PARTIES IN PENNSYLVANIA.

19

speech, urged its speedy adoption. The twenty-ninth of September was set as the day of adjournment, but on the twenty-eighth, George Clymer, one of the signers,1 and also a member of the legislature, moved that provision be made for calling a convention. The Anti-Federalists, who comprised nearly half the legislature, were led by Robert Whitehill of Cumberland county, and Cumberland was anti-federal.2

While the question of a convention was under debate, William Bingham, a delegate of the State to Congress, presented himself, with its resolution, unanimously recommending the Constitution to the States, but the Anti-Federalists, still hostile, resorted to obstructive tactics, and absented themselves; for as the Assembly consisted of sixty-nine members, forty-six making a quorum, nineteen absentees could bring the business to a full stop and the House must adjourn. Nineteen members were found only too willing to remain away, so that when the assembly convened, though every federal member was present, there was not a quorum. This was the condition of affairs when Bingham presented his news.

Determined to carry their purpose through, the Federalists, in the House, sent out the sergeant-at-arms to bring in the absentees. Several were found in their lodging houses, and, much against their will, were brought back to their seats. The roll was called, a quorum was counted and the business proceeded. The Anti-Federalists drew up an address to the people, which sixteen of the nineteen signed, setting forth all the defects of the new plan. These were, in brief, its expense; its dangerous

1 Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution, 27.

2 Libby, 84.

3 Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution, 60-72.

Id., 73-79; among the signers were Robert Whitehill and Edward Findlay.

20

PARTIES IN PENNSYLVANIA.

grant of power to Congress to levy taxes; its lack of a Bill of Rights, and its organization of a federal judiciary, which would override the State system.

To this accusation there were numerous rejoinders from among the Federalists, of which the most elaborate was written by Pelatiah Webster,1 a well known pamphleteer, who, nearly five years before, had written a dissertation, urging the States to unite under a common constitution. Having now control of the House, the Federalists quickly passed an act for the election of delegates to the convention to be held the third Tuesday of November.2 This news was received in the city with every manifestation of joy, but the minority beheld in it only a violation of political principle, and nursing their hostility, laid the foundation of that great party which Jefferson was soon to organize, and which, at the opening of the new century, was ready to take complete control of the government.

3

Though the Federalists had the better in the argument, which now ran high, the Anti-Federalists depended upon the elections to defeat the Constitution. In Philadelphia and Northampton counties the delegates pledged themselves to support it. Northumberland was divided, but the veterans of the army succeeded in choosing two of their number and thus saved the county for the Federalists.5 The counties of Franklin and Washington were divided, but if the delegates followed the wishes of their constituents, they would vote against the plan. The six western counties, too, were anti-federal, as were Burks, Dauphin

1 Id., 89-106.

2 November 6, 1787.

It is reported more or less fully in Chapters III, V, VI and VII of Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution.

4 Libby, 83.

5 Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution, 159.

• Libby, 83-84.

THE PENNSYLVANIA CONVENTION.

21

and Fayette. The convention assembled on the twenty-first of November,1 and two days later was discussing the Constitution. Among its sixty-nine members was James Wilson, one of the principal authors of the Constitution, and the only signer who had been chosen a delegate.

On the twenty-fourth, Thomas McKean moved for ratification and the debate began.2 Wilson, utilizing his profound knowledge of the plan, defended it even more cogently than he had done in the Federal Convention.3 It would give peace to the country; would co-ordinate its interests, and would promote the general welfare, as separate confederacies could not do. As both the States and the citizens were represented in the plan, the States were called upon to give up a portion of their power for the good of the whole. It was founded on the principle of representation. The Federal Convention had found it difficult to draw the line between the national and State government. Whatever objects of government were confined in their operation and effect within the bounds of a State should be considered as belonging exclusively to its government, but whatever extended beyond the bounds of a State should be considered as belonging to the government of the United States. The new plan would limit the power of legislation; the supreme authority for the government rested in the people. As he had so frequently

1 Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution, 211.

2 The convention met on November 21, chose Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg President, and James Campbell (November 23) Secretary.

He had made a great speech, known as the State House speech, on the Saturday evening preceding the election. A great concourse of people had met to nominate representatives for the ensuing general assembly. This speech ranks with the essays in the Federalist in spirit and tone; see Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution, 143-149.

22

ANTI-FEDERAL OBJECTIONS.

said in the Federal Convention, he repeated now, that all authority in the Constitution was derived.1

3

Smilie replied that the purpose of McKean's motion was altogether too hasty. The new plan should not be forced on the convention. Whitehill, of Carlisle, feared lest the rights and liberties which the people ought never to surrender were to be handed over to the new government.2 Objection was made to the omission of a Bill of Rights, but Wilson replied, that the preamble of the Constitution contained the essence of all the Bills of Rights that could be devised, because it established the principle that the people have a right to do what they please. But this in no wise satisfied the opposition, who, led by Smilie of Fayette, insisted that a more particular Bill was necessary. McKean, with some violence to history, replied that but five of the thirteen State constitutions had such Bills, and argued that, though a Bill could do no harm, it was unnecessary because the whole plan of government proposed was nothing more than a Bill of Rights.5 Wilson explained that the necessity of a Bill of Rights had never occurred to a member of the Federal Convention until three days before its dissolution, and even then the subject was not debated.

This piece of reminiscence was incorrect as also was the assertion that Virginia had no Bill of Rights. Smilie

1 Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution, 218-231. The speech of Wilson's here reported varies from that in Elliot, II, 418-434.

2 Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution, 233. 3 Id., 249.

4 The State constitutions in force at this time having Bills of Rights were Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and North Carolina, 1776; Georgia and Vermont, 1777; New York, 1777, prefixed the Declaration of Independence; South Carolina, 1778; Massachusetts, 1780, and New Hampshire, 1784.

5 Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution, 252.

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 a 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.

3 Id., 282. 4 Id., 288.