» ^^ 5^ >>. 3-)> Z3B. >:» LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. =:^/.^ ,..LA.H- 1 1 UNITED STATES OP AMERICA. >> >'-x >■> ^. f" }> . '^^ ■> ■> ■^;> ~^i>JS'oo '^X»>> ^>.i>^>jp ► > J '.>!^ ^v^ ^' :^ "-^ V, ^ 1 > ^ > > , .■ > > ^■> •'^'^?a^>: ■>"*:- Ik ■ "^ ■ -~y ■■ TV "> ■ -> ^ ^ > ^^^gijfc'^ SV^N "..)" '*':>~> 3^ -^^ > ' > >:* V. ■>^v\> -v S^" >->^:»^^- • .■-. ^^ ^^.^>>:J>3'^ :>^i> ^ ^ j> ^1) -X> ^^K)l^ )- r.. ;:>: > • ■>> ^- iJBR^ ^y j> i> ^ .>5i3> ^^ ^j> •2i&^jo::> --» ' \jy - > :3^ :3BL> > - >-^> > »:» ■>:■ )^ ■ "3I^:)^"> > "'■3*' ^ > ^>-i> \-^^J> ^ o ^ > >» / "0) •» -JJI^ ^,") ;,> ~^' ~3 > :> >■> ^> j» ■ . ""^ ■ -""^ ^;3B> .5 > ^ s j> ^>- ' .'->■> ^^^ps^ o > J> .3>>:Ji& : - ^i> :j38»X>^^^ j3^::> ■-~^'>> _I^B^^^ ■ ■'!> > > _ )>:>..» ■ ' V ::3P ,i» ■ ">"> ~^9iBV^ "> > ■->> ■ -1 >>> » "> . ■> 'SRS ' "^ > '"> ~ • > ^>>^^ -o ■ ■■v>' ■ ■ :>^i^ .'■ i> • "IS^^^O^) •' 3l>^ >. ,>^.^» ■ 9;) o"> ^ ; :3>>:j^ " o- .> J5j>o ^ ^:jt 1^ -• "'■'-Ss^B?^ .-' ^ "^ > 3 6>. ^ J» ^ ■■ ■ ^> '^st :^ > ^ ^ :»■■ ":» B> ^y^^^Sj^^ ii "> ^'"> > , t > ^ ^' .> .3»:))~^ . I^-^ '.J^^ ^i ?2i3W^ ^. V "5 r.:* je> ' y^» ■ > .JJ» >^.> _j^ ■ ^» ■\x/^3iP> _ ? ""> >^ > :£» -o:»»,^- ^> .'13b > > > 3?^ X» ^ ?/l '- * ^s X>3^ > ?SP, S'^- >^i> 3'"I ^\ ") >» yiy> ^ v> J). .^^Sf^v S'^) > ■ > ' . '.^ , ^^^ -' >> i 3 > ^Si^ ^) -^ .-> '. - D ' ">- >> ' "» ^-^ <-. ^ ^Tm ."^ . -^ " ^ >.' -'■- > ?>". ^.:':-: ;> 'i5'>- Ji^ > > .^ ■ • I />J) _^ . ^'^^SstS -' ^ > ''^~~~* » > > :> ■• : ) !> ^)> J5^ "O"^- ^^^:;- -^ .-;■_." ^ >""> "'- -' > : . ■ T) ^3) ) _I3li* ^ -^^^^ -^ ►,:> ?•■ : > "' - ■ ^^-.-^L^^'^ ' ^ ■> ^'-' ^" . ^ >T>^ ^.V?.-^ ^ 3 -N- , > ■'^^'^^r' ?:?-/ -J ^. - ^:)?,:^>2> .7 ■; ~ . -' ,^^ - ■^:^^ :■ ^-^^ 7» ' 3 ^■^v^^'^ ^'^^^: 3 ^ ''^-^ -3e» ^^ . ^^ ^^ ^ O^T>Z> > '> :> T>~ ^ > 3^\ ^ - :a>'>_^-^^ ^^- > > -^ '^ - > J >>• jp»_jp .5 ■'''^-' -:<^ -yz .^ >-->'-->• ^ ^ ' r" -^^"-^^li > v-^:> ^^>. ^ ':^^ > ^ "^ - ' :> "> > ->:> ^:» :> - o . ^^^^ > i> ) :> >Z^> ^ 7?7^?- r:-l > > :> >> ' - '3 ^ :> . J> y •> > J> - -. :) > 5> x:i>:> 3 ■ o T> ^ > :> J> J» > ' > .:> :>:) yj^J> ^ ■ >> :> > ■■:> ^ :> ^^ ' :> ^ > J> > > J» . - - >:> ~> ^) JX3B^ -> ^ > > J> ' ^ ^ J^ 3 S' "T ) ' Vjiy> > J > > J> ^ ^ > ' > "1 "^^ ■> ■ '»^S9^ "• ~' ^ > > .> • 3 y ^ y > "> ~I^^>2JSI^ ' '~) ^ :> " > y > :> > j> V •';> S''"> .)""3Bfc ) 'J) ^ > o :> • > ^ i> -^ >- s j>2S^ ^ ^ ) j> > > > > j> ' \j) :))):d3Kf ) > > 3 :> •■ > > > j> > > >....■ " > > j> > S "^ ' ' TSO S' S > > : > > > > ) ^ y^^ "• 5 1 ^ f ' y ^ ';-5 ► > > J, ~> "■ > Ji^ ^ "»-■-» -^ > ^> > ^ >>,c^?^-^ < ^ ^ -^, mm ->y >^-t>:a^::>?3= :v 3D 3g >c»i?»:ig ^ D- ^:^_:^ :.:>::>:> W. B. LAWRENCE'S HISTORICAL DISCOURSE THE ORIGIN AND NATURE REPRESENTATIVE AND FEDERATIVE INSTITUTIONS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ANNIVERSARY DISCOURSE, DELIVERED BEFORE THE NEW-YORK HISTORICAL SOCIETY, ON TH£ 19*^ OF APRIL, 1832. V Br WILLIAM BEACH LAWRENCE. jK/X -■■ PUBLISHED By THE REQUEST OF THE SOCIETY. N E W - Y O R K : G. & C. & H. C A R V I L L, NO. 108, BROADWAY. M DCCC XXXII, S\<'^ \(^ L,<^2- NEW -YORK L tf 1) \V I G &. T O L E F B E E, P R T N T E Ci'i-ner of Vesey roiu GreenvKh streets. Hall of the Historical Society, ) il, 1832. \ NeiD- York, 2^th April, Dear Sir, The Historical Society, highly gratified by your able and interesting Address, delivered before them on the 19th instant, have this day held a special meeting, and, by a unanimous vote, instructed us to solicit from you a copy for publication. We hope for your assent to thisj-equest ; and, in performing this agreeable duty, we tender you our sentiments of respect and esteem. R. R. Ward, . J. W. Francis, v Committee. J. Delafielp, ^ To William Beach Lawrence, Esq, A DISCOURSE, &c. Mr. President, and Gentlemen of the Historical Society — On recurring to the volumes of your Transactions, and calling to mind the well-merited repu- tation of those by whom you have been, heretofore, ad- dressed on similar occasions, I feel an unaffected diffidence in performing the duty for this day assigned to me. When I, however, recollect that I have been, for several years, a member of an Institution established for the most laud- able purposes, which has not only been sanctioned by many of the founders of the Republic, but has been muni- ficently patronised by the legislature of the State, and that I cannot boast of having done any thing to advance the ends of our association, I do not consider myself at liberty to de- cline an invitation, flattering in itself, and by complying with which I may, at least, give an earnest of my zeal in a noble cause. The objects of the New- York Historical Society, as stated in the constitution, are " to discover, procure, and preserve whatever may relate to the natural, civil, literary, and eccle- siastical history of the United States in general, and of this State in particular." At the time; when this Institution was formed, its in- quiries were principally directed to investigations connected with the aborigines, or with our Colonial history. The events of the revolution, and the occurrences which led to our com- plex system of poHtical organization, were too fresh in the memo- ry of om* predecessors to be regarded as matters for antiquarian research. But, since our Society was commenced, upwards of twenty-seven years have elapsed,"^ and the political existence of our country already dates back fifty-six years, occupying a space of time more replete with important events not only to the inhabitants of these States, but to the whole of Christ- endom, than any other equal period in the annals of civiUzed nations. I trust then that, in selecting, as the subject of this morn- ing's remarks, the origin and nature of that happy combina- tion of the representative and federative systems, which is ex- hibited in the institutions of our country, I shall not be consi- dered as deviating from the legitimate purposes of our asso- ciation. In pursuing the course which I have marked out for my- self, I shall not attempt to enlist you in any discussions on the origin of civil society. What were the political systems adopted by the immediate descendants of our primeval ancestors may constitute appropriate inquiries for the leisure of European scholars, but it is not necessary for any elucidations required by our present investigations to recur to the patriarchal