22 ANTI-FEDERAL OBJECTIONS. said in the Federal Convention, he repeated now, that all authority in the Constitution was derived.1 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. 4 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. * 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. 22 ANTI-FEDERAL OBJECTIONS. said in the Federal Convention, he repeated now, that all authority in the Constitution was derived.1 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,3 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. 4 This piece of reminiscence was incorrect as also was the assertion that Virginia had no Bill of Rights. Smilie The 1 Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution, 218-231. 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. 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 2 Id., 301-307; see also his remarks on the 4th of December, Id., 313-349. |