AMERICAN ORATORY. AMERICAN ORATORY, SELECTIONS FROM THE SPEECHES EMINENT AMERICANS. COMPILED BY A MEMBER OF THE PHILADELPHIA BAR. PHILADELPHIA.' PUBLISHED BY DESILVER, THOMAS & CO. 1836. ^^°^ Entered according to Act of Congress, in tlie year 1836, Bv Key and Biddle, In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District of Pennsyiyania. STEREOTYPED AT THE BOSTON TYPE AND STEREOTYPE FOUNDRY ^V PREFACE. No apology can be required for presenting to the American public a volume of Speeches selected from the best efforts of their own statesmen. Public discussion is elsewhere the province of a few ; in our country, it is the duty of almost all. It is not only desirable, there- fore, but absolutely necessary, that all should have at hand those models, which the peculiar character of our institutions, the tone of our national thought, and the exigencies of our history, have combined to produce. Foreign orators may serve as examples of style, but the inhabitants of a republic must seek at home for the intellectual results of the government they have chosen, and for the illustration of those principles by which it is to be sustained. If they cannot always find the same refinement of language, or the same elaborateness of thought, which in older countries is the result of heredi- tary wealth and more scholastic education, they will discover at least a vigorous and masculine diction, patriotic sentiments, and unflinching independence, the apprbpriate attendants upon themes for the most part grave, and frequently severe. The editor does not affect to have used any extraor- dinary research in the compilation now presented to the reader. The character of the subjects discussed has had great influence with him in the selections he has made. For many years past, the newspaper press has carried the opinions expressed in congress to every VI PREFACE. man's door. Those distinguished by uncommon force, dignity, and ability, have been received with eagerness and read with attention. Public sentiment has sup- plied the imprimatur^ therefore, under which the present volume a])])ears. It was, at one time, the hope of the publishers to present a collection of revolutionary speeches ; but the attempt was given up in despair. Those Sibylline leaves have long been scattered to the winds. The fervid addresses which roused our fore- fathers to action, did their brief business successfully; but the soldiers they made had no time to be chroniclers. The old congress, it is believed, employed no report- ers ; the fame of their eloquence is therefore but tra- ditionary : — " Vixere fortes ante Agamemnona Multi : sed omnes illachrymabiles Urgentur, ignotique, longa Nocte, carent quia vate sacro." It is to be presumed, however, that many of their sentiments, though the language in which they were clothed is irretrievably lost, may be sought successfully in the following pages. There are names upon them that have never yet disgraced their revolutionary pred- ecessors. Philadelphia, 1836. CONTENTS. Page. Speech of James Wilson, January, 1775, in the Convention for the Province of Pennsylvania, in Vindication of the Colonies 1 Speech of Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775, in the Convention of Delegates of Virginia 13 Speech of Patrick Henry, on the Expediency of Adopting the Fed- eral Constitution, delivered in the Convention of Virginia, June 5, 1788 16 Speech of Edmund Randolph, on the Expediency of Adopting the Federal Constitution, delivered in the Convention of Virginia, June 6, 1788 34 Speech of Patrick Henry, on the Expediency of Adopting the Fed- eral Constitution, delivered in the Convention of Virginia, June 7, 1788 52 Speech of Patrick Hem-y, on the Expediency of Adopting the Fed- eral Constitution, delivered in the Convention of Virginia, June 24, 1788 86 Speech of Fisher Ames, on the British Treaty, delivered in the House of Representatives of the United States, April 28, 1796. 94 Speech of Edward Livingston, on the Alien Bill, delivered in the House of Representatives of the United States, June 19, 1798. . . 122 Speech of Gouverneur Morris, on the Judiciary Act, delivered in the Senate of the United States, January 14, 1802 132 Speech of James A. Bayard, on the Judiciary Act, delivered in the House of Representatives of the United States, February, 19, 1802 151 Speech of Gouverneur Morris, relative to the Free Navigation of the Mississippi, delivered in the Senate of the United States, Feb- ruary 25, 1803 203 Speech of John Randolph, March 5, 1806, in Committee of the whole House of Representatives, on Mr. Gregg's Resolution to Pro- hibit the Importation of British Goods into the United States . . . 228 Speech of Josiah Q,uincy, in the House of Representatives of the United States, November 28, 1808 241 Speech of John Randolpli, delivered in the House of Representatives of the United States, December 10, 1811 255 Speech of John C. Calhoun, in the House of Representatives of the United States, December 12, 1811 268 viii CONTENTS. Page. Speech of Mr. Gaston, of North Carolina, on the Loan Bill, delivered in the House of Representatives of tlie United States, February 18, 1815 ' 277 Speech of William Pinkney, on the Treaty-Making Power, delivered in the House of Representatives of the United States, January 10, 181G * 303 Speech of William Pinkney, in the Senate of the United States, Feb- ruary 15, 18vi0, on the Missouri Question 320 Speech of John Randolph, on the Tariff Bill, delivered in the House of Representatives of the United States, April 15, 1824 352 Speech of Daniel Webster, on the Panama Mission, delivered in the House of Representatives of the United States, April 14, 1826. . 376 An Oration pronounced at Cambridge, before the Society of Phi Beta Kappa, August 26, 1824. By Edward Everett 409 An Address, delivered at the Laying of the Corner-Stone of the Bunker Hill Monument, June 17, 1825. By Daniel Webster. . . 435 An Oration, delivered at Cambridge, on the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Declaration of the Independence of the United States of America. By Edward Everett 451 A Discourse, in Commemoration of the Lives and Services of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, delivered in FaneuU Hall, Boa- ton, August 2, 1826. By Daniel Webster 475 A Discourse, pronounced at Cambridge, before the Phi Beta Kappa Society, at the Anniversary Celebration on the thirty-first day of August, 1826. By Joseph Story 504 SPEECH OF JAMES WILSON, JANUARY, 1775, IN THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROVINCE OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN VINDICATION OF THE COLONIES. " A most daring spirit of resistance and disobedience still prevails in Mas- sachusetts, and has broken forth in fresh violences of a criminal nature. The most proper and effectual methods have been taken to prevent tliese mischiefs ; and the parliament may depend upon a firm resolution to with- stand every attempt to weaken or impair the supreme authority of parlia- ment over all the dominions of the crown." — Speech of the King of Great Britain to Parliament, Nov. 1774. Mr. Chairman, Wlience, sir, proceeds all the invidious and ill-grounded clamor against the colonists of America ? Why are they stigmatized in Britain as licentious and ungovernable ? Why is their virtuous opposition to the illegal attempts of their governors, represented under the falsest colors, and placed in the most ungracious point of view ? This opposition, when exhibited in its true light, and when viewed, with unjaundiced eyes, from a proper situation, and at a proper distance, stands confessed the lovely offspring of free- dom. It breathes the spirit of its parent. Of this ethereal spirit, the whole conduct, and particularly the late conduct, of the colo- nists has shown them eminendy possessed. It has animated and regulated every part of their proceedings. It has been recognized to be genuine, by all those symptoms and effects by which it has been distinguished in other ages and other countries. It has been calm and regular : it has not acted without occasion : it has not acted disproportionably to the occasion. As the attempts, open or secret, to undermine or to destroy it, have been repeated or enforc- ed, in a just degree, its vigilance and its vigor have been exerted to defeat or to disappoint them. As its exertions have been sufficient for those purposes hitherto, let us hence draw a joyful prognostic, that they will continue sufficient for those purposes hereafter. It is not yet exhausted : it will still operate irresistibly whenever a necessary occasion shall call forth its strength. Permit me, sir, by appealing, in a few instances, to the spirit 1 A 2 MR. WILSON'S SPEECH IN and conduct of the colonists, to evince that what I have said of them is just. Did tliey disclose any uneasiness at the proceedings and claims of the British parliament, before those claims and pro- ceedings afTordcd a reasonahle cause for it ? Did they even dis- close any uneasiness, when a reasonable cause for it was first given ? Our rights were invaded by their regulations of our in- ternal policy. We submitted to them : we were unwilling to op- pose them. Tiie spirit of liberty was slow to act. When those invasions were renewed ; wjien the efficacy and malignancy of them were attempted to be redoubled by the stamp act ; when chains were formed for us ; and preparations v.'cre made for rivet- ing them on our linibs, what measures did we pursue r Tlie spirit of liberty found it necessary now to act ; but she acted with the calmness and decent dignity suited to her character. Were we rasii or seditious ? Did we discover want of loyalty to our sovereign? Did we l)etray want of affection to our brethren in Britain ? Let our dutiful and reverential petitions to the throne ; let our respectful, though firm, remonstrances to the j)arliament ; let our warm and affectionate addresses to our brethren and (we will still call them) our friends in Great Britain, — let all those, transmitted from every part of the continent, testify the truth. By their testimony let our conduct be tried. As our proceedings, during the existence and operation of the stamp act, prove fully and incontestably the painful sensations that tortured our breasts from the prospect of disunion with Britain ; the peals of joy, which burst forth universally, upon the repeal of that odious statute, loudly proclaim the heartfelt delight produced in us by a reconciliation with her. Unsuspicious, because unde- signing, we buried our complaints, and the causes of them, in ob- livion, and returned, with eagerness, to our former unreserved con- fidence. Our connection with our parent country, and the recipro- cal blessings resulting from it to her and to us, were the favorite and pleasing topics of our public discourses and our private con- versations. Lulled into delightful security, we dreamed of nothing but increasing fondness and friendship, cemented and strengthened by a kind and perpetual communication of good offices. Soon, however, too soon, were we awakened from the soothing dreams! Our enemies renewed their designs against us, not with less malice, but with more art. Under the plausible pretence of regulating our trade, and, at the same time, of making provision for the ad- ministration of justice, and the support of government, in some of the colonies, they pursued their scheme of depriving us of our property without our consent. As the attempts to distress us, and to degrade us to a rank inferior to that of freemen, appeared now to be reduced into a regular system, it became proper, on our part, to form a regular system for counteracting them. We ceased to VINDICATION OF THE COLONIES. 3 import goods from Great Britain. Was this measure dictated by selfishness or by licentiousness ? Did it not injure ourselves, while it injured the British merchants and manufacturers ? Was it in- consistent with the peaceful demeanor of subjects to abstain from making purchases, when our freedom and our safety rendered it necessary for us to abstain from them ? A regard for our freedom and our safety was our only motive ; for no sooner had the parlia- ment, by repealing part of the revenue laws, inspired us with the flattering hopes, that they had departed from their intentions of oppressing and of taxing us, than we forsook our plan for defeat- ing those intentions, and began to import as formerly. Far from being peevish or captious, we took no public notice even of their declaratory law of dominion over us : our candor led us to consid- er it as a decent expedient of retreating from the actual exercise of that dominion. But, alas ! the root of bitterness still remained. The duty on tea was reserved to furnish occasion to the ministry for a new ef- fort to enslave and to ruin us ; and the East India Company were chosen, and consented to be the detested instruments of ministerial despotism and cruelty. A cargo of their tea arrived at Boston. By a low artifice of the governor, and by the wicked activity of the tools of government, it was rendered impossible to store it up, or to send it back, as was done at other places. A number of persons, unknown, destroyed it. Let us here make a concession to our enemies: let us suppose, that the transaction deserves all the dark and hideous colors in w^iich they have painted it : let us even suppose (for our cause admits of an excess of candor) that all their exaggerated accounts of it were confined strictly to the truth : what will follow ? Will it -follow, that every British colony in America, or even the colony of Massachusetts Bay, or even the town of Boston, in that colony, merits the imputation of being factious and seditious ? Let the frequent mobs and riots, that have happened in Great Britain vtpon much more trivial occasions, shame our calumniators into silence. Will it follow, because the rules of order and regular government were, in that instance, violated by the offenders, that, for this rea- son, the principles of the constitution, and the maxims of justice, must be violated by their punishment ? Will it follow, because those who were guilty could not be known, that, therefore, those who were known not to be guilty must suffer ? Will it follow, that even the guilty should be condemned without being heard — that they should be condemned upon partial testimony, upon the representations of their avowed and imbittered enemies ? Why were they not tried in courts of justice known to their constitution, and by juries of their neighborhood ? Their courts and their ju- ries were not, in the case of captain Preston, transported beyond 4 MR. WILSON'S SPEECH IN the bouiuls of justice by their resentment : why, tlien, should it be presumed, timt, in tlie case of those olienders, they would be prevented from doing justice by their affection ? But the colonists, it seems, must be stripped of their judicial, as well as of their legis- lative powers. They must be hound by a legislature, they must be tried by a jurisdiction, not their own. Their constitutions must ])e changed : their liberties must be abridged : and those who shall be most infamously active in changing their constitutions and abridging their liberties, must, by an express provision, be exempt- ed from punishment. I do not exaggerate the matter, sir, when I extend these obser- vations to all the colonists. Tiie parliament meant to extend the effects of their proceedings to all tiie colonists. Tiie plan, on which their proceedings are formed, extends to them all. From an incident of no very uncommon or atrocious nature, which hap- j)ened in one colony, in one town in that colony, and in which only a few of the inhabitants of that town took a part, an occasion has been taken by those, who probably intended it, and who certainly prepared the way for it, to imi)osc upon that colony, and to lay a foundation and a precedent for imposing upon all the rest, a system of statutes, arbitrary, unconstitutional, oppressive, in every view, and in every degree subversive of the rights, and inconsistent with even the name, of freemen. Were the colonists so blind as not to discern the consequences of these measures ? Were they so supinely inactive, as to take no steps for guarding against them ? They were not. They ought not to have been so. We saw a breach made in those barriers, which our ancestors, British and American, with so much care, with so much danger, with so much treasure, and with so much blood, had erected, cemented and established for the security of their liberties, and — with filial piety let us mention it— of ours. We saw the attack actually begun upon one part : ought we to have folded our hands in indolence, to have lulled our eyes in slumbers, till the attack was carried on, so as to become irresisti- ble, in every part ? Sir, I presume to thitd< not. We were rous- ed; we were alarmed, as we had reason to be. But still our measures have been such as the spirit of liberty and of loyalty di- rected ; not such as a spirit of sedition or of disaffection would pursue. Our counsels have been conducted without rashness and faction: our resolutions have been taken without phrensy or fury. That the sentiments of every individual concerning that impor- tant object, his liberty, might be known and regarded, meetings have been held, and deliberations carried on, in every particular district. That the sentiments of all those individuals might grad- ually and regularly be collected into a single point, and the conduct of each inspired and directed by the result of the whole united, VINDICATION OF THE COLONIES. 5 county committees, provincial conventions, a continental congress, have been appointed, have met and resolved. By this means, a chain — more inestimable, and, while the necessity for it continues, we hope, more indissoluble than one of gold — a chain of freedom has been formed, of which every individual in these colonies, who is willing to preserve the greatest of human blessings, his liberty, has the pleasure of beholding himself a link. Are these measures, sir, the brats of disloyalty, of disaffection ? There are miscreants among us, wasps that suck poison from the most sakibrious flowers, who tell us they are. They tell us that all those assemblies are unlawful, and unauthorized by our consti- tutions ; and that all their deliberations and resolutions are so many transgressions of the duty of subjects. The utmost malice brooding over the utmost baseness, and nothing but such a hated commixture, must have hatched this calumny. Do not those men know — would they have others not to know — that it was impossi- ble for the inhabitants of the same province, and for the legisla- tures of the different provinces, to communicate their sentiments to one another in the modes appointed for such purposes, by their different constitutions ? Do not they know — would they have others not to know — that all this was rendered impossible by those very persons, who now, or whose minions now, urge this objection against us? Do not they know — would they have others not to know — that the different assemblies, who could be dissolved by the governors, were, in consequence of ministerial mandates, dis- solved by them, whenever they attempted to turn their attention to the greatest objects, which, as guardians of the liberty of their constituents, could be presented to their view ? The arch enemy of the human race torments them only for those actions to which he has tempted, but to which he has not necessarily obliged them. Those men refine even upon infernal malice : they accuse, they threaten us, (superlative impudence !) for taking those very steps, which we were laid under the disagreeable necessity of taking by themselves, or by those in whose hateful service they are enlisted. But let them know, that our counsels, our deliberations, our reso- lutions, if not authorized by the forms, because that was rendered impossible by our enemies, are nevertheless authorized by that which weighs much more in the scale of reason — by the spirit of our constitutions. Was the convention of the barons at Runny- mede, where the tyranny of John was checked, and magna charta was signed, authorized by the forms of the constitution ? Was the convention parliament, that recalled Charles the Second, and re- stored the monarchy, authorized by the forms of the constitution ? Was the convention of lords and commons, that placed king Wil- liam on the throne, and secured the monarchy and liberty likewise, authorized by the forms of the constitution ? I cannot conceal my 1 * 6 MR. W ILSON'S SPEECH IN emotions of pleasure, when I observe, that the objections of our adversaries cannot be uri^ed against us, but in common with tliose venerable assemblies, whose proc-edings formed such an accession to JJritish liberty and IJritish renown. The resolutions entered into, and the reconnnendations given, by the continental congress, have stamped, in the plainest charac- ters, the genuine and enlightened spirit of liberty, upon the conduct observed, and the measures pursued, in consequence of them. As the invasions of our rights have become more and more formidable, our op|)osition to tliem has increased in firmness and vigor, in a just, and in no more than a just, proportion. We will not import goods from Great Britain or Ireland : in a little time we will sus- [)en(l our exportations to them : and, if the same illiberal and de- structive system of jwlicy be still carried on against us, in a little time more we will not consume their manufactures. In that col- ony, where the attacks have been most open, imme^iiate and di- rect, some further steps have been taken, and those steps have met with the deserved approbation of the other provinces. Is this scheme of conduct allied to rebellion ? Can any symp- toms of disloyalty to his majesty, of disinclination to his illustrious family, or of disregard to his authority, be traced in it r Those who would blend, and whose crimes have made it necessary for them to blend, the tyrannic acts of administration with the lawful measures of government, and to veil every flagitious procedure of the ministry under the venerable mantle of majesty, pretend to discover, and employ their emissaries to publish the pretended discovery of such symptoms. We are not, however, to be imposed upon by such shallow artifices. We know, that we have not vio- lated the laws or the constitution ; and that, therefore, we are safe as long as the laws retain their force and the constitution its vigor ; and that, whatever our demeanor be, we cannot be safe much longer. But another object demands our attention. We behold, sir, with the deepest anguish we behold, that our opposition has not been as efiectual as it has been constitutional. The hearts of our oppressors have not relented : our complaints have not been heard : our grievances have not been redressed : our rights are still invaded ; and have we no cause to dread, that the invasions of them will be enforced, in a manner against which all reason and argument, and all op])Osition, of every peaceful kind, will be vain ? Our opposition has hitherto increased with our op- pression : shall it, in the most desperate of all contingencies, ob- serve the same proiiortion ? Let us pause, sir, before we give an answer to this question. The fate of us ; the fate of millions now alive ; the fate of millions yet unborn, depends upon the answer. Let it be the result of calmness and of intrepidity : let it be dictated by the principles of VINDICATION OF THE COLONIES. 7 loyalty, and the principles of liberty. Let it be such, as never, in the worst events, to give us reason to reproach ourselves, or others reason to reproach us for having done too much or too little. Perhaps the following resolution may be found not altogether un- befitting our present situation. With the greatest deference I sub- mit it to the mature consideration of this assembly. " That the act of the British parliament for altering the charter and constitution of the colony of Massachusetts Bay, and those ' for the impartial administration of justice' in that colony, for shut- ting the port of Boston, and for quartering soldiers on the inhabit- ants of the colonies, are unconstitutional and void ; and can confer no authority upon those who act under color of them. That the crown cannot, by its prerogative, alter the charter or constitution of that colony : that all attempts to alter the said charterer consti- tution, unless by the authority of the legislature of that colony, are manifest violations of the rights of that colony, and illegal : that all ibrce employed to carry such unjust and illegal attempts into exe- cution, is force without authority : that it is the right of British sub- jects to resist such force : that this right is founded both upon the letter and the spirit of the British constitution." To prove, at this time, that those acts are unconstitutional and void, is, I apprehend, altogether unnecessary. The doctrine has been proved fully, on other occasions, and has received the con- curring assent of British America. It rests upon plain and indu- bitable truths. We do not send- members to the British parlia- ment : we have parliaments (it is immaterial what name they go by) of our own. That a void act can confer no authority upon those who proceed under color of it, is a self-evident proposition. Before I proceed to the other clauses, 1 think it useful to recur to some of the fundamental maxims of the British constitution ; upon which, as upon a rock, our wise ancestors erected that stable fabric, against which the gates of hell have not hitherto prevailed. Those maxims I shall apply fairly, and, I flatter myself, satis- factorily to evince every particular contained in the resolution. The government of Britain, sir, was never an arbitrary govern- ment ; our ancestors were never inconsiderate enough to trust those rights, which God and nature had given them, unreservedly into the hands of their princes. However difficult it may be, in other states, to prove an original contract subsisting in any other man- ner, and on any other conditions, than are naturally and necessarily implied in the very idea of the first institution of a state, it is the easiest thing imaginable, since the revolution of 1688, to prove it in our constitution, and to ascertain some of the material articles of which it consists. It has been often appealed to : it has been 8 MR. WILSON'S SPEECH IN often broken, at least on one part : it has been often renewed : it lias been often confirineti : it still subsists in its full force: "it binds <1k! king as much as the meanest subject." The measures of h'ls power, and the limits, beyond which he cannot extend it, are circumscribed and roi;;ulated by the same authority, and with the same precision, as the measures of the subject's obedience ; and the limits, beyond which he is under no obligation to jiractise it, are fixed and ascertained. Liberty is, by the constitution, of equal stability, of equal antiquity, and of equal authority, with pre- rogative. The duties of the king and those of the subject are plainly reciprocal : they can be violated on neither side, unless they be performed on the other. The law is the common stand- ard, by which the excesses of })rcrogative, as well as the excesses of liberty, are to be regulated and reformed. Of this iireat compact between the king and Iiis people, one es- sential article to be performed on his part is, that, in those cases where jirovision is expressly made and limitations set by the laws, his government shall be conducted according to those provisions, and restrained according to those limitations ; that, in those cases which are not expressly provided for by the laws, it shall be con- ducted by the best rules of discretion, agreeably to the general spirit of the laws, and subserviently to their ultimate end — the in- terest and happiness of his subjects ; that, in no case, it shall be conducted contrary to the express, or to the implied principles of the constitution. These general maxims, which we may justly consider as funda- mentals of our government, will, by a plain and obvious applica- tion of them to the parts of the resolution remaining to be proved, demonstrate them to be strictly agreeable to the laws and consti- tution. We can be at no loss in resolving, that the king cannot, by his prerogative, alter the charter or constitution of the colony of Mas- sachusetts Bay. Upon what principle could such an exertion of prerogative be justified ? On the acts of parliament? They are already proved to be .void. On the discretionary power which the king has of acting where the laws arc silent? That power must be subservient to the interest and happiness of those concern- ing whom it operates. But I go further. Instead of being sup- ported by law, or tlie principles of prerogative, such an alteration is totally and absolutely repugnant to both. It is contrary to ex- ])ress law. The charter and constitution, we speak of, are con- fimied by the only legislative power caj)able of confirming them ; and no other power, but that which can ratify, can destroy. If it is contrary to express law, the consequence is necessary, that it is contrary to the principles of prerogative ; for prerogative can ope- rate only when the law is silent. VINDICATION OF THE COLONIES. 9 In no view can this alteration be justified, or so much as ex- cused. It cannot be justified or excused by the acts of parha- ment ; because the authority of parliament does not extend to it : it cannot be justified or excused by the operation of prerogative ; because this is none of the cases in which prerogative can op- erate : it cannot be justified or excused by the legislative authority of the colony; because that authority never has been, and, I pre- sume, never will be given for any such purpose. If I have proceeded hitherto, as I am persuaded I have, upon safe and sure ground, I can, with great confidence, advance a step further, and say, that all attempts to alter the charter or constitu- tion of that colony, unless by the authority of its own legislature, are violations of its rights, and illegal. If those attempts are illegal, must not all force, employed to carry them into execution, be force employed against law, and without authority ? The conclusion is unavoidable. Have not British subjects, then, a right to resist such force — force acting without authority — force employed contrary to law — force employed to destroy the very existence of law and of liberty ? They have, sir, and this right is secured to them both by the let- ter and the spirit of the British constitution, by which the measures and the conditions of their obedience are appointed. The British liberties, sir, and the means and the right of defending them, are not the grants of princes ; and of what our princes never granted they surely can never deprive us. I beg leave, here, to mention and to obviate some plausible but ill-founded objections, that have been, and will be, held forth by our adversaries, against the principles of the resolution now before us. It will be observed, that those, employed for bringing about the proposed alteration in the charter and constitution of the colony of Massachusetts Bay, act by virtue of a commission for that pur- pose from his majesty ; that all resistance of forces, commissioned by his majesty, is resistance of his majesty's authority and govern- ment, contrary to the duty of allegiance, and treasonable. These objections will be displayed in their most specious colors ; every artifice of chicanery and sophistry will be put in practice to estab- lish them ; law authorities, perhaps, will be quoted and tortured to prove them. Those principles of our constitution which were de- signed to preserve and to secure the liberty of the people, and, for the sake of that, the tranquillity of government, will be perverted on this, as they have been on many other occasions, from their true intention, and will be made use of for the contrary purpose of endangering the latter, and destroying the former. The names of the most exalted virtues, on one hand, and of the most atrocious crimes on the other, will be employed in direct contradiction to B 10 MR. WILSON'S SPEECH IN the nature of those virtues, and of those crimes ; and, in tliis man- ner, those who cannot look beyond names, will be deceived ; and those whose aim it is to deceive by names, will have an opportu- nity of accomplishing it. But, sir, this disguise will not impose upon us. We will look to things as well as to names ; and, by doing so, we shall be fully satisfied, that all those objections rest upon mere verbal sophistry, and have not even the remotest alli- ance with the principles of reason or of law. In the first place, then, I say, that the persons who allege, that those, employed to alter the charter and constitution of Massachu- setts Bay, act by virtue of a commission from his majesty for that purpose, speak improperly, and contrary to the truth of the case. I say, they act by virtue of no such conmiission ; I say, it is im- possible they can act by virtue of such a connnission. What is called a commission either contains i)arlicular directions for the purpose mentioned, or it contains no such particular directions. In either case, can those, who act for that purpose, act by virtue of a commission ? In one case, what is called a commission is void ; it has no legal existence ; it can communicate no authority. In the other case, it extends not to the purpose mentioned. The latter point is too plain to be insisted on ; I prove the former. " Id rex potest,'' says the law, " gtiod de jure potest.'' The king's power is a power according to law. His commands, if the authority of lord chief justice Hale may be depended upon, are under the directive power of the law ; and consequently invahd, if unlawful. " Commissions," says my lord Coke, " are legal ; and are like the king's writs ; and none are lawful, but such as are allowed by the common law, or warranted by some act of parlia- ment." Let us examine any commission expressly directing those to whom it is given to use military force for carrying into execution the alterations proposed to be made in the charter and constitution of Massachusetts IBay, by the foregoing maxims and authorities ; and what we have said concerning it will appear obvious and con- clusive. It is not warranted by any act of parliament, because, as has been mentioned on this, and has been proved on other occa- sions, any such act is void. It is not warranted, and 1 believe it will not be pretended that it is warranted, by the common law. It is not warranted by the royal prerogative, because, as has already been fully shown, it is diametrically opposite to the principles and the ends of prerogative. Upon what foundation, then, can it lean and be supjjorted ? Upon none. Like an enchanted castle, it may terrify those, wdiose eyes are affected by the magic influence of the sorcerers, despotism and slavery; but so soon as the charm is dissolved, and the genuine rays of liberty and of the constitution VINDICATION OF THE COLONIES. 11 dart in upon us, the formidable appearance vanishes, and we dis- cover that it was the baseless fabric of a vision, that never had any- real existence. I have dwelt the longer upon this part of the objections, urged against us by our adversaries, because this part is the foundation of all the others. We have now removed it ; and they must fall of course. For if the force, acting for the purposes we have men- tioned, does not act, and cannot act, by virtue of any commission from his majesty, the consequence is undeniable, that it acts with- out his majesty's authority ; that the resistance of it is no resistance of his majesty's authority, nor incompatible with the duties of alle- giance. And now, sir, let me appeal to the impartial tribunal of reason and truth ; let me appeal to every unprejudiced and judicious ob- server of the laws of Britain, and of the constitution of the British government; let me appeal, I say, whether the principles on which I argue, or the principles on which alone my arguments can be opposed, are those which ought to be adhered to and acted upon ; which of them are most consonant to our laws and liberties ; which of them have the strongest, and are likely to have the most effectual tendency to establish and secure the royal power and dignity. Are we deficient in loyalty to l?is majesty ? Let our conduct convict, for it will fully convict, the insinuation that we are, of falsehood. Our loyalty has always appeared in the true form of loyalty ; in obeying our sovereign according to law : let those, who would require it in any other form, know, that we call the persons who execute his commands, when contrary to law, disloyal and traitors. Are we enemies to the power of the crown ? No, sir, we are its best friends : this friendship prompts us to wish, that the power of the crown may be firmly established on the most solid basis : but we know, that the constitution alone will perpetu- ate the former, and securely uphold the latter. Are our princi- ples irreverent to majesty ? They are quite the reverse : we as- cribe to it perfection almost divine. We say, that the king can do no wrong: we say, that to do wrong is the property, not of power, but of weakness. We feel oppression, and will oppose it ; but we know, for our constitution tells us, that oppression can never spring from the throne. We must, therefore, search elsewhere for its source : our infallible guide will direct us to it. Our con- stitution tells us, that all oppression springs from the ministers of the throne. The attributes of perfection, ascribed to the king, are, neither by the constitution, nor in fact, communicable to his ministers. They may do wrong ; they have often done wrong ; they have been often punished for doing wrong. Here we may discern the true cause of all the impudent clamor 12 MR. WILSON'S SPEECH, &c. and unsupported accusations of the ministers and of their minions, that liave been raised and made against the conduct of the Amer- icans. Those ministers and minions are sensible, that the oppo- sition is directed, not ai^ainst his majesty, but ajj^ainst them ; be- cause they have abused liis majesty's confidence, brought discredit upon liis government, and derogated from liis justice. They see the public vengeance collected in dark clouds around them : their consciences tell them, that it should be hurled, like a thunderbolt, at their guilty heads. Appalled with guilt and fear, they skulk behind the throne. Is it disrespectful to drag them into public view, and make a distinction between them and his majesty, under whose venerable name they daringly attempt to shelter their crimes ? Nothing can more effectually contribute to establish his majesty on the throne, and to secure to him the affections of his people, than tliis distinction. By it we are taught to consider all the blessings of government as flowing from the throne ; and to con- sider every instance of oppression as proceeding, which, in truth, is oftenest the case, from the ministers. If, now, it is true, that all force employed for the purposes so often mentioned, is force unwarranted by any act of parliament ; unsupported by any principle of the common law ; unauthorized by any commission from the crown ; that, instead of being em- ployed for the support of the constitution and his majesty's govern- ment, it must be employed for the support of oppression and min- isterial tyranny ; if all this is true (and 1 flatter myself it appears to be true), can any one hesitate to say, that to resist such force is lawful ; and that both the letter and the spirit of the British con- stitution justify such resistance ? Resistance, both by the letter and the spirit of the British con- stitution, may be carried further, when necessity requires it, than I have carried it. Many examples in the English history might be adduced, and many authorities of the greatest weight might be brought to show, that when the king, forgetting his character and his dignity, has stepped fortli, and openly avowed and taken a part in such initpiitous conduct as has been described ; in such cases, in- deed, the distinction above mentioned, wisely made by the consti- tution for the security of the crown, could not be applied ; because the crown had unconstitutionally rendered the application of it im- possible. What lias been the consequence ? The distinction be- tween him and his ministers has been lost ; but they have not been raised to his situation : he has sunk to theirs. SPEECH OF PATRICK HENRY, MARCH 23, 1775, IN THE CONVENTION OF DELEGATES OF VIRGINIA, On the following resolutions, introduced by himself: — "Resolved, That a well-regulated militia, composed of gentlemen and yeomen, is the natural strength and only security of a free government ; that such a militia in this colony, would forever render it unnecessary for the mother country to keep among us, for the purpose of our defence, any standing army of mer- cenary soldiers, always subversive of the quiet, and dangerous to the lib- erties of the people, and would obviate the pretext of taxing us for their support " That the establishment of such a militia is, at this time, peculiarly neces- sary, by the state of our laws for the protection and defence of the coun- try, some of which are already expired, and others will shortly be so ; and that tlie known remissness of government in calling us together in legis- lative capacity, renders it too insecure, in this time of danger and distress, to rely, that opportunity will be given of renewing them, in general as- sembly, or making any provision to secure our inestimable rights and lib- erties from those further violations with which they are threatened. ^^ Resolved, therefore, That this colony be immediately put into a state of de- fence, and that be a committee to prepare a plan for itnbodying, arming and disciplining such a number of men as may be suf- ficient for that purpose." Mr. President, No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the house. But different men often see the same subject in dif- ferent lights ; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disre- spectful to those gentlemen, if, entertaining, as I do, opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the house is one of awful moment to this coun- try. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a ques- tion of freedom or slavery ; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfil the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should J keep back my opinions at Such a time, through fear of giving of- fence, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings. Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of 2 14 MR. HENRY'S SPEECH IN THE hope. We are apt to sliut our eyes against a painful truth, and hsten to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous strug- gle for liberty ? Are we disposed to be of the number of those, who, having eyes, see not, and having eai"s, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth ; to know the worst, and to provide for it. 1 have but one lamp by whicii my feet are guided ; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the fu- ture but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the house ? Is it that in- sidious smile with which our petition has been lately received ? Trust it not, sir ; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Arc fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation ? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love ? Let us not deceive our- selves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation ; the last arguments to which kings resort. 1 ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission ? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies ? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us : they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains, which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them ? Shall we try argument ? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we any thing new to offer upon the subject ? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable ; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication ? What terms shall we find, which have not been already exhausted ? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer. Sir, we have done every thini^ that could be done, to avert the storm u hich is now coming on. We have petitioned ; we have remonstrated ; we have supplicated ; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and parliament. Our petitions have been slighted ; our remonstrances have jjroduccd additional violence and insult ; our supplications have been disregarded ; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne ! In HOUSE OF DELEGATES OF VIRGINIA. 15 vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconcihation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free — if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestima- ble privileges for which we have been so long contending — if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon, until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtain- ed — we must fight ! I repeat it, sir, we must fight ! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us ! They tell us, sir, that we are weak ; unable to cope with so for- midable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year ? Will it be when we are to- tally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and in- action ? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot ? Sir. we are not weak, if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the desti- nies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battle? for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone ; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat, but in submission and sla- very ! Our chains are forged ! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston ! The war is inevitable — and let it come ! I repeat it, sir, let it come. It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, peace — but there is no peace. The war is actually begun ! The next gale, that sweeps from the north, will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms ! Our brethren are already in the field ! Why stand we here idle ? What is it that gentlemen wish ? What would they have ? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery ? Forbid it. Almighty God ! I know not what course others may take ; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death ! SPEECH OF PATRICK HENRY, ON THE EXPEDIENCY OF ADOPTING THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, DELIVERED IN THE CONVENTION OF VIRGINIA, JUNE 5, 1788. The preamble and the two first sections of the first article of the consti- tuti6n being under consideration, Mr. Henry tlius addressed the conven- tion : — jVIr. Chairman, I am iniicli obliged to the very wortliy gentleman* for his en- comium. I wish I were possessed of talents, or possessed of any thing, that might enable me to elucidate this great subject. I am not free from suspicion : I am apt to entertain doubts : I rose yes- terday to ask a question, which arose in my own mind. When I asked that question, I thought the meaning of my interrogation was obvious : the fate of this question and of America may depend on this. Have they said, we, the states ? Have they made a proposal of a comjmct between states ? If they had, this would be a confederation : it is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, sir, on that poor little thing — the expression, we, the p^o^le, instead of, the states of America. I need not take much pains to show, that the prmciples o?