people. On the contrary, it hates whatever obstructs the gratification of these passions. If we have married Congress to men and money, and to several other rich wives, why should we endow it with an unlimited polygamy, by allowing it to take away the plain housewives of the states; and break the tenth commandment, in order to establish a political seraglio for satisfying the lusts of ambition? Truly, because the concubinage of power is exposed "to no restrictions except those imposed by the "laws of nature; because, though tremendous, it will be harm"less to the people, and will not become a depredator upon the "peaceful, inefficient, and unattractive rights of the state go"vernments, since power only inspires a love of glory; because "our federal rulers will use with moderation the powers by "which ambitious men have, in all ages, built up the monuments "of their aggrandizement; because they will never pilfer frag ❝ments from the temple of liberty; because ambition will as"cend and not descend; and because, abstractedly considered, 66 power has no allurements." But the author has not informed us what is to be done, if this glorious ambition should not prevent federal rulers from usurping the state rights of the people. Are the powers of these rulers exposed to no restrictions? Tremendous power, restrained only by the natural moderation of ambition, is a very new plan for a constitution. I imagined that our army and treasury were not a natural, but a conventional army and treasury, created "for the defence and welfare" of the confederated states, and not to establish a tremendous unlimited natural power. If they are used to fight the battles or fill the pockets of federal rulers, and the states should say to Congress, "You have perverted the powers of raising men and money " from the objects specified by the constitution," and Congress should answer, "True, but our power is exposed to no restric"tions, except those imposed by the laws of nature," would the sufficiency of the answer be admitted? If the new phrase, "imposed by the laws of nature," is a parody of "national go"vernment," it well expounds the design of the project for introducing that system.

Besides the restriction of the powers of the purse and the sword to federal objects, others abound in the constitution. Of

this nature are the restrictions of taxation, as to its modes; the concurrency of taxation; by which the states may also draw the last farthing from the people; comprising a mutual check; the division of the power of the sword in its great reservoir of the militia; the right of the states to raise fleets and armies in time of war; and the division of powers into delegated and reserved, not intended to be abrogated by the powers to tax and to raise armies. The resources of the constitution for enforcing these restrictions, are, state election of one branch of a federal legislature by the people, of another, by state legislatures, of a third, in a federal mode, and the natural state right of self-preservation. Congress are also restricted to three cases in calling out the militia, neither of which extends to fighting the battles of ambitious rulers; it cannot order them out of the United States; nor can it raise regular armies by compulsion. Finally, the sovereignty of the states is a barrier against the tremendous natural power contended for. "Ambitious men will not pilfer fragments from "state sovereignties." This admits their existence, and the question is, whether they constitute a temple of liberty, which ambition is only prohibited from pilfering by its natural moderation.

Tremendous powers are said to be harmless, and sufficiently restrained by the laws of nature; state powers to be peaceful, inefficient, and unattractive, but too arrogant to be restrained by these same laws; and federal rulers to be too ambitious to be guilty of petit larceny pilferings from the temple of state sovereignties. But may they not be inclined to commit grand larceny. The project of sweeping off all these sovereignties by the supremacy contended for, does not remove this apprehension. The doctrine of One of the People does indeed soar far above the petit larceny of pilfering fragments from the temple of state sovereignties, and magnanimously leaves not a fragment standing. It is a Gengis Khan in political conquest. Ambition uses any means, great or small, to effect its ends. Like a balloon, it even sometimes employs vapour to raise itself. The happy contrast between grand and petit larceny, furnishes the argument in favour of ambition. It is made to say, "I am too high"minded to be content with pilferings from the temple of state

"sovereignty, but I will nobly carry off the intire temple, by "proving that the states have no original rights, and that I hold "the purse and the sword subject to no restrictions but those of "the laws of my nature." As no moral edifice is more splendid than the temple of liberty, ambition in all ages aspires to the fame of pulling it down, and whether it succeeds by piecc-meal, or by a single exploit, by the sublimity of grand larceny, or the cunning of petit larcenies, has never been very material to the people, however its own fame may be graduated by an achievement which must owe its splendour to its superlative atrocity. These comfortable securities against the consequences of tremendous concentrated power, are founded upon the fine idea, "that power, abstractedly considered, has no allurements, and is "only desirable from its imposing associations," or that power ought to be gazed at abstractedly from man, or man abstractedly from his passions and qualities. By not associating man's qualities with power, it becomes a metaphysical thing, incapable of doing harm; or by stripping a man of his qualities, he may be converted in an idea as sublime as you please. To consider power abstractedly from its associations, or man abstractedly from his qualities, may be a sublimated mode of reasoning, highly agreeable to the aspiring sons of ambition, and yet quite unintel ligible to the humble admirers of common sense. Let us reduce this reasoning in favour of a supreme consolidated government to the form of a constitutional article. "The powers of the of the purse "and the sword herein delegated, are subject to no restrictions, 66 except those imposed by the laws of nature. They may there "fore be used to fight the battles of ambitious rulers, or to de"stroy the rights reserved to the states. But though tremen "dous, they must be harmless to the people and the state govern "ments, because, although in all ages ambitious rulers have used "them for their own aggrandizement, yet our rulers will use "them with moderation, since ambition is too sentimental to "commit petit larcenies, and ascends to elevated crimes to obtain "admiration, and since power, having no allurements, requires "no restrictions."

Such are the principles necessary to introduce a supreme na tional government; but are these the principles of the constitu

tion? That is one continued lecture against the doctrine, that liberty will be secured by a confidence in concentrated power. Instead of relying upon this speculation, in all ages so unsuccessful, the constitution circumvolves power with restrictions, and moderates it by divisions. But One of the People judiciously overlooks these restrictions and divisions, because they subvert his theory, and substitutes for them several metaphysical prettinesses, by which he thinks it may be defended.

"Congress is tired of its absolute power over ten miles square, "and neglects its police." This unfortunate piece of imaginary evidence is another hypothesis to sustain the previous hypothesis, that power, abstractedly considered, has no allurements, and is therefore more inclined to contract than to extend itself. The reasoning is again abstracted from the facts. Congress still hold, and by the help of the court, has stretched this little power to an indefinite size, to foster the "paltry and petit larceny object "of pilfering" the states by a lottery. It is an instance to shew that ambition and avarice are not uniformly superior to little means; but it is a bad one to prove an aversion to power, as it is made the most of, and as indeed Congress could not relinquish this, any more than another delegated power. If the neglect of the police of the ten miles square, is a fact, though the members of Congress see and inhabit it near half the year, it does not recommend a national supremacy in that body. This has happened, not from want of knowledge, but from want of interest in the concerns of the district. Ilow then can Congress become a good legislative body for states which they never see, and in the concerns of which most of its members have no interest? Thus the reference to the ten miles square recoils in every view with some force against the project for a national government. Even the existence of this district decides the question, because it would have been unnecessary for the constitution to have bestowed a supreme jurisdiction upon Congress over the ten miles, if the federal government possessed a supreme jurisdiction over state rights; nor was there any meaning in the establishment of this district, if the constitution had established the general or national government now contended for.

Sensible of the incapacity of Congress for exercising the pow. ers of a consolidated government, so as to preserve the liberty and advance the prosperity of the people of each state, the author endeavours to evade the objection, by observing, "that the state 66 governments delegate portions of their power to city and "county corporations," inferring, that Congress may remove the objection, by also delegating; portions of its power to the state governments. This construction of the constitution derives the powers of the state governments from Congress, and not from the people. It is necessary to sustain the federal supremacy contended for, but it is as visibly contrary to the most explicit meaning of the constitution. A supreme national government would be exactly as incapable of regulating with justice, and impartiality, and fellow-feeling, the local interests of the states, by deputies, as of governing them directly. The compa rison between a responsibility of these interests to the people of cach state, or to the supremacy of a national government, there fore still remains. Will internal commotions and local oppres sions be prevented or provoked by depriving the people of a right essential to their liberty and happiness?

More unfortunate still is the next evidence adduced to prove, that state rights have nothing to apprehend from a concentrated supremacy. "Great-Britain, though despotick over the colo"nies, did not usurp their domestick regulation," and therefore the federal government, though despotick over the states, will not usurp theirs. Had the fabulous river of the Pagan hell caused men to remember what had not, as well as to forget what had happened, One of the People ought to have administered to his readers copious draughts of this miraculous stream, to enable them to remember that Great-Britain did not usurp the regulation of colonial domestick affairs, and to forget that the colonies went to war with her for having done so; as both facts are necessary to prove the superiority of a concentrated supremacy over our federal system.

But most unfortunate is the proof of the harmless nature of a concentrated supremacy, in the examples of Persia, Turkey, and Russia. If local interests may possibly feel the rays of a concentrated supremacy, yet as "it is apparent, from these ex