from the / Federal Farmer to the Republican. / Reprinted [in New York by Thomas Greenleaf] by order of a Society of Gentlemen. / M.DCC.LXXXVII.

8vo. pp. 40. A. A. S. 88

_Lee_ (_Richard Henry_).

Observations leading to a fair examination of the System of Government, Proposed by the late Convention. [Brooklyn, N. Y.: 1888.]

8vo. pp. (2), 47. 89

A few copies separately printed from No. 68.

[_Lee_ (_Richard Henry_)].

An / Additional number / of / Letters / from the / Federal Farmer / to the / Republican; / leading to fair examination / of the / System of Government, / proposed by the late / Convention; / to several essential and neces-/ sary alterations in it; / And calculated to Illustrate and Support the / Principles and Positions / Laid down in the preceding / Letters. / Printed [in New York by Thomas Greenleaf] in the year M,DCC,LXXXVIII.

8vo. pp. [41]-181. B. A., H., C. 90

_Letters of Fabius. See Nos. 25-6._

_Lloyd, Thomas. See Nos. 91-110._

_Maclaine, Archibald. See No. 24._

_M’Kean_ (_Thomas_), _and Wilson_ (_James_).

Commentaries / on the / Constitution / of the / United States of America, / with that Constitution prefixed, / In which are unfolded, / the / Principles of Free Government, / and the Superior / Advantages of Republicanism Demonstrated. / By James Wilson, L.L.D. / ... / and Thomas M’Kean, L.L.D. / ... / The whole extracted from Debates published in Philadelphia by / J. Lloyd. / London: / Printed for J. Debrett, opposite Burtington-House, Piccadilly; / J. Johnson’s, St. Paul’s Church Yard; and J. S. Jordan, / No. 166 Fleet Street. / 1792.

8vo. pp. (2), 5-23. 25-147. (1). 91

This is a reissue of the remainder of the edition of Lloyd’s _Debates in the Convention of Pennsylvania_ (No. 110) with a new title and pp. 20-23, which were printed in England.

_McMaster_ (_John Bach_), _and Stone_ (_Frederick D_).

Pennsylvania / and the / Federal Constitution / 1787-1788 / Edited by / John Bach McMaster/ and / Frederick D. Stone / Published for the Subscribers by / The Historical Society of Pennsylvania / 1888.

8vo. pp. viii, 803, 15 portraits. 92

A most valuable volume, including a history of the struggle over the ratification, the debates in the convention, now for the first time collected, sketches of the Pennsylvania members of the Federal Convention, and of the Pennsylvania Convention, and the letters of Centinel.

_Madison_ (_James_). _See Nos. 31-66._

The / Papers / of / James Madison, / purchased by order of Congress; / being / his Correspondence and Reports of Debates during / the Congress of the Confederation / and / his Reports of Debates / in the / Federal Convention; / now published from the original manuscripts, depos-/ ited in the Department of State, by direction of / the joint library committee of Congress, / under the superintendence / of / Henry D. Gilpin. / Volume I. / Washington: / Lantree & O’Sullivan. / 1840.

3 vols. 8vo. pp. (2) lx, 580, xxii, (2), xxii, (2), (581)-1242, (2), xiv, (2), (1243)-1624, ccvlvi, 16 ll. 93

Also issues with change of date in New York and Mobile and Boston. The whole of these three volumes were also embodied in the fifth volume of _Elliot_ (No. 31), but this edition is much preferable from the larger type.

Reviewed in _The Democratic Review_, v, 243; vi, 140, 337: in _The American Church Review_ xv, 541, and by C. F. Adams in _The North American Review_, liii, 41.

_Marcus. See Nos. 24 and 81._

_Martin_ (_Luther_).

The / Genuine Information, / delivered to the / Legislature of the State of / Maryland, / Relative to the Proceedings / of the / General Convention, / Lately held at Philadelphia; / By / Luther Martin, Esquire, / Attorney-General of Maryland, / and / One of the Delegates in the said Convention. / Together with / A Letter to the Hon. Thomas C. Deye / Speaker of the House of Delegates, / An Address to the Citizens of the United / States, / And some Remarks relative to a Standing / Army, and a Bill of Rights. / ... / Philadelphia; / Printed by Eleazer Oswald, at the Coffee-House. / M,DCC,LXXXVIII.

8vo. pp. viii, 93. 94

By direction of the Legislature of Maryland, Mr. Martin reported the proceedings of the Federal Convention to them. It is a work of the greatest value from the inside light that this member, and opposer of the Constitution, sheds on this secret history of the Convention, but must be taken as a partizan statement. It is reprinted in _Elliot_ and in Nos. 138-42.

_Mason_ (_George_).

The Objections of the / Hon. George Mason, / to the proposed Foederal Constitution. / Addressed to the Citizens of Virginia. / ... / Printed by Thomas Nicolas [in Richmond: 1787 or 8].

Folio. Broadside. S. 95

Reprinted in Ford’s _Pamphlets on the Constitution_ and “extracts” are given in _Elliot_, i.

_Mason_ (_George_).

[The objections of the Hon. George Mason, to the proposed Foederal Constitution. Brooklyn, N. Y.: 1888].

8vo. pp. 6. 96

A few copies separately printed from No. 68.

_Massachusetts Debates. Boston: 1788._

Debates, / Resolutions and other Proceedings, / of the / Convention / of the / Commonwealth of Massachusetts, / Convened at Boston, on the 9th of January, 1788, / and continued until the 7th of February follow-/ ing, for the purpose of assenting to and ratify-/ ing the Constitution recommended by the / Grand Federal Convention. / Together with / The Yeas and Nays on the / Decision of the Grand Question. / To which / The Federal Constitution / is prefixed. / Boston: / Printed and sold by Adams and Nourse, in Court-Street; and / Benjamin Russell, and Edmund Freeman, in State-Street. / M,DCC,LXXXVIII.

8vo. pp. 219. C., M., B. A. 97

Reported by Benjamin Russell, printer of _The Massachusetts Centinel_. His own account is given in Buckingham’s _Specimens of Newspaper Literature_, ii, 49.

_Massachusetts Debates. Boston: 1808._

Debates, / Resolutions and other proceedings / of the / Convention / of the / Commonwealth of Massachusetts. / Convened at Boston, on the 9th of January, / 1788, and continued until the 7th of Februa-/ ry following, for the purpose of assenting / to and ratifying the Constitution recom-/ mended by the grand Federal Convention. / Together with the / Yeas and Nays / on / the decision of the grand question. / To which / The Federal Constitution is prefixed; / and to which are added, / the Amendments / which have been made therein. / Boston: / Printed and sold by Oliver & Monroe, / and Joshua Cushing, State-Street, / 1808.

12mo. pp. 236. H. 98

_Massachusetts Debates. Boston: 1856._

Debates and Proceedings / in the / Convention / of the / Commonwealth of Massachusetts, / held in the year / 1788, / and which finally ratified the / Constitution of the United States. / Printed by authority of Resolves of the Legislature, 1856. / Boston: / William White, / Printer to the Commonwealth. / 1856.

8vo. pp. (16), 442. 99

Edited by Bradford K. Pierce and Charles Hale. It contains not only the debates as printed in the two former editions, but the ante and post proceedings of the General Court; Gerry’s official letter; the Journal of the Convention; Judge Parsons “Minutes” of the debates; an account of the reception of the news of the ratification, and of the procession which followed; the “Letters of an American;” Speeches of Franklin in the Federal Convention, and Wilson in the Pa. Convention; 4 “Letters of Brutus,” and a series of personal letters relating to the proceedings in Massachusetts, mostly taken from Spark’s _Writings of Washington_.

It is a most valuable volume for the history of the struggle over ratification in Massachusetts, but it is a little strange that the editors should pass over the essays on the Constitution from Massachusetts pens and select the letters of “An American” and of “Brutus”—the first a Pennsylvania series, by Tench Coxe, and the second by a New York writer.

_Minot, George R. See No. 82._

_Minutes of the Convention. See Nos. 101-2 and 111._

[_Montgomery, James_].

Decius’s / Letters / on the / Opposition / to the / New Constitution / in / Virginia, / 1789. / Richmond: / Printed by Aug. Davis.

8vo. pp. 134. C. 100

“Written by Dr. Montgomery, except the dedication, which was by John Nicholas, of Albemarle. MS. notes by John Nicholas.” MS. note by Jefferson, in his own copy now in the Congressional Library.

This volume includes, not only the Letters signed Decius, contributed to the _Virginia Independent Chronicle_, between December, 1788 and July, 1789, but also many answers to the same, signed “Juvenal,” “Philo Pat. Pat. Patria,” “Anti Decius,” “Honestus,” and others.

It is a most scathing attack on the Anti-Federalists in Virginia, and especially on their leader, Patrick Henry. Perhaps nothing illustrates better the rarity and difficulty of finding the pamphlets of this period than the fact that Mr. Tyler, so well read in American literature, has in his _Life of Patrick Henry_, entirely overlooked this most plain spoken laying bare of the motives and actions of Henry, of which I have been able to discover only a single (imperfect) copy.

I have been able to find nothing concerning Dr. Montgomery, except that he was a member of the Virginia Convention. The so called third edition is under John Nicholas—No. 105.

_Native of Boston. See No. 82._

_New Jersey Journal._

Minutes / of the / Convention / of the / State of New Jersey, / Holden at Trenton the 11th Day of December 1787. / Trenton: / Printed by Isaac Collins, Printer to the State. / M,DCCC,LXXXVIII.

4to. pp. 31. P. H. S. 101

750 copies printed.

_New Jersey Journal._

Minutes / of the / Convention / of the / State of New Jersey, / Holden at Trenton the 11th Day of December 1787. / Trenton: / Printed by Isaac Collins, Printer to the State. / M,DCC,LXXXVIII. / Trenton—Reprinted by Clayton L. Traver, MDCCCLXXXVIII.

4to. pp. 31. 102

_New York Debates._

The / Debates / and / Proceedings / of the / Convention / of the / State of New-York, / Assembled at Poughkeepsie, / on the 17th June, 1788. / To deliberate and decide on the Form of Federal Govern-/ ment recommended by the General Convention at / Philadelphia, on the 17th September, 1787. / Taken in shorthand. / New-York: / Printed and sold by Francis Childs. / M,DCC,LXXXVIII.

8vo. pp. (2), 144. N. S. 103

From a letter in the Lamb papers (N. Y. Historical Soc.) it appears probable that at least Hamilton, Jay and Lansing revised their speeches, though Francis Childs, the reporter, virtually, in his preface, says that no such revision took place. It is reprinted in _Elliot_. ii.

_New York Journal._

Journal / of the / Convention / of the / State of New-York, / Held at Poughkeepsie, in Dutchess County, the 17th of June, 1788. / Poughkeepsie: / Printed by Nicholas Power, a few rods East from the Court-house. [1788.]

4to. pp. 86. S. 104

[_Nicholas_ (_John_)].

[1/2 title] Introduction / and Concise View of / Decius’s Letters,/ With the Title-page, and the Substance and contents of the whole work, / Hereafter to be published at full length in a volume / ...

Decius’s Letters, / on the / opposition to the / Federal Convention, / in Virginia: / Written in 1788 and 1789. / The Third Edition. / With / a new Introduction, / and additional pieces and notes, / on the / Principles and Operation of Party Spirit since. / With an Appendix. / consisting of / Various Interesting Letters, &c. / from Washington, Jefferson, Madison, / and other High Characters, / in support of the last Letters; / Written in 1818. / Richmond: / Published by the Author. / Printed at the office of the Virginia Patriot. / 1818

8vo. pp. 48. B. A. 105

“Written by John Nicholas, Esqr. formerly a member of Congress from Virginia now resident in the State of New York. Boston 25 Sept 1818 W. S. Shaw Sec. Bost. Athen.”

Mr. Shaw probably derived his note given above, from John Adams, whose copy this was.

The first edition (No. 100) is referred by Jefferson, apparently on Nicholas’ own authority to Dr. Montgomery, so that we seemingly have Jefferson giving the authorship to Montgomery, and Adams giving it to Nicholas. They may both be right, however, for the above pamphlet is merely the prospectus of a new edition, and therefore might be written by an entirely different man than the author.

The prospectus was issued immediately after the appearance of Wirt’s _Life of Patrick Henry_, with the avowed purpose of neutralizing that rose-colored narrative. It was never however, carried further than the prospectus.

_North Carolina Amendments._

State of North Carolina: / In Convention, August 1, 1788.

Folio. I1. S. 106

The Declaration of Rights, and Amendments, of the first Convention of North Carolina.

_North Carolina Debates._

Proceedings / and / Debates / of the / Convention / of / North-Carolina, / Convened at Hillsborough on Monday the 21st Day / of July, 1788, for the Purpose of deliberating/ and determining on the Constitution recom-/ mended by the General Convention at Philadel-/ phia the 17th Day of September 1787. / To which is prefixed / The Federal Constitution. / Edentown: / Printed by Hodge & Wills, Printers to the State. / M,DCC,LXXXIX.

8vo. pp. 280. N., C., S., A. A. S. 107

Reported by David Robertson. 1000 copies printed at the expense of a few Federalists for distribution among the people. Reprinted in _Elliot_, iv, I. The debates of the second Convention are only to be found, in fragmentary condition, in the North Carolina papers of that date.

_Observations leading to. See Nos. 86-9._

_Observations on the New Constitution. See Nos. 69-71._

Observations / on the / Proposed / Constitution / for the / United States of America, / clearly shewing it to be a complete System / of / Aristocracy and Tyranny, and / Destructive / of the / Rights and Liberties / of the / People. / Printed in the State of New-York, / M,DCC,LXXXVIII.

8vo. pp. 126. S., B., B. A. 108

An Anti-Federal compilation, containing:

Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania. (No. 2 infra.)

Letter of Edmund Randolph (No. 116 infra.)

Letters of Centinel.

The Constitution.

Two hundred and twenty-five copies were distributed by the New York Anti-Federal committee to the local county committees of the State.

The “Letters of Centinel,” were by Samuel Bryan, of Philadelphia, and appeared originally in _The Independent Gazetteer_ of that city. The letters were exceedingly personal, and especially severe on Washington and Franklin, so it is rather amusing to find Bryan writing to George Clinton in 1790 and requesting that he use his influence with Washington to obtain for his father a judgeship in the new government, and using his authorship of the letters as the reason for Clinton’s furthering his request.

Order of Procession, / In Honor of the Establishment of the Constitution of the United States. / To parade ... Friday the 4th of July, 1788. /..... Philadelphia: / Printed by Hall and Sellers.

Folio. 1. l. 109

_Pennsylvania Debates._

Debates / of the / Convention, / of the / State of Pennsylvania, / on the / Constitution, / proposed / for the / Government / of the / United States. / In Two Volumes. / Vol. I / Taken accurately in Short-Hand, by / Thomas Lloyd, / ... / ... / Printed by Joseph James, / in Philadelphia, A. D. M.DCC.LXXXVIII.

8vo. pp. 147. (2 ll.) 110

All ever published, being only the speeches of M’Kean and Wilson, on the Federal side of the argument. It is reviewed in _The American Magazine_, 262. See Nos. 1-2, and 92.

_Pennsylvania Journal._

Minutes / of the / Convention / of the / Commonwealth / of / Pennsylvania, / which commenced at Philadelphia, on Tuesday, the / Twentieth Day of November, One Thousand / Seven Hundred and Eighty-Seven, / for the purpose of / Taking into Consideration the Constitution framed by / the late Foederal Convention for the United States of America. / Philadelphia: / Printed by Hall and Sellers, in Market-street. / M,DCC,LXXXVII.

