DEAR SIR,

The great object of a free people must be so to form their government

and laws, and so to administer them, as to create a confidence in, and

respect for the laws; and thereby induce the sensible and virtuous part

of the community to declare in favor of the laws, and to support them

without an expensive military force. I wish, though I confess I have

not much hope, that this may be the case with the laws of congress

under the new constitution. I am fully convinced that we must organize

the national government on different principals, and make the parts

of it more efficient, and secure in it more effectually the different

interests in the community; or else leave in the state governments some

powers proposed to be lodged in it—at least till such an organization

shall be found to be practicable. Not sanguine in my expectations

of a good federal administration, and satisfied, as I am, of the

impracticability of consolidating the states, and at the same time of

preserving the rights of the people at large, I believe we ought still

to leave some of those powers in the state governments, in which the

people, in fact, will still be represented—to define some other powers

proposed to be vested in the general government, more carefully, and to

establish a few principles to secure a proper exercise of the powers

given it. It is not my object to multiply objections, or to contend

about inconsiderable powers or amendments. I wish the system adopted

with a few alterations; but those, in my mind, are essential ones;

if adopted without, [16] every good citizen will acquiesce, though I

shall consider the duration of our governments, and the liberties of

this people, very much dependant on the administration of the general

government. A wise and honest administration, may make the people

happy under any government; but necessity only can justify even our

leaving open avenues to the abuse of power, by wicked, unthinking, or

ambitious men. I will examine, first, the organization of the proposed

government, in order to judge; 2d, with propriety, what powers are

improperly, at least prematurely lodged in it. I shall examine, 3d, the

undefined powers; and 4th, those powers, the exercise of which is not

secured on safe and proper ground.

First. As to the organization——the house of representatives, the

democrative branch, as it is called, is to consist of 65 members:

that is, about one representative for fifty thousand inhabitants, to

be chosen biennially——the federal legislature may increase this

number to one for each thirty thousand inhabitants, abating fractional

numbers in each state.——Thirty-three representatives will make a

quorum for doing business, and a majority of those present determine

the sense of the house.——I have no idea that the interests, feelings,

and opinions of three or four millions of people, especially touching

internal taxation, can be collected in such a house.——In the nature

of things, nine times in ten, men of the elevated classes in the

community only can be chosen——Connecticut, for instance, will have

five representatives——not one man in a hundred of those who form

the democrative branch in the state legislature, will, on a fair

computation, be one of the five.—The people of this country, in one

sense, may all be democratic; but if we make the proper distinction

between the few men of wealth and abilities, and consider them, as we

ought, as the natural aristocracy of the country, and the great body

of the people, the middle and lower classes, as the democracy, this

federal representative branch will have but very little democracy

in it, even this small representation is not secured on proper

principles.——The branches of the legislature are essential parts

of the fundamental compact, and ought to be so fixed by the people,

that the legislature cannot alter itself by modifying the elections

of its own members. This, by a part of Art. I, Sect. 4, the general

legislature may do, it may evidently so regulate elections as to secure

the choice of any particular description of men.——It may make the

whole state one district—make the capital, or any places in the state,

the place or places of election—it may declare that the five men (or

whatever the number may be the state may chuse) who shall have the

most votes shall be considered as chosen. ——In this [17] case it

is easy to perceive how the people who live scattered in the inland

towns will bestow their votes on different men—and how a few men in a

city, in any order or profession, may unite and place any five men they

please highest among those that may be voted for——and all this may be

done constitutionally, and by those silent operations, which are not

immediately perceived by the people in general.——I know it is urged,

that the general legislature will be disposed to regulate elections on

fair and just principles:——This may be true—good men will generally

govern well with almost any constitution: but why in laying the

foundation of the social system, need we unnecessarily leave a door

open to improper regulations?—This is a very general and unguarded

clause, and many evils may flow from that part which authorises the

congress to regulate elections.——Were it omitted, the regulations

of elections would be solely in the respective states, where the

people are substantially represented; and where the elections ought

to be regulated, otherwise to secure a representation from all parts

of the community, in making the constitutions, we ought to provide

for dividing each state into a proper number of districts, and for

confining the electors in each district to the choice of some men, who

shall have a permanent interest and residence in it; and also for this

essential object, that the representative elected shall have a majority

of the votes of those electors who shall attend and give their votes.

In considering the practicability of having a full and equal

representation of the people from all parts of the union, not only

distances and different opinions, customs and views, common in

extensive tracts of country, are to be taken into view, but many

differences peculiar to Eastern, Middle, and Southern States. These

differences are not so perceivable among the members of congress, and

men of general information in the states, as among the men who would

properly form the democratic branch. The Eastern states are very

democratic, and composed chiefly of moderate freeholders; they have but

few rich men and no slaves; the Southern states are composed chiefly

of rich planters and slaves; they have but few moderate freeholders,

and the prevailing influence, in them is generally a dissipated

aristocracy: The Middle states partake partly of the Eastern and partly

of the Southern character.

Perhaps, nothing could be more disjointed, unwieldly and incompetent

to doing business with harmony and dispatch, than a federal house of

representatives properly numerous for the great objects of taxation,

&c. collected from the federal states; whether such men would ever

act in concert; whether they would not worry along a few years, and

then be the means of [18] separating the parts of the union, is very

problematical?——View this system in whatever form we can, propriety

brings us still to this point, a federal government possessed of

general and complete powers, as to those national objects which cannot

well come under the cognizance of the internal laws of the respective

states, and this federal government, accordingly, consisting of

branches not very numerous.

The house of representatives is on the plan of consolidation, but the

senate is entirely on the federal plan; and Delaware will have as

much constitutional influence in the senate, as the largest state in

the union: and in this senate are lodged legislative, executive and

judicial powers: Ten states in this union urge that they are small

states, nine of which were present in the convention.—They were

interested in collecting large powers into the hands of the senate, in

which each state still will have its equal share of power. I suppose

it was impracticable for the three large states, as they were called,

to get the senate formed on any other principles: But this only

proves, that we cannot form one general government on equal and just

principles—and proves, that we ought not to lodge in it such extensive

powers before we are convinced of the practicability of organizing it

on just and equal principles. The senate will consist of two members

from each state, chosen by the state legislatures, every sixth year.

The clause referred to, respecting the elections of representatives,

empowers the general legislature to regulate the elections of senators

also, “except as to the places of chusing senators.”—There is,

therefore, but little more security in the elections than in those of

representatives: Fourteen senators make a quorum for business, and a

majority of the senators present give the vote of the senate, except

in giving judgment upon an impeachment, or in making treaties, or

in expelling a member, when two-thirds of the senators present must

agree.—The members of the legislature are not excluded from being

elected to any military offices, or any civil offices, except those

created, or the emoluments of which shall be increased by themselves:

two-thirds of the members present, of either house, may expel a member

at pleasure. The senate is an independent branch of the legislature, a

court for trying impeachments, and also a part of the executive, having

a negative in the making of all treaties, and in appointing almost all

officers.

The vice president is not a very important, if not an unnecessary part

of the system—he may be a part of the senate at one period, and act as

the supreme executive magistrate at another.——The election of this

officer, as well as of the president of the United States seems to be

properly secured; but [19] when we examine the powers of the president,

and the forms of the executive, we shall perceive that the general

government, in this part, will have a strong tendency to aristocracy,

or the government of the few. The executive is, in fact, the president

and senate in all transactions of any importance; the president is

connected with, or tied to the senate; he may always act with the

senate, but never can effectually counteract its views: The president

can appoint no officer, civil or military, who shall not be agreeable

to the senate; and the presumption is, that the will of so important a

body will not be very easily controlled, and that it will exercise its

powers with great address.

In the judicial department, powers ever kept distinct in well balanced

governments, are no less improperly blended in the hands of the same

men—in the judges of the supreme court is lodged the law, the equity

and the fact. It is not necessary to pursue the minute organical parts

of the general government proposed.—There were various interests in

the convention, to be reconciled, especially of large and small states;

of carrying and non-carrying states; and of states more and states

less democratic—vast labour and attention were by the convention

bestowed on the organization of the parts of the constitution offered;

still it is acknowledged there are many things radically wrong in the

essential parts of this constitution—but it is said that these are

the result of our situation: On a full examination of the subject,

I believe it; but what do the laborious inquiries and determination

of the convention prove? If they prove any thing, they prove that we

cannot consolidate the states on proper principles: The organization

of the government presented proves, that we cannot form a general

government in which all power can be safely lodged; and a little

attention to the parts of the one proposed will make it appear very

evident, that all the powers proposed to be lodged in it, will not be

then well deposited, either for the purposes of government, or the

preservation of liberty. I will suppose no abuse of power in those

cases, in which the abuse of it is not well guarded against—I will

suppose the words authorizing the general government to regulate the

elections of its own members struck out of the plan, or free district

elections, in each state, amply secured.—That the small representation

provided for shall be as fair and equal as it is capable of being

made—I will suppose the judicial department regulated on pure

principles, by future laws, as far as it can be by the constitution,

and consist with the situation of the country—still there will be an

unreasonable accumulation of powers in the general government if all be

granted, enumerated in the plan proposed. The plan does not present a

well balanced government: The senatorial [20] branch of the legislative

and the executive are substantially united, and the president, or

the state executive magistrate, may aid the senatorial interest when

weakest, but never can effectually support the democratic, however

it may be opposed;—the excellency, in my mind, of a well-balanced

government is that it consists of distinct branches, each sufficiently

strong and independant to keep its own station, and to aid either of

the other branches which may occasionally want aid.

The convention found that any but a small house of representatives

would be expensive, and that it would be impracticable to assemble

a large number of representatives. Not only the determination of the

convention in this case, but the situation of the states, proves

the impracticability of collecting, in any one point, a proper

representation.

The formation of the senate, and the smallness of the house, being,

therefore, the result of our situation, and the actual state of things,

the evils which may attend the exercise of many powers in this national

government may be considered as without a remedy.

All officers are impeachable before the senate only—before the men

by whom they are appointed, or who are consenting to the appointment

of these officers. No judgment of conviction, on an impeachment,

can be given unless two thirds of the senators agree. Under these

circumstances the right of impeachment, in the house, can be of but

little importance; the house cannot expect often to convict the

offender; and, therefore, probably, will but seldom or never exercise

the right. In addition to the insecurity and inconveniences attending

this organization beforementioned, it may be observed, that it is

extremely difficult to secure the people against the fatal effects of

corruption and influence. The power of making any law will be in the

president, eight senators, and seventeen representatives, relative to

the important objects enumerated in the constitution. Where there is

a small representation a sufficient number to carry any measure, may,

with ease, be influenced by bribes, offices and civilities; they easily

form private juntoes, and out-door meetings, agree on measures, and

carry them by silent votes.

Impressed, as I am, with a sense of the difficulties there are in the

way of forming the parts of a federal government on proper principles,

and seeing a government so unsubstantially organized, after so arduous

an attempt has been made, I am led to believe, that powers ought to be

given to it with great care and caution.

In the second place it is necessary, therefore, to examine the extent,

and the probable operations of some of those ex- [21] tensive powers

proposed to be vested in this government. These powers, legislative,

executive, and judicial, respect internal as well as external objects.

Those respecting external objects, as all foreign concerns, commerce,

imposts, all causes arising on the seas, peace and war, and Indian

affairs, can be lodged no where else, with any propriety, but in this

government. Many powers that respect internal objects ought clearly to

be lodged in it; as those to regulate trade between the states, weights

and measures, the coin or current monies, post-offices, naturalization,

&c. These powers may be exercised without essentially effecting the

internal police of the respective states: But powers to lay and collect

internal taxes, to form the militia, to make bankrupt laws, and to

decide on appeals, questions arising on the internal laws of the

respective states, are of a very serious nature, and carry with them

almost all other powers. These taken in connection with the others, and

powers to raise armies and build navies, proposed to be lodged in this

government, appear to me to comprehend all the essential powers in this

community, and those which will be left to the states will be of no

great importance.

A power to lay and collect taxes at discretion, is, in itself, of very

great importance. By means of taxes, the government may command the

whole or any part of the subject’s property. Taxes may be of various

kinds; but there is a strong distinction between external and internal

taxes. External taxes are import duties, which are laid on imported

goods; they may usually be collected in a few seaport towns, and of a

few individuals, though ultimately paid by the consumer; a few officers

can collect them, and they can be carried no higher than trade will

bear, or smuggling permit—that in the very nature of commerce, bounds

are set to them. But internal taxes, as poll and land taxes, excises,

duties on all written instruments, &c. may fix themselves on every

person and species of property in the community; they may be carried to

any lengths, and in proportion as they are extended, numerous officers

must be employed to assess them, and to enforce the collection of

them. In the United Netherlands the general government has compleat

powers, as to external taxation; but as to internal taxes, it makes

requisitions on the provinces. Internal taxation in this country is

more important, as the country is so very extensive. As many assessors

and collectors of federal taxes will be above three hundred miles from

the seat of the federal government as will be less. Besides, to lay and

collect taxes, in this extensive country, must require a great number

of congressional ordinances immediately operating upon the body of the

people; these must continually interfere with the state laws, [22] and

thereby produce disorder and general dissatisfaction, till the one

system of laws or the other, operating on the same subjects, shall be

abolished. These ordinances alone, to say nothing of those respecting

the militia, coin, commerce, federal judiciary, &c. &c. will probably

soon defeat the operations of the state laws and governments.

