Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

An additional motive for Madison's allegation, that Hamilton read and approved his report of his speech, has not been adverted to, thus to give Hamilton's implied sanction to the preparation and preservation by Madison of the debates. Hamilton's language on this subject, that the opinions of members were not to be divulged, is a complete refutation of this allegation.

[blocks in formation]

CHAPTER XLVII.

HAVING thus presented to the Convention the model of an efficient government, founded on the power of the people, Hamilton now exerted all his influence, as he said, "to work the members up to a system of competent energy and stability." The result of these efforts may be seen in the influence which the opinions of Washington, however cautiously expressed, would exert over the members of that body; and in the direction now given to Madison's mind: both of whom, Hamilton subsequently stated, approved his views, "regarding his plan as not exceeding in stability and strength what the exigencies of the country required." "They were," in his own words, "completely up to the scheme.”*

On the day after his speech was delivered, Madison addressed the committee. He stated that the confederation might be dissolved by the infraction of any article of it, recapitulating the instances in which it had been violated. The Jersey plan did not provide for the ratification of the states. Its judiciary was to have only an appellate jurisdiction, without providing for a second trial. We must radically depart from the federal plan, or share the fate of all confederacies. The Jersey plan gave no checks on the excesses of the states. It did not secure the internal tranquillity, nor prevent foreign influence.

* NOTE.

The residue of the debates is taken, with very few exceptions, from Yates, the general accuracy of which is confirmed by other authorities.

How is military coercion to enforce government? Unless we agree upon a plan, what will be the situation of the smaller states? If they form partial confederacies, must they not make larger concessions to the greater states? The large states cannot assent to an equal representation. If the states were equalized, state distinctions would still exist.

In reply to an observation of Wilson, Hamilton remarked that he did not intend yesterday a total extinguishment of state governments, but that a national government ought to be able to support itself without the aid or interference of the state governments, and therefore should have full sovereignty. Even with corporate rights the states will be dangerous to the national government, and ought to be new modified, or reduced to a smaller scale. In the course of a series of forcible and eloquent remarks, King observed that none of the states were at that time sovereign or independent; many of their essential rights were vested in congress. By the confederation, it possesses the rights of the United States. This is the union of the men of these states. None individually or collectively, except in congress, have the rights of peace, or war, or treaty. The magistracy in congress possesses the sovereignty. As to certain points, we are now an united people; consolidation is already established; the states are confederates, the constituents of a common sovereign, constituted with powers partly federal and partly national. The alterations which had been made, show others can be made, except the subversion of the states, which are expressly guarantied. The articles of the confederation providing in themselves for an alteration, might be so altered as to give them a national character. "The declaration of independence," Wilson said, "preceded the state constitutions. What does this declare? In the name of the people of these states, we are declared to be free and independent. The powers of

war, peace, alliances, and trade, are declared to be vested in congress."

"I assent to this remark," Hamilton observed; "establish a weak government, and you must, at times, overleap its bounds. Rome was obliged to create dictators. Cannot propositions be made to the people because we before confederated on other principles? The people can grant the powers if they will! The great objects of industry can only be protected by a general government." On motion of King, it was resolved by seven states that the Jersey plan was inadmissible.

Having thus obtained a decided expression of the opinion of the convention against the continuance of a mere league with enlarged powers, they proceeded, on the twentieth of June, again to consider the Virginia resolutions. After an amendment of the first, so as to declare that "the government of the United States ought to consist of a supreme legislative, judiciary, and executive," Lansing moved a declaration "that the powers of legislation be vested in the United States in congress."* He stated that if the Jersey plan was not adopted, it would produce the mischiefs they were convened to obviate. That the "principles of that system" were "an equality of representation, and dependence of the members of congress on the states. That as long as state distinctions exist, state prejudices would operate, whether the election be by the states or the people." If there was no interest to oppress, there was no need of an apportionment. What would be the effect of the other plan? Virginia would have sixteen, Delaware one representative. Will the general government have leisure to examine the state laws? Will it have the necessary information? Will the states agree to surrender? Let us meet public opinion, and hope the progress of senti

Hamilton's MSS. notes, v. i. p. 77.
VOL. III.-20

[ocr errors]

ment will make future arrangements. "He would like the system" of his colleague (Hamilton) "if it could be established," but it was "a system without example."

Mason wished to preserve the state governments, and to draw lines of demarcation, trusting to posterity to amend. He was in favour of a republican system with a legislature of two branches.

Martin urged the grant of new powers, and such a modification of the existing system as would not endanger the state governments. "The grant," he said, "is a state grant, and the union must be so organized that the states are interested in supporting it." After further debate, the proposition to vest the powers of legislation in congress was rejected, and the national plan was taken up. On the question of constituting two branches of the legislature, Johnson observed "that the Jersey plan would preserve the state governments, and thus was a departure from that of Virginia, which, though it concentres in a distinct national government, is not wholly independent of those of the states.

"A gentleman from New-York, with boldness and deci sion, proposed a system totally different from both, and, though he has been praised by every body, has been supported by none. He could have wished that the supporters of the Jersey system could have been satisfied with that of Virginia, and the individuality of the states be supported. It is agreed on all hands that a portion of government is to be left to the states; how can this be done? By joining the states in their legislative capacities, with the right of apportioning the second branch of the national legislature to represent the states individually." Wilson would try to designate the powers of each. Madison apprehended the greatest danger from the encroachments of

* In the original notes, “He would like my system if it could be established-system without example."

« ZurückWeiter »