any assertion be more groundless, than one which cannot be true, without denying the well-known qualities of human nature, and without postponing previous events to subsequent periods? Irrevocable laws have as absolutely decided, that a perpetual struggle shall exist between liberty and tyranny, as between virtue and vice; and it is equally unjust to charge the advocates of a free form of government, or the advocates of moral rectitude, with the introduction of party spirit. Mr. Jefferson was in Europe, when our parties appeared in the convention. Subterfuges from historical truth, and local facts, indicate a consciousness of frailty, or a supremacy of prejudice.

The principles of limited monarchy were eulogized in the convention, and an attempt to establish a national government, was persevered in during the greater part of its session. These two parties are therefore unequivocally defined. The third party, called federal and truly republican, by Mr. Martin, could not be so clearly identified, because the various interpretations of the words federal and republican, enable political parties to decorate principles essentially different, with these robes admired by the publick. Like stars and garters, they may be used to adorn the most opposite characters, and the beholder who is content with their imposing surface, to ascertain patriotism or ambition, will act like one who ascertains the principles of individuals by the richness of their dress. But however indefinite may be the terms used by Mr. Martin to describe it, the journal demonstrates that a third party did exist in the convention, and that this third party successfully resisted both a monarchical and national form of government.

So far the journal literally sustains Mr. Martin's statement of facts, and to establish the last, namely, that the monarchical and national parties "rited, the evidence is not less conclusive. It is obvious from the journal, that the majority so long prevalent, was produced by a coalition between these two parties; and that had each of the three parties persisted separately to insist upon its own principles, the federal republican party would have been the strongest, although it received the aspect of a minority from the union of the other two. Of this union, the events between the formation and ratification of the constitution afford proofs.

What became of the monarchical and consolidating parties on the dissolution of the convention? Were their principles also dissolved, and did they become adverse to their own creeds? or did they, from the same policy which dictated their junction in the convention, and the same consciousness that the people of the states were not ripe for either of their systems, melt up themselves with the strong federal party, as a safer step towards their ultimate designs, than an open avowal of their principles ? Is it not as evident that this fusion of the monarchical and con solidating parties into one mass, took place to procure the ratification of the constitution, as that it was designed in the conven tion to introduce a national government? There are some me tals of properties so very similar, that their mutual attraction is highly amicable, and their amalgamation easy. Mr. Madison and Mr. Hamilton, the champions of the national and monarchical systems, liberally yielded to the example established in the convention, and renewed the same conciliatory treaty. The publick indeed was not edified by the arguments used by one of these accomplished men, for reducing the states to corporations, and establishing a supreme national government; nor by the eulogies of a limited monarchy, expressed by the other; and with unexampled felicity both substituted for the consolidating and monarchical dialect, used in the convention, a federal one, ingeniously constructed to accommodate itself with publick opinion, and also with the prepossessions of their respective partisans. Monarchy and consolidation disappeared from the question, con spicuous as they had been in the journal, and the term federal was adopted, because it would embrace the parties inclined to either, and also the party adverse to both, but friendly to a fede ral system. If this new dialect, so different from that used in the convention, was policy, the monarchical and consolidating parties will of course adhere to the same policy; if it was the consequence of an essential difference between a national and a federal government, a national dialect cannot be proper for con struing the constitution, since a federal dialect was necessary to procure its ratification. If these gentlemen wero sincero in the convention, the arguments they used in opposition to a federal system, cannot be applicable in defence of it; if they were in

genious in procuring the ratification of the constitution, the inge nuity consisted in copious solicitations of publick opinion by fe- . deral doctrines, mixed with tints transfused from the conclave, too faint to alarm the federal party, and yet sufficiently perceiva ble to obtain the concurrence of the consolidating and monarchi cal parties. The intimations that supremacy or sovereignty was lodged in Congress or the supreme federal court, enveloped in clouds of sound federal reasoning, was a profound or lucky piece of dexterity to effect both objects.