~tliis system are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous. Is this a monarchy, like England — a compact between prince and people; with checks on the former to secure the liberty of the lat- ter? Is this a confederacy, like Holland — an association of a number of independent states, each of which retains its individual sovereignty ? It is not a democracy, wherein the people retain all their rights securely. Had theee jirinciples been adhered to, we should not have been brought to tliis alarming transition, from a confederacy to a consolidated government. We have no detail of those great considerations which, in my opinion, ought to have abounded before we should recur to a government of this kind. Here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is as radical, if, in this transition, our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states relin- * Mr. Lee, of Westmoreland. MR. HENRY'S SPEECH, &c. 17 quished. And cannot we plainly see, that this is actually the case ? The rights of conscience, trial by jury, liberty of the press, all your immunities and franchises, all pretensions to human rights and privileges, are rendered insecure, if not lost, by this change so loudly talked of by some, and inconsiderately by others. Is this tame relinquishment of rights worthy of freemen ? Is it worthy of that manly fortitude that ought to characterize republicans ? It is said eight states have adopted this plan. I declare that if twelve states and an half had adopted it, I would, with manly firmness, and in spite of an erring world, reject it. You are aot-to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how ^^^urlibejlifig. can be secured ; for hberty ought to be the direct end of your government. Hav- ing premised these things, I shall, with the aid of my judgment and information, which I confess are not extensive, go into the dis- cussion of this system more minutely. Is it necessary for your liberty, that you should abandon those great rights by the adoption of this system ? Is the relinquishment of the trial by jury, and the liberty of the press, necessary for your liberty ? Will the aban- donment of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty ? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings — give us that precious jewel, and you may take every thing else. But I am fearful I have lived long enough to become an old-fashioned fel- low. Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old- fashioned : if so, I am contented to be so, I say, the time has been when every pulse of my he-art beat for American liberty, and which, I believe, had a counterpart in the breast of every true American. But suspicions have gone forth — suspicions of my in- tegrity. It has been publicly reported that my professions are not real. Twenty-three years ago was I supposed a traitor to my country : I was then said to be a bane of sedition, because I sup- ported the rights of my country : I may be thought suspicious, when I say our privileges and rights are in danger ; but, sir, a number of the people of this country are weak enough to think these things are too true. I am happy to find that the gentlemen on the other side declare they are groundless ; but, sir, suspicion is a virtue, as long as its object is the preservation of the public good, and as long as it stays within proper bounds : should it fall on me, I am contented : conscious rectitude is a powerful consola- tion : I trust there are many who think my professions for the pub- lic good to be real. Let your suspicion look to both sides : there are many on the other side, who, possibly, may have been per- suaded of the necessity of these measures, which I conceive to be dangerous to your liberty. Guard with jealous attention the pub- lic liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Un- 2* C 18 mIt HENRY'S SPEECH ON fortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. When- ever you give up that force, you arc inevitably ruined. 1 am an- swered by gentlemen, that though 1 may speak of terrors, yet the fact is, that we are surrounded by none of tiie dangers I appre- hend. 1 conceive this new government to be one of those dan- gers : it has produced those horrors which distress many of our best citizens. We are come hither to preserve the poor common- wealth of Virginia, if it can be possibly done : something must be done to preserve your liberty and mine. The confederation, this same despised government, merits, in my opinion, the highest en- comium : it carried us through a long and daniierous war : it ren- dered us victorious in that bloody conflict with a powerful nation : it has secured us a territory greater than any European monarch possesses : and shall a government which has been thus strong and vigorous be accused of imbecility, and abandoned for want of en- ergy? Consider what you are about to do, before you part with tliis government. Take longer time in reckoning things : revolu- tions like this have happened in almost every country in Europe : similar examples are to be found in ancient Greece and ancient Rome — instances of the people losing their liberty by their own carelessness and the ambition of a few. We are cautioned, by the honorable gentleman who presides, against faction and turbulence. 1 acknowledge that licentiousness is dangerous, and that it ought to be provided against : I acknowledge also the new form of gov- ernment may eftectually prevent it : yet there is another thing it will as effectually do : it will oppress and iiiin the people. There are sufficient guards placed against sedition and licentiousness ; for when power is given to this government to suppress these, or for any other purpose, the language it assumes is clear, express, and unequivocal ; but when this constitution speaks of privileges, there is an ambiguity, sir, a fatal ambiguity — an ambiguity which is very astonishing. In the clause under consideration, there is the strangest language that I can conceive. I mean when it says, that there shall not be more representatives than one for every ^30,000. Now, sir, how easy is it to evade tiiis privilege ? " The number shall not exceed one for every 30,000." This may be satisfied by one representative from each state. Let our numbei-s be ever so great, this immense continent may, by this artful ex- pression, be reduced to have but thirteen representatives. I con- less this construction is not natural ; but the ambiguity of the ex- pression lays a good ground for a quarrel. Why was it not clearly and unequivocally expressed, that they should be entitled to have one for every 30,000 ? This would have obviated all disputes ; and was this difficult to be done ? What is the inference ? When population increases, and a state shall send representatives in this proportion, Congress may remand them, because the right of hav- THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 19 ing one for every 30,000 is not clearly expressed. This possibil- ity of reducing the number to one for each state, approximates to probability by that other expression, " but each state shall at least have one representative." Now, is it not clear that, from the first expression, the number might be reduced so much, that some states should have no representative at all, were it not for the in- sertion of this last expression ? And as this is the only restriction upon them, we may fairly conclude that they may restrain the number to one from each state. Perhaps the same horrors may hang over my mind again. I shall be told I am continually afraid ; but, sir, I have strong cause of apprehension. In some parts of the plan before you, the great rights of freemen are endangered, in other parts absolutely taken away. How does your trial by jury stand ? In civil cases gone — not sufficiently secured in crim- inal — this best privilege is gone. But we are told, that we need not fear, because those in power, being our representatives, will not abuse the powers we put in their hands. ; I am not well versed in history ; but I will submit to your recollec^n, whether liberty has been destroyed most often by the licentiousness of the people, or by the tyranny of rulers. I imagine, sir, you will find the balance on the side of tyranny. Happy will you be, if you miss the fate of those nations, who, omitting to resist their oppressors, or negli- gently suffering their liberty to be wrested from them, have groaned under intolerable despotism ! Most of the human race are now in this deplorable condition. And those nations who have gone in search of grandeur, power, and splendor, have also fallen a sacrifice, and been the victims of their own folly. While they acquired those visionary blessings, they lost their freedom. My great objection to this government is, that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights, or of waging war against ty- rants. It is urged by some gentlemen, that this new plan will bring us an acquisition of strength ; an army, and the militia of the states. This is an idea extremely ridiculous : gentlemen cannot be in earnest. This acquisition will trample on your fallen liber- ty. Let my beloved Americans guard against that fatal lethargy that has pervaded the universe. Have we the means of resisting disciplined armies, when our only defence, the militia, is put into the hands of congress? The honorable gentleman said, that great danger would ensue, if the convention rose without adopting this system. I ask, where is that danger ? I see none. Other gentlemen have told us, within these walls, that the union is gone — or that the union will be gone. Is not this trifling with the judgment of their fellow-citi- zens ? Till they tell us the ground of their fears, I will consider them as imaginary. I rose to make inquiry where those dangers were : thev could make no answer : I believe I never shall have 20 MR: HENRY'S SPEECH ON that answer. Is there a disposition in the people of this country to revolt a!];ainst the dominion of laws ? Has there been a single tunuilt in Virginia ? Have not the people of Virginia, when la- boring under the severest pressure of accumulated distresses, man- ifested the most cordial acquiescence in the execution of the laws ? What could be more awful than their unanimous acquiescence under general distresses ? Is there any revolution in Virginia ? Whither is the spirit of America gone ? Whither is the genius of America lied ? It was but yesterday, when our enemies marched in triumph through our country. Yet the people of this country could not be appalled by tlieir pompous armaments : they stopped their career, and victoriously captured them : where is the peril now, compared to that ? Some minds are agitated by foreign alarms. Happily for us, there is no real danger from Europe : that country is engaged in more arduous business : from that quarter, there is no cause of fear: you may sleep in safety forever for them. Where is tlie danger ? If, sir, there was any, I would recur to the American spirit to defend us — that spirit which has enabled us to surmount the greatest difficulties : to that illustrious spirit I address my most fervent prayer, to prevent our adopting a system destructive to liberty. Let not gentlemen be told, that it is not safe to reject this government. Wherefore is it not safe ? We are told there are dangers ; but those dangers are ideal ; they cannot be demon- strated. To encourage us to adopt it, they tell us, that there is a plain, easy way of getting amendments. When I come to contemplate this part, I suppose that I am mad, or that my coun- trymen are so. The way to amendment is, in my conception, shut. Let us consider this plain, easy way. " The congress, whenever two thirds of both liouses shall deem it necessary, shall j^ropose amendments to this constitution ; or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a con- vention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the congress. Provided, that no amendment which may be made prior to the year 1808, shall, in any manner, affect the fii-st and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article ; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffi-age in the senate." Hence it appears, that three fourths of the states must ultimately agree to any amendments that may be necessary. Let us consider the consequences of this. However uncharitable it may appear, yet I must express my opinion, that the most unworthy characters may get into power and prevent the introduction of amendments. Let THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 21 us suppose (for the case is supposable, possible, and probable), that you happen to deal these powers to unworthy hands ; will they relinquish powers already in their possession, or agree to amendments ? Two thirds of the congress, or of the state legis- latures, are necessary even to propose amendments. If one third of these be unworthy men, they may prevent the application for amendments ; but a destructive and mischievous feature is, that three fourths of the state legislatures, or of the state conventions, must concur in the amendments when proposed. In such numer- ous bodies, there must necessarily be some designing, bad men. To suppose that so large a number as three fourths of the states will concur, is to suppose that they will possess genius, intelligence, and integrity, approaching to miraculous. It would, indeed, be miraculous, that they should concur in the same amendments, or even in such as would bear some likeness to one another. For four of the smallest states, that do not collectively contain one tenth part of the population of the United States, may obstruct the most salutary and necessary amendments. Nay, in these four states, six tenths of the people may reject these amendments ; and suppose that amendments shall be opposed to amendments (which is highly probable), is it possible that three fourths can ever agree to the same amendments ? A bare majority in these four small states may hinder the adoption of amendments ; so that we may fairly and justly conclude, that one twentieth part of the American people may prevent the removal of the most grievous inconveniences and oppression, by refusing to accede to amend- ments. A trifling minority may reject the most salutary amend- ments. Is this an easy mode of securing the public liberty ? It is, sir, a most fearful situation, when the most contemptible minor- ity can prevent the alteration of the most oppressive government ; for it may, in many respects, prove to be such. Is this the spirit of republicanism ? What, sir, is the genius of democracy ? Let me read that clause of the Bill of Rights of Virginia which relates to this : — 3d clause ; " That government is, or ought to be, insti- tuted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people, nation, or community. Of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best, which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of mal-administration, and that whenever any government shall be found inadequate, or contrary to these pur- poses, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unaliena- ble and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal." This, sir, is the language of democracy — that a majority of the community have a right to alter their government when found to be oppressive ; but how different is the genius of your new consti- 22 MR. HENRY'S SPEECH ON tution from this ! Hdw different from the sentiments of freemen, that a contemptible minority can prevent the good of the majority I If, tlien, gentlemen, standing on this ground, are come to that point, that they are willing to bind themselves and their posterity to be oppressed, I am amazed and inexpressibly astonished. If this be the opinion of the majority, 1 must submit ; but to me, sir, it appears perilous and destructive ; I cannot iielp thinking so : perhaps it may be the result of my age ; these may be feelings natural to a man of my years, when the American spirit has left him, and his mental powers, like the members of the body, are decayed. If, sir, amendments are left to the twentieth, or to the tenth part of the people of America, your liberty is gone forever. We have heard that there is a great deal of bribery practised in the house of commons in England ; and that many of the mem- bers raise themselves to preferments by selling the rights of the people. But, sir, the tenth part of that body cannot continue op- pressions on the rest of the people. English liberty is, in this case, on a firmer foundation than American liberty. It will be easily contrived to procure the opposition of one tenth of the peo- ple to any alteration, however judicious. The honorable gentleman who presides, told us, that to prevent abuses in our government, we will assemble in convention, recall our delegated powers, and punish our servants for abusing the trust reposed in them. Oh, sir, we should have fine times indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people. Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone ; and you have no longer an aristocratical, no longer a democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution, in any nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all ? You read of a riot act in a country which is called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors cannot assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of despotism. We may see such an act in America. A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny ; and how are you to punish them ? Will you order them to be punished ? Who shall obey these orders ? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment ? In what situation are we to be ? The clause before you gives a power of direct taxation, un- bounded and unlimited ; exclusive power of legislation in all cases whatsoever, for ten miles square, and over all places purchased for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, &,c. What resistance could be made ? The attempt would be madness. You will find all the strength of this country in the hands of your ene- mies : those garrisons will naturally be the strongest places in the country. Your militia is given up to congress, also, in another THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 23 part of this plan : they will therefore act as they think proper : all power will be in their own possession : you cannot force them to receive their punishment. Of what service would militia be to you, when most probably you will not have a single musket in the state ? For, as arms are to be provided by congress, they may, or may not, furnish them. Let us here call your attention to that part which gives the congress power " to provide for organizing, arming and disci- plining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states, respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the au- thority of training the militia, according to the discipline prescribed by congress." By this, sir, you see that their control over our last and best defence is unlimited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless : the states can do neither, this power being exclusively given to congress. The power of appointing officers over men not disciplined or armed is ridiculous ; so that this pretended little remnant of power, left to the states, may, at the pleasure of congress, be rendered nugatory. Our situation will be deplorable indeed : nor can we ever expect to get this government amended ; since I have already shown, that a very small minority may prevent it, and that small minority in- terested in the continuance of the oppression. Will the oppressor let go the oppressed ? Was there ever an instance ? Can the annals of mankind exhibit one single example, where rulers, over- charged with power, willingly let go the oppressed, though solicit- ed and requested most earnestly ? The application for amend- ments will therefore be fruitless. Sometimes the oppressed have got loose by one of those bloody struggles that desolate a country. But a willing relinquishment of power is one of those things, which human nature never was, nor ever will be, capable of. The honorable gentleman's observations, respecting the people's right of being the agents in the formation of this government, are not accurate, in my humble conception. The distinction between a national government and a confederacy, is not sufficiently dis- cerned. Had the delegates, who were sent to Philadelphia, a power to propose a consolidated government instead of a confed- eracy ? Were they not deputed by states, and not by the people ? The assent of the people, in their collective capacity, is not neces- sary to the formation of a federal government. The people have no right to enter into leagues, alliances, or confederations : they are not the proper agents for this purpose : states and sovereign powers are the only proper agents for this kind of government. Show me an instance where the people have exercised this busi- ness : has it not always gone through the legislatures ? I refer you to the treaties with France, Holland, and other nations : how 24 MR. HENRY'S SPEECH ON were ihey made ? Were they not made by the stales ? Are the people, tlierefore, in their a(];ifregate capacity, the proper persons to form a confederacy ? This, therefore, ought to depend on the consent of the legislatures ; the peoj)le having never sent delegates to make any proposition of changing tiie government. Yet I must say, at the same time, that it was made on grounds the most pure ; and perhajis I might iiave been brougiit to consent to it, so far as to the change of government ; but there is one thing in it which I never would acquiesce in. I mean, the changing it into a consolidated government, which is so abhorrent to my mind. The honorable gentleman then went on to the figure we make with foreign nations; the contemptible one we make in France and Holland, which, according to the substance of my notes, he attributes to the present feeble government. An opinion has gone forth, we find, that we are a contemptible people : the time has been when we were thought otherwise. Under this same despised government, we commanded the respect of all Europe : where- fore are we now reckoned otherwise ? The American spirit has fled from hence : it has gone to regions where it has never been expected : it has gone to the people of France, in search of a splendid government — a strong, energetic government. Shall we imitate the example of those nations who have gone from a sim- ple to a splendid government ? Are those nations more worthy of our imitation ? What can make an adequate satisfaction to them for the loss they have suffered in attaining such a government — for the loss of their liberty ? If we admit this consolidated gov- ernment, it will be because we like a great and splendid one. Some way or other we must be a great and mighty empire : we must have an army, and a navy, and a number of things. W^hen the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different : liberty, sir, was then the primary object. We are de- scended from a people whose government was founded on liberty : our glorious forefathers, of Great Britain, made liberty the founda- tion of every thing. That country is become a groat, mighty and splendid nation ; not because their government is strong and ener- getic ; but, sir, because liberty is its direct end and foundation. W^e drew the spirit of liberty from our British ancestors : by that spirit we have triumphed over every difficulty. (But now, sir, the American spirit, assisted by the ropes and chains of consolida- tion, is about to convert this country into a powerful and mighty empire. If you make the citizens of this country agree to become the subjects of one great consolidated empire of America, your government will not have sufficient energy to kee|) them together : such a government is incompatible with the genius of republican- ism. There will be no checks, no real balances, in this govern- ment. What can avail your specious, imaginary balances ; your THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 25 rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous, ideal checks and contri- vances ? But, sir, we are not feared by foreigners : we do not make nations tremble. Would this constitute happiness, or secure lib- erty ? I trust, sir, our political hemisphere will ever direct its op- erations to the security of those objects. Consider our situation, sir : go to the poor man ; ask him what he does : he will inform you that he enjoys the fruits of his labor, under his own fig-tree, with his wife and children around him, in peace and security. Go to every other member of the society ; you will find the same tran- quil ease and content ; you will find no alarms or disturbances ! Why, then, tell us of dangers, to terrify us into an adoption of tlijs new form of government ? And yet who knows the dangers that this new system may produce ? They are out of the sight of the common people : they cannot foresee latent consequences. I dread the operation of it on the middling and lower classes o£ people : it is for them I fear the adoption of this system. I fear 1 tire the patience of the committee ; but I beg to be indulged with a few more observations. When I thus profess myself an advocate for the liberty of the people, I shall be told I am a designing man, that 1 am to be a great man, that I am to be a demagogue ; and many similar illib- eral insinuations will be thrown out ; but, sir, conscious rectitude outweighs these things with me. I see great jeopardy in this new government : I see none from our present one. I hope some gen- tleman or other will bring forth, in full array, those dangers, if there be any, that we may see and touch them : I have said that I thought this a consolidated government : I will now prove it. Will the great rights of the people be secured by this government ? Suppose it should prove oppressive ; how can it be altered ? Our bill of rights declares, " that a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable and indefeasible right to reform, alter or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal." I have just proved, that one tenth, or less, of the people of America — a most despicable minority — may prevent this reform, or alteration. Suppose the people of Virginia should wish to alter their government ; can a majority of them do it ? No, because they are connected with other men ; or, in other words, consolidated with other states. When the people of Virginia, at a future day, shall wish to alter their government, though they should be unanimous in this desire, yet they may be prevented therefrom by a despicable minority at the extremity of the United States. The founders of your own constitution made your gov- ernment changeable ; but the power of changing it is gone from you ! Whither is it gone ? It is placed in the same hands that hold the rights of twelve other states ; and those who hold those rights have right and power to keep them. It is not the particu- 3 D 26 MR. HENRY'S SPEECH ON lar government of Virginia : one of the leading features of that government is, that a majority can alter it, uiien necessary for the public good. This government is not a Virginian, but an Ameri- can government. Is it not therefore a consolidated government ? The sixth clause of your bill of rights tells you, " that elections of members to serve as representatives of the people in assembly, ought to be free, and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent, common interest with, and attachment to, the commu- nity, have the right of suffiage, and cannot he taxed or deprived of their property, for public uses, without their own consent, or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not in like manner assented for the public good." But what does this constitution say ? The clause under consider- ation gives an unlimited and unbounded power of taxation. Sup- pose every delegate from Virginia oj)poses a law laying a tax, what will it avail ? They are opposed by a majority : eleven members can destroy their efforts : those feeble ten cannot prevent the passing the most oppressive tax-law ; so that, in direct oppo- sition to the spirit and express language of your declaration of rights, you are taxed, not by your own consent, but by people who have no connection with you. The next clause of the bill of rights tells you, " that all pow- er of suspending law, or the execution of laws, by any authority, without the consent of the representatives of the people, is inju- rious to their rights, and ought not to be exercised." This tells us that there can be no suspension of government, or laws, w^ithout our own consent ; yet this constitution can counteract and suspend any of our laws, that contravene its oppressive operation ; for they have the power of direct taxation, which suspends our bill of rights ; and it is expressly provided, that they can make all laws necessary for carrying their powers into execution ; and it is de- clared j)aramount to the laws and constitutions of the states. Con- sider how the only remaining defence we have left is destroyed in this manner. Besides the expenses of maintaining the senate and other house in as much splendor as they please, there is to be a great and mighty president, with very extensive powers — the powers of a king. He is to be suj)ported in extravagant magnifi- cence ; so that the whole of our ))roperty may be taken by this American government, by laying what taxes they j)lease, giving themselves what salaries they please, and suspending our laws at their pleasure. I might be thought too inquisitive, but I believe I should take up but very little of your time in enumerating the little power that is left to the government of Virginia ; for this power is reduced to little or nothing. Their garrisons, magazines, arsenals, and forts, which will be situated in the strongest places within the states — their ten miles square, with all the line ornaments of hun)an THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 27 life, added to their powers, and taken from the states, will reduce the power of the latter to nothing. The voice of tradition, 1 trust, will inform posterity of our struggles for freedom. If our descend- ants be worthy the name of Americans, they will preserve, and hand down to their latest posterity, the transactions of the present times ; and though, 1 confess, my exclamations are not worthy the hearing, they will see that I have done my utmost to preserve their liberty ; for I never will give up the power of direct taxation, but for a scourge. I am willing to give it conditionally ; that is, after non-compliance with requisitions : I will do more, sir, and what I hope will convince the most skeptical man, that I am a lover of the American union ; that in case Virginia shall not make punctual payment, the control of oiu' custom-houses, and the whole regulation of trade, shall be given to congress ; and that Virginia shall depend on congress even for passports, till Virginia shall have paid the last farthing, and furnished the last soldier. Nay, sir, there is another alternative to which I would consent ; even that they should strike us out of the union, and take away from us all federal privileges, till we comply with federal requisitions ; but let it depend upon our own pleasure to pay our money in the most easy manner for our people. Were all the states, more ter- rible than the mother country, to join against us, I hope Virginia could defend herself; but, sir, the dissolution of the union is most abhorrent to my mind. The first thing I have at heart is Ameri- can liberty ; the second thing is American union ; and I hope the people of Virginia will endeavor to preserve that union. The in- creasing population of the Southern States is far greater than that of New England ; consequently, in a short time, they will be far more numerous than the people of that country. Consider this, and you will find this state more particularly interested to support American liberty, and not bind our posterity by an improvident relinquishment of our rights. I would give the best security for a punctual compliance with requisitions ; but I beseech gentlemen, at all hazards, not to grant this unlimited power of taxation. The honorable gentleman has told us that these powers, given to congress, are accompanied by a judiciary which will correct all. On examination, you will find this very judiciary oppressively constructed, your jury-trial destroyed, and the judges dependent on congress. In this scheme of energetic government, the peo- ple will find two sets of tax-gatherers — the state and the federal sheriffs. This, it seems to me, will produce such dreadful oppres- sion, as the people cannot possibly bear. The federal sheriff may commit what oppression, make what distresses, he pleases, and ruin you with impunity ; for how are you to tie his hands ? Have you any sufficient, decided means of preventing him from sucking your blood by speculations, commissions, and fees ? Thus thou- 28 MR: HENRY'S SPEECH ON sands of your people will be most shamefully robbed. Our state sherilfs, those unfeeling blood-suckers, have, under the watchful eye of our lei^islature, connnitted the most horrid and barbarous ravages on our people. It has required the most constant vigi- lance of the legislature to keep them from totally ruining the peo- ple. A repeated succession of laws has been made, to suppress ilieir iniquitous speculations and cruel extortions ; and as often has their nefarious ingenuity devised methods of evading the force of those laws : in the struggle, they have generally triumjihed over the legislature. It is a fact, that lands have sold for five shillings, which were worth one hundred pounds. If sheriiFs, thus imme- diately under the eye of our state legislature and judiciary, have dared to commit these outrages, what would they not have done if their masters had been at Philadelphia or New York ? If they perpetrate the most unwarrantable outrage on your persons or property, you cannot get redress on this side of Philadelphia or l\cw York ; and how can you get it there ? If your domestic avocations could permit you to go thither, there you must ap])eal to judges sworn to support this constitution in opposition to that of any state, and who may also be inclined to favor their own offi- cers. When these harpies are aided by excisemen, who may search, at any time, your houses and most secret recesses, will the jieople bear it ? If you think so, you differ from me. Where 1 thought there was a possibility of such mischiefs, I would grant power with a niggardly hand ; and here there is a strong proba- bility that these oppressions shall actually happen. I may be told, that it is safe to err on that side ; because such regulations may be made by congress, as shall restrain these officers, and be- cause laws are made by our representatives, and judged by righ- teous judges ; but, sir, as these regulations may be made, so they may not ; and many reasons there are to induce a belief, that they will not : I shall therefore be an infidel on that point till the day of my death. y^lm constitution Is said to have beautiful features ; but when 1 come to examine these features, sir, they appear to me horribly frightful. Among other deformities, it has an awful squinting ; it squints towards monarchy : and does not this raise indignation in the breast of every true American ? Your president may easily become king. Your senate is so imperfectly constructed, that your dearest rights may be sacrificed by what may be a small mi- nority ; and a very small minority may continue forever un- changeably this government, although horridly defective. Where are your checks in this government ? Your strong-holds will be in the hands of your enemies. It is on a supposition that your American governors shall be honest, that all the good qualities of this government are founded ; but its defective and imperfect con- THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 29 struction puts it in their power to perpetrate the worst of mis- chiefs, should they be bad men. And, sir, would not all the world, from the eastern to the western hemisphere, blame our dis- tracted folly in resting ouryi'ights upon the contingency of our rulers being good or bad ? - Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty. I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed, Avith absolute certainty, every .such mad attempt. M' your American chief be a man of ambition and abilities, how easy , — - will it be for him to render himself absolute ! The army is in his ^ hands, and, if he be a man of address, it will be attached to him ; p and it will be the subject of long meditation with him to seize the '^ first auspicious moment to accomplish his design. And, sir, will ^- the American spirit solely relieve you when this happens ? I Ce» would rather infinitely — and 1 am sure most of this convention are \^ of the same opinion, have a king, lords and commons, than a gov- ernment so replete with such insupportable evils. If we make a king, we may prescribe the rules by which he shall rule his peo- ple, and interpose such checks as shall prevent him from infringing them ; but the president in the field, at the head of his army, can prescribe the terms on which he shall reign master, so far that it will puzzle any American ev^er to get his neck from under the gall- ing yoke. I cannot, with patience, think of this idea. If ever he violates the laws, one of two things will happen : he will come at the head of his army to carry every thing before him ; or, he will give bail, or do what Mr. Chief Justice will order him. If he be guilty, will not the recollection of his crimes teach him to make one bold push for the American throne ? Will not the immense difference between being master of every thing, and being igno- miniously tried and punished, powerfully excite him to make this bold push ? But, sir, where is the existing force to punish him ? Can he not, at the head of his army, beat down every opposition ? Away with your president : we shall have a king : the army will salute him monarch : your militia will leave you, and assist in making him king, and fight against you : and what have you to oppose this force ? What will then become of you and your rights ? Will not absolute despotism ensue ij What can be more defective than the clause concerning the elections ? The control given to congress, over the time, place and manner of holding elections, will totally destroy the end of sulTrage. The elections may be held at one place, and the most inconvenient in the state ; or they may be at remote distances from those who have a right of suffrage : hence, nine out of ten must either not vote at all, or vote for strangers ; for the most in- fluential characters will be applied to, to know who are the most 3* 30 MR. HENRY'S SPEECH ON proper to be chosen. I repeat, tliat the control of congress over the manner, &,c. of electing, well warrants this idea. The natural consequence will be, tiiat this democratic branch will possess none of the public confidence : the people will be prejudiced against representatives chosen in such an injudicious manner. The pro- ceedings in the northern conclave will be hidden from the yeo- manry of this country. We are told, that the yeas and nays shall be taken and entered on the journals : this, sir, will avail nothing : it may be locked up in their chests, and concealed forever from the people ; for they are not to publish what parts they think require secrecy ; they may think, and will think, the whole re- quires it. Another beautiful feature of this constitution is the publication, from time to time, of the receipts and expenditures of the public money. This expression, from time to time, is very indefinite and indeterminate: it may extend to a century. Grant that any of ihem are wicked ; they may squander the public money so as to ruin you, and yet this expression w'ill give you no redress. I say, they may ruin you ; for where, sir, is the responsibility ? The yeas and nays will show you nothing, unless they be fools as well as knaves ; for, after having wickedly trampled on the rights of the people, they would act like fools indeed, were they to publish and divulge their ini([uity, when they have it equally in their power to suppress and conceal it. Where is the responsibility — that leading principle in the British government ? In that gov- ernment, a punishment, certain and inevitable, is provided ; but in this, there is no real, actual punishment for the grossest mal-ad- ministration. They may go without punishment, though they com- mit the most outrageous violation on our inmiunities. That paper may tell me they will be punished. I ask, By what law ? They must make the law, for there Is no existing law to do it. What — will they make a law to punish themselves ? This, sir, is my great objection to the constitution, that there is no true responsi- bility, and that the preservation of our liberty depends on the sin- gle chance of men being virtuous enough to make laws to punish themselves. In the country from which we are descended, they have real, and not imaginary responsibility ; for there, nial-admin- istration has cost their heads to some of the most saucy geniuses that ever wcvo. The senate, by making treaties, may destroy your liberty and laws, for want of responsibility. Two thirds of those that shall happen to be present, can,- with the president, make treaties, that shall be the supreme law of the land : they may make the most ruinous treaties, and yet there is no punish- ment for them. Whoever shows me a })unishment provided for them, will oblige me. So, sir, notwithstanding there are eight pillars, they want another. Where will they make another ? I THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 31 trust, sir, the exclusion of the evils wherewith this system is re- plete, in its present form, will be made a condition precedent to its adoption, by this or any other state. The transition from a general, unqualified admission to offices, to a consolidation of gov- ernment, seems easy ; for, though the American states are dissim- ilar in their structure, this will assimilate them : this, sir, is itself a strong consolidating feature, and is not one of the least dangerous in that system. Nine states are sufficient to establish this govern- ment over those nine. Imagine that nine have come into it. Virginia has certain scruples. Suppose she will consequently re- fuse to join with those states : may not they still continue in friend- ship and union with her ? If she sends her annual requisitions in dollars, do you think their stomachs will be so squeamish as to re- fuse her dollars ? Will they not accept her regiments ? They would intimidate you into an inconsiderate adoption, and frighten you with ideal evils, and that the union shall be dissolved. 'Tis a bugbear, sir : the fact is, sir, that the eight adopting states can hardly stand on their own legs. Public fame tells us, that the adopting states have already heart-burnings and animosity, and re- pent their precipitate hurry : this, sir, may occasion exceeding great mischief. When I reflect on these, and many other circum- stances, I must think those states will be fond to be in confederacy with us. If we pay our quota of money annually, and furnish our ratable number of men, when necessary, I can see no danger from a rejection. The history of Switzerland clearly proves, that we might be in amicable alliance with those states, without adopting this constitution. Switzerland is a confederacy, consisting of dis- similar governments. This is an example, which proves that gov- ernments, of dissimilar structures, may be confederated. That confederate republic has stood upwards of four hundred years ; and, although several of the individual republics are democratic, and the rest aristocratic, no evil has resulted from this dissimilar- ity, for they have braved all the power of France and Germany, during that long period. The Swiss spirit, sir, has kept them to- gether: they have encountered and overcome immense difficul- ties, with patience and fortitude. In the vicinity of powerful and ambitious monarchs, they have retained their independence, re- publican simplicity and valor. Look at the peasants of that coun- try, and of France, and mark the difference. You will find the condition of the former far more desirable and comfortable. No matter whether a people be great, splendid and powerful, if they enjoy freedom. The Turkish grand seignior, along side of our president, would put us to disgrace ; but we should be abundantly consoled for this disgrace, should our citizen be put in contrast with the Turkish slave. The most valuable end of government is the liberty ot the m- 3'2 MR^HENRY'S SPEECH ON habitants. No possible advantages can compensate for the loss of this privilege. Show me the reason why the American union is to be dissolved. Who are those eight adopting states ? Are they averse to give us a little time to consider, before we conclude ? Would such a disposition render a junction with them eligible ; or, is it the genius of that kind of government, to precipitate jieople hastily into measures of the utmost importance, and grant no indul- gence ? If it be, sir, is it for us to accede to such a government r We have a right to have time to consider — we shall therefore in- sist upon it. Unless the government be amended, we can never accept it. The adopting states will doubtless accept our money and our regiments ; and what is to be the consequence, if we are disunited ? I believe that it is yet doubtful, whether it is not proper to stand by a while, and see the effect of its adoption in other states. In forming a government, the utmost care should be taken, to prevent its becoming oppressive ; and this govern- ment is of such an intricate and complicated nature, that no man on this earth can know its real operation. The other states have no reason to think, from the antecedent conduct of Virginia, that she has any intention of seceding from the union, or of being less active to support the general welfare. Would they not, therefore, acquiesce in our taking time to deliberate — deliberate whether the measure be not perilous, not only for us, but the adopting states ? Permit me, sir, to say, that a great majority of the people, even in the adopting states, are averse to this government. I believe I would be right to say, that they have been egregiously misled. Pennsylvania has, perhaps, been tricked into it. If the other states, who have adopted it, have not been tricked, still they were too much hurried into its adoption. There were very respectable minorities in several of them ; and, if reports be true, a clear ma- jority of the people are averse to it. If we also accede, and it should prove grievous, the peace and prosperity of our country, which we all love, will be destroyed. This government has not the affection of the people at present. Should it be oppressive, their affection will be totally estranged from it — and, sir, you know that a government, without their affections, can neither be durable nor happy. I speak as one poor individual — but, when I speak, I speak the language of thousands. But, sir, I mean not to breathe the spirit, nor utter the language of secession. I have trespassed so long on your patience, I am really con- cerned that I have something yet to say. The honorable member has said that we shall be properly represented : remember, sir, that the number of our representatives is but ten, whereof six are a majority. Will those men be possessed of sufficient information ? A particular knowledge of particular districts will not suffice. They must be well acquainted with agriculture, commerce, and a THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 33 great variety of other matters throughout the continent ; they must know not only the actual state of nations in Europe and America, the situation of their farmers, cottagers and mechanics, but also the relative situation and intercourse of those nations. Virginia is as large as England. Our proportion of representatives is but ten men. In England, they have five hundred and thirty. The house of commons in England, numerous as they are, v^^e are told, is bribed, and have bartered away the rights of their constituents : what then shall become of us ? Will these few protect our rights ? Will they be incorruptible ? You say they will be better men than the English commoners. I say they will be infinitely worse men, because they are to be chosen blindfolded : their election (the term, as apphed to their appointment, is inaccurate) will be an involuntary nomination, and not a choice. I have, I fear, fa- tigued the committee, yet I have not said the one hundred thou- sandth part of what I have on my mind, and wish to impart. On this occasion, I conceived myself bound to attend strictly to the interest of the state ; and I thought her dearest rights at stake : having lived so long — been so much honored — my efforts, though small, are due to my country. I have found my mind hurried on from subject to subject, on this very great occasion. We have all been out of order, from the gentleman who opened to-day, to my- self. I did not come prepared to speak on so multifarious a sub- ject, in so general a manner. I trust you will indulge me another time. Before you abandon the present system, I hope you will consider not only its defects, most maturely, but likewise those of that which you are to substitute for it. May you be fully apprised of the dangers of the latter, not by fatal experience, but by some abler advocate than I. E # SPEECH OF EDMUND RANDOLPH, ON THE EXPEDIENCY OF ADOPTING THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, DELIVERED IN THE CONVENTION OF VIRGINIA, JUNE 6, 1788. Mr. Chairman, I am a child of the revolution. My country, very early indeed, took me under her j)rotection, at a time when I most wanted it, and by a succession of favors and honors, prevented even my most ardent wishes. I feel the highest gratitude and attachment to my country ; her felicity is the most fervent prayer of my heart. Conscious of having exerted my faculties to the utmost in her be- half, if 1 have not succeeded in securing the esteem of my coun- trymen, I shall reap abundant consolation from the rectitude of my intentions : honors, when compared to the satisfaction accruing from a conscious independence and rectitude of conduct, are no equivalent. The unwearied study of my life shall be to promote her happiness. As a citizen, ambition and popularity are no ob- jects with me. I expect, in the course of a year, to retire to that private station which I most sincerely and cordially prefer to all others.