ed by the executive, with power to try impeachments of federal officers, but without any other original jurisdiction, and without inferior tribunals.

Such were the forms of government in contemplation for an empire of almost boundless territory, and destined to contain a countless population.

As neither of these forms was adopted, and as the final result was a compromise, it becomes necessary, in order to judge correctly of the extent of Hamilton's influence upon the character of that compromise, to trace the successive opinions of leading members of the convention.

With this view, it will be remarked, while the plan of Madison and Randolph submitted it as an open question, whether "the right of suffrage in the national legislature ought to be proportioned to the quotas of contribution, or to the number of free inhabitants," that Hamilton was the first to urge the latter as the true basis of a republican government.*

Hamilton urged the choice of the first branch by the people-Madison was undecided, if "by the people or by the legislatures," and while Hamilton would have derived the Senate also from the people,† Madison preferred that it should be chosen by the first branch.

The proposition of Virginia gave the choice of the executive department of the government to the national legislature. Hamilton, pursuing the great principle of a popular government, was in favour of an executive to be chosen by the people in districts through the medium of electors.

Madison was the advocate of a plural executive, and

Journal of Fed. Con., pp. 67-83. "It was moved by Mr. Hamilton, seconded by Mr. Spaight, that the resolution be altered so as to read: Re. solved, that the rights of suffrage in the national legislature ought to be proportioned to the number of free inhabitants."

+ Journal, 112.

would have associated with it a revisionary council, to be formed of the national judiciary, having a qualified negative. Hamilton, on the other hand, would have imposed on a single executive an undivided responsibility, without a council of revision. He would have given the appointment of the judiciary to the executive, and would have charged it solely with judicial duties. The judiciary of Madison was to be appointed by the second branch, to be connected with the executive, to act politically as its controlling council, and also as the court of impeachments on the national officers.

Passing from the structure to the powers of the government-while Hamilton would have provided that the executive should take care that the laws were faithfully executed, Madison would have authorized the legislature to delegate to it, from time to time, such other powers, not legislative or judiciary in their nature, as it might choose ;* and would have given it a negative on the laws of the

states.

As to the national legislature, he would have empowered it to "negative all laws" of the states "which to them shall appear improper." It has been seen that while he thought that perhaps this negative "might create a mutual dependence between the general and particular authorities,” and thus "that the necessity of operating by force on the collective will of a state might be precluded," he said, “ the right of coercion should be expressly declared." This was by far the highest toned form of government submitted to the convention, and as it intermingled injuriously the dif ferent departments, and derived them all from the first legislative branch, would have resulted in an odious and intolerable tyranny, in which the executive and senate would have been the creatures and mere instruments

of the arbitrary will of the popular branch of the legislature. In two important particulars, a common sentiment is seen in the convention-the determination to lay a republican basis in the pledge by an unanimous vote to "guarantee to each state a republican constitution, and its existing laws," and that the national judiciary should hold their offices during good behavior.

CHAPTER XLVI.

To establish a stable and enduring government of competent powers, founded on the consent of the people, and to combine a vigorous execution of the laws with a due regard to liberty, by a judicious application of a system of checks as far as was practicable, consistently with the genius of a republic, were the great objects to be sought. Neither of the plans before the convention promised to effect these objects.

In that of Virginia, although the resort to "force against a member failing to fulfill its duty," early proposed, was not incorporated, yet the conflicts to ensue between a general government so constituted and of such power, and the governments of the states, so little impaired, were inevitable.

The adoption of such a plan would have been, as Hamilton had before stated, "to enact a CIVIL WAR." The influence exerted by his arguments in exposing this inconsistency, was powerful in preparing the way for the VOL. III.-18

plan finally adopted in the different organization of the senate and house of representatives.*

But the conflicts between the National Government and the State sovereignties were only a greater evil than the consequences to follow from the deposit of almost unlimited power in a National legislature, of which both branches were derived from a common source, without the natural check which he contemplated, in the different terms of office.

The Jersey plan would have been equally mischievous. The one plan was tyranny-both involved, certain anarchy. Neither could have been adopted. The final struggle between their respective advocates was impending, almost instant. A dissolution of the convention, and a dissolution of the frail union were at hand. Hamilton saw it

* History of the Constitution of the United States, by G. T. Curtis, ii. 101 to 106: "Surely, it can be no impeachment of the wisdom or the statesmanship of this great man, that, at a time when a large majority of the convention were seeking to establish a purely national system, founded on a proportionate representation of the people of the states, he should have pointed out the inconsistencies of such a plan, and should have endeavored to bring it into greater conformity with the theory which so many of the members and so many of the States had determined to adopt. It seems rather to be a proof of the deep sagacity which had always marked his opinions and conduct, that he should have foreseen the inevitable collisions between the powers of a national government, so constituted, and the powers of the States. The whole experience of the past had taught him to anticipate such conflicts, and the theory of a purely national government, when applied by the arrangement now proposed, rendered it certain that these conflicts must and would increase. That theory could only be put in practice by transferring the whole legislative powers of the people of the States to the national government. This he would have preferred, and, in this, looking from the point of view at which he then stood, and considering the actual position of the subject, he undoubtedly was right.” "The choice seemed to be between a purely national and a purely federal system."