96

JAMES MONROE'S OBJECTIONS.

of adjusting territorial claims had passed away and the States had made their cessions to the general government; certainly this intimated what might be done. The isolated position of the country forbade fears of European interference. It was not to the advantage of the United States to make trade-compacts with any nation; for our ports should be open to all, but no exclusive privileges should be granted to any. The country, he believed, was in no danger of immediate disunion, and the defects of the Confederation might be remedied calmly and dispassionately.1

Among the many other objections to the new plan, he saw, in the extensive territory reaching to the Mississippi, a sufficient reason for rejecting the Constitution, for only a despotic monarchy could be expected to govern so vast an area.2 No object known to taxation could be reached in so vast a field; and a thousand circumstances made it clear to him that no law could be made which would operate uniformly throughout the United States.3 The vast powers given to the new government by which it would absorb the resources of the country at the expense of the States and collect into its service the most eminent men in the country, it was evident would establish a tyranny, for they contemplated objects with which a Federal government ought never to interfere. These powers should be carefully qualified. He saw imminent danger in the "sweeping clause," for Congress would be under no restraint from making any law, however oppressive in its operation, which it might think necessary to carry its powers into effect. Instead of a division of powers, in which the security of the people would

5

JOHN MARSHALL'S ANSWER.

97

lie, here was a coalition of powers and a division of sovereignty between national and State governments; between which a compact must be inevitable. He could see no real checks in the new plan.1 In the history of mankind he found no example of a concurrent exercise of power by two parties without a struggle between them, and, taking up the organization of the two Houses, that of the executive and the judiciary, he pronounced the proposed government dangerous and calculated to secure neither the interests nor the rights of the people.2

Mainly in reply to Henry, though at the same time to Monroe, John Marshall argued that the powers granted in the plan were necessary, and were adequately guarded.3 It was necessary to give the government power in time of peace to prepare for war; because foreign dangers would arise. Self-protection was the first duty of nations. It had not been the Confederation, but the enthusiasm of the people which carried them through the Revolution.4 The Anti-Federalists had concentrated their objections upon the power of Congress to levy taxes. Marshall answered them completely, showing that the representatives chosen from the different parts of the country would be fully capable of knowing upon what objects to impose taxes, and also to what extent to carry them. The immediate responsibility of the law-makers to the electors would be ample security for the public. It was folly then to talk of the abuse of legislative powers. The weakness of the Confederation was the true cause of all complaint respecting the navigation of the Mississippi. A strong government would not hesitate to control its own. And Marshall very correctly informed the House

98

JOHN MARSHALL'S ANSWER.

that the prospect of ratification in New Hampshire was encouraging, for he had heard that the representatives in its convention having found, after assembling, that they were instructed to vote against the Constitution, had returned to their constituents without determining the question, in order to convince them of their mistake and of the propriety of ratification.1

The frequent reiteration of the objection that the country was too extensive for a republican government, led Marshall to say that the objection might be true of governments in which representation did not exist. Extent of country might render it difficult to execute laws, but not to make them. Extent of country did not extend power. That which would be sufficiently energetic and operative in a small territory would be feeble when extended over a large one. The Anti-Federalists seemed, for a time, to forget that eulogism of checks and balances in the American system which had been so long in every man's mouth. In America there was no exclusive personal stock of interest, for in promoting his own, the individual promoted the interest of the community. In consulting the common good he consulted his own, which was the best check a government could possess. As the eulogy of the British Constitution was a matter of opinion, even among the Anti-Federalists, it was sufficiently met by Marshall, when he said, that for America, at least, the government proposed was much superior to that of England. Would Senators for life be more agreeable? Or a House of Representatives chosen by a hundredth part of the people? Or a President unaccountable to them for his conduct? When Marshall resumed his seat, no objection which Henry had brought forward remained unanswered.

MASON'S OBJECTIONS.

99

Mason's objections to the Constitution did not differ from those which he had already published.1 Instead of a general power of taxation, he would grant conditional powers, and in strong colors, he depicted the evils of a grievous poll tax and an inequitable tax on lands.2 He saw fearful dangers in the article which pronounced the Constitution, the laws of the United States and the treaties made by its authority, the supreme law of the land, binding the judges in every State. Here, clearly, the Constitution which had no Bill of Rights would be of higher authority than the Bills in the State constitutions, and everyone knew that these laid down the first principles of government. Much of his argument was inferential, as for example, that, because the people of the United States were enjoying independence, and were happy and respectable, therefore the Articles of Confederation under which they lived must afford a sufficient government, if its obvious defects were corrected and it was strictly carried out. He did not see the need of a more perfect Union, nor could he agree with Randolph that it would materially benefit Virginia.

3

Grayson went even further than Mason and asserted that the adoption of the Constitution would not ameliorate the condition of the country.5 Reviewing public affairs since the Revolution, he said that the country had friendly relations with foreign powers; had adjusted the public debt between the individual States and the United States

1 The objections of the Hon. George Mason, to the proposed Federal Constitution. Addressed to the citizens of Virginia. Printed by Thomas Nicholas (1787). See James Iredell's answers to Mason in McRee's Life of Iredell.

2 Id., 263-266.

3 Id., 266. Mason was the author of the Virginia Bill of Rights of 1776. See joint resolution of the Virginia Legislature, February 15, 1844.

100

GRAYSON'S OBJECTIONS.

by the arrangement for the sale of western lands (referring to the Ohio and other companies, and the authority given the Treasury Board to authorize land sales in Europe) and he was confident that the domestic debt would soon disappear. Were there not sixteen American vessels carrying sea letters in the East India trade, and two hundred entering and clearing the French West Indies, every year?1 In brief, whatever faults of government existed in America, they were of the people, and not of the Articles of Confederation, and not one of them did he think would be cured by the new plan.2 Even the colossal frauds of paper-money issues did not disturb Grayson, though he confessed that by the charms of magic the millions struck off had diminished by a fortyfold ratio, yet, however unjust or unreasonable this might be, he thought it warranted by the inevitable laws of necessity. But he believed that there was no disposition to continue such issues "as this engine of iniquity" was universally reprobated.

Many Anti-Federalists claimed to believe, as did Monroe, that the power of direct taxation, in Congress, was unnecessary because the sale of western lands would be abundantly sufficient to answer all federal purposes.1 If the objections were well founded and the opponents of the plan believed that Congress would never have need to lay direct taxes, Pendleton inquired, why was there any dispute. If the Anti-Federalists opposed the surrender of the navigation of the Mississippi, they should give their support to the new plan, for by it two-thirds of the members of the Senate, from nine States, and the President would be requisite to make a treaty. It was well