* The security of public justice, sir, is what I most fervently wish — as I consider that object to be the primary step to the attainment of public happiness. I can declare to the whole world, that in the part I take in this very important question, I am actuated by a regard for what I conceive to be our true in- terest. I can also, with equal sincerity, declare that I would join heart and hand in rejecting this system, did I conceive it would promote our happiness; but, having a strong conviction on my mind, at this time, that, by a disunion, we shall throw away all those blessings we have so earnestly fought for, and that a rejection of the constitution will operate disunion — pardon me if 1 discharge the obligation I owe to my country by voting for its adoption. We are told that the report of dangers is false. The cry of peace, sir, is false : say peace, when there is peace : it is but a sudden calm. The tempest growls over you — look around — wheresoever you * Mr. Randolph was al this time governor of Virginia. MR. RANDOLPH'S SPEECH, &c. 35 look, you see danger. When there are so many witnesses, in many parts of America, that justice is suffocated, shall peace and happi- ness still be said to reign ? Candor, sir, requires an undisguised rep- resentation of our situation. Candor, sir, demands a faithful ex- position of facts. Many citizens have found justice strangled and trampled under foot, through the course of jurisprudence in this country. Are those, who have debts due them, satisfied with your government? Are not creditors wearied with the tedious procras- tination of your legal process — a process obscured by legislative mists ? Cast your eyes to your seaports — see how commerce lan- guishes : this country, so blessed, by nature, with every advantage that can render commerce profitable, through defective legislation, is deprived of all the benefits and emoluments she might otherwise reap from it. We hear many complaints on the subject of located lands — a variety of competitors claiming the same lands under le- gislative acts — public faith prostrated, and private confidence de- stroyed. I ask you if your laws are reverenced. In every well- regulated community, the laws command respect. Are yours en- titled to reverence ? We not only see violations of the constitution, but of national principles in repeated instances. How is the fact ? The history of the violations of the constitution extends from the year 1776 to this present time — violations made by formal acts of the legislature : every thing has been drawn within the legislative vortex. There is one example of this violation in Virginia, of a most striking and shocking nature; an example so horrid, that if I conceived my country would passively permit a repetition of it, dear as it is to me, I would seek means of expatriating myself from it. A man, who was then a citizen, was deprived of his life, thus : from a mere reliance on general reports, a gentleman in the house of delegates informed the house, that a ceitain man (Josiah Phillips) had committed several crimes, and was running at large, perpetra- ting other crimes ; he therefore moved for leave to attaint him. He obtained that leave instantly. No sooner did he obtain it, than he drew from his pocket a bill already written for that effect ; it was read three times in one day, and carried to the senate : I will not say that it passed the same day through the senate ; but he was attainted very speedily, and precipitately, without any proof better than vague reports ! Without being confronted with his accusers and witnesses ; without the privilege of calling for evidence in his behalf, he was sentenced to death, and was afterwards actually ex- ecuted.* Was this arbitrary deprivation of life, the dearest gift of God to man, consistent with the genius of a republican govern- ment ? Is this compatible with the spirit of freedom ? This, sir, * Mr. Wftt has satisfactorily shown that this statement is founded in error.— Life of Patrick Henry, p. 291, et seq. 36 MR. RANDOLPH'S SPEECH ON has made the deepest impression on my heart,- and I cannot con- template it without horror. There are still a multiplicity of complaints of the debility of the laws. Justice, in many instances, is so unattainable, that com- merce may, in fact, be said to be sto|)ped entirely. There is no peace, sir, in this land : can peace exist with injustice, licentious- ness, insecurity, and o|)pression ? These considerations, independ- ent of many others which I have not yet enumerated, would be a sufficient reason for the adoption of this constitution, because it se- cures the liberty of the citizen, his person and property, and will invif^^orate and restore commerce and industry. An additional reason to induce us to adopt it, is that excessive licentiousness which has resulted from the relaxation of our laws, and whicli will be checked by this government. Let us judge from the fate of more ancient nations. Licentiousness has produced tyranny among many of them : it has contributed as much (if not more) as any other cause whatsoever, to the loss of their liberties. I have respect for the integrity of our legislators ; I believe them to be virtuous ; but as long as the defects of the constitution exist, so long will laws be imperfect. The honorable gentleman went on further, and said, that the accession of eight states is not a rea- son for our adoption. iMany otlier things have been alleged out of order — instead of discussing the system regularly, a variety of points are promiscuously debated, in order to make temporary im- pressions on the members. Sir, were I convinced of the validity of their arguments, I would join them heart and hand. Were I convinced that the accessions of eight states did not render our ac- cession also necessary to preserve the union, I would not accede to it till it should be ])reviously amended : but, sir, I am convinced that the union will be lost by our rejection. IMassachusetts has adopted it ; she has recommended subsequent amendments ; her influence must be very considerable to obtain them : I trust my countrymen have sufficient wisdom and virtue to entitle them to equal respect. Is it urged, that being wiser, we ought to prescribe amendments to the other states ? 1 have considered this subject deliberately ; wearied myself in endeavoring to find a possibility of preserving the union, without our unconditional ratification ; but, sir, in vain ; I find no other means. I ask myself a variety of questions appli- cable to the adopting states, and 1 conclude, will they repent of what they have done ? Will they acknowledge themselves in an error? Or will they recede to gratify Virginia ? ^ly prediction is, that they will not. Shall we stand by ourselves, and be sever- ed from the union if amendments cannot l)e had ? 1 have every reason for determining within myself, that our rejectioil*^iust dis- THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 37 solve the union ; and that that dissolution will destroy our political happiness. The honorable gentleman was pleased to draw out several other arguments, out of order: that this government would destroy the state governments, the trial by jury, he. he. and con- cluded, by an illustration of his opinion, by a reference to the con- federacy of the Swiss. Let us argue with unprejudiced minds : he says, that the trial by jury is gone — is this so ? Although I have declared my determination to give my vote for it, yet I shall freely censure those parts which appear to me reprehensible. The trial by jury, in criminal cases, is secured ; in civil cases, it is not so ex- pressly secured, as I could wish it ; but it does not follow, that con- gress has the power of taking away this privilege, which is secured by the constitution of each state, and not given away by this con- stitution. I have no fear on this subject — congress must regulate it so as to suit every state. I will risk my property on the certainty, that they will institute the trial by jury in such manner as shall accom- modate the conveniences of the inhabitants in every state : the difficulty of ascertaining this accommodation, was the principal cause of its not being provided for. It will be the interest of the individuals composing congress, to put it on this convenient foot- ing. Shall we not choose men respectable for their good qualities ? Or can we suppose that men tainted with the worst vices will get into congress ? I beg leave to differ from the honorable gentle- man in another point. He d-reads that great inconveniences will ensue from the federal court ; that our citizens will be harassed by being carried thither. 1 cannot think that this power of the federal judiciary will necessarily be abused. The inconvenience here suggested, being of a general nature, affecting most of the states, will, by general consent of the states, be removed ; and, I trust, such regulations shall be made, in this case, as will accommodate the people in every state. The honorable gentleman instanced the Swiss cantons, as an example, to show us the possibility, if not ex- pediency, of being in amicable alliance with the other states, with- out adopting this system. Sir, references to history will be fatal in political reasoning, unless well guarded. Our mental ability is often so contracted, and powers of investigation so limited, that sometimes we adduce as an example in our favor, what, in fact, mil- itates against us. Examine the situation of that country compara- tively to us. Its extent and situation are totally different from ours : it is surrounded by powerful, ambitious, and reciprocally jealous nations ; its territory small and the soil not very fertile. The peculiarity, sir, of their situation, has kept these cantons to- gether, and not that system of alliance, to which the gentleman seems to attribute the durability and felicity of their connection. I have produced this example to show, that we ought not to 4 .'38 MR. rTndOLPH'S SPEECH ON he amused with historical references, which have no kind of anal- ogy to the points under our consideration. We ought to confine ourselves to those points solely, which have an immediate and strict similitude to the suhject of our discussion. Tiie reference made by the lionorable gentleman over the way, is extremely inapplicable to us. Are the Swiss cantons circumstanced as we are ? Are we sur- rounded by formidable nations ? or are we situated in any manner like them ? We are not, sir. Then it naturally results, that no such friendly intercourse as he Hattored iiimself with, could take place, in case of a dissolution of our union. ^Ve are remotely situated from powerful nations, the dread of whose attack might impel us to unite firmly with one another : we are not situated in an inaccessi- ble, strong position : we have to fear much from one another : we must soon feel the fatal effects of an imperfect system of union. The honorable gentleman attacks the constitution, as he thinks it contrary to our bill of rights. Do we not appeal to the people, by whose authority all government is made ? That bill of rights is of no validity, because, I conceive, it is not formed on due authority. It is not a part of our constitution : it has never secur- ed us against any danger : it has been repeatedly disregarded and violated. But we must not discard the confederation, for the re- membrance of its past services. I am attached to old servants. I have regard and tenderness for this old servant: but when reason tells us that it can no longer be retained without throwing away all U has gained us, and running the risk of losing every thing dear to us, must we still continue our attachment ? Reason and my duty tell me not. Other gentlemen may think otherwise. But, sir, is it not possible that men may dilfer in sentiments, and still be honest ? We have an inquisition within ourselves, that leads us not to offend so much against charity. The gentleman expresses a necessity of being suspicious of those who govern. I will agree with him in the necessity of political jealousy to a certain extent : but we ought to examine, how far this political jealousy ought to be carried. I confess that a certain degree of it is highly necessary to the pres- ervation of liberty ; but it ought not to be extended to a degree which is degrading and humiliating to human nature ; to a degree of restlessness and active disquietude, sufficient to disturb a com- munity, or preclude the possibility of political happiness and con- tentment. Confidence ought also to be equally limited. Wisdom shrinks from extremes, and fixes on a medium as her choice. Ex- perience and history, the least fallible judges, teach us that, in form- ino; a covernment. the i)owers to be jriven must be commensm-ate to the object. A less degree will defeat the intention, and a great- er will subject the people to the depravity of rulers, who, though they are but the agents of the people, pervert their powers to their own emolument and ambitious views. THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 39 Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to be obliged to detain the house ; but the relation of a variety of matters renders it now unavoidable. I informed the house yesterday, before rising, that 1 intended to show the necessity of having a national government, in preference to the confederation ; also, to show the necessity of conceding the power of taxation, and of distinguishing between its objects ; and I am the more happy, that I possess materials of information for that purpose. My intention then is, to satisfy the gentlemen of this committee, that a national government is absolutely indispensable, and that a confederacy is not eligible, in our present situation. The introductory step to this will be, to endeavor to convince the house of the necessity of the union, and that the present confed- eration is actually inadequate and unamendable. The extent of the country is objected to, by the gentleman over the way, as an insurmountable obstacle to the establishing a national government in the United States. It is a very strange and inconsistent doctrine, to admit the necessity of the union, and yet urge this last objec- tion, which I think goes radically to the existence of the union it- self. If the extent of the country be a conclusive argument against a national government, it is equally so against a union with the other states. Instead of entering largely into a discussion of the nature and effect of the different kinds of government, or into an inquiry into the particular extent of country, that may suit the genius of this or that government, I ask this question — Is this gov- ernment necessary for the safety of Virginia? Is the union indis- pensable for our happiness ? I confess it is imprudent for any nation to form alliance with another, whose situation and construc- tion of government are dissimilar with its own. It is impolitic and improper for men of opulence to join their interest with men of indigence and chance. But we are now inquiring, particularly, whether Virginia, as contradistinguished from the other states, can exist without the union — a hard question, perhaps, after what has been said. I will venture, however, to say, she cannot. I shall not rest contented with asserting — I shall endeavor to prove. Look at the most powerful nations on earth. England and France have had recourse to this expedient. Those countries found it necessary to unite with their immediate neighbors, and this union has prevent- ed the most lamentable mischiefs. What divine preeminence is Virginia possessed of, above other states ? Can Virginia send her navy and thunder, to bid defiance to foreign nations ? And can she exist without a union with her neighbors, when the most po- tent nations have found such a union necessary, not only to their political felicity, but their national existence ? Let us examine her abihty. Although it be impossible to determine, with accuracy, what degree of internal strength a nation ought to possess, to en- able it to stand by itself; yet there are certain sure facts and cir- 40 MR. RANDOLPH'S SPEECH ON cuinstances, which demonstrate, tliat a paiticular nation cannot stand singly. I have spoken with freedom, and 1 trust 1 liave done it with decency ; but I must also speak with truth. If Vir- ginia can exist without the union, she must derive that ability iVom one or other of these sources, viz : from her natural situation, or be- cause she has no reason to fear from other nations. What is her situation? She is not iniiccessible. She is not a petty republic, like that of St. Marino, surrounded with rocks and mountains, with a soil not very fertile, nor worthy the envy of surrounding nations. Were this, sir, her situation, she miglit, like that petty state, sub- sist separated from all the world. On the contrary, she is very ac- cessible : the large, capacious bay of Chesapeake, which is but too excellently adapted for the admission of enemies, renders her very vulnerable. I am informed, and 1 believe rightly, because I derive my information from those whose knowledge is most respectable, that Virginia is in a very unhappy position, with respect to the ac- cess of foes by sea, though ha[)pily situated for commerce. This being her situation by sea, let us look at land. She has frontiers adjoining the states of Pennsylvania, Maryland and INorth Carolina. Two of those states have declared themselves members of the union. Will she be inaccessible to the inhabitants of those states ? Cast your eyes to the western country, that is inhabited by cruel savages, your natural enemies. Besides their natural propensity to barbarity, they may be excited, by the gold of foreign enemies, to commit the most horrid ravages on your people. Our great, in- creasing population is one remedy to this evil ; but, being scattered thinly over so extensive a country, how ditticult it is to collect their strength, or defend the country ! This is one point of weakness. I wish, for the honor of my countrymen, that it was the only one. There is another circumstance which renders us more vulnerable. Are we not weakened by the population of those whom we hold in slavery ? The day may come, when they may make an im- pression upon us. Gentlemen, who have been long accustomed to the contemplation of tlu; subject, think there is a cause of alarm in this case. The number of those people, compared to that of the whites, is in an immense proportion : their number amounts to two hundred and thirty-six thousand ; that of the whites only to three hundred and fifty-two thousand. Will the American spirit, so much spoken of, repel an invading enemy, or enable you to obtain an advantageous peace ? Manufactures and military stores may afford relief to a country exposed : have we these at present ? Attempts have been made to have these here. If we shall be separated from the union, shall our chance of having these be greater ? Or will not the want of these be more deplorable ? We shall be told of the exertions of Virginia, under the confeder- ation — her achievements, when she had no commerce. These, THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 41 sir, were necessary for her immediate safety ; nor would these have availed, without the aid of the other states. Those states, then our friends, brothers and supporters, will, if disunited from us, be our bitterest enemies. If then, sir, Virginia, from her situation, is not inaccessible, or in- vulnerable, let us consider if she be protected, by having no cause to fear from other nations : has she no cause to fear ? You will have cause to fear as a nation, if disunited ; you will not only have this cause to fear from yourselves, from that species of population I before mentioned, and your once sister states, but from the arms of other nations. Have you no cause of fear from Spain, whose dominions border on your country ? Every nation, every people, in our circumstances, have always had abundant cause to fear. Let us see the danger to be apprehended from France : let us suppose Virginia separated from the other states: as part of the former con- federated states, she will owe France a very considerable sum — France will be as magnanimous as ever. France, by the law of nations, will have a right to demand the whole of her, or of the others. If France were to demand it, what would become of the property of America? Could she not destroy what little com- merce we have ? Could she not seize our ships, and carry havoc and destruction before her on our shores ? The most lamentable desolation would take place. We owe a debt to Spain also ; do we expect indulgence from that quarter ? That nation has a right to demand the debt due to it, and power to enforce that right. Will the Dutch be silent about the debt due to them ? Is there any one pretension, that any of these nations will be patient ? The debts due the British are also very considerable : these debts have been withheld contrary to treaty : if Great Britain will demand the payment of these debts, peremptorily, what will be the conse- quence? Can we pay them if demanded? Will no danger result from a refusal ? Will the British nation suffer their subjects to be stripped of their property? Is not that nation amply able to do its subjects justice ? Will the resentment of that powerful and super- cilious nation sleep forever ? If we become one, sole nation, uni- ting with our sister states, our means of defence will be greater ; the indulgence for the payment of those debts will be greater, and the danger of an attack less probable. Moreover, vast quan- tities of lands have been sold, by citizens of this country, to Euro- peans, and these lands cannot be found. Will this fraud be coun- tenanced or endured ? Among so many causes of danger, shall we be secure, separated from our sister states ? Weakness itself, sir, will invite some attack upon your country. Contemplate our situation deliberately, and consult history : it will inform you, that people in our circumstances have ever been attacked, and success- fully : open any page, and you will there find our danger truly de- 4* F 42 MR. RANDOLPH'S SPEECH ON picted. If such a people had any thing, was it not taken ? The fate which will hofall us, I fear, sir, will be, that we shall be made a partition of. How will these our troubles be removed ? Can we have any dependence on commerce ? Can we make any com- putation on this subject ? Where will our flag appear? So high is the spirit of commercial nations, that they will spend five times the value of the object, to exclude their rivals from a participation in commercial profits : they seldom regard any expenses. If we should be divided from the rest of the states, upon what footing would our navigation in the jNIississippi be ? What would be the probable conduct of France and Spain ? Every gentleman may imagine, in his own mind, the natural consequences. To these considerations I might add many others of a similar nature. Were I to say, that the boundary between us and North Carolina is not yet settled, I should be told, that Virginia and that state go together. But what, sir, will be the consequence of the dispute that may arise between us and Maryland, on tlu; subject of Poto- mac river ? It is thouglit, Virginia has a right to an equal naviga- tion with them in that river. If ever it should be decided on grounds of prior right, their charter will inevitably determine it in their favor. The country called the Northern Neck will probably be severed from Virginia. There is not a doubt but the inhabitants of that part will annex themselves to Maryland, if Virginia refuse to accede to the union. The recent example of those regulations, lately made respecting that territory, will illustrate that probability. Virginia will also be in danger of a conflict with Pennsylvania, on the subject of boundaries. I know that some gentlemen are thoroughly persuaded, that we have a right to those disputed boundaries : if we have such a right, I know not where it is to be found. Are we not borderers on states that v. ill be separated from us ? Call to mind the history of every part of the world, where nations have bordered on one another, and consider the consequences of our separation from the union. Peruse those histories, and you find such countries to have ever been almost a perpetual scene of bloodshed and slaughter. The inhabitants of one escaping from punishment into the other — protection given them — consequent pursuit, robbery, cruelty, and murder. A numerous standing army, that dangerous expedient, would be necessary, but not suf- ficient, for the defence of such borders. Every gentleman will amplify the scene in his own mind. If you wish to know the ex- tent of such a scene, look at the history of Eni^dand and Scotland before the union ; you will see their borderers continually commit- ting depredations and cruelties, of the most calamitous and deplo- rable nature, on one another. Mr. Chairman, were we struck off from the union, and disputes THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 43 of the back lands should be renewed, which are of the most alarming nature, and which must produce uncommon mischiefs, can you inform me how this great subject would be settled ? Virginia has a large unsettled country : she has, at last, quieted it ; but there are great doubts whether she has taken the best way to effect it. If she has not, disagreeable consequences may ensue. I have before hinted at some other causes of quarrel between the other states and us ; particularly the hatred that would be generated by commercial competition. I will only add, on that subject, that controversies may arise concerning the fisheries, which must ter- minate in wars. Paper money may also be an additional source of disputes. Rhode Island has been in one continued train of opposition to national duties and integrity : they have defrauded their creditors by their paper money. Other states have also had emissions of paper money to the ruin of credit and commerce. May not Virginia, at a future day, also recur to the same expedi- ent ? Has Virginia no affection for paper money, or disposition to violate contracts ? I fear she is as fond of these measures as most other states in the union. The inhabitants of the adjacent states would be affected by the depreciation of paper money, which would assuredly produce a dispute with those states. This danger is taken away by the present constitution, as it provides '' that no state shall emit bills of credit." Maryland has counter- acted the policy of this state frequently, and may be meditating examples of this kind again. Before the revolution, there was a contest about those back lands, in which even government was a party : it was put an end to by the war. Pennsylvannia was ready to enter into a war with us for the disputed lands near the boundaries, and nothing but the superior prudence of the man who was at the head of affairs in Virginia, could have prevented it. I beg leave to remind you of the strength of Massachusetts, and other states to the north, and what would their conduct be to us if disunited from them. In case of a conflict between us and Mary- land or Pennsylvania, they would be aided by the whole strength of the more northern states ; in short, by that of all the adopting states. For these reasons, I conceive, that if Virginia supposes she has no cause of apprehension, she will find herself in a fatal error. Suppose the American spirit in the fullest vigor in Virginia, what military preparations and exertions is she capable of making ? The other states have upwards of three hundred and thirty thou- sand men capable of bearing arms : this will be a good army, or they can very easily raise a good army out of so great a number. Our militia amounts to fifty thousand ; even stretching it to the improbable amount (urged by some) of sixty thousand — in case of an attack, what defence can we make ? Who are militia ? Can we depend solely upon these ? I will pay the last tribute of grat- 44 MR.#^NDOLPirS SPEECH ON itude to the militia of my country : tliey pciformed some of the most galhuit feats during the last war, and acted as nohly as men inured to other avocations could he expected to do ; hut, sir, it is dangerous to look to them as our sole protectors. Did ever militia defend a country ? Those of Pennsylvania were said to differ very little from regulars ; yet these, sir, were insufficient for the defence of that state. The militia of our country will be wanted for agriculture : on this noblest of arts depends the virtue and the very existence of a country : if it be neglected, every tiling else must be in a state of ruin and decay. It must be neglected if those hands which ought to attend to it, are occasionally called forth on military expeditions. Some, also, will be necessary for manufactures, and those mechanic arts which are necessary for the aid of the larmer and planter. If we had men sufficient in num- ber to defend ourselves, it could not avail without other requisites. We must have a navy, to be supported in time of peace as well as war, to guard our coasts and defend us against invasions. The impossibility of building and e([uipping a fleet, in a short time, con- stitutes the necessity of having a certain number of ships of war always ready in time of peace. The maintaining a navy will re- quire money — and where, sir, can we get money for this and other purposes ? How shall we raise it ? Review the enormity of the debts due by this country : the amount of the debt we owe to the continent, for bills of credit, rating at forty for one, will amount to between six and seven hundred thousand pounds. There is also due the continent the balance of requisitions due by us, and, in addition to this proportion of the old continental debt, there are the foreign, domestic, state military, and loan-office debts, to which when you add the British debt, where is the pos- sibility of finding money to raise an army or navy ? Review then your real ability. Shall we recur to loans? INothingcan be more impolitic : they impoverish a nation : we, sir, have nothing to re- pay them ; nor, sir, can we procure them. Our numbers are daily increasing by emigration : but this, sir, will not relieve us, when our credit is gone, and it is impossible to borrow money. If the imposts and duties in Virginia, even on the present footing, be very unproductive, and not equal to our necessities, what would they be if we were separated from the union ? From the first of September to the first of June, the amount put into the treasurv is only fifty-nine thousand pounds, or a little more. But, sir, if , smuggling be introduced in consequence of high duties, or other- wise, and the Potomac should be lost, what hope is there of get- ting money from these ? Shall we be asked if the impost would be bettered by the union ? I answer that it will, sir. Credit being restored and confidence; diffused in the country, merchants and men of wealth will be in- THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 45 duced to come among us ; emigration will increase, and com- merce will flourish : the impost will therefore be more sure and productive. Under these circumstances, can you find men to de- fend you ? If not men, where can you have a navy ? It is an old observation, that he who commands at sea will command the land ; and it is justified by modern experience in war. The sea can only be commanded by commercial nations. The United States have every means, by nature, to enable them to distribute supplies mutually among one another, to supply other nations with many articles, and to carry for other nations. Our commerce would not be kindly received by foreigners, if transacted solely by ourselves ; as it is the spirit of commercial nations to engross, as much as possible, the carrying trade, this makes it necessary to defend our commerce ; but how shall we encompass this end ? England has arisen to the greatest height, in modern times, by her navigation act and other excellent regulations. Tlie same means would produce the same effects. We have inland navigation. Our last exports did not exceed one million of pounds. Our ex- port trade is entirely in the hands of foreigners; We have no manufactures — depend for supplies on other nations, and so far are we from having any carrying trade, that, as I have already said, our exports are in the hands of foreigners. Besides the profit that might be made by our natural materials, much greater gains would accrue from their being first wrought before they were ex- ported. England has reaped immense profits by this, nay, even by purchasing and working up those materials which their country did not afford : her success in commerce is generally ascribed to her navigation act. Virginia would not, encumbered as she is, agree to have such an act. Thus, for the want of a navy, are we deprived of the multifarious advantages of our natural situation ; nor is it possible, that if the union is dissolved, we ever should have a navy sufficient either for our defence or the extension of our trade. I beg gentlemen to consider these two things — our in- ability to raise and man a navy, and the dreadful consequences of the dissolution of the union. I will close this catalogue of the evils of the dissolution of the union, by recalling to your mind what passed in the year 1781. Such was the situation of our affairs then, that the powers of a dictator were given to the commander-in-chief to save us from destruction. This shows the situation of the country to have been such as made it ready to embrace an actual dictator. At some future period, will not our distresses impel us to do what the Dutch have done — throw all power into the hands of a stadt- holder ? How infinitely more wise and eligible, than this desperate alternative, is a union with our American brethren ! I feel my- self so abhorrent to any thing that will dissolve our union, that I 46 MR. RANDOLPH'S SPEECH ON cannot prevail with myself to assent to it directly or indirectly. If tiic union is to be dissolved, what step is to be taken ? Shall we form a partial confederacy ? or is it expected that we shall successfully apply to foreign alliance for military aid ? This last measure, sir, has mined almost every nation that has used it : so dreadful an example ought to be most cautiously avoided ; for sel- dom has a nation recurred to the expedient of foreign succor with- out being ultimately crushed by that succor. We may lose our liberty and independence by this injudicious scheme of policy. Admitting it to be a scheme replete with safety, what nation shall we solicit — France ? She will disdain a connection with a people m our predicament. 1 would trust every thing to the magnanim- ity of tliat nation ; but she would despise a people who had, like us, so imprudently separated from their brethren ; and, sir, were she to accede to our proposal, with what facility could she become mistress of our country ! To what nation then shall we apply — to Great Britain ? Nobody has as yet trusted tliat idea. An appli- cation to any other must be either fruitless or dangerous ; to those who advocate local confederacies, and at the same time preach up for republican liberty, I answer, that their conduct is inconsistent; the defence of such partial confederacies will require such a degree of force and expense as will destroy every feature of republican- ism. Give me leave to say, that I see nought but destruction in a local confederacy. With what state can we confederate but North Carolina — North Carolina, situated worse than oui-selves ? Consult your own reason : 1 beseech gentlemen most seriously to reflect on the consequences of such a confederacy : 1 beseech them to consider whether Virginia and North Carolina, both oppressed with debts and slaves, can defend themselves externally, or make their people happy internally. North Carolina having no strength but militia, and V'irginia in the same situation, will make, I fear, but a despicable figure in history. Thus, sir, I hope that I have satis- fied you that we are unsafe without a union, and that in union alone safety consists. I come now, sir, to the great inquiry, whether the confederation be such a government as we ought to continue under ; whether it be such a government as can secure the felicity of any free people. Did 1 believe the confederation was a good thread, which might be broken without destroying its utility entirely, I might be in- duced to concur in putting it together ; but I am so thoroughly convinced of its incapacity to be mended or spliced, that I would sooner recur to any other expedient. When I spoke last, I endeavored to express my sentiments con- cerning that system, and to apologize, (if an apology was necessary) for the conduct of its framers — that it was hastily devised, to ena- ble us to repel a powerful enemy — that the subject was novel. THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 47 and that its inefficacy was not discovered, till requisitions came to be made by congress. In the then situation of America, a speedy remedy was necessary to ward off the danger, and this sufficiently answered that purpose ; but so universally is its imbecility now known, that it is almost useless for me to exhibit it at this time. Has not Virginia, as well as every other state, acknowledged its debility by sending delegates to the general convention? The confederation is, of all things, the most unsafe, not only to trust to, in its present form, but even to amend. The object of a federal government is to remedy and strengthen the weakness of its individ- ual branches ; whether that weakness arises from situation, or any other external cause. With respect to the first, is it not a miracle that the confederation carried us through the last war ? It was our unanimity, sir, that carried us through it. That system was not ultimately concluded till the year 1781 — although the greatest exertions were made before that time. Then came requisitions of men and money : its defects then were immediately discovered : the quotas of men were readily sent — not so those of money. One state feigned inability ; another would not comply till the rest did ; and various excuse'; were offered ; so that no money was sent into the treasury — not a requisition was k\\\y complied with. Loans were the next measure fallen upon : upwards of eighty millions of dollars were wanting, beside the emissions of dollars, forty for one. These things show the impossibility of relying on requisitions. * * * * If the American spirit is to be depended upon, I call him to awake, to see how his Americans have been disgraced ; but I have no hopes that things will be better hereafter. I fully expect things will be as they have been, and that the same derangements will produce similar miscarriages. Will the American spirit produce money or credit, unless we alter our system ? Are we not in a contemptible situation — are we not the jest of other nations ? But it is insinuated by the honorable gentleman, that we want to be a grand, splendid and magnificent people : we wish not to become so: the magnificence of a royal court is not our object. We want government, sir — a government that will have stability, and give us security ; for our present government is destitute of the one, and incapable of producing the other. It cannot perhaps, with propriety, be denominated a government — being void of that energy requisite to enforce its sanctions. I wish my country not to be contemptible in the eyes of foreign nations. A well-regu- lated community is always respected. It is the internal situation, the defects of government, that attract foreign contempt — that contempt, sir, is too often followed by subjugation. Advert to the contemptuous manner in which a shrewd politician speaks of our government. [Here Mr. Randolph quoted a passage from Lord Sheffield, the purport of which was, that Great Britain might 48 MR. RANDOLPH'S SPEECH ON engross our trade on her own terms ; tlr.u the imbecility and inei- ficacy of onr general government were sucli, that it was impossible we could counteract her policy, however rigid or illiberal towards us her commercial re^rulations might be.] Reflect but a moment on our situation. Does it not invite real hostility ? The conduct of the British ministry to us is the natural eflect of our unnerved government. Consider the commercial regulations between us and Maryland. Is it not known to gentlemen, that this state and that have been making reprisals on each other, to obviate a repe- tition of which, in some degree, these regulations have been made ? Can we not see, from this circumstance, the jealousy, rivalship and hatred that would subsist between them, in case this state was out of the union? They are importing states, and importing states will ever be competitors and rivals. Rhode Island and Connect- icut have been on the point of war, on the subject of their paper money — congress did not attempt to interpose. When Massa- chusetts was distressed by the late insurrection, congress could not relieve her. Who headed that insurrection ? Recollect the fa- cility with which it was raised, and the very little ability of the ringleader, and you cannot but deplore the extreme debility of our merely nominal government ; we are too despicable to be re- garded by foreign nations. The defects of the confederation con- sisted principally in the want of ])ower. It had nominally powers — powers on paper, which it could not use. The power of making peace and war is expressly delegated to congress ; yet the power of granting passports, though within that of making peace and war, was considered by Virginia as belonging to herself. Without ad- equate powers vested in congress, America cannot be respectable in the eyes of other nations. Congress, sir, ought to be fully vested with power to support the union, protect the interest of the United States, maintain their connnerce, and del'end them from external invasions and insults, and internal insurrections ; to maintain jus- tice and promote harmony and public tranquillity among the states. A government not vested with these powers will ever be found unable to make us happy or respectable : how far the confedera- tion is dilTerent from such a government, is known to all America. Instead of being able to cherish and protect the states, it has been unable to defend itself against the encroachments made upon it by the states : every one of them has conspired against it — Virginia as much as any. This fact could be proved by reference to ac- tual history. I might quote the observations of an able modern author (not because he is decorated with the name of author, but because his sentiments are drawn from human nature), to prove the dangerous impolicy of withholding necessary j)owers from con- gress ; but I shall at this time fatigue the house as little as possi- ble. What are the powers of congress ? They have full author- THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 49 ity to recommend what they please : this recommendatory power reduces them to the condition of poor supplicants. Consider the dignified languageof the members of the American congress — May it please your high mightinesses of Virginia to pay your just pro- portionate quota of our national debt : we humbly supplicate, that it may please you to comply with your federal duties ! We im- plore, we beg your obedience ! Is not this, sir, a fair representa- tion of the powers of congress ? Their operations are of no va- lidity when counteracted by the states. Their authority to rec- ommend is a mere mockery of government. But the amendability of the confederation seems to have great weight on the minds of some gentlemen. To what point will the amendments go ? What part makes the most important figure ? What part deserves to be retained ? In it, one body has the legis- lative, executive and judicial powers ; but the want of efficient powers has prevented the dangers naturally consequent on the union of these. Is this union consistent with an augmentation of their power ? Will you then amend it, by taking away one of these three powers ? Suppose, for Instance, you only vested it with the legislative and executive powers, without any control on the judiciary, what must be the result ? Are we not taught by reason, experience and governmental history, that tyranny is the natural and certain consequence of uniting these two powers, or the legislative and judicial powers exclusively, in the same body ? If any one denies it, I shall pass by him as an infidel not to be re- claimed. Wherever any two of these three powers are vested in one single body, they must, at one time or other, terminate in the destruction of liberty. In the most important cases, the assent of nine states is necessary to pass a law : this is too great a restric- tion, and whatever good consequences it may in some cases pro- duce, yet it will prevent energy in many other cases ; it will pre- vent energy, which is most necessary on some emergencies, even in cases wherein the existence of the community depends on vigor and expedition. It is incompatible with that secrecy which is the life of execution and despatch. Did ever thirty or forty men re- tain a secret ? Without secrecy no government can carr}^ on its operations on great occasions : this is what gives that superiority in action to the government of one. If any thing were wanting to complete this farce, it would be that a resolution of the assembly of Virginia and the other legislatures, should be necessary to con- firm and render of any validity the congressional acts : this would openly discover the debility of the general government to all the worid. But, in fact, its imbecility is now nearly the same as if such acts were formally requisite. An act of the assembly of Virginia, controverting a resolution of congress, would certainly prevail. 1 therefore conclude that the confederation is too defec- 5 G 50 MR. RANDOLPH'S SPEECH ON live to deserve correction. Let us take farewell of it with rever- ential respect, as an old benefactor. It is gone, wiiether this iiouse says so or not. It is gone, sir, by its own weakness. I am afraid I have tired the patience of this house ; but I trust you will pardon me, as 1 was uriied by the importunity of the gen- tleman in calling for the reasons of laying the ground-work of this plan. It is objected by the honorable gentleman over the way (Mr. George Mason), that a republican government is impractica- ble in an extensive territory, and the extent of the United States is urged as a reason for the rejection of this constitution. Let us consider the definition of a republican government as laid down by a man who is highly esteemed. Montesquieu, so celebrated among l)oliticians, says, " that a republican government is that in which the body, or only a part of the people, is possessed of the supreme power; a monarchical, that in which a single person governs, by fixed and established laws ; a despotic government, that in which a single person, without law and without rule, directs every thing, by his own will and caprice." This author has not distinguished a republican government from a monarchy by the extent of its boundaries, but by the nature of its principles. He, in another place, contradistinguishes it, as a government of laws, in opposition to others, which he denominates a government of men. The em- pire, or government of laws, according to that phrase, is that in which the laws are made with the free will of the people ; hence, then, if laws be made by the assent of the people, the government may be deemed free. When laws are made with integrity, and executed with wisdom, the question is, whether a great extent of country will tend to abridge the liberty of the people. If defen- sive force be necessary, in j)roportion to the extent of country, I conceive that, in a judiciously-constructed government, be the country ever so extensive, its inhabitants will be proportionably numerous, and able to defend it. Extent of country, in my con- ception, ought to be no bar to the adoption of a good government. No extent on earth seems to me too great, provided the laws be wisely made and executed. The principles of representation and responsibility may pervade a large as well as a small territory: and tyranny is as easily introduced into a small as into a large district. If it be answered, that some of the most illustrious and distinguished authors are of a contrary opinion, I reply, that authority has no weight with me, till 1 am convinced that not the dignity of names, but the force of reasoning, gains my assent. I intended to have shown the nature of the powers which ought to iiave been given to the general government, and the reason of investing it with the power of taxation ; but this would require more time than my stiength or the patience of the committee would now admit of. I shall conclude with a few observations, THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 51 which come from my heart. I have labored for the continuance of the union — the rock of our salvation. I believe that as sure as there is a God in heaven, our safety, our pohtical happiness and existence, depend on the union of the states ; and that, without this union, the people of this and the other states will undergo the unspeakable calamities which discord, faction, turbulence, war and bloodshed have produced in other countries. The American spirit ought to be mixed with American pride — pride to see the union magnificently triumph. Let that glorious pride which once defied the British thunder, reanimate you again. Let it not be re- corded of Americans, that, after having performed the most gallant exploits, after having overcome the most astonishing difficulties, and after having gained the admiration of the world by their in- comparable valor and policy, they lost their acquired reputation, their national consequence and happiness, by their own indiscre- tion. Let no future historian inform posterity that they wanted wisdom and virtue to concur in any regular, efficient government. Should any writer, doomed to so disagreeable a task, feel the in- dignation of an honest historian, he would reprehend and recrim- inate our folly with equal severity and justice. Catch the present moment ; seize it with avidity and eagerness ; for it may be lost, never to be regained. If the union be now lost, I fear it will re- main so forever. I believe gentlemen are sincere in their oppo- sition, and actuated by pure motives ; but when I maturely weigh the advantages of the union, and dreadful consequences of its dis- solution ; when I see safety on my right, and destruction on my left ; when I behold respectability and happiness acquired by the one, but annihilated by the other, — I cannot hesitate to decide in favor of the former. I hope my weakness, from speaking so long, will apologize for my leaving this subject in so mutilated a con- dition. If a further explanation be desired, I shall take the liberty to enter into it more fully another time. SPEECH OF PATRICK HENRY, t ON THE EXl'EDIENCY OF ADOPTING THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, DELIVERED IN THE CONVENTION OF VIRGINIA, JUNE 7, 1788. Mr. Chairman, 1 have thought, and still think, that a full investigation of the ac- tual situation of America ought to precede any decision on this great and important question. That government is no more than a choice among evils, is acknowledged by the most intelligent among mankind, and has been a standing maxim for ages. If it be de- monstrated, that the adoption of the new plan is a little or a trifling evil, then, sir, I acknowledge that adoption ought to follow ; but, sir, if this be a truth, that its adoption may entail misery on the free people of this country, I then insist, that rejection ought to follow. Gentlemen strongly urge that its adoption will be a mighty benefit to us ; but, sir, I am made of such incredulous materials, that assertions and declarations do not satisfy me. I must be con- vinced, sir. I shall retain my infidelity on that subject till I see our liberties secured in a manner perfectly satisfactory to my understanding. There are certain maxims, by which every wise and enlightened people will regulate their conduct. There are certain political maxims, which no free people ought ever to abandon ; maxims, of which the observance is essential to the security of happiness. It is impiously irritating the avenging hand of Heaven, when a peo- ple, who are in the full enjoyment of freedom, launch out into the wide ocean of human affairs, and desert those maxims which alone can preserve liberty. Such maxims, humble as they are, are those only which can render a nation safe or formidable. Poor, little, humble republican maxims have attracted the admiration and en- L^aged the attention of the virtuous and wise in all nations, and have stood the shock of ages. We do not now admit the validity of maxims which we once delighted in. We have since adopted maxims of a different, but more refined nature ; new maxims, which tend to the prostration of republicanism. MR. HENRY'S SPEECH, &c. 53 We have one, sir, that all men are by nature free and independ- ent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity. We have a set of maxims of the same spirit, which must be beloved by every friend to liberty, to virtue, to mankind — our bill of rights contains those admirable maxims. • Now, sir, I say, let us consider, whether the picture given of American affairs ought to drive us from those beloved maxims. The honorable gentleman (Mr. Randolph) has said, that it is too late in the day for us to reject this new plan. That system which was once execrated by the honorable member, must now be adopted, let its defects be ever so glaring. That honorable mem- ber will not accuse me of want of candor, when I cast in my mind what he has given the public,* and compare it to what has hap- pened since. It seems to me very strange and unaccountable, that what was the object of his execration should now receive his encomiums. Something extraordinary must have operated so great a change in his opinion. It is too late in the day ! Gen- tlemen must excuse me, if they should declare, again and again, that it is too late, and I should think differently. I never can be- lieve, sir, that it is too late to save all that is precious. If it be proper, and independently of every external consideration, wisely constructed, let us receive it; but, sir, shall its adoption, by eight states, induce us to receive it, if it be replete with the most dan- gerous defects? They urge, that subsequent amendments are safer than previous amendments, and that they will answer the same ends. At present, we have our liberties and privileges in our own hands. Let us not relinquish them. Let us not adopt this system till we see them secured. There is some small possibility, that should we follow the conduct of Massachusetts, amendments might be obtained. There is a small possibility of amending any government ; but, sir, shall we abandon our inesti- mable rights, and rest their security on a mere possibility ? The gentleman fears the loss of the union. If eight states have rati- fied it unamended, and we should rashly imitate their precipitate example, do we not thereby disunite from several other states ? Shall those who have risked their lives for the sake of union be at once thrown out of it? If it be amended, every state will accede to it ; but by an imprudent adoption in its defective and dangerous state, a schism must inevitably be the consequence ; I can never, therefore, consent to hazard our unalienable rights on an absolute uncertainty. You are told there is no peace, although you fondly flatter yourselves that all is peace — no peace ; a general cry and alarm in the country ; commerce, riches and wealth vanished ; * Mr. Randolph had addressed a letter on that subject to the speaker of the house of delegates. 51 MR. HENRY'S SPEECH ON citizens going to seek comforts in other parts of the world : laws insulted ; many instances of tyrannical legislation. These things, sir, are new to me. He has made the discovery. As to the administration of justice, 1 believe that failures in commerce, &;c. cannot be attributed to it. My age enables me to recollect its progresa under the old government. I can justify it by saying, that it continues in the same manner in this state, as it did under the former government. As to other parts of the continent, I re- fer that to other gentlemen. As to the ability of those who ad- minister it, 1 believe they would not suffer by a comparison with those who adniinistered it under the royal authority. Where is the cause of complaint if the wealthy go away ? Is this, added to the other circumstances, of such enormity, and does it bring such danger over this commonwealth, as to warrant so important, and so awful a change, in so precipitate a manner? As to insults offered to the laws, 1 know of none. In this respect, 1 believe this commonwealth would not suffer by a comparison with the for- mer government. The laws are as well executed, and as patient- ly acquiesced in, as they were under the royal administration. Compare the situation of the country ; compare that of our citi- zens to what they were then, and decide whether persons and property are not as safe and secure as they were at that time. Is there a man in this commonwealth, whose pei*son can be insulted with impunity? Cannot redress be had here for personal insults or injuries, as well as in any j)art of the world ; as well as in those countries where aristocrats and monarchs triumph and reign ? Is not the protection of property in full operation here ? The con- trary cannot with truth be charged on this commonwealth. Those severe charges which are exhibited against it, appear to me totally groundless. On a fair investigation, we shall be found to be sur- rounded by no real dangers. We have the animating fortitude and persevering alacrity of republican men, to carry us through .mis- fortunes and calamities. 'Tis the fortune of a republic to be able to withstand the stormy ocean of human vicissitudes. I know of no danger awaiting us. Public and private security are to be found here in the highest degree. Sir, it is the fortune of a free people not to be intimidated by imaginary dangers. Fear is the jjassion of slaves. Our political and natural hemispheres are now equally tranquil. Let us recollect the awful magnitude of the subject of our deliberation. Let us consider the latent conse- quences of an erroneous decision, and let not our minds be led away by unfair misrepresentations and uncandid suggestions. There have been many instances of uncommon lenity and temper- ance used in the exercise of power in this commonwealth. I could call your recollection to many that happened during the war and since ; but every gentleman here must be apprized of them. THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 55 The honorable member has given you an elaborate account of what he judges tyrannical legislation, and an ex post facto law in the case of Josiali Phillips. He has misrepresented the facts. That man was not executed by a tyrannical stroke of power ; nor .^ was he a Socrates. He was a fugitive murderer and an outlaw ; a y man who commanded an infamous banditti, at a time when the ;{. war was at the most perilous stage. He committed the most cruel and shocking barbarities. He was an enemy to the human name. Those who declare war against the human race may be struck out of existence as soon as they are apprehended. He was not exe- cuted according to those beautiful legal ceremonies, which are pointed out by the laws, in criminal cases. The enormity of his crimes did not entitle him to it. I am truly a friend to legal forms and methods ; but, sir, the occasion warranted the measure. A pirate, an outlaw, or a common enemy to all mankind, may be put to death at any time. It is justified by the laws of nature and nations. / The honorable member tells us. then, that there are burnings and discontents in the hearts of our citizens in general, and that they are dissatisfied with their government. I have no doubt the honorable member believes this to be the case, because he says so. But I have the comfortable assurance, that it is a certain fact that it is not so. The middle and lower ranks of people have not those illumined ideas, which the well-born are so happily possessed of: they cannot so readily perceive latent objects. The micro- scopic eyes of modern statesmen can see abundance of defects in old systems ; and their illumined imaginations discover the necessi- ty of a change. TThey are captivated by the parade of the num- ber ten ; the charms of the ten miles square. Sir, I fear this change will ultimately lead to our ruiny My fears are not the force of imagination ; they are but too well founded. I tremble for my country ; but, sir, I trust, I rely, and I am confident, that this political speculation has not taken so strong a hold of men's minds, as some would make us believe. The dangers which may arise from our geographical situation will be more properly considered a while hence. At present, what may be surmised on the subject, with respect to the adjacent stales, is merely visionary. Strength, sir, is a relative terra. When I reflect on the natural force of those nations that might be induced to attack us, and consider the difficulty of the attempt and uncertainty of the success, and compare thereto the relative strength of our country, I say that we are strong. We have no cause to fear from that quarter ; we have nothing to dread from our neighboring states. The superiority of our cause would give us an advantage over them, were they so unfriendly or rash as to attack us. As to that part of the community, which the honor- 56 MR. HENRY'S SPEECH ON able gentleman spoke of as in danger of being separated from us, wiiat incitement or inducement could its inhabitants have to wish such an event ? It is a matter of doubt whether they would de- rive any advantage to themselves, or be any loss to us by such a separation. Time has been, and may yet come, when they will (ind it their advantage and true interest to be united with us. There is no danger of a dismemberment of our country, unless a constitution be adopted which will enable the government to plant enemies on our backs. By the confederation, the rights of territo- ry are secured. No treaty can be made without the consent of nine states. While the consent of. nine states is necessary to the cession of territory, you are safe. If it be put in the power of a less nmiiber, you will most infallibly lose the Mississippi. As long as we can preserve our unalienable rights, we are in safety. This new constitution will involve in its operation the loss of the navi- gation of that valuable river. The honorable gentleman cannot be ignorant of the Spanish transactions. A treaty had been nearly entered into with Spain, to relinquish that navigation, and that re- liquishment would absolutely have taken place, had the consent of seven states been sufficient. The honorable gentleman told us then, that eight states having adopted this systeu), we cannot sup- pose they will recede on our account. 1 know not what they may do ; but this 1 know, that a people of infinitely less importance than those of Virginia, stood the terror of war. Vermont, sir, withstood the terror of thirteen states. Maryland did not accede to the confederation till the year 1781. These two states, feeble as they are, comparatively to us, were not afraid of the whole union. Did either of these states perish ? No, sir, they were admitted freely into the union. Will not Virginia then be admit- ted ? I flatter myself that those states who have ratified the new plan of government will open their arms and cheerfully receive us, although we should propose certain amendments as the conditions on which we would ratify it. During the late war, all the states were in pursuit of the same object. To obtain that object, they made the most strenuous exertions. They did not suffer trivial considerations to impede its acquisition. Give me leave to say, that if the smallest states in the union were admitted into it, after having unreasonably })rocrastinated their accession, the greatest and most mighty state in the union will be easily admitted, when her reluctance to an immediate accession to this system is founded on the most reasonable grounds. When I call this the most migh- tv' state in the union, do I not speak the truth ? Does not Vir- ginia surpass every state in the union, in number of inhabitants, ex- tent of territory, felicity of })osition, and affluence and wealth ? Some infatuation hangs over men's minds, that they will inconsid- erately precipitate into measures the most important, and give not THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 57 a moment's deliberation to others, nor pay any respect to their opinions. Is this federalism ? Are these the beloved effects of the federal spirit, that its votaries will never accede to the just propositions of others ? Sir, were there nothing objectionable in it but that, I would vote against it. 1 desire to have nothing to do with such men as will obstinately refuse to change their opinions. Are our opinions, not to be regarded ? I hope that you will recol- lect, that you are going to join with men who will pay no respect even to this state. Switzerland consists of thirteen cantons expressly confederated for national defence. They have stood the shock of four hundred years : that country has enjoyed internal tranquillity most of that long period. Their dissensions have been, comparatively to those of other countries, very few. What has passed in the neighbor- ing countries? Wars, dissensions, and intrigues — Germany involv- ed in the most deplorable civil war thirty years successively, con- tinually convulsed with intestine divisions, and harassed by foreign wars — France w"ith her mighty monarchy perpetually at war. Compare the peasants of Switzerland with those of any other mighty nation : you will find them far more happy ; for one civil war among them, there have been five or six among other nations : their attachment to their country, and to freedom, their resolute intrepidity in their defence, the consequent security and happiness which they have enjoyed, and the respect and awe which these things produced in their bordering nations, have signalized those republicans. Their valor, sir, has been active ; every thing that sets in motion the springs of the human heart, engaged them to the protection of their inestimable privileges. They have not only secured their own liberty, but have been the arbiters of the fate of other people. Here, sir, contemplate the triumph of republi- can governments over the pride of monarchy. I acknowledge, sir, that the necessity of national defence has prevailed in invigo- rating their councils and arms, and has been, in a considerable de- gree, the means of keeping these honest people together. But, sir, they have had wisdom enough to keep together and render themselves formidable. Their heroism is proverbial. They would heroically fight for their government and their laws. One of the illumined sons of these times would not fight for those objects. Those virtuous and simple people have not a mighty and splendid president, nor enormously expensive navies and armies to support. No, sir, those brave republicans have acquired their reputation no less by their undaunted intrepidity, than by the wisdom of their frugal and economical policy. Let us follow their example, and be equally happy. The honorable member advises us to adopt a measure which will destroy our bill of riglits ; for, after hearing his picture of nations, and his reasons for abandoning all the pow- H 58 MR. HENRY'S SPEECH ON ers retained to the states by the confederation, I am more firmly persuaded of the impropriety of adopting this new plan in its present shape. I had doubts of the power of those who went to the conven- tion ; but now we are possessed of it, let us examine it. When we trusted the great object of revising the confederation to the great- est, the best and most enlightened of our citizens, we thought their deliberations would have been solely confined to that revision. Instead of this, a new system, totally different in its nature, and vesting the most extensive powers in congress, is presented. Will the ten men you are to send to congress be more worthy than those seven were ? If power grew so rapidly in their hands, wiiat may it not do in the hands of others ? If those who go from this state will find power accompanied with temptation, our situation must be truly critical. When about forming a government, if we mistake the principles, or commit any other error, the very cir- cumstance promises that power will be abused. The greatest caution and circumspection are therefore necessary ; nor does this proposed system, in its investigation here, deserve the least charity. The honorable member says, that the national government is without energy. 1 perfectly agree with him ; and when he cried out union, I agreed with him ; but I tell him not to mistake the end for the means. The end is union ; the most capital means, I suppose, are an army and navy : on a supposition, 1 will acknowl- edge this ; still the bare act of agreeing to that paper, though it may have an amazing influence, will not pay our millions. There must be things to pay debts. What these things are, or how they are to be produced, must be determined by our political wisdom and economy. The honorable gentleman alleges, that previous amendments will prevent the junction of our riches from producing great profits and emoluments, (which would enable us to to pay our public debts), by excluding us from the union. I believe, sir, that a previous ratification of a system notoriously and confessedly defec- tive, will endanger our riches ; our liberty ; our all. Its defects are acknowledged ; they cannot be denied. The reason offered by the honorable gentleman for adopting this defective system, is the adoption by eight states. 1 say, sir, that, if we present noth- ing but what is reasonable in the shape of amendments, they will receive us. Union is as necessary for them as for us. Will they then be so unreasonable as not to join us ? If such be their dis- position, I am happy to know it in time. The honorable member then observed, that nations will expend millions for commercial advantages ; that is, they will deprive you of every advantage if they can. Apply this another w'ay. Their THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 59 cheaper way, instead of laying out millions in making war upon you, will be to corrupt your senators. I know that if they be not above all price, they may make a sacrifice of our commercial in- terests. They may advise your president to make a treaty that will not only sacrifice all your commercial interests, but throw prostrate your bill of rights. Does he fear that their ships will outnumber ours on the ocean, or that nations, whose interests come in contrast with ours, in the progress of their guilt, will perpetrate the vilest expedients to exclude us from a participation in com- mercial advantages ? Does he advise us, in order to avoid this evil, to adopt a constitution which will enable such nations to ob- tain their ends by the more easy mode of contaminating the prin- ciples of our senators ? Sir, if our senators will not be corrupted, it will be because they will be good men, and not because the constitution provides against corruption ; for there is no real check secured in it, and the most abandoned and profligate acts may with impunity be committed by them. With respect to Maryland, what danger from thence ? I know none. I have not heard of any hostility premeditated or commit- ted. Nine tenths of the people have not heard of it. Those who are so happy as to be illumined, have not informed their fellow- citizens of it. 1 am so valiant as to say, that no danger can come from that source, sufficient to make me abandon my republican principles. The honorable gentleman ought to have recollected, that there were no tyrants in America, as there are in Europe : the citizens of republican borders are only terrible to tyrants : in- stead of being dangerous to one another, they mutually support one another's liberties. We might be confederated with the adopting states, without ratifying this system. No form of govern- ment renders a people more formidable. A confederacy of states joined together becomes strong as the United Netherlands. The government of Holland (execrated as it is) proves that the pres- ent confederation is adequate to every purpose of human associ- ation. There are seven provinces confederated together for along time, containing numerous opulent cities, and many of the finest ports in the world. The recollection of the situation of that coun- try would make me execrate monarchy. The singular felicity and success of that people are unparalleled : freedom has done mira- cles there in reclaiming land from the ocean. It is the richest spot on the face of the globe. Have they no men or money ? Have they no fleets or armies ? Have they no arts or sciences among them ? How did they repel the attacks of the greatest nations in the world? How have they acquired their amazing influence and power ? Did they consolidate government, to effect these pur- poses, as we do ? No, sir ; they have triumphed over every obsta- cle and difficulty, and have arrived at the summit of political feli- .li 60 MR. HENRY'S SPEECH ON city, and of uncommon opulence, by means of a confederacy ; that very government which gentlemen affect to despise. They have, sir, avoided a consolidation as the greatest of evils. They have lately, it is true, made one advance to that fatal progression. This misfortune burst on them by iniquity and artifice. That stadtholder, that executive magistrate, contrived it, in conjunction with other European nations. It was not the choice of the peo- ple. Was it owing to his energy that this happened r If two pr'^vinces have paid nothing, what have not the rest done? And have not these two provinces made other exertions ? Ought they. to avoid this inconvenience, to have consolidated their differ- ent states, and have a ten miles square ? Compare that little spot, nurtured by liberty, with the fairest country in the world. Does not Holland ])ossess a powerful navy and army, and a full treasury ? They did not acquire these by debasing the principles and trampling on the rights of their citizens. Sir, they acquired these by their industry, economy, and by the freedom of their government. Their commerce is the most extensive in Europe : their credit is unequalled ; their felicity will be an eternal monu- ment of the blessings of liberty ; every nation in Europe is taught^ by them what they are, and what they ought to be. The con- trast between those nations and this happy people is the most splendid spectacle for republicans ; the greatest cause of exulta- tion and triumph to the sons of freedom. While other nations, precipitated by the rage of ambition or folly, have, in the pursuit of the most magnificent projects, rivetted the fetters of bondage on themselves and their descendants, these republicans have secur- ed their political happiness and freedom. Where is there a nation to be compared to them? Where is there now, or where was there ever a nation, of so small a territory, and so few in number, so powerful, so wealthy, so ha[)py ? What is the cause of this superiority ? Liberty, sir ; the freedom of their government. Though they are now unhappily in some degree consolidated, yet they have my acclamations, when put in contrast with those millions of their fellow-men who lived and died slaves. The dan- gers of a consolidation ought to be guarded against in this country. i shall exert my poor talents to ward them off. Dangers are to be apprehended in whatever manner we proceed ; but those of a consolidation are the most destructive. Let us leave no expedi- ent untried to secure happiness ; but whatever be our decision. I am consoled, if American liberty will remain entire, only for half a century ; and I tmst that mankind in general, and our pos- terity in particular, will be compensated for every anxiety we now feel. Another gentleman tells us, that no incovenience will result from the exercise of the power of taxation by the general govern- THE FEDERAL COx^STITUTION. 61 ment; that two shillings out of ten may be saved by the impost ; and that four shillings may be paid to the federal collector, and four to the state collector. A cliange of government will not pay money. If from the probable amount of the impost, you take the enormous and extravagant expenses, which will certainly attend the support of this great consolidated government, I believe you will find no reduction of the public burdens by this new system. The splendid maintenance of the president and of the members of both houses ; and the salaries and fees of the swarm of ofRcuVs and dependants on the government, will cost this continent im- mense sums. Double sets of collectors will double the expense. To these are to be added oppressive excisemen and custom-house officers. Sir, the people have an hereditary hatred to custom-house officers. The experience of the mother country leads me to de- test them. They have introduced their baneful influence into the administration, and destroyed one of the most beautiful systems that ever the world saw. Our forefathers enjoyed liberty there, while that system was in its purity ; but it is now contaminated by influence of every kind. The style of the government (we the people) was introduced, perhaps, to recommend it to the people at large ; to those citizens who are to be levelled and degraded to the lowest degree, who are likened to a herd, and who, by the operation of this blessed sys- tem, are to be transformed from respectable, independent citizens, to abject, dependent subjects or slaves. The honorable gentleman has anticipated what we are to be reduced to, by degradingly assimilating our citizens to a herd. [Here Mr. Randolph rose, and declared that he did not use that word to excite any odium, but merely to convey the idea of a multitude.] Mr. Henry replied, that it made a deep impression on his mind, and that he verily believed, that system would operate as he had said. [He then continued] — I will exchange that abominable word for requisitions ; requisitions, which gentlemen affect to de- spise, have nothing degrading in them. On this depends our po- litical prosperity. I never will give up that darling word, requisi- tions ; my country may give it up ; a majority may wrest it from :ne, but I will never give it up till in my grave. Requisitions are attended with one singular advantage. They are attended by de- liberation. They secure to the states the benefit of correcting op- pressive errors. If our assembly thought requisitions erroneous, if they thought the demand was too great, they might at least sup- plicate congress to reconsider, that it was a little too much. The power of direct taxation was called by the honorable gentleman the soul of the government : another gentleman called it the lungs of the government. We all agree, that it is the most 6 6-2 MR. HENRY'S SPEECH ON important part of the body politic. If the power of raising money be necessary for the general government, it is no less so for the states. If money be the vitals of congress, is it not precious for those individuals from whom it is to be taken ? Must I give my soul, my lungs, to congress ? Congress must have our souls ; the state must have our souls. This is dishonorable and disgrace- ful. These two coordinate, interfering, unlimited powers of har- assing the community, are unexampled — unprecedented in history: they are the visionary projects of modern politicians : tell me not of imaginary means, but of reality : this political solecism will never tend to the benefit of the community. It will be as op- pressive in practice as it is absurd in theory, if you part from this, which the honorable gentleman tells you is the soul of con- gress, you will be inevitably ruined. I tell you, they shall not have the soul of Virginia. They tell us, that one collector may collect the federal and stale taxes. The general government being paramount to the state legislatures, if the sheriff is to collect for both — his right hand for the congress, his left for the state — his right hand being paramount over the left, his collections will go to congress. We will have the rest. Deficiencies in collections will always operate against the states. Congress being the paramount, supreme power, must not be disappointed. Thus congress will have an unlimited, unbounded command over the soul of this commonwealth. After satisfying their uncontrolled demands, what can be left for the states? Not a sufficiency even to defray the expense of their internal administration. They must therefore glide imperceptibly and gradually out of existence. This, sir, must naturally terminate in a consolidation. If this will do for other people, it never will do for me. If we are to have one representative for every thirty thousand souls, it must be by implication. The constitution does not posi- tively secure it. Even say it is a natural implication, why not give us a right to that proportion in express terms, in language that could not admit of evasions or subterfuges ? If they can use implication for us, they can also use implication against us. We are giving power; they are getting power: judge, then, on which side the implication will be used. When we once put it in their option to assume constructive power, danger will follow. Trial by jury, and liberty of the press, are also on this foundation of implication. If they encroach on these rights, and you give your implication for a plea, you are cast ; for they will be justified by the last part of it, which gives them full power " to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper to carry their powei-s into execution." Implication is dangerous, because it is unbound- ed: if it be admitted at all, and no limits be prescribed, it admits of the utmost extension. They say, that every thing that is not THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 63 given is retained. The reverse of the proposition is true by im- plication. They do not carry their implication so far when they speak of the general welfare. No implication when the sweeping clause comes. Implication is only necessary when the existence of privileges is in dispute. The existence of powers is sufficient- ly established. If we trust our dearest rights to implication, we shall be in a very unhappy situation. Implication in England has been a source of dissension. There has been a war of implication between the king and people. For one hundred years did the mother country struggle under the un- certainty of implication. The people insisted that their rights were implied : the monarch denied the doctrine. Their bill of rights in some degree terminated the dispute. By a bold implica- tion, they said they had a right to bind us in all cases whatsoever. This constructive power we opposed, and successfully. Thirteen or fourteen years ago, the most important thing that could be thought of, was to exclude the possibility of construction and im- plication. These, sir, were then deemed perilous. The first thing that was thought of, was a bill of rights. We were not satisfied with your constructive argumentative rights. [Mr. Henry on the 9th resumed the speech which had been in- terrupted by an adjournment.] 1 find myself again, Mr. Chairman, constrained to trespass on the patience of this committee. I wish there Wsis a prospect of union in our sentiments ; so much time would not then be taken up. But when I review the magnitude of the subject under consideration, and of the dangers which ap- pear to me in this new plan of government, and compare thereto my poor abilities to secure our rights, it will take much more time, in my poor, unconnected way, to traverse the objectionable parts of it ; there are friends here who will be abler than myself to make good these objections which to us appear well founded. If we recollect, on last Saturday, I made some observations on some of those dangers, which these gentlemen would fain persuade us hang over the citizens of this commonwealth, to induce us to change the government, and adopt the new plan. Unless there be great and awful dangers, the change is dangerous, and the ex- periment ought not to be made. In estimating the magnitude of these dangers, we are obliged to take a most serious view of them, to feel them, to handle them, and to be familiar with them. It is not sufficient to feign mere imaginary dangers : there must be a dreadful reality. The great question between us is. Does that re- ality exist ? These dangers are partially attributed to bad laws, execrated by the community at large. It is said the people wish to change the government. I should be happy to meet them on that ground. Should the people wish to change it, we should be 64 MR. HENRY'S SPEECH ON innocent of the dangers. It is a fact that the people do not wish to change their government. How am 1 to prove it ? It will rest on my bare assertion, unless supported by an internal conviction in men's breasts. My poor say-so is a mere non-entity. But, sir, I am pei'suaded that four fifths of the people of Virginia must havo amendments to the new plan, to reconcile them to a change of their government. Our assertions form but a slippery foundation for the people to rest their political salvation on. JNo government can flourish unless it be founded on the affection of the people. Unless gentlemen can be sure, that this new system is founded on that ground, they ought to stop their career. 1 will not repeat what the gentlemen .say, but will mention one thing. There is a dispute between us and the Spaniards, about the right of navigating the Mississippi. This dispute has sprung from the federal government. 1 wish a groat deal to be said on this subject. I wish to know the origin and progress of the busi- ness, as it would probably unfold great dangers. In my opinion, the preservation of that river calls for our most serious considera- tion. It has been agitated in congress. Seven states have voted so as that it is known to tlie Spaniards, that, under our existing sys- tem, the Mississippi shall be taken from them. Seven states wish- ed to relinquish this river to them. The six Southern States opposed it. Seven states not being sufficient to convey it away, it remains now ours. If I am wrong, there are a number on this floor who can contradict the facts ; I will readily retract. This new government, I conceive, will enable those states, who have already discovered their inclination that w^ay, to give away this river. Will the honorable gentleman advise us to relinquish this inestimable navigation, and place formidable enemies to our backs ? This weak, this poor confederation cannot secure us. We are re- solved to take shelter under the shield of federal authority in America. The southern parts of America have been protected ^ by that weakness so nmch execrated. I hope this will be ex- plained. I was not in congress when these transactions took place. I may not have stated every fact. I may have misrepre- sented matters. I hope to be fully acquainted with every thing relative to the subject. Let us hear how the great and im- portant right of navigating that river has been attended to ; and whether I am mistaken in my opinion, that federal measures will lose it to us forever. If a bare majority of congress can make laws, the situation of our western citizens is dreadful. We are threatened with danger for the non-payment of the debt due to France. Wc have information from an illustrious citizen of Virginia, who is now in Paris, which disproves the sug- gestions of such danger. This citizen has not been in the airy regions of theoretic speculation ; our ambassador is this worthy THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 65 citizen. The ambassador of the United States of America is not so despised as the honorable gentleman would make us believe. A servant of a republic is as much respected as that of a monarch. The honorable gentleman tells us, that hostile fleets are to be sent to make reprisals upon us ; our ambassador tells you that the king of France has taken into consideration, to enter into commercial regulations on reciprocal terms with us, which will be of peculiar advantage to us. Does this look like hostility ? 1 might go fur- ther ; I might say, not from public authority, but good information, that his opinion is, that you reject this government. His charac- ter and abilities are in the highest estimation ; he is well acquaint- ed, in every respect, with this country ; equally so with the policy of the European nations. This illustrious citizen advises yoii to reject this government, till it be amended. His sentiments coin- cide entirely with ours. His attachment to, and services done for. this country are well known. At a great distance from us, he re- members and studies our happiness. Living amidst splendor and dissipation, he thinks yet of bills of rights — thinks of those little despised things called maxims. Let us follow the sage advice of this common friend of our happiness. It is little usual for nations to send armies to collect debts. The house of Bourbon, that great friend of America, will never attack her for the unwilling delay of payment. Give me leave to say that Europe is too much en- gaged about objects of greater importance to attend to us. On that great theatre of the world, the little American matters vanish. Do you believe, that the mighty monarch of France, beholding the greatest scenes that ever engaged the attention of a prince of that country, will divert himself from those important objects, and now call for a settlement of accounts with America ? This proceeding is not warranted by good sense. The friendly disposition to us, and the actual situation of France, render the idea of danger from that quarter absurd. Would this countryman of ours be fond of advi- sing us to a measure which he knew to be dangerous — and can it be reasonably supposed, that he can be ignorant of any premedi- tated hostility against this country? The honorable gentleman may suspect the account ; but I will do our friend the justice to sav that he would warn us of any danger from France. Do you suppose the Spanish monarch will risk a contest with the United States, when his feeble colonies are exposed to them ? Every advance the people here make to the westward, makes him tremble for Mexico and Peru. Despised as we are among ourselves under our present government, we are terrible to that monarchy. If this be not a fact, it is generally said so. We are in the next place frightened by dangers from Holland. We must change our government to escape the wrath of that re- public. Holland groans under a government like this new one. «* I (36 MR. HENRY'S SPEECH ON A sladtliolder, sir, a Dutcli president, lias brought on that country miseries which will not permit them to collect debts with fleets or armies. The wife ol" a Dutch stadtholder brought one hundred thousand men against that republic, and prostrated all opposition. This president will bring miseries on us like those of Holland. Such is the condition of European affairs, that it would be unsafe for them to send fleets or armies to collect debts. But here, sir, they make a transition to objects of another kind. We are pre- sented with dangers of a very unconnnon nature. 1 am not ac- quainted with the arts of painting. Some gentlemen have a pecu- liar talent for them. They are practised with great ingenuity on this occasion. As a counterpart to what we have already been in- timidated with, we are told, that some lands have been sold which cannot be found ; and that this will bring war on this country. Here the picture will not stand examination. Can it be supposed, that if a few land speculators and jobbers have violated the prin- ciples of probity, that it will involve this country in war ? Is there no redress to be otherwise obtained, even admitting the de- linquents and sufferers to be numerous ? When gentlemen are thus driven to produce imaginary dangers, to induce this conven- tion to assent to this change, I am sure it will not be uncandid to say, that the change itself is really dangerous. Then the Mary- land compact is broken, and will produce perilous consequences. I see nothing very terrible in this. The adoption of the new sys- tem will not remove the ev^il. Will they forfeit good neighbor- hood with us, because the compact is broken ? Then the disputes concerning the Carolina line are to involve us in dangers. A strip of land running from the westward of the Allegany to the Mississippi, is the subject of this pretended dispute. I do not know the length or bi'eadth of this disputed spot. Have they not regularly conOrmed our right to it, and relinquished all claims to it? I can venture to pledge that the people of Carolina will never disturb us. The strength of this despised country has settled an immense tract of country to the westward. Give me leave to re- mark, that the honorable gentleman's observations on our frontiers, north and south, east and west, are all inaccurate. Will Maryland fight against this country for seeking amend- ments ? Were there not sixty members in that state who went in quest of amendments ? Sixty against eight or ten were in favor of pursuing amendments. Shall they fight us for doing what they themselves have done ? They have sought amendments, but dif- lerently from the manner in which 1 wish amendments to be got. The honorable gentleman may plume himself on this difference. Will they fight us for this dissimilarity ? Will they fight us for seeking the object they seek themselves? When they do, it will be time for me to hold my peace. Then, sir, comes Pennsylva- THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 67 nia, in terrible array. Pennsylvania is to go in conflict with Vir- ginia. Pennsylvania has been a good neighbor heretofore. She is federal — something terrible : Virginia cannot look her in the face. If we sufficiently attend to the actual situation of things, we will conclude that Pennsylvania will do what we do. A num- ber of that country are strongly opposed to it. Many of them have lately been convinced of its fatal tendency. They are dis- gorged of their federalism. I beseech you to bring this matter home to yourselves. Was there a possibility for the people of that state to know the reasons of adopting that system, or under- stand its principles, in so very short a period after its formation ': This is the middle of June. Those transactions happened last August. The matter was circulated by every effort of industry, and the most precipitate measures taken to hurry the people into an adoption. Yet now, after having had several months since to investigate it, a very large part of this community — a very great majority of this community do not understand it. I have heard gentlemen of respectable abilities declare that they did not under- stand it. If, after great pains, men of high learning, who have re- ceived the aid of a regular education, do not understand it ; if the people of Pennsylvania understood it in so short a time, it must have been from intuitive understandings and uncommon acuteness of perception. Place yourselves in their situation; would you fight your neighbors for considering this great and awful matter ? If you wish for real amendments, such as the security of the trial by jury, it will reach the hearts of the people of that state. Whatever may be the disposition of the aristocratical politicians of that country, I know there are friends of human nature in that state. If so, they will never make war on those who make pro- fessions of whfft they are attached to themselves. As to the danger arising from borderers, it is mutual and recip- rocal. If it be dangerous for Virginia, it is equally so for them. It will be their true interest to be united with us. The danger of our being their enemies, will be a prevailing argument in our favor. It will be as powerful to admit us into the union, as a vote of adoption, without previous amendments, could possibly be. Then the savage Indians are to destroy us. We cannot look them in the face. The danger is here divided ; they are as ter- rible to the other states as to us : but, sir, it is well known that we have nothing to fear from them. Our back settlers are consider- ably stronger than they, and their superiority increases daily. Suppose the states to be confederated all around us, what we want in number we shall make up otherwise. Our compact situation and natural strength will secure us. But to avoid all dangers, we must take shelter under the federal government. Nothing gives a decided importance but this federal goviernment. You will sip 68 MR. HENRY'S SPEKCH ON sorrow, according to the vulgar phrase, if you want any other se- curity than the huvs of Virginia. A number of characters of the greatest eminence in this coun- try object to this government for its consolidating tendency. This is not imaginary. It is a formidable reality. If consolidation proves to be as mischievous to this country as it has been to other countries, what will the poor inhabitants of this country do ? This government will operate like an ambuscade. It will destroy the state gov(Mnments and swallow up the liberties of the people, without giving them previous notice. If gentlemen are willing to run the hazard, let them run it ; but I shall exculpate myself by my opposition and monitory warnings within these walls. But then comes paper money. We are at peace on this subject. Though this is a thing which that mighty federal convention had no business with, yet I acknowledge that paper money would be the bane of this country. I detest it. JXothing can justify a people in resorting to it, but extreme necessity. It is at rest, however, in this commonwealth. It is no longer solicited or advocated. Sir, I ask you and every other gentleman who hears me, if he can restrain his indignation at a system which takes from the state legislatures the care and preservation of the interests of the peo- ple ; one hundred and eighty representatives, the choice of the })eople of Virginia, cannot be trusted with their interests. They are a mobbish, suspected herd. This country has not virtue enough to manage its own internal interests. These must be re- ferred to the chosen ten. If we cannot be trusted with the private contracts of the citizens, we must be depraved indeed. If he can prove, that, by one uniform system of abandoned principles, the legislature has betrayed the rights of the peojile, then let us seek another shelter. So degrading an indignity — so flagrant an out- rage on the states — so vile a suspicion — is humiliating to my mind and many others. Will the adoption of this new plan pay our debts ? This, sir, is a plain question. It is inferred, that our grievances are to be redressed, and the evils of the existing system to be removed by the new constitution. Let me inform the honorable gentleman, that no nation ever paid its debts by a change of government, without the aid of industry. You never will pay your debts but by a radical change of domestic economy. At present you buy too much, and inake too little to pay. \Vill this new system pro- mote manufactures, industry and frugality ? If, instead of this, your hopes and designs will be disappointed, you relinquish a great deal, and hazard infinitely more for nothing. Will it enhance the value of your lands ? Will it lessen your burdens? Will your looms and wheels go to work by the act of adoption? If it will, THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 69 in its consequences, produce these things, it will consequently pro- duce a reform, and enable you to pay your debts. Gentlemen must prove it. I am a skeptic — an infidel on this point. I can- not conceive that it will have these happy consequences. 