Folio, pp. 28. P. H. S., H. 111

_Pennsylvania Resolution._

[Resolution of the Pennsylvania General Assembly, September 29, 1787.]

112

The resolve for holding a Convention to discuss the Constitution. 3000 copies ordered to be printed, 1000 of which were to be in German.

_Pinckney_ (_Charles_).

Observations / on the / Plan of Government / submitted to / Federal Convention, / In Philadelphia, on the 28th of May, 1787. / By the Hon. Charles Pinckney, Esq. L.L.D. / Delegate from the State of South-Carolina. / Delivered at different Times in the course of their Discussions. / New York:—Printed by Francis Childs [1787].

4to. pp 27. B. A., N., M., A., 113

This is really the speech of Pinckney, introducing his draft of a constitution in the Convention, May 29, 1787, which for some reason was omitted by both Yates and Madison in their minutes. Though it does not include the proposed draft, it nevertheless enables one to form a clear idea of what it was, and proves that the draft furnished by Pinckney at the request of J. Q. Adams, for publication in the Journal, and from that generally copied into other places, to be fictitious in both form and substance.

_Plan of the New Constitution. See No. 13._

_Plebeian_ (_A_). _See Nos. 120-1._

_Proceedings of the Federal Convention. See Nos. 14-5._

[_Ramsay_ (_David_)].

An / Address / to the / Freemen / of / South Carolina, / on the Subject of the / Federal Constitution, / Proposed by the Convention, which met in / Philadelphia, May, 1787. / Charleston, / Printed by Bowen and Co., No. 31, Bay.

16mo. pp. 12. C. 114

Signed Civis. Reprinted in Ford’s _Pamphlets on the Constitution_.

_Ramsay_ (_David_).

[An Address to the Freemen of South Carolina, on the Subject of the Federal Constitution. Brooklyn, N. Y.: 1888].

8vo. pp. 10. 115

A few copies separately printed from No. 68.

_Randolph_ (_Edmund_).

Letter on the Federal Constitution, October 16, 1787. By Edmund Randolph. [Richmond: Printed by Augustin Davis. 1787.]

16mo. pp. 16. 116

Reprinted in Ford’s _Pamphlets on the Constitution_ and in No. 108.

_Randolph_ (_Edmund_).

[Letter on the Federal Constitution, October 16, 1787. By Edmund Randolph. Brooklyn, N. Y.; 1888.]

8vo. pp. 18. 117

A few copies separately reprinted from No. 68.

The / Ratifications / of the / New Foederal Constitution,/ together with the Amendments, / proposed by the / Several States. / ... / Richmond; / Printed by Aug. Davis / M,DCC,LXXXVIII.

12mo. pp. (4), 32. A. A. S. 118

_Remarks on the Address. See No. 132_.

_Remarks on the proposed plan See Nos. 74-5._

_Result of the Debates. See No. 16._

A Review of the Constitution Proposed by the late Convention, Held at Philadelphia, 1787. By a Federal Republican.... Philadelphia: Printed by Robert Smith and James Prang. 1787.

8vo. pp. 39. 119

A copy was sold in the O’Callaghan sale, (lot 668), and a copy is mentioned in the Bowdoin College Library Catalogue, which cannot now be found. Otherwise I have seen no mention of this pamphlet except in the original advertments, from which the above title is taken.

_Robertson, David. See Nos. 107 and 127-8.

Russell, Benjamin. See Nos. 97-8.

Secret Proceedings. See Nos. 138-42._

[_Smith_ (_Melancthon_)]

An / Address / to the / People / of the / State of New-York: / Showing the Necessity of Making / Amendments / to the / Constitution, proposed for the United States, / previous to its / Adoption. / By a Plebeian, / Printed [by Robert Hodge, in New York] in the State of New York, / M,DCC,LXXXVIII.

8vo. pp. 26. B. A., A. A. S. 120

Reprinted in Ford’s _Pamphlets on the Constitution_.

_Smith_ (_Melancthon_).

[An Address to the People of the State of New York: Shewing the Necessity of making Amendments to the Constitution. Brooklyn, N. Y., 1888].

8vo. pp. 27. 121

A few copies separately printed from No. 68.

_South Carolina_

Debates / which arose in the / House of Representatives / of South Carolina, / on the Constitution framed for the / United States, / by a Convention of Delegates, / Assembled at Philadelphia. / Charleston: / Collected by R. Haswell, and published at the City Gazette / Printing Office, No. 47, Bay. / M,DCC,XXXVIII.

4to. pp. 55. B. A. 122

_South Carolina._

Debates / which arose in the / House of Representatives / of / South-Carolina, / on the Constitution framed for the United States, / by a / Convention of Delegates assembled at Philadelphia. / Together with such / notices of the Convention / as could be procured. / ... / ... / ... / ... / Charleston: / Printed by A. E. Miller, / No. 4 Broad Street. / 1831.

8vo. pp. (4), 95. M. 123

The first edition of Elliot’s _Debates_ contained nothing relating to South Carolina, and this volume was prepared by some citizen of the State to piece out the omission. In the later editions of Elliot, he reprinted this volume entire.

_State of North Carolina. See No. 106._

_Stone, Frederick D. See No. 92._

_Supplement to the Independent Journal. See No. 16._

_Thoughts upon the Political. See No. 83._

_Tucker_ (_John Randolph_).

The History / of the / Federal Convention of 1787 and its Work. / An Address / delivered before the graduating classes / at the / Sixty-third Anniversary / of the / Yale Law School, / on / June 28th, 1887 / by / Hon. John Randolph Tucker, LL.D. / New Haven: / Published by the Law Department of Yale College. 1887.

8vo. pp. 54. H. 124

A / View / of the / Proposed Constitution / of the / United States, / as agreed to by the / Convention / of Delegates from several States at Philadelphia, the 17th Day of September, / 1787—Compared with the present Confederation. / With sundry Notes and Observations. / Philadelphia: / Printed by R. Aitken & Son, at Popes Head / in Market Street. / M.DCC.LXXXVII.

8vo. pp. 37. B. A., N., B. 125

A comparison in parallel columns between the Articles of Confederation, and the proposed Constitution, with anti-federal notes.

_Virginia. Act calling Convention._

Virginia, to wit: / General Assembly begun and held at the Capitol in the city of / Richmond on Monday the fifth day of October, in the year / of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven. / An Act / concerning the convention to be held / in June next. / Passed December 12th, 1787.

Folio. Broadside. S. 126

_Virginia. Debates. 1788-9._

Debates / and other / Proceedings / of the / Convention / of / Virginia, / Convened at Richmond, on Monday the 2d day of / June, 1788, for the purpose of deliberating on the / Constitution recommended by the Grand Federal / Convention. / To which is prefixed, / the / Federal Constitution. / Petersburg: / Printed by / Hunter and Prentis. / M,DCC,LXXXVIII.

3 vols. 8 vo. pp. 194; 195; 228. N., C., B. A., 127

The imprints of volumes II. and III. vary slightly from the above, being + / Federal Constitution. / Volume II. [III]. Petersburg: / Printed by William Prentis, / M,DCC,LXXXIX. /

Printed without being proof read. In 1805 it was already described as a rare book, and at present is only equalled in rarity in the state debates, by those of North Carolina. Volumes two and three are of much greater rarity than the first.

_Virginia. Debates. Richmond. 1805._

Debates / and other / Proceedings / of the / Convention of Uirginia, [sic] convened at Richmond, on Monday the second day of June, / 1787, for the purpose of deliberating on the Con-/ stitution recommended by the grand / Federal Convention. / To which is prefixed / the Federal Constitution. / Taken in short hand, / by David Robertson—of Petersburg. / Second Edition. / Richmond: / Printed at the Enquirer-Press / for Ritchie & Worsley and Augustine Davis. / 1805.

8vo. pp. viii, 477. N., C., A. A. S. 128

This edition was corrected and compared with a portion of the original stenographic notes, by the reporter.

_Virginia Journal._

Journal / of the / Convention / of / Virginia; / held in the / City of Richmond, / on the / First Monday in June, / in the Year of our Lord One thousand seven hundred and / eighty-eight. / Richmond: / Printed by Thomas W. White, / Main-st. opposite the Bell Tavern. / 1827.

8vo. pp. 39. B. A., P. 129

_Weakness of Brutus. See No. 133-4._

[_Webster_ (_Noah_)].

An / Examination / into the / leading principles / of the / Federal Constitution / proposed by the late / Convention / held at Philadelphia. / With / Answers to the principal objections / that have been raised against the system. / By a Citizen of America. / ... / ... / Philadelphia: / Printed and sold by Prichard & Hall, in Market Street, / the second door above Lætitia Court. / M.DCC.LXXXVII.

8vo. pp. 55. C., B. A., P., H. 130

Reprinted, from the Author’s annotated copy, in Ford’s _Pamphlets on the Constitution_.

_Webster, Noah._

[An Examination into the leading principles of the Federal Constitution. Brooklyn, N. Y.: 1887.]

8vo. pp. 41. 131

A few copies separately printed from No. 68.

[_Webster_ (_Pelatiah_)].

Remarks / on the / Address of Sixteen Members / of the / Assembly of Pennsylvania, / to their / Constituents, / Dated September 29, 1787. / With some Strictures on the Objections to the / Constitution, / Recommended by the late Federal Convention, / Humbly offered to the Public / By a Citizen of Philadelphia. / Philadelphia: / Printed by Eleazer Oswald, at the Coffee-House. / M,DCC,LXXXVII.

8vo. pp. 28. B. A., M. 132.

Also (abridged) in Webster’s _Political Essays_, and (entire) in No. 92.

[_Webster_ (_Pelatiah_)].

The Weaknesses of Brutus exposed: / or some / Remarks / in / Vindication of the Constitution / proposed by the late / / Federal Convention, / against the / Objections and gloomy Fears of that Writer. / Humbly offered to the Public. / By / A Citizen of Philadelphia. / Printed for and to be had of John Sparhawk, Market-street, / near the Court House / M.DCC.LXXXVII.

8vo. pp. 23. B. A., A. A. S., M. 133

Reprinted in Webster’s _Political Essays_, and in Ford’s _Pamphlets on the Constitution_. In reprinting this pamphlet I suggested, with a question mark, that Brutus was written by Thomas Tredwell, having found that he used that signature to a newspaper essay published in 1789. I have since concluded that they were from the pen of Robert Yates, member of the Federal Convention from New York.

_Webster_ (_Pelatiah_).

[The Weakness of Brutus exposed: or some Remarks in Vindication of the Constitution proposed by the late Federal Convention. Brooklyn, N. Y.: 1888.]

8vo. pp. 15. 134

A few copies separately printed from No. 68.

_We the People. See Nos. 17-20._

_Williamson_ (_Hugh_).

Address to the Freemen of Edentown and the County of Chowan, etc. on the New Plan of Government.

8vo. 135

Title from the _N. Y. Historical Society Catalogue_, but an examination shows it to be merely a newspaper clipping mounted on sheets of writing paper.

_Wilson_ (_James_). _See No. 91._

Substance of an Address / to a / meeting of the Citizens of Philadelphia, / delivered, October sixth, MDCCLXXXVII, / by the honorable / James Wilson, Esquire, one of the delegates from the State of Pennsylvania to the / late Continental Convention. [Brooklyn, N. Y.: 1888.]

8vo. pp. 7. 136

A few copies separately printed from No. 68.

“Mr. Wilson’s speech is read with much approbation here by _one party_; the other party see nothing but nonsense in it.”

“It has varnished an iron trap.”

_Wilson_ (_James_).

The Substance / of a / Speech / delivered by / James Wilson, Esq. / Explanatory of the general Principles of the proposed / Federal Constitution; / Upon a Motion made by the / Honorable Thomas McKean, / in the Convention of the State of Pennsylvania. / On Saturday the 24th of November, 1787. / Philadelphia: / Printed and Sold by Thomas Bradford, in Front-Street, / four Doors below the Coffee-House, MDCCLXXXVII.

8vo. pp. 10. 137

Reported by Alexander J. Dallas, Editor of _The Pennsylvania Herald_. Thomas Lloyd charged Dallas in a communication to the papers, with misrepresenting what Wilson had said.

_Yates (Robert). Secret Proceedings. Albany. 1821_.

Secret / Proceedings and Debates / of the / Convention / assembled at Philadelphia, in the Year 1787, for the purpose / of forming the / Constitution / of / the United States of America. / From the Notes taken by the late Robert Yates, Esq. Chief / Justice of New-York, and copied by John Lansing, Jun. / Esq. late Chancellor of that State, Members / of that Convention. / Including / “The Genuine Information,” laid before the Legislature of / Maryland, by Luther Martin, Esq. then Attorney Gen-/ eral of that State, and a member of the same / Convention. / Also, / other Historical Documents relative to the Federal Compact / of the North American Union. / Albany: / Printed by Webster and Skinners, / at their Bookstore, in the White House, corner of State and Pearl Streets. / 1821.

8vo. pp. 308. 138

An outline of Yate’s Minutes appeared in Hall’s _American Law Journal_, iv, 563, 1813.

Yates was a member of the Federal Convention and though his memoranda only is to July 5, at which time he left the Convention, it is only second to Madison’s _Debates_ in importance. It is noticed in Taylor’s _New Views of the Constitution_.

This first edition is by no means a common volume.

_Yates (Robert). Secret Proceedings. Washington. 1836._

Secret / Proceedings and Debates / + / Washington: / Printed for G. Templeman, / Bookseller and Stationer, Pennsylvania Avenue. / 1839.

8vo. pp 308. 139

_Yates (Robert). Secret Proceedings. Richmond. 1839_

Secret / Proceedings and Debates / + / Richmond, Va. / Published by Wilbur Curtiss. / 1839.

8vo. pp. xi, 335.

_Yates (Robert). Secret Proceedings. Louisville. 1844_

Secret / Proceedings and Debates / + / Louisville, Ky. / Published by Alston Mygatt. / 1844.

8vo. pp. xi, 335. 140

Also copies dated 1845.

_Yates (Robert). Secret Proceedings. Cincinnati._

Secret / Proceedings and Debates, / + / Cincinnati. / Published by Alston Mygatt. / [184-?]

8vo. pp. xi, 335. 141

REFERENCE LIST.

_General Works—Histories._

Allen (T.) Facts ... in the origination of the American Union (new Series). Boston: 1870.

Bancroft (G.) History of the Constitution. No. 5.

Cocke (W. A.) Constitutional History of the U. S. Phila.: 1858.

Coffin (C. C.) Building the Nation. N. Y.: 1883.

Curtis (G. T.) History of the Constitution. No. 23.

Elliot (J.) Debates in the several State Conventions. No. 30.

Frothingham (R.) Rise of the Republic of the United States. Boston: 1872.

Hildreth (R.) History of the U. S. (1st series, iii). N. Y.: 1852.

McMaster (J. B.) History of the People of the U. S. (i). N. Y.: 1883.

McMaster (J. B.) Making a Government, in _The_ [Philadelphia] _Press_. Sept. 15, 1887.

Miller (S. F.) Oration at the 100 Anniversary of the Constitution. Phila.: 1887.

Patton (J. H.) Concise History of the American People. N.Y.: 1882.

Porter (L. H.) Outlines of the Constitutional History of the U. S. N. Y.: 1883.

Schouler (J.) History of the U. S. (i). N. Y.: 1881.

Sterne (S.) Constitutional History ... of the U. S. N. Y.: 1883.

Thorpe (F. N.) Origin of the Constitution, in _Mag. of Am. Hist._ xviii, 130.

Towle (N. C.) History and Analysis of the U. S. Constitution. Boston: v. d.

Von Holst (H.) Constitutional and Political History of the U. S. (i). Chicago: 1876.

Winsor (J.) Narrative and Critical History of America. (vii). Boston: 1888.

_General Works—Printed documentary sources._

Ames (F.) Works of ... Boston: 1809.

Ames (F.) Works of ... edited by S. Ames. Boston: 1854.

Belknap Papers. (Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll. 5th series, ii and iii). Boston: 1877.

Diplomatic Correspondence of the U. S. 1783-1789. Boston: 1837.

Franklin (B.) Works of ... edited by J. Sparks. Boston: 1840.

Franklin (B.) Works of ... edited by J. Bigelow. N. Y.: 1887.

Hamilton (A.) Works of ... edited by J. C. Hamilton. N. Y.: 1850.

Hamilton (A.) Works of ... edited by H. C. Lodge. N. Y.: 1885.

Jay (J.) Writings of ... edited by H. P. Johnson. (in preparation). N. Y.:——

Leake (J. Q.) Life and Times of John Lamb. Albany: 1857.

Letters and Papers illustrating the formation of the Constitution, in No. 5.

McRee (G. J.) Life of James Iredell, (ii). N. Y.: 1858.

Madison (J.) Papers of ... No. 93.

Madison (J.) Letters and other writings. Phila.: 1865.

Morris (G.) Writings of, (in preparation). N. Y.:——

Washington (G.) Writings of ... edited by J. Sparks. Boston: 1837.

Washington (G.) Writings of ... edited by W. C. Ford. N. Y.: 1888.

_General Works—Periodicals._

New Hampshire.

Freemans Oracle and N. H. Advertiser. [Exeter]. N. H. Gazette and the General Advertiser. [Exeter]. N. H. Mercury. [Portsmouth]. N. H. Recorder and Weekly Advertiser. [Keene]. N. H. Spy. [Portsmouth].

Massachusetts.

American Herald. [Worcester]. Berkshire Chronicle. Boston Gazette. Cumberland Gazette. [Portland, Me]. Essex Journal. [Salem]. Hampshire Chronicle. [Springfield]. Hampshire Gazette. [Northampton]. Hampshire Herald. [Springfield]. Independent Chronicle. [Boston]. Massachusetts Centinel. [Boston]. Massachusetts Gazette. [Boston]. Massachusetts Spy. [Worcester]. Salem Mercury. Western Star. [Stockbridge].

Rhode Island.

Newport Herald. Providence Gazette. United States Chronicle. [Providence].

Connecticut.

American Mercury. [Hartford]. Connecticut Courant. [Hartford]. Connecticut Gazette. [New London]. Connecticut Journal. [New Haven]. Middlesex Gazette. [Middletown]. New Haven Chronicle. New Haven Gazette. Norwich Packet. Weekly Monitor. [Litchfield].

New York.

Albany Gazette. Albany Register. American Magazine. [New York.] Goshen Repository. Hudson Gazette. Independent Journal. [New York]. New York Daily Advertiser. [New York]. New York Journal. [New York]. New York Museum. [New York]. New York Packet. [New York]. Northern Centinel or Lansingburg Advertiser. Poughkeepsie Journal.

New Jersey.

Brunswick Gazette. [New Brunswick]. New Jersey Gazette. [Trenton]. New Jersey Journal. [Elizabethtown].

Pennsylvania.

American Museum. [Philadelphia]. Freemen’s Journal. [Philadelphia]. Independent Gazetteer. [Philadelphia]. Pennsylvania Gazette. [Philadelphia]. Pennsylvania Herald. [Philadelphia]. Pennsylvania Journal. [Philadelphia]. Pennsylvania Mercury. [Philadelphia]. Pennsylvania Packet. [Philadelphia]. Pittsburg Gazette.

Delaware.

Wilmington Courant. Wilmington Gazette.

Maryland.

Maryland Chronicle. [Frederick]. Maryland Gazette. [Annapolis]. Maryland Gazette. [Baltimore]. Maryland Journal. [Baltimore].

Virginia.

The Norfolk and Portsmouth Chronicle. Virginia Gazette. [Winchester]. Virginia Gazette and Petersburg Advertiser. The Virginia Gazette and Weekly Advertiser. [Richmond]. The Virginia Herald and Independent Advertiser. Virginia Independent Chronicle. [Richmond]. The Virginia Journal and Alexandria Advertiser.

North Carolina.

North Carolina Chronicle. [Fayettville]. State Gazette of North Carolina. [Newberne & Edentown].

South Carolina.

The Columbian Herald or the Independent Courier. [Charleston]. City Gazette, or Daily Advertiser. [Charleston]. State Gazette of South Carolina. [Charleston]. South Carolina Weekly Chronicle.

Georgia.

Augusta Chronicle. Georgia Gazette. [Savannah].

_General Works—Biographies._

See under “Federal Convention—Biographies of attending members” and “Contests in the States.”

_Federal Convention—Histories._

Anecdotes of the Federal Convention, in _Living Age_, xxv, 557.

Bledsoe (A. T.) North and South in the Convention of 1787, in _Southern Review_, (new series), ii, 359.

Clason (A. W.) The Fallacy of 1787, in _Mag. of Am. Hist._, xiv, 373.

Jameson (J. A.) The Constitutional Convention. N. Y.: v. d.

McMaster (J. B.) Framers and Framing of the Constitution, in _The Century_, xxxiv, 746.

Martin (L.) Genuine Information, No. 94.

Sparks (J.) Convention of 1787, in _North Am. Rev._, xxv, 249.

Tucker (J. R.) History of the Federal Convention. No. 124.

_Federal Convention—Proceedings._

Journal, Acts and Proceedings of the Convention, No. 85.

King (R.) Minutes of Debates. MS. in possession of family.

Madison (J.) Minutes of Debates, No. 93.

Martin (L.) Genuine Information, No. 94.

Yates (R.) Secret proceedings and Debates, No. 138.

_Federal Convention—Drafts and Plans._

Cruger (L. N.) Authorship of the U. S. Constitution, in _Southern Monthly_, x, 635.

Hamilton (A.) Proposition in Convention, June 18, 1787, No. 73.

Hamilton (A.) Plan of Government, (p. 584) of No. 31.

New Jersey Resolutions, June 15, 1787, in Nos. 30, 31, 85 and 138.

Pinckney (C.) [Spurious] plan of Government, in Nos. 30, 31, 85 and 138.

Pinckney (C.) Observations on the Plan of Government, No. 113.

Randolph (E.) Draft of a Constitution, in _Scribners_ (new) _Mag._, ii, 313.

Randolph (E.) Draft of a Constitution, in (forthcoming) Life of Randolph, by M. D. Conway.

Report of the Committee of Detail, Aug. 6, 1787, No. 20.

Report of the Committee of Revision, Sept. 12, 1787. No. 19.

Resolutions as agreed to in Committee of the whole. June 19, 1787, in Nos. 30, 31, 85 and 138.

Resolutions referred to the Committee of Detail, July 26, 1787, in Nos. 30, 31, 85 and 138.

Virginia Resolutions, May 29, 1787, in Nos. 30, 31, 85 and 138.

_Federal Convention—Biographies of attending Members._

General Works.

Ford (P. L.) List of the Members of. No. 69.

Lamb (M. J.) The Framers of the Constitution, in _Mag. of Am. Hist._ xiii, 313.

Memorial of the Constitutional Centennial Celebration. Phila.: 1889.

Official Programme of the Constitutional Centennial Celebration. Phila.: 1887.

Baldwin, Abraham.

Barlow (J.) and Baldwin (H.) in Herring’s _Nat. Portrait Gallery_, iv.

Blair, John.

Biographia Americana. N. Y.: 1825.

Miller (S. F.) The Supreme Court. Phila.: 1877.

Grigsby (H. B.) Virginia Convention of 1776, (p. 70). Richmond: 1855.

Brearly, David.

Elmer (L. Q. C.) Constitution and Government of N. J., (p. 274). Newark: 1872.

Butler, Pierce.

Simpson (H.) Lives of Eminent Philadelphians, (p. 157). Phila.: 1859.

Carroll, Daniel.

_Scharf (J. T.) History of Western Maryland._

Clymer, George.

Dickinson (W.) in _Mag. of Am. Hist._, v, 196.

Wain (B.) in Sanderson’s _Biography of the Signers_, iv, 173.

Simpson (H.) Lives of Eminent Philadelphians, (p. 211). Phila.: 1859.

McMaster (J. B.) and Stone (F. D.) p. 704, of No. 92.

Davie, William Richardson.

Garden (A.) Anecdotes of the American Revolution (p. ?). Charleston: 1822.

Hubbard (F. M.) in Spark’s _American Biography_, xxv.

Davie (A. H.) in Herring’s _Nat. Portrait Gallery_, iii.

_Southern Literary Messenger_, xiv, 510.

Dickinson, John.

Armor (W. C.) Lives of the Governors of Pa., (p. 234). Phila.: 1873.

Budd (T. A.) in Herring’s _Nat. Portrait Gallery_, iii.

Dickinson (W.) in _Mag. of Am. Hist._, x, 223.

Hines (C. F.) Sketch of Dickinson College, (p. 17). Harrisburg: 1879.

Simpson (H.) Lives of Eminent Philadelphians, (p. 309). Phila.: 1859.

Ellsworth, Oliver.

_Analytical Mag._, iii, 382.

_American Literary Mag._, i, 195.

Duychinck (E.) _Nat. Portrait Gallery_, i, 345.

Flanders (H.) Lives of the Chief Justices, (i). Phila.: 1855.

Miller (S. F.) The Supreme Court. Phila.: 1877.

_The Portfolio_, xxxiv, 185.

Rowland (H. A.) Eulogy on ... Hartford: 1808.

Sigourney (L. H.) in Herring’s _Nat. Portrait Gallery_, iv.

Few, William.

Autobiography of ... in _Mag. of Am. Hist._, vii, 340.

Jones (C. C.) in _Mag. of Am. Hist._, vii, 343.

White (G.) Historical Collections of Georgia, (p. 409). N. Y.: 1855.

Fitzsimons, Thomas.

Flanders (H.) in _Pa. Mag. of Hist. and Biography_, ii, 307.

_American Catholic Historical Researches_, Jan. 1888.

McMaster (J. B.) and Stone (F. D.) p. 706, of No. 92.

Simpson (H.) Lives of Eminent Philadelphians, (p. 372). Phila.: 1859.

Franklin, Benjamin.

See Lindsay Swift’s _Catalogue of works relating to Benjamin Franklin_. _Boston_: 1883.

Gerry, Elbridge.

Austin (J. T.) Life of ... Boston: 1828.

Gilpin (H. D.) in Sanderson’s _Biography of the Signers_, viii, 7.

Gilman, Nicholas.

Gilman (A.) The Gilman Genealogy, (p. 108). Albany: 1869.

Gorham, Nathaniel.

Biographia Americana. N. Y.: 1825.

Welch (T.) Eulogy on ... Boston: 1796.

Hamilton.

See P. L. Ford’s _Bibliotheca Hamiltoniana_. _N. Y._: 1886.

Ingersoll, Jared.

McMaster (J. B.) and Stone (F. D.) p. 707, of No. 92.

Simpson (H.) Lives of Eminent Philadelphians, (p. 594). Phila.: 1859.

Johnson, William Samuel.

Beardsley (E. E.) Life of ... N. Y.: 1876.

Irving (J. T.) Discourse on Classical Learning. N. Y.: 1830.

King, Rufus.

Curtis (G. T.) History of the Constitution, (i, 448), No. 23.

Delaplaine’s _Repository_, ii, 177.

Duyckinck (E.) _Nat. Portrait Gallery_.

Herring (J.) in Herring’s _Nat. Portrait Gallery_, iii.

King (C.) Homes of American Statesmen (p. 355). N. Y.: 1856.

_American Annual Register_ for 1826-7, p. 341

Langdon, John.

Brewster (C. W.) Rambles about Portsmouth, (1st series, 364). Portsmouth: 1873.

Lansing, John.

Street (A. B.) Council of Revision of the State of N. Y., (p. 168). Albany: 1859.

Livingston, William.

Sedgewick (T.) Memoir of ... N. Y.: 1833.

Elmer (L. Q. C.) Constitution and Government of N. J., (p. 56). Newark: 1872.

M’Henry, James.

Brown (F. J.) Sketch of ... Baltimore: 1877.

_Mag. of Am. Hist._, vii, 104.

McClung, James.

Duyckinck (E.) Cyclopaedia of Am. Literature, (i, 283). N. Y.: 1855.

Thacher (J.) American Medical Biography. Boston: 1828.

Madison, James.

Rives (W. C.) Life and Times of ... Boston: 1873.

Gay (S. H.) American Statesmen, James Madison. Boston: 1884.

Stoddard (W. O.) Lives of the Presidents. N. Y.: 1885.

Curtis (G. T.) History of the Constitution, (i, 420). No. 23.

Ingersoll (C. J.) in Herring’s Nat. Portrait Gallery, iii.

Martin, Luther.

Lanman (J. H.) in Herring’s _Nat. Portrait Gallery_, iv.

_American Law Review_, i, 273.

Mason, George.

Rowland (K. M.) Life of ... [in preparation].

Grigsby (H. B.) Virginia Convention of 1776, (p. 154). Richmond: 1855.

_American Historical Record_, ii, 113.

Colvin (S.) in _The Portfolio_, ii, 231, [from Poole’s Index].

Mercer, John Francis.

_Potter’s American Monthly_, vii, 178.

Mifflin, Thomas.

Budd (T. A.) in Herring’s _Nat. Portrait Gallery_, iv.

Armor (W. C.) Lives of the Governors of Pa., (p. 273). Phila.: 1873.

McMaster (J. B.) and Stone (F. D.) p. 701, of No. 92.

Simpson (H.) Lives of Eminent Philadelphians, (p. 693). Phila.: 1859.

Morris, Gouverneur.

Sparks (J.) Life and Writings of ... Boston: 1837.

Tuckerman (H. T.) Essays, Biographical and Critical. Boston: 1857.

Meredith (C. K.) in _Pa. Mag. of History and Biography_, ii, 185.

Roosevelt (T.) Life of ... Boston: 1888.

Curtis (G. T.) History of the Constitution, (i, 440), No. 23.

Francis (J. W.) in _Hist. Mag._, xiii.

Morris, Robert.

Life of ... Phila.: 1841.

Duyckinck (E.) _Nat. Portrait Gallery_, i, 240.

Waln (R.) in Sanderson’s _Biography of the Signers_, v, 189.

Delaplaine’s _Repository_, iii, 139.

Hart (A. N.) in _Pa. Mag._ of History and Biography, i, 333.

Herring (J.) in Herring’s _Nat. Portrait Gallery_, iv.

Paterson, William.

Clark (J.) Funeral Sermon on ... New Brunswick: n. d.

Messier (A.) in _Pa. Mag. of History and Biography_, iii, 429.

Elmer (L. Q. C.) Constitution and Government of N. J., (p. 77). Newark: 1872.

Barber (J. W.) and Howe (H.) Historical Collections of N. J., (p. 314). N. Y.: 1845.

Miller (S. F.) The Supreme Court. Phila.: 1877.

Pinckney, Charles.

Biographia Americana, N. Y.: 1825.

Pinckney, Charles Cotesworth.

Gadsden (E. C.) A Sermon on ... Charleston: 1825,

Garden (A.) Eulogy on ... Charleston: 1825.

Lynch (J.) in Herring’s _Nat. Portrait Gallery_, iv.

Duyckinck (E.) in _Nat. Portrait Gallery_.

Garden (A.) Anecdotes of the American Revolution. Charleston: 1822.

_American Annual Register for 1825-6_, p. 207.

Curtis (G. T.) History of the Constitution, (i, 454). No. 23.

Simms (W. G.) in _Hist. Mag._, xii, 134.

