Part 24
I would submit it to any candid man, if in this constitution there is the least provision for the privilege of shaving the beard? or is there any mode laid down to take the measure of a pair of breeches? Whence is it then, that men of learning seem so much to approve, while the ignorant are against it? The cause is perfectly apparent, viz., that reason is an erring guide, while instinct, which is the governing principle of the untaught, is certain. Put a pig in a poke, carry it half a day’s journey through woods and by-ways, let it out, and it will run home without deviation. Could Dr. Franklin do this? What reason have we then to suppose that his judgment, or that of Washington, could be equal to that of Mr. Smilie(55) in state affairs?
Were it not on this principle that we are able to account for it, it might be thought strange that old Livingston,(56) of the Jersies, could be so hoodwinked as to give his sanction to such a diabolical scheme of tyranny amongst men—a constitution which may well be called hell-born. For if all the devils in Pandemonium had been employed about it, they could not have made a worse.
Neil MacLaughlin, a neighbor of mine, who has been talking with Mr. Findley, says that under this constitution all weavers are to be put to death. What have these innocent manufacturers done that they should be proscribed?
Let other states think what they will of it, there is one reason why every Pennsylvanian should execrate this imposition upon mankind. It will make his state most probably the seat of government, and bring all the officers, and cause a great part of the revenue to be expended here. This must make the people rich, enable them to pay their debts, and corrupt their morals. Any citizen, therefore, on the Delaware and Susquehannah waters, ought to be hanged and quartered, that would give it countenance.
I shall content myself at present with these strictures, but shall continue them from time to time as occasion may require.
LETTER OF CAUTION, WRITTEN BY SAMUEL CHASE.
Printed In THE MARYLAND JOURNAL, October, 1788.
Note.
The authorship of this essay is fixed upon Chase by a letter of Daniel Carroll, who in writing to Madison, alludes to both this, and his reply, printed _post_. Chase was the leader of the Anti-Federalists in Maryland, but was at first compelled by popular feeling to temporize, as is shown by the following extracts, taken from the Maryland Journal for September 28, 1787:
The following is the conclusion of the speech of Samuel Chase, Esq., delivered this day, at the Court House, before a numerous and respectable body of citizens.
(Published by request of many electors of Baltimore Town.)
The Constitution proposed by the late Convention, for the United States, will alter, and in some instances, abolish our Bill of Rights and Form of Government. The Legislature of this State have no right to alter our Form of Government, but in the mode prescribed by the Constitution. The only question for the General Assembly to determine is this, whether they will recommend to the people to elect delegates to meet in convention, to consider and decide on the plan proposed. I have always maintained the Union, and the increase of powers in Congress. I think the Federal Government must be greatly altered. I have not formed my opinion, whether the plan proposed ought to be accepted as it stands, without any amendment or alteration. The subject is very momentous, and involves the greatest consequences. If elected, I will vote for, and use my endeavours to procure a recommendation by the Legislature to call a convention, as soon as it can conveniently be done, unless otherways directed by this town.
_September 26, 1787._
Having been informed that my engagements of yesterday, to the meeting at the Court House, “to vote for, and use my endeavours to procure a recommendation by the Legislature, to call a convention as soon as it can conveniently be done,” is not understood; from a desire, if possible, to remove all misunderstanding, I take the liberty to declare, that by the promise I meant to engage, and therefore do promise, if elected, that I will use my endeavours to procure, at the next session of Assembly, and as soon in the session as the necessary business of the State will permit, a recommendation by the General Assembly to call a convention, to consider and decide on the Constitution proposed by the late Convention for the United States, and to appoint the election of delegates to the Convention as soon as the convenience of the people will permit. I further beg leave to add as my opinion, that the election of delegates to the Convention ought to be as early in the spring as may be.
SAMUEL CHASE.
_Baltimore, September 27, 1787._
There are attacks on Chase, by “Steady” in the _Maryland Journal_ of September 28, 1787, and by “Spectator,” in the _Maryland Journal_ of October 9, 1787.
Caution.
The Maryland Journal, (Number 976)
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1787.
