Chapter XVI: Section 4: , of article IV. says, The United States shall guarantee to every (8)

But the next thing to be considered, in conformity to my plan, is the first article of this new government, which comprises the erection of the house of representatives and the senate, and prescribes their various powers and objects of legislation. The most general objections to the first article, that biennial elections for representatives are a departure from the safe democratic principles of annual ones—that the number of representatives are too few; that the apportionment and principles of increase are unjust; that no attention has been paid to either the numbers or property in each state in forming the senate; that the mode in which they are appointed and their duration will lead to the establishment of an aristocracy; that the senate and president are improperly connected, both as to appointments and the making of treaties, which are to become the supreme law of the land; that the judicial, in some measure, to wit, as to the trial of impeachments, is placed in the senate, a branch of the legislative, and sometimes a branch of the executive; that Congress have the improper power of making or altering the regulations prescribed by the different legislatures, respecting the time, place and manner of holding elections for representatives, and the time and manner of choosing senators; that standing armies may be established, and appropriation of money made for their support for two years; that the militia of the most remote state may be marched into those states situated at the opposite extreme of this continent; that the slave trade is, to all intents and purposes, permanently established, and a slavish capitation or poll-tax may at any time be levied; these are some of the many evils that will attend the adoption of this government.

But, with respect to the first objection, it may be remarked that a well-digested democracy has this advantage over all others, to wit: that it affords to many the opportunity to be advanced to the supreme command, and the honors they thereby enjoy fill them with a desire of rendering themselves worthy of them; hence this desire becomes part of their education, is matured in manhood, and produces an ardent affection for their country, and it is the opinion of the great Sidney and Montesquieu that this is, in a great measure, produced by annual election of magistrates.

If annual elections were to exist in this government, and learning and information to become more prevalent, you never would want men to execute whatever you could design. Sidney observes _that a well-governed state is as fruitful to all good purposes as the seven-headed serpent is said to have been in evil; when one head is cut off, many rise up in the place of it_. He remarks further that _it was also thought that free cities, by frequent election of magistrates, became nurseries of great and able men, every man endeavoring to excel others, that he might be advanced to the honor he had no other title to, than what might arise from his merit or reputation_; but the framers of this _perfect government_, as it is called, have departed from this democratical principle, and established biennial elections for the house of representatives, who are to be chosen by the people, and sextennial for the senate, who are to be chosen by the legislatures of the different states, and have given to the executive the unprecedented power of making temporary senators, in case of vacancies by resignation or otherwise, and so far forth establishing a precedent for virtual representation (though, in fact, their original appointment is virtual), thereby influencing the choice of the legislatures, or if they should not be so complaisant as to conform to his appointment, offence will be given to the executive, and the temporary members will appear ridiculous by rejection; this temporary member, during his time of appointment, will of course act by a power derived from the executive, and for, and under his immediate influence.

It is a very important objection to this government, that the representation consists of so few; too few to resist the influence of corruption, and the temptation to treachery, against which all governments ought to take precautions—how guarded you have been on this head, in your own state constitution, and yet the number of senators and representatives proposed for this vast continent does not equal those of your own state; how great the disparity, if you compare them with the aggregate numbers in the United States. The history of representation in England, from which we have taken our model of legislation, is briefly this: before the institution of legislating by deputies, the whole free part of the community usually met for that purpose; when this became impossible, by the increase of numbers, the community was divided into districts, from each of which was sent such a number of deputies as was a complete representation of the various numbers and orders of citizens within them; but can it be asserted with truth, that six men can be a complete and full representation of the numbers and various orders of the people in this state? Another thing that may be suggested against the small number of representatives is, that but few of you will have a chance of sharing even in this branch of the legislature; and that the choice will be confined to a very few. The more complete it is, the better will your interests be preserved, and the greater the opportunity you will have to participate in government, one of the principal securities of a free people; but this subject has been so ably and fully treated by a writer under the signature of Brutus,(54) that I shall content myself with referring you to him thereon, reserving further observations on the other objections I have mentioned, for my future numbers.

CATO.

Cato, VI.

The New York Journal, (Number 2163)

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1787.

For the New York Journal, &c.

_To the_ PEOPLE _of the_ STATE _of_ NEW YORK.

The next objection that arises against this proffered constitution is, that the apportionment of representatives and direct taxes are unjust. The words, as expressed in this article, are “representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included in this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons.” In order to elucidate this, it will be necessary to repeat the remark in my last number, that the mode of legislation in the infancy of free communities was by the collective body, and this consisted of free persons, or those whose age admitted them to the right of mankind and citizenship, whose sex made them capable of protecting the state, and whose birth may be denominated Free Born; and no traces can be found that ever women, children, and slaves, or those who were not sui juris, in the early days of legislation, meeting with the free members of the community to deliberate on public measures; hence is derived this maxim in free governments, that representation ought to bear a proportion to the number of free inhabitants in a community; this principle your own state constitution, and others, have observed in the establishment of a future census, in order to apportion the representatives, and to increase or diminish the representation to the ratio of the increase or diminution of electors. But, what aid can the community derive from the assistance of women, infants and slaves, in their deliberation, or in their defence? and what motives, therefore, could the convention have in departing from the just and rational principle of representation, which is the governing principle of this state and of all America?

