HAMILTON ATTACKS CLINTON.

147

port each other or meet one common fate." And he pronounced "as false and fallacious beyond conception" the major premise of all Anti-Federalist argument that though the State governments could be trusted and could not be restricted, yet the people could not confide in a national government, though they would have an effectual constitutional guard against every encroachment.1

In order to weaken the argument of the Anti-Federalists, and to prove that the State of New York had greatly suffered from the mode of raising revenues by requisitions, Hamilton planned to bring before the convention a mass of evidence embodied in resolutions of its legislature and in messages of Governor Clinton from 1780 to 1782, bearing on the distresses of the State and the defects of the Confederation. He succeeded in getting these before the convention, despite the protests of Clinton and the Anti-Federalists, and presented their contents as indisputable proof that the State had been on the verge of destruction for want of an energetic government. Whether the convention accepted the inference which Hamilton drew from these papers may be doubted. Because the State might have suffered for a time under a system of requisitions, the opponents of the new plan were not ready to believe that it might not suffer more under a general government, which as Lansing claimed, possessed unlimited powers of taxation. No argument advanced in favor of the Constitution seemed to have the slightest effect on Clinton, whose political ideal was a federal government founded on the States and subject to their will. No opponent of the Constitution, in any convention, more ardently defended State sovereignty.

1 Id., 355.

2 Elliot, II, 356.

8 Id., 371-376.

3

148

LANSING'S BILL OF RIGHTS.

While the Convention was in the midst of these acrimonious discussions, intelligence arrived on the third of July of ratification by Virginia without conditions, and it had a different effect from the recent news from New Hampshire. With all their opposition to the Constitution, the Anti-Federalists, in the New York convention, were not disposed to isolate the State from the Union; neither were they disposed to abandon their objections to the new government. After discussing at great length the amendments which they thought essential, the convention, on the tenth, was in a mood for compromise, and Lansing offered a Bill of Rights, which met with no objection, and a Committee of Accommodation was appointed consisting of seven members of each party with John Jay as chairman. To this committee were given Lansing's amendments, which were a new arrangement of all that had been offered, though with material alterations. He divided his amendments into three classes, explanatory, conditional and recommendatory.1 The conditional provided that there should be no standing army in time of peace without the consent of twothirds of both branches of Congress; that there should be no direct taxes, nor excises on American manufactures; that the militia should not be ordered out of a State, except with the previous consent of its executive, nor for more than six wecks without the consent of its legislature; and that Congress should not interfere in elections unless a State refused or neglected to provide for them. When these came up in committee, Jay insisted on striking out the provision that they should be conditional, but the Anti-Federal members would not yield, and the committee broke up without effecting anything. The Federalist

1 Pennsylvania Packet, July 18, 1788; Elliot, II, 410.

CONDITIONAL RATIFICATION.

149

members remarked, however, that Samuel Jones and Melanchton Smith showed signs of moderating their hostility to the Constitution.1

2

On the following day Jay brought forward the question of ratification without conditions, but that such parts of the Constitution as might be thought doubtful ought to be explained and such amendments as might be deemed expedient ought to be recommended. He was supported by Chancellor Livingston, and Morris, the Chief Justice, but Smith, Lansing and Clinton spoke with great ardor for the conditions. The debate on Jay's motion continued till the fifteenth, when Smith moved a conditional form of ratification, embodying the four conditions which Lansing had imposed and the calling of a second Federal Convention. The Anti-Federalists had it in their power to adjourn the convention, but a motion to this effect, on the sixteenth, was rejected, and a motion by Hamilton to ratify in the manner observed by Virginia was rejected by a vote of more than two to one. But Hamilton's defense of his motion was so effective that Smith announced that he should withdraw much of his opposition to the new plan; but still entertained objections which he thought were insuperable, namely, that the Constitution granted too great powers to Congress; provided for too few representatives; confused the function of government with the departments which it established, and, especially, granted too extensive powers to the judiciary; therefore, New York should reserve the right to withdraw from the Union, if the Constitution was not amended within a fixed time. A circular letter should

1 Pennsylvania Packet, Id.

2 Elliot, II, 411.

3

8 41 to 20; Pennsylvania Packet, July 24.

Known as the New York Letter, and the Clinton Letter.

150

CONDITIONAL RATIFICATION.

be sent out to the States, that they request Congress to call a new convention for the purpose of taking up amendments. The prospect of conditional ratification was threatening, yet the Federalists were extremely anxious to ratify at almost any price.

On the nineteenth, Lansing brought forward his plan of conditional ratification, with a Bill of Rights prefixed, and amendments subjoined. Hamilton, in doubt, hastily wrote to Madison, then in Congress in New York city, requesting an opinion, which he read to the House, two days later: the reservation of a right to withdraw, if amendments in the form of the Constitution were not decided on within a certain time, said Madison, would be a conditional ratification. It would not make New York a part of the new Union, and would be rejected by Congress. The Constitution must be adopted as a whole and forever, as it had been adopted by the other States. The idea of conditional ratification had emanated from Richmond,1 where, after careful consideration, it had been abandoned as worse than a rejection.2

3

On the twenty-third, Jones and Melanchton Smith proposed that the words "in full confidence" should be substituted for "on condition" in the act of ratification, which was carried by a majority of three. The rejection of Lansing's motion and the acceptance of that proposed by Jones and Melanchton Smith were due to two principal causes. Smith and his Anti-Federalist colleague

1 See page 94, ante.

2 Hamilton's Works, I, 465.

This

3 Elliot, II, 412; Pennsylvania Packet of July 30, 1788. was a test vote. The federal votes came from New York city, Kings, Richmond, Westchester, Queens, Suffolk (4), Dutchess (3) and Washington; the anti-federal vote from Ulster, Orange, Columbia, Montgomery, Dutchess (1), Albany, Suffolk (1), Queens (1), Washington (3).

THE FINAL VOTE.

151

had changed their opinions and now believed that there was no alternative between acceptance and rejection;1 and the Federalists agreed that a circular letter should go out to the States, recommending a second general convention. Consent to the letter was unanimous.

The vote, on the twenty-sixth, for ratification, with a Bill of Rights in twenty-four clauses, and thirty-two amendments, was carried by thirty yeas to twenty-one nays.2

3

The final conclusion of New York, though surprising, was not unexpected. It hardly seemed possible that, after ten States had adopted the Constitution, New York would withdraw from the Union; yet, considering the hostile majority which clung together in its convention, and the decided temper of the Anti-Federalist leaders, such a disaster seemed hardly avoidable. Its prevention was largely due to the arduous and meritorious efforts of Hamilton and Jay. But no small praise was due to Melanchton Smith and Samuel Jones, who, surrendering prejudice to reason, withdrew their opposition to the Constitution, and, by voting for it, made its ratification possible. The circular letter was the price of ratification and its tendency was far from satisfactory, for it implied many obstacles to the new system. Madison promptly pronounced its tendency pestilential. He feared that if a second convention could not be put off, the new government might be at least successfully undermined by

1 Pennsylvania Packet, July 30, 1788.

2 For these amendments and the Bill, see Elliot, I, 327-331; the circular letter in Elliot, II, 413. The extent to which the New York amendments were incorporated in the Constitution later is shown in pp. 201-211. Pennsylvania Packet, August 4, 1788; Documentary History, III, 174.

3 Washington to John Jay, August 3, 1788; Sparks, IX, 408. 4 Washington to Hamilton, August 28, 1788; Id., 420.