Carolina; and Thomas Johnson, of Maryland, associate justices. Jay, Wilson, and Iredell were unquestionably the ablest of the number, and of these three, Jay, on account of his longer public career and the exalted. positions he had held, was the most distinguished, and Wilson the most erudite. Of Iredell, it is enough to say that North Carolina never had a brighter exemplar of that wisdom and integrity, and that simple dignity and modesty, so characteristic of the illustrious men of that state. In the great case of which I write, he was the only judge who upheld the constitutional right asserted by Georgia, and it is impossible to arise from the reading of his dissenting opinion without being convinced that, as a constitutional lawyer, he had no equal on the bench. The soundness of that opinion was attested by the subsequent overthrow of the judgment of the court by the eleventh amendment. Chief Justice Jay's opinion in this case was by far the most elaborate ever delivered by him while on the bench. That of Judge Wilson is a striking display of the wide range of his erudition. The momentous nature of the question under consideration was stated by him in the following words: "This is a case of uncommon magnitude. One of the parties to it is a state, certainly respectable, claiming to be sovereign. The question to be determined is, whether this state, so respectable, and whose claim soars so high, is amenable to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States. This question, important in itself, may depend on others more important still, and may, perhaps, be ultimately resolved into one no less radical than this, 'Do the people of the United States form a nation?'"

Profoundly impressed with a sense of the consequences which he foresaw would flow from the doctrine of his associates on the bench, Judge Iredell, in closing his dissenting opinion, said: "I pray to God that, if this doctrine as to the law be established by the judgment of this court, all the good predicted from it may take place, and none of the evils with which, I have the concern to say, it appears to me to be pregnant." Nothing but the amendment compelled by Georgia's unyielding attitude averted the evils which this great judge so feared.

To the mind of the student of those times one remarkable fact must occur in connection with this decision of the Supreme Court. When the Constitution had been framed, and was submitted to the states for that approval from them which was necessary to put it in operation, it was so strongly opposed in some of the states as to make the required ratification doubtful. The opposition to it was based chiefly on the alleged ground that it made the United States government too strong and left the state governments too weak; that it took from the states the sovereignty which

was theirs and ought to remain theirs, and conferred it on the United States, making of the latter a consolidated national government, which would, sooner or later," annihilate " the states, instead of making them that federal government which was the avowed object of the convention that framed the Constitution. "It squints towards a monarchy," said Patrick Henry. "The government established by the Constitution will surely end either in monarchy or a tyrannical aristocracy," said Mason, of Virginia.

Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, who were leaders of the national party, accepted the Constitution as a compromise between the nationals and the federals (state-rights men) of the convention, and they advocated its adoption because, as Mr. Jay said, they thought it "improbable that a better plan could be obtained." To answer the objections, dispel the fears, and win for it the votes of those who thought the states were left too powerless by the proposed plan of government, they wrote in conjunction a series of papers in which they vindicated it from the charge of despoiling the states of their rights or sovereignty. These writings exercised a powerful influence on the public mind. They were published in the newspapers of the day, and subsequently in the form of a book called the Federalist, of which Chancellor Kent said: "I know not of any work on the principles of free government that is to be compared in instruction and intrinsic value to this small and unpretending volume." This book was then, and is still, regarded as the ablest contribution to American political science.

One of the specific suggestions urged against the Constitution was that it would, if adopted, place the states in a situation where any one of them might be subjected to prosecution by the citizens of another. To this the Federalist replied that the danger intimated was "merely ideal," and that there was "no colour to pretend that the state governments would, by the adoption of the Constitution, be divested of the privilege of paying their own debts in their own way, free from every constraint but that which flows from the obligations of good faith." "To what purpose," it added, "would it be to authorize suits against states for the debts they owe? How could recoveries be enforced? It is evident that it could not be done. without waging war against the contracting state; and to ascribe to the federal courts, by mere implication, and in destruction of a pre-existing right of the state governments, a power which would involve such a consequence would be altogether forced and unwarrantable."

That not more than five years had elapsed, after the penning of these words, when this power was assumed by a court presided over by one of the authors of the Federalist, is what, I say, must strike the reader as remarkable.

VOL. XXI.-No. 6.-34

Those who are familiar with the case, and who have also read the Memoirs of the late Associate-Justice Curtis, of the United States Supreme Court, must have been surprised when they read that learned judge's reference to the "very able opinion of Mr. Chief Justice Marshall in the case of Chisholm against Georgia." It is indeed surprising that Judge Curtis committed such an anachronism in a paper prepared with so much elaborateness and reviewed with so much care as the one in which this reference is made. It was nearly ten years after the case cited before Chief Justice Marshall went upon the Supreme Court bench.