The doctrine of taxation is a very important one, and nothing requires more wisdom and prudence than the regulation of that portion, which is taken from, and of that which is left to the subject—and if you anticipate what will be the enormous expense of this new government added also to your own, little will that portion be which will be left to you. I know there are politicians who believe that you should be loaded with taxes, in order to make you industrious, and, perhaps, there are some of this opinion in the convention, but it is an erroneous principle. For, what can inspire you with industry, if the greatest measure of your labors are to be swallowed up in taxes? The advocates for this new system hold out an idea, that you will have but little to pay, for that the revenues will be so managed as to be almost wholly drawn from the source of trade or duties on imports, but this is delusive—for this government to discharge all its incidental expenses, besides paying the interest on the home and foreign debts, will require more money than its commerce can afford; and if you reflect one moment, you will find, that if heavy duties are laid on merchandise, as must be the case if government intends to make this the prime medium to lighten the people of taxes, that the price of the commodities, useful as well as luxurious, must be increased; the consumers will be fewer; the merchants must import less; trade will languish, and this source of revenue in a great measure be dried up; but if you examine this a little further you will find that this revenue, managed in this way, will come out of you, and be a very heavy and ruinous one, at least. The merchant no more than advances the money for you to the public and will not, nor cannot pay any part of it himself; and if he pays more duties, he will sell his commodities at a price portionably raised. Thus the laborer, mechanic, and farmer must feel it in the purchase of their utensils and clothing—wages, etc., must rise with the price of things or they must be ruined; and that must be the case with the farmer, whose produce will not increase, in the ratio, with labor, utensils and clothing; for that he must sell at the usual price or lower perhaps, caused by the decrease of trade; the consequence will be that he must mortgage his farm, and then comes inevitable bankruptcy.

In what manner then will you be eased, if the expenses of government are to be raised solely out of the commerce of this country; do you not readily apprehend the fallacy of this argument? But government will find that to press so heavily on commerce will not do, and therefore must have recourse to other objects; these will be a capitation or poll-tax, window lights, etc., etc., and a long train of impositions which their ingenuity will suggest; but will you submit to be numbered like the slaves of an arbitrary despot; and what will be your reflections when the tax-master thunders at your door for the duty on that light which is the bounty of heaven. It will be the policy of the great landholders who will chiefly compose this senate, and perhaps a majority of this house of representatives, to keep their lands free from taxes; and this is confirmed by the failure of every attempt to lay a land-tax in this state; hence recourse must and will be had to the sources I mentioned before. The burdens on you will be insupportable—your complaints will be inefficacious—this will beget public disturbances; and I will venture to predict, without the spirit of prophecy, that you and the government, if it is adopted, will one day be at issue on this point. The force of government will be exerted, this will call for an increase of revenue, and will add fuel to the fire. The result will be that either you will revolve to some other form, or that government will give peace to the country by destroying the opposition. If government therefore can, notwithstanding every opposition, raise a revenue on such things as are odious and burdensome to you, they can do anything.

But why should the number of individuals be the principle to apportion the taxes in each state, and to include in that number women, children and slaves? The most natural and equitable principle of apportioning taxes would be in a ratio to their property, and a reasonable impost in a ratio to their trade; but you are told to look for the reason of these things in accommodation; but this much-admired principle, when stripped of its mystery, will in this case appear to be no less than a basis for an odious poll-tax—the offspring of despotic governments, a thing so detestable that the state of Maryland, in their bill of rights, declares “that the levying taxes by the poll is grievous and oppressive, and ought to be abolished.” A poll-tax is at all times oppressive to the poor, and their greatest misfortune will consist in having more prolific wives than the rich.

