A Native of Virginia, Observations

IT was diſcovered ſoon after the peace, that the Confederation, in its preſent form, was wholly inadequate to the end •f its creation; that of making America one State, for great •ational purpoſes. As ſoon as peace took place, confuſion in very department of Congreſs, ruin of public and private •redit, decay of trade, and loſs of importance abroad, were •he immediate conſequences of the radical defects in the Confe•eration. During the war, the fear of a powerful enemy •nſwered all the purpoſes of the moſt energetic government, •ut as ſoon as that fear was removed, the thirteen United •tates began to draw different ways. Some refuſed to ratify •he treaty of peace; others neglected to pay their reſpective •uotas to the public Treaſury; and others abſolutely rejected •he moſt ſalutary propoſitions of Congreſs; propoſitions to •hich the greater number of States readily aſſented. In vain •ave Congreſs called upon the different States to pay up their •uotas in order to ſupport the falling credit of America: In •ain have they pointed out to them the neceſſity of eſtabliſhing •heir public faith as a nation, by complying with their treaties: •n vain have they recommended to them to forego their own •mmediate intereſts, and conſider the intereſts of the Union. •ongreſs might adviſe, or recommend meaſures: might ap•ove the conduct of ſome States, and condemn that of others; ••ht preach up public faith, honour, and juſtice: But was this ſufficient to preſerve a union of thirteen States, or ſupport a national government? It had no authority, its powers expired at the peace, became a dead letter, for the fear of common danger was gone. Peace, which to other nations produces, and which under other circumſtances would have produced to us, the greateſt bleſſings, was pregnant with the greateſt evil; diſunion, the certain parent of internal quarrels, diſorder, and blood-ſhed. In this ſituation of America, ſome of the beſt and wiſeſt of her citizens, lamenting that the term of her glory was ſo ſhort, and dreading the fatal conſequences which would neceſſarily follow from diſunion, propoſed that a Convention of the States ſhould be called for the purpoſes of amending the Confederation. The wiſdom of the meaſure was inſtantly ſeen: It was approved by Congreſs, recommended to, and adopted by the States.

IT is on all hands agreed, that an abler or more upright Aſſembly never met in America, than the late Convention held at Philadelphia. The original deſign of their meeting was to amend the preſent Articles of Confederation: But upon conſulting together; upon accurately inveſtigating the Confederation, and informing each other of the real ſituation of their reſpective States, they ſaw ſo many radical defects in the one, and ſo many alarming appearances in the other, as induced them readily and unanimouſly to modify the Federal Conſtitution: And after four months ſpent in painful inquiries, and diligent labour, produced the frame of government now offered to the conſideration of the citizens of America. A form of government, which the Preſident of the Convention, with the modeſty peculiar to him, acknowledges to be in ſome reſpects defective; but which he likewiſe tells us, was the reſult of a ſpirit of amity, and of that mutual deference and conceſſion which the peculiarity of our political ſituation rendered in diſpenſible.

WHEN we take a view of the reſpectable names who met upon this occaſion, and compoſed this plan of government, we ought to approach it with deference and reſpect. Though not in ſuch a manner as to deprive us of the power of diſcovering its faults; yet with ſuch liberality as will lead us to conſider it as the reſult of the deliberations of good and able men, actuated by juſt motives, and governed by pure principles. Men not ſwayed by ſelfiſh proſpects, but urged to action by general philanthropy, and the deſire of handing to poſterity the beſt form of Federal Government, that America is capable of receiving, or perhaps that was ever offered to the conſideration of mankind.

IF we read the propoſed plan under theſe ideas, and think we diſcover imperfections, and faults; ought we not rather to diſtruſt our own perceptions, than the underſtandings of its makers? Becauſe it is much more probable, that a ſingle reader, even of great capacity, ſhould be miſtaken, than that ſo reſpectable a body as the Convention, with minds equally enlightened, and more unbiaſed, ſhould, after the freeſt and fulleſt inveſtigation of this important ſubject, be wrong.

I confeſs I am not one of thoſe who would adopt without conſideration, or blindly purſue a plan produced by any body of men, however eminent their characters for wiſdom and virtue. "Not to pin my faith upon the ſleeve of any man," was one of my earlieſt leſſons. However, I am perſuaded that the work before us, requires no blind followers: but ſtanding upon the baſis of its intrinſic merit, poſſeſſes ſtrength ſufficient to withſtand the ſhocks of its moſt powerful enemies. Often have I read this work; and ſometimes diſcovered, as I thought, important defects; yet upon doubting my own judgment, and reading it again, have generally found the fault in myſelf, not in the Conſtitution. Yet I will not pretend to ſay that it is perfect. Did perfection ever come from the hands of man? If 〈◊〉 were perfect, it would be illy ſuited to our imperfect capacities. Government in itſelf is not a poſitive good; but ſomething introduced by ſocieties to prevent poſitive evil. The beſt frame of government is that which is moſt likely to prevent the greateſt ſum of evil. Such I apprehend is the government now under conſideration. Had the deſign of the Convention been to frame a Conſtitution for any individual State, they might perhaps have produced one, in the abſtract, ſtill nearer perfection. But far different was the purpoſe of their meeting! and I feel myſelf happy in concurring with that auguſt body in thinking, that it is the beſt government which could be obtained for the thirteen States of America. Under this impreſſion I ſhall attempt to explain thoſe parts of it which are, or have been ſuppoſed to be difficult; and to anſwer ſome of the principal objections which have been made to it.

BEFORE we enter into a diſcuſſion of the different articles which compoſe the Conſtitution, it may not be improper to take into conſideration the queſtion reſpecting a Bill of Rights; which many, from habit and prejudices, rather than from reaſon, and truth, have thought neceſſary; and upon the want of it have founded one of their principal objections.

FEW people know the origin of the term; ſtill fewer have conſidered, without prejudice, the neceſſity of the thing. What is a Bill of Rights? A declaration inſiſted on by a free people, and recognized by their rulers, that certain principles ſhall be the invariable rules of their adminiſtration; becauſe the preſervation of theſe principles are neceſſary for the preſervation of liberty. If this diſtinction be juſt; can there be a difference, whether theſe principles are eſtabliſhed in a ſeparate declaration, or are interwoven and made a part of the Conſtitution itſelf? Is an infringement of a Bill of Rights by the Governing powers, of more ſerious conſequence, than an infringement of the frame of government? The queſtion carries the anſwer along with it. That there is no diſtinction between them is a truth, an attempt to prove which would be an offence againſt common ſenſe.

OF all the European governments a Bill of Rights is known I believe, to that of England alone. The cauſe of this is obvious. The liberty of that country has been procured and eſtabliſhed by gradual encroachments upon the regal powers ſeized by, if not yielded to, the firſt Prince of the Norman family. The firſt declaration of this ſort found in the hiſtory of that government, is the Charter of Hen. the 1ſt, obtained in conſequence of that Monarch's feeble title to the Throne. The frequent infractions of that Charter by Henry himſelf, a• well as by ſubſequent Monarchs, produced the famous Magna Charta of John, which is generally conſidered as the foundation of Engliſh freedom. But in thoſe ages of darkneſs, when ſcarcely a rule of deſcent was fixed, much leſs principles in politics eſtabliſhed, Charters, or Declarations of Rights, were ſoon loſt ſight of, whenever intereſt induced, and circumſtances offered opportunities to the Engliſh Princes, to infringe them.