theory, * The New-York Historical Society was instituted 10th Decembe/^ 1804, and incorporated 10th February, 1809, «o favorable to the advocates of the divine right of kings, or to the doctrine of the social contract, to which, however, greater practical approximations are to be found in our state and] ge- neral conventions, than in the organic assemblies of any other people. And, though it is difficult in an advanced state of so- ciety, when history unfolds the doings of distant ages, always to distinguish what we owe to the experience of other coun- tries, from what may be justly deemed the suggestions of our own understandings, and the results of the circumstances, by which we are surrounded, it may be further observed, that neither the theocracy of the Hebrews, nor the aristocratic and democratic institutions, which, at different periods prevailed in the Grecian Republics and in the Roman commonwealth, would throw much light on the American constitutions. Though inhabiting the territory, which was once the hunt- ing ground of numerous Indian tribes, no amalgamation ever took place between the Aborigines and their European con- querors. Were it not, indeed, for the few names of places not traceable to other sources, and which are intermixed, without much regard to the rules of taste, or to any known association among ternis deduced from ancient mythology and European geography, the people of our seaboard might, ere this, have for- gotten that any former race ever inhabited these States. Of the laws and institutions of savages, with whom we never had any thing in common, except the occupancy, at different pe- riods, of the same country, and of whose very costumes and distinguishing features a vast majority of the citizens of the United States are as ignorant as the inhabitants of London and Parisj it is hardly necessary to assure an American audi- ence, that no vestiges are to be found in the political systems of the present day. It is rather in the forests of Germany than of this continent, that we are to look for the elements of our institutions. The citizens of the United States are, with exceptions to which it is not important for our present purpose to allude, of European descent ; and the States, included within the bounds of our original confederacy, were settled under circumstances, which would natmally induce their inhabitants to incorporate the principles of civil liberty among the tenets of their political creed. Independently of the individual emigrants, who have re- sorted to America from almost every nation of the earth, the origin of the population of the old Thirteen States is to be traced to settlements from the British Isles, Holland, and Sweden, formed under the authority, or at least, with the sanction of their respective governments. But the first at- tempt at European colonization, within the present limits of the United States, was made in Florida by some French Pro- testants, as early as the year 1562. The conflicting claims of Spain, however, defeated this enterprize, and it is to the compulsory departure of the Huguenots, occasioned by the re- vocation, more than a century afterwards, of the Edict of Nantes, that we are indebted for many families entitled to be ranked as compeers of the Plymouth pilgrims, and whose descendants, in this State and in Carolina, have repeatedly shown themselves worthy of progenitors, who nobly set at naught all considerations which came in collision with the dictates of conscience. Sweden contributed to no great extent to the colonization of America. The territory on the Delaware Bay, to which the appellation of New Swedeland was given, was always claimed by the Dutch, as falling within their limits, and it was sur- rendered to the last governor of New Amsterdam, several years before he was in turn compelled to yield his whole pro- vince to the superior power of England. Evidences, however, of Swedish domination may yet be found in the name of Christiana and other towns, and those few of our fellow- citizens, who can trace their origin to that nation, have no reason to blush for the country of their ancestors. The emigrations to America were made in the reign of that enlightened Prince, Gustavus Adolphus, and of course long before the absurd career of the madman of Bender, the Quix- otic Charles, had deprived Sweden of that ascendency among the powers of the north, which, from the period of her escape from the unhappy union of Calmar, she had always main- tained. The early introduction of the reformation into the Scandi- navian kingdoms had led to that freedom of inquiry, to which a religion relying exclusively on the sanction of authority may be deemed, in some degree, inimical ; and at the time, of which we are now speaking, the revolution of 1680, by which the power of the three estates was prostrated, and the senate rendered a mere privy council of the monarch, had not been consummated. 10 To the people of this State the voyage of Hendrick Hud- son in 1609, who, though an Englishman, discovered, while in the service of the United Provinces, the river, which bears his name, and the subsequent colonization of New- York and New- Jersey by the Dutch are subjects of especial interest. There are few of those, who honor me by their presence, in whose veins does not flow some portion of the blood of the countrymen and contemporaries of patriots, who, disregarding the immense distance, which separated the burghers of the Netherlands from the King of Spain and the Indies, had yet the courage to defend in the dykes and morasses of Holland the exercise of their religion, and the pohtical rights of man against the attacks of the most powerful potentate in Europe. It was, indeed, long before the treaty of Munster * had given a formal sanction to Dutch hberty and while the inde- pendence of the States-General was yet hable to be assailed by their former haughty masters, that New Amsterdam was founded. It is, how^ever, due to historical truth to observe, that in the system of government, which w^as adopted for the New Netherlands, and which vested all executive, legislative, and judicial functions in the Governor and his Council, we in vain seek for those guarantees against oppression, ever deemed essential in a code of British origin. The circumstances, under which the Dutch possessions were, in 1664, surrendered to England are in no wise dis- creditable to the gallant officer then at the head of the go- * This treaty was signed by the respective plenipotentiaries of Spain and the United Provinces, 30th January, 1648. 11 veinment, and notwithstanding the temporary recovery of this city, in 1673, by the original settlers, the rights of con- quest were exercised with so much lenity, as to induce most of the prominent colonists, including Governor Stuyvesant, to remain on their estates. The recognition, by the British kingdoms of the Stadtholder of the United Provinces* as their Sovereign, which happened a few years afterwards, must also have gone far towards removing from the minds of the most fastidious all repugnance to yielding to the inevitable fortune of war. Without adverting to the many worthy illustrations, fiir- nished by the history of our Dutch forefathers, of the bene- ficial effects of honorable frugality and unspotted integrity in the ordinary pursuits of life, the very names of several of those legislators and jurists, of whom our state is justly proud, are calculated to remind us of our manifold obligations to that country, which not only set us a glorious example in the career of freedom, but was once as pre-eminent among com- mercial nations, as the United States, unless unwise legisla- tion should counteract the bounties of Providence, are assur- edly destined to be. The motives, which actuated the Plymouth pilgrims, who had, indeed, first fled to Holland as a refuge from oppression, and the other eastern colonists in seeking a country, where they might be safe from the tyranny of the Stuarts, and be permitted to practise their rehgious duties, according to theii" * William III. of England. 12 own views of such obligations, have been portrayed, by gifted sons of New-England, with an eloquence, which it would be presumptuous in any ordinary writer to attempt to emulate. The primary object, which led the Virginia Company to undertake a settlement on our continent, was the discovery of mines of precious metals, and the colonists, who originally established themselves at Roanoke and on James's river seem to have been influenced by similar considerations. But the success at home of that party to which the eastern colonists originally belonged, and the temporary abolition of the royal authority made America a land of refuge for the adherents of the unfortunate Charles, and was the cause of the expatriation of many who were placed, by their rank and education, in a condition far beyond that of ordniary emigrants. To the Catholic emigration under Lord Baltimore, which took place before the civil wars, we may trace the origin of many of the distinguished citizens of Maryland, amoug whom stands conspicuous the surviving signer of the declaration of American independence. The restoration of EngUsh royalty was also, as every change in the parties of revolutionary France has of late years been, the signal for the exile to our coiuitry of patriots, re- vered and respected for their virtues and their talents, and whose only crime w^as an inability to accommodate their political principles to the doctrines of temporary expediency. But it is not my design to trace the settlement of the colo- nies in detail and describe the Protestant Germans,* who, at * Large numbers of Gernrans emigrated to Pemisylyania as early as 1682. 13 an early day, occupied no small portion of the state colonized by Penn — a name honorably associated with a most scrupulous regard to the rights of the aborigines. Much less can I at- tempt to enumerate the worthy accessions made, at a later day, to the population of independent America by the associates of Fitzgerald and Emmet — patriots, whose merit differs princi- pally from that of our revolutionary fathers in the opposite fate, which attended their respective efforts in the cause of national freedom. Our annals contain no fables of gods and goddesses, whichj though they may give to the history of Greece and Rome the interest of romance, also render it obnoxious to all the objec- tions attendant on the productions of fiction. The accounts of the colonization of America present a plain, unvarnished narrative. But, though the heterogenous sources, from whence our national character is formed, must necessarily have had an influence on their modification, our laws and in- stitutions were deduced from one country. In all the thirteen colonies the English common law was and still continues to be the foundation of the local jurisprudence. The decisions of Westminster-Hall and Doctors' Commons constitute to this day the precedents, which regulate our state and national tribunals. The systems of government, which were in force in all the colonies, for many years previous to our indepen- dence, were also derived from England. Before, however, we explore, the elements of our political institutions in the annals of the mother country, it may be well to consider for a moment the nature of the connexion 14 which existed, while they both acknowledged allegiance to the same King, between the different portions of the British Em- pire situated in Europe and America. It is a principle, abundantly recognised by writers on pub- lic law, that " when a nation takes possession of a distant country and settles a colony there, that country, though se- parated from the principal establishment or mother country, naturally becomes a part of the state, equally with its ancient possessions."