Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

public man, and out of no particular view. I wish, as such, to consult every source of information, to form my judgment on so awful a question. I had the highest respect for the honorable gentleman's abilities. I considered his opinion as a great authority. 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 doubt ed, I began to doubt also. I coincided with him in opinion. I shall be a stanch and faithful disciple of his. I 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 situation, that as a poor individual, look for information every where.

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 Jersey therefore, are influenced by
advantages of trade in their adoption. The
amounts of all imposts are to go into one com-
mon treasury. This favors adoption by the
non-importing States; as they participate in
the profits which were before exclusively en-
joyed by the importing States. Notwithstand
ing 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 honor-
able gentleman tell me, that he can expect | I
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 unequivo-
cally clear, that we shall not have that harmony.
If it appears to the other States, that our aver-ica
sion is founded on just grounds, will they not
be willing to indulge us? If disunion will
really result from Virginia's proposing amend-
ments, will they not wish the re-establishment
of the Union, and admit us, if not on such terms
as we prescribe, yet on advantageous 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.

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 American dictator in the year 1781. We never had an American president. In making a dictator, we followed 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. Amer

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 Congress his laurels? I fear there are few men who can be trusted on that head. The glorious republic of Holland has erected monuments to her warlike intrepidity and valor: yet she is now totally ruined by a stadtHe has said a great deal about disunion and holder; a Dutch president. The destructive the dangers that are to arise from it. When wars into which that nation has been plunged, we are on the subject of union and dangers, let has since involved her in ambition. The glome ask, how will his present doctrine hold with rious triumphs of Blenheim and Ramillies were what has happened? Is it consistent with that not so conformable to the genius, nor so much noble and disinterested conduct which he dis- to the true interest of the republic, as those played on a former occasion? Did he not tell numerous and useful canals and dykes, and us that he withheld his signature? Where other objects at which ambition spurns. That then were the dangers which now appear to him republic has, however, by the industry of its so formidable? He saw all America eagerly inhabitants, and policy of its magistrates, supconfiding that the result of their deliberations pressed the ill effects of ambition. Notwithwould remove their distresses. He saw all standing two of their provinces have paid America acting under the impulses of hope, ex- nothing, yet I hope the example of Holland pectation and anxiety, arising from their situa- will tell us that we can live happily without tion and their partiality for the members of that changing our present despised government. convention: yet his enlightened mind, know- Cannot people be as happy under a mild, as uning that system to be defective, magnanimously der an energetic government? Cannot content and nobly refused its approbation. He was not and felicity be enjoyed in a republic, as well as led by the illumined-the illustrious few. He in a monarchy, because there are whips, chains was actuated by the dictates of his own judg- and scourges used in the latter? If I am not ment; and a better judgment than I can form. as rich as my neighbor, if I give my mite, my He did not stand out of the way of informa- | all, republican forbearance will say, that it is suftion. He must have been possessed of every intelligence. What alterations have a few months brought about? The internal difference between right and wrong does not fluctuate. It is immutable. I ask this question as a

ficient. So said the honest confederates of Holland: "You are poor; we are rich. We will go on and do better, far better, than be under an oppressive government." Far better will it be for us to continue as we are, than go under that

tight, energetic government. I am persuaded | tories? I must again repeat the favorite idea, of what the honorable gentleman says, that that the genius of Virginia did, and will again separate confederacies will ruin us. In my lead us to happiness. To obtain the most splenjudgment, they are evils never to be thought of did prize, you did not consolidate. You actill a people are driven by necessity. When complished the most glorious ends, by the ashe asks my opinion of consolidation, of one sistance of the genius of your country. Men power to reign over America, with a strong were then taught by that genius, that they hand, I will tell him I am persuaded of the rec- were fighting for what was most dear to them. titude of my honorable friend's opinion, (Mr. View the most affectionate father, the most tenMason,) that one government cannot reign over der mother, operated on by liberty, nobly stimso extensive a country as this is, without abso-ulating their sons, their dearest sons, sometimes lute despotism. Compared to such a consolidation, small confederacies are little evils, though they ought to be recurred 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 confederacy. Though it is not a desirable object, yet, I trust, that on examination it will be found, that Vir-zing amounts, for the payment of which no adginia and North Carolina would not be swallowed up in case it was necessary for them to be joined together.

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 ama

equate 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 imaginations. The soldiers, who were able to command every thing, instead of trampling on those laws which they were instituted to defend, 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 trampled 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 government and our own legislature; to pay the interest of the public 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 discontented. 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.