I have said that the federal convention would, in all human probability, have been rent irreparably in twain before the accomplishment of its high mission but for the opportune patriotic action of one of the delegates from Georgia. History shows this to be true. The threatening contest in the convention turned on the rule by which the states should be represented and vote in the government; the smaller states insisting on the rule of equality in all respects; the larger (or national states), on the rule of proportion to inhabitants. It was during this contest, and in view of the disastrous consequences it foreboded, that Benjamin Franklin made his memorable motion for prayer. Addressing himself to Washington, the president of the convention, he said: "In this situation of this assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of Light to illuminate our understandings?"

The national states carried their point as to the house of representatives, the smaller states yielding to the proportional rule, or national principle, as to that branch of congress; that is, that the votes of each state in that branch should be in proportion to the number of its inhabitants. They yielded that point, hoping that by doing so, they would secure a compromise that would establish the federal or state-rights principle in the second branch or senate, allowing each state an equal vote in that branch. "For," said Mr. Ellsworth, the federal leader, "if no compromise should take place, the meeting would be not only vain, but worse than vain." But the nationals pushed forward for establishing the proportional rule in the senate also, and to this the federals declared their inflexible resolve never to consent. This, then-the rule of representation in the senate-was the Gordian knot of the convention, the Scylla and the Charybdis against and around the perilous edges of which it dashed and whirled again and again, till it well-nigh went to pieces. The nationals were persistent, the smaller states were immovable, and the abrupt and speedy ending of all

"You must give each

negotiations between them seemed inevitable. state an equal suffrage, or our business is at an end," exclaimed Luther Martin, who was a delegate from Maryland. The hour of the convention's dissolution appeared indeed to be at hand. Martin, speaking of it afterward, said it seemed "scarce held together by the strength of a hair." On Monday, the 2d of July, five weeks after the meeting of the convention, the decisive moment came, when Mr. Ellsworth moved to establish the rule that each state be allowed an equal vote in the senate." Unless there should be found one national state patriotic and wise enough to be willing to compromise, there would be no Union. A historian of the occasion says: "It was a critical moment in the history of the country. On the change of a single vote the most stupendous issues were suspended." "On the motion of Ellsworth," says Mr. Bancroft, "five states voted for equal suffrage in the senate; five of the six national states answered, 'no.' All interest then centred on GEORGIA, the sixth national state, and the last to vote. Baldwin, fearing a disruption of the convention, and convinced of the hopelessness of assembling another under better auspices, dissented from his colleague, and divided the vote of his state." This led to the compromise which resulted in the formation of the American Constitution and the Union of the states.

There they are together: Baldwin's dissenting vote, and Iredell's dissenting opinion. Let them live, with the Constitution and the Union, in the hearts of men through all succeeding ages!

ATLANTA, GEORGIA.

T.K. Oglesby.

THE LAST TWELVE DAYS OF MAJOR JOHN ANDRÉ

The treason and flight of Arnold and the apprehension and execution of André constituted a startling episode in the history of the Revolutionary War.

Arnold had endured hardship and manifested heroism and fortitude in the cause of his country which had secured him the confidence and support of the commander-in-chief of the American forces. André was a young man of taste and refinement, proud and ambitious, seeking military advancement and renown, and in the full enjoyment of the confidence and affection of his military chief. An unfortunate affair of love increased the romance which clustered round his career, and the fate that overtook him annexed a pathos to his story, which seems ever interesting and ever new. It is the object of this paper to chronicle some interesting facts and incidents which have escaped the attention of historians, and especially to trace the movements of André during the eventful twelve days preceding his death, and to describe the exact route and roads over which he traveled, the houses and places which he visited, and the conversations he engaged in with different people, so far as they have been handed down. That history has never been written. The efforts of the historians who have undertaken to cover the ground in outline have fallen far below their aim. Their accounts are entirely wanting in precision and accuracy, and, in many instances, they are misleading and erroneous. The materials which form the basis of this paper have been gathered from all available sources, and their collection has been the work of years. The writer has passed personally over most of the roads traveled by André in Westchester and Putnam counties, and some of those in the county of Rockland. So far as the names of persons and places are given they are strictly accurate, and all the facts stated have been verified and found correct, and authority and evidence sustain every statement.

Arnold had conducted a secret correspondence with Sir Henry Clinton for eighteen months without disclosing his name; but, when he obtained the command of West Point and its environments, his identity remained no longer in doubt. Under the disguise of mercantile language he disclosed his willingness to negotiate for a sale, and requested a personal interview for the arrangement of the terms and conditions.

André, who had been selected by Sir Henry Clinton to conduct such