Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

EDMUND RANDOLPH.

THOMAS RANDOLPH, the poet and cotemporary of Ben Jonson, and who, before "death put a stop to his rising genius and fame," had gained a sterling reputation among the wits of his age, was the great-uncle of Sir John, the grandfather of Edmund Randolph. The family were high Loialists, in the civil wars, and being entirely broken and dispersed, Sir John's father* determined, as many other Cavaliers did, to try his fortune in the Western world. From his earliest childhood, Sir John evinced a great propensity to letters; to improve which he was first put under the care of a Protestant clergyman, who came over among the French Refugees. But afterwards he received a more complete education at William and Mary College, in Virginia. He finished his studies in the law, in Gray's Inn and the Temple; and having put on his Barrister's gown, returned to his native country, where, from his first appearance at the bar, he was ranked among the practitioners of the first figure and distinction. At the time of the disputes in New York relative to the establishment of a new Court of Exchequer, Sir John expressed his sentiments upon the subject, which were clear and forcible, and now form a part of the judicial history of that State. In the autumn of 1731, he went to England and "presented to his Majesty a state of the colony of Virginia, drawn up with great accuracy, which his Majesty was pleased to receive very graciously, and to confer the honor of knighthood on the said gentleman." After his return to Virginia, he was elected Speaker of the House of Burgesses, and on the twenty-eighth of August, 1734, delivered his inaugural before that body. "If I shall endeavor," he said, "to make the established rules of our proceedings subservient to my own fancies and humors, or interests; or shall bring into this chair a restlessness and impatience about points that may be carried against my sentiments, or shall pretend to any authority of swaying any member in his opinion; I say, then I shall deserve to have no influence upon your proceedings, but do not doubt, nay, I hope, you will mortify me with the utmost of your contempt for the inconsistence of my theory and practice. And if I shall happen to succeed better, I will pretend to no other praise but that of not having deceived the expectations of so many worthy gentlemen who have continued to heap upon me such a series of favors, which, so long as I retain the memory of any thing, I must look upon as the chief foundation of the credit and reputation of my life."§

In March, 1737, Sir John Randolph died at the age of forty-four years, and was interred in the chapel of William and Mary College. According with his directions, he was borne to the place of interment "by six honest, industrious, poor housekeepers of Bruton parish, who were

This was William Randolph, of Turkey Island, in Virginia. Little is known of him. Tradition says that he came over from Yorkshire poor, and made his living by building barns, and by his industry acquired large possessions of land. + Sir John's letter on this subject, is published in the appendix of Smith's History of New York. Ed. 1830. Vol. 1, page 874. New York Historical Society's Collections.

Bradford's American Weekly Mercury, Jan. 30th-Feb. 6th, 1782-8. The editor of this paper, after noticing these facts, concludes: "The public is impatient to see the contents of those papers, which are said to be designed for public good."

A full report of this speech is published in the American Weekly Mercury, Sept. 19–26, 1734.

[ocr errors]

to have twenty pounds divided among them, and attended by a numerous assembly of gentle. men and others, who paid the last honors to him with great solemnity, decency and respect.' Edmund Randolph was born on the tenth of August, 1753. His father early adhered to the cause of Great Britain, joined the fortunes of Lord Dunmore, and finally disinherited his soc for refusing to follow in the same course. Of the youth and early education of Edmund Ran dolph we have no particulars. At the age of twenty-two years, in August, 1775, he joined the American army at Cambridge, and was taken into the military family of General Washington as an aid-de-camp. He remained here but a short time, being recalled to Virginia in the following November, by the death of his uncle, Peyton Randolph. In 1776 he was delegated to the Virginia Convention as the alternate of George Wythe, and before the termination of the year was elected Mayor of Williamsburg, the city he represented in the Convention. Subsequently he was appointed Attorney-General of the State of Virginia, under the new constitution, and at a future session of the House of Delegates he was elected its clerk.

In the practice of his profession, which was the law, his success was eminent and extraordinary. Clients filled his office, and beset him on his way from the office to the court-house, "with their papers in one hand and their guineas in the other." He was a member of the Continental Congress from 1779 until 1782, and in 1786 was elected Governor of Virginia, succeeding in that office Patrick Henry. The same year he was chosen a delegate to the Annapolis Convention, and subsequently to the Convention which met at Philadelphia in 1787, to revise the articles of confederation. His career in that assembly was marked and effective.§ He afterward was a member of the Virginia Convention, summoned to ratify the Federal Constitution. President Washington appointed him the first Attorney-General under the federal system, and in 1795 he was elevated to the office of Secretary of State, as successor of Mr. Jefferson. He remained in this position but a short time, resuming the practice of the law at Richmond in the autumn of the following year. At the celebrated trial of Aaron Burr, on the charge of treason, in May, 1807, Mr. Randolph was associated with Luther Martin and other distinguished lawyers, in the defence of that unfortunate man.

He died on the twelfth of September, 1813, in Frederic (now Page) county, Virginia, in the sixtieth year of his age, leaving an extremely valuable manuscript history of Virginia, in which he occupies a prominent position. This never appeared in print, and finally was destroyed.[

* Obituary notice of Sir John Randolph, published in the Virginia Gazette, of March 11th, 1737, and reproduced in the Virginia Historical Register, Vol. 4, page 138.

↑ John Randolph, the father of Edmund, was attorney-general of Virginia, under the royal government. He was a brother of Peyton Randolph, president of the Continental Congress.

Virginia Convention of 1776, by Hugh Blair Grigsby, page 76, et seq.

As chief magistrate of Virginia, it became the duty of Mr. Randolph to secure the attendance of Washington upon the Federal Convention. This matter he managed with great tact and delicacy; and, by the aid of other friends, he succeeded in overcoming the scruples of the illustrious patriot, then reposing in the retirement of Mount Vernon. Governor Randolph's conduct with regard to the constitution might seem to be marked by inconsistency, if we were not able to explain it by the motive of disinterested patriotism from which he evidently acted. He brought to the convention the most serious apprehensions for the fate of the Union. But he thought that the dangers with which it was surrounded might be averted, by correcting and enlarging the Articles of Confederation. When, at length, the government, which was actually framed, was found to be a system containing far greater restraints upon the powers of the States than he believed to be either expedient or safe, he endeavored to procure a vote authorizing amendments to be submitted by the State conventions, and to be finally decided on by another general convention. This proposition was rejected, and he declined to sign the constitution desiring to be free to oppose or advocate its adoption, when it should come before his own State, as his judgment might dictate.-Curtis's History of the Constitution, Vol. 1, page 481: Madison Papers.

While Mr. Wirt was preparing his eloquent Life of Patrick Henry, he saw and consulted this manuscript. Some years after, it was destroyed by a fire at New Orleans, while in the possession of a grandson of Edmund Randolph.—Preface of Wirt's Patrick Henry, page 11. Grigsby's Virginia Convention of 1776, page 78.

THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.

Mr. Randolph delivered the following speech | itors wearied with the tedious procrastination in the Convention of Virginia, on the sixth of June, 1788—the first and second sections of the first article of the Constitution being under consideration.*

of your legal process-a process obscured by legislative mists? Cast your eyes to your seatry, so blessed by nature with every advantage ports, see how commerce languishes: this counthat 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 legislative actspublic faith prostrated, and private confidence destroyed. I ask you if your laws are reverenced? In every well regulated community, the laws command respect. Are yours entitled 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 ex

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am a child of the Revolution. My country, very early indeed, took me under her protection 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 behalf, if I have not succeeded in securing the esteem of my countrymen, I shall reap abundant consolation from the rectitude of my intentions honors, when compared to the satisfaction ac-ends from the year 1776, to this present timecruing 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 objects 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.t 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 interest. 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 I 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 look, you see danger. When there are so many witnesses, in many parts of America, that justice is suffocated, shall peace and happiness still be said to reign? Candor, sir, requires an undisguised representation of our situation. Candor, sir, demands a faithful exposition 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 cred

Ante, pp. 18-164.

↑ Mr. Randolph was at this time Governor of Virginia.

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 certain man (Josiah Phillips) had committed several crimes, and was running at large, perpetrating 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 executed.* Was this arbitrary deprivation of life, the dearest gift of God to man, consistent with the genius of a republican government? Is this compatible with the spirit of freedom? This, sir, has made the deepest impression on my heart, and I cannot contemplate it without horror.

There are still a multiplicity of complaints of the debility of the laws. Justice, in many instances, is so unattainable, that commerce may, in fact, be said to be stopped entirely. There is no peace, sir, in this land: can peace

* Mr. Wirt has satisfactorily shown that this statement is founded in error. Life of Patrick Henry, page 291, et seq.

exist with injustice, licentiousness, insecurity | and oppression? These considerations, independent of many others which I have not yet enumerated, would be a sufficient reason for the adoption of this constitution, because it secures the liberty of the citizen, his person and property, and will invigorate and restore commerce and industry.