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 government, unless you consult the genius of the inhabitants, you will never succeed; your system can have no duration. Let me appeal to the candor of the committee, if the want of money be not the source of all 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 before asserted, is industry aided by economy. Compare the genius of the people with the government of this country. Let me remark, that it stood the severest conflict, during the war, to which 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 infancy, the most sincere regard and reverence for the mother country. Why did it please the gentleman, (Mr. CorOur partiality extended to a predilection for bin,) to bestow such epithets on our country? her customs, habits, manners and laws. Thus Have the worms taken possession of the wood, inclined, when the deprivation of our liberty that our strong vessel-our political vessel, has was attempted, what did we do? What did sprung a leak? He may know better than I, the genius of Virginia tell us? "Sell all, and but I consider such epithets to be the most ilpurchase liberty." This was a severe conflict. liberal and unwarrantable aspersions on our Republican maxims were then esteemed. Those laws. The system of laws under which we Inaxims, and the genius of Virginia, landed you have lived, has been tried and found to suit our safe on the shore of freedom. On this awful genius. I trust we shall not change this happy occasion, did you want a federal government? system. I cannot so easily take leave of an old Did federal ideas possess your minds? Did friend. Till I see him following after and purfederal ideas lead you to the most splendid vic- | suing 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 our 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 organized 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 human wisdom. Let me call for an example. Experience has been called the best teacher. I call for an example 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 representatives, all immediately, or mediately, are the choice of the people. Tell 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 has saved that government. It has interposed that hereditary nobility between the king and the commons. If the House of Lords assists or 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 encroach 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 superior, in this respect, to any government that ever was in any country. Compare this with your Congressional checks. I beseech gentlemen to consider whether they can say, when trusting power, that a mere patriotic profession will be equally operative and efficacious, as the check of selflove. 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 presidents' and senators' patriotism, you are

[ocr errors]

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 watching: 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 for relief: for, says the constitution, there is no title of nobility to be granted; which, by the by, would not have been so dangerous, as the perilous cession of the powers 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 what 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 be as safe with one body, as with two. It will answer every purpose 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 commons, 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, which signalized the then champions of liberty, we inherit from our British ancestors. And I am free to own, that if you cannot love a republican government, you may love the British monarchy: for, although 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 monarchies, or oppressive tyrannical aristocracies. What are their checks of exposing accounts? Their

checks upon paper are inefficient and nugatory. | real substantial merit, than one hundred and Can you search your president's closet? Is seventy, is humiliating to the last degree. If, this a real check? We ought to be exceedingly sir, the diminution of numbers be an augmentacautious in giving up this life, this soul-our tion of merit, perfection must centre in one. If money-this power of taxation to Congress. you have the faculty of discerning spirits, it is What powerful check is there here to prevent better to point out at once the man who has the the most extravagant and profligate squander- most illumined qualities. If ten men be better ing of the public money? What security have than one hundred and seventy, it follows of newe in money matters? Inquiry is precluded cessity that one is better than ten-the choice by this constitution. I never wish to see Con- is more refined. gress 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 honorable gentleman thought so truly contemptible and disgraceful. 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 consent. To force us by arbitrary and tyrannical coercion to satisfy their unbounded demands. We wished to pay with our own consent. 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 responsibility. The only semblance of a check is the negative power of not re-electing 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 founded on any thing but selflove, will not avail. This constitution reflects, in the most degrading and mortifying manner, on the virtue, 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

Such is the danger of the abuse of implied 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 ambiguous language of that paper. The number may be lessened instead of being increased; and yet by argumentative, constructive, 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 sheriff's prove now an over-match for our legislature; if their ingenuity has eluded the vigilance of our laws, how will the matter 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 collections, and to throw all deficiencies on the State. This imaginary remedy for the evil of congressional taxation, will have another oppressive operation. The sheriff comes to-day as a State collectornext day he is federal-how are you to fix him? How will it be possible to discriminate oppressions committed in one capacity, from those perpetrated in the other? Will not his ingenuity perplex the simple, honest planter? This will at least involve in difficulties, those who are unacquainted 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 treason to levy war against the United States? Suppose an insult offered to the federal laws at an immense distance from Philadelphia, 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 plan. It is at least doubtful, and where there is ever

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 different 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 strongholds. When you have these fortifications and garrisons within your State, your legislature will have no power 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 the 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 having them under the management of Congress. If our defence be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with 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," seemed to put the States in the power of Congress. I wished to be informed, if Congress neglected to discipline 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 officer 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 practice 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 required their secrecy should have been effected. But to cover, with 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.

[Mr. Henry then, in a very animated manner, expatiated on the evil and pernicious tendency of keeping secret the common proceedings of government, and said, that it was contrary to the practice of other free nations. The people of England, he asserted, had gained immortal honor, by the manly boldness wherewith they divulged to all the world their political disquisitions and operations; and that such a conduct inspired other nations with respect. He illustrated his arguments by several quotations.] He then continued :—

I appeal to this convention, if it would not be better for America to take off 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 astonishment, conceding such dangerous powers, and recommending secrecy in the future transactions of government. I believe it would have given more general satisfaction, if the proceedings of that convention had not been concealed from the public eye. This constitution authorizes the same conduct. There is not an English feature in it. The transactions of Congress may be concealed a century from the public consistently with the constitution. This, sir, is a laudable imitation

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »