WILSON'S REJOINDER.

23

corrected him as to Virginia, but no one could correct him as to the action of Gerry and others in the Convention to secure a Bill of Rights.1 Wilson took McKean's view that a Bill was unnecessary and that written Constitution was one in substance, but all the anti-federal speakers declared the position untenable. Passing from the omission of a Declaration of Rights, the opposition attacked the organization of the legislature and especially the powers of Congress, of which those to lay and collect taxes, duties and excises, without limit might, Smilie said, drain the wealth of the people.2 McKean answered many of these objections with the sagacious remark that the freedom, wealth and happiness of the people would depend on the administration of the government, and as this would be under their control, they could make it what they would.

Smilie labored to prove that the new plan would terminate in a consolidation and confederation of the States,3 and, like Rome, would end in tyranny. To this McKean's assertion was considered by the Federalists a sufficient reply. But to the objection that the House of Representatives was too small, Wilson made answer, that the Convention had found the subject embarrassing, and after considering the question of expense, in connection with numbers, had endeavored to steer a middle course. On the basis finally agreed to, one member for every thirty thousand inhabitants, it was believed that every local interest would be fully represented.*

But the ablest of the anti-federal members was William Findlay of Westmoreland, who based his objections to the

1 See Vol. I, p. 524.

2 Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution, 269.

• Id., 282.

4 Id., 288.

24

STATE SOVEREIGNTY.

Constitution upon its invasion of the sovereign rights of the States. Its adoption would establish a consolidated, not a federal government. The preamble was wrong in using the phrase "we the people" instead of "we the States." The basis of representation was wrong in being founded upon population instead of the equal State sovereignties. To give Congress power to levy internal taxes must destroy these sovereignties, for two independent taxing powers could not exist in the same community; the stronger, of course, would annihilate the weaker. power given to Congress to regulate and judge of elections was a proof of consolidation, as also were the organization of the judiciary, the manner of paying the members of the legislature, and the oath of allegiance which the Constitution required. Here was the critical question, whether, as Wilson expressed it, the boasted State sovereignties were to be disrobed of part of their power.

The

Going to the root of the matter, he denied that the State governments were sovereign, for sovereignty resides in the people; they had not parted with it; neither would they part with it in authorizing the new Constitution. That the new government would take some particular powers from the State governments no one could deny, yet both the States and the people were to be represented. It was true that there were to be two taxing powers, but the people in each were to appoint their representatives. The new system abounded in restraints, the chief of which was the people themselves. But the system of checks and balances was so carefully applied that there was no danger of the abuse of power by any department; each would serve as a check upon the other.2

2 Id., 301-307; see also his remarks on the 4th of December, Id., 313-349.

WILSON'S SPEECH.

25

The Anti-Federalists were far from convinced. The Vice-President, they said, would be a dangerous officer, and, as he had a casting vote, might fix his own salary. The Senate should not be empowered to make treaties, or to try impeachments. The organization of the judiciary was wholly faulty, as it entirely subordinated the States and reduced them below the dignity of sovereigns. The debate was full of personalities, and occasionally the debaters almost came to blows.1 How could the Federalists defend a Constitution that made no provision for a trial by jury? Judge McKean might look wise, but this would not remove the objections, and he was overwhelmed by citations from history and law to prove that his position was wrong. But he knew the strength of his party and, on the tenth of December, after reviewing all the objections, he declared that, from a full examination of the system, it appeared to him the best that the world had seen; and announcing that Delaware had ratified, he gave notice that on the twelfth he should call for the vote.3

On the following day, Wilson made a powerful speech answering all the objections that had been made and practically closing the debate. He declared that the new system was not a compact or a contract, but an ordinance, an establishment of the people; thus returning again to the principle on which he had based all his arguments.5 But in spite of all the speeches of the Federalists, the Anti-Federalists were not convinced, and at the close of Wilson's argument, Findlay briefly reviewed the defects of the plan, and Whitehill presented several petitions from

26

REJOICINGS IN PHILADELPHIA.

the people of Cumberland, having in the aggregate seven hundred and fifty signatures, praying that the Constitution should not be adopted without amendments, and particularly a Bill of Rights. These petitions, drawn in the form of fifteen articles, were then put to vote, but were rejected, and the Constitution was then ratified by the same vote.2 Assembling on the thirteenth the majority agreed that the convention should proclaim the ratification of the Constitution before it was signed and this was accordingly done. A procession was formed, consisting of the President and Vice-President of the State, members of Congress, the faculty of the University, and the magistrates and militia officers of the county and city. Moving amidst a great concourse of people, it proceeded to the Court House, where the ceremony of ratification was completed. The proceedings of the day came to an end with a grand dinner, at which the Federal members vied with one another and their guests in responding to appropriate toasts, of which the first was "The people of the United States."

Though the Federalists had triumphed in Pennsylvania their opponents were by no means vanquished. While the feasting and toast-making were going on at Epple's Tavern, the Anti-Federalists were busily preparing an address to the people, setting forth their reasons for refusing their assent to the new plan. They included in their address, after first setting forth the defects of the Constitution, a recommendation to adopt fourteen amendments as a remedy. It has been claimed that these amendments became

1 Yeas 46, nays 23.

2 46 to 23; Id., 425. For the ratification, see Documentary History, II, 27.

8 Id., 427-429.

Id., 454-483.

HARRISBURG CONFERENCE.

27

the basis of Madison's report of twelve amendments in Congress in 1789, but the claim is not well founded.1 Before adjourning, the convention, on the fifteenth, offered to cede to Congress, as the seat of the Federal City, the jurisdiction over any place in Pennsylvania, not exceeding ten miles square, excepting the city of Philadelphia and two adjoining districts, and until Congress might choose a permanent seat of government for the United States, it might have the use of such public buildings, within the city of Philadelphia, or elsewhere in the State, as it might find necessary.2

Though the convention had refused the proposed amendments to the Constitution, the minority did not cease to insist upon them. The very refusal of the convention to receive them confirmed opinion in the State that they were necessary. At Harrisburg, in September of the following year,3 in response to a circular letter, which originated in the county of Cumberland, thirty-three delegates, representing thirteen counties, including in their number Robert Whitehill, John Smilie and Albert Gallatin, concluded a conference by drawing up twelve amendments which they insisted should be made to the new Constitution.*

There is little doubt that the Harrisburg conference more faithfully reflected public opinion in Pennsylvania than did the ratifying convention. Pennsylvania politics would have been far less bitter during the years following

1 The extent to which Madison made use of the amendments proposed by the Pennsylvania minority may be seen from the notes to the Chapter narrating the history of the first ten amendments, post, pp. 199-211.

2 Id., 430.

3 September 3, 1788.

4 Id., 558-564. The provisions in these amendments which were finally incorporated in the twelve which Madison submitted to Congress in 1789 are indicated in the notes on the first ten amendments; see post, pp. 199-211.