* In the treaties, by which those districts of our country, not settled in the first instance from England were acquired, ample provision was made for placing the original colonists on the same footing w4th the new emigrants. Thus, whatever privileges attached to Britons at home, equally be- longed to the descendants of Europeans in the American pos- sessions, and this, indeed, is the language of many of the royal patents and charters, under which the settlements were made and the governments established in the colonies. In recurring to the origin of our system of government, I shall not inquire as to the precise period of the introduction of the feudal system into England, though this subject as well as the signification of the word " conquest," as applied to the invasion of the Normans, forms the topic of many elaborate treatises by writers, who are jealous of the martial reputation of their Saxon progenitors. The Saxons, who settled in England, could not have been strangers to fiefs, for they were an essential part of the institu- tions, to which they must have been accustomed in Germany, * Vatttti, B. 1. G. XVIIL ♦ 210, 15 and there is no reason for supposing, that their views were different from those of the other Gothic tribes. There is httle doubt that the feudal system, which has been aptly termed " the law of nations of western Europe," was in vigor in Eng- land before the Norman conquest, and the changes, which were supposed to have been effected by William and his suc- cessors were rather in the individuals, who were to enjoy the baronial privileges, than in the fundamental nature of the in- stitution. Indeed, as the vestiges of the Roman conquest were more scanty in England than on the Continent, the usages of the northern invaders were established there with less difficulty than in many other countries. An allusion to some of the leading characteristics of a sys- tem, the principles of which, even at this day, are interwoven with the laws, which determine the political relations of the citizen, as well as with those which regulate the rights of private property, seems called for by the nature of our subject. The spirit of the feudal institutions was national indepen- dence and freedom from oppression. When a province was conquered, the sovereign, or leader of the expedition, retained a portion for his domain, and dealt out the remainder of the territory among his subordinate chiefs. These grants, though fii'st made for life, subsequently became hereditary. The chiefs formed an order of nobility, and their tenants, whose obligations of service were not unlike those of the militia of the present day, constituted the military force of the state. Such also was the superiority of feudal tenures over allodial posses- sions, in an age, when physical strength was often a substitute 16 for reason, that the proprietors of the latter were generally happy to embrace the earhest occasion to place themselves in the relation of chents to powerful patrons. General councils of the nation were common to all the feu= dal states, and the independent spirit of their members may be, in some degree, inferred from the mode in which the sove- reigns of the 12th century were addressed, by their nobles. " We," said the barons of Castile— a country to which we should certainly not at this day look for barriers against the tyranny of the Crown—" We, each one of whom is as good as you, and who united, are much better than you, choose you for om- King and Lord, provided that you obseiTe our laws and privileges ; if not, not." There were many circumstances, which gave to the great body of the English people advantages not enjoyed by all the nations of the continent. England from the union of the Saxon heptarchy under Egbert, constituted but one kingdom, and from tlie final subjugation of Wales by Edward I. it em- braced by far the most populous and valuable portions of the island of Great Britain. Though the nobles were sufficiently elevated to maintain their due consideration in the state, and, when united, even to control the royal will, there were no great subordinate principalities, like those into which France was divided, the chiefs of which might singly set at naught the authority of the national sovereign. The contests in that kingdom were between the monarch and his great feudatories ; the people were regarded as of no importance by theii' imme- diate superiors. The enfranchisement or rather restoration of 17 the privileges of the Communes by Louis Le Gros,* (for the French towns had never entirely lost the franchises accorded to them by the Romans,) did not extend beyond the power of regulating their municipal concerns, and though, nearly two centuries afterwards, representatives of the burgesses were in- troduced into the States-General, which had been previously confined to the nobility and clergy, yet these national councils were only called together at the will of the sovereign and at long intervals. They were, indeed, so far from being deemed necessary to the ordinary action of government, that their sessions were suspended from 1614 to their final meeting in 1788, a period of 174 years. The French ParUaments, which in some respects supplied their place, were in no wise representative bodies, and the check, which they practically exercised over the sovereign, was not founded on any consti- tutional right. In England the nobles, individually feeble, found it ne- cessary to strengthen their cause by courting the favor of their tenants and particularly of the burghers, whose wealth and importance advanced with the progress of knowledge and the arts. In the compact made between Henry I. and his nobles, it had been stipulated, that whatever immunities were granted by the crown to the barons, the barons should grant the like to their subjects. Even, in magna chart a, as wrested frofia King John, were contained provisions in favor of the^ liberties of the towns, and all fi*eemen, equally with the barons, were * In the 12th century. 18 protected from the imposition of taxes, without the consent of the " general council of the Idngdom." It is not unworthy of notice, as a distinguishing character- istic of the higher orders of the two great countries, to which we have referred, that in England the legal privileges of the aristocracy were early confined to the actual members of the peerage, which, though hereditary, was also accessible to all the people, as a reward for eminent talents and distinguished services ; while in France, they were extended to all the des- cendants of the first feudatory, and no patent of the sovereign could, in the public estimation, compensate for the absence of an ancient genealogy. Thus, the French system led, in pro- gress of time, to the division of the population into the two great classes of patricians and plebeians, which was probably one of the most efiftcient causes of the ferocity, with which the revolutionary struggle of the last century was conducted. Though, in magna charta^ the rights of eill freemen were formally recognized, provision is only made for convening or summoning the prelates and greater barons, and those, who held of the crown in chief, and no allusion is made to the principle of representation. The first ParHament with a lower house, composed of knights of the shire and members for cities and boroughs, was held in 1282, about eighteen years after the bui'gesses had been summoned to the great council, in the name of Henry the Third. From that period to the present, the nobility have constituted a separate house ; and the formal sanction of the King has been deemed necessary to the enactment of 19 all laws. The prerogative of parliament to interfere even with the order of succession to the crown was admitted at an early day, and was particularly recognized in 1496, in the settlement in favor of the house of Lancaster — a proceeding analogous to the one long subsequently adopted with reference to the present reigning family. The authority of the mo- narch was always checked by the power of the parliament over supplies, and by their participation in ordinary legislation ; but it was not till the revolution of 1688 — a period subsequent to the settlement of several of the colonies — that the sovereign, by the full establishment of the maxim, that the king can do no wrong, and of the co-relative proposition as to ministerial responsibility, became a mere pageant in the government. The essential principle, on which the elective franchise was originally founded in the country, from whence we deduce it, was the inherent right of every freeman to participate, either directly or by his representatives, in the legislation of the state, particularly in the imposition of taxes. At first the re- quiring of a freehold tenure did not operate to the exclusion of any, who were liable to military duties or to the pecuniary burthens, which were substituted for them. The municipal regulations of the different boroughs also made specific pro- visions, varying with circumstances, for that portion of the in- habitants, whose means of subsistence were unconnected with the possession of land ; and in many instances we find resi- dence alone deemed an adequate quahfication. I conceive it important to notice this historical fact, as it tends to remove from the modern advocates of universal suffrage, whatever 20 other objections may apply to their system, all charges of ra- dical innovation. In a country where land is divested of most of the feudal incidents, and in an age, when commerce and manufactures have assumed an importance, not inferior to that of agriculture, to consider one species of property, as alone en- titled to confer political privileges, would be to adhere to the letter of an institution and totally disregard its spirit. We find, indeed, that most of the states of our Union have adopted rules approximating to universal suffrage, and we may safely predict, that the measures now under consideration in the British Parliament, will be followed by more important changes, and that the time is not far distant, when the representation of rotten boroughs, with their diversified forms of elective fi:anchise, will be matters solely of historical curiosity. According to the common law of Christendom, even of those sovereigns, who disregarded the papal grants, every part of America, which had not been previously occupied, actually or constructively, by a people of European origin was regarded as a fit subject for colonization. This rale, however, did not au- thorize the formation of settlements by private individuals, but the sanction of a civilized state was considered essential to the protection of the emigrants. Companies were estabhshed in England, as well as elsewhere, for the founding of colonies on the American continent ; and under their direction, the first enterprizes of this description were conducted. Those reh- gionists, whose very expatriation was caused by their non- conformity to the established church, looked to their ancient 21 sovereign as the source of their power, and regulated their po- litical system, according to the authority, more or less Hmited, which he was pleased to exercise over them. Though the Plymouth settlers had not emigrated direct from England, and had landed beyond the bounds of the Virginia Company, from whom an original grant had been obtained, they deemed it necessary in the voluntary form of government, which they estabhshed, to acknowledge allegiance to King James, and to place themselves under his protection : nor did they feel secure in their civil and political rights, till they had procured a formal patent from the company in England, within whose limits they had fixed their residence. The governments in the American colonies were of three kinds, viz. : charter, royal, and proprietary. Of the last des- cription were the Jerseys, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and origi- nally Carolina. In these provinces the governor was nominated by the proprietor, who also enjoyed other prerogatives. In the royal governments, as well as in Massachusetts, under the new charter of 1692, the King retained the power of appoint- ing the executive. To the other colonies, all the rights of self-government, including the choice of their rulers, were ac- corded. Such indeed was the proud pre-eminence, which their charters gave to the New-England colonies over the sister pro- vinces, that they resisted with a zeal and an earnestness, wliich could not be surpassed by patriots contending for na- tional independence, all the attempts of James the Second, and his deputy Andross to withdraw these royal grants. 4 22 Against Massachusetts, however, a formal judgment was ren- dered before the accession of the Prince of Orange ; and be sides other changes the new charter, as we have seen, reserved to the King powers, which he had not previously possessed with regard to the appointment of the provincial executive. The anecdote respecting the charter of Connecticut, which was said to have been preserved by being concealed in an oak now extant at Hartford, has been so often referred to, as to have almost become trite ; but it is no slight evidence of the compatibility of its provisions with the essential enjoyment of freedom, that this instrument remained till 1818 the funda- mental law of Connecticut, while at this day Rhode Island has no other state constitution than the royal charter of 14th Charles II. A distribution of the members of the legislatures into two bodies was early made in the several colonies. The upper house generally followed, in the mode of its appointment, the rule which applied to the choice of the governor, and was sometimes elective and at others named by the King or the proprietor. Hereditary senators, to correspond with the peer- age of England, were no where created. The ciicumstances, under which the emigrations to America were made, were totally different from those, which attended the irruption of the Gothic tribes into the Roman empiie. There were no military chieftains to present those claims, which every people is capable of appreciating. The leaders of the emigrants were, in ge- neral, destitute of that commanding wealth, without which a nobility is only ludicrous ; nor did they possess in a long line 23 of illustrious ancestry that hereditary distinction, which could serve as a substitute for personal merit. Thus, had not even the pre-conceived views of the colonists indisposed them to an aristocracy, the materials for its establishment could, with difficulty, have been found. One attempt, indeed, was made to introduce the gradations of European society into the American wilderness. The ce- lebrated Mr. Locke drew up a most complex code for Carolina. There was to have been a Palatine Court in Europe with barons, landgraves, and caciques in the co- lony to constitute a provincial aristocracy, and a system was proposed, which, if its object was the bringing into contempt of the nobility of Europe, was admirably adapted to its purpose. The whole scheme, Hke the numerous constitutions, which issued from the Parisian press during the French Revolution, proves the insufficiency of institutions devised even by the wisest of philosophers, when no reference is had to the cha- racter of the nation, among whom they are to be introduced. A government must conform to the people ; the people cannot and will not be accommodated to the government. It becomes us, however, to remark that the occasional errors, into which great men have fallen, constitute no argument against the study of government as a science. In the cases now referred to, they may be imputed to the substitution of pre-conceived notions for inferences, which should only be deduced from a careful investigation of facts. Mr. Locke's system was but short-lived. Resort was soon had to a form of government analogous to that of the royal 24: provinces ; and we find Carolina in 1719 proclaiming, in lan- guage worthy of the sires of her revolutionary patriots, and of their distinguished sons, a determination, in which she was successful, to resist those acts of the proprietors, which were " contrary to the laws of England and the charter" — that is to say, to the existing constitution of the colony. The laws of descents, which early prevailed in some of them and the liberal principles of all their charters, gave to the eastern colonies a comparatively large body of electors. But the general diffusion of the right of suffrage was accom- panied by a correspondent extension of the advantages of or- dinary instruction. That system of common schools, which has long been the glory of New England, and which has of late years been successfully imitated in this state, was esta- bhshed by law in Massachusetts as early as 1647, and even nine years prior to that date, the same colony founded, for the higher branches of learning, a seminary,* which is still at the head of American colleges. In the southern colonies the nature of the population did not render the same legal provision for general education neces- sary, but many of those, who, during the war of the revolu- tion, w^ere conspicuous in the cabinet and the field, enjoyed at Oxford and Cambridge all the advantages, which those an- cient seats of learning could afford. The periodical press had not at the time, to which we are referring, attained those means of producing an influence on * Harvard University. 25 public opinion, which in England and this country have almost caused it to be considered a new element in the constitution. But it was not solely by the instruction obtained in ordinary schools and colleges, that the colonists were prepared for be- coming citizens of a great and independent nation. Though by far the largest portion of the emigrants had been induced to quit their own country on account of their religious tenets, the utmost diversity of creeds existed among them ; nor was there more lenity exhibited towards the minority of the sect, which happened to be dominant in a particular community, than had been shown by the papists to the protestants, or to the sectarians by the English church. The state of things described by Sir James Mackintosh, is as applicable to our an- cestors, as to those, by whom they had been persecuted on the other side of the Atlantic. " Every reformer," says he, " has erected, all his followers have labored to support, a httle papacy in their own community. The founders of each sect owned, indeed, that they had themselves revolted against th^ most ancient and universal authorities of the world; but they, happy men ! had learnt all truth, they therefore forbade all at- tempts to enlarge her stores, and drew the hne beyond which human reason must no longer be permitted to cast a glance.'"" The antinomian controversy led, in 1638, to the settlement of Rhode Island by a colony from Massachusetts ; and the early history of the eastern states is replete with similar dis- * History of England, vol. 1. p. 115. 26 putes. But whether the rival sects existed ia neighboring provinces, or the ministers of opposite creeds were permitted to inculcate their peculiar dogmas within the same precincts, such was the controversial spirit of the country, that the atten- tion of the people was intensely occupied with subjects admira- bly calculated to render the faculties acute, and to prepare the intellect for the investigation of poHtical problems. In considering the preliminary discipline of our country- men, it would not be proper to disregard the influence of the jury system. This mode of trial, which is said to have been introduced originally from Scandinavia into Normandy, and to have been incorporated by William into the English jurispru- dence, forms an important feature in our colonial institutions. The advantages and inconveniences arising from the determi- nation of facts by a jury, viewed with reference to the adminis- tration of justice, it is foreign to my purpose to examine. But to the information acquked by an attendance on the courts as jurors — to the necessity of balancing and deciding on conflict- ing facts, and hearing the opposing arguments of advocates, many of whom are distinguished as well for general informa- tion as for professional attainments, may be ascribed, in no small degree, the superior qualifications for a direct participa- tion in poUtical discussions, possessed by the freemen of Eng- land and the United States, compared with those of the people of France and other countries, which have attempted a representative government. Men, called on to decide respect- ing the life or property of a fellow-citizen, are elevated in their own estimation by a temporary assumption of the judicial cha- 27 lacter, and habits of reflection are almost imperceptibly engen- dered, which are not lost with the occasion, that creates them. It may, indeed, well be doubted, whether our local legislatures have not acted unwisely in permitting individuals to exempt themselves from attendance on juries by the performance of other services to the community, which, however meritorious in themselves, are wholly unconnected with the administration of justice or the execution of high political functions. We have already seen that, while the British subjects on both sides of the Atlantic owed an allegiance to a common sovereign, there was no more ground for the exercise of legis- lative authority over the colonies by the parliament in Eng- land, than there would have been for the passage of a law here with respect to the people of Great Britain. It is true, that, from the necessity of the case, a right on the part of par- hament to regulate the general trade of the empire was not in terms denied, but even the navigation laws were imperfectly executed, especially in New England ; and it was distinctly avowed by the legislature of New- York in 1764, that the power of the mother country to regulate trade was not to be interpreted, so as to authorize the imposition of duties for mere purposes of revenue. It was, indeed, only in accordance with this sentiment, that the first provincial Congress, held in 1775, declared " that the moneys raised as duties by the regulations of trade ought to be paid into the respective colony treasuries, and be subject to the disposal of their deputies." The right of self-legislation, and particularly of determining as to taxation, was not only every where asserted, but it was 28 formally proclaimed by several of the colonies to be a funda- mental principle. Virginia, in 1 624, passed an act declaring, that " the Governor (who was appointed in England) should not impose any taxes on the colony, otherwise than by the authority of the general assembly." In New- York it was maintained in a legislative act, as early as 1691, that repre- sentation in the Assembly, by which taxes were imposed, was a right, that could not be denied, not a privilege which might be conceded or withheld at pleasure. Numerous other decla- rations of similar import will be found in the records of most of the colonies. An act of Massachusetts, passed in 1692, goes so far as to assert, that " the people of that colony can be touched by no law and by no tax, but of their own making." In perusing the colonial history of our state, and recurring to the disputes between the royal governors and the assem- blies, we are strongly reminded of the recent collisions between the corresponding authorities in a neighboring province. The application repeatedly made for a permanent revenue, to be at the disposal of the Governor and Council of New- York, re- sembles in many of its features those demands of the represen- tative of the Crown, which from 1822 to 1829 virtually sus- pended the sessions of the provincial legislature of Lower Ca- nada, and induced, in direct violation of a solemn guaranty to the contrary, made at the commencement of our revolution, the imposition of taxes by the authority of the British parlia- ment.* We may ask, is the parallel to stop here ? * By the declaratory statute of 1778, England relinquished all right to tax 29 Enough, it is believed, has been said to show the character of those, by whom the colonies were settled, as weU as to point out the sentiments of political freedom, which prevailed in them, while they were still connected with the mother coun- try. It is, however, not irrelevant to our purpose to observe, that, while a virgin soil every where afforded ample remu- neration to well-directed industry, the bounties of Providence were not furnished with the luxuriance, with which they are supplied to the inhabitants of more favored latitudes. The inconveniences of new settlements in northern regions re- quired the constant exercise of masculine energies. Nor in an estimate of national character are we to disregard the fact that negro slavery, which, whatever weighty objec- tions may apply to it, by raising the whites above the per- formance of low and menial offices, gives to the free popula- tion a high sense of personal dignity and independence, was early introduced into the southern States. Of the elevated views of those, by whom our independence was proclaimed, the nature of the dispute and the manner in which it was conducted afford the best illustration. The her colonies, leaving it to them to lay duties on themselves to be applied to the support of their own institutions and establishments and by the law of 1791, (Mr. Pitt's act) the control over all means arising from the regula- tion of trade was vested in the colonial legislatures. The refusal, how- ever, of the Governor to permit any scrutiny into the expenditures of the civil list having led the Assembly of Lower Canada to withhold all other appropriations, by an act of parliament passed in 1822 (the Canada trade act) all taxes then in force were imposed on the province for five years. 