AFFAIRS IN MARYLAND.

57

the proceedings in which they had been engaged, and Luther Martin, taking great liberty with his oath of secrecy, if not violating it, occupied the attention of the House for three days, in giving an account of the proceedings at Philadelphia.1 His speech was a fierce assault on the whole plan. His colleague, James McHenry, gave a brief report of his services and was favorable to the Constitution. There was no opposition to calling a convention, and it was ordered that one should meet on the twenty-first of April.2 Martin, McHenry and John Francis Mercer, who had represented the State in the Federal Convention, were among the delegates chosen.

The personal influence of Washington extended into Maryland as did also that of Richard Henry Lee and Patrick Henry. Washington and Madison labored as assiduously to secure ratification in Maryland as in Virginia, and Lee worked with equal zeal to prevent it. The Anti-Federalists sought to postpone the convention, but this evil was easily prevented. The friends of the Constitution well knew that no time was to be lost, as the action of Maryland would have great influence in the

1 The speech is known as Martin's Genuine Information and may be found in Elliot, I, 344-389. It was published more or less widely by the Anti-Federalists and though strongly partisan throws much light upon its subject. Perhaps no detail is more clearly brought out than the solicitous care which the Federal Convention took to preserve the secrecy of its proceedings.

2 The Journal of the Convention, April 21-28, 1788, is reprinted Documentary History, III, 97-122. It consisted of seventysix delegates of whom seventy-four attended; among them were George Plater of St. Mary's county, chosen president; Samuel Chase of Anne Arundel county; Alexander C. Hansen of Annapolis; William Paca of Harford county. A fragmentary account of the proceedings of the convention is given in Elliot, II, 547-556. The adoption of the Constitution by Maryland is the subject of several critical papers, by Bernard C. Steiner, beginning in the American Historical Review, October, 1899.

58

THE CONSTITUTION READ.

States yet to ratify. The almost unanimous opinion of the people of the State in favor of the new plan foreclosed debate so that when the convention met it had little more to do than to register the popular will. There was nothing in the proposed plan inimical to the welfare of Maryland. It had borne a conspicuous part in the movement toward a better national government, and the invitation to the States to assemble at Philadelphia had gone out from Annapolis.

The Constitution was read twice, after which it was debated. As in Pennsylvania so in Maryland the opponents of the plan demanded amendments, and William Paca, of Harford, submitted a list on the twenty-fourth. They were intended to remove the objections which Samuel Chase, the leader of the Anti-Federalists, had pointed out. But objections and amendments counted for little with the majority of the members, who, representing eleven federal counties1 and the cities of Baltimore and Annapolis, informed the House on the twenty-fifth, that they had been elected and instructed by the people whom they represented to ratify the Constitution as speedily as possible and to do no other act. Having ratified it, their power would cease, and they did not consider themselves authorized to take up any amendments. Paca was not permitted even to read his amendments, but the AntiFederalists, notwithstanding, continued their objections, and repeatedly called on the Federalists to answer them.

These objections were the familiar ones, that Congress should exert powers expressly delegated; that the Constitution should provide for trial by jury; that the

1 Frederick, Talbot, Charles, Kent, Somerset, Prince George, Worcester, Queen Anne, Dorchester, Calvert and Caroline. Elliot, II, 548. Forty-five members, Documentary History, III, 101-102.

THE ANTI-FEDERALISTS.

59

jurisdiction of the Federal courts should be limited; that provision should be made against unwarrantable searches and seizures, against quartering troops in time of peace in private houses without the consent of the owner; that the freedom of the press should be preserved inviolable, and that the militia should not be subject to national law, except in time of war, rebellion or invasion. Conscious of their strength and satisfied with the new plan as it stood, the Federalists remained inflexibly silent. They called for the vote on the twenty-sixth, and the Constitution was ratified. The vote stood sixty-three to eleven.1 Among those voting against the Constitution were Martin and Mercer; McHenry voted for ratification.

