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.1 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

1 Id., 300-301.

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;2 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,1 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.

3 Id., 427-429.

♦ Id., 454-483.