Should the general government think it politic, as some administration

(if not all) probably will, to look for a support in a system of

influence, the government will take every occasion to multiply laws,

and officers to execute them, considering these as so many necessary

props for its own support. Should this system of policy be adopted,

taxes more productive than the impost duties will, probably, be wanted

to support the government, and to discharge foreign demands, without

leaving any thing for the domestic creditors. The internal sources of

taxation then must be called into operation, and internal tax laws and

federal assessors and collectors spread over this immense country.

All these circumstances considered, is it wise, prudent, or safe, to

vest the powers of laying and collecting internal taxes in the general

government, while imperfectly organized and inadequate; and to trust

to amending it hereafter, and making it adequate to this purpose? It

is not only unsafe but absurd to lodge power in a government before

it is fitted to receive it. It is confessed that this power and

representation ought to go together. Why give the power first? Why

give the power to the few, who, when possessed of it, may have address

enough to prevent the increase of representation? Why not keep the

power, and, when necessary, amend the constitution, and add to its

other parts this power, and a proper increase of representation at

the same time? Then men who may want the power will be under strong

inducements to let in the people, by their representatives, into the

government, to hold their due proportion of this power. If a proper

representation be impracticable, then we shall see this power resting

in the states, where it at present ought to be, and not inconsiderately

given up.

When I recollect how lately congress, conventions, legislatures, and

people contended in the cause of liberty, and carefully weighed the

importance of taxation, I can scarcely believe we are serious in

proposing to vest the powers of laying and collecting internal taxes

in a government so imperfectly organized for such purposes. Should

the United States be taxed by a house of representatives of two

hundred members, which would be about fifteen members for Connecticut,

twenty-five for Massachusetts, &c. still the middle and lower classes

of people could have no great share, in fact, in taxation. I am

aware it is said, that the representation proposed by the new [23]

constitution is sufficiently numerous; it may be for many purposes;

but to suppose that this branch is sufficiently numerous to guard the

rights of the people in the administration of the government, in which

the purse and sword is placed, seems to argue that we have forgot

what the true meaning of representation is. I am sensible also, that

it is said that congress will not attempt to lay and collect internal

taxes; that it is necessary for them to have the power, though it

cannot probably be exercised.——I admit that it is not probable that

any prudent congress will attempt to lay and collect internal taxes,

especially direct taxes: but this only proves, that the power would be

improperly lodged in congress, and that it might be abused by imprudent

and designing men.

I have heard several gentlemen, to get rid of objections to this part

of the constitution, attempt to construe the powers relative to direct

taxes, as those who object to it would have them; as to these, it is

said, that congress will only have power to make requisitions, leaving

it to the states to lay and collect them. I see but very little colour

for this construction, and the attempt only proves that this part of

the plan cannot be defended. By this plan there can be no doubt,

but that the powers of congress will be complete as to all kinds of

taxes whatever—Further, as to internal taxes, the state governments

will have concurrent powers with the general government, and both may

tax the same objects in the same year; and the objection that the

general government may suspend a state tax, as a necessary measure

for the promoting the collection of a federal tax, is not without

foundation.——As the states owe large debts, and have large demands

upon them individually, there clearly will be a propriety in leaving in

their possession exclusively, some of the internal sources of taxation,

at least until the federal representation shall be properly encreased:

The power in the general government to lay and collect internal taxes,

will render its powers respecting armies, navies and the militia, the

more exceptionable. By the constitution it is proposed that congress

shall have power “to raise and support armies, but no appropriation

of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; to

provide and maintain a navy; to provide for calling forth the militia

to execute the laws of the union; suppress insurrections, and repel

invasions: to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the

militia;” reserving to the states the right to appoint the officers,

and to train the militia according to the discipline prescribed by

congress; congress will have unlimited power to raise armies, and to

engage officers and men for any number of years; but a legislative

act applying money for their support can have operation for no longer

term than two years, and if a subsequent congress, do [24] not within

the two years renew the appropriation, or further appropriate monies

for the use of the army, the army will be left to take care of itself.