But the Anti-Federalists were not satisfied, and Paca again laid his propositions before the House. He had voted for the Constitution in full confidence that the amendments would be peaceably obtained. If they were not granted, he declared that the people of Harford county and he himself would oppose the new government. As the Federalists had now carried their point, and the Constitution was ratified, they were more favorable to amendments, and it was almost unanimously agreed that they should be referred to a special committee of thirteen,2 of which Paca was made chairman. As a result, thirteen amendments were agreed to by the committee, quite unanimously, but fifteen others were rejected. The rejected articles were dear to the minority, who straightway set the committee into a wrangle, with the result that it made no report whatever. By a vote of nearly two to one, the convention then adjourned without formal action on the

1 Documentary History, III, 105.

2 As the leading Anti-Federalists in the convention, William Paca, Samuel Chase and John Francis Mercer, belonged to this committee it is probable that they were the authors of the amendments.

60

REJOICINGS OVER RATIFICATION.

amendments.1 The Maryland convention was, therefore, in some respects quite like that of Pennsylvania; the amendments of the minority in both States failing to pass. But these represented anti-federal sentiment in the State and more or less in other States, and later had weight with Madison's committee in Congress, when it made its report recommending the adoption of twelve amendments.2

The rejoicings in Baltimore over the ratification were a repetition of those which Boston had witnessed. The artisans and tradesmen organized a procession, and the day closed with a public dinner, a ball and the illumination of the city. The most conspicuous object in the procession, as at Boston, was the ship Federalist, which, completely rigged and manned by marines in their holiday attire, represented to the people the new Ship of State, and the new voyage which they were undertaking. Of all the emblematic objects which might have been seen in the processions that usually followed a ratification, this little ship Federalist was undoubtedly the most beautiful to the eye. After the rejoicings were over, it was sent, under command of Captain Barney, to Mount Vernon as a present to Washington, who, in accepting it, remarked on the exactitude of its proportions, the neatness of its workmanship and the elegance of its decorations.3

In South Carolina, the strength of the opposition was chiefly among the people in the rural districts, most of whom favored legal tender acts, installment laws and paper money.1 The insistence of the South Carolina dele

1 For all the amendments see Elliot, II, 549-553.

2 The extent to which the Maryland amendments were incorporated in Madison's report may be seen from the notes to the chapters on the first twelve amendments, Book III, Ch. VI, VII.

3 Washington to William Smith and others. June 8, 1788. Works, IX, 375.

4 Libby, 68.

SENTIMENT IN SOUTH CAROLINA.

61

gates in the Federal Convention that the new plan should protect slavery and not bear hard on imports by making discriminating tariff laws, undoubtedly re-echoed the fears of many people in the State. It was divided then, as now, into two regions, known as the upper and the lower division,1 the highlands and the lowlands. But the opinions of their inhabitants were not so opposite as those of the like divisions in Virginia. The first serious attention given to the new Constitution was in the House of Representatives, which, on the sixteenth of January, 1788, in Committee of the Whole, listened to Charles Pinckney's account of the origin and development of the new plan.2 The necessity of having a government which would operate upon the people and not upon the States, he said, was conceived to be indispensable by every delegation present at Philadelphia. A system of checks and balances had been incorporated in the plan which would secure the preservation of all rights, public and private. A federal judiciary was necessary to control and to keep the State judiciary within proper limits. No danger was to be apprehended from the executive power, because it was dependent upon the legislative and was guarded by many limitations.

Pinckney agreed with Wilson and McKean that the new government promised to be the best ever offered to the world. Instead of being alarmed at its consequences, the people might well be astonished that one so perfect had been formed from so discordant and unpromising materials. The system was conceived on republican principles and properly distributed powers of government. But the opposition did not take so favorable a view.

Rawlins Lowndes, whose patriotism had been doubted

1 For the importance of this division in 1868, at the time of the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, see Vol. III.

2 Elliot, IV, 253.