In every civilized community, even in those of the most democratic kind, there are principles which lead to an aristocracy—these are superior talents, fortunes and public employments. But in free governments the influence of the two former is resisted by the equality of the laws, and the latter by the frequency of elections, and the chance that every one has in sharing in public business; but when this natural and artificial eminence is assisted by principles interwoven in this government; when the senate, so important a branch of the legislature, is so far removed from the people as to have little or no connection with them; when their duration in office is such as to have the resemblance to perpetuity; when they are connected with the executive, by the appointment of all officers, and also to become a judiciary for the trial of officers of their own appointments; added to all this, when none but men of opulence will hold a seat, what is there left to resist and repel this host of influence and power? Will the feeble efforts of the house of representatives, in whom your security ought to subsist, consisting of about seventy-three, be able to hold the balance against them, when, from the fewness of members in this house, the senate will have in their power to poison even a majority of that body by douceurs of office for themselves or friends? From causes like this both Montesquieu and Hume have predicted the decline of the British government into that of an absolute one; but the liberties of this country, it is probable, if this system is adopted, will be strangled in their birth; for whenever the executive and senate can destroy the independence of the majority in the house of representatives, then where is your security? They are so intimately connected, that their interests will be one and the same; and will the slow increase of numbers be able to afford a repelling principle? But you are told to adopt this government first, and you will always be able to alter it afterwards; this would first be submitting to be slaves and then taking care of your liberty; and when your chains are on, then to act like freemen.

Complete acts of legislation, which are to become the supreme law of the land, ought to be the united act of all the branches of government; but there is one of the most important duties may be managed by the Senate and executive alone, and to have all the force of the law paramount without the aid or interference of the House of Representatives; that is the power of making treaties. This power is a very important one, and may be exercised in various ways, so as to affect your person and property, and even the domain of the nation. By treaties you may defalcate part of the empire; engagements may be made to raise an army, and you may be transported to Europe, to fight the wars of ambitious princes; money may be contracted for, and you must pay it; and a thousand other obligations may be entered into; all which will become the supreme law of the land, and you are bound by it. If treaties are erroneously or wickedly made who is there to punish,—the executive can always cover himself with the plea that he was advised by the senate, and the senate being a collective body are not easily made accountable for mal-administration. On this account we are in a worse situation than Great Britain, where they have secured by a ridiculous fiction, the king from accountability, by declaring that he can do no wrong, by which means the nation can have redress against his minister; but with us infallibility pervades every part of the system, and neither the executive nor his council, who are a collective body, and his advisers, can be brought to punishment for mal-administration.

CATO.

Cato, VII.

The New York Journal, (Number 2181)

THURSDAY, JANUARY 3, 1788.

For the New York Journal, &c.

TO THE CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

That the president and senate are further improperly connected will appear, if it is considered that their dependence on each other will prevent either from being a check upon the other; they must act in concert, and whether the power and influence of the one or the other is to prevail, will depend on the character and abilities of the men who hold those offices at the time. The senate is vested with such a proportion of the executive that it would be found necessary that they should be constantly sitting. This circumstance did not escape the convention, and they have provided for the event, in the 2d article, which declares that the executive may, on extraordinary occasions, _convene both houses or either of them_. No occasion can exist for calling the assembly without the senate; the words _or either of them_ must have been intended to apply only to the senate. Their wages are already provided for, and it will be therefore readily observed that the partition between a perpetuation of their sessions, and a perpetuation of offices in the progress of the government, will be found to be but thin and feeble. Besides, the senate, who have the sole power to try all impeachments, in case of the impeachment of the president are to determine, as judges, the propriety of the advice they gave him as senators. Can the senate in this, therefore, be an impartial judicature? And will they not rather serve as a screen to great public defaulters?

Among the many evils that are incorporated in this new system of government is that of congress having the power of making or altering the regulations prescribed by the different legislatures respecting the time, place and manner of holding elections for representatives, and the time and manner of choosing senators. If it is enquired in what manner this regulation may be exercised to your injury, the answer is easy. By the first article the house of representatives shall consist of members, chosen every second year by the people of the several states who are qualified to vote for members of their several state assemblies; it can therefore readily be believed, that the different state legislatures, provided such can exist after the adoption of this government, will continue those easy and convenient modes for the election of representatives for the national legislature that are in use for the election of members of assembly for their own states; but the congress have, by the constitution, a power to make other regulations or alter those in practice, prescribed by your own state legislatures; hence, instead of having the places of elections in the precincts and brought home almost to your own doors, congress may establish a place, or places, at either the extremes, center or outer parts of the states; at a time and season, too, when it may be very inconvenient to attend; and by these means destroy the rights of election. But in opposition to this reasoning, it is asserted, that it is a necessary power, because the states might omit making rules for the purpose, and thereby defeat the existence of that branch of the government; this is what logicians call _argumentum absurdum_; for the different states, if they will have any security at all in this government, will find it in the house of representatives, and they, therefore, would be very ready to eradicate a principle in which it dwells, or involve their country in an instantaneous revolution. Besides, if this was the apprehension of the framers, and the ground of that provision, why did not they extend this controlling power to the other duties of the several state legislatures? To exemplify this, the states are to appoint senators and electors for choosing of a president; but the time is to be under the direction of congress. Now, suppose they were to omit the appointment of senators and electors, though congress was to appoint the time, which might well be apprehended, as the omission of regulations for the election of members of the house of representatives, provided they had that power; or suppose they were not to meet at all; of course, the government cannot proceed in its exercise. And from this motive or apprehension, congress ought to have taken these duties entirely in their own hands, and, by a decisive declaration, annihilated them, which they in fact have done by leaving them without the means of support, or at least resting on their bounty. To this the advocates for this system oppose the common, empty declamation, that there is no danger that congress will abuse this power; but such language, as relative to so important a subject, is mere vapor, and formed without sense. Is it not in their power, however, to make such regulations as may be inconvenient to you? It must be admitted, because the words are unlimited in their sense. It is a good rule, in the construction of a contract, to suppose that what may be done will be; therefore, in considering this subject, you are to suppose that in the exercise of this government, a regulation of congress will be made for holding an election for the whole state at Poughkeepsie, at New York, or, perhaps, at Fort Stanwix; who will then be the actual electors for the house of representatives? You ought certainly to have as much or more distrust with respect to the exercise of these powers by congress, than congress ought to have with respect to the exercise of those duties which ought to be entrusted to the several states, because over them congress can have a legislative controlling power.

Hitherto we have tied up our rulers in the exercise of their duties by positive restrictions; if the cord has been drawn too tight, loosen it to the necessary extent, but do not entirely unbind them. I am no enemy to placing a reasonable confidence in them, but such an unbounded one as the advocates and framers of this new system advise you to, would be dangerous to your liberties; it has been the ruin of other governments, and will be yours, if you adopt with all its latitudinal power. Unlimited power in governors as well as individuals is frequently the parent of deception. What facilitated the corrupt designs of Philip of Macedon and caused the ruin of Athens, but the unbounded confidence in their statesmen and rulers? Such improper confidence Demosthenes was so well convinced had ruined his country, that in his second Philippic oration he remarks “that there is one common bulwark with which men of prudence are naturally provided, the guard and security of all people, particularly of free states, against the assaults of tyrants. What is this? Distrust. Of this be mindful; to this adhere; preserve this carefully, and no calamity can affect you.” Montesquieu observes that “the course of government is attended with an insensible descent to evil, and there is no reascending to good without very great efforts.” The plain influence from this doctrine is, that rulers in all governments will erect an interest separate from the ruled, which will have a tendency to enslave them. There is, therefore, no other way of interrupting this insensible descent and warding off the evil as long as possible, than by establishing principles of distrust on your constituents, and cultivating the sentiment among yourselves. But let me inquire of you, my countrymen, whether the freedom and independence of elections is a point of magnitude? If it is, what kind of a spirit of amity, deference and concession is that which has put in the power of congress, at one stroke, to prevent your interference in government, and do away your liberties forever? Does either the situation or circumstances of things warrant it?

CATO.

THE LETTERS OF CÆSAR, WRITTEN BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON.

Printed In The Daily Advertiser, October, 1787.

Note.

These letters, from what has already been quoted on page 245, were evidently written by Alexander Hamilton. He had just finished a newspaper controversy of a very acrimonious character with George Clinton, which probably caused these letters to be an attack on the writer of _Cato_, rather than a defense of the new government. They are further evidence of the great want of political tact and sympathy with the masses, of which Hamilton gave so many specimens in his short life, and which alone prevented his political success. That he himself realized this mistake is shown by his prompt abandonment of _Cæsar_ and his beginning again anew in _The Federalist_; the latter being a singular and interesting contrast in both tone and argument to these earlier writings, which, it should be also considered, were undoubtedly written in great haste.

Cæsar, I.

The Daily Advertiser, (Number 812)

MONDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1787.

The citizens of the State of New York have received yesterday, from _Cato_ (an ally of _Pompey_, no doubt), an introductory discourse on the appearance of the new system for the government of the United States: this, we are told, will be followed by such observations, on the constitution proposed to the union, “as will promote our welfare and be justified by reason and truth.” There is, in this preparatory lecture, little that is necessary to be dwelt on just now; and if Cato had not possessed his future investigations in such terms as wore a _questionable shape_, they should have passed unheeded.