1 can- not confide in assertions and allegations. The evils that attend us lie in extrav^agance and want of industry, and can only be re- moved by assiduity and economy. Perhaps we shall be told by gentlemen that these things will happen, because the administration is to be taken from us and placed in the hands of the luminous few, who will pay different attention, and be more studiously care- ful than we can be supposed to be. With respect to the economical operation of the new govern- ment, I will only remark that the national expenses will be in- creased — if not doubled, it will approach it very near. I might, without incurring the imputation of illiberality or extravagance, say, that the expense will be multiplied tenfold. I might tell you of a numerous standing army ; a great, powerful navy ; a long and rapacious train of officers and dependants, independent of the president, senators and representatives, whose compensations are without limitation. How are our debts to be discharged unless the taxes are increased, when the expenses of government are so greatly augmented ? The defects of this system are so numerous and palpable, and so many states object to it, that no union can be expected unless it be amended. Let us take a review of the facts. New Hampshire and Rhode Island have rejected it. They have refused to become federal. New York and North Carolina are reported to be strongly against it. From high authority, give me leave to tell, that New York is in high opposition. Will any gen- tleman say that North Carolina is not against it ? They may say so ; but I say that the adoption of it in those two states amounts to entire uncertainty. The system must be amended before these four states will accede to it. Besides, there are several other states who are dissatisfied, and wish alterations.* Massachusetts has, in decided terms, proposed amendments ; but by her previous ratification, has put the cart before the horse. Maryland institu- ted a committee to propose amendments. It then appears that two states have actually refused to adopt — two of those who have adopted have a desire of amending. And there is a probability of its being rejected by New York and North Carolina. The other states have acceded without proposing amendments. With respect to them, local circumstances have, in my judgment, oper- ated to produce its unconditional, instantaneous adoption. The locality of the seat of government, ten miles square, and the seat of justice, with all their concomitant emoluments, operated so powerfully with the first adopting state, that it was adopted with- out taking time to reflect. We are told that numerous advantages 70 MR. HENRY'S SPEECH ON will result from the concentration of the wealth and grandeur of the United States in one happy spot, to tliose who will reside in or near it. Prospects of profiL and emoluments have a powerful influence on the human mind, ( We, sir, have no such projects as that of a grand seat of government for thirteen states, and perhaps for one hundred states hereafter.^ Connecticut and New Jersey have their localities also. New York lies between them. They iiave no ports, and are not importing states. New York is an im- porting state, and, taking advantage of its situation, makes them pay duties for all the articles of their consumption : thus, these two states, being obliged to import all they want, through the me- dium of New York, pay the particular taxes of that state. I know the force and effect of reasoning of this sort by experience. When the impost was proposed some years ago, those states which were not importing states readily agreed to concede to congress the power of laying an impost on all goods imported for the use of the continental treasury. Connecticut and New Jei-sey, therefore, are influenced by advantages of trade in their adoption. The amounts of all imposts are to go into one common treasury. This favors adoption by the non-importing states ; as they participate in the profits which were before exclusively enjoyed by the importing states. Notwithstanding this obvious advantage to Connecticut, there is a formidable minority there against it. After taking this general review of American affairs, as respecting federalism, will the honorable gentleman tell me that he can expect union in America? When so many states are pointedly against it ; when two adopting states have pointed out, in express terms, their dis- satisfaction as it stands ; and when there is so respectable a body of men discontented in every state, can the honorable gentleman promise himself harmony, of which he is so fond? If he can, I cannot. To me it appears unequivocally clear, that we shall not have that harmony. If it appears to the other states, that our aversion is founded on just grounds, will they not be willing to in- dulge us ? If disunion will really result from Virginia's proposing amendments, will they not wish the reestablishment of the union, and admit us, if not on such terms as we prescribe, yet on advan- tageous terms ? Is not union as essential to their happiness as to ours? Sir, without a radical alteration, the states will never be embraced in one federal pale. If you attempt to force it down men's throats, and call it union, dreadful consequences must follow. He has said a great deal about disunion and the dangers that are to arise from it. When we are on tlie subject of union and dan- gers, let me ask. How will his present doctrine hold with what has happened ? Is it consistent with that noble and disinterested con- duct which he displayed on a former occasion ? Did he not tell us that he withheld his signature ? Where then were the dangers ^i THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 71 which now appear to him so formidable ? He saw all America eagerly confiding that the result of their deliberations would remove their distresses. He saw all America acting under the impulses of hope, expectation and anxiety, arising from their situation and their partiality for the members of that convention : yet his en- lightened mind, knowing that system to be defective, magnani- mously and nobly refused its approbation. He was not led by the illumined — the illustrious few. He was actuated by the dictates of his own judgment ; and a better judgment than 1 can form. He did not stand out of the way of information. He must have been possessed of every intelligence. What alteration have a few months brought about ? {The internal difference between right and wrong does not fluctuate. It is immutable.! I ask this ques- tion as a public man, and out of no particular view. I wisli, as such, to consult every source of information, to form my judgment on so awful a question. I had the highest respect for the honor- able gentleman's abilities. I considered his opinion as a great au- thority. He taught me, sir, in despite of the approbation of that great federal convention, to doubt of the propriety of that system. When I found my honorable friend in the number of those who doubted, I began to doubt also. I coincided with him in opinion. I shall be a stanch and faithful disciple of his. 1 applaud that magnanimity which led him to withhold his signature. If he thinks now differently, he is as free as I am. Such is my sit- uation, that, as a poor individual, I look for information every wljere. This government is so new it wants a name. I wish its other novelties were as harmless as this. He told us we had an Amer- ican dictator in the year 1781. We never had an American pres- ident. In making a dictator, we follow the example of the most glorious, magnanimous and skilful nations. In great dangers this power has been given. Rome had furnished us with an illustrious example. America found a person worthy of that trust: she looked to Virginia for him. We gave a dictatorial power to hands that used it gloriously, and which were rendered more glorious by surrendering it up. Where is there a breed of such dictators ? Shall we find a set of American presidents of such a breed ? Will the American president come and lay prostrate at the feet of con- gress his laurels ? I fear there are few men who can be trusted on that head. The glorious republic of Holland has erected mon- uments to her warlike intrepidity and valor : yet she is now totally ruined by a stadtholder, a Dutch president. The destructive wars into which that nation has been plunged, have since involved her in ambition. The glorious triumphs of Blenheim and Ra- millies were not so conformable to the genius, nor so much to the true interest of the republic, as those numerous and useful canals 72 MR. HENRY'S SPEECH ON and dikes, and other objects at which aiiibition spurns. That re- pubhc has, however, by the industry of its inhabitants and pohcy of its magistrates, suppressed the ill effects of ambition. Notwith- standing two of their provinces have paid nothing, yet I hope tiie example of Holland will tell us, that we can live happily without changing our present despised government. Cannot people be n'- liappy under a mild as under an energetic government ? Cannot content and felicity be enjoyed in a republic as well as in a mon- ai'chy, because there are whips, chains and scourges used in the latter? If I am not as rich as my neighbor, if I give my mite, my all, republican forbearance will say that it is sufficient. So said the honest confederates of Holland : " You are poor ; we are rich. We will go on and do belter, far better, than be under an oppressive government." Far better will it be for us to con- tinue as we are, than go under tiiat light, energetic government. I am persuaded of what tlie honorable gentleman says, that sepa- rate confederacies will ruin us. In my judgment, they are evils never to be thought of till a people are driven by necessity. When he asks my opinion of consolidation, of one power to reign over America with a strong hand, I will tell him, I am persuaded of the rectitude of my honorable friend's oj)inion (Mr. Mason), that one government cannot reign over so extensive a country as this is. without absolute despotism. Compared to such a consolidation, small confederacies are little evils, though they ought to be recur- red to but in case of necessity. Virginia and North Carolina are despised. They could exist separated from the rest of America. Maryland and Vermont were not overrun when out of the confed- eracy. Though it is not a desirable object, yet, I trust, that on examination it will be found, that Virginia and North Carolina would not be swallowed up in case it was necessary for them to be joined together. When we come to the spirit of domestic peace, the humble genius of Virginia has formed a government suitable to the genius of her people. I believe the hands that formed the American constitution triumph in the experiment. It proves that the man who formed it, and perhaps by accident, did what design could not do in other parts of the world. After all your reforms in govern- ment, unless you consult the genius of the inhabitants, you will never succeed ; your system can have no duration. Let me ap- peal to the candor of the committee, if the want of money be not the source of all our misfortunes. We cannot be blamed for not making dollars. This want of money cannot be supplied by changes in government. The only possible remedy, as I have be- fore asserted, is industry aided by economy. Compare the genius of the people with the government of this country. Let me re- mark, that it stood the severest conflict during the war to which THE FEDERAL CONETITUTION. 73 human virtue has ever been called. I call upon every gentleman here to declare, whether the king of England had any subjects so attached to his family and government — so loyal as we were. But the genius of Virginia called us for liberty ; called us from those beloved endearments, which, from long habits, we were taught to love and revere. We entertained from our earliest in- fancy the most sincere regard and reverence for the mother coun- try. Our partiality extended to a predilection for her customs, habits, manners and laws. Thus inclined, when the deprivation of our liberty was attempted,, what did we do? What did the genius of Virginia tell us? "Sell all and purchase liberty." This was a severe conflict. Republican maxims were then es- teemed. Those maxims and the genius of Virginia landed you safe on the shore of freedom. On this awful occasion, did you want a federal government ? Did federal ideas possess your minds ? Did federal ideas lead you to the most splendid victo- ries ? I must again repeat the favorite idea, that the genius of Virginia did, and will again lead us to happiness. To obtain the most splendid prize, you did not consolidate. You accomplished the most glorious ends by the assistance of the genius of your country. Men were then taught by that genius that they were fighting for what was most dear to them. View the most affec- tionate father, the most tender mother, operated on by liberty, nobly stimulating their sons, their dearest sons, sometimes their only son, to advance to the defence of his country. We have seen sons of Cincinnatus without splendid magnificence or parade, going, with the genius of their great progenitor Cincinnatus, to the plough — men who served their country without ruining it ; men who had served it to the destruction of their private patrimonies ; their country owing them amazing amounts, for the payment of which no adequate provision was then made. We have seen such men throw prostrate their arms at your feet. They did not call for those emoluments which ambition presents to some imagina- tions. The soldiers wlio were able to command every thing, in- stead of trampling on those laws which they were instituted to de- fend, most strictly obeyed them. The hands of justice have not been laid on a single American soldier. Bring them into contrast with European veterans^ — you will see an astonishing superiority over the latter. There has been a strict subordination to the laws. The honorable gentleman's office gave him an opportunity of viewing if the laws were administered so as to prevent riots, routs and unlawful assemblies. From his then situation, he could have furnished us with the instances in which licentiousness tram- pled on the laws. Among all our troubles, we have paid almost to the last shilling, for the sake of justice : we have paid as well as any state ; I will not say better. To support the general gov- 7 K 74 MR. HENRY'S SPEECH ON crnment and our own legislature ; to pay the interest of the pub- lic debts, and defray contingencies, we have been heavily taxed. To add to these things, the distresses produced by paper money, and by tobacco contracts, were sufficient to render any people dis- contented. These, sir, were great temptations ; but in the most severe conflict of misfortunes, this code of laws — this genius of Virginia, call it what you will, triumphed over every thing. Why did it please the gentleman, (Mr. Corbin) to bestow such epithets on our country ? Have the worms taken possession of the wood, that our strong vessel, our political vessel, has sprung a leak ? He may know better than I ; but I consider such epithets to be the most illiberal and unwarrantable aspersions on our laws. The system of laws under which we have lived, has been tried and found to suit our genius. I trust we shall not change this happy system. I cannot so easily take leave of an old friend. Till I see him fol- lowing after and pursuing other objects, which can pervert the great objects of human legislation, pardon me if I withhold my assent. Some here speak of the difficulty in forming a new code of laws. Young as we were, it was not wonderful if there was a difficulty in forming and assimilating one system of laws. I shall be obliged to the gentleman, if he would point out those glaring, those great faults. The efforts of assimilating our laws to our genius have not been found altogether vain. I shall pass over some other circumstances which I intended to mention, and endeavor to come to the capital objection, which my honorable friend made. My worthy friend said, that a republican form of government would not suit a very extensive country ; but that if a government were judiciously or- ganized, and limits prescribed to it, an attention to these principles might render it possible for it to exist in an extensive territory. Whoever will be bold to say, that a continent can be governed by that system, contradicts all the experience of the world. It is a work too great for liuman' wisdom. Let me call for an example. Experience has been called the best teacher. I call for an exam- ple of a great extent of country, governed by one government, or congress, call it what you will. I tell him that a government may be trimmed up according to gentlemen's fancy, but it never can operate; it will be but very short-lived. However disagreeable it may be to lengthen my objections, I cannot help taking notice of what the honorable gentleman said. To me it appears that there is no check in that government. The president, senators and rep- resentativps, all immediately or mediately, are the choice of the people. yTell me not of checks on paper ; but tell me of checks founded on self-love. The English government is founded on self-love. This powerful, irresistible stimulus of self-love lias saved that government. It has interposed that hereditary nobility between the king and coijimons. If the house of lords assists or THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 75 permits the king to overturn the liberties of the people, the same tyranny will destroy them; they will therefore keep the balance in the democratic branch. Suppose they see the commons en- croach upon the king : self-love, that great, energetic check, will call upon them to interpose ; for, if the king be destroyed, their destruction must speedily follow. Here is a consideration which prevails in my mind, to pronounce the British government superi- or, in this respect, to any government that ever was in any country. Compare this with your congressional checks. I beseech gentle- men to consider whether they can say, when trusting power, that a mere patriotic profession will be equally operative and efficacious, as the check of self-love. In considering the experience of ages, is it not seen that fair, disinterested patriotism and professions of attachment to rectitude, have never been solely trusted to by an enlightened, free people ? If you depend on your president's and senators' patriotism, you are gone. Have you a resting-place like the British government ? Where is the rock of your salvation .■' The real rock of political salvation is self-love, perpetuated from age to age in every human breast, and manifested in every action. If they can stand the temptations of human nature, you are safe. If you have a good president, senators, and representatives, there is no danger. But can this be expected from human nature .-' Without real checks it will not suffice that some of them are good. A good president, or senator, or representative^ will have a natural weakness. Virtue will slumber : the wicked will be continually w^atching: consequently you will be undone. Where are your checks ? You have no hereditary nobility — an order of men, to whom human eyes can be cast up ibr relief; for, says the constitu- tion, there is no title of nobility to be granted ; which, by the by. would not have been so dangerous as the perilous cession of pow- ers contained in that paper; because, as Montesquieu says, when you give titles of nobility, you know what you give ; but when you give power, you know not wh^t you give. If you say that. out of this depraved mass, you can collect luminous characters, it will not avail, unless this luminous breed will be propagated from generation to generation ; and even then, if the number of vicious characters will preponderate, you are undone. And that this will certainly be the case, is, to my mind, perfectly clear. In the British government, there are real balances and checks : in this system, there are only ideal balances. Till I am convinced that there are actual, efficient checks, I will not give my assent to its establishment. The president and senators have nothing to lose. They have not that interest in the preservation of the government, that the king and lords have in England. They will therefore be regardless of the interests of the people. The constitution will 76 mrTTienry's speech on be as safe with one body as with two. It will answer every pur- pose of human legislation. How was the constitution of England when only the commons had the power? I need only remark, that it was the most unfortunate era when the country returned to king, lords and connnons, without sufficient responsibility in the king. When the commons of England, in the manly language which became freemen, said to their king, "You are our servant," then the temple of liberty was complete. From that noble source have we derived our liberty : that spirit of patriotic attachment to one's country, that zeal for liberty, and that enmity to tyranny, whicli signalized the then champions of liberty, we inherit Irom our Britisii ancestors. And 1 am free to own, that if you cannot love a republican government, you may love the British monar- chy : for, althougli the king is not sufficiently responsible, the responsibility of his agents, and the efficient checks interposed by the British constitution, render it less dangerous than other monar- chies, or oppressive tyrannical aristocracies. What are their checks of exposing accounts ? Their checks upon paper are inefficient and nugatory. Can you search your president's closet? Is this a real check ? We ouglit to be exceedingly cautious in giving up this life, this soul — our money — this power of taxation, to congress. What powerful check is there here to prevent the most extrava- gant and profligate squandering of the public money? What se- curity have we in money matters ? Inquiry is precluded by this constitution. I never wish to see congress supplicate the states. But it is more abhorrent to my mind to give them an unlimited and unbounded command over our souls, our lives, our purses, without any check or restraint. How are you to keep inquiry alive ? how discover their conduct ? We are told by that paper, that a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time. Here is a beautiful check ! What time ? Here is the utmost latitude left. If those who are in congress please to put that construction upon it, the words of the constitution will be satisfied by publishing those accounts once in one hundred years. They may publish or not, as they please. Is this like the present despised system, whereby the accounts are to be published monthly ? I come now to speak something of requisitions, which the lionorable gentleman thought so truly contemptible and disgrace- ful. That honorable gentleman, being a child of the revolution, must recollect with gratitude the glorious effects of requisitions. It is an idea that must be grateful to every American. An English army was sent to compel us to pay money contrary to our con- sent ; to force us by arbitrary and tyrannical coercion to satisfy their unbounded demands. We wished to pay with our own con- THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 77 sent. Rather than pay against our consent, we engaged in that bloody contest, which terminated so gloriously. By requisitions we pay with our own consent ; by their means we have triumphed in the most arduous struggle that ever tried the virtue of man. We fought then for what we are contending now — to prevent an arbitrary deprivation of our property, contrary to our consent and inclination. I shall be told, in this place, that those who are to tax us are our representatives. To this I answer, that there is no real check to prevent their ruining us. There is no actual respon- sibility. The only semblance of a check is the negative power of not reelecting them. This, sir, is but a feeble barrier, when their personal interest, their ambition and avarice come to be put in contrast with the happiness of the people. All checks found- ed on any thing but self-love, will not avail. This constitution reflects, in the most degrading and mortifying manner, on the vir- tue, integrity and wisdom of the state legislatures : it presupposes that the chosen few who go to congress, will have more upright hearts, and more enlightened minds, than those who are members of the individual legislatures. To suppose that ten gentlemen shall have more real substantial merit than one hundred and seventy, is humiliating to the last degree. If, sir, the diminution of numbers be an augmentation of merit, perfection must centre in one. If you have the faculty of discerning spirits, it is better to point out at once the man who has the most illumined qualities. If ten men be better than one hundred and seventy, it follows of necessity that one is better than ten — the choice is more refined. Such is the danger of the abuse of impUed power, that it would be safer at once to have seven representatives, the number to which we are now entitled, than depend on the uncertain and am- biguous language of that paper. The number may be lessened instead of being increased ; and yet by argumentative, construc- tive, implied power, the proportion of taxes may continue the same or be increased. Nothing is more perilous than constructive power, which gentlemen are so willing to trust their happiness to. If sheriffs prove now an overmatch for our legislature ; if their ingenuity has eluded the vigilance of our laws, how will the mat- ter be amended when they come clothed with federal authority ? A strenuous argument offered by gentlemen is, that the same sheriffs may collect for the continental and state treasuries. I have before shown, that this must have an inevitable tendency to give a decided preference to the federal treasury in the actual col- lections, and to throw all deficiencies on the state. This imagina- ry remedy for the evil of congressional taxation, will have another oppressive operation. The sheriff comes to-day as a state collect- 7* 78 MR. HENRY'S SPEECH ON or — next day lie is federal — liovv are you to fix him ? How will it be possible to discriminate oppressions committed in one capaci- ty from those perpetrated in the other? Will not his in;^enuity perplex the simple, honest planter? This will at least involve in difticLilties those who are unac(|uainted with legal ingenuity. When you fix him, where are you to punish him? For I suppose, they will not stay in our courts: they must go to the federal court; for if I understand that paper right, all controversies arising under that constitution, or under the laws made in pursuance thereof, are to be tried in that court. When gentlemen told us, that this part deserved the least exception, I was in hopes they would prove that there was plausibility in their suggestions, and that oppression would probably not follow. Are we not told that it shall be trea- son to levy war against the United States? Suppose an insult of- fered to the federal laws at an immense distance from Philadel- phia ; will this be deemed treason ? And shall a man be dragged many hundred miles to be tried as a criminal for having, perhaps justifiably, resisted an unwarrantable attack upon his person or property ? I am not well acquainted with federal jurisprudence ; but it appears to me that these oppressions must result from this part of the j)lan. It is at least doubtful, and where there is even a possibility of such evils, they ought to be guarded against. There are to be a number of places fitted out for arsenals and dock-yards in the dilFerent states. Unless you sell to congress such places as are proper for these within your state, you will not be consistent after adoption ; it results therefore clearly that you are to give into their hands all such places as are fit for strong- holds. When you have these fortifications and garrisons within your state, your legislature will have no ])ower over them, though they see the most dangerous insults offered to the people daily. They are also to have magazines in each state : these depositories for arms, though within tlie state, will be free from the control of its legislature. Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence ? There is a wide difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and hav- ing them under the management of congress. If our defence be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted witli more propriety or equal safety to us as in our own ? If our legislature be unworthy of legislating for every foot in this state, they are unworthy of saying another word. The clause which says that congress shall " provide for arming, organizing and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers," THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 79 seemed to put the srtates in the power of congress. I wished to be informed, if congress neglected to disciphne them, whether the states were not precluded from doing it. Not being favored with a particular answer, I am confirmed in my opinion that the states have not the power of disciplining them, without recurring to the doctrine of constructive, implied powers. If by implication the states may discipline them, by implication also congress may offi- cer them ; because, in a partition of power, each has a right to come in for part ; and because implication is to operate in favor of congress on all occasions, where their object is the extension of power, as well as in favor of the states. We have not one fourth of the arms that would be sufficient to defend ourselves. The power of arming the militia, and the means of purchasing arms, are taken from the states by the paramount powers of congress. If congress will not arm them, they will not be armed at all. There have been no instances shown of a voluntary cession of power, sufficient to induce me to grant the most dangerous powers : a possibility of their future relinquishment will not persuade me to yield such powers. Congress, by the power of taxation, by that of raising an army, and by their control over the militia, have the sword in one hand and the purse in the other. Shall we be safe without either? Congress have an unlimited power over both : they are entirely given up by us. Let him candidly tell me, where and when did freedom exist when the sword and purse were given up by the people ? Unless a miracle in human affairs interposed, no nation ever retained its liberty after the loss of the sword and purse. . Can you prove, by any argumentative deduction, that it is possible to be safe without retaining one of these ? If you give them up, you are gone. Give us at least a plausible apology why congress should keep their proceedings in secret. They have the power of keeping them secret as long as they please ; for the provision for a periodical publication is too inexplicit and ambiguous to avail any thing. The expression, from time to time, as I have more than once observed, admits of any extension. They may carry on the most wicked and pernicious of schemes under the dark veil of secrecy. The liberties of a people never were nor ever will be secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them. The most iniquitous plots may be carried on against their liberty and happiness. I am not an advocate for divulging indiscriminately all the operations of government, though the prac- tice of our ancestors in some degree justifies it. Such transactions as relate to military operations or affairs of great consequence, the immediate promulgation of which might defeat the interests of the community I would not wish to be published till the end which 80 MR. HENRY'S SPEECH ON required their secrecy should have been effected. But to cover, witli the veil of secrecy, the common routine of business, is an abomination in the eyes of every intelligent man and every friend to his country. ^'^ * # * # * * * ' I appeal to this convention if it would not be better for America to take oif the veil of secrecy. Look at us — hear our transactions. If this had been the language of the federal convention, what would have been the result ? Such a constitution would not have come out to your utter astonisliment, conceding such dangerous powers, and reconnnending secrecy in the future transactions of government. 1 believe it would have given more general satis- faction if the proceedings of that convention had not been con- cealed from the public eye. This constitution authorizes the same conduct. There is not an English feature in it. The transaction? of congress may be concealed a century from the public consist- ently with the constitution. This, sir, is a laudable imitation of the transactions of the Spanish treaty. We have not for- gotten with what a thick veil of secrecy those transactions were covered. We are told that this government, collectively taken, is without an example ; that it is national in this part, and federal in that part, &,c. We may be amused, if we please, by a treatise of po- litical anatomy. In the brain it is national : the stamina are fed- eral : some limbs are federal, others national. The senators are voted for by the state legislatures ; so far it is federal. Individuals choose the members of the first branch; here it is national. It is federal in conferring general powers, but national in retaining them. It is not to be supported by the states — the pockets of individuals arc to be searched for its maintenance. What signifies it to me that you have the most curious anatomical description of it in its creation ? To all the common purposes of legislation it is a sreat consolidation of <:overnment. You are not to have the right to legislate in any but trivial cases : you are not to touch private contracts : you are not to have the right of having arms in your own defence : you cannot be trusted with dealing out justice between man and man. What shall the states have to do ? Tat care of the poor, repair and make highways, erect bridges, and so on and so on. Abolish the state legislatures at once. What pur- poses should they be continued for ? Our legislature will indeed be a ludicrous spectacle — one hundred and eighty men, marchini in solemn, farcical procession, exhibiting a mournful proof of th« lost liberty of their country, without the power of restoring itj But, sir, we have the consolation, that it is a mixed government ; that is, it may work sorely on your neck, but you will have THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 81 some comfort by saying that it was a federal government in its origin. I beg gentlemen to consider ; lay aside your prejudices — is this a federal government ? Is it not a consolidated government for every purpose almost ? Is the government of Virginia a state government after this government is adopted ? I grant that it is a republican government ; but for what purposes ? For such trivial, domestic considerations as render it unworthy the name of a legislature. I shall take leave of this political anatomy by ob- serving, that it is the most extraordinary that ever entered into the imagination of man. If our political diseases demand a cure, this is an unheard-of medicine. The honorable member, I am con- vinced, wanted a name for it. Were your health in danger, would you take new medicine ? I need not make use of these exclama- tions ; for every member in this committee must be alarmed at making new and unusual experiments in government. Let us have national credit and a national treasury in case of war. You never can want national resources in time of war, if the war be a national one, if it be necessary, and this necessity be obvious to the meanest capacity. The utmost exertions will be used by the peo- ple of America in that case. A republic has this advantage over a monarchy, that its wars are generally founded on more just grounds. A republic can never enter into a war unless it be a national war, unless it be approved of, or desired by the whole community. Did ever a republic fail to use the utmost resources of the community when a war was necessary ? I call for an ex- ample. I call also for an example when a republic has been en- gaged in a war contraiy to the wishes of its people. There are thousands of examples where the ambition of its prince has precip- itated a nation into the most destructive war. No nation ever withheld power when its object was just and right. I will hazard an observation : I find fault with the paper before you because the same power that declares war has the ability to carry it on. Is it so in England ? The king declares war : the house of commons gives the means of carrying it on. This is a strong check on the king. He will enter into no war that is unnecessary ; for the commons, having the power of withholding the means, will exer- cise that power, unless the object of the war be for the interest of the nation. How is it here ? The congress can both declare war and carry it on, and levy your money as long as you have a shil- ling to pay. I shall now speak a little of the colonial confederacy which was proposed at Albany. Massachusetts did not give her consent to the project at Albany so as to consolidate with the other colo- nies. Had there been a consolidation at Albany, where would L 82 MR. HENRY'S SPEECH ON have been their charter ? Would that confederacy have pre- served tlicir charter IVoin Britain ? The strength and energy of tlie then designed government would iiave crushed American op- position. The American revolution took its origin from the comparative weakness of the British government not being concentred in one j)oint. A concentration of the strength and interest of the Brilisii government in one point, would have rendered opposition to its tyrannies fruitless. For want of that consolidation do we now enjoy liberty, and the privilege of debating at this moment. I am pleased with the colonial establishment. The example, which the honorable member has produced to persuade us to depart from our j)resent confederacy, rivets me to my former opinion, and con- vinces me that consolidation must end in the destruction of our liberties. The honorable gentleman has told us of our ingratitude to France. She does not intend to take payment by force. Ingrat- itude shall not be laid to my charge. 1 wish to see the friendship between this country and that magnanimous ally perpetuated. Requisitlbns will enable us to pay the debts we owe to France and other countries. She does not desire us to go from our beloved republican government. The change is inconsistent with our en- gagements with those nations. It is cried out that those in oppo- sition wish disunion. This is not true. They are the most stren- uous friends to it. This government will clearly operate disunion. If it be heard on the other side of the Atlantic that you are going to disunite and dissolve the confederacy, what says France ? Will she be indifferent to an event that will so radically affect her trea- ties with us ? Our treaty with her is founded on the confederation — we are bound to her as thirteen states confederated. What will become of the treaty ? It is said that treaties will be on a better footing. How so? Will the president, senate, and house of rep- resentatives, be parties to them ? I cannot conceive how the trea- ties can be as binding, if the confederacy is dissolved, as they are now. Those nations will not continue their friendship then ; they will become our enemies. I look on the treaties as the greatest pillars of safety. If the house of Bourbon keeps us, we are safe. Dissolve that confederacy — who has you ? — the British. Feder- alism will not protect you from the British. Is a connection with that country more desirable ? I was amazed when gentlemen for- got the friends of America. 1 hope that this dangerous change will not be effected. It is safe for the French and Spaniards that we should continue to be thirteen states ; but it is not so that we should be consolidated into one government. They have settle- ments in America ; will they like schemes of popular ambition ? THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 83 Will they not have some serious reflections ? You may tell them you have not changed your situation ; but they will not believe you. If there be a real check intended to be left on congress, it must be left in the state governments. There will be some check as long as the judges are incorrupt. As long as they are upright, you may preserve your liberty. But what will the judges deter- mine when the state and federal authority come to be contrasted ? Will your liberty then be secure, when the congressional laws are declared paramount to the laws of your state, and the judges are sworn to support them ? I am constrained to make a few remarks on the absurdity of adopting this system, and relying on the chance of getting it amend- ed afterwards. When it is confessed to be replete with defects, is it not offering to insult your understandings, to attempt to reason you out of the propriety of rejecting it, till it be amended ? Does it not insult your judgments to tell you — Adopt first and then amend ? Is your rage for novelty so great, that you are first to sig;n and seal, and then to retract ? Is it possible to conceive a greater solecism ? I am at a loss what to say. You agree to bind yourselves hand and foot — for the sake of what ? Of being un- bound. Yoii^o into...a dungeon — for what? To get out. Is there no danger, when you go in, that the bolts of federal authori- ty shall shut you in ? Human nature never will part from power. Look for an example of a voluntary relinquishment of power, from one end of the globe to another — you will find none. Nine tenths of our fellow-men have been, and are now, depressed by the most intolerable slavery, in the different parts of the world ; because tjie strong hand of power has bolted them in the dungeon oPdespot- ism. Review the present situation of the nations of Europe, which is pretended to be the freest quarter of the globe. Cast your eyes on the countries called free there. Look at the country from which we are descended, I beseech you ; and although we are separated by everlasting, insuperable partitions, yet there are some virtuous people there who are friends to human nature and liberty. Look at Britain ; see there the bolts and bars of power ; see bribery and corruption defiling the fairest fabric that ever hu- man nature reared. Can a gentleman who is an Englishman, or who is acquainted with the English history, desire to prove these evils ? See the efforts of a man descended from a friend of Ameri- ca ; see the efforts of that man, assisted even by the king, to make reforms. But you find the faults too strong to be amended. Nothing but bloody war can alter them. See Ireland : that coun- try groaned from century to century, without getting their govern- ment amended. Previous adoption was the fashion there. They sent for amendments from time to time, but never obtained them, 84 MR. HENRY'S SPEECH ON though pressed by the severest oppression, till eighty thousand volunteers demanded them sword in hand — till the power of Brit- ain was prostrate ; when the American resistance w'as crowned with success. Shall we do so ? If you judge by the experience of Ireland, you must obtain the amendments as early as possible. But I ask you again. Where is the example that a government was amended by those who instituted it ? Where is the instance of the errors of a government rectified by those who adopted them ? I shall make a few observations to prove, that the power over elections, which is given to congress, is contrived by the federal government ; that the people may be deprived of their proper in- fluence in the government, by destroying the force and effect of their suffrages. Congress is to have a discretionary control over the time, place and manner of elections. The representatives are to be elected consequently when and where they please. As to the time and place, gentlemen have attempted to obviate the objec- tion by saying, that the time is to happen once in two years, and that the place is to be within a particular district, or in the respec- tive counties. But how will they obviate the danger of referring the manner of election to congress ? Those illumined genii may see that this may not endanger the rights of the people ; but to my unenlightened understanding, it appears plain and clear, that it will impair the popular weight in the government. Look at the Roman history. They had two ways of voting : the one by tribes, and the other by centuries. By the former, numbers prevailed : in the latter, riches preponderated. According to the mode pre- scribed, congress may tell you, that they have a right to make the vote of one gentleman go as far as the votes of one hundred poor men. The power over the manner admits of the most dangerous latitude. They may modify it as they please. They may regu- late the number of votes by the quantity of property, without in- volving any repugnancy to the constitution. I should not have thought of this trick or contrivance, had I not seen how the public liberty of Rome was trifled with by the mode of voting by centu- ries, whereby one rich man had as many votes as a multitude of poor men. The plebeians were trampled on till they resisted. The patricians trampled on the liberties of the plebeians, till the latter had spirit to assert their right to freedom and equality. The result of the American mode of election may be similar. Per- haps I shall be told, that I have gone through the regions of fancy ; that I deal in noisy exclamations, and mighty professions of pat- riotism. Gentlemen may retain their opinions ; but I look on that paper as the most fatal plan that could possibly be conceived to enslave a free people. If such be your rage for novelty, take it THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 85 and welcome ; but you never shall have my consent. My senti- ments may appear extravagant, but I can tell you, that a number of my fellow-citizens have kindred sentiments ; and I am anxious, if my country should come into the hands of tyranny, to excul- pate myself from being in any degree the cause, and to exert my faculties to the utmost to extricate her. Whether I am gratified or not in my beloved form of government, I consider that the more she is plunged into distress, the more it is my duty to relieve her. Whatever may be the result, I shall wait with patience till the day may come, when an opportunity shall offer to exert myself in her cause. But I should be led to take that man for a lunatic, who should tell me to run into the adoption of a government avowedly defec- tive, in hopes of having it amended afterwards. Were I about to give away the meanest particle of my own property, I should act with more prudence and discretion. My anxiety and fears are great, lest America, by the adoption of this system, should be cast into a fathomless abyss. SPEECH OF PATRICK HENRY, ON THE EXPEDIENCY OF ADOPTING THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, DELIVERED IN THE CONVENTION OF VIRGINIA, JUNE 24, 1788.