Theſe violations gave riſe to the Charter of Hen. 3d, which was of much more importance than any of the preceding; and the diſcontents and confuſions which led to it, in the end gave birth to the Houſe of Commons. From this period ſome ideas of liberty began to prevail in the nation, but which for a long courſe of years were obſcured by turbulent Barons, long and deſtructive civil wars, and the arbitrary government of an able line of Princes. The art of printing, the reformation, and the reſtoration of letters, at length enlightened the minds of men: Juſt ideas of liberty now prevailed, and the Commons ſaw, that if the powers exerciſed by the Tudors were to continue in their new Sovereigns, all hope of liberty was at an end. Their reſtleſs ſpirit frequently ſhewed itſelf during the reign of Elizabeth; but that prudent Princeſs had the addreſs to allay their fears, and the vigour to repreſs their ſpirit. A new and foreign race of Princes now aſcend the Throne. The opportunity was not to be loſt: Political poſitions were laid down in, and eſtabliſhed by the Houſe of Commons, which were conſidered by many as extraordinary, as they were true.

JAMES, without the tallents, affected to reign with as high an hand as the Tudors. Charles unfortunately for himſelf, had been educated in the prejudices of his father. His ill-adviſed and arbitrary meaſures, involved him in difficulties which produced the Petition of Right in 1628. In this was ſet forth the unalienable rights of Engliſh-men. New infractions produced new quarrels; which terminated in a total change of government. At the reſtoration all was joy and feſtivity. The tide of royalty ran too high, to think of Bills of Rights, or privileges of Engliſh-men. The conduct of James the 2d, the laſt King of that ill-fated family, involved the nation in freſh diſcontents: The Prince of Orange is called to its aſſiſtance: The King quits the Kingdom: The Throne is declared vacant; and William afcended it upon terms ſtipulated in a Bill of Rights. It may be aſked, why did the Engliſh conſider a Bill of Rights neceſſary for the ſecurity of their liberty? The anſwer is, becauſe they had no written Conſtitution, or form of 〈…〉 the Engliſh Conſtitution is no more than an aſſemblage of certain powers in certain perſons, ſancti•ied by uſage and defined by the authority of the Sovereignty; not by the people in any compact entered into between them and their rulers.

If at the revolution the Engliſh had fully marked out the government under which they choſe in future to live, without contenting themſelves with •ſtabliſhing certain principles, 〈◊〉 Bill of Rights, can there be a doubt, but that ſuch frame of government would have ſupplied the place of, and rendered unneceſſary, a Bill of Rights?

FORMER Princes had pretended to a divine right of governing: William acknowledged his to flow from the people, and previouſly to his aſcending the Throne, entered into a contract with them, which recognized that juſt and ſalutary principle. Had the Engliſh at this time limited the regal power in definite terms, inſtead of ſatisfying themſelves with a Bill of Rights, there would have been an end of prerogative: but they from habit were contented with a Bill of Rights, leaving the prerogative ſtill inaccurately defined, to claim by implification, the exerciſe of all the powers not denied it by tha• declaration.

WHEN the United Netherlands threw off their dependence on the Crown of Spain and paſſed their act of Union, the• thought not of any Bill of Rights; becauſe they well knew tha• the States General could have no right nor pretext to paſs th• bounds preſcribed by that celebrated act: So in the inſtanc• before us, Congreſs have no right, and can have no pretext to paſs the bounds preſcribed them by this Federal Conſtitution and the powers conceded to the Federal Government by th• reſpective States, under this government, are as accurately defined, as they poſſibly could have been in a Declaration o• Rights.

WHEN Independence was declared by the Americans, the had no government to controul them: Were free to chuſ• the form moſt agreeable to themſelves. Six of theſe State have no Bill of Rights; wiſely judging, that ſuch declaration rend to abridge, rather than preſerve their liberties. The conſidered their Conſtitutions as the evidence of the ſocial compact between the governors and the governed, and the only proof of the rights yielded to the former. In all diſputes reſpecting the exerciſe of power, the Conſtitution or frame of government decides. If the right is given up by the Conſtitution, the governors exerciſe it; if not, the people retain it. Each of the remaining ſeven States has a Declaration of Rights, adopted rather from habit ariſing from the uſe in the Engliſh government, than from its being neceſſary to the preſervation of their liberties.