Cato tells us that he will not _directly engage as an advocate_ for this new form of government, or as an _opponent_. Here Cato, without any dispute, acts prudently. It will be wise in him to rest awhile; since he has given a _preface_, which, with small address, can easily be made to work on either side. When the sentiments of the confederate states come to be generally known it will be time enough to proceed. Cato will then _start fair_. A little caution, however, he thinks necessary to be given the meantime. “Do not,” says this prudent censor, in addressing the citizens, “because you will admit that _something_ must be done, adopt _anything_.” What, in the name of common sense, does this injunction import? I appeal to men of understanding, whether it is not obviously the language of distrust, calculated, as far as such a thing can influence, to prejudice the public opinion against the new constitution; and, in effect, by a periphrastic mode of speech, recommending the rejection of it? “_Teach_ the members of the Convention (Cato _very modestly_ goes on) that you are capable of supervision of their conduct; the same medium that gave you this system, if it is erroneous, while the door is now open, can make amendments _or give you another_.” O excellent thought, and happily advised! Be clamorous, my friends—be discontented—assert your prerogative—forever assert the power and _majesty of the people_. I am not willing to suspect any man’s intentions, when they aim at giving information; but when they come abroad, couched in such _magisterial_ terms, I own I feel some indignation. If this demagogue had talents to throw light on the subject of legislation, why did he not offer them when the Convention was in session? If they had been judged useful, no doubt they would have been attended to. But is this _now a time_ for such insinuations? Has not the wisdom of America been drawn, as it were, into a focus, and the proffered constitution sent forth with a unanimity that is unequalled in ancient or modern story? And shall we now wrangle and find fault with the _excellent whole_, because, perhaps some of its parts _might have been_ more perfect? There is neither virtue or patriotism in such conduct. Besides, how can Cato say, “that the door is now open to receive any amendments, or give us _another constitution_, if required?” I believe he has advanced this without proper authority. I am inclined to believe that the _door of recommendation is shut and cannot be opened by the same men_; that the Convention, in one word, is dissolved; if so we must reject IN TOTO, or _vice versa_; just take it as it is and be thankful. I deny the similarity betwixt the present constitution and that of the United Netherlands. Cato would have drawn a very melancholy picture, but it won’t apply. In my most humble opinion, it has a much greater affinity with the government, which, in all human probability, will remain when the history of the Seven Provinces shall be forgotten. Cato tells us (what all America knows by this time) that the new constitution comes sanctioned with the approbation of General Washington; and, though he appears to have some reverence for that great patriot chief, yet he very sagaciously observes, that the _best and wisest man may err_; and thence asserts, that every man in _politics_, as well as in religion, ought to judge for himself. This paragraph needs no comment, and, for that reason, I shall not touch it; but with all deference to Cato’s penetration, I would recommend to him, instead of entering into fruitless discussion of what has come from so many _clear heads_ and _good hearts_, to join his fellow-citizens, and endeavor to reconcile this _excellent constitution_ to the _weak_, the _suspicious_, and the _interested_, who will be chiefly opposed to it, as soon as possible. I would also advise him to give his vote (as he will probably be one of the Electors) to the American Fabius; it will be more healthy for this country, and _this state_, that he should be induced to accept of the presidency of the new government, than that he should be solicited again to accept of the command of _an army_.

Cato, it appears, intends to adventure on perilous grounds; it will therefore become him to be cautious on what terms he takes the field. “He advises us to attach ourselves to measures, and not to men.” In this instance he advises well; and I heartily recommend it to _himself_, and not to forget the force of that important admonition; for Cato, in his future marches, will very probably be _followed_ by

CÆSAR.

Friday.

Cæsar, II.

The Daily Advertiser, (Number 826)

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1787.

For the Daily Advertiser.

“The great source of all the evils which afflict Republics, is,
that the people are too apt to make choice of rulers, who are
either Politicians without being Patriots, or Patriots without
being Politicians.”

MR. CHILDS:

When I took notice of Cato’s prefatory address to the Citizens of the State of New York, in your paper of the first instant, I had no serious intention of becoming a controversial defendant of the new constitution. Indeed, if the system required defence, I was neither so weak nor so vain as to suppose myself competent to the task. To obviate difficulties which may arise, when such weighty affairs as the principles of legislation are under discussion, I am sensible requires talents far beyond my limited abilities. When I offered a few remarks on Cato’s introduction, I was strongly impressed with the idea that even the most substantial criticisms, promulgated by the most influential _avowed Citizens_, could have no good tendency at _this time_. I viewed the public mind as wound up to a great pitch of dissatisfaction, by the inadequacy of the powers of the present Congress to the general good and conversation of the union. I believed then, as I do now, that the people were determined and prepared for a _change_. I conceived, therefore, that the wish of every good man would be, that _this change might be peaceably effected_. With this view I opposed myself to Cato. I asserted, in my last, _that the __ door of recommendation was shut, and cannot be opened by the same men—that the Convention was dissolved._ If I am wrong, it will be of great importance to Cato’s future remarks that he make it appear. If he will declare from sufficient authority, that the members of the late Convention have only adjourned to give time to hear the sentiments of every political disputant, that after the numerous presses of America have groaned with the heavy productions of speculative politicians, they will _again meet_, weigh their respective merits, and accommodate accordingly—I say, if Cato can do this, I make no hesitation in acknowledging the utility of his plan. In the mean time, I positively deny having any, the most distant desire of shutting the door of free discussion, on any subject which may benefit the people; but I maintain (until Cato’s better information refutes me) that the door, as far as relates to _this subject_, is already shut, not by me, but by the highest possible authority which the case admits, even by those great Patriots who were delegated by the people of the United States to _open such a door_, as might enable them to escape from impending calamities and political shipwreck. This distinction is clear, I conceive, and ought to have some weight even with Cato, as well as those for whom he writes. I am not one of those who gain an influence by cajoling the unthinking mass (tho’ I pity their delusions), and ringing in their ears the gracious sound of their _absolute Sovereignty_. I despise the trick of such dirty policy. I know there are Citizens, who, to gain their own private ends, enflame the minds of the well-meaning, tho’ less intelligent parts of the community, by sating their vanity with that cordial and unfailing specific, that _all power is seated in the people_. For my part, I am not much attached to the _majesty of the multitude_, and therefore waive all pretensions (founded on such conduct), to their countenance. I consider them in general as very ill qualified to judge for themselves what government will best suit their peculiar situations; nor is this to be wondered at. The science of government is not easily understood. Cato will admit, I presume, that men of good education and deep reflection, only, are judges of the _form_ of a government; whether it is constituted on such principles as will restrain arbitrary power, on the one hand, and equal to the exclusion of corruption and the destruction of licentiousness on the other; whether the New Constitution, if adopted, will prove adequate to such desirable ends, time, the mother of events, will show. For my own part, I sincerely esteem it a system, which, without the finger of _God_, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests. I will not presume to say that a more perfect system might not have been fabricated; but who expects perfection at once? And it may be asked, _who are judges of it_? Few, I believe, who have leisure to study the nature of Government scientifically, but will frequently disagree about the quantum of power to be delegated to Rulers, and the different modifications of it. Ingenious men will give every plausible, and, it may be, pretty substantial reasons, for the adoption of two plans of Government, which shall be fundamentally different in their construction, and not less so in their operation; yet both, if honestly administered, might operate with safety and advantage. When a new form of government is fabricated, it lies with the people at large to receive or reject it—that is, their _inherent rights_. Now, I would ask (without intending to triumph over the weaknesses or follies of any men), how are the people to profit by this inherent right? By what conduct do they discover that they are sensible of their own interests in this situation? Is it by the exercise of a well-disciplined reason, and a correspondent education? I believe not. How then? As I humbly conceive, by a tractable and docile disposition, and by honest men endeavoring to keep their minds easy, while others, of the same disposition, with the advantages of genius and learning, are constructing the bark that may, by the blessing of Heaven, carry them to the port of rest and happiness, if they will embark without diffidence and proceed without mutiny. I know this is blunt and ungracious reasoning; it is the best, however, which I am prepared to offer on this momentous business; and, since my own heart does not reproach me, I shall not be very solicitous about its reception. If truth, then, is permitted to speak, the mass of the people of America (any more than the mass of other countries) cannot judge with any degree of precision concerning the fitness of this New Constitution to the peculiar situation of America; they have, however, done wisely in delegating the power of framing a government to those every way worthy and well-qualified; and, if this Government is snatched, untasted, from them, it may not be amiss to inquire into the causes which will probably occasion their disappointment. Out of several, which present to my mind, I shall venture to select _one_, baneful enough, in my opinion, to work this dreadful evil. There are always men in society of some talents, but more ambition, in quest of _that_ which it would be impossible for them to obtain in any other way than by working on the passions and prejudices of the less discerning classes of citizens and yeomanry. It is the plan of men of this stamp to frighten the people with ideal bugbears, in order to mould them to their own purposes. The unceasing cry of these designing croakers is, My friends, your liberty is invaded! Have you thrown off the yoke of one tyrant to invest yourselves with that of another? Have you fought, bled and conquered for _such a change_? If you have—go—retire into silent obscurity, and kiss the rod that scourges you.

To be serious: These state empirics leave no species of deceit untried to convince the unthinking people that they have power to do—what? Why truly to do much mischief, and to occasion anarchy and wild uproar. And for what reason do these political jugglers incite the peaceably disposed to such extravagant commotions? Because until the people really discover that they have _power_, by some outrageous act, they never can become of any importance. The misguided people never reflect during this frenzy, that the moment they become riotous, they renounce, from that moment, their independence, and commence vassals to their ambitious leaders, who instantly, and with a high hand, rob them of their consequence, and apply it to their own present or future aggrandisement; nor will these tyrants over the people stick at sacrificing _their_ good, if an advantageous compromise can be effected for _themselves_.