* Mr. Chairman, The proposal of ratification is premature. The importance of the subject requires the most mature deliberation. The honorable member must forgive me for declaring my dissent from it, because, if I understand it rightly, it admits that the new system is defective, and most capitally ; for, immediately after the proposed ratification, there comes a declaration, that the paper before you is not intended to vio- late any of these three great rights — the liberty of religion, liberty of the press, and the trial by jury. What is the inference, when you enumerate the rights which you are to enjoy ? Tliat those not enumerated are relinquished. There are only three things to be retained — religion, freedom of the press, and jury trial. Will not the ratification carry every thing, without excepting these three things? Will not all the world pronounce, that we intended to give up all the rest ? Every thing it speaks of, by way of rights, is comprised in these three things. Your subsequent amendments only go to these three amendments. I feel myself distressed, be- cause the necessity of securing our personal rights seems not to have pervaded the minds of men ; for many other valuable things are omitted. For instance : general warrants, by which an officer may search suspected places without evidence of the commission of a fact, or seize any person without evidence of his crime, ought to be prohibited. As these are admitted, any man may be seized ; any pro- perty may be taken, in the most arbitrary manner, without any evi- dence or reason. Every thing, the most sacred, may be searched and ransacked by the strong hand of power. We have infinitely more reason to dread general warrants here, than they have in England ; * Upon the resolution of Mr. Wythe, which j)roposed, " That the coniniittee should ratify the constitution, and that whatsoever amendments might be deemed necessary should be reconnnended to the consideration of the con- gress, which should first assciuble under the constitution, to be acted upon ac- cording to the mode prescribed tlierein." MR. HENRY'S SPEECH, &c. 87 because there, if a person be confined, liberty may be quickly ob- tained by the writ of habeas corpus. But here, a man living many hundred miles from the judges may rot in prison before he can get that writ. Another most fatal omission is, with respect to standing armies. In your bill of rights of Virginia, they are said to be dangerous to liberty; and it tells you, that the proper defence of a free state consists in militia ; and so I might go on to ten or eleven things of immense consequence secured in your bill of rights, concerning which that proposal is silent. Is that the language of the bill of rights in England ? Is it the language of the American bill of rights, that these three rights, and these only, are valuable ? Is it the language of men going into a new government ? Is it not necessary to speak of those things before you go into a compact ? How do these three things stand ? As one of the parties, we de- clare we do not mean to give them up. This is very dictatorial ; much more so than the conduct which proposes alterations as the condition of adoption. In a compact, there are two parties — one accepting, and another proposing. As a party, we propose that we shall secure these three things ; and before we have the assent of the other contracting party, we go into the compact, and leave these things at their mercy. What will be the consequence? Suppose the other states will call this dictatorial : they will say, Virginia has gone into the government, and carried with her cer- tain propositions, which, she says, ought to be concurred in by the other states. They will declare, that she has no right to dictate to other states the conditions on which they shall come into the union. According to the honorable member's proposal, the ratifi- cation will cease to be obligatory unless they accede to these amendments. We have ratified it. You have committed a viola- tion, they will say. The}- have not violated it. We say we will go out of it. You are then reduced to a sad dilemma — to give up these three rights, or leave the government. This is worse than our present confederation, to which we have hitherto adhered honestly and faithfully. We shall be told we have violated it, be- cause we have left it for the infringement and violation of condi- tions, which they never agreed to be a part of the ratification. The ratification will be complete. The proposal is made by one party. We, as the other, accede to it, and propose the security of these three great rights ; for it is only a proposal. In order to secure them, you are left in that state of fatal hostility, which 1 shall as much deplore as the honorable gentleman. I exhort gen- tlemen to think seriously before they ratify this constitution, and persuade themselves that they will succeed in making a feeble ef- fort to get amendments after adoption. With respect to that part of the proposal which says that every power not granted re- 88 MR. HENRY'S SPEECH ON mains with the people, it must be previous to adoption, or it will involve this country in inevitable destruction. To talk of it as a thing subsequent, not as one of your inalienable rights, is leaving it to the casual opinion of the congress who shall take up the con- sideration of that matter. They will not reason with you about the effect of this constitution. They will not take the opinion of this committee concerning its operation. They will construe it as they please. If you place it subsequently, let me ask the conse- quences. Among ten thousand implied powers which they may assume, they may, if we be engaged in war, liberate every one of your slaves, if they please. And this must and will be done by men, .a majority of whom have not a common interest with you. They will, therefore, have no feeling for your interests. It has been repeatedly said here that the great object of a national government is national defence. That power which is said to be intended for security and safety, may be rendered de- testable and oppressive. If you give power to the general govern- ment to provide for the general defence, the means must be com- mensurate to the end. All the means in the possession of the people must be given to the government which is intrusted with the public defence. In this state there are two hundred and thirty- six thousand blacks, and there are many in several other states ; but there are few or none in the Northern States ; and yet, if the Northern States shall be of opinion that our numbers are number- less, they may call forth every national resource. May congress not say, that every black man. must fight? Did we not see a little of this in the last w^ar ? We were not so hard pushed as to make emancipation general : but acts of assembly passed, that every slave who would go to the army should be free. Another thing will con- tribute to bring this event about : slavery is detested ; we feel its Altai effects ; we deplore it with all the pity of humanity. Let all these considerations, at some future period, press with full force on the minds of congress. Let that urbanity, which I trust will dis- tinguish America, and the necessity of national defence — let all these things operate on their minds, and they will search that pa- per, and see if they have power of manumission. And have they not, sir? Have they not power to provide for the general defence and welfare ? May they not think that these call for the abolition of slavery ? May they not pronounce all slaves free, and will they not be warranted by that pow'er ? There is no ambiguous implication, or logical deduction. The paper speaks to the point. They have the power in clear, unequivocal terms, and will clearly and certainly exercise it. As much as I deplore slavery, I see that prudence forbids its abolition. I deny that the general gov- ernment ought to set them free, because a decided majority of the states have not the ties of sympathy and fellow-feeling for those THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 89 whose interest would be affected by their emancipation. The majority of congress is to the north, and the slaves are to the south. In this situation, I see a great deal of the property of the people of Virginia in jeopardy, and their peace and tranquillity gone away. I repeat it again, that it would rejoice my very soul that every one of my fellow-beings was emancipated. As we ought with gratitude to admire that decree of Heaven which has numbered us among the free, we ought to lament and deplore the necessity of holding our fellow-men in bondage. But is it practi- cable, by any human means, to liberate them, without producing the most dreadful and ruinous consequences ? We ought to pos- sess them in the manner we have inherited them from our ances- tors, as their manumission is incompatible with the felicity of the country. But we ought to soften, as much as possible, the rigor of their unhappy fate. I know that in a variety of particular in- stances, the legislature, listening to complaints, have admitted their emancipation. Let me not dwell on this subject. I will only add, that this, as well as every other property of the people of Virginia, is in jeopardy, and put in the hands of those who have no similarity of situation with us. This is a local matter, and I can see no propriety in subjecting it to congress. With respect to subsequent amendments, proposed by the wor- thy member, I am distressed when I hear the expression. It is a new one altogether, and such a one as stands against every idea of fortitude and manliness, in the states, or any one else. Evils admitted, in order to be removed subsequently, and tyranny sub- mitted to, in order to be excluded by a subsequent alteration, are things totally new to me. But I am sure he meant nothing but to amuse the committee. I know his candor. His proposal is an idea dreadful to me. I ask — Does experience warrant such a thing from the beginning of the world to this day ? Do you enter into a compact of government first, and afterwards settle the terms of the government ? It is admitted by every one, that this is a com- pact. Although the confederation be lost, it is a compact consti- tution, or something of that nature. I confess I never heard of such an idea before. It is most abhorrent to my mind. You en- danger the tranquillity of your country, you stab its repose, if you accept this government unaltered. How are you to allay animos- ities ? For such there are, great and fatal. He flatters me, and tells me, that I could influence the people, and reconcile them to it. Sir, their sentiments are as firm and steady as they are patri- otic. Were I to ask them to apostatize from their native religion, they would despise me. They are not to be shaken in their opinions with respect to the propriety of preserving their rights. You never can persuade them, that it is necessary to relinquish them. Were I to attempt to persuade them to abandon their pat- 8* M 90 MR. HENRY'S SPEECH ON riotic sentiments, I should look on myself as the most infamous of men. I believe it to be a fact, that the great body of yeomanry are in decided opposition to it. I may say with confidence, that, for nineteen counties adjacent to each other, nine tenths of the people are conscientiously opposed to it. I may be mistaken, but I give you it as my opinion ; and my opinion is founded on personal knowledge in some measure, and other good authority. 1 have not hunted popularity by declaiming to injure this government. Though l)ublic fame might say so, it was not owing to me that this Hame of opposition has been kindled and spread. These men never will part with their political opinions. If they should see their political happiness secured to the latest posterity, then indeed they might agree to it. Subsequent amendments will not do for men of this cast. Do you consult the union iu proposing them ? You may amuse them as long as you please ; but they will never like it. You have not solid reality — the hearts and hands of the men who are to be governed. Have gentlemen no respect to the actual dispositions of the people in the adopting states ? Look at Pennsylvania and Massa- chusetts. These two great states have raised as great objections to that government as we do. There was a majority of only nineteen in Massachusetts. We are told that only ten thousand were represented in Pennsylvania, although seventy thousand had a right to be represented. Is not this a serious thing ? Is it not worth while to turn your eyes for a moment, from subsequent amendments, to the situation of your country ? Can you have a lasting union in these circumstances ? It will be in vain to expect it. But if you agree to previous amendments, you shall have union, firm and solid. I cannot conclude without saying, that I shall have nothing to do with it, if subsequent amendments be de- termined upon. Oppressions will be carried on as radically by the majority, when adjustments and accommodations will be held up. I say, I conceive it my duty, if this government is adopted before It is amended, to go home. I shall act as I think my duty re- quires. Every other gentleman will do the same. Previous amendments, in my opinion, are necessary to procure peace and tranquillity. I fear if they be not agreed to, every movement and o|)eia.tion of government will cease ; and how long that baneful thing, civil discord, will stay from this country, God only knows. When men are free from restraint, how long will you suspend their fury ? The interval between this and bloodshed is but a moment. The licentious and wicked of the community will seize with avidity every thing you hold. In this unhappy situation, what is to be done ? It surpasses my stock of wisdom. If you will, in the language of freemen, stipulate that there are rights which no man under heaven can take from you, you shall have me going THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 91 along with you, and not otherwise. — [Here Mr. Henry informed the committee, that he had a resolution prepared, to refer a decla- ration of rights, with certain amendments to the most exceptionable parts of the constitution, to the other states in the confederacy, for their consideration, previous to its ratification. The clerk then read the resolution, the declaration of rights, and amendments, which were nearly the same as those ultimately proposed by the convention, for the consideration of congress. He then resumed the subject.] I have thus candidly submitted to you, Mr. Chair- man, and tliis committee, what occurred to me as proper amend- ments to the constitution, and a declaration of rights containing those fundamental, inalienable privileges, which I conceive to be essential to liberty and happiness. 1 believe, that, on a review of these amendments, it will still be found, that the arm of power will be sufficiently strong for national purposes, when these restrictions shall be a part of the government. I believe no gentleman, who opposes me in sentiments, will be able to discover that any one feature of a strong government is altered ; and at the same lime your inalienable rights are secured by them. The government unaltered may be terrible to America, but can never be loved, till it be amended. You find all the resources of the continent may be drawn to a point. In danger, the president may concentre to a point every effort of the continent. If the government be con- structed to satisfy the people and remove their apprehensions, the wealth and strength of the continent will go where public utility shall direct. This government, with these restrictions, will be a strong government united with the privileges of the people. In my weak judgment, a government is strong, when it apphes to the most important end of all governments — the rights and privileges of the people. In the honorable member's proposal, jury trial, the press, and religion, and other essential rights, are not to be given up. Other essential rights — what are they ? The world will say, that you intended to give them up. When you go into an enu- meration of your rigL'ts, and stop that enumeration, the inevitable conclusion is, that what is omitted is intended to be surrendered. Anxious as I am to be as little troublesome as possible, I can- not leave this part of the subject without adverting to one remark of the honorable gentleman. He says, that, rather than bring the union into danger, he will adopt it with its imperfections. A great deal is said about disunion, and consequent dangers. I have no claim to a greater share of fortitude than others ; but I can see no kind of danger. I form my judgment on a single fact alone, that we are at peace with all the world ; nor is there any apparent cause of a rupture with any nation in the world. Is it among the American states that the cause of disunion is to be feared ? Are not the states using all their efforts for the promotion of union ? 92 MR. HENRY'S SPEECH ON New England sacri6ces local prejudices for the purposes of union. We hear the necessity of the union, and predilection for the union, reechoed from all parts of the continent ; and all at once disunion is to follow ! If gentlemen dread disunion, the very thing they advpcate will inevitably produce it. A previous ratification will raise insurmountable obstacles to union. New York is an in- surmountable obstacle to it, and North Carolina also. They will never accede to it till it be amended. A great part of Virginia is opposed, most decidedly, to it, as it stands. This very sjjirit which will govern us in these three states, will find a kindred spirit in the adopting states. Give me leave to say, that it is very prob- lematical whether the adopting states can stand on their own legs. 1 hear only on one side, but as far as my information goes, there are heart-burnings and animosities among them. Will these animosi- ties be cured by subsequent amendments? Turn away from America, and consider European politics. The nations there, which can trouble us, are France, England, and Spain. But at present we know for a certainty, that those nations are en- gaged in very different pursuits from American conquests. We are told by our intelligent ambassador, that there is no such danger as has been apprehended. Give me leave then to say, that dan- gers from beyond the Atlantic are imaginary. From these prem- ises, then, it may be concluded, that, from the creation of the world to this time, there never was a more fair and proper opportunity than we have at this day to establish such a government as will permanently establish the most transcendent political felicity. Since the revolution there has not been so much experience. Since then, the general interests of America have not been better understood, nor the union more ardently loved, than at this pres- ent moment. I acknowledge the weakness of the old confedera- tion. Every man says, that something must be done. Where is the moment more favorable than this ? During the war, when ten thousand dangers surrounded us, America was magnanimous. What was the language of the little state of Maryland ? "I will have time to consider. I will hold out three years. Let what may come, I will have time to reflect." Magnanimity appeared every where. What was the upshot? — America triumphed. Is there any thing to forbid us to offer these amendments to the other states? If thi§ moment goes away unimproved, we shall never see its return. We now act under a happy system, which says, that a majority may alter the government when necessary. But by the paper proposed, a majority will forever endeavor in vain to alter it. Three fourths may. Is not this the most promising time for securing the necessary alterations ? Will you go into that gov- ernment, where it is a principle, that a contemptible minority may prevent an alteration ? What will be the language of the majori- THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 93 ty ? — Change the government. — Nay, seven eighths of the people of America may wish the change ; but the minority may come with a Roman Veto, and object to the alteration. The language of a magnanimous country and of freemen is, Till you remove the defects, we will not accede. It would be in vain for me to show, that there is no danger to prevent our obtaining those amendments, if you are not convinced already. If the other states will not agree to them, it is not an inducement to union. The language of this paper is not dictatorial, but merely a proposition for amend- ments. The proposition of Virginia met with a favorable recep- tion before. We proposed that convention which met at Annapo- lis. It was not called dictatorial. We proposed that at Philadel- phia. Was Virginia thought dictatorial ? But Virginia is now to lose her preeminence. Those rights of equality, to which the meanest individual in the community is entitled, are to bring us down infinitely below the Delaware people. Have we not a right to say, Hear our propositions ? Why, sir, your slaves have a right to make their humble requests. Those, who are in the meanest occupations of human life, have a right to complain. What do we require ? Not preeminence, but safety ; that our citizens may be able to sit down in peace and security under their own fig-trees. I am confident that sentiments like these will meet with unison in every state ; for they will wish to banish discord from the American soil. I am certain that the warmest friend of the constitution wish- es to have fewer enemies — fewer of those who pester and plague him with opposition. I could not withhold from my fellow-citizens any thing so reasonable. I fear you will have no union, unless you remove the cause of opposition. Will you sit down content- ed with the name of union without any solid foundation ? SPEECH OF FISHER AMES, ON THE BRITISH TREATY, DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES, APRIL 28, 1796. On the 28th October, 1794, a treaty between Great Britain and the United States (known as "Jay's Treaty") was concluded and subsequently rat- ified by the president of the United States. On tJie 1st March, 1796, it was communicated to the house of representatives, in order that the necessary appropriations might be made to carry it into effect, in com- mittee of the whole on the following- resolution : — Resolved, as the opin- ion of this committee, that it is expedient to pass the laws necessary for carrying into effect the treaty with Great Britain. Mr. Ames spoke as follows : — Mr. Chairman, I entertain the hope, perhaps a rash one, that my strength will hold me out to speak a few minutes. In my judgment, a right decision will depend more on the tem- per and manner, with which we may prevail upon ourselves to contemplate the subject, than upon the development of any pro- found political principles, or any remarkable skill in the applica- tion of them. If we could succeed to neutralize our inclinations, we should find less difficulty than we have to apprehend in sur- mounting all our objections. The suggestion, a few days ago, that the house manifested symptoms of heat and irritation, was made and retorted as if the charge ought to create surprise, and would convey reproach. Let us be more just to ourselves, and to the occasion. Let us not af- fect to deny the existence and the intrusion of some portion of prejudice and feeling into the debate, when, from the very struc- ture of our nature, we ought to anticipate the circumstance as a probability, and when we are admonished by the evidence of our senses that it is the fact. How can we make professions for ourselves, and offer exhorta- tions to the house, that no influence should be felt but that of duty, and no guide respected but that of the understanding, while the peal to rally every passion of man is continually ringing in our ears ? MR. AMES'S SPEECH, &c. 95 Our understandings have been addressed, it is true, and with ability and effect ; but, I denaand, has any corner of the heart been left unexplored ? It has been ransacked to find auxiliary ar- guments, and, when that attempt failed, to awaken the sensibilities that would require none. Every prejudice and feeling has been summoned to listen to some peculiar style of address ; and yet we seem to believe, and to consider a doubt as an affront, that we are strangers to any influence but that of unbiased reason. It would be strange, that a subject, which has roused in turn all the passions of the country, should be discussed without the inter- ference of any of our own. We are men, and, therefore, not ex- empt from those passions : as citizens and representatives, we feel the interests that must excite them. The hazard of great inter- ests cannot fail to agitate strong passions. We are not disinter- ested ; it is impossible we should be dispassionate. The warmth of such feelings may becloud the judgment, and, for a time, per- vert the understanding. But the public sensibility, and our own, has sharpened the spirit of inquiry, and given an animation to the debate. The public attention has been quickened to mark the progress of the discussion, and its judgment, often hasty and er- roneous on first impressions, has become solid and enlightened at last. Our result will, I hope, on that account, be the safer and more mature, as well as more accordant with that of the nation. The only constant agents in political affairs are the passions of men. Shall we complain of our nature — shall we say that man ought to have been made otherwise ? It is right already, because HE, from whom we derive our nature, ordained it so ; and because thus made and thus acting, the cause of truth and the public good is the more surely promoted. But an attempt has been made to produce an influence of a na- ture more stubborn, and more unfriendly to truth. It is very un- fairly pretended, that the constitutional right of this house is at stake, and to be asserted and preserved only by a vote in the neg- ative. We hear it said, that this is a struggle for liberty, a manly resistance against the design to nullify this assembly, and to make it a cipher in the government : that the president and senate, the numerous meetings in the cities, and the influence of the general alarm of the country, are the agents and instruments of a scheme of coercion and terror, to force the treaty down our throats, though we loathe it, and in spite of the clearest convictions of duty and conscience. It is necessary to pause here and inquire, whether suggestions of this kind be not unfair in their very texture and fabric, and per- nicious in all their influences. They oppose an obstacle in the path of inquiry, not simply discouraging, but absolutely insurmount- able. They will not yield to argument ; for as they were not 96 MR. AMES'S SPEECH ON reasoned up, they cannot be reasoned down. They are liigher than a Cliinese wall in truth's way, and built of materials that are indestructible. While this remains, it is vain to argue ; it is vain to say to this mountain, Be thou cast into the sea. For, I ask of the men of knowledge of the world, whether they would not hold him for a blockhead, that should hope to prevail in an argument whose scope and object is to mortify the self-love of the expected proselyte ? I ask, further, when such attempts have been made, liave they not failed of success ? The indignant heart repels a conviction that is believed to debase it. The self-love of an individual is not warmer in its sense, nor more constant in its action, than what is called, in French, V esprit du corps, or the self-love of an assembly ; that jealous affection which a body of men is always found to bear towards its own pre- rogatives and power. 1 will not condemn this passion. Why should we urge an unmeaning censure, or yield to groundless fears that truth and duty will be abandoned, because men in a public assembly are still men, and feel that esprit du corps which is one of the laws of their nature ? Still less should we despond or com- plain, if we reflect, that this very spirit is a guardian instinct, that watches over the life of this assembly. It cherishes the principle of self-preservation, and without its existence, and its existence with all the strength we see it possess, the privileges of the repre- sentatives of the people, and mediately the liberties of the people, would not be guarded, as they are, with a vigilance that never sleeps, and an unrelaxing constancy and courage. If the consequences, most unfairly attributed to the vote in the affirmative, were not chimerical, and worse, for they are deceptive, I should think it a reproach to be found even moderate in my zeal to assert the constitutional powers of this assembly ; and whenever they shall be in real danger, the present occasion affords proof, that there will be no want of advocates and champions. Indeed, so prompt are these feelings, and, when once roused, so difficult to pacify, that if we could prove the alarm was groundless, the prejudice against the appropriations may remain on the mind, and it may even pass for an act of prudence and duty to negative a measure which was lately believed by ourselves, and may here- after be misconceived by others, to encroach upon the powers of the house. Principles that bear a remote affinity with usurpation on those powers will be rejected, not merely as errors, but as wrongs. Our sensibilities will shrink from a post where it is pos- sible they may be wounded, and be inflamed by the slightest sus- picion of an assault. While these prepossessions remain, all argument is useless. It may be heard with the ceremony of attention, and lavish its own THE BRITISH TREATY. 97 resources, and the patience it wearies, to no manner of purpose. The ears may be open ; but the mind will remain locked up, and every pass to the understanding guarded. Unless, therefore, this jealous and repulsive fear for the rights of the house can be allayed, I will not ask a hearing. I cannot press this topic too far ; I cannot address myself with too much emphasis to the magnanimity and candor of those who sit here, to suspect their own feelings, and, while they do, to ex- amine the grounds of their alarm. I repeat it, we must conquer our persuasion, that this body has an interest in one side of the question more than the other, before we attempt to surmount our objections. On most subjects, and solemn ones too, perhaps in the most solemn of all, we form our creed more from inclination than evidence. Let me expostulate with gentlemen to admit, if it be only by way of supposition, and for a moment, that it is barely possible they have yielded too suddenly to their alarms for the powers of this house ; that the addresses which have been made with such variety of forms, and with so great dexterity in some of them, to all that is prejudice and passion in the heart, are either the effects or the instruments of artifice and deception, and then let them see the subject once more in its singleness and simplicity. It will be impossible, on taking a fair review of the subject, to justify the passionate appeals that have been made to us to strug- gle for our liberties and rights, and the solemn exhortations to re- ject the proposition, said to be concealed in that on your table, to surrender them forever. In spite of this mock solemnity, I de- mand, if the house will not concur in the measure to execute the treaty, what other course shall we take ? How many ways of pro- ceeding lie open before us ? In the nature of things there are but three ; we are either to make the treaty, to observe it, or break it. It would be absurd to say we will do neither. If I may repeat a phrase already so much abused, we are under coercion to do one of them, and we have no power, by the exercise of our discretion, to prevent the conse- quences of a choice. By refusing to act, we choose. The treaty will be broken and fall to the ground. Where is the fitness, then, of replying to those who urge upon the house the topics of duty and policy, that they attempt to force the treaty down, and to compel this assembly to renounce its discretion, and to degrade itself to the rank of a blind and passive instrument in the hands of the treaty-making power ? In case we reject the appropriation, we do not secure any greater liberty of action, we gain no safer shelter than before from the consequences of the decision. Indeed, they are not to be evaded. It is neither just nor manly to complain that the treaty-making 9 N 98 MR. AMES'S SPEl'XH ON power lias produced this coercion lo act. It is not the art or the despotism of that power — it is the nature of things that compels. Shall we, dreading to become the blind instruments of power, yield ourselves the blinder dupes of mere sounds of imposture ? Yet that word, that empty word, coercion, has given scope to an elo- quence, that, one would imagine, could not be tired, and did not clioose to be quieted. Let us examine still more in detail the alternatives that are be- fore us, and we shall scarcely tail to see, in still stronger lights, the futility of our apprehensions for the power and liberty of the house. If, as some have suggested, the thing called a treaty is incom- plete — if it has no binding force or obligation — the first question is, Will this House coiuplete the instrument, and, by concurring, im- part to it that force which it wants ? The doctrine has been avowed, that the treaty, though formally ratified by the executive power of both nations, though published as a law for our own by the president's proclamation, is still a mere proposition submitted to this assembly, no way distinguish- able, in point of authority or obligation, from a motion for leave to bring in a bill, or any other original act of ordinary legislation. This doctrine, so novel in our country, yet so dear to many, pre- cisely for the reason, that, in the contention for power, victory is always dear, is obviously repugnant to the very terms as well as the fair interpretation of our own resolutions (Mr. Blount's). We declare, that the treaty-making power is exclusively vested in the president and senate, and not in this house. Need I say, that we fly in the face of that resolution, when we pretend, that the acts of that power are not valid until we have concurred in them ? It would be nonsense, or worse, to use the language of the most glaring contradiction, and to claim a share in a power which we at the same time disclaim as exclusively vested in other depart- ments. What can be more strange ihaii to say, that the compacts of the president and senate with foreign nations are treaties, without our agency, and yet those compacts want all power and obligation, until they are sanctioned by our conciunt>nce ? It is not mv de- sign, in this place, if at all, to go into the discussion of this part of the subject. I will, at least for the present, take it for granted, that this monstrous opinion stands in little need of remark, and if it does, lies almost out of the reach of refutation. But, say those who hide the absurdity under the cover of am- biguous phrases, have we no discretion ? and if we have, are we not to make use of it in judging of the expediency or inexpediency of the treaty ? Our resolution claims that privilege, and we can- not surrender it without equal inconsistency and breach of duty. THE BRITISH TREATY. 99 If there be any inconsistency in the case, it hes, not m making the appropriations for the treaty, but in the resolution itself (Mr. Blount's). Let us examine it more nearly. A treaty is a bar- gain between nations, binding in good faith ; and what makes a bargain ? The assent of the contracting parties. We allow that the treaty power is not in this house ; this house has no share in contracting, and is not a party : of consequence, the president and senate alone may make a treaty that is binding in good faith. We claim, however, say the gentlemen, a right to judge of the ex- pediency of treaties ; that is the constitutional province of our dis- cretion. Be it so. What follows ? Treaties, when adjudged by us to be inexpedient, fall to the ground, and the public faith is not hurt. This, incredible and extravagant as it may seem, is assert- ed. The amount of it, in plainer language, is this — the president and senate are to make national bargains, and this house has noth- ing to do in making them. But bad bargains do not bind this house, and, of inevitable consequence, do not bind the nation. When a national bargain, called a treaty, is made, its binding force does not depend upon the making, but upon our opinion that it is good. As our opinion on the matter can be known and declared only by ourselves, when sitting in our legislative capacity, the treaty, though ratified, and, as we choose to term it, made, is hung up in suspense, till our sense is ascertained. We condemn the bargain, and it falls, though, as we say, our faith does not. We approve a bargain as expedient, and it stands firm, and binds the nation. Yet, even in this latter case, its force is plainly not derived from the ratification by the treaty-making power, but from our approbation. Who will trace these inferoaces, and pretend that we have no share, according to the argument, in the treaty- making power ? These opinions, nevertheless, have been advo- cated with infinite zeal and perseverance. Is it possible that any man can be hardy enough to avow them, and their ridiculous con- sequences ? Let me hasten to suppose the treaty is considered as already made, and then the alternative is fairly presented to the mind, whether we will observe the treaty or break it. This, in fact, is the naked question. If we choose to observe it with good faith, our course is obvi- ous. Whatever is stipulated to be done by the nation, must be complied with. Our agency, if it should be requisite, cannot be properly refused. And I do not see why it is not as obligatory a rule of conduct for the legislative as for the courts of law. I cannot lose this opportunity to remark, that the coercion, so much dreaded and declaimed against, appears at length to be no more than the authority of principles, the despotism of duty. Gen- tlemen complain we are forced to act in this way ; we are forced 100 MR. AMES'S SPEECH ON to swallow the treaty. It is very true, unless we claim the liberty of abuse, the right to act as we ought not. There is but one right way open for us ; the laws of morality and good faith have fenced up every other. What sort of liberty is that which we presume to exercise against the authority of those laws ? It is for tyrants to complain, that principles are restraints, and that they have no liberty, so long as their despotism has limits. These principles will be unfolded by examining the remaining question : — Shall we break the treaty? The treaty is bad, fatally bad, is the cry. It sacrifices the in- terest, the honor, the independence of the United States, and the faith of our engagements to France. If we listen to the clamor of party intemperance, the evils are of a number not to be counted, and of a nature not to be borne, even in idea. The language of passion and exaggeration may silence that of sober reason in other places ; it has not done it here. The question here is, whether the treaty be really so very fatal as to oblige the nation to break its faith. I admit that such a treaty ought not to be executed. I admit that self-preservation is the first law of society, as well as of individuals. It would, perhaps, be deemed an abuse of terms to call that a treaty, which violates such a principle. I waive also, for the present, any inquiry, what departments shall represent the nation, and annul the stipulations of a treaty. I content myself with pursuing the inquiry, whether the nature of this compact be such as to justify our refusal to carry it into effect. A treaty is the promise of a nation. Now, promises do not always bind him that makes them. But I lay down two rules, which ought to guide us in this case. The treaty must appear to be bad, not merely in the petty details, but in its character, principle, and mass. And, in the next place, this ought to be ascertained by the decided and general concur- rence of the enhghtened public. I confess there seems to be something very like ridicule thrown over the debate by the discus- sion of the articles in detail. The undecided point is, shall we break our faith ? And while our country and enlightened Europe await the issue with more than curiosity, we are employed to gather piecemeal, and article by article, from the instrument, a justification for the deed by trivial calculations of commercial profit and loss. This is little worthy of the subject, of this body, or of the nation. If the treaty is bad, it will appear to be so in its mass. Evil to a fatal extreme, if that be its tendency, requires no proof; it brings it. Extremes speak for themselves, and make their own law. What if the direct voyage of American ships to Jamaica, with horses or lumber, might: net one or two per centum more than the present trade to Sui;i-» THE BRITISH TREATY. 101 nam ; would the proof of the fact avail any thing in so grave a question as the violation of the public engagements ? It is in vain to allege, that our faith, plighted to France, is vio- lated by this new treaty. Our prior treaties are expressly saved from the operation of the British treaty. And what do those mean who say, that our honor was forfeited by treating at all, and es- pecially by such a treaty ? Justice, the laws and practice of na- tions, a just regard for peace as a duty to mankind, and the known wish of our citizens, as well as that self-respect which required it of the nation to act with dignity and moderation, all these forbade an appeal to arms, before we had tried the effect of negotiation. The honor of the United States was saved, not forfeited, by treat- ing. The treaty itself, by its stipidations for the posts, for indem- nity, and for a due observation of our neutral rights, has justly raised the character of the nation. Never did the name of Amer- ica appear in Europe with more lustre than upon the event of rati- fying this instrument. The fact is of a nature to overcome ail contradiction. But the independence of the country — we are colonists again. This is the cry of the very men who tell us, that France will re- sent our exercise of the rights of an independent nation to adjust our wrongs with an aggressor, without giving her the opportunity to say those wrongs shall subsist and shall not be adjusted. This is an admirable specimen of the spirit of independence. The treaty with Great Britain, it cannot be denied, is unfavorable to this strange sort of independence. Few^ men of any reputation for sense, among those who say the treaty is bad, will put that reputation so much at hazard as to pre- tend that it is so extremely bad as to warrant and require a viola- tion of the public faith. The proper ground of the controversy, therefore, is really unoccupied by the opposers of the treaty; as the very hinge of the debate is on the point, not of its being good or otherwise, but whether it is intolerably and fatally pernicious. If loose and ignorant declaimers have any where asserted the latte idea, it is too extravagant, and too solidly refuted, to be repeated here. Instead of any attempt to expose it still further, I will say, and I appeal with confidence to the candor of many opposers of the treaty to acknowledge, that if it had been permitted to go into operation silently, like our other treaties, so little alteration of any sort would be made by it in the great mass of our commercial and agricultural concerns, that it would not be generally discovered by its effects to be in force, during the term for which it was contract- ed. I place considerable reliance on the weight men of candor will give to this remark, because I believe it to be ti-ue, and little short of undeniable. When the panic dread of the treaty shall cease, as it certainly must, it will be seen through another medium. 9* 102 MR. AMES'S SPEECH ON Those who shall make search into the articles for tne cause of their alarms, will be so far from finding stipulations that will ope- rate fatally, they will discover few of them that will have any last- ing operation at all. Those which relate to the disputes between the two countries, will spend their force upon the subjects in dis- pute, and extinguish them. The commercial articles are more of a nature to confirm the existing state of things than to change it. The treaty alarm was purely an address to the imagination and prejudices of the citizens, and not on that account the less formidable. Objections that proceed upon error, in fact or cal- culation, may be traced and exposed ; but such as are drawn from the imagination or addressed to it, elude definition, and re- turn to domineer over the mind, after having been banished from it by truth. I will not so far abuse the momentary strength that is lent to me by the zeal of the occasion, as to enlarge upon the commercial operation of the treaty. I proceed to the second proposition, which I have stated as indispensably requisite to a refusal of the performance of a treaty — will the state of public opinion justify the deed ? No government, not even a despotism, will break its faith with- out some pretext ; and it must be plausible, it must be such as will carry the public opinion along with it. Reasons of policy, if not of morality, dissuade even Turkey and Algiers from breaches of treaty in mere wantonness of perfidy, in open contempt of the re- proaches of their subjects. Surely, a popular government will not proceed more arbitrarily as it is more free ; nor with less shame or scruple in proportion as it has better morals. It will not pro- ceed against the iaith of treaties at all, unless the strong and de- cided sense of the nation shall pronounce, not simply that the treaty is not advantageous, but that it ought to be broken and an- nulled. Such a plain manifestation of the sense of the citizens is indispensably requisite ; first, because, if the popular apprehen- sions be not an infallible criterion of the disadvantages of the in- strument, their acquiescence in the operation of it is an irrefragable proof, that the extreme case does not exist, which alone could jus- tify our setting it aside. In the next place, this approving opinion of the citizens is re- quisite, as the best preventive of the ill consequences of a measure always so delicate, and often so hazardous. Individuals would, in that case at least, attempt to repel the opprobrium that would be thrown upon congress by those who will charge it with perfidy. They would give weight to the testimony of facts, and the author- ity of principles, on which the government would rest its vindica- tion. And if war should ensue upon the violation, our citizens would not be divided from their government, nor the ardor of their THE BRITISH TREATY. 