restoration of property. But there was nothing obligatory in this.

If this state should not come into the measure, would it not be a very good plea for the other states to favour their own citizens, and say, why should we do thus, when New-York, the most interested of any of the states, refuses to adopt it? And shall we suffer this imputation, when we have in fact no laws that militate against the treaty?

He stated the great disadvantages that our merchants experienced from the western posts being in the hands of the British, and asked if it was good policy to let them re

main so.

It had been said that the judges would have too much power. That was a misapprehension. He stated the powers of the judges with great clearness and precision. He insisted that their powers would be the same whether these laws passed or not; for as all treaties were known by the constitution as the laws of the land, so must the judges act on them, any law to the contrary notwithstanding.

Cicero, the great Roman orator and lawyer, lays it down as a rule, that when two laws clash, that which relates to the most important matters ought to be preferred. If this rule prevail, who can doubt what would be the conduct of the judges, should any laws exist inconsistent with the treaty of peace? But it would be impolitic to leave them to the dilemma either of infringing the treaty to enforce the particular laws of the state, or to explain away the laws of the state to give effect to the treaty.

He declared that the full operation of the bill would be no more than merely to declare the treaty the law of the land; and that the judges viewing it as such, shall do away all laws that may appear in direct contravention of it. Treaties were known constitutionally to be the law of the land, and why be afraid to leave the interpretation of those

laws to the judges. The constitution knows them as the interpreters of the law. He asked if there was any member of the committee who would be willing to see the first treaty of peace ever made by this country violated? This he did not believe. He could not think that any member on that floor harboured such sentiments. He was in hopes that the committee would agree with him in opin ion, and give a proof of their attachment to our national engagements by passing the bill, which would do away every exception of the British court." This exposition overcame every objection, and this important act passed the house, but fell in the senate.

CHAPTER XLIV.

At the commencement of the session he was appointed chairman of the committee on expiring laws, to report which should be continued, and also such new laws as they should conceive would be beneficial to the state. In the performance of this duty his mind was directed to a great variety of topics. The first matter of local interest which called forth his exertions, was an "act to regulate the elections" of the state. This act not only involved several important principles, but had a special bearing on its political character. Its details have not enough of general interest to warrant their introduction in this place. It is sufficient to remark the singular inconsistency evinced on this occasion in the conduct of the opponents to the power of the general government, who claimed the exclusive merit of protecting the liberties of the state.

On questions which arose involving the highest constitutional principles, while Hamilton and his friends were foremost in resisting all attempts to explain away the state constitution, and to abridge the freedom of elections, and were endeavouring to maintain a complete and full toleration of religious opinions, the state party was found advocating measures tending to the most dangerous consequences. They opposed a mere request of congress for conve

ning the legislature of the state, as threatening danger to the freedom of deliberation, and they proposed a test not sanctioned by its constitution. They refused a grant of power necessary to the existence of the union, as dangerous to the liberties of the people; and they sought to violate the constitution of their state, by restraining the free exercise of the right of suffrage-the first principle of all free institutions-the sovereignty of the people.

One proposition was to enable the inspectors of the elections to take aside every illiterate person, and examine him privately, respecting his ballot. Against this, Hamilton took a decided stand, showing the danger of an improper influence being exercised, and the probability that the leaning of the inspectors would produce an improper bias; contending that "it was better that the illiterate should take the chance of imposition from parties equally active, than to leave them subject to party views, concentred in inspectors, upon whom the fate of the election depended. That it was wholly contrary to the very genius and intention of balloting, which means, that a man's vote should be secret, and known only to himself; but by this proviso he was not merely permitted, he was obliged to discover his vote, thus depriving the unlettered person of that liberty which his more instructed fellow-citizen had secured to him. These reasons, he hoped, would be deemed sufficient to induce the house to reject the clause, as repugnant to the genius and liberty of our republic." He prevailed.

Another clause authorized the inspectors to impose an oath of abjuration of ecclesiastical as well as civil obedience, which was defended by the leader of the democratic party, on the ground that this distinction was warranted by the constitution. Hamilton declared "that the constitution was their creed and standard, and ought never to be departed from, but that its provisions had not been correctly understood; that there were two different bodies

in the state to which the proposition had reference. These were the Roman Catholics who were already citizens, who were born among us, and those coming from abroad. That from foreigners wishing to be naturalized, the abjuration of their former sovereign might be required for reasons which do not exist on the part of the person born and educated here, unencumbered with that dangerous fanaticism which terrified the world some centuries back, but which is now dissipated by the light of philosophy. These acts are therefore no longer necessary, for the dangers are now only imaginary, and are void of existence, at least with respect to us, the object being to exclude Roman Catholics from their right of representation.

He animadverted on the little influence possessed by the pope in Europe-spoke of the reformation going forward in the German empire, and of the total independence of the French church, and compared the requiring of oaths of this nature, to the vigilance of those who would bring engines to extinguish fires which had long subsided. He observed, also, that the Roman Catholics were not the only society affected-that some of the Dutch Reformed churches held a species of ecclesiastical foreign jurisdiction; he alluded to the classes of Amsterdam. "But," he asked, "is the natural subject, the man born among us, educated with us, possessing our habits, possessing our manners, with an equal ardent love of his native country, to be required to take the same oath of abjuration? What has he to abjure? He owes no fealty to any other power upon earth. There is no probability that his mind will be led astray by bigotry or foreign influence. Then why give him cause of dissatisfaction, by bringing forward a test which will not add to his fidelity?"

He stated that the clause in the constitution confined the test to foreigners, and that it was adopted after much debate, and by a small majority, and that even as to them, he