Before I conclude, I cannot refrain from observing that Cato states very disingenuously the manner in which the Federal System came abroad. He tells us, Congress were sensible that the late Convention exercised a power which no authority could delegate to them. The Convention, says Cato, have taken upon them to make a perfectly new system, which by its operations will absorb the sovereignties of the individual States; this new government founded on _usurpation_, (Cato, this expression is very indecent—but I will rouse no passions against you) this consolidated system Congress did not approve and _therefore_ have been _silent_ on its character. That Congress was silent on its character is true, but could Cato find no other reason for their silence than that of disapprobation? I believe Congress were by no means dissatisfied with the freedom the Convention took with the Articles of Confederation; I believe further that with very few exceptions, that honorable body approves of the New Constitution; and that they did not accompany it to the States with a recommendatory capitation or circular letter, proceeded from a delicate attention to the members of the late Convention, to a few of their own body, and to the people of America at large. That the Convention went so earnestly into the business committed to their care ought, instead of being matter of chagrin, to occasion the liveliest expressions of approbation and gratitude—as matters stand just now. I think it may be fairly said, that no _generous plan of government_ for the _United States_ has ever been constructed, (the plan only excepted which is under consideration) so that it seems quite unnecessary in Cato to disturb the peace of society by a bombast appeal to their feelings, on the _generous plan of power delivered down by their renowned forefathers_. I venerate the memory of the slaughtered patriots of America, and rejoice as much as Cato that they did not bleed in vain, but I would have America profit by their death in a different manner from him. I believe they sought to obtain liberty for no particular State, but for the whole Union, indissolubly connected under one controlling and supreme head.

Cato complains of my anticipating parts of his subject which he intended for future periods. I shall break in no more upon his _arrangements_. All he can say against the New Constitution has been already disseminated in a neighboring State by the glorious defenders of _Shayism_. I shall therefore leave Cato to the wicked influences of his own heart, in the fullest persuasion that all good citizens will combine their influence to establish the fair fabric of American liberty beyond the reach of suspicion, violence, anarchy, and tyranny. When this glorious work is accomplished, what may America not hope to arrive at? I will venture to prophesy that the day on which the Union under the new government shall be ratified by the American States, that _that day_ will begin an era which will be recorded and observed by future ages as a day which the Americans had marked by their wisdom in circumscribing the _power_ and ascertaining the _decline_ of the ancient nations in Christendom.

CÆSAR.

October 15.

THE LETTERS OF SYDNEY. WRITTEN BY ROBERT YATES.

Printed In The New York Journal, June, 1788.

Note.

_Sydney_ was a favorite pseudonym of Robert Yates, and was so well known as his pen name by his contemporaries that it was hardly intended as a mask. He had already contributed to the New York Journal a very able series of papers on the Constitution over the signature of _Brutus_, written to influence the people, but the elections had taken place before the appearance of _Sydney_, which were therefore intended for the delegates to the State Convention, soon to assemble. A year later, when Yates was nominated for governor by the Federalists, quotation from these articles was one of the favorite modes of attacking him used by the anti-federalists.

Sydney, I.

The New York Journal, (Number 2320)

Friday, June 13, 1788.

For the Daily Patriotic Register.

TO THE CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

Although a variety of objections to the proposed new constitution for the government of the United States have been laid before the public by men of the best abilities, I am led to believe that representing it in a point of view which has escaped their observation may be of use, that is, by comparing it with the constitution of the State of New York.

The following contrast is therefore submitted to the public, to show in what instances the powers of the state government will be either totally or partially absorbed, and enable us to determine whether the remaining powers will, from those kind of pillars, be capable of supporting the mutilated fabric of a government, which even the advocates for the new constitution admit excels “the boasted models of Greece or Rome, and those of all other nations, in having precisely marked out the power of the government and the rights of the people.”

It may be proper to premise that the pressure of necessity and distress (and not corruption) had a principal tendency to induce the adoption of the state constitutions and the existing confederation, that power was even then vested in the rulers with the greatest caution, and that, as from every circumstance we have reason to infer that the new constitution does not originate from a pure source, we ought deliberately to trace the extent and tendency of the trust we are about to repose, under the conviction that a reassumption of that trust will at least be difficult, if not impracticable. If we take a retrospective view of the measures of Congress who have their secret journals, the conduct of their officers, at home and abroad, acting under an oath of secrecy, as well as of individuals who were intimately connected with them, from the year 1780 to the last convention, who also acted under an injunction of secrecy (and whose journals have not been published even to this day, but will no doubt continue buried in the dark womb of suspicious secrecy), we can scarcely entertain a doubt but that a plan has long since been framed to subvert the confederation; that that plan has been matured with the most persevering industry and unremitted attention, and that the objects expressed in the preamble to the constitution, that is “to promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,” were merely the ostensible, and not the real reasons of its framers. That necessity and danger have been the moving causes to the establishment of the confederation will appear from the words of Congress recommending its formation to the several legislatures which are “under a conviction of the absolute necessity of uniting all our councils and all our strength to maintain our common liberties. Let them be examined with liberality becoming brethren and fellow-citizens, surrounded by the same iminent dangers, contending for the same illustrious prize, and deeply interested in being forever bound and connected together by the ties the most intimate and indissoluble.”

