98

JOHN MARSHALL'S ANSWER.

that the prospect of ratification in New Hampshire was encouraging, for he had heard that the representatives in its convention having found, after assembling, that they were instructed to vote against the Constitution, had returned to their constituents without determining the question, in order to convince them of their mistake and of the propriety of ratification.1

The frequent reiteration of the objection that the country was too extensive for a republican government, led Marshall to say that the objection might be true of governments in which representation did not exist. Extent of country might render it difficult to execute laws, but not to make them. Extent of country did not extend power. That which would be sufficiently energetic and operative in a small territory would be feeble when extended over a large one. The Anti-Federalists seemed, for a time, to forget that eulogism of checks and balances in the American system which had been so long in every man's mouth. In America there was no exclusive personal stock of interest, for in promoting his own, the individual promoted the interest of the community. In consulting the common good he consulted his own, which was the best check a government could possess. As the eulogy of the British Constitution was a matter of opinion, even among the Anti-Federalists, it was sufficiently met by Marshall, when he said, that for America, at least, the government proposed was much superior to that of England. Would Senators for life be more agreeable? Or a House of Representatives chosen by a hundredth part of the people? Or a President unaccountable to them for his conduct? When Marshall resumed his seat, no objection which Henry had brought forward remained unanswered.

MASON'S OBJECTIONS.

99

Mason's objections to the Constitution did not differ from those which he had already published.1 Instead of a general power of taxation, he would grant conditional powers, and in strong colors, he depicted the evils of a grievous poll tax and an inequitable tax on lands.2 He saw fearful dangers in the article which pronounced the Constitution, the laws of the United States and the treaties made by its authority, the supreme law of the land, binding the judges in every State. Here, clearly, the Constitution which had no Bill of Rights would be of higher authority than the Bills in the State constitutions, and everyone knew that these laid down the first principles of government.3 Much of his argument was inferential, as for example, that, because the people of the United States were enjoying independence, and were happy and respectable, therefore the Articles of Confederation under which they lived must afford a sufficient government, if its obvious defects were corrected and it was strictly carried out. He did not see the need of a more perfect Union, nor could he agree with Randolph that it would materially benefit Virginia.

4

Grayson went even further than Mason and asserted that the adoption of the Constitution would not ameliorate the condition of the country.5 Reviewing public affairs since the Revolution, he said that the country had friendly relations with foreign powers; had adjusted the public debt between the individual States and the United States

1 The objections of the Hon. George Mason, to the proposed Federal Constitution. Addressed to the citizens of Virginia. Printed by Thomas Nicholas (1787). See James Iredell's answers to Mason in McRee's Life of Iredell.

2 Id., 263-266.

* Id., 266. Mason was the author of the Virginia Bill of Rights of 1776. See joint resolution of the Virginia Legislature, February

15, 1844.

♦ Id., 269.

5 Id., 274.

100

GRAYSON'S OBJECTIONS.

by the arrangement for the sale of western lands (referring to the Ohio and other companies, and the authority given the Treasury Board to authorize land sales in Europe) and he was confident that the domestic debt would soon disappear. Were there not sixteen American vessels carrying sea letters in the East India trade, and two hundred entering and clearing the French West Indies, every year? In brief, whatever faults of government existed in America, they were of the people, and not of the Articles of Confederation, and not one of them did he think would be cured by the new plan.2 Even the colossal frauds of paper-money issues did not disturb Grayson, though he confessed that by the charms of magic the millions struck off had diminished by a fortyfold ratio, yet, however unjust or unreasonable this might be, he thought it warranted by the inevitable laws of necessity. But he believed that there was no disposition to continue such issues "as this engine of iniquity" was universally reprobated.

4

Many Anti-Federalists claimed to believe, as did Monroe, that the power of direct taxation, in Congress, was unnecessary because the sale of western lands would be abundantly sufficient to answer all federal purposes. If the objections were well founded and the opponents of the plan believed that Congress would never have need to lay direct taxes, Pendleton inquired, why was there any dispute. If the Anti-Federalists opposed the surrender of the navigation of the Mississippi, they should give their support to the new plan, for by it two-thirds of the members of the Senate, from nine States, and the President would be requisite to make a treaty. It was well

THE CONTROL OF THE MISSISSIPPI.

101

known that negotiations were pending by which Spain should have the navigation of the river for twenty-five years, after which the United States should retain it forever. Certainly, under the new plan, the prospect was the more assuring of securing the control of the river immediately.1

Henry now returned vigorously to the attack. The necessity of amendments, he claimed, was universally admitted, for even Jefferson had advised nine States to adopt and four to reject the plan till proper ones could be made.2 Such could not be expected from North Carolina and New York, as these States were surrounded by Federalist walls; therefore they must emanate from Virginia. No part of the plan was more odious to Henry than that the power of the President and "a few Senators," in the most unlimited manner should make treaties, and "all under the abominable veil" of political secrecy. Here he saw the portent of the loss of the navigation of the Mississippi. Surely different objects of taxation in the thirteen different States would involve the country in an infinite number of inconveniences and in absolute confusion. The contrariety of interests, he believed, would make uniform taxation impossible and the evil would be aggravated because the new plan subjected everything to the northern majority, which had already shown itself willing to surrender the navigation of the Mississippi, and would always stand ready to sacrifice the South.*

Replying to Henry, Madison cited Jefferson's wellknown letter on ratification as evidence of the author's 1 Id., 302.

2 Id., 314-315; see the note page 213, post, on Jefferson's letter. It had been used by the Anti-Federalists prior to the election to influence votes against the Constitution.

a Id., 316.

4 Id., 327-328.

102

JEFFERSON CITED.

approval of the Constitution, and especially of the several parts which had been reprobated with such vehemence by the Anti-Federalists in the convention. Jefferson, he said, was captivated with the equality of suffrage in the Senate, which Henry called the rotten part of the Constitution. Henry had dilated on the omission of a clause declaring security for religion. Madison replied that if there were a majority of one sect, a Bill of Rights would be a poor protection. It was well known that the people of the States enjoyed the utmost freedom in religion, which arose from the multiplicity of sects in America, and which was the best and only security for religion in any society. As no such was in the majority, there would not be a persecution of the rest. The general government had not a shadow of right to intermeddle with religion. Correcting Henry further, Madison denied that seven States had ever been disposed to surrender the navigation of the Mississippi. When its cession to Spain had been proposed by southern States, the northern had opposed it. New Jersey had explicitly instructed her delegates to vote against it; therefore Henry's argument against ratification, because of the threatened surrender of the navigation of the great river, fell to the ground. Henry had drawn a dark picture of the dangers which he apprehended from the new plan, not the least of which was his dread of iniquitous speculation and stock jobbing in the operation of the new system, to which Madison answered that, judging from what had happened under the Confederation, any change would render amelioration in this respect probable.1

The purpose of the Anti-Federalists in bringing forward the action of Congress relative to the Mississippi,

1 Id., 332.