When an army shall once be raised for a number of years, it is not

probable that it will find much difficulty in getting congress to pass

laws for applying monies to its support. I see so many men in America

fond of a standing army, and especially among those who probably will

have a large share in administering the federal system; it is very

evident to me, that we shall have a large standing army as soon as

the monies to support them can be possibly found. An army is not a

very agreeable place of employment for the young gentlemen of many

families. A power to raise armies must be lodged some where; still

this will not justify the lodging this power in a bare majority of so

few men without any checks; or in the government in which the great

body of the people, in the nature of things, will be only nominally

represented. In the state governments the great body of the people,

the yeomanry, &c. of the country, are represented: It is true they

will chuse the members of congress, and may now and then chuse a man

of their own way of thinking; but it is not impossible for forty, or

thirty thousand people in this country, one time in ten to find a man

who can possess similar feelings, views, and interests with themselves:

Powers to lay and collect taxes and to raise armies are of the greatest

moment; for carrying them into effect, laws need not be frequently

made, and the yeomanry, &c. of the country ought substantially to have

a check upon the passing of these laws; this check ought to be placed

in the legislatures, or at least, in the few men the common people of

the country, will, probably, have in congress, in the true sense of

the word, “from among themselves.” It is true, the yeomanry of the

country possess the lands, the weight of property, possess arms, and

are too strong a body of men to be openly offended—and, therefore,

it is urged, they will take care of themselves, that men who shall

govern will not dare pay any disrespect to their opinions. It is easily

perceived, that if they have not their proper negative upon passing

laws in congress, or on the passage of laws relative to taxes and

armies, they may in twenty or thirty years be by means imperceptible to

them, totally deprived of that boasted weight and strength: This may be

done in a great measure by congress, if disposed to do it, by modelling

the militia. Should one fifth or one eighth part of the men capable of

bearing arms, be made a select militia, as has been proposed, and those

the young and ardent part of the community, possessed of but little

or no property, and all the others put upon a plan that will render

them of no importance, the former will answer all the purposes of an

[25] army, while the latter will be defenceless. The state must train

the militia in such form and according to such systems and rules as

congress shall prescribe: and the only actual influence the respective

states will have respecting the militia will be in appointing the

officers. I see no provision made for calling out the _posse comitatus_

for executing the laws of the union, but provision is made for congress

to call forth the militia for the execution of them—and the militia

in general, or any select part of it, may be called out under military

officers, instead of the sheriff to enforce an execution of federal

laws, in the first instance, and thereby introduce an entire military

execution of the laws. I know that powers to raise taxes, to regulate

the military strength of the community on some uniform plan, to provide

for its defence and internal order, and for duly executing the laws,

must be lodged somewhere; but still we ought not so to lodge them, as

evidently to give one order of men in the community, undue advantages

over others; or commit the many to the mercy, prudence, and moderation

of the few. And so far as it may be necessary to lodge any of the

peculiar powers in the general government, a more safe exercise of

them ought to be secured, by requiring the consent of two-thirds or

three-fourths of congress thereto—until the federal representation can

be increased, so that the democratic members in congress may stand some

tolerable chance of a reasonable negative, in behalf of the numerous,

important, and democratic part of the community.

I am not sufficiently acquainted with the laws and internal police of

all the states to discern fully, how general bankrupt laws, made by the

union, would effect them, or promote the public good. I believe the

property of debtors, in the several states, is held responsible for

their debts in modes and forms very different. If uniform bankrupt laws

can be made without producing real and substantial inconveniences, I

wish them to be made by congress.

There are some powers proposed to be lodged in the general government

in the judicial department, I think very unnecessarily, I mean

powers respecting questions arising upon the internal laws of the

respective states. It is proper the federal judiciary should have

powers co-extensive with the federal legislature—that is, the power

of deciding finally on the laws of the union. By Art. 3, Sec. 2. the

powers of the federal judiciary are extended (among other things)

to all cases between a state and citizens of another state—between

citizens of different states—between a state or the citizens thereof,

and foreign states, citizens or subjects. Actions in all these cases,

except against a state government, are now brought and finally [26]