TO THE INHABITANTS OF BALTIMORE TOWN,
An attempt to _surprise_ you into any _public_ measure, ought to meet your indignation and contempt. When violence or cunning is substituted for argument and reason, suspicion should take the alarm, and prudence should dictate the propriety of deliberation. Questions of consequence in private life ought not to be _hastily_ decided, and with greater reason, determinations that involve the future felicity of a whole people, ought not to be taken before the most mature and deliberate consideration, and a free and full examination of the subject and all its consequences. These reflections occurred on being informed that some gentlemen of this Town employ themselves in carrying about and soliciting subscribers to a petition, addressed to the General Assembly, requesting them to call a Convention to ratify the new system of government, proposed for the United States by the late Convention at Philadelphia. If this petition contained no more, it would not have been worthy of notice; but it publishes to the world your entire approbation of the New Federal Government, and your desire that it should be adopted and confirmed by this State, as it stands, _without any amendment or alteration_.
The ostensible cause for offering you the petition to sign is, that you may express your sentiments to the legislature, that they ought to call a Convention to ratify the new form of government for the United States; but the real design of the promoters of the petition is to draw you into a declaration in favour of the _whole_ system, and to bind you hereafter to support it, which you must do, or allege deception and surprise, if, on further reflection, you should discover that you rashly gave an opinion against your real interests. If the _real_ intention of the promoters and carriers of this petition was _only_ to obtain your opinion in favour of calling a Convention, it might have been expressed in a _few_ lines; and no one would oppose such a petition, although improper and unnecessary, because your Delegates will certainly move for, and exert themselves to procure, the calling a Convention; and no member of the General Assembly will deny that, in so doing, your Delegates speak your sentiments.
In my opinion, it is not necessary or proper for you, _at this time_, to express your approbation, or disapprobation, of the new constitution for the United States, for the following reasons:
First—because the decision, _for_ or _against_ the plan, is of the greatest consequence, as it involves no less than the happiness or misery of you and all your posterity forever; and therefore, I think, requires your dispassionate and most deliberate consideration. Secondly—because you want information, and have not had time yourselves to examine the proposed system, and to consider the consequences that may flow from rejecting or adopting it. Thirdly—because time is not given for your countrymen in this, and the other States, to consider the subject, and to lay their sentiments and reasons for or against the measure before you. Fourthly—because you ought to hear _both_ sides, as the man who determines on hearing one part only, will almost always be mistaken in his judgment. He may be in the right, but it will be by _chance_ and not by _reason_. Fifthly—because you are not pressed in point of time to determine on the subject; you have at least three months for deliberation; to decide, therefore, in a few days will be rashness and folly. Sixthly—when men urge you to determine in _haste_, on so momentous a subject, it is not _unreasonable_ to require their motives; and it is not _uncharitable_ to suspect that they are improper; and no possible mischief or inconvenience can happen from delay.
_October 11, 1787._
CAUTION.
LETTER OF A FRIEND TO THE CONSTITUTION, WRITTEN BY DANIEL CARROLL.
Printed In The Maryland Journal, October, 1787.
Note.
Daniel Carroll wrote Madison that he had replied to Chase’s “Caution,” and as this is the only direct reply to that article I have been able to find, I have ventured to ascribe this to him. The letter is in the Madison Papers in the Department of State, which at present are restricted from use, so I am unable to print it here.
A Friend To The Constitution.
The Maryland Journal, (Number 977)
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1787.
TO THE INHABITANTS OF BALTIMORE TOWN.
You have been addressed in the last Friday’s paper, by a writer under the signature of _Caution_, who would persuade you that you ought to withhold your approbation, at this time, from the Federal Constitution recommended by the Convention.
This writer may have the best intentions in the world towards the _public welfare_, and the _prosperity of Baltimore_; but every one must perceive that he is an enemy to the proposed Constitution, and wishes to prevent you from expressing yourselves in its favour, not only _at this time_, but at any _future time_.
Mr. C—— is said to be the author of this admonition; but that this is a malicious insinuation, aimed at his sincerity, will appear by considering his _recent promise_ on this subject, signed and published by himself, in reference with the resolution of the Convention, upon which that promise is founded. I shall state both the resolution and promise, that you may judge for yourselves.
The resolve of the Convention declares, that the Constitution should be submitted to a Convention of Delegates, chosen in each State by the people, under the recommendation of its legislature, _for their assent and ratification_.
Mr. C—— being called upon, before his election, to declare himself on this point, promises to the people, “that he will use his endeavours, if elected, to call a Convention.”
I would just observe on this resolve and promise: First—that the resolve makes it an _absolute condition_ that the legislature recommend a Convention _to assent to, and ratify, the Constitution_. Secondly—that the _promise_ made by Mr. C—— is obligatory upon him, to use his endeavors to procure a Convention _for this purpose_.
Another remark, which occurs on this occasion, is, that Mr. C—— could not mean that a Convention ought to be called _for any other purpose_ than to assent to, and ratify, the Constitution; for it is absurd to suppose he meant the Convention should be authorized by the legislature to propose amendments or alterations, that being _contrary_ to the declared intention of the resolution, and the sense which his friends entertained of his engagement at the time he entered into it. Mr. C——, therefore (without presuming him capable of doing the greatest violence to his promise), cannot be considered as the _author of Caution_, who argues strenuously, though indirectly, _against adopting the Constitution_.
From this brief view of the nature and intention of the resolve, I think it is evident that the people ought, _without delay_, to signify their approbation of the Constitution by _a petition to the legislature_, to the end that the legislature, which is called upon by the Convention and Congress to recommend to the people to choose Delegates to ratify it, may have the _authority of the largest and most promising commercial and manufacturing Town in the State_ to countenance so _important a recommendation_. But _Caution_ thinks a petition _improper_ and _unnecessary_; because, says he, “your Delegates will move for, and exert themselves to procure, the calling a Convention.” Admitting your Delegates to move to have a Convention called, does it follow that they will add to their motion these _essential words, to confirm and ratify the Constitution_? Does it not rather appear, from the tenor of this writer’s remarks, that your Delegates ought to leave these words out of their motion? But the _propriety_ and _necessity_ of a petition does not depend on what your Delegates may, or may not do. It is _proper_ at this time, because the Constitution meets your approbation. It is _necessary_ at this time, because wanted as an inducement to the legislature to call upon the people to appoint a Convention to carry into effect the object of the resolution. In other words, as the recommendation for a Convention _involves the legislature in a complete approbation of the Constitution_, there is the greatest _propriety_ and _necessity_ for your telling the legislature _that it meets your approbation_.
I am sorry to find, by _Caution’s_ publication and insinuations, which I am told are circulated with great industry, that an opposition is opened against the Constitution. I did not, I confess, expect to see it adopted without some opposition; but I could not bring myself to believe, that this opposition could have originated in Baltimore, which is _so peculiarly interested in its speedy adoption_. But what I intended to say on this point, is so well expressed in a late speech of Mr. Wilson, to the people of Philadelphia, previous to their election for representatives, that I shall take the liberty of closing with it.
“After all, my fellow-citizens, (says this excellent politician) it is neither extraordinary nor unexpected, that the Constitution offered to your consideration should meet with opposition. It is the nature of man to pursue his own interest in preference to the _public good_; and I do not mean to make any personal reflection, when I add, that it is _the interest of a very numerous, powerful and respectable body to counteract and destroy the excellent work produced by the late Convention_. All the offices of government, and all the appointments for the administration of justice, and the collection of the public revenue, which are transferred from the individual to the aggregate sovereignty of the States, will necessarily turn the stream of influence and emolument into a new channel. _Every person, therefore, who either enjoys, or expects to enjoy, a place of profit under the present establishment, will object to the proposed innovations, not, in truth, because it is injurious to the liberties of his country; but because it affects his schemes of wealth and consequence._ I will confess, indeed, that I am not a blind admirer of this plan of government, and _that there are some parts of it_, which, if my wish had prevailed, would certainly have been altered. But, when I reflect how widely men differ in their opinions, and that every man (and the observation applies likewise to every state) has an equal pretension to assert his own, I am satisfied that anything _nearer to perfection_ could not have been accomplished. If there are errors, _it should be remembered_, that the seeds of reformation are sown in the work itself, and the concurrence of two-thirds of the Congress may, at any time, introduce _alterations and amendments_. Regarding it, then, in every point of view, with a candid and disinterested mind, I am bold to assert, that is the _best form of government which has ever been offered to the world_.”
