MR. GERRY TO GENERAL WARREN. MY DEAR SIR, PHILADELPHIA, AUG. 13, 1787. It is out of my power in return for the information you have given me to inform you of our proceedings in convention, but I think they will be complete in a month or six weeks, perhaps sooner. Whenever they shall be matured I sincerely hope they will be such as you and I can approve, and then they will not be engrafted with principles of mutability, corruption or despotism, principles which some, you and I know, would not dislike to find in our national constitution. I wish you had accepted a seat in congress, for the next year will be important. Adieu my dear sir.-Make my respects, &c. Hon. J. Warren. E. GERRY. On the 17th September 1787, this celebrated assembly announced to the country the result of its deliberations. Thirty-eight members subscribed the plan proposed. Sixteen signatures are wanting. Among the latter in addition to the subject of this memoir, was governour Randolph and Mr. Mason of Virginia, Mr. Lansing and chief justice Yeates of New-York, and Mr. Martin of Maryland. Mr. Strong* of Massachusetts obtained leave of absence before the final question was taken, so that the instrument bears the names of only two members from that state. It is somewhat remarkable that while governour Randolph supplied the original materials out of which the constitution was elaborated, they suffered such changes in their passage through the ordeal of the convention that he thought proper to withhold his consent to the plan, which they eventually assumed. * Afterwards governour of the commonwealth. CHAPTER II. Objects to the constitution.........His letter to the legislature of Massachusetts....... Objections considered...........Parties on the merits of the constitution. ......Judge Dana proposes to annihilate Rhode Island........Massachusetts convention to consider the constitution of the United States........Proceedings in convention........... His letter to the president........ Governour Hancock....... Constitution adopted. THE period, which has elapsed since the convention at Philadelphia terminated its session has allowed ample opportunity for ascertaining the competency of the constitution, which the wisdom of that assembly presented to the American people, for the great purposes it was intended to accomplish. Under the government, which from that time was established, the United States as a nation have acquired rank, wealth and power, which the eye of patriotism in the widest range of its prophetic vision could never have foreseen. The strength of the government for all purposes of national protection, and its inaptitude to any exertion adverse to the most perfect political liberty demonstrate the exact balance of those combined and contrarient principles, which render it formidable where power is to be exercised for general good, and harmless where an undue exertion of authority would endanger the personal security of the citizen. How much the prosperity of the country is attributable to the constitution of its government, how much has resulted from geographical position, what share has its cause in the intelligence, virtue and enterprise of the people, and how much has resulted from the prudence and ability of the successive administrations of its affairs, cannot now with any exactness be ascertained. The road on which we have travelled, though not without impediments and danger, has conducted us as we know to an elevated and commanding station ; what might have been the termination of another path is shut out from all human observation. Enjoying the great national blessings with which Providence has indulged us, we are forbidden to suppose that any other than the course we have taken could have been equally prosperous. Under the operation of the constitution the country has been eminently happy; and success so far as it has been procured by the instrumentality of the form of government, may be justly claimed by the advocates of that form as proof of their forecast and political skill. It is however to be considered that the constitution reported by the convention, although accepted and ratified by the people, has never been, or for a single year only, the actual frame of government for the nation. Amendments of a character if not essentially to change its original features, yet calculated to soften and remould them, were proposed at the first session of the first congress in New-York, and by the assent of the people became very soon a part of the fundamental law of the country. Between the advocates in the convention for one form or another the question is yet open to discussion whether the existing constitution with all its early amendments is conformable to the principles urged by those, who gave it originally their assent, or restores it to the plan of those, who were induced to withhold from it at first the sanction of their names. Mr. Gerry, as has been already remarked, was one of a minority in the convention who disapproved some of the principles, which the constitution finally assumed, and having arrived at the conclusion in his own mind that it did not comport with the well being of the country, with regret indeed but without hesitation he refused it the sanction of his name. This act of refusal, even admitting the validity of the objections, which existed in his own mind, has been charged upon him as impolitic, injudicious and unwise. He had laboured, it was said, with an industry and perseverance in the details of the scheme, which demonstrated a belief in the necessity of some essential change in the existing order of things; it must have been manifest that such change could only be the result of compromise and concession, and no practical statesman would believe that, when such were the means of operation, |