Randolph, Edmund.

[Daniels (P. V.)] Memoir of ... Richmond: 1869.

Conway (M. D.) Life of ... N.Y.: 1888.

Conway (M. D.) in _Lippincott’s Mag._, Sept. 1887.

Grigsby (H. B.) Virginia Convention of 1776, (p. 76). Richmond: 1855.

Curtis (G. T.) History of the Constitution, (i, 480). No. 23.

Public Characters for 1800-1, (p. 439). London: 1801.

Read, George.

Read (W. T.) Life of ... Phila.: 1870.

Read (——?) in Sanderson’s _Biography of the Signers_, iv, 21.

[Tilton (J.)] History of Dionysius, Tyrant of Delaware, [n. p.] 1788.

Rutledge, John.

Gayarré (C.) Life of ...

Van Santvoord (G.) Chief Justices of the U. S., (p. 91). N. Y.: 1854.

Flanders (H.) Lives of the Chief Justices. Phila.: 1855.

Miller (S. F.) The Supreme Court. Phila.: 1877.

Ramsay (D.) in Herring’s _Nat. Portrait Gallery_, iv.

Ramsay (D.) History of S. C., (ii. 510). Charleston: 1809.

Sargent (W.) in _North American Rev._, lxxxi, 346.

_American Whig Rev._, vi, 125, 277.

_Southern Quarterly_, xxvii, 332.

Sherman, Roger.

Everett (E.) in Sanderson’s _Biography of the Signers_, iii, 199.

Duyckinck (E.) _Nat. Portrait Gallery_, i, 334.

_Harper’s Mag._, iii, 145, vii, 156.

_Worcester Mag._, i, 164.

_New Englander_, iv, 1.

Spaight, Richard Dobbs.

Wheeler (J. H.) in _Pa. Mag. of History and Biography_, iii, 426.

Strong, Caleb.

Bradford (A.) Biography of ... Boston: 1820.

Lyman (J.) Sermon on ... Northampton: 1819.

Dwight (E. S.) in _The Congregational Quarterly_, ii 161.

_American Quarterly_, xii, 1.

_Polyanthus_ (enlarged), ii, 225.

Washington, George.

Marshall (J.) Life of ... Phila.: 1805.

Irving (W.) Life of ... N. Y.: 1855.

Lossing (B. J) Life of ... N. Y.: 1860.

Williamson, Hugh.

Hosack (D.) Biographical Memoirs of ... N. Y.: 1820.

Also in _Proceedings of the N. Y. Historical Society_, iii.

Thacher (J.) American Medical Biography. Boston: 1828.

_The Portfolio_, xxiii, 102; xxvi, 388.

Everett (A. H.) in _North American Rev._, xi, 31.

Wilson, James.

Wain (R.) in Sanderson’s _Biography of the Signers_, vi, 113.

Curtis (G. T.) History of the Constitution, (i, 462), No. 23.

Simpson (H) Lives of Eminent Philadelphians, (p. 964), Phila.: 1859.

Wythe, George.

Jefferson (T.) in Sanderson’s _Biography of the Signers_, ii, 156.

Grigsby (H. B.) Virginia Convention of 1776, (p. 120). Richmond: 1855.

Yates, Robert.

Lansing (J.) Secret Proceedings, (p. 303). No. 138.

Street (A. B.) Council of Revision of the State of N. Y., (p. 168). Albany: 1859.

_Partizan Pamphlets—Pro._

Address to Citizens of Albany, No. 79.

[Coxe (T.)] Examination of the Constitution, No. 21.

[Dickinson (J.)] Letters of Fabius, No. 25.

Duer (W.) Philo Publius, in No. 62.

[Hanson (A. C.)] Remarks on the Constitution, No 74.

[Hamilton, Madison and Jay]. The Federalist, No. 32.

[Jackson (J.)] Thoughts upon the Political Situation, No. 82.

[Jay (J.)] Address to People of N. Y., No. 83.

[Ramsay (D.)] Address on the Constitution, No. 114.

Randolph (E.) Letter on the Constitution, No. 116.

[Webster (N.)] Examination of the Constitution, No. 130.

[Webster (P.)] Remarks on the Address, No. 132.

[Webster (P.)] The Weakness of Brutus, No. 133.

Williamson (H.) Address to the Freemen, No. 135.

Wilson (J.) Speech of October 6th, 1787, No. 136.

Partizan Pamphlets—Con.

[Bryan (S.)] Letters of Centinel, Nos. 92 and 97.

[Gerry (E.)] Observations on the Constitution, No. 70.

[Lee (R. H.)] Letters of a Federal Farmer, No. 88.

Letters of Brutus, No. 99.

Martin (L.) Genuine Information, No. 94.

Mason (G.) Objections to the Constitution, No. 95.

Review of the Constitution, No. 119.

[Smith (M.)] Address to the People of N. Y., No. 120.

View of the proposed Constitution, No. 125.

_Contests in the States._

See also “General Works—Periodicals” and “Federal Convention—Biographies of attending members.”

New Hampshire.

Amory (T. C.) Life of John Sullivan. Boston: 1868.

Barstow (G.) History of N. H. Concord: 1842.

Belknap (J.) History of N. H. Various editions.

Biographies of the Members of the N. H. Convention in Bouton’s N. H. State Records, x, 8.

Debates (fragment) in Convention, (ii, 202). No. 30.

Fragment of Debate in N. H. Convention, in _N. H. Gazette_, Feb. 20, 1780.

Hall, A. Oration, June 30, 1788, No. 72.

Journal of the N. H. Convention, in Bouton’s N. H. Records, x, 1. Also in _Hist. Mag._, xiii, 257.

Outlines of proceeding of the first session of Convention in _N. Y. Journal_, Feb. 28, 29, March 3, 6, 1788.

Peabody (A. P.) Life of William Plummer. Boston: 1866.

Sanborn (E. D.) History of N. H. Manchester: 1875.

Massachusetts.

Ames (Fisher.) Works of ... Boston: 1809 and 1854.

Amory (T. C.) Life of James Sullivan. Boston: 1859.

Austin (G. L.) History of Massachusetts. Boston: 1870.

Barry (J. S.) History of Massachusetts. Boston: 1855.

Belknap Papers, [Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll. Vols. II & III], Boston: 1877.

Bradford (A.) History of Massachusetts. Boston: 1825.

Clason (A. W.) Outlines of Debates in Mass. Convention, in _Mag. of Am. Hist._, xiv, 529.

[Gerry (E.)] Observations on the Constitution, by A Columbian Patriot, No. 70.

[Jackson (J.)] Thoughts on the Political Situation, No. 82.

Journal of the Convention, No. 99.

Lodge (H. C.) Life of George Cabot. Boston: 1877.

Parsons (T.) Minutes of Debates, No. 99.

Parsons (T. Jr.) Memoir of Theophilus Parsons. Boston: 1861.

Procession in Boston, No. 99.

Russell’s Debates in the Convention, No. 97.

Smith (C. C.) History of the Mass. Convention, in Supplement to _Boston Post_, Sept. 15, 1887.

Warren (E.) Life of John Warren. Boston: 1874.

Wells (W. V.) Life of Samuel Adams. Boston: 1866.

Rhode Island.

Arnold (S. G.) History of the State of R. I.N. Y.: 1859.

Hitchcock (E.) An Oration, July 4. 1788, No. 76.

Minutes of R. I. Convention, in Staple’s R. I., and the Continental Congress, (p. 641). Providence: 1870.

Peterson (E.) History of R. I.N. Y.: 1853.

Staples (W. R.) R. I. and the Constitution, in R. I., and the Continental Congress. Providence: 1870.

Connecticut.

Baldwin (S.) Oration, July 4th, 1788, No. 4.

Debates in the Convention, in _New Haven Gazette_, 1788.

Debates in Convention (fragment) in No. 30.

Hollister (G. H.) History of Conn. New Haven: 1855.

Johnson (A.) American Commonwealths. Connecticut. Boston: 1887.

Official letter from Sherman and Ellsworth, in No. 30.

New York.

Address to Citizens of Albany, No. 81.

Campbell (W. W.) Life of DeWitt Clinton. N. Y.: 1849.

Circular Letter of Convention, (ii, 413) of No. 30.

Debates in Convention, No. 104.

Dunlap (W.) History of N. Y.: 1840.

[Hamilton, Madison and Jay]. The Federalist, No. 32.

Hammond (J. B.) Political History of N. Y. Albany: 1842.

[Jay (J.)] Address to People of N. Y. No. 83.

Jay (W.) Life of John Jay. N. Y.: 1833.

Jenkins (J. S.) History of Political Parties in the State of N. Y. Auburn: 1846.

Journal of Convention, No. 104.

Leake (I. Q.) Memoirs of John Lamb. Albany: 1857.

Letters of Brutus, No 99.

Macauley (J.) History of the State of N. Y. Albany: 1842.

Official letters from Yates and Lansing, (i, 480), No. 30.

Roberts (E. H.) American Commonwealth. New York. Boston: 1887.

Sketch of the Proceedings of the Convention, No. 80.

[Smith (M.)] Address to the People of N. Y., No. 120.

Stevens (J.A.) N. Y. and Federal Constitution, in _Mag. of Am. Hist._, ii. 385.

[Webster (N.)] Account of the Procession, No. 80.

[Webster (P.)] The Weakness of Brutus, No. 133.

Whitlock (W.) Life of John Jay. N. Y.: 1887.

New Jersey.

Address to the Citizens of N. J. by a Jerseyman, in Carey’s _Am. Museum_, ii. 436.

Gordon (T. F.) History of N. J. Trenton: 1834.

Minutes of the Convention, No. 102.

Mulford (G. S.) History of N. J. Phila.: 1851.

Proceedings of the Convention, in _N. Y. Journal_, Dec., 1787.

Raum (J. O.) History of N. J. Phila.: 1877.

Pennsylvania.

Address and Dissent of Minority of Pa. Convention. No. 1.

[Bryan (S.)] Letters of Centinel, Nos. 92 and 97.

[Coxe (T.)] Examination of the Constitution, No. 21.

Debates in the Convention. No. 92.

Debates in the Convention (fragment). No. 110.

Also in No. 30, ii, 415.

Egle (W. H.) Biographical Sketches of Members of the Pa. Convention, in _Pa. Mag. of History and Biography_, x and xi.

Also in No. 92.

Graydon (A.) Memoirs of ... Harrisburg: 1811.

[Hopkinson (F.)] Account of the Procession. No. 77

Illustrated History of Pennsylvania. Phila.: 1880.

McMaster and Stone. Pa. and the Federal Constitution, No. 92.

Minutes of the Convention. No. 111.

Order of Procession at Philadelphia. No. 109.

Pickering (O.) and Upham (W. C.) Life of Timothy Pickering. Boston: 1868.

Reply to Address of Seceding Members Pa. Legislature, No. 3.

Reply to Seceding Members of Pa. Legis. by “Federal Constitution,” No. 3.

Report of the Deputies of Northampton Co. in late Pa. Convention, in Carey’s _Am. Museum_, iii, 75.

Review of the Constitution, No. 119.

View of the Proposed Constitution, No. 125.

[Webster (P.)] Remarks on the Address, 132.

[Webster (P.)] The Weakness of Brutus, No. 133.

Wilson (J.) Speech of October 6th, 1787. No. 136.

Wilson (J.) Substance of a Speech, No. 137.

Wilson (J.) and M’Kean (J.) Commentaries on the Constitution, No. 91.

Delaware.

[Dickinson (J.)] Letters of Fabius, No. 25.

Vinton (F.) History of Delaware. Phila.: 1870.

Maryland.

[Hanson (A. C.)] Remarks on the Constitution, No. 74.

McSherry (J.) History of Maryland. Baltimore: 1849.

Martin (G.) Genuine Information, No. 94.

Outline of Proceedings in Convention, (ii, 546), of No. 30.

Scharf (J. T.) History of Maryland. Baltimore: 1879.

Virginia.

Act Calling Convention, No. 126.

Clason (A. W.) Outline of Debates in Va. Convention, in _Mag. of Am. Hist._, xv, 566.

Cooke (J. E.) American Commonwealth, Virginia. Boston: 1883.

Debates of the Convention, No. 127.

Howe (H.) Historical Coll. of Va. Charlston: 1856.

Howison (R. R.) History of Virginia. Phila.: 1846.

Journal of the Convention. No. 129.

Lee (R. H. Jr.) Life of Richard Henry Lee. Phila.: 1825.

Mason (G.) Objections to the Constitution, No 95.

[Montgomery (J.)] Letters of Decius. Nos. 100 and 105.

Randolph (E.) Letter on the Constitution, No. 116.

Tyler (M.C.) American Statesmen. Patrick Henry. Boston: 1887.

Wirt (W.) Life of Patrick Henry. Phila.: 1818.

North Carolina.

Amendments to the Constitution, No. 106.

Clason (A. W.) Outline of Debates in first Convention, in _Mag. of Am. Hist._, xv, 352.

Hawks (F. L.) History of N. C. Fayetteville: 1857.

McRee (G. J.) Life of James Iredell. N. Y.: 1858.

Moore (J. W.) History of N. C. Raleigh: 1880.

Proceedings and Debates of First Convention, No. 107.

Williamson (H.) Address to the Freemen, No. 135.

South Carolina.

Clason (A. W.) Outline of Debates in S. C. Convention, in _Mag. of Am. Hist._, xv, 153.

Debate in the House of Representatives on Convention, No. 122.

Fragments of Debates in Convention, No. 123.

[Ramsay (D.)] Address to the Freemen of S. C., No. 114.

Ramsay (D.) History of S. C. Charleston: 1809.

Simms (W. G.) History of S. C. Charleston: 1850.

Georgia.

Stevens (W. B.) History of Georgia. Phila.: 1859.

White (G.) Historical Collections of Georgia. N. Y.: 1854.

_Celebrations of Ratifications._

Baldwin (S.) Oration, July 4th, 1788, No. 5.

Hall (A.) Oration, June 30, 1788, No. 72.

Hitchcock (E.) An Oration, July 4, 1788, No. 76.

[Hopkinson (F.)] Account of the Procession, No. 77.

Order of Procession at Philadelphia, No. 109.

Procession in Boston, No. 99.

[Webster (N.)] Account of N. Y. Federal Procession, in No. 80.

FOOTNOTES:

(1) HELVITIUS.

(2) ABBE MABLE.

(3) A division of the legislature has been adopted in the new constitution of every state except Pennsylvania and Georgia.

(4) I cannot help remarking the singular jealousy of the constitution of Pennsylvania, which requires that a bill shall be published for the consideration of the people, before it is enacted into a law, except in extraordinary cases. This annihilates the legislature, and reduces it to an advisory body. It almost wholly supersedes the uses of _representation_, the most excellent improvement in modern governments. Besides the absurdity of constituting a legislature, without supreme power, such a system will keep the state perpetually embroiled. It carries the spirit of discussion into all quarters, without the means of reconciling the opinions of men, who are not assembled to hear each others’ arguments. They debate with themselves—form their own opinions, without the reasons which influence others, and without the means of information. Thus the warmth of different opinions, which, in other states, dies in the legislature, is diffused through the state of Pennsylvania, and becomes personal and permanent. The seeds of dissension are sown in the constitution, and no state, except Rhode Island, is so distracted by factions.

(5) In the decline of the republic, bribery or military force obtained this office for persons who had not attained this age—Augustus was chosen at the age of twenty; or rather obtained it with his sword.

(6) [“Query.”]

