The Works of Alexander Hamilton, Ed. Henry Cabot Lodge (Federal Edition), Vol. VIII

THE COLLECTOR'S FEDERAL EDITION

OF THE WORKS OF ALEXANDER HAMIL-

TON IS LIMITED TO SIX HUNDRED

SIGNED AND NUMBERED SETS OF WHICH

THIS IS NUMBER...................

i I_

_ .... _ _ '_ Ii_, J_"tJ_ _

1The Works of\

AlexanderHamilton

Editedby

Henry Cabot Lodge

" The sacred right* of marlkind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments ormusty records. They are written, lm with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human rlatur_by the harld of the Divinity ttself_ and can ne_er be erased or obscured by mortal power."

[Ha_ttL'rO_.--/Xe Fa,-m_r Refuted, 1775t ,qrSt.18.J" We are laboring hard to egtablish =u this country princtples more and more nattanal.

and free from all foreign Ingredtents, so that we may be rleithcr Greek_ not TroJarle1' buttrul_ Americans "--[HAMIL'rOr, TO KIN(., 1796, /Et. ]9 ]

VolumeVIII i

(;. P. Putnam's SonsNewYork and London_Ib1knickerbockerIbreoo

19o4

iI"l_blknlcheTbockcr IPrces, ll:lcw I_ork

N,[._'

g

CONTENTSP,kGll

MISCELLANEOUSPAPERS:CINCINNATI 3SPEECHESIN THE NEW YORK ASSEMBLY,X787 . S DSPEECHONACCEDINGTOTHE INDEPENDENCEOF

VERMONT . 42EULOGIUMON MAJOR-GENERALGREENE . 63PRESIDENTIALETIQUETTE:

HAMILTONTO WASHINGTON . . 83WASHINGTONTO HAMILTON. 87

PUBLICLANDS:REPORTOFA UNIFORMSYSTEMFORTHE DIS-

POSITIONOF THE LANDS, THE PROPERTYOP THE UNITED STATES . S7

HEADS OP TOPICS FOR PRESIDENT'S SPEECHOF DECEMBER8, x790 94

APPORTIONMENTOF REPRESENTATIVEs:--HAM-ILTONTO WASHINGTON . 95

INDIAN APFAIRS . looPRESIDENT'SSPEECH I02INDIANAFFAIRS xo9CONVENINGCONGRESs'--HAMILTON TO WASH-

INGTON I IoOBJECTSTO BE COMMUNICATEDIN SPEECHAND

MESSAGES. . . I 15PRESIDENT'SSPEECH .... I_6PRESIDENT'SMESSAGE . . . i 19PROCLAMATIONFORA NATIONALTHANKSGIVING. 120

iii

i7598

iv ContentsPaoJ

MISCELLANEOUSPAPERS--Continued:EXPLANATION. ISSWASNINGTON'SSPEECHTOCONGRESS 153MESSAGEFOR WASHINGTONTO CONGRESSIN

REPLYTOA CALLPORPAPERSRELATINGTOTHE TREATYWITHGREATBRITAIN 161

FAREWELLADDRESS. 18IWASHINGTON'SFAREWELLADDRESS. 187PARTO_ WASHINGTON'SSPEECHTOCONGRESS. 214ADDRESSTO THE ELECTORSOP THE STATEOIP

NEW Yogg 2_3EXAMINATIONoF JEPPERSON'S MESSAOB TO

CONGgZSSOP DECEMEER7, XSOZ . . 246LASSlNOORB.aR 373LAw BRIEFS 376CARRIAGETAX .... 378THE LAWOP LIBEL . . 383SPEECHIN THe CASEOPHARRYCROSWELL 387I_RAGMENTON THEFRENCHREVOLUTION. 42_]:)EFSNCROFTHEFUNDINGSYSTILM. . . 429

MISCELLANEOUSPAPERS

TO/..Vtll.--t. Z

MISCELLANEOUSPAPERS

, CINCINNATI z

_ New Yolut. July 6, t786.

I THEcommitteeto whomwas referredthe pro-t ceedingsof the Societyof the Cincinnati,attheirlast generalmeeting,begleaveto report,thattheyhaveattentivelyconsideredthe alterationspro-posedat themeetingto bemadein theoriginalCon-stitutionof that Society;and,thoughthey highlyapprovethemotiveswhichdictatedthosealterations,theyareofopinionit wouldbe inexpedientto adoptthem,andthischieflyonthe twofollowingaccounts:

"First.--Becausethe institution,as proposedtobe altered,wouldcontainin itselfno certainpro-visionfor the continuanceof the Society,beyondthe livesof the presentmembers;thispointbeingleftto theregulationofcharters,whichmayneverbexThe SocietyoftheCincinnati,foundedinx783,by theRevolu-

tionaryoificers,excitedagreatdealoffoolishhostilityonaccountofwhatwereconsidereditsperilousaristocraticmilitaryandhereditaryfeatures.Prejudicewassostrongthatmodificationswereconsidered

I necessary, and were finally made in accordance with the advice ofWashington, President of the Society. The main alterations weremadein i784,atthefirstgeneralmeeting,butthe questioncontinuedto be mootedfor someyears, madwas kept active by the formationoftheStateSocieties,anditwas"nthisconnectionthattheabovereportwaswritten.

4 AlexanderHamilton

obtained,andwhich,in the opinionof thiscommit-tee, sofar as affectsthis object,oughtneverto begranted,since the dangers apprehendedfrom theinstitutioncouldthen only ceaseto be imaginary,whenit shouldreceivethe sanctionof a legalestab-lishment. The utmostthe Societyoughtto wishorask fromthe severallegislaturesis, to enableit toappointtrusteesix)holditsproperty,forthechazil_-ble purposesto whichit is destined."

"Second.--Becauseby a fundamentalarticle itobligesthe SocietyofeachStateto lendits fundstothe State; a provisionwhichwouldbeimproper,fortwo reasons: one, that in many casesthe Societymight be able to disposeof its fundsto a muchgreateradvantage; the other,that the Statemightnot alwayschooseto borrowfromthe Society."

But whilethe committeeended this opin-ion with respectto the proposedalterations,theyare,at the _me time,equallyof opinion,that somealterations in the original Constitutionwill beproper,as wellin deferenceto the senseof manyofour fellowcitizens,as in conformityto the truespirit of the institutionitself. The alterationstheyhave in view respect principallythe durationorsuccessionof the Society,and the distinctionbe-tweenhonoraryand reg_llarmembers. As to thefirst, the provisionintendedto be madeappearstothem to be expressedin terms not sufficientlyex-plicit; and, as far as it may intend,an hereditarysuccessionby rightofprimogeniture,isliableto thisobjection_thatit r_ersto birthwhatoughtto belongtomeritonly:a principleinconsistentwiththe genius

The New YorkAssembly 5ofthe Societyfoundedonfriendshipand patriotism.Asto thesecond,thedistinctionholdsup anodiousdifferencebetweenmenwhohaveservedtheircoun-try in oneway,andthosewhohaveservedit in an-other,andimproperina Societywherethecharacterofpatriotoughttobeanequaltitleto allitsmembers.

The committee,however,declineproposinganyspecificsubstitutefor the parts of the originalcon-stitutionwhichappearto themexceptionable;asthey are ofopinionanyalterationsnecessaryto bemadecan onlybe digestedin a generalmeetingofthe Society,speciallyauthorizedto agreeuponandfinallyestablishthosealterations. Witha viewtothis,theybegleavetorecommendthatacircular-letterbewrittenfromtheSocietytothedif[crentStateSocieties,suggestingtheexpediencyofin-structingandempoweringtheirdelegatesatthenextgeneralmeeting,toconcurinsuchalterationsasmayappeartothatmeetingproper,aftera fullcommunicationofwhatshallbefoundtobethesenseoftheseveralSocieties.

SPEECHESIN THE NEW YORKASSEMBLY,x787

JANUARY I9TH.--SPEECH ON THE ANSWER OF THEHOUSE TO GOVERNOR CLINTON'S MESSAGE _

Thisnowleadsusto examinetheimportantques-tion presentedto us by the proposedamendment.TheseSpeeches,withtheexceptionofthatontheIndependenceof

Vermont,arenow includedforthefirsttimeinHamilton'sWorlts.Theyaretakenfromthecontemporarynewspaperreport.

a Congresshad _sked for an extra session of the Legislature, to

6 .AlexanderHamiltoaFor myownpart, I haveseenwithregretthe pro-gressofthisbusiness,andit w_ my earnestwishto haveavoidedthepresentdiscussion.I sawwithregretthefirstapplicationofCongressto the Gover-nor,becauseit waseasytoperceivethat it revolveda delicatedilemma:EithertheGovernor,fromcon-siderationofinconvenience,mightrefusetocalltheAssembly,whichwouldderogatefromthe respectdueto Congress;or he mightcall them,and, bybeingbroughttogetherat an unreasonableperiodbeforethe time appointedby lawfor the purpose,they wouldmeetwithreluctanceandperhapswitha dispositionlessfavorablethanmightbe wishedtothe viewsofCongressthemselves.

I saw,withequalregret,the nextstepofthebusi-ness. If a conferencehad beendesiredwithCon-gress,it mighthavebeenhad--circumstancesmighthavebeenexplained;reasonsmighthavebeenas-signedsatisfactoryto themfornotcallingtheLegis-latttre,andthe affairmighthavebeencompromised.Butinsteadofthis, the Governorthoughtfit to an-swerby a flat denial,foundedon a constitutionalamendment,andthe ideaofaninvasionof_therightoffreedeliberationwasbroughtintoview. I earn-estly wishedthe matter to have rested here. Imightappealto gentlemenin the Housc andpar-ticularlyto the honorablegentlemanwhois sozeal-ousin supportof the amendment--that,beforethereconsidertheir action as to granting revenue,and GovernorClintonhad refusedto call an extra sessionas requested. This wasthe pointinvolved in the debateon the answerof the House to the Governor'smessage,which drewwith it apprvval or censureof the Governor'scourse.

The New York Assembly 7

speech appeared,I discovereda solicitude that, bypassing the subject over in silence, it might giveoccasionto the presentdiscussion.

$ $ $ $ $ $The question by the honorablemember on my

fight has beenwronglystated. He says it is this:whethera requestof Congressto convenethe Legis-latureis conclusiveupon the Governorof the State?orwhether a bareintimationof that honorablebodylays him under a constitutional necessity of con-vening the Legislature? But this is not the truequestion. From the shape in which the businesscomes beforeus, the inquiry truly is: whetherasolemnapplicationof the United States to the Ex-ecutive of the State to convenethe Legislatureforthe purposeof deliberating on a matter which isconsideredby that body as of essential importanceto the Union,and whichhasbeenviewedin a similarlight by most of the other States individually, issuch an extraordinaryoccasionas left the Governorunderno constitutionalimpedimentto a compliance?And, it may be added, whether that application,underall the circumstances,was an attempt to in-vade the freedomof deliberationin this House?

Here let us ask, what does the Constitutionsayupon the subject? Simply this, that the governor"shall have power to convene the Assembly andSenate on extraordinaryoccasions." But what isan extraordinary occasion? What circumstancesare to concur,what ingredientscombine, to consti-tute one? What general rule can be imaginedbywhich to definethe precisemeaningof these vague

8 Alexand_Hamilto_n

terms,and drawthe linebetweenan ordinaryandan extraordinaryoccasion? Willthe gentlemanonmy right (that is, the ever-ready-to-jump-ul>-in-a-Jack-in-the-box-fashion-to-say-it-is-n't-when-A.-H.-says-it-isMr.Jones)furnishuswithsuchacriterion?Profoundlyskilledashe isin law(at leastthe locallawso5the State),I fancyit willbe difficultforhimto inventonethat willsuithispresentpurpose. Lethimconsulthis lawbooks,theywillnot relievehisembarrassment.It is easy to seethat the clauseallowsthe greatestlatitudeto opinion. Whatonemay think a very extraordinaryoccasion,anothermaythinka veryordinaryone,accordingto hisbias,his interest,or his intellect.