determined in the law courts of the states respectively and as there

are no words to exclude these courts of their jurisdiction in these

cases, they will have concurrent jurisdiction with the inferior federal

courts in them; and, therefore, if the new constitution be adopted

without any amendment in this respect, all those numerous actions,

now brought in the state courts between our citizens and foreigners,

between citizens of different states, by state governments against

foreigners, and by state governments against citizens of other states,

may also be brought in the federal courts; and an appeal will lay in

them from the state courts or federal inferior courts to the supreme

judicial court of the union. In almost all these cases, either party

may have the trial by jury in the state courts; except paper money

and tender laws, which are wisely guarded against in the proposed

constitution; justice may be obtained in these courts on reasonable

terms; they must be more competent to proper decisions on the laws of

their respective states, than the federal states can possibly be. I do

not, in any point of view, see the need of opening a new jurisdiction

in these causes—of opening a new scene of expensive law suits, of

suffering foreigners, and citizens of different states, to drag each

other many hundred miles into the federal courts. It is true, those

courts may be so organized by a wise and prudent legislature, as to

make the obtaining of justice in them tolerably easy; they may in

general be organized on the common law principles of the country: But

this benefit is by no means secured by the constitution. The trial by

jury is secured only in those few criminal cases, to which the federal

laws will extend—as crimes committed on the seas, against the laws

of nations, treason and counterfeiting the federal securities and

coin: But even in these cases, the jury trial of the vicinage is not

secured—particularly in the large states, a citizen may be tried

for a crime committed in the state, and yet tried in some states 500

miles from the place where it was committed; but the jury trial is

not secured at all in civil causes. Though the convention have not

established this trial, it is to be hoped that congress, in putting

the new system into execution, will do it by a legislative act, in

all cases in which it can be done with propriety. Whether the jury

trial is not excluded the supreme judicial court is an important

question. By Art. 3, Sec. 2, all cases affecting ambassadors, other

public ministers, and consuls, and in those cases in which a state

shall be party, the supreme court shall have jurisdiction. In all the

other cases beforementioned, the supreme court shall have appellate

jurisdiction, both as to _law and fact_, with such exception, and under

such regulations as the congress shall make. By court is understood a

court consisting of judges; and the [27] idea of a jury is excluded.

This court, or the judges, are to have jurisdiction on appeals, in all

the cases enumerated, as to law and fact; the judges are to decide the

law and try the fact, and the trial of the fact being assigned to the

judges by the constitution, a jury for trying the fact is excluded;

however, under the exceptions and powers to make regulations, congress

may, perhaps, introduce the jury, to try the fact in most necessary

cases.

There can be but one supreme court in which the final jurisdiction

will centre in all federal causes—except in cases where appeals by

law shall not be allowed: The judicial powers of the federal courts

extend in law and equity to certain cases: and, therefore, the

powers to determine on the law, in equity, and as to the fact, all

will concentrate in the supreme court:—These powers, which by this

constitution are blended in the same hands, the same judges, are in

Great-Britain deposited in different hands—to wit, the decision of

the law in the law judges, the decision in equity in the chancellor,

and the trial of the fact in the jury. It is a very dangerous thing to

vest in the same judge power to decide on the law, and also general

powers in equity; for if the law restrain him, he is only to step into

his shoes of equity, and give what judgment his reason or opinion may

dictate; we have no precedents in this country, as yet, to regulate

the divisions in equity as in Great Britain; equity, therefore, in the

supreme court for many years will be mere discretion. I confess in the

constitution of this supreme court, as left by the constitution, I do

not see a spark of freedom or a shadow of our own or the British common

law.

This court is to have appellate jurisdiction in all the other cases

before mentioned: Many sensible men suppose that cases before mentioned

respect, as well the criminal cases as the civil ones mentioned

antecedently in the constitution, if so an appeal is allowed in

criminal cases—contrary to the usual sense of law. How far it may be

proper to admit a foreigner or the citizen of another state to bring

actions against state governments, which have failed in performing

so many, promises made during the war is doubtful: How far it may be

proper so to humble a state, as to oblige it to answer to an individual

in a court of law, is worthy of consideration; the states are now

subject to no such actions; and this new jurisdiction will subject the

states, and many defendants to actions, and processes, which were not

in the contemplation of the parties, when the contract was made; all

engagements existing between citizens of different states, citizens and

foreigners, states and foreigners; and states and citizens of other

states were made the parties contemplating the remedies then existing

on the laws of the states—— [28] and the new remedy proposed to be

given in the federal courts, can be founded on no principle whatever.

Your’s, &c.,

Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States Published During Its Discussion by the People 1787-1788 · 第 73 / 257 题