103 courage be chilled by the consciousness of injustice, and the sense of humiliation — that sense which makes those despicable who know they are despised. 1 add a third reason, and with me it has a force that no words of mine can augment, that a government, wantonly refusing to ful- fil its engagements, is the corrupter of its citizens. Will the laws continue to prevail in the hearts of the people, when the respect that gives them efficacy is withdrawn from the legislators ? How- shall we punish vice while we practise it ? We have not force, and vain will be our reliance, when we have forfeited the resources of opinion. To weaken government and to corrupt morals are effects of a breach of faith not to be prevented ; and from effects they become causes, producing, with augmented activity, more disorder and more corruption ; order will be disturbed and the life of the public liberty shortened. And who, I would inquire, is hardy enough to pretend, that the public voice demands the violation of the treaty ? The evidence of the sense of the great mass of the nation is often equivocal ; but when was it ever manifested with more energy and precision than at the present moment ? The voice of the people is raised against the measure of refusing the appropriations. If gentlemen should urge, nevertheless, that all this sound of alarm is a counterfeit ex- pression of the sense of the public, I will proceed to other proofs. If the treaty is ruinous to our commerce, what has blinded the eyes of the merchants and traders ? Surely they are not enemies to trade, or ignorant of their own interests. Their sense is not so liable to be mistaken as that of a nation, and they are almost unanimous. The articles, stipulating the redress of our injuries by captures on the sea, are said to be delusive. By whom is this said ? The very men, whose fortunes are staked upon the com- petency of that redress, say no such thing. They wait with anx- ious fear lest you should annul that compact on which all their hopes are rested. Thus we offer proof, little short of absolute demonstration, that the voice of our country is raised not to sanction, but to deprecate the non-performance of our engagements. It is not the nation, it is one, and but one branch of the government that proposes to reject them. With this aspect of things, to reject is an act of des- peration. I shall be asked why a treaty so good in some articles, and so harmless in others, has met with such unrelenting opposition, and how the clamors against it from New Hampshire to Georgia can be accounted for. The apprehensions so extensively dif- fused, on its first publication, will be vouched as proof, that the treaty is bad, and that the people hold it in abhorrence. I am not embarrassed to find the answer to this insinuation ► 104 MR. AMES'S SPEECH ON Certainly a foresiglit of its pernicious operation could not have created all the fears that were felt or affected. The alarm spread faster than the publication of the treaty. There were more critics than readers. Besides, as the subject was examined, those fears have subsided. The movements of passion are quicker than those of the under- standing. We are to search for the causes of first impressions, not in the articles of this obnoxious and misrepresented instrument, but in the state of the public feeling. The fervor of the revolutionary war had not entirely cooled, nor its controversies ceased, before the sensibilities of our citizens were quickened with a tenfold vivacity, by a new and extraordinary subject of irritation. One of the two great nations of Europe un- derwent a change which has attracted all our wonder, and inter- ested all our sympathies. Whatever they did, the zeal of many went with them, and often went to excess. These impressions met with much to inflame, and nothing to restrain them. In our newspapers, in our feasts, and some of our elections, enthusiasm was admitted a merit, a test of patriotism, and that made it conta- gious. In the opinion of party, we could not love or hate enough. I dare say, in spite of all the obloquy it may provoke, we were extravagant in both. It is my right to avow that passions so im- petuous, enthusiasm so wild, could not subsist without disturbing the sober exercise of reason, without putting at risk the peace and precious interests of our country. They were hazarded. I will not exhaust the little breath I have left, to say how much, nor by whom, or by what means they were rescued from the sacrifice. Shall I be called upon to offer my proofs ? They are here. They are every where. No one has forgotten the proceedings of 1794. No one has forgotten the captures of our vessels, and the imminent danger of war. The nation thirsted not merely for rep- aration, but vengeance. Suffering such wrongs, and agitated by such resentments, was it in the power of any words of compact, or could any parchment with its seals prevail at once to tranquillize the people ? It was impossible. Treaties in England are seldom popular, and least of all when the stipulations of amity succeed to the bitterness of hatred. Even the best treaty, though nothing be refused, will choke resentment, but not satisfy it. Every treaty is as sure to disappoint extravagant expectations as to disarm extrav- agant passions. Of the latter, hatred is one that takes no bribes. They who are animated by the spirit of revenge will not be qui- eted by the possibility of profit. Why do they complain, that the West Indies are not laid open ? Why do they lament, that any restriction is stipulated on the com- merce of the East Indies ? Why do they pretend, that if they reject this, and insist upon more^ more will be accomplished ? THE BRITISH TREATY. 105 Let us be explicit — more would not satisfy. If all was granted, would not a treaty of amity with Great Britain still be obnoxious ? Have we not this instant heard it urged against our envoy, that he was not ardent enough in his hatred of Great Britain ? A treaty of amity is condemned because it was not made by a foe, and in the spirit of one. The same gentleman, at the same instant, re- peats a very prevailing objection, that no treaty should be made with the enemy of France. No treaty, exclaim others, should be made with a monarch or a despot : there will be no naval security while those sea-robbers domineer on the ocean : their den must be destroyed : that nation must be extirpated. I hke this, sir, because it is sincerity. With feelings such as these, we do not pant for treaties. Such passions seek nothing, and will be content with nothing, but the destruction of their ob- ject. If a treaty left king George his island, it would not answer ; not if he stipulated to pay rent for it. It has been said, the world ought to rejoice if Britain was sunk in the sea ; if where there are now men, and wealth, and laws, and liberty, there was no more than a sandbank for the sea-monsters to fatten on; a space for the storms of the ocean to mingle in conflict. I object nothing to the good sense or humanity of all this. I yield the point, that this is a proof that the age of reason is in progress. Let it be philanthropy, let it be patriotism, if you will ; but it is no indication that any treaty would be approved. The difficulty is not to overcome the objections to the terms ; it is to restrain the repugnance to any stipulations of amity with the party. Having alluded to the rival of Great Britain, I am not unwilling to explain myself; I affect no concealment, and I have practised none. While those two great nations agitate all Europe with their quarrels, they will both equally desire, and with any chance of success, equally endeavor to create, an influence in America. Each will exert all its arts to range our strength on its own side. How is this to be effected ? Our government is a democratical republic. It will not be disposed to pursue a system of politics, in subservience to either France or England, in opposition to the general wishes of the citizens ; and, if congress should adopt such measures, they would not be pursued long, nor with much success. From the nature of our government, popularity is the instrument of foreign influence. Without it, all is labor and disappointment. With that mighty auxiliary, foreign intrigue finds agents, not only volunteers, but competitors for employment, and any thing like re- luctance is understood to be a crime. Has Britain this means of influence ? Certainly not. If her gold could buy adherents, their becoming such would deprive them of all political power and im- portance. They would not wield popularity as a weapon, but O 106 MR. AMES'S SPEECH ON would fall under it. Britain has no influence, and, for the reason? just given, can have none. She has enough ; and God forbid she ever should have more. France, possessed of popular enthusiasm, of party attachments, has had, and still has, too much influence on our politics — any foreign influence is too much, and ought to be destroyed. I detest the man and disdain the spirit that can bend to a mean subserviency to the views of any nation. It is enough to be Americans. That character comprehends our duties, and ought to engross our attachments. But I would not be misunderstood. I would not break the al- liance with France ; I would not have the connection between the two countries even a cold one. It should be cordial and sincere ; but I would banish that influence, which, by acting on the passions of the citizens, may acquire a power over the government. It is no bad proof of the merit of the treaty, that, under all these unfavorable circumstances, it should be so well approved. In spite of first impressions, in spite of misrepresentation and party clamor, inquiry has multiplied its advocates ; and at last the pub- lic sentiment appears to me clearly preponderating to its side. On the most careful review of the several branches of the trea- ty, those which respect political arrangements, the spoliations on our trade, and the regulation of commerce, there is little to be ap- prehended. The evil, aggravated as it is by party, is little in de- gree, and short in duration ; two years from the end of the Eu- ropean war. I ask, and I would ask the question significantly, What are the inducements to reject the treaty ? What great ob- ject is to be gained, and fairly gained by it ? If, however, as to the merits of the treaty, candor should suspend its approbation, what is there to hold patriotism a moment in balance, as to the violation of it ? Nothing ; I repeat confidently, nothing. There is nothing before us in that event but confusion and dishonor. But before I attempt to develop those consequences, I must put myself at ease by some explanation. Nothing is worse received among men than the confutation of their opinions ; and, of these, none are more dear or more vulner- able than their political opinions. To say that a proposition leads to shame and ruin, is almost equivalent to a charge that the sup- porters of it intend to produce them. I throw myself upon the magnanimity and candor of those who hear me. I cannot do jus- tice to my subject without exposing, as forcibly as I can, all the evils in prospect. I readily admit, that in every science, and most of all in politics, error springs from other sources than the want of sense or integrity. I despise indiscriminate professions of candor and respect. There are individuals opposed to me of whom I am not bound to say any thing. But of many, perhaps of a majority THE BRITISH TREATY. • 107 of the opposers of the appropriations, it gives me pleasure to de- clare, they possess my confidence and regard. There are among them individuals for whom I entertain a cordial affection. The consequences of refusing to make provision for the treaty are not all to be foreseen. By rejecting, vast interests are com- mitted to the sport of the winds. Chance becomes the arbiter of events, and it is forbidden to human foresight to count their num- ber, or measure their extent. Before we resolve to leap into this abyss, so dark and so profound, it becomes us to pause and reflect upon such of the dangers as are obvious and inevitable. If this assembly should be wrought into a temper to defy these conse- quences, it is vain, it is deceptive, to pretend that we can escape them. It is worse than weakness to say, that as to public faith our vote has already settled the question. Another tribunal than our own is already erected. The public opinion, not merely of our own country, but of the enlightened world, will pronounce a judgment that we cannot resist, that we dare not even affect to despise. Well may I urge it to men, who know the worth of character, that it is no trivial calamity to have it contested. Refusing to do what the treaty stipulates shall be done, opens the controversy. Even if we should stand justified at last, a character that is vindi- cated is something worse than it stood before, unquestioned and unquestionable. Like the plaintiff in an action of slander, we re- cover a reputation disfigured by invective, and even tarnished by too much handling. In the combat for the honor of the nation, it may receive some wounds, which, though they should heal, will leave scars. I need not say, for surely the feelings of every bosom have anticipated, that we cannot guard this sense of national honor, this everlasting fire which alone keeps patriotism warm in the heart, with a sensibility too vigilant and jealous. If, by executing the treaty, there is no possibility of dishonor, and if, by rejecting, there is some foundation for doubt, and for reproach, it is not for me to measure, it is for your own feelings to estimate, the vast distance that divides the one side of the alter- native from the other. If, therefore, we should enter on the examination of the ques- tion of duty and obligation with some feelings of prepossession, I do not hesitate to say, they are such as we ought to have : it is an after-inquiry to determine whether they are such as ought finally to be resisted. The resolution (Mr. Blount's) is less explicit than the consti- tution. Its patrons should have made it more so, if possible, if they had any doubts, or meant the public should entertain none. Is it the sense of that vote, as some have insinuated, that we claim a right, for any cause or no cause at all but our own sovereign 108 MR. AMES'S SPEECH ON will and pleasure, to refuse to execute, and thereby to annul the stipulations of a treaty — that we have nothing to regard but the expediency or inexpediency of the measure, being absolutely free from all obligation by compact to give it our sanction ? A doc- trine so monstrous, so shameless, is refuted by being avovv^ed. There are no words you could express it in that would not con- vey both confutation and reproach. It would outrage the igno- rance of the tenth century to believe ; it would baffle the casuistry of a papal council to vindicate. I venture to say it is impossible : no less impossible than that we should desire to assert the scanda- lous privilege of being free after we have pledged our honor. It is doing injustice to the resolution of the house (which 1 dislike on many accounts) to strain the interpretation of it to this extravagance. The treaty-making power is declared by it to be vested exclusively in the president and senate. Will any man in his senses affirm, that it can be a treaty before it has any bind- ing force or obligation ? If it has no binding force upon us, it has none upon Great Britain. Let candor answer. Is Great Britain free from any obligation to deliver the posts in June, and are we willing to signify to her that we think so ? Is it with that nation a question of mere expediency or inexpediency to do it, and that too even after we have done all that depends upon us to give the treaty effect ? No sober man believes this. No one, who would not join in condemning the faithless proceedings of that nation, if such a doctrine should be avowed and carried into practice — and why complain, if Great Britain is not bound ? There can be no breach of faith where none is plighted. I shall be told that she is bound. Surely it follows, that if she is bound to performance, our nation is under a similar obhgation ; if both parties be not obliged, neither is obliged ; it is no compact, no treaty. This is a dictate of law and common sense, and every jury in the country has sanc- tioned it on oath. It cannot be a treaty, and yet no treaty ; a bargain, yet no prom- ise. If it is a promise, I am not to read a lecture to show why an honest man will keep his promise. The reason of the thing, and the words of the resolution of the house, imply, that the United States engage their good faith in a • treaty. We disclaim, say the majority, the treaty-making power ; we of course disclaim (they ought to say) every doctrine that would put a negative upon the doings of that power. It is the prerogative of folly alone to maintain both sides of a proposition. Will any man affirm the American nation is engaged by good faith to the British nation ; but that engagement is nothing to this house ? Such a man is not to be reasoned with. Such a doc- trine is a coat of mail, that would turn the edge of all the weapons of argument, if they were sharper than a sword. Will it be im- THE BRITISH TREATY. 109 agined, the king of Great Britain and the president are mutually- bound by the treaty, but the two nations are free ? It is one thing for this house to stand in a position that presents an opportunity to break the faith of America, and another to es- tablish a principle that will justify the deed. We feel less repugnance to believe that any other body is bound by obligation than our own. There is not a man here who does not say that Great Britain is bound by treaty. Bring it nearer home. Is the senate bound ? Just as much as the house, and no more. Suppose the senate, as part of the treaty power, by ratifying a treaty on Monday, pledges the public faith to do a cer- tain act. Then, in their ordinary capacity as a branch of the le- gislature, the senate is called upon on Tuesday to perform that act, for example, an appropriation of money — is the senate (so lately under obligation) now free to agree or disagree to the act ? If the twenty ratifying senators should rise up and avow this prin- ciple, saying, " We struggle for liberty ; we will not be ciphers, mere puppets," and give their votes accordingly, would not shame blister their tongues ? would not infamy tingle in their ears ? would not their country, which they had insulted and dishonored, though it should be silent and forgiving, be a revolutionary tribunal, a rack on which their own reflections would stretch them ? This, sir, is a cause that would be dishonored and betrayed, if I contented myself with appealing only to the understanding. It is too cold, and its processes are too slow for the occasion. I desire to thank God, that since he has given me an intellect so fallible, he has impressed upon me an instinct that is sure. On a question of shame and honor, reasoning is sometimes useless, and worse. I feel the decision in my pulse — if it throws no light upon the brain, it kindles a fire at the heart. It is not easy to deny, it is impossible to doubt, that a treaty imposes an obligation on the American nation. It would be childish to consider the president and senate obliged, and the na- tion and the house free. What is the obligation — perfect or im- perfect ? If perfect, the debate is brought to a conclusion. If imperfect, how large a part of our faith is pawned ? Is half our honor put at risk, and is that half too cheap to be redeemed ? How long has this hair-splitting subdivision of good faith been discover- ed, and why has it escaped the researches of the writers on the law of nations ? Shall we add a new chapter to that law, or in- sert this doctrine as a supplement to, or more properly a repeal of, the ten commandments ? The principles and the example of the British parliament have been alleged to coincide with the doctrine of those who deny the obligation of the treaty. I have not had the health to make very laborious researches into this subject. I will, however, sketch my 10 110 MR. AMES'S SPEECH ON view of it. Several instances have been noticed ; but the treaty of Utrecht is the only one that seems to be at all applicable. It has been answered, that the conduct of parliament, in that celebrated example, affords no sanction to our refusal to carry the treaty into effect. The obligation of the treaty of Utrecht has been under- stood to depend on the concurrence of parliament, as a condition to its becoming of force. If that opinion should, however, appear incorrect, still the precedent proves, not that the treaty of Utrecht wanted obligation, but that parliament disregarded it ; a proof, not of the construction of the treaty-making power, but of the viola- tion of a national engagement. Admitting, still further, that the parliament claimed and exercised its power, not as a breach of faith, but as a matter of constitutional right, I reply, that the anal- ogy between parliament and congress totally fails. The nature of the British government may require and justify a course of pro- ceeding in respect to treaties, that is unwarrantable here. The British government is a mixed one. The king, at the head of the army, of the hierarchy, with an ample civil list, hered- itary, unresponsible, and possessing the prerogative of peace and war, may be properly observed with some jealousy in respect to the exercise of the treaty-making power. It seems, and perhaps from a spirit of caution on this account, to be their doctrine, that treaties bind the nation, but are not to be regarded by the courts of law, until laws have been passed conformably to them. Our concurrence has expressly regulated the matter differently. The (concurrence of parliament is necessary to treaties becoming laws in England, gentlemen say ; and here the senate, representing the states, must concur in treaties. The constitution and the reason of the case make the concurrence of the senate as effectual as the sanction of parliament ; and why not ? The senate is an elective body, and the approbation of a majority of the states affords the nation as ample security against the abuse of the treaty-making power, as the British nation can enjoy in the control of par- liament. Whatever doubt there may be as to the parliamentary doctrine of the obligation of treaties in Great Britain (and perhaps there is some), there is none in their books, or their modern practice. Blackstone represents treaties as of the highest obligation, when ratified by the king ; and for almost a century, there has been no instance of opposition by parliament to this doctrine. Their trea- ties have been uniformly carried into effect, although many have been ratified, of a nature most obnoxious to party, and have pro- duced louder clamor than we have lately witnessed. The exam- ple of England, therefore, fairly examined, does not warrant — it dissuades us from a negative vote. Gentlemen have said, with spirit, Whatever the true doctrine of THE BRITISH TREATY. 111 our constitution may be, Great Britain has no right to complain or to dictate an inter.pretation. The sense of the American nation, as to the treaty power, is to be received by all foreign nations. This is very true as a maxim ; but the fact is against those who vouch it. The sense of the American nation is not as the vote of the house has declared it. Our claim to some agency in giving force and obligation to treaties is, beyond all kind of controversy, novel. The sense of the nation is probably against it. The sense of the government certainly is. The president denies it on con- stitutional grounds, and therefore cannot ever accede to our inter- pretation. The senate ratified the treaty, and cannot without dis- honor adopt it, as I have attempted to show. Where, then, do they find the proof, that this is the American sense of the treaty- making power, which is to silence the murmurs of Great Britain ? Is it because a majority of two or three, or at most of four or five, of this house will reject the treaty ? Is it thus the sense of our nation is to be recognized ? Our government may thus be stop- ped in its movements — a struggle for power may thus commence, and the event of the conflict may decide who is the victor, and the quiet possessor of the treaty power. But, at present, it is beyond all credibility, that our vote, by a bare majority, should be believ- ed to do any thing better than to imbitter our divisions, and to tear up the settled foundations of our departments. If the obligation of a treaty be complete, I am aware that cases sometimes exist which W'ill justify a nation in refusing a compliance. Are our liberties, gentlemen demand, to be bartered away by a treaty, — and is there no remedy ? There is. Extremes are not to be supposed ; but, when they happen, they make the law for themselves. No such extreme can be pretended in this instance ; and if it existed, the authority it would confer to throw off the ob- ligation would rest where the obligation itself resides — in the na- tion. This house is not the nation — it is not the whole delegated authority of the nation. Being only a part of that authority, its right to act for the whole society obviously depends on the concur- rence of the other two branches. If they refuse to concur, a trea- ty, once made, remains in full force, although a breach on the part of a foreign nation would confer upon our own a right to forbear the execution. I repeat it ; even in that case the act of this house cannot be admitted as the act of the nation ; and if the president and senate should not concur, the treaty would be obligatory. I put a case that will notj^ to produce conviction. Our trea- ty with France engages thsSSree bottoms shall make free goods ; and how has it been kept ?^^s such engagements will ever be in time of war. France has set it aside, and pleads imperious neces- sity. We have no navy t^ enforce the observance of such arti- cleSj and paper barriers are weak against the violence of those ]12 MR. AMES'S SPEECH ON who are on the scramble for enemies' goods on the high seas» The breach of any article of a treaty by one nation gives an un- doubted right to the other to renounce the whole treaty. But has one branch of the government that right, or must it reside with the whole authority of the nation ? What if the senate should re- solve, that the French treaty is broken, and therefore null and of no effect ? The answer is obvious ; you would deny their sole au- thority. That branch of the legislature has equal power in this regard with the house of representatives. One branch alone cannot express the will of the nation. A right to annul a treaty, because a foreign nation has broken its articles, is only like the case of a sufficient cause to repeal a law. In both cases the branches of our government must concur in the orderly way, or the law and the treaty will remain. The very cases supposed by my adversaries in this argument conclude against themselves. They will persist in confounding ideas that should be kept distinct ; they will suppose that the house of representatives has no power unless it has all power. The house is nothing if it be not the whole government — the nation. On every hypothesis, therefore, the conclusion is not to be re- sisted ; we are either to execute this treaty, or break our faith. To expatiate on the value of public faith may pass with some men for declamation — to such men I have npthing to say. To others I will urge — -can any circumstance mark upon a people more turpitude and debasement ? Can any thing tend more to make men think themselves mean, or degrade to a lower point their estimation of virtue and their standard of action ? It would not merely demoralize mankind ; it tends to break all the ligaments of society, to dissolve that mysterious charm which attracts individuals to the nation, and to inspire in its stead a re- pulsive sense of shame and disgust. What is patriotism ? Is it a narrow affection for the spot where a man was born ? Are the very clods where we tread entitled to this ardent preference because they are greener ? No, sir ; this is not the character of the virtue, and it soars higher for its object. It is an extended self-love, mingling with all the enjoyments of life, and twisting itself with the minutest filaments of the heart. It is thus we obey the laws of society, because they are the laws of virtue. In their authority we see, not tho array of force and ter- ror, but the venerable image of our country's honor. Every good citizen makes that honor his own, aj^^herishes it not only as pre- cious, but as sacred. He is wilhn^^^risk his life in its defence, and is conscious that he gains prot^Bn while he gives it. For what rights of a citizen will be deen^Bnviolable when a state re- nounces the principles that constitut^lieir security ? Or, if his life should not be invaded, what would its enjoyments be iu a THE BRITISH TREATY. 113 country odious in the eyes of strangers and dishonored in his own? Could he look with affection and veneration to such a country as his parent ? The sense of having one would die within him ; he would blush for his patriotism, if he retained any, and justly, for it would be a vice. He would be a banished man in his na- tive land. I see no exception to the respect that is paid among nations to the law of good faith. If there are cases, in this enlightened peri- od, when it is violated, there are none when it is decried. It is the philosophy of politics, the religion of governments. It is ob- served by barbarians — a whiff of tobacco smoke, or a string of beads, gives not merely binding force, but sanctity to treaties. Even in Algiers, a truce may be bought for money ; but, when rat- ified, even Algiers is too wise, or too just, to disown and annul its obligation. Thus, we see, neither the ignorance of savages, nor the principles of an association for piracy and rapine, permit a na- tion to despise its engagements. If, sir, there could be a resurrec- tion from the foot of the gallows, if the victims of justice could live again, collect together, and form a society, they would, howev- er loath, soon find themselves obliged to make justice, that justice under which they fell, the fundamental law of their state. They would perceive it was their interest to make others respect, and they would therefcffe soon pay some respect themselves to the ob- ligations of good faith. It is painful, I hope it is superfluous, to make even the supposi- tion, that America should furnish the occasion of this opprobrium. No, let me not even imagine, that a republican government, sprung, as our own is, from a people enlightened and uncorrupted, a gov- ernment whose origin is right, and whose daily discipline is duty, can, upon solemn debate, make its option to be faithless — can dare to act what despots dare not avow, what our own example evinces, the states of Barbary are unsuspected of. No, let me rather make ihe supposition, that Great Britain refuses to execute the treaty, after we have done every thing to carry it into effect. Is thei any language of reproach pungent enough to express }'our com- mentary on the fact ? What would you say, or rather what would you not say? Would you not tell them, wherever an Englishman might travel, shame would stick to him — he would disown his country. You would exclaim, England, proud of your wealth, and arrogant in the possession of power — ^blush for these distinc- tions, which become the vehicles of your dishonor. Such a nation might tridy say to corruption. Thou art my father, and to the worm, Thou art my mother and my sister. We should say of such a race of men, their name is a heavier burden than their debt. I can scarcely persuade myself to believe, that the consideration 10* 114 MR. AMES'S SPEECH ON I have suggested requires the aid of any auxlHary. But, unfortu- nately, auxiliary arguments are at hand. Five millions of dollars, and probably more, on the score of spoliations committed on our commerce, depend upon the treaty. The treaty offers the only prospect of indemnity. Such redress is promised as the merchants place some confidence in. Will you interpose and frustrate that hope ; leaving to many families nothing but beggary and despair ? It is a smooth proceeding to take a vote in this body : it takes less than half an hour to call the yeas and nays and reject the treaty. But what is the eftect of it ? What, but this ? tlie very men for- merly so loud for redress ; such fierce champions, that even to ask fpr justice was too mean and too slow, now turn their capricious fury upon the sufl:erers, and say, by their vote, to them and their families. No longer eat bread ; petitioners, go home and starve ; we cannot satisfy your wrongs and our resentments. Will you pay the sufferers out of the treasury ? No. The an- swer was given two years ago, and appears on our journals. Will you give them letters of marque and reprisal to pay themselves by force ? No ; that is war. Besides, it would be an opportunity for those who have already lost much to lose more. Will you go to war to avenge their injury ? If you do, the war will leave you no money to indemnify them. If it should be unsuccessful, you will aggravate existing evils ; if successful, your enemy will have no treasure left to give our merchants ; the first losses will be con- founded with much greater, and be forgotten. At the end of a war there must be a negotiation, which is the very point we have already gained ; and wliy relinquish it ? And who will be confi- dent that the terms of the negotiation, after a desolating war, would be more acceptable to another house of representatives, than the treaty before us? Members and opinions may be so changed, that the treaty would then be rejected for being what the present ma- jority say it should be. Whether we shall go on making treaties and refusing to execute them, I know not. Of this I am certain^ it will be very difficult to exercise the treaty-making power, on the new principles, with much reputation or advantage to the country. The refusal of the posts (inevitable if we reject the treaty) is a measure too decisive in its nature to be neutral in its consequences. From great causes we are to look for great effects. A plain and obvious one will be, the price of the western lands will fall. Settlers will not choose to fix their habitation on a field of battle. Those who talk so much of the interest of the United States, should calculate how deeply it will be affected by rejecting the treaty ; how vast a tract of wild land will almost cease to be prop- erty. This loss, let it be observed, will fall upon a fund expressly THE BRITISH TREATY. 115 devoted to sink the national debt. What, then, are we called upon to do ? However the form of the vote and the protestations of many may disguise the proceeding, our resolution is in substance, and it deserves to wear the title of a resolution to prevent the sale of the western lands and the discharge of the public debt. Will the tendency to Indian hostilities be contested by any one ? Experience gives the answer. The frontiers were scourged with war till the negotiation with Great Britain was far advanced, and then the state of hostility ceased. Perhaps the public agents of both nations are innocent of fomenting the Indian war, and perhaps they are not. We ought not, however, to expect that neighboring nations, highly irritated against each other, will neglect the friend- ship of the savages ; the traders will gain an influence and will abuse it ; and who is ignorant that their passions are easily raised, and hardly restrained from violence ? Their situation will oblige them to choose between this country and Great Britain, in case the treaty should be rejected. They will not be our friends, and at the same time the friends of our enemies. But am I reduced to the necessity of proving this point ? Cer- tainly the very men who charged the Indian war on the detention of the posts, will call for no other proof than the recital of their own speeches. It is remembered with what emphasis, with what acrimony, they expatiated on the burden of taxes, and the drain of blood and treasure into the western country, in consequence of Britain's holding the posts. Until the posts are restored, they ex- claimed, the treasury and the frontiers must bleed. If any, against all these proofs, should maintain that the peace with the Indians will be stable without the posts, to them I will urge another reply. From arguments calculated to produce con- viction, I will appeal directly to the hearts of those who hear me, and ask, whether it is not already planted there. I resort espe- cially to the convictions of the western gentlemen, whether, sup- posing no posts and no treaty, the settlers will remain in security. Can they take it upon them to say, that an Indian peace, under these circumstances, will prove firm ? No, sir : it will not be peace, but a sword : it will be no better than a lure to draw victims with- in the reach of the tomahawk. On this theme, my emotions are unutterable. If I could find words for them — if my powers bore any proportion to my zeal — I would swell my voice to such a note of remonstrance, it should reach every log-house beyond the mountains. I would say to the. inhabitants. Wake from your false security : your cruel dangers, your more cruel apprehensions, are soon to be renewed : the wounds, yet unhealed, are to be torn open again : in the day time, your path through the woods will be ambushed : the darkness of 116 MR. AMES'S SPEECH ON midnight will glitter with the blaze of your dwellings. You are a father — the blood of your sons shall fatten your cornfield : you are a mother — the war-whoop shall wake the sleep of the cradle. On this subject you need not suspect any deception on your feelings. It is a spectacle of horror, which cannot be, overdrawn. If you have nature in your hearts, it will speak a language com- pared with which all I have said or can say will be poor and frigid. Will it be whispered that the treaty has made me a new cham- pion for the protection of the frontiers ? It is known that my voice as well as vote have been uniformly given in conformity with the ideas I have expressed. Protection is the right of the frontiers ; it is our duty to give it. Who will accuse me of wandering out of the subject ? Who will say that I exaggerate the tendencies of our measures ? Will any one answer by a sneer, that all this is idle preaching ? Will any one deny, that we are bound, and I would hope to good pur- pose, by the most solemn sanctions of duty, for the vote we give ? Are despots alone to be reproached for unfeehng indifference to the tears and blood of their subjects ? Are republicans unrespon- sible ? Have the principles, on which you ground the reproach upon cabinets and kings, no practical influence, no binding force ? Are they merely themes of idle declamation, introduced to deco- rate the morality of a newspaper essay, or to furnish pretty topics of harangue from the windows of that state-house ? I trust it is neither too presumptuous nor too late to ask. Can you put the dearest interest of society at risk without guilt, and without remorse ? It is vain to offer as an excuse, that public men are not to be reproached for the evils that may happen to ensue from their measures. This is very true, where they are unforeseen or inev- itable. Those I have depicted are not unforeseen : they are so far from inevitable, we are going to bring them into being by our vote. We choose the consequences, and become as justly an- swerable for them as for the measure that we know will produce them. By rejecting the posts, we light the savage fires — we bind the victims. This day we undertake to render account to the widows and orphans whom our decision will make, to the wretches that will be roasted at the stake, to our country, and I do not deem it too serious to say, to conscience and to God. We are answerable, and if duty be any thing more than a word of imposture, if con- science be not a bugbear, we are preparing to make ourselves as wretched as our country. There is no mistake in this case ; there can be none. Experi- THE. BRITISH TREATY. 117 ence has already been the prophet of events, and the cries of our fu- ture victuTis have already reached us. The western inhabitants are not a silent and uncomplaining sacrifice. The voice of hu- manity issues from the shade of their wilderness. It exclaims, that while one hand is held up to reject this treaty, the other grasps a tomahawk. It summons our imagination to the scenes that will open. It is no great effort of the imagination to con- ceive, that events so near are already begun. I can fancy that I listen to the yells of savage vengeance, and the shrieks of torture. Already they seem to sigh in the west wind— already they min- gle with every echo from the mountains. It is not the part of prudence to be inattentive to the tendencies of measures. Where there is any ground to fear that these will be pernicious, wisdom and duty forbid that we should uniJerrate them. If we reject the treaty, will our peace be as safe as if we executed it with good faith ? I do honor to the intrepid spirit of those who say it will. It was formerly understood to constitute the excellence of a man's faith to believe without evidence and against it. But as opinions on this article are changed, and we are called to act for our country, it becomes us to explore the dangers that will attend its peace, and to avoid them if we can. Few of us here, and fewer still in proportion of our constitu- ents, will doubt, that, by rejecting, all those dangers will be ag- gravated. The idea of war is treated as a bugbear. This levity is at least unseasonable, and most of all unbecoming some who resort to it. Who has forgotten the philippics of 1794? The cry then was reparation — no envoy — no treaty — no tedious delays. Now, it seems, the passion subsides, or at least the hurry to satisfy it. Great Britain, say they, will not wage war upon us. In 1 794, it was urged by those who now say, no war, that if we built frigates, or resisted the piracies of Algiers, we could not expect peace. Now they give excellent comfort truly. Great Britain has seized our vessels and cargoes to the amount of mil- lions ; she holds the posts ; she interrupts our trade, say they, as a neutral nation ; and these gentlemen, formerly so fierce for re- dress, assure us, in terms of the sweetest consolation. Great Britain will bear all this patiently. But let me ask the late champions of our rights, will our nation bear it ? Let others exult because the aggressor will let our wrongs sleep forever. Will it add — it is my duty to ask — to the patience and quiet of our citizens to see their rights abandoned ? Will not the disappointment of their hopes, so long patronized by the government, now in the crisis of their being realized, convert all their passions into fury and despair ? 118 MR. AMES'S SPEECH ON Are the posts to remain forever in the possession of Great Brit- ain ? Let those who reject them, when the treaty offers them to our hands, say, if they choose, they are of no importance. If they are, will they take them by force ? The argument I am urging would then come to a point. To use force is war. To talk of treaty again is too absurd. Posts and redress must come from voluntary good will, treaty or war. The conclusion is plain, if the state of peace shall continue, so will the British possession of the posts. Look again at this state of things. On the sea-coast, vast losses uncompensated ; on the frontier, Indian war, actual encroachment on our territory ; every where discontent — resentments tenfold more fierce because they will be impotent and humbled ; national scorn and abasement. The disputes of the old treaty of 1783, being left to rankle, will revive the almost extinguished animosities of that period. Wars, in all countries, and most of all in such as are free, arise from the impetuosity of the public feelings. The despotism of Turkey is often obliged by clamor to unsheath the sword. War might per- haps be delayed, but could not be prevented. The causes of it would remain, would be aggravated, would be multiplied, and soon become intolerable. More captures, more impressments would swell the list of our wrongs, and the current of our rage. I make no calculation of the arts of those whose employment it has been, on former occasions, to fan the fire. I say nothing of the foreign money and emissaries that might foment the spirit of hostility, be- cause the state of things will naturally run to violence. With less than their former exertion, they would be successful. Will our government be able to temper and restrain the turbu- lence of such a crisis ? The government, alas ! will be in no ca- pacity to govern. A divided people — and divided councils ! Shall we cherish the spirit of peace, or show the energies of war ? Shall we make our adversary afraid of our strength, or dispose him, by the measures of resentment and broken faith, to respect our rights ? Do gentlemen rely on the state of peace because both na- tions will be worse disposed to keep it ; because injuries, and insults still harder to endure, will be mutually offered ? Such a state of things will exist, if we should long avoid war, as will be worse than war. Peace without security, accumulation of injury without redress, or the hope of it, resentment against the aggressor, contempt for ourselves, intestine discord and anarchy. Worse than this need not be apprehended, for if worse could hap- pen, anarchy would bring it. Is this the peace gentlemen under- take with such fearless confidence to maintain ? Is this the station of American dignity, which the high-spirited champions of our na- tional independence and honor could endure — nay, which they are THE BRITISH TREATY. 