clared my determination to give my vote for it yet I shall freely censure those parts which ap pear to me reprehensible. The trial by jury, in criminal cases, is secured; in civil cases it is not so expressly secured as I could wish it; but it does not follow that Congress has the power of taking away this privilege, which is secured by the constitution of each State, and not given An additional reason to induce us to adopt it away by this constitution. I have no fear on is that excessive licentiousness which has re- this subject; Congress must regulate it so as sulted from the relaxation of our laws, and to suit every State. I will risk my property which will be checked by this government. on the certainty that they will institute the Let us judge from the fate of more ancient na- trial by jury in such manner as shall accommotions. Licentiousness has produced tyranny date the conveniences of the inhabitants in among many of them. It has contributed as every State; the difficulty of ascertaining this much (if not more) as any other cause whatso- accommodation was the principal cause of its ever, to the loss of their liberties. I have re- not being provided for. It will be the interest spect for the integrity of our legislators; I be- of the individuals composing Congress to put it lieve them to be virtuous: but as long as the on this convenient footing. Shall we not defects of the constitution exist, so long will choose men respectable for their good qualities? laws be imperfect. The honorable gentleman Or can we suppose that men, tainted with the went on further, and said that the accession of worst vices, will get into Congress? I beg eight States is not a reason for our adoption. leave to differ from the honorable gentleman, Many other things have been alleged out of or- in another point. He dreads that great inconder; instead of discussing the system regularly, veniences will ensue from the federal court; a variety of points are promiscuously debated, that our citizens will be harassed by being in order to make temporary impressions on the carried thither. I cannot think that this power members. Sir, were I convinced of the validity of the federal judiciary will necessarily be of their arguments, I would join them heart abused. The inconvenience here suggested and hand. Were I convinced that the acces- being of a general nature, affecting most of the sion of eight States did not render our acces-States, will, by general consent of the States, sion also necessary to preserve the Union, I be removed; and, I trust, such regulations would not accede to it till it should be pre-shall be made, in this case, as will accommodate viously amended; but, sir, I am convinced that the Union will be lost by our rejection. Massachusetts 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? I 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 applicable to the adopting States, and I conclude, will they repent of what they have done? Will they acknowledge themselves in an error? Or will they recede to gratify Virginia? My prediction is that they will not. Shall we stand by ourselves, and be severed from the Union if amendments cannot be had? I have every reason for determining within myself that our rejection must dissolve 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, &c., &c., and concluded, by an illustration of his opinion, by a reference to the confederacy of the Swiss. Let us argue with unprejudiced minds. He says that the trial by jury is gone; is this so? Although I have de

the people in every State. The honorable gentleman instanced the Swiss cantons as an example, to show us the possibility, if not expediency, of being in amicable alliance with the other States, without 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 militates against us. Examine the situation of that country comparatively 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 together, and not that system of alliance to which the gentleman seems to attribute the durability and felicity of their connection.

[Here Mr. Randolph quoted some passages from Stanyard, illustrating his argument, and largely commented upon them; the effect of which was, that the narrow confines of that country rendered it very possible for a system of confederacy to accommodate those cantons, that would not suit the United States; that it was the fear of the ambitious and warlike nations that surrounded them, and the reciprocal jealousy of the other European powers, that rendered their union so durable; and that notwithstanding these circumstances, and their being a hardy race of people, yet such was the

injudicious construction of their confederacy, | be commensurate to the object. A less degree that very considerable broils sometimes interrupted their harmony.]

He then continued-I have produced this example to show that we ought not to be amused with historical references which have no kind of analogy to the points under our consideration. We ought to confine ourselves to those points solely which have an immediate and strict similitude to the subject of our discussion. The reference made by the honorable gentleman over the way is extremely inapplicable to us. Are the Swiss cantons circumstanced as we are? Are we surrounded 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 flattered himself with could take place, in case of a dissolution of our Union. We 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 inaccessible, 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 secured us against any danger; it has been repeatedly disregarded and violated. But we must not discard the confederation, for the remembrance 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 that it 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 differ 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 preservation 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 community or preclude the possibility of political happiness and contentment. Confidence ought also to be equally limited. Wisdom shrinks from extremes, and fixes on a medium as her choice. Experience and history, the least fallible judges, teach us that in forming a government, the powers to be given must

will defeat the intention, and a greater 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.

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 I intended to show the necessity of having a national government, in preference to the confederation; also, to show the necessity of con ceding the power of taxation, and of distinguishing between its objects; and I am the more happy, that I possess materials of infor mation 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 confederation 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 objection, which I think goes radically to the existence of the Union itself. If the extent of the country be a conclusive argument against a national government, it is equally so against an 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 government necessary for the safety of Virginia? Is the Union indispensable for our happiness? I confess it is imprudent for any nation to form alliance with another, whose situation and construction 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 prevented the most lamentable mischiefs. What divine pre-eminence 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 an union with her neighbors, when the most potent nations have found such an union necessary, not only to

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »