Part 22

To be serious: These state empirics leave no species of deceit untried to convince the unthinking people that they have power to do—what? Why truly to do much mischief, and to occasion anarchy and wild uproar. And for what reason do these political jugglers incite the peaceably disposed to such extravagant commotions? Because until the people really discover that they have _power_, by some outrageous act, they never can become of any importance. The misguided people never reflect during this frenzy, that the moment they become riotous, they renounce, from that moment, their independence, and commence vassals to their ambitious leaders, who instantly, and with a high hand, rob them of their consequence, and apply it to their own present or future aggrandisement; nor will these tyrants over the people stick at sacrificing _their_ good, if an advantageous compromise can be effected for _themselves_.

Before I conclude, I cannot refrain from observing that Cato states very disingenuously the manner in which the Federal System came abroad. He tells us, Congress were sensible that the late Convention exercised a power which no authority could delegate to them. The Convention, says Cato, have taken upon them to make a perfectly new system, which by its operations will absorb the sovereignties of the individual States; this new government founded on _usurpation_, (Cato, this expression is very indecent—but I will rouse no passions against you) this consolidated system Congress did not approve and _therefore_ have been _silent_ on its character. That Congress was silent on its character is true, but could Cato find no other reason for their silence than that of disapprobation? I believe Congress were by no means dissatisfied with the freedom the Convention took with the Articles of Confederation; I believe further that with very few exceptions, that honorable body approves of the New Constitution; and that they did not accompany it to the States with a recommendatory capitation or circular letter, proceeded from a delicate attention to the members of the late Convention, to a few of their own body, and to the people of America at large. That the Convention went so earnestly into the business committed to their care ought, instead of being matter of chagrin, to occasion the liveliest expressions of approbation and gratitude—as matters stand just now. I think it may be fairly said, that no _generous plan of government_ for the _United States_ has ever been constructed, (the plan only excepted which is under consideration) so that it seems quite unnecessary in Cato to disturb the peace of society by a bombast appeal to their feelings, on the _generous plan of power delivered down by their renowned forefathers_. I venerate the memory of the slaughtered patriots of America, and rejoice as much as Cato that they did not bleed in vain, but I would have America profit by their death in a different manner from him. I believe they sought to obtain liberty for no particular State, but for the whole Union, indissolubly connected under one controlling and supreme head.

Cato complains of my anticipating parts of his subject which he intended for future periods. I shall break in no more upon his _arrangements_. All he can say against the New Constitution has been already disseminated in a neighboring State by the glorious defenders of _Shayism_. I shall therefore leave Cato to the wicked influences of his own heart, in the fullest persuasion that all good citizens will combine their influence to establish the fair fabric of American liberty beyond the reach of suspicion, violence, anarchy, and tyranny. When this glorious work is accomplished, what may America not hope to arrive at? I will venture to prophesy that the day on which the Union under the new government shall be ratified by the American States, that _that day_ will begin an era which will be recorded and observed by future ages as a day which the Americans had marked by their wisdom in circumscribing the _power_ and ascertaining the _decline_ of the ancient nations in Christendom.

CÆSAR.

October 15.

THE LETTERS OF SYDNEY. WRITTEN BY ROBERT YATES.

Printed In The New York Journal, June, 1788.

Note.

_Sydney_ was a favorite pseudonym of Robert Yates, and was so well known as his pen name by his contemporaries that it was hardly intended as a mask. He had already contributed to the New York Journal a very able series of papers on the Constitution over the signature of _Brutus_, written to influence the people, but the elections had taken place before the appearance of _Sydney_, which were therefore intended for the delegates to the State Convention, soon to assemble. A year later, when Yates was nominated for governor by the Federalists, quotation from these articles was one of the favorite modes of attacking him used by the anti-federalists.

Sydney, I.

The New York Journal, (Number 2320)

Friday, June 13, 1788.

For the Daily Patriotic Register.

TO THE CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

Although a variety of objections to the proposed new constitution for the government of the United States have been laid before the public by men of the best abilities, I am led to believe that representing it in a point of view which has escaped their observation may be of use, that is, by comparing it with the constitution of the State of New York.

The following contrast is therefore submitted to the public, to show in what instances the powers of the state government will be either totally or partially absorbed, and enable us to determine whether the remaining powers will, from those kind of pillars, be capable of supporting the mutilated fabric of a government, which even the advocates for the new constitution admit excels “the boasted models of Greece or Rome, and those of all other nations, in having precisely marked out the power of the government and the rights of the people.”

It may be proper to premise that the pressure of necessity and distress (and not corruption) had a principal tendency to induce the adoption of the state constitutions and the existing confederation, that power was even then vested in the rulers with the greatest caution, and that, as from every circumstance we have reason to infer that the new constitution does not originate from a pure source, we ought deliberately to trace the extent and tendency of the trust we are about to repose, under the conviction that a reassumption of that trust will at least be difficult, if not impracticable. If we take a retrospective view of the measures of Congress who have their secret journals, the conduct of their officers, at home and abroad, acting under an oath of secrecy, as well as of individuals who were intimately connected with them, from the year 1780 to the last convention, who also acted under an injunction of secrecy (and whose journals have not been published even to this day, but will no doubt continue buried in the dark womb of suspicious secrecy), we can scarcely entertain a doubt but that a plan has long since been framed to subvert the confederation; that that plan has been matured with the most persevering industry and unremitted attention, and that the objects expressed in the preamble to the constitution, that is “to promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,” were merely the ostensible, and not the real reasons of its framers. That necessity and danger have been the moving causes to the establishment of the confederation will appear from the words of Congress recommending its formation to the several legislatures which are “under a conviction of the absolute necessity of uniting all our councils and all our strength to maintain our common liberties. Let them be examined with liberality becoming brethren and fellow-citizens, surrounded by the same iminent dangers, contending for the same illustrious prize, and deeply interested in being forever bound and connected together by the ties the most intimate and indissoluble.”

That these principles equally applied to the formation of our state constitution no person can seriously doubt who recollects the rapid progress of the British troops in this state and in Jersey in the year 1776, and the despondence which prevailed among the people on that occasion. The convention of this state, about that period, in explaining to the people the justice of the American cause, addressed them as follows: “You and all men were created free and authorised to establish civil government for the preservation of our rights against civil oppression, and the security of that freedom which God had given you, against the rapacious hand of tyranny and lawless power. If then God hath given us freedom, are we not responsible to him for that as well as other talents? If it is our birth-right, let us not sell it for a mess of pottage, nor suffer it to be torn from us by the hand of violence.”

The omission of a bill of rights in this State has given occasion to an inference that the omission was equally warrantable in the constitution for the United States. On this it may be necessary to observe that while the constitution of this State was in agitation, there appeared doubts upon the propriety of the measure, from the peculiar situation in which the country then was; our connection with Britain dissolved, and her government formally renounced—no substitute devised—all the powers of government avowedly temporary, and solely calculated for defence; it was urged by those in favor of a bill of rights that the power of the rulers ought to be circumscribed, the better to protect the people at large from the oppression and usurpation of their rulers. The English petition of rights, in the reign of Charles the First, and the bill of rights in the reign of king William, were mentioned as examples to support their opinions. Those in opposition admitted that in established governments, which had an implied constitution, a declaration of rights might be necessary to prevent the usurpation of ambitious men, but that was not our situation, for upon the declaration of independence it had become necessary that the exercise of every kind of authority “under the former government should be totally suppressed, and all the power of government exerted under the authority of the people of the colonies;” that we could not suppose that we had an existing constitution or form of government, express or implied, and therefore our situation resembled a people in a state of nature, who are preparing “to institute a government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness,” and as such, the constitution to be formed would operate as a bill of rights.

These and the like considerations operated to induce the convention of New York to dismiss the idea of a bill of rights, and the more especially as the legislative state officers being elected by the people at short periods, and thereby rendered from time to time liable to be displaced in case of mal-conduct. But these reasons will not apply to the general government, because it will appear in the sequel that the state governments are considered in it as mere dependencies, existing solely by its toleration, and possessing powers of which they may be deprived whenever the general government is disposed so to do. If then the powers of the state governments are to be totally absorbed, in which all agree, and only differ as to the mode, whether it will be effected by a rapid progression, or by as certain, but slower, operations: what is to limit the oppression of the general government? Where are the rights, which are declared to be incapable of violation? And what security have people against the wanton oppression of unprincipled governors? No constitutional redress is pointed out, and no express declaration is contained in it, to limit the boundaries of their rulers; beside which the mode and period of their being elected tends to take away their responsibility to the people over whom they may, by the power of the purse and the sword, domineer at discretion; nor is there a power on earth to tell them, What dost thou? or, Why dost thou so?

I shall now proceed to compare the constitution of the state of New York with the proposed federal government, distinguishing the paragraphs in the former, which are rendered nugatory by the latter; those which are in a great measure enervated, and such as are in the discretion of the general government to permit or not.

The 1st and 37th paragraphs of the constitution of the state of New York.

The 1st “Ordains, determines, and declares that no authority shall on any pretence whatever be exercised over the people or members of this State, but such as shall be derived from and granted by them.”

The 37th, “That no purchases or contracts for the sale of lands with or of the Indians within the limits of this state, shall be binding on the Indians, or deemed valid, unless made under the authority and with the consent of the legislature of this state.”

I beg here to observe that the whole history of this spurious constitution for the government of the United States, from its origin to the present day, and the measures taken by Congress respecting the Indian affairs in this state, are a series of violations of these paragraphs, and of the 13th article of the confederation.

It was a violation of the state constitution for the senate and assembly, on the 19th of February, 1787, to instruct their members to move in Congress for an act recommending a convention; and it was also a violation of the 13th article of the confederation for Congress, on the 21st day February, to recommend a convention to the several legislatures. It was a further violation of the constitution of this state, by the senate and assembly, on the 27th day of March, to join and to appoint delegates to meet in convention, and it being done in that hasty, if not surreptitious manner, by joint resolutions, when acts of the least consequence, even for the yoking of hogs, require to be passed under the formalities of a law, makes it more glaringly so.

It was an outrageous violation in the convention on the 17th of September, 1787, to attempt a consolidation of the union, and utterly destroy the confederation and the sovereignty of particular states, when their powers were restricted “to the sole and express purpose of revising and amending the confederation.”

It was again an infringement of the 13th article in the confederation, for Congress, on the 28th of September, not to arrest and prevent its being transmitted to the several legislatures; nor was the legislature of this state less culpable, in the beginning of February, 1788, who, in the course of three hours, took up and concluded the measure of calling a convention without apprising their constituents of the danger.

It is notorious that the right of regulating Indian affairs, especially with the five nations, has been in the colony of New York since the year 1664, and before that period, from the year 1614, whilst it was called New Nederland under the Dutch. That by the confederation, although Congress are invested with the power of regulating the trade and managing all affairs with the Indians, that they are restricted to those Indians “not members of any of the states, and a special proviso that the legislative rights of any state within its own limits be not infringed or violated.” It therefore was a violation of the confederation and of the rights of the state for the congressional commissioners of Indian affairs to treat, at fort Stanwix, with and thereat to make a purchase from the five nations without the authority or consent of the legislature of this state. It was an infraction of the rights of the citizens of this state, and an insult on their government, for those commissioners to wrest private property from individuals, imprison their persons, set at defiance the civil authority of the county of Montgomery, and violently to resist the execution of legal process. Nor was the ordinance of the 7th of August, 1786, for the regulation of Indian affairs, less so, namely, that “the Indian department be divided into two districts, viz.: the southern, which shall comprehend within its limits all the nations in the territory of the United States, who reside to the southward of the Ohio; and the northern, which shall comprehend all the nations within the said territory, and westward, not of lake Ontario, but of Hudson’s river; that a superintendent for the northern districts shall have authority to appoint two deputies to reside in such places as shall best facilitate the regulation of the Indian trade; that no person, citizen or other, under the penalty of five hundred dollars, shall reside among or trade with any Indian or Indian nations within the territory of the United States, without a licence for that purpose first obtained from the superintendent of the district, or of one of the deputies, who is hereby directed to give such licence to every person who shall produce from the supreme executive of any state a certificate under the seal of the state, that he is of good character and suitably qualified and provided for that employment, for which licence he shall pay for one year the sum of fifty dollars to the said superintendent for the use of the United States.” If this was the conduct of Congress and their officers, when possessed of powers which were declared by them to be insufficient for the purposes of government, what have we reasonably to expect will be their conduct when possessed of the powers “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes,” when they are armed with legislative, executive and judicial powers, and their laws the supreme laws of the land—and when the states are prohibited, without the consent of Congress, to lay any “imposts or duties on imports,” and if they do they shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States—and all such laws subject to the revision and controul of Congress.

It is therefore evident that this state, by adopting the new government, will enervate their legislative rights, and totally surrender into the hands of Congress the management and regulation of the Indian trade to an improper government, and the traders to be fleeced by iniquitous impositions, operating at one and the same time as a monopoly and a poll-tax. The deputy by the above ordinance, has a right to exact yearly fifty dollars from every trader, which Congress may increase to any amount, and give it all the operation of a monopoly; fifty dollars on a cargo of 10,000 dollars’ value will be inconsiderable, on a cargo of 1000 dollars burthensome, but on a cargo of 100 dollars will be intolerable, and amount to a total prohibition, as to small adventurers.

II, III, IX, XII, AND XXXI.

The second paragraph provides “that the supreme legislative power within this state shall be vested in two separate and distinct bodies of men, the one to be called the assembly, and the other to be called the senate of the state of New York, who together shall form the legislature.”

The ninth provides “that the assembly shall be the judge of their own members, and enjoy the same privileges, and proceed in doing business in like manner as the assembly of the colony of New York of right formerly did.”

The twelfth paragraph provides “that the senate shall, in like manner, be judges of their own members,” etc.

The 31st describes even the stile of laws—that the stile of all laws shall be as follows: “Be it enacted by the people of the state of New York represented in senate and assembly,” and that all writs and proceedings shall run in the name of the people of the state of New York, and tested in the name of the chancellor or the chief judge from whence they shall issue.

The third provides against laws that may be hastily and inadvertently passed, inconsistent with the spirit of the constitution and the public good, and that “the governor, the chancellor and judges of the supreme court, shall revise all bills about to be passed into laws, by the legislature.”

The powers vested in the legislature of this state by these paragraphs will be weakened, for the proposed new government declares that “all legislative powers therein granted shall be vested in a congress of the United States, which shall consist of a senate and a house of representatives,” and it further prescribes, that “this constitution and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding; and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this constitution.”

Those who are full of faith, suppose that the words in pursuance thereof are restrictive, but if they reflect a moment and take into consideration the comprehensive expressions of the instrument, they will find that their restrictive construction is unavailing, and this is evinced by 1st art., 8 sect., where this government has a power “to lay and collect all taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States,” and also “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or office thereof.”

Art. 1st, sect. 7, provides a qualified negative, that is, that “every bill which shall be passed [by] the house of representatives and the senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the president of the United States.”

To conclude my observations on this head, it appears to me as impossible that these powers in the state constitution and those in the general government can exist and operate together, as it would be for a man to serve two masters whose interests clash, and secure the approbation of both. Can there at the same time and place be and operate two supreme legislatures, executives, and judicials? Will a “guarantee of a republican form of government to every state in the union” be of any avail, or secure the establishment and retention of state rights?

If this guarantee had remained, as it was first reported by the committee of the whole house, to wit, ... “that a republican constitution, and its existing laws, ought to be guaranteed to each state by the United States,” it would have been substantial; but the changing the word _constitution_ into the word _form_ bears no favorable appearance.

IV, V, XII, XVI.