nance of the large states had been removed by the equality established in the Senate.

"Mr. Broom seconded the proposition.

"Mr. Sherman thought it unnecessary, the laws of the general government being supreme and paramount to the state laws, according to the plan as it now stands.

"Mr. Madison proposed that it should be committed. He had been, from the beginning, a friend to the principle, but thought the modification might be made better.

"Mr. Mason wished to know how the power was to be exercised. Are all laws whatever to be brought up? Is no road nor bridge to be established without the sanction of the general legislature? Is this to sit constantly, in order to receive and revise the state laws? He did not mean, by these remarks, to condemn the expedient, but he was apprehensive that great objections would lie against it.

"Mr. Williamson thought it unnecessary and, having been already decided, a revival of the question was a waste of time.

"Mr. Wilson considered this as the key-stone wanted to complete the wide arch of government we are raising. The power of self-defence had been urged as necessary for the state government. It was equally necessary for the geneeral government. The firmness of judges is not, of itself, sufficient. Somthing further is requisite. It will be better to prevent the passage of an improper law, than to declare it void, when passed.

"Mr. Rutledge. If nothing else, this alone would damn, and ought to damn the Constitution. Will any state ever agree to be bound hand and foot in this manner? It is worse than making mere corporations of them, whose by-laws would not be subject to this shackle.

"Mr. Ellsworth observed, that the power contended for would require, either that all laws of the state legislature should, previous to their taking effect, be transmitted to the general legislature, or be repealable by the latter; or that the state executives should be appointed by the general government, and have a control over the state laws. If the last was meditated, let it be declared.

"Mr. Pinckney declared, that he thought the state executives ought to be so appointed, with such a control; and that it would be so provided, if another Convention should take place.

"Mr. Gouverneur Morris did not see the utility or practicability of the proposition of Mr. Pinckney, but wished it to be referred to the consideration of a committee.

"Mr. Langdon was in favor of the proposition. He considered it as resolvable into the question, whether the extent of the national Constitution was to be judged of by the general, or the state governments.

"On the question for commitment, it passed in the negative.

"New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, ay, 5; Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, no, 6.

"Mr. Pinckney then withdrew his proposition."

THE CONVENTION WAS UNANIMOUS FOR FEDERALIZATION.

The final and unanimous sense of the Convention on this subject, is shown by the following extracts from the constitution as originally reported on August 6, and the action of the convention thereon.

"We the people of the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island

and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia do ordain, declare, and establish, the following constitution, for the government of ourselves and our posterity:

'Article I. The style of the government shall be the United States of America. "Article II. The government shall consist of supreme legislative, executive, and judicial powers..

66

Tuesday, Aug. 7. IN CONVENTION. The report of the committee of detail being taken up,

The preamble of the report was agreed to nem. con. So were Articles I and II. This was the final and unanimous decision of the convention of states on the subject in hand. It was never reversed or modified. It was equivalent to saying this is a federation of sovereign commonwealths.

THE LETTER OF THE CONVENTION TO CONGRESS,

which General Washington wrote "by unanimous order of the Convention," shows that the said convention unanimously intended to continue “ THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THESE STATES," and that federal agency's powers were all DELEGATED" in "TRUST."

66

"We have now the honor to submit to the consideration of the United States in Congress assembled that Constitution which has appeared to us the most advisable. The friends of our country have long seen and desired, that the power of making war, peace and treaties; that of levying money and regulating commerce; and the correspondent executive and judicial authorities, should be fully and effectually vested in the general government of the Union. But the impropriety of delegating such extensive trust to one body of men is evident. Thence results the necessity of a different organization."

"It is obviously impracticable on the federal government of those states, to secure all rights of independent sovereignty (government?) to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all. Individuals entering into society must give up a share of liberty, to preserve the rest.

"That it will meet the full and entire approbation of every state is not perhaps to be expected. But each will doubtless consider that had her interest alone been consulted, the consequences might have been particularly disagreeable and injurious to others."

THE SYSTEM CONSIDERED AS FEDERAL BY THE FATHERS.

EXTRACT FROM PENDLETON'S SPEECH IN VIRGINIA CONVENTION.

But the power of the Convention is doubted. What is the power? To propose. Not to determine. This power of proposing was very broad; it extended to remove all defects in government; the members of that Convention who were to consider all the defects in our general government, were not confined to any particular plan. Were they deceived? This is the proper question here. Suppose the paper on your table dropped from one of the planets; the people found it, and sent us here to consider whether it was proper for their adoption; must we not obey them?

