Indeed he doupted it himself. But while he doubted the sincerity of Great Britain, he could not but be of opinion that it was the duty of this state to enact a law for the repeal of all laws which may be against the treaty, as by doing away all exceptions she would be reduced to a crisis; she would be obliged to show to the world whether she was in earnest or not, and whether she will sacrifice her honour and reputation to her interest. With respect to the bill, as it was drafted in conformity with the recommendation of congress, he viewed it as a wise and salutary measure; one calculated to meet the approbation of the different states, and most likely to answer the end proposed. Were it possible to examine an intricate maze of laws, and to determine which of them or what parts of those laws were opposed to the treaty, it still might not have the intended effect, as different parties would have the judging of the matter. What one would say was a law not inconsistent with the treaty of peace, another might say was so, and there would be no end, no decision of the business. Even some of the states might view laws in a different manner. The only way to comply with the treaty, was to make a general and unexceptionable repeal. Congress, with an eye to this, had proposed a general law, from which the one before them was a copy. He thought, as it was obvious to every member of the committee, that as there was no law in direct opposition to the treaty, no difficulty could arise from passing the bill.

Some gentlemen, he observed, were apprehensive that the bill would restore confiscated estates. This he did not admit. However, if they were so disposed, they might add a proviso to prevent it. He had written one, which any of the gentlemen might move, if they thought necessary. In his opinion it was not necessary. The bill only provided that no future confiscations should take place, and that congress should earnestly recommend a

restoration of property. But there was nothing obligatory in this.

If this state should not come into the measure, would it not be a very good plea for the other states to favour their own citizens, and say, why should we do thus, when New-York, the most interested of any of the states, refuses to adopt it? And shall we suffer this imputation, when we have in fact no laws that militate against the treaty?

He stated the great disadvantages that our merchants experienced from the western posts being in the hands of the British, and asked if it was good policy to let them remain so.

It had been said that the judges would have too much power. That was a misapprehension. He stated the powers of the judges with great clearness and precision. He insisted that their powers would be the same whether these laws passed or not; for as all treaties were known by the constitution as the laws of the land, so must the judges act on them, any law to the contrary notwithstanding.

Cicero, the great Roman orator and lawyer, lays it down as a rule, that when two laws clash, that which relates to the most important matters ought to be preferred. If this rule prevail, who can doubt what would be the conduct of the judges, should any laws exist inconsistent with the treaty of peace? But it would be impolitic to leave them to the dilemma either of infringing the treaty to enforce the particular laws of the state, or to explain away the laws of the state to give effect to the treaty.

He declared that the full operation of the bill would be no more than merely to declare the treaty the law of the land; and that the judges viewing it as such, shall do away all laws that may appear in direct contravention of it. Treaties were known constitutionally to be the law of the land, and why be afraid to leave the interpretation of those

laws to the judges. The constitution knows them as the interpreters of the law. He asked if there was any member of the committee who would be willing to see the first treaty of peace ever made by this country violated? This he did not believe. He could not think that any member on that floor harboured such sentiments. He was in hopes that the committee would agree with him in opin ion, and give a proof of their attachment to our national engagements by passing the bill, which would do away every exception of the British court." This exposition overcame every objection, and this important act passed the house, but fell in the senate.

CHAPTER XLIV.

At the commencement of the session he was appointed chairman of the committee on expiring laws, to report which should be continued, and also such new laws as they should conceive would be beneficial to the state. In the performance of this duty his mind was directed to a great variety of topics. The first matter of local interest which called forth his exertions, was an "act to regulate the elections" of the state. This act not only involved several important principles, but had a special bearing on its political character. Its details have not enough of general interest to warrant their introduction in this place. It is sufficient to remark the singular inconsistency evinced on this occasion in the conduct of the opponents to the power of the general government, who claimed the exclusive merit of protecting the liberties of the state.

On questions which arose involving the highest constitutional principles, while Hamilton and his friends were foremost in resisting all attempts to explain away the state constitution, and to abridge the freedom of elections, and were endeavouring to maintain a complete and full toleration of religious opinions, the state party was found advocating measures tending to the most dangerous consequences. They opposed a mere request of congress for conve

ning the legislature of the state, as threatening danger to the freedom of deliberation, and they proposed a test not sanctioned by its constitution. They refused a grant of power necessary to the existence of the union, as dangerous to the liberties of the people; and they sought to violate the constitution of their state, by restraining the free exercise of the right of suffrage-the first principle of all free institutions-the sovereignty of the people.

One proposition was to enable the inspectors of the elections to take aside every illiterate person, and examine him privately, respecting his ballot. Against this, Hamilton took a decided stand, showing the danger of an improper influence being exercised, and the probability that the leaning of the inspectors would produce an improper bias; contending that "it was better that the illiterate should take the chance of imposition from parties equally active, than to leave them subject to party views, concentred in inspectors, upon whom the fate of the election depended. That it was wholly contrary to the very genius and intention of balloting, which means, that a man's vote should be secret, and known only to himself; but by this proviso he was not merely permitted, he was obliged to discover his vote, thus depriving the unlettered person of that liberty which his more instructed fellow-citizen had secured to him. These reasons, he hoped, would be deemed sufficient to induce the house to reject the clause, as repugnant to the genius and liberty of our republic." He prevailed.

Another clause authorized the inspectors to impose an oath of abjuration of ecclesiastical as well as civil obedience, which was defended by the leader of the democratic party, on the ground that this distinction was warranted by the constitution. Hamilton declared "that the constitution was their creed and standard, and ought never to be departed from, but that its provisions had not been correctly understood; that there were two different bodies