119 anxious and almost violent to seize for the country ? What is there in the treaty that could humble us so low ? Are they the men to swallow their resentments, who so lately were choking with them ? If, in the case contemplated by them, it should be peace, I do not hesitate to declare it ought not to be peace. Is there any thing in the prospect of the interior state of the country to encourage us to aggravate the dangers of a war? Would not the shock of that evil produce another, and shake down the feeble and then unbraced structure of our government ? Is this a chimera ? Is it going off the ground of matter of fact to say, the rejection of the appropriation proceeds upon the doctrine of a civil war of the departments ? Two branches have ratified a treaty, and we are going to set it aside. How is this disorder in the ma- chine to be rectified ? While it exists, its movements must stop, and when we talk of a remedy, is that any other than the formi- dable one of a revolutionary interposition of the people ? And is this, in the judgment even of my opposers, to execute, to preserve the constitution and the public order ? Is this the state of hazard, if not of convulsion, which they can have the courage to contem- plate and to brave, or beyond which their penetration can reach and see the issue ? They seem to believe, and they act as if they believed, that our union, our peace, our liberty are invulnerable and immortal — ^as if our happy state was not to be disturbed by our dissensions, and that we are not capable of falling from it by our unworthiness. Some of them have no doubt better nerves and better discernment than mine. They can see the bright aspects and happy consequences of all this array of horrors: They can see intestine discords, our government disorganized, our wrongs aggravated, multiplied and unredressed, peace with dishonor, or war without justice, union or resources, in " the calm lights of mild philosophy." But whatever they may anticipate as the next measure of pru- dence and safety, they have explained nothing to the house. lU After rejecting the treaty, what is to be the next step ? They must have foreseen what ought to be done ; they have doubtless resolved what to propose. Why, then, are they silent ? Dare they not avow their plan of conduct, or do they wait till our prog- ress towards confusion shall guide them in forming it ? Let me cheer the mind, weary, no doubt, and ready to despond on this prospect, by presenting another, which it is yet in our pow- er to realize. Is it possible for a real American to look at the prosperity of this country without some desire for its continuance, without some respect for the measures which, many will say, pro- duced, and all will confess, have preserved it ? Will he not feel some dread, that a change of system will reverse the scene ? The 120 MR. AMES'S SPEECH ON well-grounded fears of our citizens, in 1794, were removed by the treaty, but are not forgotten. Then they deemed war nearly in- evitable, and would not this adjustment have been considered, at that day, as a happy escape from the calamity ? The great inter- est and the general desire of our people was to enjoy the advan- tages of neutrality. This instrument, however misrepresented, affords America that inestimable security. The causes of our dis- putes are either cut up by the roots, or referred to a new negotia- tion after the end of the European war. This was gaining every thing, because it confirmed our neutrality, by which our citizens are gaining every thing. This alone would justify the engage- ments of the government. For, when the fiery vapors of the war lowered in the skirts of our horizon, all our wishes were concentred in this one, that we might escape the desolation of the storm. This treaty, like a rainbow on the edge of the cloud, marked to our eyes the space where it was raging, and afforded, at the same time, the sure prognostic of fair weather. If we reject it, the vivid colors will grow pale ; it will be a baleful meteor, portending tem- pest and war. Let us not hesitate, then, to agree to the appropriation to carry it into faithful execution. Thus we shall save the faith of our nation, secure its peace, and diffuse the spirit of confidence and enterprise that will augment its prosperity. The progress of wealth and improvement is wonderful, and some will think, too rapid. The field for exertion is fruitful and vast, and if peace and good government should be preserved, the acquisitions of our citi- zens are not so pleasing as the proofs of their industry, as the in- struments of their future success. The rewards of exertion go to augment its power. Profit is every hour becoming capital. The vast crop of our neutrality is all seed-wheat, and is sown again to swell, almost beyond calculation, the future harvest of prosperity. And in this progress, what seems to be fiction is found to fall short of experience. I rose to speak under impressions that I would have resisted if I could. Those who see me will believe, that the reduced state of my health has unfitted me, almost equally, for much exertion of body or mind. Unprepared for debate, by careful reflection in my retirement, or by long attention here, I thought the resolution I had taken to sit silent was imposed by necessity, and would cost me no effort to maintain. With a mind thus vacant of ideas, and sinking, as I really am, under a sense of weakness, I imagined the very desire of speaking was extinguished by the persuasion that I had nothing to say. Yet wlien I come to the moment of deciding the vote, 1 start back with dread from the edge of the pit into which we are plunging. In my view, even the minutes I have THE BRITISH TREATY. 121 spent in expostulaticHi, have their value, because they protract the crisis, and the short period in which alone we may resolve to escape it. I have thus been led, by my feelings, to speak more at length than I had intended. Yet I have, perhaps, as little personal in- terest in the event as any one here. There is, I believe, no mem- ber who will not think his chance to be a witness of the conse- quences greater than mine. If, however, the vote should pass to 'reject, and a spirit should rise, as it will, with the public disorders, to make confusion worse confounded, even I, slender and almost broken as my hold upon life is, may outlive the government and constitution of my country. 11 SPEECH OF EDWARD LIVINGSTON,' ON THE ALIEN BILL, DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES, JUNE 19, 1798. By this bill, it was provided that the president might order dangerous or suspected aUens to depart out of the territory of the United States. The penalty, for tUsobedience of the president's order, was imprisonment and a perpetual exclusion from the rights of citizenship. If any alien, ordered to depart, should prove, to the satisfaction of the president, tluit no injury to the United States would arise from suffering him to remain, the presi- dent might grant him a license to remain for such time as he should deem proper, and at such place as he should designate. The question was about to be taken on the final passage of the bill, when Mr. Livingston addressed the house as follows : — Mr. Speaker, 1 esteem it one of the most fortunate occurrences of my life, that, after an inevitable absence from my seat in this house, I have arrived in time to express my dissent to the passage of this bill. It would have been a source of eternal regret, and the keenest remorse, if any private affairs, any domestic concerns, however interesting, had deprived me of the opportunity I am now about to use of stating my objections, and recording my vote against an act which I believe to be in direct violation of the con- stitution, and marked with every characteristic of the most odious despotism. On my arrival, 1 inquired what subject occupied the attention of the house ; and being told it was the alien bill, 1 directed the printed copy to be brought to me ; but, to my great surprise, seven or eight copies of different bills on the same subject were put into my hands: among them it was difficult (so strongly were they marked by the same family features) to discover the individual bill then under discussion. This circumstance gave me a sus- picion, that the principles of the measure were erroneous. Truth marches directly to its end by a single, undeviating path. Error is either undermining in its object, or pursues it through a thousand winding ways : the multiplicity of propositions, therefore, to attain MR. LIVINGSTON'S SPEECH, &c. 123 the same general but doubtful end, led me to suspect, that neither the object nor the means, proposed to attain it, were proper or necessary. . These surmises have been confirmed by a more mi- nutfe examination of the bill. In the construction of statutes, it is u received rule to examine what was the state of things when they were passed, and what were the evils they were intended to remedy : as these circumstances will be applied in the construction of the law, it may be well to examine them minutely in framing it. The state of things, if we are to judge from the complexion of the bill, m.ust be that a number of aliens, enjoying the protec- tion of our government, are plotting its destruction ; that they are engaged in treasonable machinations against a people who have given them an asylum and support, and that there exists no pro- vision for their expulsion and punishment. If these things are so, and no remedy exists for the evil, one ought speedily to be provi- ded ; but even then it must be a remedy that is consistent with the constitution under which we act ; for, by that instrument, all pow- ers, not expressly given to it by the union, are reserved to the states : it follows, that, unless an express authority can be found, vesting us with the power, be the evil ever so great, it can only be remedied by the several states, who have never delegated the authority to congress. We must legislate upon facts, not on surmises : we must Ijave evidence, not vague suspicions, if we mean to legislate with pru- dence. What facts have been produced ? What evidence has been submitted to the house ? I have heard, sir, of none ; but if evidence of facts could not be procured, at least it might have been expected, that reasonable cause of suspicion should be shown. Here, again, gentlemen are at fault ; they cannot even show a sus- picion why aliens ought to be suspected. We have, indeed, been told, that the fate of Venice, Switzerland, and Batavia, was pro- duced by the interference of foreigners. But the instances are unfortunate ; because all those powers have been overcome by foreign force, or divided by domestic faction, not by the influence of aliens who resided among them ; and if any instruction is to be gained from the history of those republics, it is, that we ought to banish not aliens, but all those citizens who do not approve the executive acts. This doctrine, I believe, gentlemen are not ready to avow ; but if this measure prevails, I shall not think the other remote. If it has been proved, that these governments were de- stroyed by the conspiracies of aliens, it yet remains to be shown, that we are in the same situation ; or that any such plots have been detected, or are even reasonably suspected here. Nothing of this kind has yet been done. A modern Theseus, indeed, has told us, that he has procured a clew that will enable him to pene- trate the labyrinth and destroy this monster of sedition. Who the 124 MR. LIVINGSTON'S SPEECH fair Ariadne is, who kindly gave him tlie ball, he has not revealed } nor, though several days have elapsed since he undertook the ad- venture, has he yet told us where the monster lurks. No evi- dence then being j)roduced, we have a right to say, that none ex- ists ; and yet we are about to sanction a most important act, and on what grounds ? — Our individual suspicions, our private fears, our overheated imaginations. Seeing nothing to excite these suspi- cions, and not feeling those fears, I cannot give my assent to the bill, even if I did not feel a superior obligation to reject it on other grounds. The first section provides, that it shall be lawful for the presi- dent " to order all such aliens as he shall judge dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States, or shall have reasonable grounds to suspect are concerned in any treasonable or secret machinations against the government thereof, to depart out of the United States, in such time as shall be expressed in such order." Our government, sir, is founded on the establishment of those principles which constitute the difference between a free constitu- tion and a despotic power ; a distribution of the legislative, execu- tive and judiciary powers into several hands ; a distribution strong- ly marked in the three first and great divisions of the constitution. By the first, all legislative power is given to congress; the second vests all executive functions in the president, and the third de- clares, that the judiciary powers shall be exercised by the supreme and inferior courts. Here, then, is a division of the governmental powers strongly marked, decisively pronounced ; and every act of one or all of the branches, that tends to confound these powers, or alter their arrangement, must be destructive of the constitution. Examine, then, sir, the bill on your table, and declare, whether the few lines 1 have repeated from the first section do not confound these fundamental powers of government, vest them all, in more unqualified terms, in one hand, and thus subvert the basis on which our liberties rest. Legislative power prescribes the rule of action ; the judiciary applies the general rule to particular cases ; and it is the province of the executive to see that the laws ai-e carried into full effect. In all free governments, these powers are exercised by different men, and their union in the same hand is the peculiar characteristic of despotism. If the same power that makes the law can construe it to suit his interest, and apply it to gratify his vengeance ; if he can go further, and execute, according to his own passions, the judgment which he himself has pronounced upon his own construc- tion of laws which he alone has made, what other features are wanted to complete the picture of tyranny ? Yet all this, and more, is proposed to be done by this act : by it the president alone is empowered to make the la^'. to fix in his mind what acts,, ON THE ALIEN BILL. 125 what words, thoughts or looks, shall constitute the crime contem- plated by the bill. He is not only authorized to make this law for his own conduct, but to vary it at pleasure, as every gust of pas- sion, every cloud of suspicion, shall agitate or darken his mind. The same power that formed the law then applies it to the guilty or innocent victim, whom its own suspicions, or the secret whisper of a spy, have designated as its object. The president, then, hav- ing construed and applied it, the same president is by the bill authorized to execute his sentence, in case of disobedience, by im- prisonment during his pleasure. This, then, comes completely within the definition of despotism — a union of legislative, execu- tive, and judicial powers. But this bill, sir, does not stop here: its provisions are a refinement upon despotism, and present an image of the most fearful tyranny. Even in despotisms, though the monarch legislates, judges and executes, yet he legislates openly : his laws, though oppressive, are known : they precede the offence, and every man who chooses may avoid the pen- alties of disobedience. Yet he judges and executes by proxy, and bis private interests or passions do not inflame the mind of his deputy. But here the law is so closely concealed in the same mind that gave it birth — the crime is " exciting the suspicions of the presi- dent " — that no man can tell what conduct will avoid that suspi- cion : a careless word, perhaps misrepresented or never spoken, may be sufficient evidence ; a look may destroy ; an idle gesture may en- sure punishment ; no innocence can protect, no circumspection can avoid the jealousy of suspicion. Surrounded by spies, informers, and all that infamous herd which fatten under laws like this, the unfortu- nate stranger will never know either of the law of accusation or of the judgment, until the moment it is put in execution : he will detest your tyranny, and fly from a land of delators, inquisitors, and spies. This, sir, is a refinement upon the detestable contrivance of the decem- virs. They hung the tables of their laws so high, that few could read them ; a tall man, however, might reach — a short one migl climb and learn their contents ; but here the law is equally inac- cessible to high and low, safely concealed in the breast of its author ; no industry or caution can penetrate this recess, and attain a knowledge of its provisions, nor, even if they could, as the rule is not permanent, would it at all avail. Having shown, that this bill is at war with the fundamental principles of our government, I might stop here in the certain hope of its rejection. But I can do more ; unless we are resolved to pervert the meaning of terms, I can show that the constitution has endeavored to " make its surety doubly sure, and take a bond of fate," by several express prohibitions of measures like the one you 11 * 126 MR. LIVINGSTON'S SPEECH now contemplate. One of these is contained in the ninth sectiion of the first article ; it is at the head of the articles which restrict the powers of congress, and declares, " that the emigration or im- portation of such persons as any of the states shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited prior to the year 1808." Now, sir, where is the difference between a power to prevent the arrival of aliens and a power to send them away as soon as they arrive ? To me they appear precisely the same. The constitution ex- pressly says, that congress shall not do this ; and yet congress are about to delegate this prohibited power, and say the president may exercise it as his pleasure may direct. Judiciary power is taken from courts, and given to the executive : the previous safeguard of a presentment by a grand inquest is re- moved : the trial by jury is abolished : the " public trial," required by the constitution, is changed into a secret and worse than in- quisitorial tribunal. Instead of giving " information on the nature and cause of the accusation," the criminal, alike ignorant of his offence, and the danger to which he is exposed, never hears of either, until the judgment is passed and the sentence is executed. Instead of being " confronted with his accusers," he is kept alike ignorant of their names and their existence ; and the forms of a trial being dispensed with, it would be a mockery to talk of " pro- cess for witness," or the " assistance of counsel for defence." Thus are all the barriers, which the wisdom and humanity of our country has placed between accused innocence and oppresive pow- er, at once forced and broken down. Not a vestige even of their form remains. No indictments, no jury, no trial, no public pro- cedure, no statement of the accusation, no examination of the witnesses in its support, no counsel for defence ; all is darkness, silence, mystery and suspicion. But, as if this v/ere not enough, the unfortunate victims of this law are told, in the next section, that, if they can convince the president that his suspicions are un- founded, he may, if he pleases, give them a license to stay. But how can the}'^ remove his suspicions, when they know not on what act they were founded ? How take proof to convince him, when he is not bound to furnish that on which he proceeds ? Miserable mockery of justice ! Appoint an arbitrary judge, armed with le- gislative and executive powers added to his own ! Let him con- demn the unheard, the unaccused object of his suspicions, and then, to cover the injustice of the scene, gravely tell him, you ought not to complain ; you need only disprove facts you have never heard, remove suspicions that have never been conmiunicated to you : it will be easy to convince your judge, whom you shall not approach, that he is tyrannical and unjust ; and when you iiave done this, we give him the power he had before to pardon you if he pleases 1 ON THE ALIEN BILL. 127 So obviously do the constitutional objections present themselves, that their existence cannot be denied, and two ^vretched subter- fuges are resorted to, to remove them out of sight. In the first place, it is said, the bill does not contemplate the punishment of any crime, and therefore the provisions in the constitution, relative to criminal proceedings and judiciary powers, do not apply. But have the gentlemen, who reason thus, read the bill, or is every thing forgotten, in our zealous hurry to pass it? What are the offences upon which it is to operate ? Not only the offence of being " suspected of being dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States," but also that of being " concerned in any treasonable or secret machinations against the government there- of" — and this, we are told, is no crime. A treasonable machina- tion against the government is not the subject of criminal juris- prudence ! Good heaven I to what absurdities does not an over- zealous attachment to particular measures lead us ! In order to punish a particular act, we are forced to say, that treason is no crime, and plotting against our government is no offence ! And to support this fine hypothesis, we are obliged to plunge deeper into absurdity, and say, that the acts, spoken of in the bill are no crimes, and therefore the penalty contained in it is not a punish- ment, but merely a prevention ; that is to say, v^e invite strangers to come amongst us ; we declare solemnly, that government shall not prevent them ; we entice them over by the delusive prospects of advantage ; in many parts of the union we permit them to hold lands, and give them other advantages while they are waiting for the period at which we have promised them a full participa- tion of all our rights. An unfortunate stranger, disgusted with tyranny at home, thinks he shall find freedom herp ; he accepts our conditions ; he puts faith in our promises ; he vests his all in our hands ; he has dissolved his former connections and made your country his own ; but while he is patiently waiting the expiration of the period that is to crown the work, entitle him to all the rights of a citizen — the tale of a domestic spy, or the calumny of a secret enemy, draws on him the suspicions of the president, and, unheard, he is ordered to quit the spot he had selected for his re- treat, the country which he had chosen for his own, perhaps the family which was his only consolation in life ; he is ordered to retire to a country whose government, irritated by his renunciation of its authority, will receive only to punish him — and all this, we are told, is no punishment ! So manifest do these violations of the constitution appear to me, so futile the arguments in their defence, that they press seriously on my mind, and sink it even to despondency. They are so glaring to my understanding, that I have felt it my duty to speak of them In a manner that may perhaps give offence to men whom 123 MR. LIVINGSTON'S SPEECH I esteem, and who seem to think differently on this subject : none, however, I can assure them, is intended. I have seen measures carried in this house which I thought militated against the spirit of the constitution ; but never before have I been wit- ness to so open, so undisguised an attack. I have now done, sir, witli the bill, and come to consider the consequences of its operation. One of the most serious lias been anticipated, when J described the blow it would give to the con- stitution of our country. We should cautiously beware of the first act of violation : habituated to overleap its bounds, we become familiarized to the guilt, and disregard the danger of a second of- fence ; until, proceeding from one unauthorized act to another, we at length throw otF all restraint which our constitution has imposed, and very soon not even the semblance of its form will remain. But, if regardless of our duty as citizens, and our solemn obli- gations as representatives ; regardless of the rights of our constit- uents ; regardless of every sanction, human and divine, we are ready to violate the constitution we have sworn to defend — will the people submit to our unauthorized acts ? will the states sanc- tion our usurped power? Sir, they ought not to submit — they would deserve the chains which these measures are forging for them, if they did not resist. For let no man vainly imagine, that the evil is to stop here ; that a few unprotected aliens only are to be affected by this inquisitorial power. The same arguments, which enforce those provisions against aliens, apply with equal strength to enacting them in the case of citizens. The citizen has no other protection for his personal security, that I know, against laws like this, than the humane provisions I have cited from the constitution. But all these apply in common to the citizen and the stranger : all crimes are to be tried by jury ; no person shall be held to answer unless on presentment : in all criminal prosecu- tions, the accused is to have a public trial : the accused is to be informed of the nature of the charge; to be confronted with the witnesses against him ; may have process to enforce the appear- ance of those in his favor, and is to be allowed counsel in his de- fence. Unless, therefore, we can believe, that treasonable machi- nations and the otlier offences, described in the bill, are not crimes, that an alien is not a person, and that one charged with treasona- ble practices is not accused — unless we can believe all this in con- tradiction to our understanding, to received opinions and the uni- form practice of our courts, we must allow, that all these provisions extend equally to alien and native, and that the citizen has no other security for his personal safety than is extended to the stranger, who is within his gates. If, therefore, this security is violated in one instance, what pledge have we that it will not be in the other? The same plea of necessity will justify both. ON THE ALIEN BILL. 129 Either the offences described in the act are crimes, or they are not. If they are, then all the humane provisions of the constitu- tion forbid this mode of punishing, or preventing them, equally as relates to aliens and citizens. If they are not crimes, the citizen has no more safety by the constitution, than the alien ; for all these provisions apply only to crimes ; so that, in either event, the citizen has the same reason to expect a similar law to the one now before you, which will subject his person to the uncontrolled des- potism of a single man. You have already been told of plots and conspiracies ; and all the frightful images, that are necessary to keep up the present system of terror and alarm, have been pre- sented to you ; but who are implicated by these dark hints — these mysterious allusions ? They are our own citizens, sir, not aliens. If there is any necessity for the system now proposed, it is more necessary to be enforced against our own citizens, than against strangers ; and I have no doubt, that either in this or some other shape, this will be attempted. I now ask, sir, whether the people of America are prepared for this; whether they are willing to part with all the means which the wisdom of their ancestors dis- covered ; and their own caution so lately adopted to secure their own persons; whether they are willing to submit to imprison- ment, or exile, whenever suspicion, calumny, or vengeance, shall mark them for ruin. Are they base enough to be prepared for this ? No, sir, they will, I repeat it, they will resist this tyran- nical system ; the people will oppose, the states will not submit to its operations ; they ought not to acquiesce, and I pray to God they never may. My opinions^ sir, on this subject, are explicit, and I wish they may be known ; they are, that whenever our laws manifestly in- fringe the constitution under which they were made, the people ought not to hesitate which they should obey : if we exceed our powers, we become tyrants, and our acts have no effect. Thus, sir, one of the first effects of measures such as this, if they be acquiesced in, will be disaffection among the states, and opposition among the people to your government ; tumults, violations, and a recurrence to first revolutionary principles : if they are submitted to, the consequences will be worse. After such manifest violation of the principles of our constitution, the form will not long be sa- cred ; presently every vestige of it will be lost and swallowed up in the gulf of despotism. But should the evil proceed no farther than the execution of the present law, what a fearful picture will our country present ! The system of espionage thus established, the country will swarm with information-spies, delators, and all that odious tribe, that breed in the sunshine of despotic power, that suck the blood of the unfortunate, and creep into the bosom of sleeping innocence only to awaken it with a burning wound. R 130 MR. LIVINGSTON'S SPEECH The hours of the most unsuspecting confidence ; the intimacies of friendship, or the recesses of domestic retirement, afford no secu- rity : the companion whom you must trust, the friend in whom you must confide, the domestic who waits in your chamber, are all tempted to betray your imprudence or guardless folHes, to misrep- resent your words, to convey them, distorted by calumny, to the secret tribunal where jealousy presides, where fear officiates as ac- cuser, where suspicion is the only evidence that is heard. These, bad as they are, are not the only ill consequences of these measures. Among them we may reckon the loss of wealth, of population and of commerce. Gentlemen who support the bill seemed to be aware of this, when yesterday they introduced a clause to secure the property of those who might be ordered to go off. They should have foreseen the consequences of the steps which they have been taking : it is now too late to discover, that large sums are drawn from the banks, that a great capital is taken from commerce. It is ridiculous to observe the solicitude they show to retain the wealth of these dangerous men, whose persons they are so eager to get rid of. If they wish to retain it, it must be by giving them security to their persons, and assuring them that while they respect the laws, the laws will protect them from arbitrary powers ; it must be, in short, by rejecting the bill on your table. I might mention other inferior considerations ; but I ought, sir, rather to entreat the pardon of the house for having touched on this. Compared to the breach of our constitution, and the establishment of arbitrary power, every other topic is trifling ; arguments of convenience sink into nothing ; the preser- vation of wealth, the increase of commerce, however weighty on other occasions, here lose their importance, when the fundamental principles of freedom are in danger. I am tempted to borrow the impressive language of a foreign speaker, and exclaim — " Perish our commerce, let our constitution live;" perish our riches, let our freedom live. This, sir, would be the sentiment of every American, were the alternative between submission and wealth; but here, sir, it is proposed to destroy our wealth in order to ruin our commerce ; not in order to preserve our constitution, but to break it — not to secure our freedom, but to abandon it. I have now done, sir; but, before I sit down, let me entreat gentlemen seriously to reflect, before they pi'onounce the decisive v^ote, that gives the first open stab to the principles of our govern- ment. Our mistaken zeal, like the patriarch of old, has bound one victim ; it lies at the foot of the altar ; a sacrifice of the first- born offspring of freedom is proposed by those who gave it birth. The hand is already raised to strike, and nothing, I fear, but the voice of Heaven can arrest the impious blow. Let not gentlemen flatter themselves, that the fervor of the ON THE ALIEN BILL. 131 moment can make the people insensible to these aggressions. It is an honest, noble warmth, produced by an indignant sense of in- jury. It will never, I trust, be extinct, while there is a proper cause to excite it. But the people of America, sir, though watch- ful against foreign aggressions, are not careless of domestic en- croachment : they are as jealous, sir, of their liberties at home as of the power and prosperity of their country abroad : they will awake to a sense of their danger. Do not let us flatter ourselves, then, that these measures will be unobserved or disregarded : do not let us be told, sir, that we excite a fervor against foreign ag- gressions only to establish tyranny at home ; that, like the arch traitor, we cry, " Hail Columbia," at the moment we are betraying her to destruction ; that we sing out, " Happy land," when we are plunging it in ruin and disgrace ; and that we are absurd enough to call ourselves "free and enlightened," while we advocate prin- ciples that would have disgraced the age of Gothic barbarity, and establish a code, compared to which the ordeal is wise, and the trial by hattel is merciful and just. The bill became a law on the 25th June, 1798. SPEECH OF GOVERNEUR MORRIS, THE JUDICIARY ACT, DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JANUARY 14, 1802, On the following motion, " Resolved, That the act of congress, passed on the 13th day of February, 1801, entitled ' An Act to provide for the more con- venient organization of the courts of the United State;*, ought to be repealed." Mr. President. I had fostered the hope that some gentleman, who thinks with me, would have taken upon himself the task of replying to the ob- servations made yesterday, and this morning, in favor of the mo- tion on your table. But since no gentleman has gone so fully into the subject as it seems to require, I am compelled to request your attention. We were told, yesterday, by the honorable member from Vir- gmia, that our objections were calculated for the by-standers, and made with a view to produce effect upon the people at large. 1 know not for whom this charge is intended. I certainly recollect no such observations. As I was personally charged with making a play upon words, it may have been intended for me. But sure- ly, sir, it will be recollected that I declined that paltry game, and declared that I considered the verbal criticism which had been relied on as irrelevant. If I can recollect what I said, from recollecting well what I thought and meant to say, sure I am, that I uttered nothing in the style of an appeal to the people. I hope no member of this house has so poor a sense of its dignity as to make such an appeal. As to myself, it is now near thirty years since I was called into public office. During that period, I have frequently been the servant of the people, always their friend ; but at no one motnent of my life their flatterer, and God forbid that I ever should be. When the honorable gentleman considers the course we have taken, he must see, that the observation he has thus pointed can light on no object. I trust that it did not MR. MORRIS'S SPEECH, &c. 133 flow from the consciousness of his own intentions. He, I hope, had no view of this sort. If he had, he was much, very much mistaken. Had he looked round upon those who honor us with their attendance, he would have seen that the splendid flashes of his wit excited no approbatory smile. The countenances of those by whom we were surrounded presented a different specta- cle. They were impressed with the dignity of this house : they perceived in it the dignity of the American people, and felt, with high and manly sentiment, their own participation. We have been told, sir, by the honorable gentleman from Vir- ginia, that there is no independent part of this government ; that, in popular governments, the force of every department, as well as the government itself, must depend upon popular opinion. The honorable member from North Carolina has informed us, that there is no check for the overbearing powers of the legislature but pub- lic opinion ; and he has been pleased to notice a sentiment I had uttered — a sentiment which not only fell from my lips, but which flowed from my heart. It has, however, been misunderstood and misapplied. After reminding the house of the dangers to which popular governments are exposed from the influence of designing demagogues upon popular passion, I took the liberty to say, that we, we the senate of the United States, are assembled here to save the people from their most dangerous enemy, to save them from themselves ; to guard them against the baneful effects of their own precipitation, their passion, their misguided zeal. It is for these purposes that all our constitutional checks are devised. If this be not the language of the constitution, the constitution is all nonsense. For why are the senators chosen by communities, and the representatives directly by the people ? Why are the one chosen for a longer term than the other ? Why give one branch of the legislature a negative upon the acts of the other? Why give the president a right to arrest the proceedings of both, till two thirds of each should concur ? Why all these multiplied pre- cautions, unless to check and control that impetuous spirit, that headlong torrent of opinion, which has swept away every popular government that ever existed. With the most respectful attention, I heard the declaration of the gentleman from Virginia, of his own sentiment. " Whatever," said he, " may be my opinion of the constitution, I hold myself bound to respect it." He disdained, sir, to profess an attachment he did not feel, and I accept his candor as a pledge for the per- formance of his duty. But he will admit this necessary inference from that frank confession, that, although he will struggle (against his inclination) to support the constitution, even to the last mo- ment, yet when, in spite of all his efforts, it shall fall, he will re- joice in its destruction. Far different are my feelings. It is pos- 12 134 MR. MORRIS'S SPEECH sible that we are both prejudiced, and that, In takinj^ the ground on which we respectively stand, our judgments are influenced by the sentiments wliich glow in our hearts. I, sir, wish to support this constitution, because I love it ; and I love it because I consid- er it as the bond of our union ; because in my soul I believe, that on it depends our harmony and our peace ; that without it, we should soon be plunged in all the horrors of civil war ; that this country would be deluged with the blood of its inhabitants, and a brother's hand raised against the bosom of a brother. After these preliminary remarks, I hope I shall be indulged while I consider the subject in reference to the two points which have been taken, the expediency and the constitutionality of the repeal. In considering the expediency, 1 hope I shall be pardoned for asking your attention to some parts of the constitution which have not yet been dwelt upon, and which tend to elucidate this part of our inquiry. I agree fully with the gentleman, that every section, every sentence, and every word of the constitution, ought to be iieliberately weighed and examined ; nay, I am content to go along with him, and give its due value and importance to every stop and comma. In the beginning, we find a declaration of the motives which induced the American people to bind themselves by this compact. And in the foreground of that declaration, we find these objects specified ; " to form a more perfect union, to estab- lish justice, and to ensure domestic tranquillity." But how are these objects effected ? The people intended to establish justice. What provision have they made to fulfil that intention ? After pointing out the courts, which should be established, the second section of the third article informs us, "the judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity, arising under this constitu- tion, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority ; to all cases affecting ambas- sadors, other public ministers and consuls ; to all cases of admiral- ty and maritime jurisdiction ; to controversies to which the Uni- ted States shall be a party ; to controversies between two or more states ; between a state and citizens of another state ; between citizens of different states ; between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states ; and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects. " In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party, the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions and under such reg- ulations as the congress shall make." ON THE JUDICIARY. 135 Thus, then, we find that the judicial power shall extend to a great variety of cases, but that the supreme court shall have only appellate jurisdiction in all admiralty and maritime causes, in all controversies between the United States and private citizens, be- tween chizens of different states, between citizens of the same state claiming lands under different states, and between a citizen of the United States and foreign states, citizens or subjects. The honorable gentleman from Kentucky, who made the motion on your table, has told us that the constitution, in its judiciary pro- visions, contemplated only those cases which could not be tried in the state courts. But he will, I hope, pardon me when I contend that the constitution did not merely contemplate, but did by ex- press words, reserve to the national tribunals a right to decide, and did secure to the citizens of America a right to demand their de- cision, in many cases evidently cognizable in the state courts. And what are these cases ? They are those, in respect to which, it is by the constitution presumed, that the state courts would not always make a cool and calm investigation, a fair and just decision. To form, therefore, a more perfect union, and to insure domestic tranquillity, the constitution has said there shall be courts of the union to try causes, by the wrongful decision of which, the union might be endangered or domestic tranquillity be disturbed. And what courts ? Look again at the cases designated. The supreme court has no original jurisdiction. The constitution has said that the judicial powers shall be vested in the supreme and inferior courts. It has declared that the judicial power, so vested, shall extend to the cases mentioned, and that the supreme court shall not have original jurisdiction in those cases. Evidently, therefore, it has declared, that they shall (in the first instance) be tried by inferior courts, with appeal to the supreme court. This, therefore, amounts to a declaration that the inferior courts shall exist ; since, without them, the citizen is deprived of those rights for which he stipulated, or rather those rights verbally granted, would be actu- ally withheld, and that great security of our union, that necessary guard of our tranquillity, be completely paralyzed, if not destroy- ed. In declaring, then, that these tribunals shall exist, it equally declares, that the congress shall ordain and establish them. I say they shall ; this is the evident intention, if not the express words, of the constitution. The convention in framing, the American people in adopting that compact, did not, could not presume, that the congress would omit to do what they were thus bound to do. They could not presume, that the legislature would hesitate one moment, in establishing the organs necessary to carry into effect those wholesome, those important provisions. The honorable member from Virginia has given us a history of the judicial system, and, in the course of it, has told us, that the 136 MR. MORRIS'S SPEECH judges of the supreme court knew, when they accepted their of- fices, the duties they had to perform, and the salaries they were to receive. He thence infers, that if again called on to do the same duties, they have no right to complain. Agreed — but that is not the question between us. Admitting that they have made a hard bargain, and that we may hold them to a strict performance, is it wise to exact their compliance to the injury of our constituents ? We are urged to go back to the old system ; but let us first exam- ine the effects of that system. The judges of the supreme court rode the circuits, and two of them, with the assistance of a district judge, held circuit courts and tried causes. As a supreme court, they have in most cases only an appellate jurisdiction. In the first instance, therefore, they tried a cause, sitting as an inferior court, and then, on appeal, tried it over again, as a supreme court. Thus, then, the appeal was from the sentence of the judges to the judges themselves. But say, that to avoid this impropriety, you will incapacitate the two judges who sat on the circuit from sitting in the supreme court to review their own decrees. Strike them off; and suppose either the same or a contrary decision to have been made on another circuit, by two of their brethren in a similar case: for the same reason you strike them off, and then you have no court left. Is this wise ? Is it safe ? You place yourselves in the situation where your citizens must be deprived of the advan- tage given to them of a court of appeals, or else run the greatest risk that the decision of the first court will carry with it that of the other. The same honorable member has given us a history of the law passed the last session, which he wishes now to repeal. That his- tory is accurate, at least in one important part of it. I believe that all amendments were rejected, pertinaciously rejected ; and I ac- knowledge that I joined heartily in that rejection. It was for the clearest reason on earth. We all perfectly understood, that to amend the bill was to destroy it ; that if ever it got back to the other house, it would perish. Those, therefore, who approved of the general provisions of that bill, were determined to adopt it. We sought the practicable good, and would not, in pureuit of unat- tainable perfection, sacrifice that good to the pride of opinion. We took the bill, therefore, with its imperfections, convinced, that when it was once passed into a law, it might be easily amended. We are now told, that this procedure was improper ; nay, that it was indecent ; that public opinion had declared itself against us ; that a majority (holding different opinions) was already chosen to the other house ; and that a similar majority was expected for that in which we sit. Mr. President, are we then to understand, that opposition to the majority in the two houses of congress is improper — is indecent r If so, what are we to think of these gentlemen, who, not only ON THE JUDICIARY. 137 with proper and decent, but with laudable motives (for such is their claim), so long, so perseveringly, so pertinaciously opposed that voice of the people, which had so repeatedly, and for so many years, declared itself against them, through the organ of their representatives ? Was this indecent in them ? If not, how could it be improper for us to seize the only moment, which was left for the then majority to do what they deemed a necessary act ? Let me again refer to those imperious demands of the constitu- tion, which called on us to establish inferior courts. Let me re- mind gentlemen of their assertion on this floor, that centuries might elapse before any judicial system could be established with general consent. And then let me ask, being thus impressed with the sense of the duty and the difhculty of performing that arduous task. Was it not wise to seize the auspicious moment ? Among the many stigmas affixed to this law, we have been told that the president, in selecting men to fill the offices which it cre- ated, made vacancies- and filled them from the floor of this house ; and that but for the influence of this circumstance, a majority in favor of it could liot have been found. Let us examine this sug- gestion. It is grounded on a supposition of corrupt influence, de- rived from a hope founded on two remote and successive contin- gencies. First, the vacancy might or might not exist ; for it de- pended as well on the acceptance of another as on the president's grant ; and secondly, the president might or might not fill it with a member of this house. Yet on this vague conjecture, on this unstable ground, it is inferred, that men in high confidence violated their duty. It is hard to determine the influence of self-interest on the heart of man. I shall not, therefore, make the attempt. In the present case, it is possible that the imputation may be just, but I hope not, I believe not. At any rate, gentlemen will agree with me, that the calculation is uncertain, and the conjecture vague. But let it now, for argument's sake, be admitted, saving always the reputation of honorable men, who are not here to defend them- selves — ^let it, I say, for argument's sake, be admitted, that the gentlemen alluded to acted under the influence of improper mo- tives. What then ? Is a law that has received the varied assent required by the constitution, and is clothed with all the needful for- malities, thereby invalidated ? Can you impair its force by im- peaching the motives of any member who voted for it ? Does it follow, that a law is bad because all those who concurred in it can- not give good reasons for their votes ? Is it not before us ? Must we not judge of it by its intrinsic merit ? Is it a fair argument, addressed to our understanding, to say, we must repeal a law, even a good one, if the enacting of it may have been effected, in any 12 * S 13S MR. MORRIS'S SPEECH degree, by impropei* motives? Or, is the judgment of this house so feeble that it may not be trusted ? Gentlemen tell us, however, that the law is materially defective, nay, that it is unconstitutional. What follows ? Gentlemen bid us repeal it. But is this just reasoning ? If the law be only de- fective, why not amend ? And if unconstitutional, why repeal ? In this case, no repeal can be necessary ; the law is in itself void ; it is a mere dead letter. To show that it is unconstitutional, a particular clause is pointed out, and an inference is made, as in the case of goods, where, be- cause there is one contraband article on board, the whole cargo is forfeited. Admit, for a moment, that the part alluded to were un- constitutional, this would in no wise affect the remainder. That part would be void, or, if you think proper, you can repeal that part. Let us, however, examine the clause objected to on the ground of the constitution. It is said, that by this law the district judges in Tennessee and Kentucky are removed from office by making them circuit judges. And again, that you have by la