That these principles equally applied to the formation of our state constitution no person can seriously doubt who recollects the rapid progress of the British troops in this state and in Jersey in the year 1776, and the despondence which prevailed among the people on that occasion. The convention of this state, about that period, in explaining to the people the justice of the American cause, addressed them as follows: “You and all men were created free and authorised to establish civil government for the preservation of our rights against civil oppression, and the security of that freedom which God had given you, against the rapacious hand of tyranny and lawless power. If then God hath given us freedom, are we not responsible to him for that as well as other talents? If it is our birth-right, let us not sell it for a mess of pottage, nor suffer it to be torn from us by the hand of violence.”

The omission of a bill of rights in this State has given occasion to an inference that the omission was equally warrantable in the constitution for the United States. On this it may be necessary to observe that while the constitution of this State was in agitation, there appeared doubts upon the propriety of the measure, from the peculiar situation in which the country then was; our connection with Britain dissolved, and her government formally renounced—no substitute devised—all the powers of government avowedly temporary, and solely calculated for defence; it was urged by those in favor of a bill of rights that the power of the rulers ought to be circumscribed, the better to protect the people at large from the oppression and usurpation of their rulers. The English petition of rights, in the reign of Charles the First, and the bill of rights in the reign of king William, were mentioned as examples to support their opinions. Those in opposition admitted that in established governments, which had an implied constitution, a declaration of rights might be necessary to prevent the usurpation of ambitious men, but that was not our situation, for upon the declaration of independence it had become necessary that the exercise of every kind of authority “under the former government should be totally suppressed, and all the power of government exerted under the authority of the people of the colonies;” that we could not suppose that we had an existing constitution or form of government, express or implied, and therefore our situation resembled a people in a state of nature, who are preparing “to institute a government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness,” and as such, the constitution to be formed would operate as a bill of rights.

These and the like considerations operated to induce the convention of New York to dismiss the idea of a bill of rights, and the more especially as the legislative state officers being elected by the people at short periods, and thereby rendered from time to time liable to be displaced in case of mal-conduct. But these reasons will not apply to the general government, because it will appear in the sequel that the state governments are considered in it as mere dependencies, existing solely by its toleration, and possessing powers of which they may be deprived whenever the general government is disposed so to do. If then the powers of the state governments are to be totally absorbed, in which all agree, and only differ as to the mode, whether it will be effected by a rapid progression, or by as certain, but slower, operations: what is to limit the oppression of the general government? Where are the rights, which are declared to be incapable of violation? And what security have people against the wanton oppression of unprincipled governors? No constitutional redress is pointed out, and no express declaration is contained in it, to limit the boundaries of their rulers; beside which the mode and period of their being elected tends to take away their responsibility to the people over whom they may, by the power of the purse and the sword, domineer at discretion; nor is there a power on earth to tell them, What dost thou? or, Why dost thou so?

I shall now proceed to compare the constitution of the state of New York with the proposed federal government, distinguishing the paragraphs in the former, which are rendered nugatory by the latter; those which are in a great measure enervated, and such as are in the discretion of the general government to permit or not.

The 1st and 37th paragraphs of the constitution of the state of New York.

The 1st “Ordains, determines, and declares that no authority shall on any pretence whatever be exercised over the people or members of this State, but such as shall be derived from and granted by them.”

The 37th, “That no purchases or contracts for the sale of lands with or of the Indians within the limits of this state, shall be binding on the Indians, or deemed valid, unless made under the authority and with the consent of the legislature of this state.”

I beg here to observe that the whole history of this spurious constitution for the government of the United States, from its origin to the present day, and the measures taken by Congress respecting the Indian affairs in this state, are a series of violations of these paragraphs, and of the 13th article of the confederation.

It was a violation of the state constitution for the senate and assembly, on the 19th of February, 1787, to instruct their members to move in Congress for an act recommending a convention; and it was also a violation of the 13th article of the confederation for Congress, on the 21st day February, to recommend a convention to the several legislatures. It was a further violation of the constitution of this state, by the senate and assembly, on the 27th day of March, to join and to appoint delegates to meet in convention, and it being done in that hasty, if not surreptitious manner, by joint resolutions, when acts of the least consequence, even for the yoking of hogs, require to be passed under the formalities of a law, makes it more glaringly so.

It was an outrageous violation in the convention on the 17th of September, 1787, to attempt a consolidation of the union, and utterly destroy the confederation and the sovereignty of particular states, when their powers were restricted “to the sole and express purpose of revising and amending the confederation.”