A FRIEND TO THE CONSTITUTION.
_Baltimore, October 13, 1787._
THE LETTERS OF LUTHER MARTIN.
Printed In The Maryland Journal, January-March, 1788.
Note.
Luther Martin, afterwards nick-named the “bull-dog of federalism,” was at this time the leading Anti-federalist in Maryland. From his pen came the pamphlet entitled _Genuine Information ... Relative to the Proceedings of the General Convention_; and when the “Landholder,” (see _Ante_, page 135), attacked Elbridge Gerry, he began this series of articles in defense of that gentleman, but eventually, by the replies, was compelled to continue the series as a personal vindication. According to a letter of Daniel Carrol, Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer replied in the newspapers to Martin, but I have not been able to identify this.
In the _New York Journal_ for June 17, 1788, is a comparison of the constitution as agreed upon early in the convention, with that finally framed, which was probably written by Martin.
Luther Martin, I.
The Maryland Journal, (Number 1004)
FRIDAY, JANUARY 18, 1788.
MR. WILLIAM GODDARD:
_Sir_,
As the Publication under the Signature of the Connecticut Landholder is circulating remote from the place of Mr. Gerry’s residence, and is calculated not only to injure the honourable gentleman in his private character, but also to weaken the effect of his opposition to the government proposed by the late convention, and thereby promote the adoption of a System which I consider destructive of the rights and liberties of the respective states and of their citizens, I beg leave, through the channel of your Paper, to declare to the Public that from the time I took my seat in convention, which was early in June, until the fourth day of September, when I left Philadelphia, I am satisfied I was not ten minutes absent from convention while sitting (excepting only five days in the beginning of August, immediately after the committee of detail had reported, during which but little business was done). That during my attendance I never heard Mr. Gerry or any other member introduce a proposition for the redemption of continental money according to its nominal or any other value, nor did I ever hear that such a proposition had been offered to consideration or had been thought of. I was intimate with Mr. Gerry, and never heard him express, in private conversation or otherwise, a wish for the redemption of continental money, or assign the want of such a provision as a defect. Nor did I ever hear in Convention, or anywhere else, such a motive of conduct attributed to Mr. Gerry. I also declare to the Public that a considerable time before I left the convention Mr. Gerry’s opposition to the System was warm and decided; that in a particular manner he strenuously opposed that provision by which the power and authority over the militia is taken away from the States and given to the general government; that in the debate he declared if that measure was adopted it would be the most convincing proof that the destruction of the State governments and the introduction of a king was designed, and that no declarations to the contrary ought to be credited, since it was giving the states the last coup de grace by taking from them the only means of self preservation. The conduct of the advocates and framers of this system towards the thirteen States, in pretending that it was designed for their advantage, and gradually obtaining power after power to the general government, which could not but end in their slavery, he compared to the conduct of a number of jockeys who had thirteen young colts to break; they begin with the appearance of kindness, giving them a lock of hay, or a handful of oats, and stroaking them while they eat, until being rendered sufficiently gentle they suffer a halter to be put round their necks; obtaining a further degree of their confidence, the jockeys slip a curb bridle on their heads and the bit into their mouths, after which the saddle follows of course, and well booted and spurred, with good whips in their hands, they mount and ride them at their pleasure, and although they may kick and flounce a little at first, nor being able to get rid of their riders, they soon become as tame and passive as their masters could wish them. In the course of public debate in the convention Mr. Gerry applied to the system of government, as then under discussion, the words of Pope with respect to vice, “that it was a monster of such horrid mien, as to be hated need but to be seen.” And some time before I left Philadelphia, he in the same public manner declared in convention that he should consider himself a traitor to his country if he did not oppose the system there, and also when he left the convention. These, sir, are facts which I do not fear being contradicted by any member of the convention, and will, I apprehend, satisfactorily shew that Mr. Gerry’s opposition proceeded from a conviction in his own mind that the government, if adopted, would terminate in the destruction of the States and in the introduction of a kingly government.
I am, sir, your very obedient servant,
LUTHER MARTIN.
_Baltimore, January 13, 1788._
Luther Martin, II.
The Maryland Journal, (Number 1018)
FRIDAY, MARCH 7, 1788.
MR. GODDARD:
_Sir_,