If thereis anyruleat all, it isthis: the governorshallnotcallthe Legislaturewitha viewto theordi-narydetailsofthe Stateadministration.Whateverdoesnot fall withinthis description,and has anypretensionsto nationalimportancein any view,leaveshimat libertyto exercisethe discretionvestedin himby the Constitution.Thereis at least noconstitutionalbar in the way. TheUnitedStatesare entrustedwith the managementof the generalconcernsandinterestsofthecommunity;theyhavethepowerofwarandpeace;theyhavethe poweroftreaty.

Ouraffairswithrespectto foreignnationsareleftto theirdirection. Wemustentertainverydiminu-tive ideasofthe Governmentof the Union,to con-ceivethat theirearnestcallona subjectwhichtheydeemof great nationalmagnitude,whichaffectstheirengagementswithtworespectableforeignpow-

The New York Assembly 9ers,Franceandthe UnitedNetherlands,whichrelatesto thepreservationoftheirfaithat homeandabroad,is not suchan occasionas wouldjustify the Execu-tive,uponthe terms ofthe Constitution,in conven-ingthe Legislature. If this doctrineis rnointained,wherewillit leadto? what kind of emergencymustexistbeforethe Constitutionwillauthorizethe Gov-ernorto callthe Legislature? Is the preservationofournationalfaith a matter of suchtrivial moment?Is the fulfilmentofthe publicengagements,domesticand foreign,of no moment? Mustwe wait for thefleetsof the UnitedNetherlandsor of Franceto en-forcethe observanceof them,beforethe Executivewillbe at liberty to givethe Legislaturean oppor-tunityof dehberatingon the meansof their just de-mand? This is straining the indefmitewords ofthe Legislatureto a mostunreasonableextreme. Itwouldbe atenablepositionto saythat the calloftheUnitedStatesis alonesufficientto satisfy the ideaof an extraordinaryoccasion. It is easyto conceivethat sucha postureof Europeanaffairsmightexistaswouldrenderit necessaryto convenethe differentLegislaturesto adopt measuresfor the publicsafety,and at the sametimeinexpedientto disclosethe ob-ject till theywereassembled. Willwesaythat Con-gresswouldbe boundto communicatethe objectoftheir call to the Executiveof every State; or thatthe Executiveofthis State, in complyingwith theirrequest,wouldbe guiltyof a violationof the Con-stitution? But the present case is not that of ameregeneralrequest; it is specificallyto deliberateupon an objectof acknowledgedimportancein one

m AlexanderHamilton

vieworanother.Ononehandit is allegedtobeevsentialto thehonor,interest,andperhapsthe exist-enceof theUnion;onthe other,it is saidtobeonprinciplessubversiveof the Constitutionanddan-gerousto thelibertyofthe subject. It is thereforea matterofdelicacyandmoment. Andthe urgentcallof the Unionto have it considered,cmmotfallwithinthenotionofsocommonandsoordinaryanoccasionas wouldprohibitthe Executivefromsum-moninga meetingof the Legislature.

Theonlyargumenturgedto denominateit such,isthat it hadbeenrecentlydetermineduponby theLegislature.But there is an evidentfallacyin thisposition. The call was addressedto a new anddifferentbody,reallydifferentin the contemplationofthe Constitution,andmateriallydifferentin factwith respectto the memberswhocomposeit. Alargeproportionof the membersof the presentHousewere not the membersof the last. Foraughtthat eitherCongressor the Governorcouldofficiallyknow,theremighthavebeenatotalchangein the individuals,and, therefore,a total differencein the sentiments.No inference,of course,couldbefairlydrawnfromthe conductofthe last Legis-latureto that of the present. Indeed,howeveritmightbe wishedto prepossessthe membersof theformerHousewitha contraryidea,it is plainthatthereis nonecessaryconnectionbetweenwhattheydidat that timeandwhatit maybeproperforthemto do now. Theact of the last sessionprovestheconvictionofthe Housethen, that the grantoftheimpostwasan eligiblemeasure.Manymembers

ThNew YorkAuembly xIwereled to supposethat it wouldanswerthe pur-pose,and mighthave beenacceptedby Congress.If theexperimenthasshownthat theyweremistakenin theirexpectations,andifit shouldappearto themthat Congresscouldnot for goodreasonsacceptit,the samemotiveswhichinducedthemto the grantalreadymade,woulddeterminethemto consenttosuchalterationsas would accommodateit to theviewsof CongressandtheotherStates,andm_ke itpracticableto carrythesystemintoexecution.

It maybeobservedthatasCongressaccompaniedtheirrequestwithanexplanationof theobject,they,by that modeof procedure,submittedthe wholematter to the discretionof the Governor,to act ac-cordingto the estimateformedin his ownmindasto its importance.

It is not deniedthat the Governorhad a discre-tion uponthe occasion. It is not contendedthat hewasundera constitutionalnecessityto convenetheLegislature. The resolutionof Congressitself doesnot implyor intimatethis. They donot pretendtorequire,they onlyearnestlyrecommend. TheGov-ernormightat hisperilrefuse,responsible,however,for any ill consequencesthat mighthaveattendedhis refusal. But the thing contendedfor is this:that the callofthe UnitedStates,underthe circum-stances,was sufficientto satisfy the terms of theConstitutionempoweringhimto convenethe Legis-lature on extraordinaryoccasions;and left him atfull liberty to comply.

The admissionof his discretiondoes not admitthat it wasproperlyexercised,nor doe#it admitthat

i2 AlexanderHamilton

the footing upon which he placed his refusal wasproper. It doesnot admit that the Constitutionin-terposedan obstaclein his way, or that the requestof Congressimpliedany thing hostileto the right offree dehberation.

This is the aspect under which the businesspre-sents itselfto ourconsideration,as wellfromthe cor-respondencebetweenCongressand the Governor,asfromthe manner in whichit is usheredto us in thespeech. A generalapprobationof his conductis anapprobationof the principleby whichit is professedto havebeenactuated.

Are we ready to say that the Constitutionwouldhavebeenviolatedbya compliance? Arewereadytosaythat the calluponus to deliberateis an attemptto infringethe freedomof dehberation? If wearenotready to say both,we must rejectthe amendment.

In particular, I think it must strike us all thatthere is something singularlyforced in intimatingthat the apphcationof Congressto the Governorofthe State to convenea new Legislatureto considera very important national subject,has any thing init dangerousto the freedomof our deliberations.

I flatter myselfwe shouldallhavefelt ourselvesasmuchat libertyto havepursuedour sentimentsifwehad met upon an extraordinarycall,as we do nowwhenmetaccordingto ourownappointments. Thereyet remainsan important light in whichthe subjectmeritsconsideration. I meanas it respects the au-thority of the State itself: By decidingthat the ap-plicationof Congress,upon whichthe debate turns,was not such an extraordinaryoccasionas left the

The New York.Amm_ly 13Cxovemorat libertyto c__Jlthe Legislature,wemayforma precedentofa verydangeroustendency;wemayimposea senseon the Constitutionverydiffer-ent fromthe truemeaningof it, andmayfetter thepresentor a futureexecutivewithveryinconvenientrestraints. A fewmore suchproceedingsmay tieup the handsof the Governorin sucha manneraswouldeitherobligehim to act at an extremeperil,or to omitactingwhenpublicexigenciesrequiredit.Themeresenseof onegovernorwouldbe no pre.cedentforhissuccessor;but thatsense,approvedbybothHousesof theLegislature,wouldbecomea ruleof conduct.Supposea fewmoreprecedentsof thekind, on differentcombinationsof cimum_tancesequallystrong,andletusaskourselves"Whatwouldbethe situationof the Governorwheneverhe cameto deliberateon theproprietyof exercisingthe dis-cretioninthisrespectvestedinhimby theConstitu-tion? Wouldhe not be apt to act with a degreeofcaution,or, rather,timidity,which,in certainemer-gencies,mightbe productiveofveryperniciouscon-sequences?A mereintimationof the Constitutionto himnotto callthe Legislaturein theirrecessuponeverytriflingaffair,whichis its true import,wouldbe turnedinto an injunctionnot to do it but uponoccasionsofthe lastnecessity.

We see, therefore,that the questionuponwhichwearecalledto decideis not lessdelicateas it re-spectsthe Constitutionofthe Stateitself,than as itrespectstheUnion;andthat, in everypossibleview,it is mostprudentto avoidthe determination. Lettheconductofthe Governorstandonitsownm_rits.

14 Alexander Hamilton

If he was right,ourapprobationwill not nmke]aimmoreright; if he was wrong,it wouldbe improperto sanctionhis error.

Severalthingshave been said in the debate whichhave no connectionwith it; but to preventtheirmakingimproperimpressions,it nmynotbeamisstotake somenoticeof them. The dangerof a powerin Congressto compelthe conveningof the Legisla-tureat theirpleasurehasbeenstronglyinsistedupon.It has been urgedthat, if they possessedit, theynMghtmake it an engineto fatiguethe Legislatureintoacompliancewiththeirmeasures. Instancesofan abuse of a like powerin the Crownunder theformergovernmenthave beencited.

It is a s,lfficientanswerto all this to say that nosuchpowerhas beencontendedfor. I do not assertthat theirrequestobligedthe Governorto convenethe Legislature. I only maintainthat their requestonanimportantnationalsubjectwassuchanocca-sionaslefthimfreetodoitwithoutanycolorforimputingtohima breachoftheConstitution;andthat,frommotivesofrespecttotheUnion,andtoavoidanyfurtherdegradationofitsauthority,al-readyattoolowanebb,heoughttohavecomplied.Admitting,inthefullestextent,thatitwouldbedangeroustoallowtoCongressthepowerofrequir-ingtheLegislaturetobeconvenedatpleasure,yetnoinjurynorinconveniencecanresultfromsuppos-ingthecalloftheUnitedStatesupona matterbythemdeemedofimportancetobeanoccasionsufl_-dentlyextraordinarytoauawriz_nottoobligethegovernortocomplywithit.

TheNewYorkAssembly _5I c_nuotforbearremarkingthat it is a common

artificeto endeavorto insinuatea resemblancebe-tweenthe king underthe formergovernmentandCongress,althoughno two thingscouldbe moreunlikeeachother. Nothingcanbe moredissimilarthan a monarch,permanent,hereditary,the sourceof honorand emolument;and a republicanbody,composedof individual.qappointedannually,liableto be recalledwithintheyear, andsubjectto a con-tinual rotation,which,with few exceptions,is thefountainneither of honor nor emolument. If wewillexerciseourjudgments,weshallplainlyseethatno such resemblanceexists,and that all inferencesdeductedfromthe comparisonmust be false.

Upon every occasion,howeverforeignsuch ob-servationsmaybe, wehear a loud cry raisedaboutthe dangerof intrustingpowerto Congress;wearetold it is dangerousto trust poweranywhere;thatpowerisliableto abuse,--witha varietyoftritemax-iresofthesamekind. Generalpropositionsofthisna-ture are easilyframed,the truth of whichcannotbedenied,but theyrarelyconveyanypreciseidea. Tothese we might opposeother propositions,equallytrue and equallyindefinite. It mightbe said thattoolittlepoweris as dangerousas too much; that itleads to anarchy, and from anarchyto despotism.But the questionstill recurs:What is the too muchor too little? Whereis the measureor standardtoascertainthe happymean?

Powermust be granted,or civil societycannotexist; thepossibilityofabuseis noargumentagainstthe thing. This possibilityis incident to every

16 Alexander Ham/Icon

speciesof power,howeverplaced or modified. TheUnited States, for instance, have the power of warand peace; it cannot be disputed that conjuncturesmight occur in which that power might be turnedagainst the rightsof the citizen. But wherecan webetter place it ? In short, where else can we placeit at all?

In our State constitutions, we might discoverpowers liable to be abused to very dangerouspur-poses. I shall instance only the council appoint-ments. In that council the governor claims andexercisesthe powerof nominating to all others.

This power of nomination, in its operation,amounts toa powerofappointment,for it canalwaysbe so managed as to bring in persons agreeabletohim and exclude all others. Suppose a governordisposed to make this an instrument of personalinfluenceand aggrandizement; supposehim inclinedto excludefrom officeall independentmen, and tofillthe differentdepartmentsof theState withpersonsdevoted tohimself,what is to hinderhim from doingit ? Who can say howfar the influencearisingfromsuch a prerogative might be carried? Perhaps thispower,if closelyinspected,is a more proper subjectof republicanjealousy,than any powerpossessedbyor askedby the United States--fluctuatingand vari-able as this bodyis. But as my intention is not toinstil any unnecessary jealousies, I shall prosecutethese observationsno further. They are onlyurgedto showthe imperfectionsof humaninstitutions, andto confirm the principle that the possibility of apowerbeingabusedis no argumentagainst its exist-

The l_w_.,YorkAs_mbly s7

ence. Uponthe whole,let us venturewithcautionuponconstitutionalground. Let us not court norinvitedisc_l._ionsof thiskind. Letusnotendeavorstillmnreto weakenanddegradethe FederalGovern-ment by heapingfresh marks of contempton itsauthority. Perhapsthe timeisnot far distantwhenwemaybe inclinedto disapprovewhat wenowseemanxiousto commend,andmaywishwehadcherishedthe Unionwith as much zealas we now discoverapprehensionofits encroachment.

I hope,Mr. Chairman,the Housewill not agreeto the amendment. In sayingthis I am influencedbynoothermotivethana senseofduty. I trust myconductwillbe consideredin this light. I cannotgivemyconsentto put any thing uponourminuteswhich, it appears to me, we may one day haveoccasionto wishobliteratedfromthem.

_anuaryz3d[The House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole on the

paragraph in the election bill enabling the inspector to take aside anyignorant person and examine him privately touching his ballot. Adebate arose.]

Col.Hamiltonthought it was very apparent, ifthe clauseprevailed,that it wouldtend to increaserather th_n preventan improperinfluence. For,thoughan inspectortakes an oath thnt hisconductsl-m11beimpartial,yet he can easilyinterpret theoath so as to correspondwith his ownwighes. Ifhe-isan honestman,hewillthink the publicgoodconcernedin promotinga candidateto whomhe isattached; and under this impressionmay see noh_rm in recommendinghim to a personofferinghis

YO1... VUI,'II.

s8 AlexanderH_miiton

vote. His suggestionwill be generallyattendedwithsuccess,and theconsequencewillbe that theinspectorwill have the dispositionof thevotesofalmostallunletteredpersonsin favorofthepartytowhichhe inclines. Here,then,is a moreconcentredinfluenceover the illiterateand uninforraedpart ofthe community,than they wouldhave beensubjectto if left to themselves. Here theywillbe liabletoan influencemore dangerousthan the onewe wishto avoid. The questionthen is,whetherit is betterto leavethem to an accidentalinfluenceor imposi-tion,or to subjectthemto a moreregularandexten-sive influence. The appointmentof inspectorswillthenbecomemorethan it is, an objectof party,andit willalwaysbe in their powerto turn the scaleofacontestedelection. On the contrary,if the votersare left to themselves,the activity of the differentpartieswillmakethe chanceequal; and the influ-enceononehandwillbebalancedbyan equaldegreeon the other. I movewestrikeout the clause.

[Mr.Jones did not agree; thoughtinspector'sinfluencewouldbegood, he beingunderoath,and a manof reputation. Mr. Harperthought inspectorsahouldbe obligednot to mention,no_-ate, orproposeanypersonwhatever.]

Col.Hamiltonobservedthiswasoneofthosesub-jects more plausiblein theory than practice. Thegentleman'sreply didnot answer,nor couldit, theobjectionshe had made. The questionis, whetherit is betterto let the illiteratetake thechanceofim-positionfromtwo partieseq,lal|yactive,the imposi-tion of the one sidebeingeq-_lly balancedby theexertionsofthe other,or leaveit to partyviewscon-

The Now York Assembly _9

centredin one personon whomthe certainfate oftheelectiondepends. I do notmeanto impeachtheactions of the inspectors,for at present they canhavelittle bias; but if theclausetakesplace,thoughan inspectormeans to do his duty impartially,yet Ibelievehis friendlyattention to A being more thanto B will lead us to conceivethat he will have littlescrupleto ask for the vote for A, whom he recom-mends to be as good or a better personthan theother. Now if thi_ happen,sure,there axevery fewignorant personsbut will be greatly influencedbysuch inspectors,and on them turns the fate of theelections. Thereis alsoanotherreasonwhichshouldinduce us not to admit the proposedmode: it willoccasiona great delay, as some inspectorswill haveto take downand examinethe tickets proposedbythe illiterate,whilethe others will findit difficulttoattend to the polls. There is therefore the objec-tion of delay as well as influenceto avoid, whichmakesit necessaryto strikeout the clausealtogether.I repeatoncemoreit is better to leave them to par-ties who are equal in their exertions, eqlmlly sendabouttickets,and whosechanceof influenceis equal.

[Aftermoredebatethe questionwasput on_r/lc/ngout, andlost.]yanuary24th

[TheHousewentintoaComm_;teeof theWholeon the electionbill.A debatearoseupontheclauseauthor/zingtheinspector,oranyotherpersonofferinghimselfto poll,to takean oathofabjurationof ecclesi-asticalaswellascivilobedience.Mr.Jonesdidnotthinkitpropertomakealteration.Oathofnaturalizationprovidesforthispoint.HewentongroundofConstitution,andnoother.Houseoouldnotmakeany _ation.]

Mr.Hamiltondeclaredthe Constitutionto be their

ao AlexanderHamilton

creedandstandard,and oughtneverto be dep_from;but in thepresentinstanceit wasproperfirstto examinehowfar it appliedto the subjectunderconsideration:that thereweretwodifferentbodiesin theStateto whichthishasreference;thesewerethe RomanCatholicsalreadycitizensand thosecom-ing fromabroad. Betweenthese twoweregreatdistinctions.The foreignerwho comesamongusand willbecomea citizen,whowishesa naturaliza-tion,may withproprietybe askedtheseterms; itmay be necessayyhe should abjurehis formersovereign.For thenaturalsubject,the manbornamongstus, educatedwith us,possessingourman-nets, with an equallyardentlove of his nativecountry,to be requiredto take thesameoathofabjuration--whathashe to abjure? He owesnofealtyto anyotherpoweruponearth;noris it likelyhismindshouldbe ledastrayby bigotryorthein-fluenceof foreignpowers.Then,whygivehimoc-casiontobe dissatisfiedwithyou,bybringingforwarda testwhichwillnot addtohisfidelity? Moreover,the clausein the Constitutionconfinesthistest toforeigners,and,if I am notmisinformed,itwasnottill aftermuchdebateandwarmcontentionthat itgotadmittance,andthenonlybya smallmajorityinthe convention.

It wasa questionwithh_rnwhetherit wasproperto proposethistestin theeasebeforethem. Buthewasdecidedlyagainstgoingsofar asto extendit toecclesiasticalmatters. Whyshouldwewoundthetenderconscienceof any man? and why presentoathsto thosewhoare knownto be goodcitizens?

The New YorkAsw_bly 2I

Why _hrmthe_m?Why set themupon inquirywhichis uselessand _m_cessm_? You givethemreasonto supposethat youexpecttoomuchofthem,and they cannotbut refusecompliance. The Con-stitution does not requiresuch a criterionto trythe fidelityof any citizen. It is solelyintendedforaliensand foreignerscomingfromabroad,withman-ners and habits differentfromour own,and whoseintentionsare concealed.

Instead, Mr.Chairman,of goingso far, I wouldproposeto stop at the wordState,and strikeout allthat followed. Thenit wouldreadthus:

"I, _, do swear,etc., that I renounceand ab-jure all allegianceand obedienceto the king ofGreatBritain,etc.,andto everyforeignking,prince,power,potentate,and state."

Thiswillbindthe persononlyin civilmatters,andis all that weoughtor canrequire. Amanwillnotthenbe alarmedinhis interpretation,and it willnotset his mind to inquire if his religioustenets areaffected,and how much inconveniencewould beavoided. Again,sir,we shouldbe cautioushowwecarrytheprincipleofrequiringandmultiplyingtestsuponourfellow-citizens,sofaras to practiseit to theexclusionand disfranchisementof any. And as adoubt must arisewith every memberon the pro-prietyof extendingthis abjurationoath, it willbetheirbestmodeto decidefor the amendment,as inall easeswherethere is a doubt it is our duty toopposethe measure.

[Mr.Harperthoughtoatha properone,andshouldvoteforit.]Mr.Hamiltonmentionedagainthat, sofaras the

aa Alxaz_erHamilton

Constitutionwent, it was a rule, and must beadopted,buthequestionedtheproprietyof_-ingit.

[Wholeclause, without amendment, was agreed toni[Another clause in the bill ordered the judges of electionfor gover-

nor and lieutenant-governorto dc_troy the whole ballot of every dis-trict wheretherewas an excessof even one vote.]

Mr.Hamiltonshowedthis to be a verygreatin-justiceto the district,as it wasin the powerof theclerkor anyofficer,by puttingin an additionalbal-lot, to set asidethe votesoffivehundredpersons;hethereforemovedthat, in anycasewheretherewasan excess,suchexcessshouldbe destroyedby lot.

[Motion opposedby Mr.Jones and adopted.]

_anuary27th[-Discussionon clausein electionbill prohibitingpensioners,and

officersunderCongressfromsittinginAssemblyorSenate.QuestionarosewhethertheLcgislatm'cpossessedthepowerofabridgingtheconstitutionalrightsofthepeople.]Mr.Hamiltonobservedtheyweregoingondan-

gerousground.ThebestrulethecommitteecouldfollowwasthatheldoutintheConstitution,whichit wouldbe safestto adhereto withoutalterationoraddition. If weoncedepartfromthisrule,thereisno sayingwhereit willend. To-day,a majorityofthe personssitting here, from a partic_ll_rmodeofthi_l_ng,disqualifyone descriptionof men. AfutureLegislature,froma particularmodeofthink-ingin anotherpoint,disqualifyanotherset of men.One precedentis the pretext of another, till wenarrowthe groundofqualificationsto a degreesub-versiveofthespiritoftheConstitution. It isimpos-sibleto supposethat the conventionwhoframedthe

The New YorkA_e_oly 23Constitutionwereinattentiveto thispoint. It is amatterof too muchimportancenot to havebeenwellconsidered;they havefixed theqllalificationsofelectorswithprecision;theyhavedefinedthoseofsenatorandgovernor,buttheyhavebeensilentastothequalificationsof membersof Assembly. It maybe said that, beingsilent,they have leftthe matterto the discretionof the Legislature. But is not thelanguageof the framersof the Constitutionratherthis: We willfix the qualificationsof electors; wewilltake care that personsabsolutelyindigentshallbeexcluded;wewillprovidethat the rightofvotingshallbe on a broadand securebasis; and we willtrust to the discretionof the electorsthemselvesthechoiceof thosewhoare to representthemin Assem-bly. Everyqualificationimpliesa disqualification.The personswho do not possessthe qualificationrequiredare ineligible. Is not this to restrainthefreedomofchoiceallowedby the Constitutionto thebodyof electors? An improperexerciseof thi__lib-erty cannot constitutionallybe presumed. Why,therefore,shouldwe circumsc_beit within limitsunknownto the Constitution?Why should weabridgethe rights of any classof citizensin so im-portant an article?

By the Constitutioneverycitizenis eligibleto aseatin the Assembly. If wesaycertaindescriptionsof personsshallnot be so eligible,what is this butto depriveall thosewhofallwithinthatdescriptionof an essentialright allowedthem by the Constitu-tion?

I haveobservedthat if weoncebreakthe ground

4 AlexanderHamilton.

of departingfromthe simpleplan of the Constitu-tion, it mayleadus muchfurtherthan wenowin-tend. Fromthe prevalencyofa certainsystemit isnowproposedto excludeallpersonsfromseatswhohold officesunder Congress.The pretenceis toguardagainstan improperinfluence. I maythinkanotherspeciesofinfluencemoredangerous. Ihavetakennotice,upona formeroccasion,ofthe decisiveagencyof the Executivein the appointmentof allofficers. If the personswhoderivetheirofficialex-istencefromthat sourcesit in this House,it cannotbe deniedthat it mightgivethe executivean undueinfluencein the Legislativedeliberations. If, in thevicissitudeof humanevents,a majorityof a futureLegislatureshouldviewthe subjectin this light,andif the principleof a right to admitdisqualificationsunknowntothe Constitutionbe admittedin prac-tice,allpersonsholdingofficeunderthe Statewouldthenbe excluded. I wishhereto be clearlyunder-stood. I meanonlyto reasonongeneralprinciples,withoutanyparficnlnrreferencewhatever. I havehithertoconfinedmyselfto the generalprincipleofthe clause. Thereare, however,particularobjec-tions. One just occursto me: there are officerswhohavebeenwoundedinthe service,andwhonowhavepensionsunderthe UnitedStatesas the priceof their blood; wouldit be just, wouldit not becruelonthisaccountto excludemenfroma shareinthe governmentwhichthey have at every hazardcontributedto establigh?This in_qtancestrikesme;other membersmay probablythink of other casesequallystrongagainstthe exclusion;furtherreflec-

TheNew York._embly 25fiensmays_gest othersthatdonotnowoccur. Ifthecommittee,however,shouldresolveto adoptit;for the sakeof consstencytheymustcarryit onestepfurther--theymustsay that no memberofCongressshallholda seat. Forsurelyif it be dan-gerousthat theservantsof Congressshouldhaveaseat in thisHouse,it is moredangerousthat themembersth_-m_lvesshouldbeallowedthisprivilege.

But I wouldnot beunderstoodto advocatethisextensionof the clause. I am againstthe wholebusiness.I am foradheringto the presentpro-visionsoftheConstitution.Irepeat,ifweoncebreakthe groundof innovation,wemayopenthedoortondschiefwtfichweneitherknownorthinkof.

[Mr.JonesopposesMr.H.'sopinionandwishesclauseretained.]Mr.Hamilton.--Istillcontinue,Mr.Chairman,of

the _me oph_ononthis subject. ThemoreI con-siderthematter,the moreforciblyamI struckthatit willbe dangerousto introducequalificationsun-knownto the Constitution.Is it possibleto sup-posetheframersofthe Constitutionwereinattentiveto this knportantsubject,or that they did notmaturelyconsidertheproprietyofannexingqualifica-tionsto theelected? Fromthe silenceof theCon-stitutionit is inferredthat it wasintendedto leavethis pointto the discretionof the Legislature.Irather inlet thatthe intentionof the Constitutionwasto leavethe qualificationsof theirrepresenta-tiveswhollyto the electorsthem_Ives. The lan-guageoftheConstitution:Letus takecarethat thepersonsto electareproperlyqualified,thattheyareinsucha situationin pointofpropertyas not to be

26 Alexand_ Hsmilton

absolutelyindigentanddependent,and let us trustto themthe careof choosingproperpersonsto repre-sent them. The Constitutionwill notpresumethatwholedistrictsandcountiesof electorsdulyqualifiedwill choosemen improperfor the trust. Let us, onour part, be cautioushow we abridgethe freedomof choiceallowedthem by the Constitution,or therightof beingelected,whicheverycitizenmayclaimunderit. I holdit to be a maximwhichoughtto besacred in our form of government,that no manoughtto be deprivedof any rightorprivilegewhichhe enjoys under the Constitution,but for someoffenceproved in due courseof law. To declarequalificationsor disqualificationsby generaldescrip-tionsin legislativeacts, wouldbe to invade this im-portant principle. It would be to deprivein thegrossall those whohad not the requisitequalifica-tions,or whowereobjectsof those disqualifications,to that rightto a sharein the administrationof therepubhcwhichthe Constitutiongivesthem, andthatwithoutany offenceto incura forfeiture. Asto theobjectionthat the electorsmight even choosea for-eignerto representthem within the latitudeof theConstitution,the answeris that commonsensewouldnottoleratesucha construction. The Constitution,fromthefundamentalpohcyof arepublicangovern-ment, must be understoodto intend citizens. Butthe gentleman(Mr.Jones) has not advertedto thefactthat the _me difficultywouldattendthe caseof electorswherehe admitsthere is no powerin theLegislatureto make alterations. The expressionthere is, every male i_h_bitantpossessedof certain

The New"YorkAmembly 27

propertyshallvote; buttheresurelycouldneverbea doubtthat suchinhabitantmust alsobe a citizen.

Butlet uspursuethe subjecta littlefurther:com-merce, it will be admitted,leads to an increaseof individualproperty;prope_ybegetsinfluence.ThoughaLegislaturecomposedaswearewillalwaystake careof the rightsof the middl_ngand lowerclasses,supposethe majorityof the Legislaturetoconsistat a futuredayofwealthymen,what wouldhinderthem,if therightof innovatingon the Con-stitutionbe admitted,fromdeclaringthat no mannotworthtenthousandpoundsshouldbeeligibletoa seatineitherHouse? Wouldnotthisintroduceaprinciplefatalto thegeniusof ourpresentConstitu-

_- tion?Inma_ng thisobservation,I cannotbe suspected

of wishingto increasethe jealousy--alreadysuffi-cientlyhigh of men of property. My situation,prospects,andconnectionsforbidthe supposition.ButI meanto lay honestlybeforeyou the dangersto whichweexposeourselvesbylettingin the prin-ciplewhichthe clauseunderconsiderationrestsupon.I giveno opinionon theexpediencyof theexclusionproposed. I onlysay, in myopinionthe Constitu-tion doesnot pernntit, and I ._all be againstanyqualificationordisqualificationeitherofelectorsorelected--notprescribedbytheConstitution.Tomeit appearsthat thequalificationsofbothoughtto befun_tal in a republicangovernment,not liableto bevariedoraddedtoby the Legislature,andthattheyshouldforeverremainwherethe Constitutionh_ left them. I see no othersafe ground. It is

28 Ai_ Htmi_on

to be lamented that men, to carrysome favoritepoint in which their party or prejudicesare inter-ested, will inconsideratelyintroduceprinciplesandprecedentswhichlead to successiveinnovationsde-structiveofthe libertyof the subjectand the safetyof the government. Formy part, I shall uniformlyopposeeveryinnovatonnotknowninthe provisionsof the Constitution. I therefore move that theclausebestruckout.

February6th[Discussiononamendmentto excludeallBrittahadlmr_tswhohad

beenengagedin privateeringin war.]Mr. Hamiltonobservedthat, when the discrim-

inatingclauses,admitted into thebillby that Housewere introduced,he was restrained,by motivesofrespect for the sense of a respectablepart of theHouse, fromgiving it any further opposition thana simple vote. The limited operation they wouldhave, made him less anxious about their adoption.But he couldnot reconcileit to hi.qjudgmentorfeel-Lugsto observea like silenceon the amendmentpro-posed by the Senate. Its operationwouldbe veryextensive; it wouldincludealmostevery manin thecity engagedin navigationduringthe war.

Wehad, in a formerdebate,travelledlargelyoverthe groundof the Constitution,as appliedto legis-lative disqualifications. He wouldnot repeatwhathe had said, but he hopedto be indulgedby theHousein explaininga sentencein the Constitution,whichseemsnotwellunderstoodby the_egentlemen.In one article it says, that no man shall be dis-franch_ed or deprivedof any righthe enjoysunder

The New York A_bly 29the Constitution,but by the lawof the lmudor thejudgmentofhispeers.

Somegentlemenholdthat the lawof the landwillincludean act of the Legislature. But LordCoke,that greatluminary]of the law,in hiscommentupona similarclausein MagnaCharta,interpretsthe lawof the land to meanpresentmentand indictmentandprocessofoutlawry,as contrachstinguishedfromtrialbyjury. But if therewereanydoubtupontheConstitution,the bill of rightsenactedin this verysessionremovesit. It istheredeclaredthat nomanshallbe disfranchisedor deprivedof any right butby dueprocessoflaw,or the judgmentofhispeers.The words"due process" havea precisetechnicalimport,and are only apphcableto the processandproceedingsof courtsof justice; they can neverbereferredto an act ofthe Legislature.

Arewewilling,then, to endurethe inconsistencyof passinga bill of rights and committinga directviolationof it in the same session? In short, areweready to destroyits foundationsat the moment

"theyare laid?Ourhavingdoneit, to a certaindegree,is to be

lamented;but it is noargumentforextendingit.He wouldnowmakesome remarks on the ex-

pediencyandjusticeoftheclause,distinctfromcon-stitutionalconsiderations.

Thewordprivateeris indefinite. It mayincludelettersofmarque. Themerchantsofthiscityduringwarmust,generallyspea_ug,abandontheir meansofhvelihoodorbe concernedin navigation. If con-cemedin navigation,they must of necessityhave

30 AtezanderHamilton

thdr vesselsarmedfordefence.Theywouldnatu-rallytake out lettersof marque. If everyownerof a letter ofmarqueis disfranchised,thebodyofyourmerchantswillprobablybe in this situation.Is it politicor wiseto placethemin it? Is it ex-pedientto force,by exclusionsanddiscriminations,a numerousand powedulclassof citizensto beunfriendlyto the government?

He knewmanyindividua].whowouldbe com-prehended,whoare wellaffectedto the prosperityof the country,whoare disposedto giveeverysup-port to thegovernment,andwho,someof thematleast,evenduringthewarhadmanifestedanattach-mentto the Amer/cancause. But thereisoneviewin whichthe subjectmeritsconsideration,that mustlayholdonallourfeelingsofjustice. Bythemari-timelaw,a majorityof the ownershavea right todisposeof the destinationof the vessel. The dis-sent of the minorityis of noavail. It mayhavehappened,andprobablyhashappenedin manyin-stances,that vesselshavebeenemployedas priva-teerson lettersof marque,by a majorityof theowners,contraryto thesenseoftheminority.

Wouldit be justto punishthe innocentwiththeguilty,to takeawaythe rightsof the minorityforan offencecommittedbythemajority,withouttheirparticipation,perhapscontraryto theirinclination?

He wouldmentiona further case,not equallystrong,butofconsiderableforceto inclinethe Houseagainstthe amendment.He had been informedthat in oneor moreinstancesduringthe war,somezealouspeoplehadsetonfootsubscriptionsforfitting

The N_w YorkAssembly 3Iout privateers,perhapsat the instigationof theBritish Government;and had applied to personssuspectedof an attachmentto us to subscribe,mak-ingtheir compliancea test oftheirloyalty. Severalindividuals,welldisposedto ourcause,to avoidbe-comingobjectsofpersecution,had complied;wouldit not be too rigorousto includethemin soheavyapenalty? But if there are any of us whoare con-sciousof greaterfortitude,suchpersonsshouldnoton that accountbe too severeon the weaknessofothers. They shouldthank nature for its bountTto them,and shouldbe indulgentto humanfrailty.Howfeware therewhowouldhavehad strengthofmindenoughin suchcircumstancesto hazard,by arefusal,beingmarkedout as theobjectsofmilitaryresentment? I hope, Mr. Speaker,as well frommotivesof justice,as a regardto the Constitution,weshallstop whereweare, and not go anyfartherinto the dangerouspracticeof disqualifyingcitizensby generaldescriptions. I hopewe shallreject theamendment,sir!

[Questionwasdetermined/nthe negative.]Februaryz4th

[Bill consideredfor settlingintestate estates, provingwills, andgrantinglettersof aclm;nSstration.]

Mr.Hamiltonsaidhe did not rise to opposethemotion of the gentlemanwho last spoke [Jones].He shouldprobablyvote with himon the question;but he confessedhe didnot viewit in quitesocleara light as that gentlemanappearedto do. Thereappearedto him to be difficultiesin the case,whichhewouldcandidlylaybeforethe Houseto assistits

32 AlexanderHamilton

judgment. The objectionis that a new court iserectedor an old oneinvestedwith a newjurisdic-tion,in whichit is not bound to proceedaccordingto the courseof the commonlaw. The questionis,What is meant in the Constitutionby this phrase,"the commonlaw") Thesewordshave in a legalviewtwo senses,onemoreextensive,the other morestrict.

In theirmost extensivesensetheycomprehendtheconstitutionof all those courts whichwere estab-lished by immemorialcustom, such as the Courtof Chancery,the EcclesiasticalCourt,etc., thoughthesecourtsproceedaccordingto a peculiarlaw. Intheirmorestrict sensetheyareconfinedto the courseofproceedingsin the courtsof Westminsterin Eng-land,or in the SupremeCourtsin thisState. If thewordsare understoodin the firstsense,the billunderconsiderationis not unconstitutional;if in the last,it is unconstitutional. For it givesto an old courta newjurisdiction,in whichit is not to proceedac-cordingto the courseof the commonlawin this lastsense. And to givenew jurisdictionto old courts,not accordingto the courseof the commonlaw,is inmy opinionasmuchan infringementin substanceoftbi._part of the Constitution,as to erectnewcourtswithsuchjurisdiction. Tosay the reversewouldbeto evadethe Constitution.

But though I viewit as a delicateand difficultquestion,yet I am fairlyinclinedto think that themore extensivesensemay be adopted; with t.hi._limitation,that such newjurisdictionmust proceedaccording to the courseof those courts havingby

The New YorkAssembly 33the commonlaw cognizanceof the subiea-_.Theyought,however,neverto be extendedto ob-jectswhichat commonlawbelongedto thejurisdic-tionofthe courtsat Westminster,andwhich,in ,:hi_State,are of the peck,liar_izance of the SupremeCourt. At commonlaw, the EcclesiasticalCourts,not the courts of Westminster,had cognizanceofintestaciesand testamentarycauses. The bill pro-posesthat the CourtofProbateshallhavecognizanceof the samecausesand proceedin the samemanneras the EcclesiasticalCourts,exceptas to inflictingecclesiasticalpenalties.

ThisdistinctionI have takenwill,I think,bearusoutin passingthe billunderconsideration. But it iscertainlya point not withoutconsiderabledifficulty.

[Questionwascalled andput: Will the House pass the law ? Deter-mined m the ai_rmative.]

FebruaryzTth[House went into Committee of _rhole on Tax Bill.]Mr.Hamiltonobservedthat, as the present bill

exhibiteda new system of taxation, it might beproperto enter into someexplanationsof its prin-ciples. It wasagreedon allhands that the systemheretoforein usewasfullofdefects,both in the viewofequalityamongindividualsandof revenueto theState. From the Legislatureto the assessor,allwasconjectureanduncertainty. Tobeginwith theLegislature,--whatcriterioncould any man possi-blyhaveby whichto estimatethe relativeabilitiesofthe severalcounties? Forhisparthehadthoughtmaturelyof the subject,but couldfindnone. Thewholemusteitherbe a businessof honestguessing,

01- VIII.--3,

34 .AlexanderH_;ltoa

orinterestedcalc_lhtionsofcountyconvenience,inwhicheachmemberwouldseektotransfertheburdenfromhisowncountyto another. The samethingmusthappeninthe subdivisionsamongthedistrictsbythesupervisors;and,ina stillmorestrikingman-ner,in the apportionmentof the tax to individualsbytheassessors.Howcantheypossiblyascertainthe comparativeabilitiesof individualsP--appear-macesmorethanrealitiesmustgovern.Themer-chantor factorwhohas a largestore of goods,forwhich,perhaps,he owesmore than the amount,will pay muchmore than a manof lessapparentgains,thoughten timesas muchproperty. Thishementionedby way of example. The same thinghappened among other orders of society. To-day,an assessor,myfriend,taxesmeat ten pounds.To-morrow,onelessmyfriendwilltax mefourtimesthe sum. Infinitedifferencesmusthappenfromthedifferentdegreesofjudgmentmenpossess,fromtheirdifferentbiassesand inclinations.A greatinequal-ity results,and all is uncertainty.

Theoreticalandpracticalfinanciershaveagreedincondemningthe arbitraryin taxation. By the ar-bitraryismeantthe leavingthe amountoftax to bepaidby eachpersonto the discretionof the officersemployedin the managementof the revenue. It isindeedanotherwordforassessment,whereall is leftto the discretionof the assessors.

The Englishwritershave justlyboastedthe su-periorityof their systemover that of Franceandsomeother countries; becauselittle or nothing isleft to the discretionof the otfmersofthe revenue.

The tqzw YorkA_sm__bly 35Andthe abtestobserversamongthe Frenchhaveacknowledgedthe advantage. The celebratedM.Neckerin alatepubhcationhast_kenespecialnoticeof thiscircum._nce. Theopinionof that states-man,whoconductedthe financesof Franceforsev-eralyears,andduringthe mostcriticalperiodsofthe latewar,with infiniteabilityandsuccess,is amostrespectableauthorityina matterof thiskind.

Thesehadnosmallshareinhisdisapprobationofapracticewhichputsonecitizensomuchinthepowerofanother.

Hewouldnotsay thatthepracticewascontrarytotheprovisionsofourConstitution;butitwascer-tainlyrepugnantto thegeniusof ourgovernment.Whatis the powerof the supervisorsandassessors,but a powerto tax in detail,whilethe Legislaturetaxesingross? Is itproperto transferso importanta trust fromthe handsof the Legislatureto theofficersof the parti_llar districts? Equalityandcertaintyarethe twogreatobjectsto be aimedat intaxation. Thepresentbilldoesnotpretendto reachabsoluteequality. This is impossible. No humauplancanattain it. Thevarietyof circumstancestobe takenintothecalculationsaretoocomplicatedtobe comprisedin any schemethat couldbe devised.But the principlesof the presentbillwillapproachmuch nearerto equality than the formersystem,andit willhavethegreatadvantageofcertainty. Itleavesnothingto discretion. Everyman can him-self estimatewhat he has to pay, without beingdependenton the caprices,the affections,or theenmitiesofanother.


The bill in its present fo_inis but _n imperfectsketch. It is inthepowerofthecommitteetomakeit better. No doubtthe combinedwisdomof theHousewillimproveit. Thelandtax, in particular,may requiregreat alterations.He had not beenableto satisfyhimselfonthispartof theplan. Allthiswas,ofcourse,submittedto the discretionof thecommittee.Onethingonlywasclear. Anychangewouldbe for the better,andtime and exta_encewouldmatureandameliorateit.

[The bill was taken into consideration.Amendmengsw_ pr_posedandadopted.]Februaryzlst

[,Debateon feesallowedforcertainlegalservioes.]Col.Hamiltonexpresseda hopethat the House

wouldnot carrymattersto an extreme. It wouldbe,he thought,as improperto makethe feesof theprofessiontoo lowas to makethemtoohigh. Gen-tlemenwhopractisedthe law,if they weremenofability,wouldbe paidforthe servicesrequiredofthem; and if the law didnot allowa propercom-pensation,it would be evaded. Namesmightbegivento thingsand chargesmade; againstwhichthere wouldbe no guard. In PennsylvaniaandJerseyattemptshadbeenmadeto reducetheemolu-mentsof theprofessionbelowthe properstandard.Thishadaffordedno relief;on thecontrary,the ex-pensesof the law and the profitsof the practisershadincreasedsincetheexperiment,theonlyeffectofwhichhadbeento transferthe expensefromthe de-linquentdebtortothe injuredcreditor. If the legalfeesamountto a compensation,in most casesthe

The New YorkAssembly 37practiserwouldcontenthimselfwiththem;if theydidnot,hewouldconsiderhimselfjustifiedinmaltingthe best bargainhe could,--the consequencesofwhichwereobvious. Whiledifferenceswouldariseamongmankind,andthat therewouldbe differenceswas certain,lawyerswouldbe necessary,and fortheir servicesthey wouldbe paid. He, therefore,wasof the opinion,that in goingthroughthe bill,the Houseshouldagreethat reasonableallowancesshouldbe madefortheservicesmentionedinthe bill,ortheywoulddefeattheirownobject.

March8th[Motionthat no freeholder or citizen shall be hereafter imprisoned

for any sum less than _o. but that execution shall issue and remainin forceagainst the debtor till, from time to time by different seizuresof his effects, the creditors _hall be satisfied.]

Col.Hamiltonconfessedthat his ownjudgmentwasnotclearlymadeuponthissubject. It wasnot,however,a new one to him. It was a questionwhichhad two sides,both of whichdeserveda se-riousattention. Theclauseasit stood,in hisopinion,wasnotproper. It mightbe rightto saywhatshallbedonein futurecontracts. But it willbe wrongtomeddlewiththe past. It wasveryprobable,if theclausewaspassed,it wouldpreventpeoplein poorcircumstancesfrom getting assistancefrom thewealthy;thisoughtto beconsidered. Manya poormanwhocanbefavoredwitha creditofxofindsamaterialadvantagein it; if the securitybe takenawaytherewillbean endto credit. Hewouldwishthateveryrna_in distressshouldmeetrelief. He

38 Alexander Hnmilton

was willing to comeinto any measurethat wouldeffectthis purpose.

Marchaoth[Debate on bill for reliefof certainpublic creditors.]Col.Hamiltonsupposedthat it was agreedon all

hands that some relief should be granted. Therewere,he said, two questionsbefore the committee:one, if they wouldput themon a footingwithothercitL_ens;andthe other,if they did not merit some-thing more. If, said he, you receivetheir certifi-cates and grantthemyourown,you extend to themonly that relief wtfichyou have already given toyourothercitizens,whopurchasedup theloan-o_cecertificatesof other States. But there can be nodifferencebetweenany onespeciesof our debt; andtherecanbe no substantialdifferencebetweentaldnga certificate of this State and a certificate of theUnited States. Muchhas been said about discrim-inathng,but all argumentsof discriminationamount ':to nothing. Whetherwe,by thisassumption,makeour State a creditorState or not, cannotbe deter-mined. The presentcalculationof the publicdebts Iis no criterion to go by. He remembered,he said,that when he was in Congressthe liquidated debtwas somewhereabout $4o,ooo,oooland that it wassupposed the unliquidated debt was $40,000,00omore. If this is the case, whichhe believedit was,the State of New York would be a debtor State.From the situationof public affairs,it is to be re-gretted that there is no system ex___tingwhichcangivegeneralreliefto publiccreditors. In thepresent '

The New York Assembly 39instance,it is onlyrequiredthat youdothat justiceto onepart of yourcitizenswhichyouhavealreadydoneto anotherpart. If weshouldmakeourStatea creditor State, by extendingthis relief to ourcitizens,canwenot obtainredress,ifourConfedera-tion exists,and Godforbidthat it may not? Hewaswilling,he said,to extendthe relief; he didnotwantto confineit to anypartic_,hrclassofpeople.

-March2zs:[Debateon repealingpart of the TrespassAct.x]Col.Hamiltonsaid that this amendmentto the

trespasslawwasonlyto repealthat part whichwasin violationofthe publictreaty. Thecourtsofjus-tice wereat presentin a delicatedilemma,obligedeitherto explainawaya positivelawofthe State,oropenlyviolatethe nationalfaith by counteractingthe very words and spirit of the treaties now inexistence. Becausethe treaty declaresa generalamnesty,andthisState,by this lawdeclaresthat nopersonshallpleadany militaryorderfora trespasscommittedduring the war. He saidno State wasso much interested in the due observanceof thetreaty as the Stateof NewYork,the Britishhavingpossessionof its westernfrontiers,and whichtheyholdunderthe sanctionof ournot havingcompliedwith our national engagements. He hoped theHousewouldhave toomuchwisdomnot to doawaythisexception,andindeedhe expectedthe billwouldbereadilyagreedto.

[Bill wasagreedto almostunanimously.]zTitlewas anAct to _ personswhoheldpropertyof patriota

duringthe war, and to preventtheir pleadin___ga m_i_ry orderindefence.

4o Alex_der HamiltonMarch_.d

['Motionforlayingt3,oootaxonNewYork:County,]Col.Hamiltondidnot supposethat anyarg_lments

wouldhave muchinfluenceon the decisionof thisquestion. Thereisno criterionto goby,andwe fallinto the greatest uncertainty. A gentlemanhastoldusplainly,thathe hasbeenintriguingandmate-ing the best bargainfor hiscounty. He wouldnotsay that NewYork had madeany conditions. Hehopedthat the intriguesmightnot have the effectthat was sought. The county of Albany,he said,wasalwaysrated too low. It was onlyrequiredtopay7,ooowith 7o,oooinhabitants; whileSuffolk,with only 14,ooo,paid 4,5oo. He asked if theHousewouldpermitintriguesto havesuchan effect.The countyof Kings,whichnumbersonly 3,o00in-habitants,and containsx8,5ooacresof land, is topay 2,4oo. RichmondCounty, whichis equallysmall,is also overrated;is this right? NewYorkhadeverbeenratedtoohigh. OneofthegentlemenfromNewYorkhad proposed_2,ooofromthe meredespairofcomingat anequality,but this sumis toohigh. He askedif it wasjustice that the cityandcounty of NewYork,whichwasnot a tenth partofthe valueor populationof the State, shouldbearone fourth of its burdens. He hoped this wouldbe considered,and no partialityexhibitedby theLegislature.

March24th|Billforestabl/shingunivendty.]Col.Hamiltonhopedthat the Housewouldnot

recommitthe bill. Therewas no doubt,he said,

The Nw,YorkAssembly 41but theLeglgiaturepossessedthe rightto givethispower. Therewerefrequente_amplesof the 1,'rodinGreatBritain,wherethispowerhadbeengranted.Nodisadvantage,hesaid,couldarisefromit; onthecontrary,manywouldbe the benefits. He there-forewishedthe billmightbe finished,as no doubtexistedwith himof the powerand theproprietyofthe Legislaturegrantingthoseprivilegeswhichwerementionedin the bill.

April_rzth[Billtore# citationacts.]Mr.Hamiltonadvocatedthebillwithgreatability

and candor. He mentionedthe bad effectsof thepresentlaws,the difficultiesthat thecourtsofjusticethrewin the wayofthem,andthe impossibilityeverto amendthem in such a manneras to havetlmmactedupon. He urgedthe influencethe opinionofour courtsought to have on the Legislature. Thecourtswerenot interested,andtheir decisionswereperfectlyimpartial. He askedif the SouthernDis-trict of the State, insteadof havingfared tolerablywell,had been ruined,wouldthe Legislaturehavecompelledtheirdebtorswhowerewithoutthe linesto have paidadditionalsums. This he did not be-lieve. Andwhy,then, saidhe, compelthe creditorsto take a lesssum? He mentionedthat in severalinstancesthe severityof the law fellon gentlemenwho were attached to the Americancause, andwhohad acted meritoriouslyin the Revolution. Itwas certainlynot right to view all the creditorsas enemies. Remarldngon the ill effects of the


Legislatureinterferingin privatecontracts,and theviolationof publicfaith whichit occasioned,he ob-servedthat it woulddestroy all credit,and be themeansofinjuringmany whomthe Legislaturehadintendedto benefit.

[Billpassedunanimously.]

SPEECHON ACCEDINGTOTHE INDEPENDENCEOFVERMONT

April.--Thecounselforthe petitionershasenteredinto a large fieldof argumentagainstthe presentbill. He has endeavoredto show that it is con-trary to the Constitution,to the maximsof soundpolicy,and to the rightsofproperty. His observa-tions havenot beendestituteof weight. They ap-pearto have the moreforce,as they areto a certaindegreefoundedin truth. But it is the provinceofthe committeeto distinguishthe just limits of theprincipleshe has advanced; howfar they extend,and wherethey terminate. To aid the committeein this inquiryshallbe myendeavor,and followingthe counselfor the petitionersthrough the differentheadsofhisargument,I hopeto be ableto show,thatneitherof the objectionshe hasurgedstandsin theway of the measureproposed,and that the Con-stitution permits, policy demands it, and justiceacquiescesin its adoption.

Thefirstobjectionis drawnfromthat great prin-cipleof the socialcompact,--that the chiefobjectofgovernmentis to protectthe rightsof individualsbythe unitedstrengthofthe community. Thejustness

The Independenceof Vermont 43of thisprincipleis not to be disputed,but itsextentremainsto be ascertained. It must be taken withthislimitation:Theunitedstrengthofthecommun-ity oughtto be exertedfor the protectionofindivid-uals sofar as thereis a rationalprospectof success;sofar as is consistentwiththe safetyand well-beingofthe whole. Theduty ofa nationisalwayslimitedby theseconsiderations:It is boundto makeeffortsandencounterhazardsforthe protectionofits mem-bers, proportionedto its abilities,warrantedby areasonableexpectationof a favorable issue, andcompatiblewith itseventualsecurity. But it is notboundtoenterintoor prosecuteenterprisesofa mani-fest rashnessand folly;orwhich,intheeventof suc-cess,wouldbeproductiveofmoremischiefthangood.

ThisquMificationof the principlecan no morebedeniedthan the principleitself. Thecounselfor thepetitionersindeedadmitsit in substance,whenheadmits that a caseof extremenecessityis an ex-ceptionto the rule: but he addsthat this necessityshouldbe apparentand unequivocal.

What constitutesa caseof extremenecessityad-mitsofno precisedefinition. It is alwaysa questionoffact, to be determinedby a considerationof theconditionof the parties and the particularcircum-stancesof the caseitself. A caseof necessitythenexists, when every discerningunprejudicedman,wellacquaintedwith facts,mustbe convincedthata measureca__otbe undertakenor pursuedwith aprobabilityofsuccess. Todeterminethis an experi-ment is not alwaysnecessary: circumstancesmayexistso decisiveandpalpablein their nature, as to


renderit theextremeof temerityto beg/nas wellasto continuean experiment.Theproprietyof doingeitherthe oneorthe othermusteqlmllybedecidedby a judiciousestimateof thenationalsituation.

Thetendencyof the principlecontendedfor,ontheapplicationof it in argument,hasbeento provethattheStateoughtto employthecommonstrengthofthesocietyto protectthe rightsof its citizens,in-terestedin the districtof territory in question,byreducingthe revoltedinhabitantsof that districttoan obedienceto its laws. The inquirythereforeis:Canthis be done? Is the Statein a situationto un-dertakeit? Is there a probabilitythat the objectwillbe moreattainableat a futureday? Is therenot rather a probabilitythat it will be every daymoreout of our reach,and that leavingthings intheirpresentstatewillbe attendedwithseriousdan-gers and inconveniences?Is it even desirable,ifpracticable,to reducethe peoplein questionundersubjectionto t.hi._State?

In pursuingthis inquiryweoughtto bearin mindthat a nationis neverto reg_llateits conductby re-motepossibilitiesormerecontingencies,but by suchprobabilityas may reasonablybe inferredfromtheexistingstate of things and the us_lalcourseofhumanaffairs.

Withtbi._caution,no well-informedmindcanbeat a lossin whatmannerto answerthe questionsIhaveproposed. A concisereviewof the past, anda dispassionateconsiderationof the present, willenableus to judgewith accuracyof the obligationsand interestsof the State.

J

The Indepen_-nce of Vermont 45

The pre_n_ons to independenceof the districtofterritoryin questionbegan shortlyafter the corn-mencementof the late Revolution. We werethenengagedin a warforourexistenceasa people,whichrequiredthe utmostexertionof ourresourcesto giveus a chanceof success. To have divertedany partof themfromthis objectto that of subduingthe in-habitantsof Vermont,to have involveda domesticquarrelwhichwouldhave compelledthat hardyandnumerousbodyof mento throw themselves intothearms of the powerwith which we were then con-tending,instead of joiningtheir efforts to ours inthe commoncauseof Americanliberty,as they fora long time did, with great advantageto it, wouldhave beena speciesof frenzy,forwhichthere couldhave been no apology,and wouldhave endangeredthe fate of the Revolutionmore than any one stepwe couldhave taken.

This idea is too obvious to need being e_largedupon. The most prejudicedwill acquit the Statefromblamefornot tryingthe effectof forceagainstthat people during the continuance of the war.Everymoderatemeasure,every thing shortof hos-tility or a total sacrificeof thosefights, whichwerethe originalcauseof the revolt, and whichare theoccasionof the oppositionto the presentbill, weretried. Conciliatinglaws were passed, overturesmade,negotiationscarriedon in Congress,but all tono tmrtx_.

The peace found the Vermontersin a state ofactual independence,which they had enjoyed forseveralyears--organizedunder a reg,,l_rform of

46 AlexanderH_milton

government,andincreasedin starmo_dabya consider-ableaccessionof numbers. It foundthis Statetheprincipalseatofthewar,exhaustedbypeculiar exer-tions and overwhelmedin debt. The embarrass-mentsarisingfromthissituationpressusdaily. Theutmostexertionof wisdomin our publiccouncilswouldnotbe morethan equalto exLa'icatingusfromthem. As mattersstand,the publicdebtsare un-providedfor,and thepubliccreditprostrate.

Arewenowin a situationtoundertakethereduc-tionofVermont;orarewelikelyspeedilytobein suchasituation?Whereareourresources,whereourpubliccredit,to enableus to carryon an offensivewar?

We oughtto recollectthat, in war,to defendorattack are two differentthings. To the first,themountains,the wilderness,the militia, sometimeseventhe povertyofa country,willsumce. Thelat-ter requiresan armyand a treasury.