(7) [of]

(8) I say the senate was _elective_—but this must be understood with some exceptions; or rather qualifications. The constitution of the Roman senate has been a subject of enquiry, with the first men in modern ages. Lord Chesterfield requested the opinion of the learned Vertot, upon the manner of chusing senators in Rome; and it was a subject of discussion between Lord Harvey and Dr. Middleton. The most probable account of the manner of forming the senate, and filling up vacancies, which I have collected from the best writers on this subject, is here abridged for the consideration of the reader.

Romulus chose one hundred persons, from the principal families in Rome, to form a council or senate; and reserved to himself the right of nominating their successors; that is of filling vacancies. “Mais comme Romulus avoit lui même choisi les premiers senateurs il se reserva le droit de nommer a son gré, leurs successeurs.”—Mably, sur les Romains. Other well informed historians intimate that Romulus retained the right of nominating the president only. After the union of the Sabines with the Romans, Romulus added another hundred members to the senate, but by _consent of the people_. Tarquin, the _ancient_, added another hundred; but historians are silent as to the manner.

On the destruction of Alba by Hostilius, some of the principal Alban families were added to the senate, _by consent of the senate and people_.

After the demolition of the monarchy, Appius Claudius was admitted into the senate by _order of the people_.

Cicero testifies that, from the extinction of the monarchy, all the members of the senate were admitted by _command of the people_.

It is observable that the first creation of the senators was the act of the monarch; and the first patrician families claimed the sole right of admission into the senate. “Les familles qui descendoient des deux cent senateurs que “Romulus avoit créés,—se crurent seules en droit d’entrer dans le sénat.”—Mably

This right however was not granted in its utmost extent; for many of the senators in the Roman commonwealth, were taken from plebian families. For sixty years before the institution of the _censorship_, which was A. U. C. 311, we are not informed how vacancies in the senate were supplied. The most probable method was this; to enrol, in the list of senators, the different magistrates; viz., the consuls, prætors, the two quætors of patrician families, the five tribunes (afterwards ten) and the two ædiles of plebian families: The office of quæstor gave an immediate admission into the senate. The tribunes were admitted two years after their creation. This enrollment seems to have been a matter of course; and likewise their confirmation by the people in their comitia or assemblies.

On extraordinary occasions, when the vacancies of the senate were numerous, the consuls used to nominate some of the most respectable of the equestrian order, to be chosen by the people.

On the institution of the censorship, the censors were invested with full powers to inspect the manners of the citizens,—enrol them in their proper ranks according to their property,—make out lists of the senators and leave out the names of such as had rendered themselves unworthy of their dignity by any scandalous vices. This power they several times exercised; but the disgraced senators had an appeal to the people.

After the senate had lost half its members in the war with Hannibal, the dictator, M. Fabius Buteo, filled up the number with the magistrates, with those who had been honored with a civic crown, or others who were respectable for age and character. One hundred and seventy new members were added at once, with _the approbation of the people_. The vacancies occasioned by Sylla’s proscriptions amounted to three hundred, which were supplied by persons nominated by Sylla and _chosen by the people_.

Before the time of the Gracchi, the number of senators did not exceed three hundred. But in Sylla’s time, so far as we can collect from direct testimonies, it amounted to about five hundred. The age necessary to qualify for a seat in the senate is not exactly ascertained; but several circumstances prove it to have been about thirty years.

See Vertot, Mably, and Middleton on this subject.

In the last ages of Roman splendor, the property requisite to qualify a person for a senator, was settled by Augustus at eight hundred sestertia—more than six thousand pounds sterling.

(9) [“Between states, and excluding negroes,” added in author’s copy.—P. L. F.]

(10) It is a capital defect of most of the state-constitutions, that the senators, like the representatives, are chosen in particular districts. They are thus inspired with local views, and however wrong it may be to entertain them, yet such is the constitution of human nature, that men are almost involuntarily attached to the interest of the district which has reposed confidence in their abilities and integrity. Some partiality therefore for constituents is always expectable. To destroy it as much as possible, a political constitution should remove the grounds of local attachment. Connecticut and Maryland have wisely destroyed this attachment in their senates, by ordaining that the members shall be chosen in the _state at large_. The senators hold their seats by the suffrages of the state, _not of a district_; hence they have no particular number of men to fear or to oblige.—They represent _the state_; hence that union and firmness which the senates of those states have manifested on the most trying occasions, and by which they have prevented the most rash and iniquitous measures.

It may be objected, that when the election of senators is vested in the people, they must choose men in their own neighborhood, or else those with whom they are unacquainted. With respect to representatives, this objection does not lie; for they are chosen in small districts; and as to senators, there is, in every state, a small number of men, whose reputation for abilities, integrity and good conduct will lead the people to a very just choice. Old experienced statesmen should compose the senate; and people are generally, in this free country, acquainted with their characters. Were it possible, as it is in small states, it would be an improvement in the doctrine of representation, to give every freeman the right of voting for every member of the legislature, and the privilege of choosing the men in any part of the state. This would totally exclude bribery and undue influence; for no man can bribe a state; and it would almost annihilate partial views in legislation. But in large states it may be impracticable.

(11) [of]

(12) It is said by some, that no property should be required as a qualification for an elector. I shall not enter into a discussion of the subject; but remark that in most free governments, some property has been thought requisite, to prevent corruption and secure government from the influence of an unprincipled multitude.

In ancient Rome none but the free citizens had the right of a suffrage in the _comitia_ or legislative assemblies. But in Sylla’s time the Italian cities demanded the rights of the Roman citizens; alledging that they furnished two-thirds of the armies, in all their wars, and yet were despised as foreigners. Vell Paterc. lib. 2. cap. 15. This produced the _Marsic_ or _social_ war, which lasted two years, and caried off 300,000 men. Ibm. It was conducted and concluded by Pompey, father of Pompey the Great, with his lieutenants Sylla and Marius. But most of the cities eventually obtained _the freedom of Rome_; and were of course entitled to the rights of suffrage in the comitia. “Paulatim deinde recipiendo in civitatem, qui arma aut non ceperant aut deposuerant maturiùs, vires refectæ sunt.” Vell. Paterc. 2. 16.

But Rome had cause to deplore this event, for however reasonable it might appear to admit the allies to a participation of the rights of citizens, yet the concession destroyed all freedom of election. It enabled an ambitious demagogue to engage and bring into the assemblies, whole towns of people, slaves and foreigners;—and everything was decided by faction and violence. This Montesquieu numbers among the causes of the decline of the Roman greatness. De la grandeur des Romains, c. 9.

Representation would have, in some measure, prevented the consequences; but the admission of every man to a suffrage will ever open the door to corruption. In such a state as Connecticut, where there is no conflux of foreigners, no introduction of seamen, servants, &c., and scarcely an hundred persons in the state who are not natives, and very few whose education and connexions do not attach them to the government; at the same time few men have property to furnish the means of corruption, very little danger could spring from admitting every man of age and discretion to the privilege of voting for rulers. But in the large towns of America there is more danger. A master of a vessel may put votes in the hands of his crew, for the purpose of carrying an election for a party. Such things have actually taken place in America. Besides, the middle states are receiving emigrations of poor people, who are not at once judges of the characters of men, and who cannot be safely trusted with the choice of legislators.

(13) [These two paragraphs struck out in author’s copy.—P. L. F.]

(14) [Last two sentences struck out in author’s copy.—P. L. F.]

(15) The clause may at first appear ambiguous. It may be uncertain whether we should read and understand it thus—“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises _in order to pay the debts_,” &c. or whether the meaning is—“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, and _shall have power to pay the debts_,” &c. On considering the construction of the clause, and comparing it with the preamble, the last sense seems to be improbable and absurd. But it is not very material; for no powers are vested in Congress but what are included under the general expressions, of _providing for the common defence and general welfare of the United States_. Any powers not promotive of these purposes, will be unconstitutional;—consequently any appropriations of money to any other purpose will expose the Congress to the resentment of the states, and the members to impeachment and loss of their seats.

(16) [“O” changed to “good” in author’s copy P. L. F.]

(17) “Quod nemo plebeius auspicia haberet, ideoque decemviros connubium diremisse, ne incerta prole auspicia turbarentur.” Tit. Liv. lib. 4. cap. 6.

(18) Auguriis certe sacerdotisque augurum tantus honos accessit, ut nihil belli domique postea, nisi auspicato, gereretur: concilia populi, exercitus vocati, summa rerum, ubi aves non admisissent, dirimerentur. Liv. lib. 1. cap. 37.

(19) [“The” and “of” struck out—“without” substituted in author’s copy—P. L. F.]

(20) [Last two sentences struck out in author’s copy.—P. L. F.]

(21) Essay on the Roman government.

(22) Livy, 2.33.

(23) Livy, 3.54.

(24) Livy, 3.33.

(25) Livy, 4.6.

(26) Livy, 6. 35. 42. “Ne quis plus quingenta jugera agri possideret.”

(27) Montesquieu supposed _virtue_ to be the principle of a republic. He derived his notions of this form of government, from the astonishing firmness, courage and patriotism which distinguished the republics of Greece and Rome. But this _virtue_ consisted in pride, contempt of strangers and a martial enthusiasm which sometimes displayed itself in defence of their country. These principles are never permanent—they decay with refinement, intercourse with other nations and increase of wealth. No wonder then that these republics declined, for they were not founded on fixed principles; and hence authors imagine that republics cannot be durable. None of the celebrated writers on government seems to have laid sufficient stress on a general possession of real property in fee-simple. Even the authors of the _Political Sketches_, in the _Museum_ for the month of September, seems to have passed it over in silence; although he combats Montesquieu’s system, and to prove it false, enumerates some of the principles which distinguish our governments from others, and which he supposes constitutes the support of republics.

The English writers on law and government consider Magna Charta, trial by juries, the Habeas Corpus act, and the liberty of the press, as the bulwarks of freedom. All this is well. But in no government of consequence in Europe, is freedom established on its true and immoveable foundation. The property is too much accumulated, and the accumulations too well guarded, to admit the _true principle of republics_. But few centuries have elapsed, since the body of the people were vassals. To such men, the smallest extension of popular privileges, was deemed an invaluable blessing. Hence the encomiums upon trial by juries, and the articles just mentioned. But these people have never been able to mount to the source of _liberty_, _estates in fee_, or at least but partially; they are yet obliged to drink at the streams. Hence the English jealousy of certain rights, which are guaranteed by acts of parliament. But in America, and here alone, we have gone at once to the _fountain of liberty_, and raised the people to their true dignity. Let the lands be possessed by the people in fee-simple, let the fountain be kept pure, and the streams will be pure of course. Our jealousy of _trial by jury_, _the liberty of the press_, &c., is totally groundless. Such rights are inseparably connected with the _power_ and _dignity_ of the people, which rest on their _property_. They cannot be abridged. All _other_ [free] nations have wrested _property_ and _freedom_ from _barons_ and _tyrants_; _we_ begin our empire with full possession of property and all its attending rights.

(28) [Last three sentences struck out in author’s copy.—P. L. F.]

(29) [Revise to “The constitution is generally good.”—P. L. F.]

(30) [“utterly” struck out.—P. L. F.]

(31) The state debt of Connecticut is about 3,500,000 dollars, its proportion of the federal debt about the same sum. The annual interest of the whole 420,000 dollars.

(32) [Last three sentences, the following paragraph and foot note struck out in author’s copy.—P. L. F.]

(33) [“The convention was composed of,” added after “that,” by author.—P. L. F.]

(34) [“This proves how little dependence can be placed on theory. Twelve years experience, or four elections demonstrates the contrary.”—Note in author’s copy.—P. L. F.]

(35) This is the case with that British Borough.

(36) Trials between a state and its own Citizens, and between Citizens of the same state, involving questions concerning state laws that infringe this constitution, may be carried by appeal, it is presumed, into a fœderal court.

(37) There is one grand operation of the new fœderal constitution, favorable to general liberty, which I do not remember to have heard from any of its friends. It is well known, that in most of the states the members of their Houses of Representatives are chosen in equal numbers from each county, and in the eastern states, in equal numbers from each town, without any regard to the number of taxable inhabitants, or the number of souls. Hence it is very frequent for a county, with ten thousand souls, to send only the same number of members to the state house of representatives, as a county with two thousand souls, by which each person in the least populous county has five times as great a voice in electing representatives, as his fellow citizen of the most populous county. This is clearly a departure from the principles of equal liberty, and ought to be altered in the several states. I speak the more plainly because our state constitution is free from that fault in the formation of our house of Assembly. Now the new constitution expressly declares, that the fœderal Representatives shall be in the proportion of one to every thirty thousand, which accords with reason and the true principles of liberty. This house, therefore, so far as national matters go, will remedy the evil spoken of in the several states, and is one more great step towards the perfection of equal liberty and genuine republicanism in America. It must strongly recommend the fœderal constitution to the serious reflecting patriot, even though he may formerly have had doubts, and it will suggest to the several states the propriety of reconsidering that point in their respective constitutions. Pennsylvania, though right in the principles on which her legislative elections are and will be held, is less safe from the existence of this fault in the adjoining sister states of Virginia, Maryland, Jersey, Delaware and New York, and in others more remote.

(38) The candid Reader will suppose Mr. WILSON here means, that it is the best form of fœderal government, which has ever been offered to the world—and it is surely true that the fœderal constitution, considered in due connexion with the state constitutions, is the best form of government that has ever been communicated to mankind.

(39) See some late publications.

(40) See late publications.

(41) “The error of those who reason by precedent, drawn from antiquity, respecting the rights of man, is, that they do not go far enough into antiquity. They do not go the whole way. They stop in some of the intermediate stages of an hundred or a thousand years, and produce what was then done, as a rule for the present day. This is no authority at all. If we travel still further into antiquity, we shall find a direct contrary opinion and practice prevailing; and if antiquity is to be authority, a thousand such authorities may be produced, successively contradicting each other: but if we proceed on, at last we shall come out right: We shall then come to the time when man came from the hand of his Maker. What was he then? _Man._ Man was his high and only title, and a higher cannot be given him——We are now got at the origin of man, and at the origin of his rights.——Every history of the creation, and every traditionary account, whether from the lettered or unlettered world, however they may vary in their opinion or belief of certain particulars, all agree in establishing one point, the _unity_ of man; by which I mean that man is all of one degree, and consequently that all men are born equal, and with equal natural rights. By considering man in this light, it places him in a close connection with all his duties, whether to his _Creator_, or to the creation, of which he is a part; and it is only where he forgets his _origin_, or, to use a more fashionable phrase, his birth and family, that he becomes dissolute.

“Hitherto we have spoken only (and that but in part) of the natural rights of man. We have now to consider the civil rights of man, and to shew how the one _originates_ out of the other.—Man did not enter into society, to become worse than he was before, nor to have less rights than he had before, but to have those rights _better secured_. His natural rights are the foundation of all his civil rights. But in order to pursue this distinction with more precision, it will be necessary to mark the different qualities of natural and civil rights.

“A few words will explain this. Natural rights are those which appertain to man in the right of his existence—civil rights are those which appertain to man in right of his being a member of society. Every civil right has for its foundation some natural right pre-existing in the individual, but to unite his individual power is not, in all cases, sufficiently competent. Of this kind are all those which relate to _security_ and _protection_.

“From this short review it will be easy to distinguish between that class of natural rights which man retains after entering into society, and those which he throws into _common stock_ as a member of society. The natural rights which he retains, are all those in which the power to execute is as perfect in the individual as the right itself.—The natural rights which are not retained, are all those in which, though the right is perfect in the individual, the power to execute them is defective: _they answer not his purpose_—those he _deposits_ in the _common stock_ of society, and takes the arm of society, of which he is a part, in preference and in addition to his own. Society grants him nothing. Every man is a proprietor in society, and draws on the capital as a matter of right.”—“_Rights of Man_,” 1791, page 30, 31.

