six were reprinted with a preface and table of contents written by Hamilton and dated the seventeenth of March, 1788.1 He thought that the Federalist might not be without effect in assisting the public judgment on the momentous question of the Constitution. The desire to throw full light upon the subject had led and in a great measure, unavoidably, to a more copious discussion than was at first intended. Thus it happened that the first volume of the Federalist was published before all the remaining essays were written. The fortieth number appeared in the New York Packet on the eighteenth of January, and the seventieth, on the eighteenth of March, the day after the appearance of the first volume. The last number to appear, in newspaper form, was the seventy-seventh, in the Packet for the fourth of April. The remaining eight numbers first appeared in book form in the second volume,2 which was published on the twenty-eighth of May, 1788.

It does not appear that the public recognized the Federalist as anything more than a passing party pamphlet, but its true character was clearly discerned by a few, and by none more accurately than Washington, who wrote to Hamilton his judgment of the work, saying that when the transient circumstances and fugitive performance which attended the crisis of the adoption of the Constitution had disappeared, the Federalist would merit the notice of posterity, because it candidly and ably discussed

1 The Federalist, a Collection of Essays Written in Favor of the new Constitution as Agreed upon by the Federal Convention, September 17, 1787, in two volumes; I, New York, Printed and Sold by J. and A. McLean, No. 41 Hanover Square, MDCCLXXXVIII, 227.

2 Its title page is like that of the first volume and the book contains the new Constitution, the resolution of the Convention, and Washington's circular letter; 384 pp.

THE NEW YORK CONVENTION.

139

the principles of freedom and the topics given; "which will be always interesting to mankind so long as they shall be connected in civil society."

991

In the New York convention Chancellor Livingston opened the discussion with an examination of the Confederation, pointing out its defects and the superiority of the proposed plan. Under it, New York would have greater prosperity; the Union would be capable of selfdefense, and the dangers incident to its situation would be practically removed.2 It was agreed, as it had been in Virginia, that the vote should not be taken until the Constitution had been considered clause by clause, and that amendments, if any, should be made in accordance with the same rule. Lansing, who, it will be remembered, together with his colleague, Yates, had left the Federal Convention early in July, under the excuse that it was exceeding its powers, replied to Livingston, in a general support of the Articles, and declared that a consolidated government, such as was proposed, was not adapted to so extensive a territory as the United States and could not preserve the rights or liberties of its people.3

Melanchton Smith, the ablest Anti-Federalist in the convention, was devoted to a government strictly on a federal plan, which he thought the Constitution would violate. Thus he complained that its rule of apportionment of representation was inadequate and unjust, because it failed to fix the minimum membership of the House of Representatives. Particularly did he object to the inclusion of three-fifths of the slaves. It would be impossible for representatives chosen on the basis proposed to possess the requisite information, therefore he

1 Washington to Hamilton, August 28, 1788; Sparks, IX, 420. 2 Elliot, II, 208-216; June 19, 1788.

* Id., 216-221; June 20, 1788.

140

ALEXANDER HAMILTON.

proposed that the apportionment should be changed to one for every twenty thousand inhabitants.1 Hamilton entered extensively into the history of confederacies and showed that they were all organized on fatal principles. Weakness in the head had produced resistance in the members. The defects of the Confederation had not been realized until after the peace, though the opponents of the Constitution insisted that it was the Articles which had brought the country through the war. He defended the rule of apportionment and the basis of representation, as more liberal than that under the Articles, and as adapted to the growth of the country. Vermont, Kentucky and Frankland would soon become independent; new members of the Union would be formed in the West which must be represented, and the membership of the Federal legislature would steadily increase. The State governments would forever preclude the possibility of federal encroachments; and the anti-federal claim that the liberties of the States could be subverted by the federal head was repugnant, he said, to every rule of political calculation.2 "All governments, even the most despotic, depend in a great degree on opinion," and, said he, as the will of the people constitute the essential principle of the new government their interests could not be other than safe.3

Smith, and the Anti-Federalists generally, insisted that in order to gain the confidence of the people there must be a numerous representation. "The true touch-stone," replied Hamilton, "is a good administration." This, indeed, would be the supreme test of the new plan, and it was one which Hamilton had elaborated in the Fed

1 Id., 226-229.

2 Id., 230-239.

3 Id., 252.

4 Id., 254.

MELANCTON SMITH'S OBJECTIONS.

141

eralist. Therefore, the value of the plan would depend entirely upon its practical organization, and he suggested that the requisite information, which was demanded of the representative, would be secured by dividing the States into districts and the representative chosen from the district would probably possess all the knowledge desired.1

But Smith replied that the only way to remove faults in the Constitution was to increase the representation and limit the powers of the government,—the major premise of all his later arguments.2 Hamilton, however, did not argue wholly on the defensive, but pointed out the incurable evils of the Confederation, one radical and dangerous defect of which was the necessity of the concurrence of nine States to pass the most important measures. This would be removed by the Constitution. Clinton advanced the argument used by Anti-Federalists in other States that the interests, habits and manners of the thirteen States were too diverse to permit a general and free government over them. To which Hamilton replied, that from New Hampshire to Georgia the people of America were as uniform in their interests and manners as those of any in Europe, and that they could not form an impediment to the regular operation of those general powers which the Constitution would give to the Union. In

1 Id., 255. Compare the New York act of apportionment of March 4, 1796, by which the State was divided into four great districts for the purpose of local government; also the act of April 12, 1792, dividing the State into four districts for the choice of presidential electors; the act of April 3, 1801, apportioning representation under the amended Constitution, all of which carried out Hamilton's principle.

2 Id., 259.

3 Id., 264.

4 Id., 262.

Id., 267.

142

LANSING AND HAMILTON.

deed, if Clinton's argument was to be pursued to the end, Hamilton remarked, it would lead to the withdrawal of all confidence of the American people in any government.1

Lansing, making much of his knowledge of the proceedings in the Federal Convention, renewed the discussion pending when he had left it, on the danger which the small States would incur from the large in the extended representation; but Lansing having left before the basis of representation was agreed to, was ill qualified to explain the motives of the Convention. Hamilton remarking that Lansing and himself saw the facts substantially alike, observed that the "plan in all its parts was a plan of accommodation," a fact of great weight with thoughtful men and used to its full effect by the supporters of the Constitution in all the States. Even the most aggressive Anti-Federalist hesitated to set up his individual judgment against the consensus of opinion embodied in the plan. But Lansing could not understand how, if it was a system of accommodation, that the number as the basis of representation had been reduced from forty thousand to thirty thousand. This gave Hamilton an opportunity to make the effective reply that the change had not been made till the Convention was near rising and the business completed, when Washington, expressing the wish that the number should be reduced to thirty thousand, it had been agreed to without opposition.3

Smith did not see in the Articles of the Confederation the opportunities for corruption, incident to the required vote of nine States in important matters, of which Hamilton had made so much. He thought that the power of

1 Id., 268.

2 Id., 274. 3 Id., 274.