debt. It was found impracticable to unite the states in any provision for the national safety and honor. Interfering regulations of trade and interfering claims of territory were dissolving the friendly attachments and the sense of common interest which had cemented and sustained the union during the arduous struggles of the Revolution. Symptoms of distress and marks of humiliation were rapidly accumulating. It was with difficulty that the attention of the states could be sufficiently exerted to induce them to keep up a sufficient representation in Congress to form a quorum for business. The finances of the nation were annihilated. The whole army of the United States was reduced, in 1784, to eighty persons; and the states were urged to provide some of the militia to garrison the western posts. In short, to use the language of the authors of the Federalist, "each state, yielding to the voice of immediate interest or convenience, successively withdrew its support from the confederation, till the frail and tottering edifice was ready to fall upon our heads, and to crush us beneath its ruins."

Most of the federal constitutions in the world have degenerated or perished in the same way and by the same means. They are to be classed among the most defective political institutions which have been erected by mankind for their security. The great and incurable defect of all former federal governments, such as the Amphictyonic, the Achæan, and Lycian confederacies, in ancient Greece, and the Germanic, the Helvetic, the Hanseatic, and the Dutch republics, in modern history, is, that they were sovereignties over sovereigns, and legislations, not for private individuals, but for communities in their political capacity. The only coercion for disobedience was physical force, instead of the decree and the pacific arm of the civil magistrate. The inevitable consequence, in every case in which a member of such a confederacy chooses to be disobedient, is either a civil war, or an annihilation of national authority.

The first effort to relieve the people of this country * 218 from a state of national degradation and ruin came from Virginia, in a proposition from its legislature in January, 1786, for a convention of delegates from the several states to regulate our commerce with foreign nations. The proposal was well received in many of the other states, and five of them sent delegates to a convention which met at Annapolis, in September,

1786. (a) This small assembly being only a partial representation of the states, and being deeply sensible of the radical defects of the system of the existing federal government, thought it inexpedient to attempt a partial and probably only a temporary and delusive alleviation of our national calamities. They concurred, therefore, in a strong application to Congress for a general convention, to take into consideration the situation of the United States, and to devise such further provisions as should be proper, to render the federal government not a mere phantom, as heretofore, but a real government, adequate to the exigencies of the Union. Congress perceived the wisdom and felt the patriotism of the suggestion, and recommended a convention of delegates from the several states, to revise, amend, and alter

(a) Though the proximate origin of the federal convention of 1787 was the proposition from Virginia, in 1786, yet the necessity of a national convention, with full authority to amend and reorganize the government, was first suggested, and fully shown, by Colonel Hamilton, in 1780, while he was an aid to General Washington. In his masterly and very extraordinary letter (considering his age of only twentythree years), addressed to the Honorable James Duane, a member of Congress from New York, in September, 1780, he showed most manifestly the defects and absolute inefficiency of the articles of confederation; and that the United States, for their safety and happiness, if not for their future existence, stood in need of a national government, clothed with the requisite sovereign powers, such as the confederation theoretically contained, but without possessing any fit organs to receive them. This letter is to be seen at large in the life of Alexander Hamilton, by his son, John C. Hamilton, i. 284-305, and in the Hamilton Papers, i. 428, edited by Dr. Hawks. The earliest legislative suggestion of a convention for the purpose of reforming the government was the concurrent resolutions of the two houses of the legislature of New York, passed on the 20th and 21st of July, 1782. They were introduced into the Senate by General Schuyler, and they stated, that “the radical source of most of our embarrassments was the want of sufficient power in Congress; that the confederation was defective in several essential points, particularly in not vesting the federal government either with a power of providing revenue for itself, or with ascertained and productive funds; that its defects could not be repaired, nor the powers of Congress extended, by partial deliberations of the states separately; and that it would be advisable to propose to Congress to recommend, and to each state to adopt the measure of assembling a general convention of the states, specially authorized to revise and amend the confederation." New York Journals of the Senate and Assembly, July 20 and 21, 1782.

There is no doubt of the justness of the inference drawn by his son (Life of Hamilton, i. 405), that Colonel Hamilton, who was attending the legislature when the resolutions passed, and who had an interview with a joint committee of the two houses, in his public character, under the superintendent of finance, and who was, at the same time, chosen a delegate in Congress, by the legislature, was the distinguished individual, who by his wisdom suggested, and by his influence promoted, that earliest authoritative measure taken for a general convention of the states.

the articles of confederation. All the states except Rhode Island acceded to the proposal, and appointed delegates, who assembled in a general convention in Philadelphia, in May, 1787.

This was a crisis most solemn and eventful, in respect to our future fortune and prosperity. All the fruits of the Revolution, and perhaps the final destiny of republican government, were staked on the experiment which was then to be made to reform the system of our national compact. Happily for this country, and probably as auspiciously for the general liberties of mankind, the convention combined a very rare union of the best talents, experience, information, patriotism, probity, and character which the country afforded; and it commanded that universal public confidence which such qualifications were calculated to inspire. After several months of tranquil deliberation, the convention agreed, with unprecedented unanimity, on the * plan 219 of government which now forms the Constitution of the United States. This plan was directed to be submitted to a convention of delegates, to be chosen by the people at large in each state, for their assent and ratification. Such a measure was laying the foundations of the fabric of our national polity, where alone they ought to be laid, on the broad consent of the people. The Constitution underwent a severe scrutiny and long discussion, not only in public prints and private circles, but solemnly and publicly, by the many illustrious statesmen who composed these local conventions. Near a year elapsed before it received the ratification of a requisite number of conventions of delegates of the people of the states to give it a political existence. New Hampshire was the ninth state which adopted the Constitution, and thereby, according to one of its articles, it was to become the government of the states so ratifying the same. Her example was immediately followed by the powerful states of Virginia and New York; and on the 4th of March, 1789, the government was duly organized and put into operation. North Carolina and Rhode Island withheld some time longer their assent. Their scruples were, however, gradually overcome, and in June, 1790, the Constitution had received the unanimous ratification of the respective conventions of the people in every state.

The peaceable adoption of this government, under all the circumstances which attended it, presented the case of an effort of

deliberation, combined with a spirit of amity and of mutual concession, which was without example. It must be a source of just pride, and of the most grateful recollection, to every American, who reflects seriously on the difficulty of the experiment, the manner in which it was conducted, the felicity of its issue, and the fate of similar trials in other nations of the earth.

[234]

LECTURE XI.

OF CONGRESS.

THE power of making laws is the supreme power in a state, and the department in which it resides will naturally have such a preponderance in the political system, and act with such mighty force upon the public mind, that the line of separation between that and the other branches of the government ought to be marked very distinctly, and with the most careful precision.1

The Constitution of the United States has effected this purpose with great felicity of execution, and in a way well calculated to preserve the equal balance of the government and the harmony of its operations. It has not only made a general delegation of the legislative power to one branch of the government, of the executive to another, and of the judicial to the third, but it has specially defined the general powers and duties of each of those departments. This is essential to peace and safety in any government, and especially in one clothed only with specific powers for national purposes, and erected in the midst of numerous state governments retaining the exclusive control of their local conIt will be the object of this lecture to review the legislative department; and I shall consider this great title in our

cerns.

1 Mauran v. Smith, 8 R. I. 192, 217; [Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U. S. 168, 190 et seq. ;] post, 322, n. 1. See also post, 296, n. 1; 221, n. 1; 323, n. 1. According to the traditional theory, as it exists in all the books, the goodness of our constitution consists in the entire separation of the legislative and executive authorities; but in truth its merit consists in their singu lar approximation. The connecting link is the cabinet. By that new word we mean a committee of the legislative body selected to be the executive body. . . . As a rule, the nominal prime minister is

chosen by the legislature; and the real prime minister for most purposes - the leader of the House of Commons - almost without exception is so." Bagehot on the English Constitution, London, 1867, No. i. p. 12. "Living across the Atlantic, and misled by accepted doctrines, the acute framers of the Federal Constitution, even after the keenest attention, did not perceive the Prime Minister to be the principal executive of the British Constitution, and the sovereign a cog in the mechanism." Ib. No. iv. p. 84.