(42) “We have now traced Man from a natural individual to a member of society——Civil power, properly considered as such is made up of the _aggregate_ of that class of the natural rights, which become defective in the individual in point of power, and _answers not his purpose_; but when collected into a focus, becomes competent to the purpose of every one.——Let us now apply those principles to government.——

“Individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a compact with each other, to produce a government; and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist.

“A _constitution_ is not a thing in name only, but in fact.—It has not an ideal but a real existence, and wherever it cannot be produced in a visible form, there is none. A _constitution_ is a thing antecedent to a _government_; and a government is only the creature of a constitution.—A constitution of a country is not the act of its government, but of the people constituting a government. It is the body of elements to which you can refer, and quote article by article; and which contains the principles on which the government shall be established, the manner in which it shall be organized, the powers it shall have, the mode of election, the duration of parliaments, or by what other name such bodies may be called, the powers which the executive part of the government shall have; and, in fine, every thing that relates to the complete _organization_ of a civil government, and the principles on which it shall act, and by which it shall be bound.”—“_Rights of Man_,” page 35, 36.

“What is a constitution? it is the form of government, delineated by the mighty hand of the people, in which certain first principles or fundamental laws are established. The constitution is certain and fixed; it contains the permanent will of the people, and is the supreme law of the land; it is paramount to the power of the legislature, and can be revoked or altered only by the authority that made it.—What are legislatures? creatures of the constitution, they owe their existence to the constitution—they derive their powers from the constitution.—It is their commission, and therefore all their acts must be conformable to it, or else void. The _constitution_ is the work or will of the _people themselves_, in their original, sovereign, and unlimited capacity. Law is the work or will of the legislature in their derivative capacity.”

Judge Patterson’s charge to the Jury in the Wioming case of Vanhorne’s lessee against Dorrance; tried at the circuit-court for the United States, held at Philadelphia, April term, 1795.

(43} Constitutional properties are only, as has been observed at the beginning of this letter, parts in the organization of the contributed rights. As long as those parts preserve the orders assigned to them respectively by the constitution, they may so far be said to be balanced: but, when one part, without being sufficiently checked by the rest, abuses its power to the manifest danger of public happiness, or when the several parts abuse their respective powers so as to involve the commonwealth in the like peril, _the people_ must restore things to that order, from which their functionaries have departed. If _the people_ suffer this living principle of watchfulness and controul to be extinguished among them, they will assuredly not long afterwards experience that of their “temple,” “there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”

(44) When the _controuling power_ is in a constitution, it has the _nation_ for its support, and the _natural_ and the political controuling powers are together. The laws which are enacted by the governments, controul men only as individuals, but the _nation_, thro’ its constitution controuls _the whole government,_ and has a _natural ability_ to do so. The _final controuling_ power, therefore, and the _original constituting_ power, _are one and the same power_.—“_Rights of Man_,” 1792. part 2d, b. 4, page 42.

(45) See late publications against the Federal Constitution.

(46) Blackstone, III. 279

(47) Idem, IV. 350.

(48) Idem, III. 381.

(49) Instead of referring to musty records and mouldy parchments to prove that the rights of the living are lost, “renounced, and abdicated for ever,” by those who are now no more.—M. de la Fayette, in his address to the national assembly, applies to the living world, and says—“Call to mind the sentiments which nature has engraved in the heart of every citizen, and which take a new face when they are solemnly recognized by all. For a nation to love liberty, it is sufficient that she knows it; and to be free, it is sufficient that she wills it,”—“_Rights of Man_,” page 11.

(50) See an enumeration of defects in trials by jury. Blackstone, III. 381.

(51) Idem, IV. 350.

(52) He who reverses the constitution, liberties and laws of his country.——

(53) The great Bacon, in enumerating the art by which Cæsar enslaved his country, says—“His first artifice was to break the strength of the _senate_, for while that remained safe, there was no opening for any person to immoderate or extraordinary power.——‘_Nam initio sibi erani frangendæ senatus opes et autoritas qua salva nemini ad, immodica et extra ordinaria imperia aditus erat._’ Bossuet, bishop of Meaux, takes notice in his universal history, that the infamous Herod, to engross authority, attacked the Sanhedrim, which was in a manner the senate, where the supreme jurisdiction was exercised.”

(54) “If we consider what the principles are that first condense man into society, and what the motive is that regulates their mutual intercourse afterwards, we shall find, by the time we arrive at what is called government, that nearly the whole of the business is performed by the natural operation of the parts upon each other.”—_Rights of Man._

(55) When Xerxes invaded Greece with the largest host and the greatest fleet that ever were collected, events occurred, which being preserved in history, convey to us a very affecting and instructive information.

While the danger was at some distance, the states of Greece looked to remote friends for assistance. Disappointed in these speculations, tho’ the vast armaments of their enemies were constantly rolling towards them, still there was no firmness in their union, no vigor in their resolutions.

The Persian army passed the Hellespont, and directed its march westward. It was then decided, that Thessaly was the frontier to be first attacked.

The Thessalians, than whom no people had been more forward in the common cause, hastened a remonstrance to Corinth, urging that unless they were immediately and powerfully supported, necessity would oblige them to make terms with the invaders.

This reasonable remonstrance roused the sluggish and hesitating councils of the confederacy. A body of foot was dispatched who soon occupied the valley of Tempe, the only pass from Lower Macedonia, into Thessaly.

In a few days, these troops being informed that there was another pass from Upper Macedonia, returned to the Corinthian Isthmus.

The Thessalians thus deserted made their submission.

“This retreat from Tempe appears to have been a precipate measure, rendered necessary by nothing so much as by _the want of some powers_ of government extending over the several states which composed the confederacy.”—Mitford’s _History of Greece_.

With diminished forces, the defence of the confederates was now to be contracted. But in the conduct even of this business daily becoming more urgent, we find them laboring under the defects of their confederation.

“Destitute of any sufficient power extending over the whole, no part could confide in the protection of the whole, while the naval superiority of their enemy put it in his choice, where, when, and how to make his attacks; and therefore each republic seems to have been anxious to reserve its own strength for future contingencies.

Their generous hearts all beat at the call of freedom; but their efforts were embarrassed and enfeebled by the vices of their political constitution, to their prodigious detriment, and almost to their total destruction. For these vices, the ardor of heroism united with love of country could not compensate. These very vices therefore, may truly be said to have wasted the blood of patriots, and to have betrayed their country into the severest calamities.

If we shall hereafter by experience discover any vices in our constitution, let us _hasten_ with prudence and a fraternal affection for each other, to correct them. We are all embarked in the same vessel, and equally concerned in repairing any defects.

(56) See objections against the Federal constitution, very similar to those made in Scotland.

(57) Justice Blackstone argues in like manner, after admitting the “expediency” of titles of nobility. “It is also expedient that their owners should form an independent and separate branch of the legislature”—otherwise “their privileges would soon be borne down and overwhelmed.”—Comment. 2. 157.

(58) No member of parliament ought to be elected by fewer than the majority of 800, upon the most moderate calculation, according to Doctor Price.

(59) By the constitution proposed to us, a majority of the house of representatives, and of the senate, makes a quorum to do business: but, if the writer is not mistaken, about a fourteenth part of the members of the house of commons, makes a quorum for that purpose.

(60) If to the union of England and Scotland, a just connection with Ireland be added, ecclesiastical establishments duly amended; additions to the peerage regulated, and representation of the commons properly improved, it is to be expected, that the tranquility, strength, reputation, and prosperity of the empire will be greatly promoted, the monarchy will probably change into a republic, if representation in the house of commons is not encreased by additions from the counties and great trading cities and towns, without this precaution, an increase of the peerage seems likely to accelerate an alteration. These two measures should have, it is apprehended, in such a government and in such a progress of human affairs, a well-tempered co-operation. The power of the crown might thereby become more dignified, moderated, and secured.

The discussion of this subject would embrace a very great number of considerations; but the conclusion seems to approach as near to demonstration, as an investigation of this kind can do.

(61) Against what is called equality in representation, the great Montesquieu seems to have declared by the strongest implication. In his Spirit of Laws, b. ch. 2, he says, that the confederate republic of Lycia contained twenty-three associated towns: that, in the common council, the larger towns had three votes, the middling towns two, and the lesser only one; that they contributed to the common expence according to the proportion of suffrages; and, that were he to give the model of an excellent confederate republic, it should be that of Lycia. Could the immortal spirit of Montesquieu revisit the earth, and behold the model now offered to America, how quickly would his favorite republic sink in his estimation. In a new quarter of the globe scarcely heard of by the greater part of Europeans in his day, and since the commencement of the present century, he would see men who have attained a perfection in the science most conducive to human happiness, in that study which was the principal occupation of his life, in which his predecessors had acquired only a few glimmering lights, and of which it was reserved for him to develope most of the true first principles.

(62) Whether the state of Maryland shall be divided into six districts, for each to choose one man, or the people at large give their suffrage for the whole six, is hereafter to be settled by the assembly. The latter mode, on a variety of occasions, would be preferable.

(63) The importance of having the western territory determined a common stock, needs only to be mentioned, to excite attention.

As the articles of confederation contain no provision, for adjusting the dispute between the United States, and particular states, Maryland, for a long time, refused her ratification. An adequate provision is made by the proposed plan. That the United States will assuredly institute actions against two of the states, setting up claims equally wild and extensive, may appear from the following statement.

New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland, have been always interested in making good the common claim; as they never laid any particular claim to the territory in question.

Massachusetts, if the province of Maine be separate, is likewise become interested in the common claim.

Connecticut, and New York, have both made cessions, which congress has accepted. These two are therefore become interested.

Pennsylvania, although very extensive, has her limits ascertained. She likewise is interested.

Virginia, having made a cession to congress, has since relinquished a part of the reserved lands, or at least offered independence, to Kentucky.

North Carolina, having once made a cession, thought proper, in the omnipotence of her destined sovereignty, to repeal the act. Will not the cession be determined valid, and the repeal void?

South Carolina also, it is said, has ceded part of that territory, which lately she disputed with Georgia. In this case the United States have their claim fortified.

But Georgia, the weakest of all, lays claim to an immense tract of country. In this territory there are warlike and independent tribes of the aborigines, now carrying terror and desolation towards the heart of the country occupied by the whites. It is expected, that this circumstance, with a consciousness of the weak foundation of her claims, will dispose Georgia to give up without a suit, and consent to be circumscribed within narrower limits, so soon as a proper tribunal shall have power to enter upon a rational investigation.

N. B.—For the above statement I am principally indebted to a member of the late continental convention, and who for a considerable time, was a member of congress, a gentleman of established honour and accuracy.

(65) The advantage derived from this to the southern states, is easily perceived. Have not serious apprehensions been entertained on account of the vast superiority of the eastern states by sea?

(65) Is it possible to reflect, without indignation, on the fate of the five per cent. impost scheme?

(66) This objection has been in some degree lessened, by an amendment, often before refused, and at last made by an erasure, after the engrossment upon parchment, of the word forty, and inserting thirty, in the third clause of the second section of the first article.

(67) It appears to me a very just remark of Mr. Wilson’s, in his celebrated speech, that a bill of rights would have been dangerous, as implying that without such a reservation the Congress would have had authority in the cases enumerated, so that if any had been omitted (and who would undertake to recite all the State and individual rights not relinquished by the new Constitution?) they might have been considered at the mercy of the general legislature.

(68) I have understood it was considered at the Convention, that the proportion of one Representative to 30,000 constituents, would produce at the very first nearly the number that would be satisfactory to Mr. Mason. So that I presume this reason was wrote before the material alteration was made from 40,000 to 30,000, which is said to have taken place the very last day just before the signature.

(69) It seems by the letter which has been published of Mr. Elsworth and Mr. Sherman, as if one reason of giving a share in these appointments to the Senate was, that persons in what are called the lesser States might have an equal chance for such appointments, in proportion to their merit, with those in the larger, an advantage that could only be expected from a body in which the States were equally represented.

(70) When I wrote the above, I had not seen Governor Randolph’s letter. Otherwise, I have so great a respect for that gentleman’s character I should have treated with more deference an idea in some measure countenanced by him. One of his objections relates to the Congress fixing their own salaries. I am persuaded, upon a little reflection, that gentleman must think this is one of those cases where a trust must unavoidably be reposed. No salaries could certainly be fixed now so as to answer the various changes in the value of money that in the course of time must take place. And in what condition would the supreme authority be if their very existence depended on an inferior power! An abuse in this case too would be so gross that it is very unlikely to happen, but if it should it would probably prove much more fatal to the authors than injurious to the people.

(71) See Coke’s Commentary upon Littleton, 110. 1. Blackstone’s Commentary, 227 and seq.

(72) 1. Blackstone’s Commentaries, 232.

(73) I have since found that in the constitutions of some of the States there are much stronger restrictions on the Executive authority in this particular than I was aware of. In others the restriction only extends to prosecutions carried on by the General Assembly, or the most numerous branch of legislature, or a contrary provision by law; Virginia is in the latter class. But when we consider how necessary it is in many cases to make use of accomplices to convict their associates, and what little regard ought in general to be paid to a guilty man swearing to save his own life, we shall probably think that the jealousies which (by prohibiting pardons before convictions) even disabled the Executive authority from procuring unexceptionable testimony of this sort, may more fairly be ascribed to the natural irritation of the public mind at the time when the constitutions were formed, than to an enlarged and full consideration of the subject. Indeed, it could scarcely be avoided, that when arms were first taken up in the cause of liberty, to save us from the immediate crush of arbitrary power, we should lean too much rather to the extreme of weakening than of strengthening the Executive power in our own government. In England, the only restriction upon this power in the King, in case of Crown prosecutions (one or two slight cases excepted) is, that his pardon is not pleadable in bar of an impeachment. But he may pardon after conviction, even on an impeachment; which is an authority not given to our President, who in case of impeachments has no power either of pardoning or reprieving.

(74) The evidence of a man confessing himself guilty of the same crime is undoubtedly admissable, but it is generally, and ought to be always received with great suspicion, and other circumstances should be required to corroborate it.

(75) One of the powers given to Congress is, “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” I am convinced Mr. Mason did not mean to refer to this clause. He is a gentleman of too much taste and knowledge himself to wish to have our government established upon such principles of barbarism as to be able to afford no encouragement to genius.

(76) Some might apprehend, that in this case as New England would at first have the greatest share of the carrying trade, the vessels of that country might demand an unreasonable freight. But no attempt could be more injurious to them as it would immediately set the Southern States to building, which they could easily do, and thus a temporary loss would be compensated with a lasting advantage to us; the very reverse would be the case with them. Besides, that from that country alone there would probably be competition enough for freight to keep it on reasonable terms.

(77) If this provision had not been made in the new constitution no author could have enjoyed such an advantage in all the United States, unless a similar law had constantly subsisted in each of the States separately.

(78) Those gentlemen who gravely tell us that the militia will be sufficient for this purpose, do not recollect that they themselves do not desire we should rely solely on a militia in case of actual war, and therefore in the case I have supposed they cannot be deemed sufficient even by themselves, for when the enemy landed it would undoubtedly be a time of war, but the misfortune would be, that they would be prepared; we not. Certainly all possible encouragement should be given to the training of our militia, but no man can really believe that they will be sufficient, without the aid of any regular troops, in time of foreign hostility. A powerful militia may make fewer regulars necessary, but will not make it safe to dispense with them altogether.

[79] I presume we are not to be deemed in a state of war whenever any Indian hostilities are committed on our frontiers. If that is the case I don’t suppose we have had six years of peace since the first settlement of the country, or shall have for fifty years to come. A distinction between peace and war would be idle indeed, if it can be frittered away by such pretences as those.

INDEX.