The populationof Vermontwillnot be rated toohigh,if statedat nearlyonehalfofthat ofNewYork.Can any reasonableman supposethat NewYork,with the load of debt the Revolutionhas left uponit, and undera populargovernment,wouldbe ableto carryon withadvantagean offensivewar againsta peoplehalf as numerousas itself,in theirownter-ritory; a territorydefendedas much by its naturalsituationas by the numbersand hardihoodof itsinhabitants? Can it be imaginedthat it wouldbeable,finally,to reducesucha peopleto its obedience?The suppositionwouldbe chimerical,and the at-tempt madness.

Canwehope a more favorableposture of affairs

The I__kmcz of V_mont 47h_? WillnotthepopulationandstrengthofVermontincreaseinratiotoourown?Thereis,perhaps,noessentialdi_erencebetweentheirgovern-mentandours.Thenecessityofrnaldugprovision,inoneway"oranother,fortheexigenciesoftheUnion,andforthedischargeofthedebtsoftheState,mustcontinuetosubjectourcitizenstoheavierburthensthanareborneby the inhabitantsofthatcountry,whohavenocallforrevenuebeyondthe support of theirdomesticadministration.Acountrypossessinga fertilesoft,exemptfromtaxes,cannotfailofhavinga rapidgrowth.

Theenterprisewillofcoursebecomemoredifficultbydelay;andprocrastinationcanonlyserveto ren-der the claimsof the State and its citizens,in theopinionof mankind,obsolete,and to givethe con-sentof time to the connectionwhichthe peopleofVermonthave, in all appearance,alreadyformedwith the British Government.This last point Ishalldiscussmorefullyin anotherplace.

I haveconfinedmyselfin myreasoningto an ex-aminationofwhat is practicableon the part of thisStatealone. Noassistanceis to be expectedfromourneighbors. Theiropinionof the originof thecontroversybetweenthis State and the peopleofVermont,whetherwellor ill founded,is not gener-allyinourfavor; andit isnotoriousthat theEasternStateshaveuniformlycountenancedthe independ-ence of that country. This might suggestto usreflectionsthatwouldconfirmthebeliefoftheira-practicabilityofdestroying,andthedangerofat-temptingtodestroy,thatindependence.

48 AlexanderH_Theschemeofcoercionwouldillsuiteventhe

dispositionofourowncitizens.Thehabitsofthink-ingtowhichtheRevolutionhasgivenbirth,arenotadaptedtotheideaofacontestfordominionoverapeopledisinclinedtohveunderourgovernment.And,inreality,itisnottheinterestoftheStateevertoregaindominionoverthembyforce.We shaUdowelltoadverttothenatureofourgovernment,andtotheextentofthisState,accordingtoitsacknow-ledgedlimits.Arewesureweshallbeabletogovernwhatwealreadypossess?orwoulditbewisetowishtotrythestrengthofourgovernmentoveranumerousbodyofpeopledisaffectedtoit,andcom-peUedtosubmittoitsauthoritybyforce?FormypartIshouldregardthereunionofVermonttothisStateasoneofthegreatestevilsthatcouldbe-fallit;asasourceofcontinualembarrassmentanddisquietude.Itishintedbythecounselforthepetitioners,that

monyoftheinhabitantsofVermontaxedesirousoflivingunderourgovernment;andsanguinetem-pershavelongagopredictedthattheywouldshortlygrowwearyoftheirindependence,throwitoff,andbecomereunitedwithusandNew Hampshire,oftheir own accord. There axe clear principlesofhumannature,to whichwemayresortto falsifythisprediction. In populargovernments,thesentimentsof the peoplegenerallytake their tone from theirleaders. The leadersof Vermontc_nuot desireareunionwithNewYork,becausethis wouldamountto anabdicationoftheirownpowerandconsequence.ThepeopleofVermontwillnotdesireit; becauseno

The Indcp_dcnceof Vermont 49peopleeverdesiredtopassfroma situationinwhichtheywereexemptedfromtaxe_andin whichtheysufferedno particularoppression,to one in whichtheywouldbe subjectto burthenscomparativelyheavy.

I passnowto anexaminationoftheconstitution-ality of the measureproposedby the bill. It isobserved,thatby the ConstitutionthecountiesofCharlotte,Cumberland,and Gloucester,are con-stituentpartsof theState; thatone articleof itdeclaresthatno powershallbe exercisedoverthepeople,butsuchas is derivedfromandgrantedbythem;thatnoexpresspoweris giventotheLegisla-tureto dismemberany partof theState; andthatthissilenceoftheConstitutionisa tacitreservationofthatpowerto thepeople.

To all thisI answer,that thesovereigntyof thepeople,by ourConstitution,is vestedintheirrepre-sentativesin Senateand Assembly,with the inter-ventionof the Councilof Revision,and, that thepowerof dismemberingthe State,undercertaincir-cumstances,is a necessaryappendageof the sover-eignty. Thepracticeof nations,and the authorityof writers,conspireto establishthisprinciple;andthe safetyof societyrequiresit. Thereare certainsituationsofkingdomsand states,in whichthe sac-rificeof a part is essentialto the preservationorwelfareofthe rest.

History furnishesabundant examplesof suchsacrifices. Nations, in makingpeace, frequentlycedepartsof theirterritoriesto each other. Civilcommotionshave many times producedsimilar

VOZ,, VIII,-"_

5o AlexanderHamilton

dismemberments.Themonarchyof Spain,afteradestructiveand fruitlesscontestto preserveit, wasobliged,at last,to surrenderits dominionovertheNetherlands.ThecrownofAustriawas,inlikeman-ner, compelledto abandonits jurisdictionovertheSwissCantons. Andthe UnitedStates are a recentand stillmoresignalinstanceof the exerciseof thesameright. Neitheroftheseinstanceshasbeencen-suredor condemned,nor the powerofthe sovereignto accedeto the separationcalledin question.

The celebratedauthor quotedby the counselforthe petitionersis expliciton thisarticle,and decideswithclearnessthat theprinceor bodyintrustedwiththe sovereignauthoritymay,in certainemergencies,dismemberthe empire,and lop offa limb for thegoodof the body. This inferencefrom the silenceofa constitution,is the reverseofthat drawnby thecounselofthe petitioners. Doubtshavebeenraisedby partic_llartheoristsuponthe subject; but theirtheoriesweretoo abstractfor practice,and are nowexplodedby the ablestwritersonthelawsofnations.Indeed,thosedoubtswerechieflyappliedto the caseof a cession,or relinquishment,of a part ofthe em-pire stillin possessionofthe sovereign. It haslongbeenconsideredas a clearpoint, that wherea partof an empireis actuallysevered,by conquest,or arevolution,the prince,or bodyvestedwith the ad-ministrationofthe government,hasa rightto assentto andto ratifythat separation.Thisis anobviousandimportantdistinction;fromwhichotherinfer-encesofmomentwillbe drawninanotherplace, ttwillbe foundin Vattel,bookfour,chaptersecond.

The Independenceof Vermont 5xVermontis, infact,severedfromNewYork,and

hasbeensoforyears. Thereis no reasonablepro-spect of recoveringit, and the attempt wouldbeattendedwithcertainand seriouscalamities. TheLegislaturehave, therefore,an undoubtedright torelinquishit, and policydictatesthat it shouldbedone.

It is of noforceto say that this principlewouldauthorizethe dismembermentofLongIsland,or ofany other part of the State. Thereis no doubt,thesamecircumstancesconcurring,the sameconse-quenceswouldresult,but not sooner;andit willbethe dutyofthe Stateto endeavorto preventa simi-larextremity.

Thenextthing,in theorderobservedbythecoun-sel for the petitioners,that presentsitselfto ourdiscussion,is the policyof the measure.

Againstthis it is objected,that the precedentwouldbe dangerous,that the facilitywith whichtheVermonterswillhaveaccomplishedtheirobject,mightinviteotherpartsofthisStateandthe UnitedStatesto followtheirexample.

To this I answer,that exampleshavelittle to dowith the revolutionsof empire. Whereversuchastate of thingsexistsas to makeit the interestortheinclinationofa largebodyofpeopleto separatefromthe societywith whichthey havebeencon-nected,andat thesametimeto afforda prospectofsuccess,theywillgenerallyyieldto theimpulse,with-outmuchinquiryor solicitudeaboutwhathasbeendoneby others,oruponother occasions;andwhenthisis notthe case,precedentswillnevercreatethe

5_ AiexlnderHamiltondisposition.Eventsof thisk_ndarenotpruduc_or controlledby the ordinaryopemtlonsof h_mmlpolicy,care,or contrivance.

But,whatevermaybe theeffectof theexample,it istoolatetopreventorredresstheevil. Itsprangup undercircumstanceswhichforbadetheapplica-tionofaneffectualremedy,andit hasnowacquireda maturitywhichwouldmockall our effortstocounteractit. Vermontis lost to NewYork,be-yondthe possibilityof a recovery;anda passiveacquiescencein its independencecannotmakeitmoreformidable,as anexample,thana directrecog-nitionofit. Successandimpunityare theingredi-entsthatareto constitutetheforceof theexample,andthesewillexistineithercase.

Ontheotherhand,thepolicyofthemeasurere-sultsfromtwoimportantconsiderations.Theone,that bythe unionof Vermontto the Confederacy,itmustof coursebeara proportionof the publicbur-dens; the other,that it wouldbe detachedfromthecompletionof a connection,alreadyin all appear-ancebegun,witha foreignpower. Theincorpora-tionof Vermontintothe Confederacyis by the billmadean expressconditionof the acknowledgmentoftheirindependence.

Thefirstadvantagewastooobviousto be denied,thoughobservationshavebeenmadeto diminishitsimportance. Itsinlandsituationhasbeennotedasa circumstancethat precludedthe expectationofanyconsiderablerevenuefromit. But the samethingmightbe saidof the interiorparts of this and ofthe otherStates; and yet weshouldmakea much

The Independenceof Vermont 53,w_rsefigurethanwedoff ourresourceswereto bedrawnwhollyfromourAtlanticsettlemen1_.ThecountryofVermontisfertileandwiltsoonbepopu-lous,and the resourceswhichit maybe capableofaffordingat a day not far remote,thoughnot ofgreatmagnitude,willby nomeansbecontemptible.

But the principaladvantageto be expectedfromthe measureis the onementionedlast. Hereit isasked,Whereis the evidenceof the fact, wherethe proofof the connection? WouldGreatBritain,whichhasso recently,in a solemntreaty,acknow-ledgedthe te_-_itoryin questionto be comprehendedwithinthelimitsofthe UnitedStates,derogatefromthat treaty,andfor so insignificantan object,as aconnectionwitha smallcornerofoneof the States,hazarda rupturewiththe wholeConfederacy?

Notexpectinga formalcallforthe evidenceofthefact,mymemoryisnotpreparedto enterintoallthedetailsrequisiteto its full elucidation. I wellre-memberthat duringthe later periodsof the war,avarietyof circumstancesproduceda convictionofitsexistenceeverywhere,--inthe army,in the Legis-lature,andin Congress.Amongothertransactionsthat cameto my knowledge,I shallmentiononeas nearlyas my recollectionwillserveme. Sometimein the yearI78I,Fayand IraAllen,twoofthemostinfluentialindividualsin that country,wentinto Canada,and we werewell informedhad re-peated interviewswith GeneralHaldimand.Notlongafter,a party of the British,underSt. Leger,penetratedas farasTiconderoga.