Truth has compelled me to admit, however it is to be deplored, that a superiority of talents will for ever appear on the side of a high-toned system of government. The adoption of the word federal as a political badge is an illustration of this fact. I do not recollect whether the Federalist was entitled to the applause merit. ed by this proof of genius; but whoever was its author, it was most happily contrived for covering the monarchical, consolidating, and federal partics. The last, at the time the constitution was ratified, was, and yet is, the most numerous. But unfortu nately, both then and since, no test existed for expelling heterogeneous mixtures. The genuine federal party in the convention, procceded upon two principles, one, that a republican equa lity between the states ought to be established; the other, that each state ought to enjoy the exclusive power of managing its local interests. Could not some device be invented emblematical of such principles? We do not discern, except in the convention, an avowed hostility to them. So far as this hostility can insinuate itself into the councils of a genuine federal party, it must corrupt or warp its principles, just as monarchical princi ples may corrupt republican. Monarchical or consolidating par ties, whilst they pretend to fight under federal colours, will fight for their own principles. They are seeds of disease in a federal union, which will be for over sprouting, and if they are not cra dicated as they appear by genuine federal principles, they will over-shadow and kill them.

A party "federal and truly republican," being thus deprived of half its motto, was forced to take the other half, and hoisted an ensign called republican; a definition which expelled from its ranks both the monarchical and consolidating parties. Ambi

tious and avaricious people were all disgusted with it. Many of the genuine federal party suspected it of a design to destroy the union, and therefore united with it slowly. The consolidating and monarchical parties, with more acuteness, porceived the devotion to a federal system, and therefore labored to keep this suspicion alive. Tho monarchical party, without much acuteness, could see that its object was infinitely more likely to be ef fected by consolidating constructions of the constitution, than by the federal constructions which obtained its ratification.

The political tactician who displayed a banner, with only the word federal writton upon it, ably copied the policy by which a conqueror makes a nation subservient to its own destruction. Federalists and republicans were engaged in hostilities by mo narchists and consolidators, who derived strength from their con Alicts, and expected victory from their divisions.

Between the monarchical party in the convention, which wished for a suppression of the stato governments; and the na tional party, which proposed that they should be mudo.depondçnt upon a supreme legislature, judiciary, and executive, a chink is undoubtedly discernible, and this chink is now said to be the place, not for crushing, but for securing a federal systèm, because it is baited with didactiek federalism, just as certain traps, baited with honey, are contrived to catch bears. But the chasm made by the ridiculous quarrel between the words federal and republi can, as if they were not twins which must dio or live together seems to be well contrived for entrapping, not bears, but sove reign states.

SECTION VII.

THE SUBJECT CONCLUDED.

Whether Yates's notes of the secret debates in the convention, are to bo considered as explanatory of the secret journal, or the Journal as explanatory of the notes, the connexion between them is so intimate, necessary, and uniform, as to stamp both histories with unquestionablo veracity. Every speech recorded by Yates, accords with some proposition recorded in the journal. Ilis notes coincide with Mr. Martin's account of parties. When Mr. Martin wrote, ho could not have had any knowledge of the notes; and when Mr. Yates made his notes, Mr. Martin's observations were not written. The reader can compare the fol lowing extracts both with the journal, and Martin's statements; Yates, page 97. "Governor Randolph candidly confessed, that his resolutions were not intended for a federal govern 46 ment, he meant a strong consolidated union, in which the idea of states should be nearly annihilated."

"Mr. Pinckney read his system, and confessed that it was ❝grounded on nearly the same principle as Mr. Randolph's re"solutions."

106. “Mr. Dickenson is for combining the state and national "legislatures in the same views and measures."

44

"Mr. Madison is of opinion, that whon we agreed to the first "resolve of having a national government, consisting of a supreme executive, judicial, and legislativo power; it was "then intended to operate the exclusion of a federal govern"ment, and the more extensive we made the basis, the greater "probability of duration, happiness, and good order."

107. "Mr. Wilson. The state governments ought to be preserved; the freedom of the people and their internal good "police, depends on their existence in full vigour; but such a 66 government can only answer local purposes. That it is not possible a general government, as despotick as even that of the