Adams, Charles Francis, 413.

Adams, John, cited, 316.

Adams. J. Q., 406; 411.

Address to the people of the State of New York, 67; 87; 111.

Agriculture, diminished values of products of, 73.

Albany, committee of, 1; address to the citizens of, 409.

Algerines, method of obtaining peace with the, 112.

Amendments, _see Constitution_.

American Citizen, An, pseudonym of T. Coxe, 134; 391.

Appointment, powers of, 311; 339.

Appointing power, necessity of check on President’s, 341.

Aristides, pseudonym of A. C. Hanson, 217; 408.

Aristocracy, (_see also Monarchy._) 17; 285; 332; natural, in the U. S., 295; party of, in the U. S., 321; rarity of, genuine, 256.

Army, Standing, dangers of, 10; 150; discussion of, 363; impossibility of in America, 56; lack of restrictions on, 51; 103; 365; necessity of, 157; 235; powers of congress over, 150; 303; restriction of, by North Carolina, 365; restriction of, by Pennsylvania, 365; unnecessary fear of, 234.

Arnold, Benedict, 352.

Articles of Confederation, _see Confederation_.

Attainder, Bills of, forbidden, 314.

Austin, James T., 1.

Baldwin, Abraham, biographies of, 432.

Baldwin, Simeon, Oration of, 386.

Bancroft, George, History by, 386.

Bankrupt laws, necessity of uniform, 306.

Belhaven, Lord, quotation from speech of, 195.

Bills of Rights, 73; 114; 229; 329; adoption of, 359; necessity of, 75; 315; unnecessary in constitution, 241; 335.

Blackstone, Judge, cited, 10.

Blair, John, biographies of, 432.

Brearly, David, 390; biographies of, 432.

Brutus, pseudonym to newspaper essay, 118; 424.

Bryan, Samuel, 418.

Butler, Pierce, biographies of, 432.

Byng, admiral, 354.

Cabinet, dangers of, 330.

Carolinas, the, importance of their decision on the constitution, 21.

Carroll, Daniel, biographies of, 432.

Caucus, dangers from, 300.

Centinel, cited, 248; pseudonym of Samuel Bryan, 418.

Citizen of America, pseudonym of N. Webster, 25; 423

Citizen of New York, pseudonym of John Jay, 67; 410.

Citizen of Philadelphia, pseudonym of P. Webster, 118; 424.

Civil list, 7.

Civil service, 189; want of rotation in, 11.

Civis, pseudonym of Jonathan Jackson, 410; pseudonym of David Ramsay, 380; 420.

Clinton, George, 418.

Clymer, George, biographies of, 432.

Columbian Patriot, pseudonym of E. Gerry, 1; 407.

Commerce, (_see also, Navigation, Shipping, Treaties._) 73; 265; 357; condition of, 358; control of, by a few states, 62; impositions on, 264; improper power to enact laws relating to, 331; powers of congress over, 357; right of English parliament over colonial, 136; should not be submitted to a mere majority of congress, 275; wretched condition of, 265.

Confederation (_see also, Congress, Continental, United States government._) compared with constitution, 148; 379; defective nature of, 136; 228; 261; dissolution of, 268; feebleness of, 272; government under the, 72; history of, 262; 283; impossibility of suitably amending, 267; necessity of amending, 96; 136; positions of the states under, in reference to the new constitution, 97; 267.

Confederacies, separate, 120; 127; 204; 247; 269; southern, 270; evils of, 278.

Congress, Continental (_see also Confederation, Impost, Paper Money._) 156; absurd measures of, 32; bad constitution of, 267; lack of power of, 78; merging of powers in, 268; misrepresentation in, 267; omitted in consideration of new government, 14; origin of, 70; powers of, 70; 72; 374; power to amend constitution, 284; proposition to vest with impost, 283; requisitions of, 263; unsuitable to lodge powers in, 267.

Congress, (_see also, Armies, Commerce, Constitution, Election, Judiciary, Jury, Impost, Paper Money, Press, Representation, Representatives, Senate, Treaties, United States government._) 33; 107; abuse of powers of, 122; attendance in, 376; binding effects of acts of on its own members, 124; checks on, 125; definition of necessary powers, 45; delegates to, 40; division into two branches, 30; extensive powers of, 45; 122; 233; formed of the best men, 123; great expense of, 47; interference of with states, 46; length of term, 170; limited powers of, to deal with common law, 336; members of, remarks on, 123; method of passing laws, 44; necessary powers only given to, 173; 374; necessity of a line between states and, 273; objection to two branches in, 47; powers conceded by anti-federalists to, 126; powers of, limited to what the people allow, 127; powers of taxation of, 49; 303; powers over elections, 44; powers over printing, 316; powers to define and punish crime, 359; powers to grant monopolies, 357; power to provide for the general interest and welfare, 121; probable misuse of their power, 123; representation in, 12; 289; right of the people to control delegates to, 6; to determine their own salaries, 11; unnecessary power over elections, 61.

Connecticut, adopted from local causes, 104; adoption of the constitution by, 98; and the constitution, 439; construction of Senate of, 41; disagreement in legislature of, 33; hostile feelings towards New York, 84; 96; imports of, from New York, 62; legislative action on act of Congress, 33; probable refusal to attend second convention, 81; reasons for her ratification, 21; representation in House of Representatives, 293.

Constitution, (_see also Army, Bills of Rights, Congress, Continental Congress, Conventions, Elections, Judiciary, Jury, Militia, Navy, Press, Ratification, Representation, Representatives, Senate, United States government._)

——Adoption of, danger of delay in, 93; necessity of 62; should not be precipitate in, 280.

——Advantages of, 61; 64; 319; control over states clearly defined, 121; diverse representation in, 204; increase of values if adopted, 47; mutual checks in the departments of government as, 222; no qualification in wealth or birth under, 146; plan of accommodation, 80; 285; security in, from federal servants, 189.

——Amendments to, 15; 34; 103; adoption before making, 93; agreement in, 102; dangers of, 226; difficulty of agreeing to, prior to adoption, 99; 245; methods for obtaining, 111; 317; necessity of, prior to adoption, 99; 101; 274; necessity of, 93; 106; 273; 324; power of making, 209; state conventions should make, 322; unreasonableness of, 104.

——Compared with other constitutions, compared with articles of confederation, 148; 379; compared with Roman and English, 35; compared with Great Britain, 137; difference between the state constitutions and the, 155.

——Defects of, 318; a consolidated fabric of aristocratic tyranny, 17; agreement in, 93; a heterogeneous phantom, 7; complicated nature of, 7; contains no feature of democracy or republicanism, 8; designed for the rich, 254; executive and legislative powers dangerously blended in, 9; ignorance of the people in its formation, 284; impracticable over so vast a territory, 13; impossibility of suiting all, 63; lack of declaration of rights in, 73; 329; neither federal nor national, 279; unequal advantages enjoyed by different localities, 298; want of title, 8.

——Powers of, 156; amount delegated by, 313; divisions of, 75; fundamental rights of, 313; general clauses of, 233; 312; 331; general, 356; guarantee against ex post facto laws, 147; 314; 332; 368.

——Ratification of, _see ratification_.

——Tendencies of; consolidating, 14; 102; 121; 127; 129; 282; 286; 289; 294; 299; 320; dangers of corruption of, 129; construction with reference to state constitutions, 159; 314; founded on monarchy and aristocracy, 7; guarded against excesses, 184; liable to result in monarchy, 195; partly federal but tending towards consolidation, 286; possibility of ending in tyranny, 169; probable encroachments under, 122; will end in monarchy or aristocracy, 254; 285.

——Absurd prospects in case of adoption, 106; character of the supporters of, 5; classes interested in, 283; division of legislature into two branches, 30; documentary sources of the history of the adoption of, 428; editions of, 386; general histories of the, 427; partizan pamphlets pro and con, 437; possibility of obtaining a better, 78; sources of objections to, 166.

Conventions, ease in obtaining, 317.

Convention, Annapolis, 284.

Convention, Federal, (_see also Constitution, States._) 271; 285; biographies of attending members of, 432; character of members, 114; composition of, 74; compromises in, 76; 158; dangers of discord in, 222; debates and proceedings of, 431; diverse interests in, 166; drafts and plans of constitutions in, 431; histories of, improper secrecy of, 15; 18; journal of, 410; list of members of, 406; local interest in, 75; members of, 221; non-attendance of members, 285; not limited, 224; opinion of, 74; origin of, 284; quality of the delegates of, 285; secrecy in proceedings, 101; unauthorized powers assumed by, 14; 16; 224; want of authority, 101.

Convention, Second, 21; 210; 272; evils of, 166; great delay in obtaining, 83; impossible to agree upon a better plan, 82; necessity of, 19; 274; possibility of a successful, 80; 246; probability that the states which have already ratified will refuse to attend, 81.

Conventions, State, (_see also each State and Ratification._) 17; 274; ratifications against the wish of the people, 19; should be allowed to amend constitution, 272; 322; value of, 322.

Council, (_see also Executive._) necessity of, 230; objections to, 341.

Courts, _see Judiciary_.

Coxe, Tench, pamphlet by, 134; 391.

Curtis, G. T., History by, 391.

Dallas, A. J., 425.

Davie, W. R., biographies of, 433; pamphlet by, 333; 391.

Dawson, H. B., editor of The Federalist, 404; correspondence about The Federalist, 404.

Debt, federal, change of system for paying, 378; condition of, 95; equalization of, 147; failure to meet, 73; probable treatment of, 105; responsibility of, 317.

Decius, pseudonym of J. Montgomery, 415; 417.

Declaration of Rights _see Bill of Rights_.

De Costa, B. F., review by. 386.

Delaware and the constitution, 433; probable refusal to attend second convention, 81; representation of, 223; selfish motives in adopting the constitution, 21.

Democracy, disapproval of, 319.

Despotism, methods of, 9.

Dickinson, John, biographies of, 433; cited, 318; pamphlet by, 163; 392.

Duties, _see Export, Import, Taxation_.

Eastern States, _see States, Eastern_.

Elections, (_see also Constitution, Congress, Representatives, House of, Senate._) biennial found by Massachusetts, 8; control of, by congress, 103; 151; 227; 295; frequency of, 8; 11; 13; great barrier to corruption, 61; probable misuse of the power granted over, 103.

Elliot, Jonathan, debates of, 392.

Ellsworth, Oliver, biographies of, 433; cited, 341.

English Constitution, _see Great Britain_.

Entail, dangerous to liberty, 60.

Executive, (_see also Appointment, Constitution, Impeachment, Pardon, Treaty, Vice President._)

——Council, 230; 330; lack of, 333; objections to, 345; unnecessary, 346.

——National, 64; advantage of single, 352; American compared with English, 137; composition of, 225; election of, 35; 171; 298; entailment of, 233; exclusion of the people in the choice of, 12; nominating power of, 228; pardoning power of, 275; 338; 351; powers of, 36; 171; 225; 232; requisite age of, 36; should be ineligible after a certain time, 275; should not fill vacancies, 275; should not nominate judiciary offices, 275; small probability of treason of, 352; term of, 231; tool of the Senate, 330; veto power of, 45.

——State, (_see also State_,) restrictions on, 351.

Export duties, restraint on, 331; restriction of states from, 366.

Ex post facto laws, desirability of restrictions on, 368; guarantee against, 147; 314; 336; restraint from, 332.

Fabius, pseudonym of John Dickinson, 163; 392.

Federal administration, 394.

Federal city, advantage to middle states, 319; jurisdiction of, improperly used, 18; resolution for, by the continental congress, 32.

Federal convention, see _Convention, Federal_.

Federal Constitution, pseudonym, 385. _see Constitution, Federal_.

Federal Farmer; pseudonym of Richard Henry Lee, 277; 411.

Federalist, The, authorship of, 395; list of editions, 394; opinions concerning, 395; original publication of, 395.

Federal Republican, A, 420.

Federal Republic, title invented by James Wilson, 8.

Federal requisitions, 105.

Few, William, biographies of, 433.

Fitzsimons, Thomas, 25; biographies of, 433.

Ford, P. L., list of editions of The Federalist, 395; list of members of federal convention, 406.

Foreign affairs, indifference to, 72.

Foreign goods, excessive importation of, 95.

Franklin, Benjamin, 27; 64; biographies of, 433.

Fur trade, loss of, 73.

Georgia, accession of, to insure protection, 20; amendment of constitution of, 34; and the constitution, 441; probable refusal to attend second convention, 81.

Gerry, Elbridge, biographies of, 433; failure to sign constitution, 271; pamphlet by, 1; 407.

Gilman, Nicholas, biographies of, 433.

Gorham, Nathaniel, biographies of, 433.

Greenleaf, T., 1.

Great Britain, House of Commons, 42; 143; 211; constitution of, compared with the American, 35; 137; House of Peers of, 42; paper money would destroy the credit of, 243; Privy Council of, 345; right of the colonists to constitution of, 135; standing army of, 235; union of, 195; 213.

Government, (_see also under each country_,) dangers of all strong, 131; effect on character and manners, 5; elements of, 263; instituted for protection and happiness, 6; must not be lodged in a single body, 182; nature of, 92; origin of, 174; primary principles of, 373; the result of fraud or violence, 18.

Hale, Charles, 415.

Hale, Sir Mathew, cited, 10.

Hall, Aaron, 408.

Hamilton, Alexander, biographies of, 433; The Federalist, 395; proposition in convention, 408.

Hamilton. J. A., correspondence about The Federalist, 404.

Hamilton, J. C., editor of The Federalist, 405.

Hanson, Alexander Contee, pamphlet by, 217; 408.

Helvetius, cited, 5.

Henry, Patrick, attack on, 415; 417.

Hillsborough, Lord, 8.

Hitchcock, Enos, 408.

Hopkinson, Francis, 409.

Hutchinson, Gov. T., recommends triennial elections, 8; 13.

Impeachment, (_see also Constitution, Executive, Senate_), 342; improperly lodged with senate, 300.

Imports, 62; foreign, 95.

Impost, (_see also Congress, Taxation_), 104; 283; Connecticut and New Jersey share of, 319; general acceptance of the five per cent., 253; the great source of revenue in the U. S., 160.

Imprimatur, danger of, 9.

Ingersoll, Jared, biographies of, 433.

Insurgents, party of, in the U. S., 321.

Iredell, James, pamphlet by, 327; 333; 392; 410.

Jackson, Jonathan, 410.

Jay, John, pamphlet by, 67; 410; reply to his pamphlet, 111; The Federalist, 395.

Jay, John, (Jr.) correspondence about The Federalist, 404.

Johnson, W. S., 390; biographies of, 433.

Judiciary, National (_see also Appointment, Executive, Jury, Senate_,) 275; analysis of, 343; appellate jurisdiction of, 12; 236; 308; 311; coersive powers of, 343; dangers from jurisdiction as to both law and fact, 308; discussion of, 236; impossibility of trial by jury in, 310; necessity of national, 122; power to decide law and fact, 114; powers of, 53; 149; 236; 298; 306; want of limitation in, 9; 102.

Judiciary, State, (_see also Jury, State_,) 289; 307; absorption of by national, 53; 329; position under constitution, 343.

Jury, Trial by, absence in state courts, 361; discussion of, 157; impracticable in national courts, 289; necessity of, 184; 315; not altered by constitution, 148; not a universal practice, 361; not secured in civil cases, 9; 103; 114; 307; reply to insinuations concerning, 52; should be left to wisdom of congress, 362; the birthright of Americans, 241; under Pennsylvania constitution, 148.

King, Rufus, biographies of, 434; on Elbridge Gerry, 1.

Land, (_see also Western Territory_), decline in the price of, 74.

Langdon, John, biographies of, 434.