A detachmentfromthat bodyfellin by accident


with a smallpartyof Vermonter,fireduponthem,killedone of their number,and tookthe restoners. Discoveringtheirmistake,theyinterredthedead body with the honorsof war, and sent theprisonershomeloadedwith kindnessesand caresses.From that perioda free intercoursesubsist_l be-tweenCanadaandVermont. Thisis oneproof,anda prettydecisiveone,to showthat a connectionwasformedduringthe war. I doubtnotthereare othersequallystrong,withinthe recollectionofothermem-bers of the committee. Sincethe peace,this inter-coursehas beencultivatedwith reciprocalzeal,andthere are circumstancesrelated (whichI shallnotrepeat, as they do not cometo me with sufficientauthenticity)that lookstronglyto a continuanceofthe connection.

If thisconnectioneverexisted,whatreasonhaveweto believethat it has beensincedissolved? Tome,I confess,thereappearsnone. Onthe contrary,the situationofthe partiesinmyopinionforbidsthesuppositionof its dissolution.

I flattermyself,those who knowmy mannerofthinkingwill acquit me of a dispositionto sowgroundlessjealousiesof any nation. I consideraconductofthiskind,as undignifiedandindelicateina publiccharacter;and if I werenot persuadedthesuspicionsI entertain arewellfounded,no motivewouldhave inducedme to bringthem forward.

It is asked,in substance,what objectGreat Brit-ain can have in cultivatingsuchconnection. Thisadmitsof severalanswers.

GreatBritaincannotbut seeourgovernmentsare

The_denc ofVermont 55feebleanddistracted;thattheUNIONwantsenergy,thenationconcert;thatourpublicdebtsareunpro-videdfor;ourfederaltreasuriesempty;ourtradelanguishing.Shemayflatterherselfthatthisstateofthingswillbeproductiveofdiscontentsamongthepeople,andthatthesediscontentsmayleadtoavoluntaryreturntoherdominion.ShemayhopetoseeinthiscountryacounterpartoftherestorationofCharlestheSecond.Howeverm_-qtakentheymaybe,itisnotimpossible,thatspeculationsofthiskindmayenterintotheheadofaBritishminister.

Thegovernmentlatelyestablishedin Canada_thesplendidtitleofViceroy--seemstolookbeyondthedrearyregionsofCanadaandNovaScotia.Inthisview,shewouldnaturallylayholdofVer-

montasalinkinthechainofevents.Itwouldbeapositiveacquisitionofsomuch,andnothingcouldbetter_wer thepurposeof acceleratingthepro-gressof discontentthantheexampleof a country,partofourselves,comparativelyspe_lring,freefromtaxes. Nothingcouldhave a morepowerfulinflu-encethan suchan exampleuponthe inhabitantsofthe settlementsborderinguponthat country. Howfar andhowrapidlyit mightextenditselfisa matternot easyto be calc_d_ted.

But layingasideeverysuppositionof thisnature,there are motivesof interest whichwoulddisposethe BritishGovernmentto cultivateVermont. Aconnectionwith Vermontwillhereafterconducetothe securityof Canada,and to the preservationofthe Westernposts. That GreatBritain meanstoretaintheseposts,maybeerred fromtheinterest

she has in doingit. The ostensiblereasonfor nothavingdeliveredthem up heretofore,is the infrac-tions of the treaty on our part; but thoughtheseinfractionsin someinstancescannot be denied,itmayfairlybe presumedthat they are nothingmorethan the pretext for withholdingthe posts, whilethe true motiveis the prodigiousadvantagewhichthe monopolyof the fur trade affordsto the corn-merceof the Englishnation.

If Great Britainhas formedthe designof fi_anyretainingthoseposts,shemustlookforwardsoonerorlater to a rupturewith this country; for,degradedas we are by our mismanagement,shecan hardlyentertain so mean an opinionof us as to expectwe shalleventually submitto such a violationofourrights and interestswithouta struggle. And,insuchacase,Vermontwouldbenodespicableauxiliary.

But wouldGreat Britain hazard a waxwith theUnitedStatesforso inconsiderablean object?

In the firstplace, the objectis not inconsiderable.In the next, our situationis not such as to renderour resentmentformidable. This situationis per-haps better understoodby everybodyelse thanourselves;and no nation would foregoa presentadvantageto our detriment,whileit knew that achangeof governmentmust precedeany inconven-iencesfromourdispleasure.

I do not supposethat the British Governmentwould,in the presentstate of things,commititselfto any avowedengagementswith the peopleof Ver-mont. It will,no doubt, take care to be in such asituationas to leaveitselfat libertyto act according

The In_ce of Vermont 57to cirmzmstanees;but it win,and I haveno doubtdoes,bythe intermediationof itsofficers,keepup asecretintercoursewiththe leadersofthatpeople,toendeavorgraduallyto mouldthemto its interest,tobe readyto convertthemto its own_ uponany favorableconjunctureor futureemergency.Thispolicyis soobviousandsafe,that it wouldbepresumablewithoutanyevidenceofits existence;

Onthe part of Vermont,whiletheir fate in theAmericanscaleremainssuspended,considerationsofsafetywoulddirectthemto sucha connectionwiththe BritishGovernment.Theywouldnot choosetolieat ourmercy,or to dependon theirstrength,iftheycouldfindrefugeandsupportelsewhere.

Thereisa circum._tance,too,mentionedwitha dif-ferentviewby the counselfor the petitioners,whichwouldcontributetothis connection.I meanthere-lativesituationofCanadaandVermont. It isasked:"Maynot this situationinduceVermontto regretthe offerofindependence,and promptthe peopleofthat country,forthe sakeofcommerce,to formstillcloserconnectionswith a foreignpower?" I ask:Doesnot this situation,whichit is supposedmighthaveso powerfulan influence, afforda strong pre-sumptionof the existenceof such a connection?Andis it not our true policyto take away everyadditionaltemptation?

I shall readily admit, that it is very doubtfulwhetherVermontwillacceptthe profferedacknow-ledgmentof its independence,upon the conditionannexed. I firmlybelievethat shedoesnotdesireit,andthatshewouldbe perplexedby the dilemmato

58 AlexanderHamiltonwhichshewouldbereduced.But whethersheac-ceptsit or not,the offermaybeexpectedto-haveagoodeffect. It wouldat least serveto ascertainfacts. Herrefusalwouldbe a conclusiveevidenceofa determinedpredilectionto a foreignconnection;and it wouldshowthe UnitedStates theabsolutenecessityof combiningtheireffortsto subvertan in-dependencesohostileto theirsafety. If theyshouldfindthemselvesunequalto the undertal_ng,it mustoperateas a newinducementto the severalStatesto strengthenthe UN:os.

In everylight, therefore,themeastmeon nationalgroundappearsadvisable;but it stillremainsto in-quirewhatwillbeourduty in respectto the citizensof this State who are ownersof land in Vermont.Howfar shallwe violatetheir rights,and howfarareweboundto makethemcompensation?

Theclaimto acompensationisthethingwhichhasbeenwithmostproprietyurgedbythe counselforthepetitioners. Let us, however,examineits natureandfoundation.

But, beforeI enter into this examination,I shallrepeat an observationwhichI made on a formeroccasion. Whateverobligationsthere may be onthepart ofthe State,cannotbeincreasedbyaccedingto the measureproposed. If Vermontis not irre-trievablylost to this State, the duty of protectionwhichit owesto individllalsobligesit to employthecommonstrengthto reinstatethem in theirrights.If it is irretrievablylost,norightscapableof beingrenderedeffectivewillbe sacrificed;of course,noobligationtomakinga recompensewillexist.

The Indcp_dcnceof V_mont 59Butthe truthis, thepresentbill,so farfromsur-

renderingthe rights of individual_%puts things intheonlytrainin whichtheywilleverhavean oppor-tunityof givingthemvalidity. Thethirdclauseofthe ninth articleof the Confederationexpresslyde-claresthat all controversiesabout the right of soilbetweenthe citizensof differentStatesshallbe de-cidedby a federalcourt. The counselfor the pe-titionerstellgus that hisclientsdoubtthe operationof this clause,but as he givesus no reasonfor thedoubt,I .qhallonlysay that the termsof it appeartome clearand explicit.

I haveno doubtthat the petitionerswouldbe en-titledto a federalcourt;andthoughthat courtwouldnotdec/dein suchaquestionlikethe tribunalsofNewYork,butupongeneralprinciplesofnaturalandpoliti-calrights,I shouldconfidentlyexpectthat allequita-bleclaimsofourcitizenswouldhavetheirfulleffect.

It is,however,furtherobservedonthishead, thatthe expenseofsuchcourtwouldexceedthe abilitiesof individuals,and couldonlybe compassedby theresourcesof sovereignStates.

If this suggestionshouldbe admitted to be true(thoughI thirlk the expenseis greatly overrated),yet surelyit wouldbe more reasonableto ask theStatefor its assistancein procuringa federalcourtto obtainjusticeto the petitioners,than to ask it toundertakea ruinouswar for that purpose. Thedif-ferencein expensewould not bear a comparison.IndeecLthe first would be a triflingobjectto theState,whilethe last wouldexceedits abilities,andperhapsendin its disgrace.

60 _.6]e_der Hmmiiton

:But if the bill evencontainedno provisionforob-taining justiceto the petitioners,I should hold th__tthe State wouldnot be undera strict obligationtorecompensethem for their losses. The distinctionI would lay down upon the subject is this: If agovernmentvoluntarily bargainsaway the rights, ordisposesof the property, of its citizens,in their en-joyment, possession,or power, it is bound to ma_ecompensation for the thing of which it hath de-prived them; but if they are actually dispossessedof those rights, or that property, by the casualtiesof war, or a revolution,the State, if the pubhc goodrequires it, may abandon them to the loss withoutbeing obliged to make reparation. The authorquotedby the counselfor the petitioners,has in viewthe caseofa voluntary dispositionof the property ofcitizens in the powerof the State; and his doctrineis unquestionably just, but it doesnot apply to thecaseof an actual dispossessionby any of thoseeventsin which nations have no choice, In wars betweenStates, the sovereign is never supposedto be boundto make good the losseswhich the subject sustainsby the captures or ravages of the enemy, thoughthey should aznountto the destructionof hi._wholeproperty; and yet nothing can be more agreeabletonatural equity than that those who happen to bethe unluckyvict_m_of the warshouldbe indemnifiedby the community. But, in practice, sucha princi-ple would be found attended with endless difficul-ties and inconveniences; and thereforethe reverseof it has been adopted as a general rule. The in-dividua!sufferer,however,might with great color of

The lndepmden__ff'Vermont 6I

justice,sayto thegovernment,Whydidyou makepeacewithoutstipulatinga reparationforthe dam-agedoneto yourcitizens? If it wasnecessaryforthepublicgoodto sacrificemy interests,t havearightto a publiccompensationformylosses.

Thoughthis easemay, upon a superficialview,appeardissimilarto theoneunderconsideration,yetthe principleuponexaminationwillbefoundas ap-plicableto the oneas to the other. Thetruereasonis that the resourcesof nationsare not adequatetothereparationofsuchextensivelossesasthosewhichare commonlyoccasionedby warsand revolutions;and it wouldthereforebe contraryto the generalgoodofsocietyto establishit asa rule,that thereisa strictobligationto repaysuchlosses. It isbetterthat there should be individualsufferersthan toadmita rule whichwouldfetter the operationsofgovernmentanddistresstheaffairsofthe community.

Generosityandpolicymay,inparticularinstances,dictatesuchcompensation.Sometimesthey havebeenmade by nations,but much ofteneromitted.Theproprietyof doingthe oneor the other mustdependoncircumstancesin whichthe abilityofthepubli

The Works of Alexander Hamilton, Ed. Henry Cabot Lodge (Federal Edition), Vol. VIII

Documents

Transcript of The Works of Alexander Hamilton, Ed. Henry Cabot Lodge (Federal Edition), Vol. VIII