FROM NUMBER XL OF THE FEDERALIST, BY MR. MADISON.

The second point to be examined is, whether the Convention were authorized to frame, and propose this mixed Constitution. The powers of the Convention ought, in strictness, to be determined, by an inspection of the commissions given to the members by their respective constituents. As all of these, however, had reference, either to the recommendation from the meeting at Annapolis, in Sept., 1786, or to that from Congress, in February, 1787, it will be sufficient to turn to these particular acts.

From these two acts, it appears, 1st, that the object of the Convention, was to establish, in these States, a firm national government; 2d, that this government was to be such as would be adequate to the exigencies of government, and the preservation of the Union; 3d, that those purposes were to be effected by alterations and provisions in the articles of Confederation, as it is expressed in the act of Congress; or by such further provisions as should appear necessary -as it stands in the recommendatory act from Annapolis; 4th, that the alterations and provisions were to be reported to Congress, and to the states, in order to be agreed to by the former and confirmed by the latter.

No stress, it is presumed, will, in this case, be laid on the title; a change of that could never be deemed an exercise of ungranted power. Alterations in the body of the instrument are expressly authorized. New provisions therein are also expressly authorized. Here there is a power to change the title; to insert new articles; to alter old ones. Must it of necessity be admitted that this power is infringed, so long as a part of the old articles remain?

Will it be said that the fundamental principles of the Confederation were not within the purview of the Convention, and ought not to have been varied? I ask, what are these principles? Do they require, that in the establishment of the constitution, the states should be regarded as distinct and independent sovereigns? They are so regarded by the constitution proposed."

THE FATHERS REPUDIATED THE NATIONAL IDEA,

in the state ratifying conventions. Two will be quoted for all: Said FISHER AMES in that of Massachusetts: "No argument against the new plan has made a deeper impression than this, that it will produce a consolidation of the states. This is an effect which all good men will deprecate. The state governments are essential parts of the system. . . . The senators represent the sovereignty of the states in the quality of ambassadors of the states. . . . A consolidation of the states... would subvert the new constitution, and against which this very article [the one providing for the senate] so much condemned, is our best security. Too much provision cannot be made against consolidation. . . . This article seems to be an excellence of the constitution, and affords just ground to believe that it will be, in practice as in theory, a federal republic. [II. Ell. Deb. 45.]

Said CHANCELLOR PENDLETON, in the Virginia convention: "But it is represented to be a consolidated government, annihilating that of the statesa consolidated government, which so extensive a territory as the united states cannot admit of, without terminating in despotism. If this be such a government I will confess with my worthy friend [Henry] that it is inadmissable over

such a territory as this country. It is the interest of the federal to preserve the state governments; upon the latter the existence of the former depends. . . . Unless, therefore, there be state legislatures to continue the existence of congress, and preserve order and peace among the inhabitants, this general government.. must itself be destroyed. . . . I wonder how any gentleman could conceive an idea of the possibility of the former destroying the latter." [III. Ell. Deb. 39.] See also, to the same effect, the extracts from the Federalist in Appendix.

APPENDIX D.

EXTRACTS FROM THE FEDERALIST, INCLUDING THE MOST OF NO. 39.

THIS Appendix consists of many extracts from that master-piece of exposition-the Federalist. It is decisive on the character of our general polity, while it entirely supports this book. The leading points proved by these quotations, are

1. That the new compact was to form "a more perfect union" of states, which the fathers regarded as a confederacy.

2. That the "essential component parts" of the new polity was commonwealths named and provided for as parties to, and actors in, the system. 3. That the federal government provided for by the compact was to operate on persons, and not on states.

4. That Webster, Story, and the federal supreme court have committed a gross offence against sovereignty, by declaring that " a change had been made from a confederacy of states to a different system."

The italics, etc., are all in the text [J. C. Hamilton's edition], but the heavyfaced type is resorted to by the author to make the support of his contentions the more conspicuous.

These extracts should be read thoughtfully in connection with Chapters VII. Part III., and V. Part IV.

THE FEDERALIST.

NUMBER I.
[Hamilton.]

The

I propose, in a series of papers, to discuss the following interesting particulars. The utility of the Union to your political prosperity. . . . The insufficiency of the present confederation to preserve that UNION. necessity of a government, at least equally energetic with the one proposed, to the attainment of this object. . . . The conformity of the proposed constitution to the principles of republican government. . . . Its analogy to your own state constitution and lastly, The additional security, which its adoption will afford to the preservation of that species of government, to liberty, and to property..

...