Lansing, John, 425; biographies of, 434.

Law, (_see also Congress, Constitution, Judiciary, Ex post facto, Treaties_), multiplication of, 302; necessity of supreme, 312; people entitled to common, 336.

Lee, Richard Henry, pamphlet by, 277; 411.

Legislature, _see Congress and State Legislatures_.

Livingston, William, biographies of, 434.

Lloyd, Thomas, 412; 418.

Lodge, H. C., editor of The Federalist, 406.

Mablé, Ablé, cited, 4.

M’Henry, James, biographies of, 434.

McClurg, James, biographies of, 434.

M’Kean, Thomas, speeches of, 412.

Maclaine, Archibald, pamphlet by, 333; 392; 412; opinion of The Federalist, 395.

MacMaster, John Bach, 412.

Madison, James, 327; 390; biographies of, 434; debate of, 394; 413; quotation from, 259; The Federalist, 395.

Marcus, pseudonym of James Iredell, 333; 391; 410.

Martin, Luther, biographies of, 434; cited, 18; Genuine Information of, 413; 425.

Maryland and the constitution, 440; construction of senate of, 41; declaration of rights, 229; delay in appointing convention, 250; local actions in courts of, 239; method of electing federal representatives, 225; omnipotence of legislature of, 226; position toward Europe, 251; position under new constitution, 251; probable rejection of the constitution by, 28; proposed emission of paper money, 33; representation of, 223; resistance of the people to paper money, 244.

Mason, George, 390; biographies of, 434; failure to sign constitution, 271; pamphlet by, 327; 413; reply to, 255; 333; 391.

Massachusetts, 13; adoption of the constitution by, 98; ambiguous expressions in ratification of, 6; amendments of the convention of, 15; 103; and the constitution, 438; debates in the convention, 414; hostile feeling towards New York, 96; means used to obtain ratification of, 19; ratification by, 6.

Mediterranean, exclusion of Americans from, 73.

Mercer, J. F., biographies of, 435.

Mifflin, Thomas, biographies of, 435.

Militia, congressional power over, 52; 305; necessary general powers over, 122; 306; no longer under civil control, 11; subject to president and senate, 11.

Minot, G. R., 410.

Monarchy, (_see also Aristocracy_), 7; advocates for, 19; dangers of, 195; 254; 285; partisans of, in the state conventions, 17; spirit of, in America, 5.

Money, (s_ee also Paper Money, Representatives, Senate, Taxation_), power to raise, necessary to general government, 122; scarcity of, 73; 113.

Monopolies, congressional power to grant. 357.

Montesquien, cited, 59.

Montgomery, J., pamphlet by, 415; 417.

Morris, Robert, biographies of, 435.

Morris, Gouverneur, biographies of, 435.

Native of Boston, pseudonym of J. Jackson, 410.

Navigation laws, necessity of, 377.

Navy, power of congress to form, 374; will be obtained by constitution, 379.

New England, commerce of, 357.

New Hampshire and the constitution, 438.

New Jersey, adopted from local causes, 104; and the constitution, 439; hostile feelings towards New York, 84; 96; imports of, from New York, 62; journal of the convention of, 416; probable refusal to attend second convention, 81; selfish motives in adopting the constitution, 21.

New York, address to the people of, 67; 87; 111; and the constitution, 439; anti-federal committee of, 1; constitution of, 114; dangers from contiguous states, 96; debates of the convention of, 416; failure to guarantee liberty of the press in constitution of, 76; ill feeling towards, of New Jersey and Connecticut, 84; imports for other states, 62; imports, 104; journal of the convention of, 416; lack of bill of rights, 114; position, in case nine states ratify, 86; undoubted rejection of constitution by, 21.

North Carolina and the constitution, 441; debates in the convention of, 417; forbids standing army in time of peace, 51; 365.

Nicholas, J., 415; 417.

Paine, Thomas, The Rights of Man, 164.

Paper money, 33; baneful effects of, 243; conduct of the state legislatures concerning, 244; 284; congress not restricted from issuing, 374; only the states restricted in issuing, 374; renunciation of the right to issue, 243; the secret reason of opposition to the constitution, 243.

Pardon, (_see also Executive_,) power of executive to, 351.

Parker, J., review of The Federalist, 402.

Paterson, William, biographies of, 435.

Peabody, A. P., review by, 391.

Pennsylvania, 33; address to the citizens of, 385; and the constitution, 412; advantages from new constitution, 161; aristocratic delegates in Federal convention from, 285; debates in convention of, 418; dissent of minority of convention, 102: 385; forbids standing army in time of peace, 51; 365; general assembly under her constitution 152; hasty conduct due to construction of legislature, 33; hostile feeling towards New York, 96; journal of the convention of, 419; legislature of, 34; opposition to division of congress, 30; ratification by, 20; trial by jury under constitution of, 148.

People, desire for union of the, 17; equal representation necessary in free government, 168; 288; position in adoption of constitution, 311; real power with the, 6; 57; 147; true influence of, 60; 168; 316.

Pickering, Timothy, Life of, cited, 277.

Pierce, B. K., 415.

Pinckney, Charles, biographies of, 435; pamphlet by, 419.

Pinckney, Charles C., biographies of, 435.

Plebeian, pseudonym of Melancthon Smith, 67; 87; 421.

Police, internal, 292.

President, _see Executive_.

Press, Liberty of, 9; 76; congress without power over, 361; failure to guarantee liberty of, 9; 48; 76; 113; needless to guarantee, 156; powers of congress over, 316; power to tax, 114.

Printers, refusal of, to print against the constitution, 323.

Production, difficulty in disposing of surplus, 73.

Property, equal distribution of, the foundation of a republic, 61; the basis of freedom, 60; the real power, 57.

Publicola, pseudonym of W. R. Davie, 391.

Quakers, influenced by slave trade, 54.

Ramsay, David, pamphlet by, 371; 421.

Randolph, Edmund, biographies of, 435; cited, 343; failure to sign constitution, 261; 271; independence of, 20; 271; motion of, 272; pamphlet by, 259; 418; 420.

Ratification of the constitution, (_see also Conventions, and each state_.) 420; celebrations of the ratifications of, 441; improperly hurried, 18; influences that cause opposition to, 165; methods used to aid acceptance, 7; of nine states improper, 14; probability of, by each state, 20; probability of nine states agreeing to, 104; submittal to state legislatures and conventions, 272.

Read, George, biographies of, 436.

Religion, free exercise of, should be guaranteed, 315.

Religious sentiment of America, 135.

Religious test, none required, 146.

Representation (_see also Congress, Constitution_,) 8; 12; 289; and taxation inseparable, 148; advantages of eastern states in, 375; basis for, 263; by wealth or population, 39; direct taxation apportioned by, 310; equality of the states in, 206; inadequacy of, 12; 300; 303; inequality in, 223; improvement of, in constitution, 206; origin of, 30; possibilities of equal, 296; in the constitution a compromise, 206; superior in state governments, 293; too small to secure liberty, 102; treble method in, 178.

Representatives, House of (_see Congress, Constitution, Representation, Senate, Treaties,_) 293; comparison with house of commons, 42; 143; composition and powers of, 143; 170; 225; 295; difficulties in formation of, 297; election of members of federal convention to, 221; expense of, 299; money bills in, 340; no state to have less than one member in, 143; proportion of members to population, 143; qualifications of, 144; reply to Mason’s opinion of, 255; representation in, 12; 337; shadow of representation in, 329; share in treaties, 355; 376; term of, 43; the seat of local interests and parties, 41; the voice of the separate states, 41.

Republics, constitution of ancient, 189.

Revenue (_see also Impost, Taxation_,) all sources of, subject to general government, 11; necessity of equalizing, 62.

Revolutionary war caused by a difference concerning rights, 136.

Rhode Island and the constitution, 438; failure to choose representatives, 151; senate of, 32.

Robertson, David, 418; 422.

Rome, colonies of, 208; constitution compared with proposed constitution, 35; senate of, 42.

Rowland, Kate M., 390.

Russell, Benjamin, report of debates, 414.

Rutledge, John, biographies of, 436.

Sablière, T. de la, editor of The Federalist, 396.

Sarum, English borough of, 143.

Senate, (_see also Congress, Constitution, Executive, Representation, Treaties_,) a compromise between contending interests, 158; advantages of, 30; appointing power of, 341; a restraint on the House of Representatives, 141; aristocratic tendencies in, 158; compared with Roman and English senates, 148; 371; composition and powers of, 37; 140; 297; 338; conservative nature of, 340; constitution of ancient, 189; dangers from, 172; 203; dangerous powers of, 173; 297; 329; detached from local prejudices, 142; equal suffrage in, 38; 40; 207; 275; federal formation of, 297; frequency of election of, 338; House of Representatives a check on, 338; irresponsibility of, 12; length of term, 12; 170; mixture of functions in, 103; 229; 231; 299; money bills in, 340; necessity to be small, 169; power to remove officers, 142; qualifications for, 42; 141; reply to Mason’s objections to, 255; representation in the, 40; 206; the representatives of state sovereignties, 169; 224; uselessness of the, 34; useless power of impeachment, 300; vacancies in, 170.

Sherman, Roger, biographies of, 436; cited, 341.

Shipping, (_see also Commerce_,) 73; cessation of, 73; decline of, 73; necessities of encouraging, 377.

Slavery, abolition of, would bring ruin, 54; legislation left to the states, 54.

Slaves, representation of, 319.

Slave trade, desire of South Carolina and Georgia for continuance of, 367; foundation for prevention of, 146; interest of the eastern states to allow, 378; lack of restriction on, 54; necessity of the evil of, 367; power to prohibit after twenty-one years, 378; weakening effect of, 331.

Smith, C. C., review by, 391.

Smith, Melancthon, pamphlet by, 67; 87; 421.

South Carolina, address to the freemen of, 371; and the constitution, 440; debates of legislature, 421; local weakness of, 373; protection of, 377.

Southern confederacy, (_see also Confederacy_,) proposition for, 270.

Southern states, _see States_.

Spraight, R. D., biographies of, 436.

State Conventions, _see Conventions, State_.

State Legislatures, (_see also Constitution and each state_,) absorption of, 48; 252; a check on senators, 142; control of commerce, 265; division of, 30; 32; 33; misbehaviour of, 254; omitted in consideration of constitution, 14; restraints on, 243.

State Sovereignty, _see Congress, Constitution, States_.

States, (_see also Congress, Constitution, Judiciary, Jury, Representation, Senate, United States government, and each state_,) a check on the general government, 126; 152; all necessary for present exigencies, 96; Bills of Rights in constitutions, 359; boundaries of, 62; cases between citizens and, 307; civil war during the, 97; 264; 373; constitution of, 286; 289; 294; 299; 320; constitutional control of, 46; 120; 129; 145; 292; constitutions and laws of, 262; contention between, adjusted by general government, 120; 267; controversies between the, in the convention, 297; delusory promise to guarantee republican government to, 11; differences in the governments of, 291; dissolution of, 268; embarrassment of all issuing paper money, 374; excluded from all agency in national government, 267; failure to secure liberty and property, 55; interest of, to unite, 373; jurisdiction of, as opposed to national, 48; 97; 121; 267; 275; 314; necessity of coercive power against, 266; partial confederacies of, 120; 127; 204; 247; 269; 270; 278; power over their own citizens, 128; protected from each other, 128; rebellion in, 264; reservations in constitutions of, 313; separate interests of, 39; sovereignty of, 11; 14; 38; 46; 179; 207; 379.

——Eastern, 357; advantages from new constitution, 319; advantages of encouraging the shipping of, 377; future miserable condition of, 3; loss of, by revolution, 377; loss of markets by, 377; representation of, 375.

——Southern, advantages of navy to, 374; advantages to, of union, 319; 374; danger to, from commercial laws, 331; future hopeless poverty of, 3; gain of, by revolution, 377; position of, if constitution is rejected, 378; probable ascendency over eastern, 375; representation of, 375.

Stone, Frederick D., 412.

Strong, Caleb, biographies of, 436.

Taxation, absorption of production by national, 3; and representation inseparable, 148; 186; certainty of increase under proposed government, 108; direct, 160; 253; 310; internal, 48; 302; laws of, interfering with state laws, 302; method of collection, 49; 253; 310; powers of congress over, 48; 102; 301; 303; relief from, 106; 108.

Tender laws, conduct of the state legislatures concerning, 284.

Territories, _see Constitution, Western Territory_.

Trade, (_see also Commerce, Treaties_,) 73; 379; balance against the U. S., 107; congressional power over, 107; necessity of government to, 7; regulation of, approved by the eastern states, 319.

Treaties, (_see also Commerce, Congress, Executive, Representatives, Senate_,) dangers arising from, 312; dangers of making them the supreme law, 311; necessity of commercial, 358; of the confederation not binding under, 317; power of Executive and Senate in, 376; powers to make, 356; safer in new government than under the confederation, 376; should not be trusted to House of Representatives, 376; the supreme law of the land, 355; undue influence of Executive and Senate in, 331.

Tucker, J. R., History of the Convention, 422.

Tyler, M. C., 416.

Union, not possible without adequate power, 122; true friends of opposed to constitution, 7.

United States, condition of, 94; 281; credit of, 244; extension of, 203; future additions to, 248; future of, 208; is it too large for one, 13; 122; 127; 204; 247; necessity of supreme government for, 119; neglect of laws of, 293; opulence of, 270; parties in, 321; position if constitution is rejected, 378; suitable government for, 119; 127; 286.

United States, Government of, a moderate aristocracy 332; checks on, 152; composition of, 292; control over the states, 120; 129; 145; 292; dangers of weak, 119; division of, 228; great increase in cost predicted, 108; institution of, after the separation from England, 136; lack of, during the revolution, 136; necessary concessions in order to form, 265; necessary conditions of, 289; necessary powers of, 120; 129; 287; 301; necessity of, 280; not restricted from issuing paper money, 374; powers must be equal to territory, 123; responsibility to foreign nations, 266; separate functions of, 225; tendency of, 369; unreasonable accumulation of powers in, 299; want of independence in departments of, 103; 229.

Vermont, probable combination with New Jersey and Connecticut in opposition to New York, 84.

Veto power, _see Executive_.

Vice-President, (_see also Executive_,) method of selection, 330; 349; position in Senate, 350; qualifications of, 310; necessary, 298.

Virginia, alterations wished by, in constitution, 275; and the constitution, 441; debates in convention of, 422; delay in appointing convention, 250; delegates to federal convention, 284; hesitation of, to ratify, 20; journal of convention of, 423; possibility of her obtaining a partial confederacy, 269.

Warrants, insecurity from, 12; protection from, 315.

Washington, George, 64; 67; 390; biographies of, 436; dedication to, 218; letters to, 327; opinion of, 350; opinion of The Federalist, 395.

Webb, S. B., 67.

Webster, Noah, pamphlet by, 25; 423; reply to minority of Pa. convention, 385; review by, 67; 87; 217.

Webster, Pelatiah, pamphlet by, 118; 424.

Wells, John, editor of The Federalist, 397.

Western posts, method of obtaining, 96.

Western Territory, claims of the states to, 239; question of ownership, 317.

West Indies, exclusion of American vessels from, 73; will be opened to trade by new government, 379.

Williamson, Hugh, 424; biographies of, 436.

Wilson, James, 242; 390; 412; biographies of, 436; cited, 336; invents title of “Federal Republic,” 8; speech of, 134; 155; 385; 425.

Witherspoon, D., quotation from letters of, 333.

Writs of Assistance in Massachusetts, 13.

Wyoming, action of Pennsylvania legislature in reference to, 33.

Wythe, George, biographies of, 437.

Yates, Robert, 425; 424; biographies of, 437.

FINIS.