5 30 war of the revolution was not a resistance to burthens into- lerable in amount, but, Uke Hampden's refusal of the ship- money — a vindication, at the very threshhold, of the consti- tutional rights of freemen. In the formation of our institutions we had nothing to learn as to the nature of representation. In calling conventions and establishing the internal government of the several colonies, our ancestors did not examine the disquisitions of an Aristotle or a Plato, -or appeal to a Locke for a new plan, by which to distribute their fellow-citizens into imaginary classes. All that they did, all that was attempted, was to embody in a few concise articles, with some slight modifications, those usages and that system, deduced from the mother country, which had been already accommodated to their wants and actual condition. But while we do justice to the pure and disinte- rested motives of those patriots of the revolution, who partici- pated in the organization of our government, an American must be very ignorant of the condition of the great body of the people, if he supposes, that any attempt to introduce the monarchical or aristocratical distinctions of Europe into our new States, would have resulted otherwise than in the most signal defeat. Indeed, the manifestation, at a subsequent period, of a predilection for institutions of a less popular cha- racter than those recognized in our federal constitution, tended greatly to diminish the influence of one* of the most distinguished of our early statesmen, as well as to throw a * Alexander Hamilton. 31 cloud over the whole political party, in unison with which he was supposed to act. In examining the provisions of the several constitutions, adopted on our separation from England, we find the pro- gress, which the principles of religious freedom had made during the century and a half, which had intervened between the settlement of the country and the independence of the United States. It is true, that the broad provision now con- tained in our national constitution, by which Congress are prohibited from making any law, " respecting an establish- ment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," was not incorporated in all their fundamental codes ; nor were they all yet prepared, with the illustrious Jefferson, who equally gloried in being " the author of tlie declaration of in- dependence, and of the statutes of Virginia for religious free- dom," to make religious and political liberty march hand-in- hand. The constitution of Maryland, as originally established, excluded from office Jews and all others, who did not subscribe a declaration of belief in the Christian religion. In New Jersey and North Carolina, the constitutions only contem- plated the admissibility of protestants to public employments, and in some of the eastern states every individual was bound to contribute to the support of a public teacher of the gospel. Contrasted with the articles of the Spanish American con- stitutions, establishing the Roman Catholic church without toleration of any other, the highest encomiums are due to the framers of even the least liberal of our constitutions. But 32 what comparison can be attempted between our ancestors, and the people of different origin, who have pretended to emulate theii- noble career ? Much less can we draw a parallel between men deriving their notions of liberty from the freest nation in Christendom, and the Americans of the South, who, hke their fellow-subjects in the peninsula, had been for centuries the prey of the vilest superstition and the most debasing tyranny. The experience of more than fifty years has shown, that no better method can be devised to advance the cause of true rehgion, than wholly to disconnect the ecclesiastical from the civil power. To this position, indeed, if it required confirma- tion, I might cite the testimony of an eminent prelate, whose untimely death, this Society, as well as the whole community, had occasion to deplore. It was, in addressing his congre- gations for the first time after his return from a country where the church forms an integral part of the institutions of the state, and where her dignitaries vie in wealth and in poli- tical influence mth the first nobles of the land, that Bishop Hobart referring to the fact, that " with the union of church and state commenced the great corruption of Clnistianity," exclaimed, " so firmly persuaded am I of the deleterious effects of this union, that, if I must choose the one or the other, I would take the persecution of the state rather than her favor, her frowns rather than her smUes, her repulses rather than her embraces." * We may, indeed, triumphantly * " The United States of America compared with some European countries, particularly England, in a Discourse, &:c. by the Right Rev. John Henry Hobart, D. D." page 35. 33 askj ia what part of Christendom can a more enhghtened and virtuous ministr)^, or a more moral and religious people b& found than within these States ? Nor was the federal part of our system unknown to the co- lonies, at the epoch of the declaration of independence. Our ancestors were not obhged to seek precedents for their new in- stitutions in the annals of the Grecian leagues, or in the tra- ditionary history of the aboriginal confederation of " the Five nations." A proposition for a Governor-General was made as early as the surrender of the charter of the Plymouth com- pany, and though it was then unsuccessful, a union was formed in 1643 of the colonies of New England, embracing Massachusetts, New Plymouth, Connecticut and New Haven. It lasted for forty years, and by the compact entered into be- tween them, powers were given to the commissioners, by whom their affaii's were managed, in soir e respects greater than those enjoyed by the continental Congress of the revolution. More general associations for temporary purposes had also been formed, particularly with reference to the disputes with the Indian tribes, and the menacing position of the French, whose possession of Canada always operated in favor of the con- nexion between the English colonies and the mother country. Schemes for a permanent arrangement among the colonies were suggested soon after their settlement, and in 1754, in compliance with the recommendation of the British Govern- ment, delegates from seven of them actually met at Albany. The plan for a union of all the colonies, drawn up on this oc- casion, proceeded, as is well known, from the pen of Franklin. 34 It contemplated a President-General, appointed by the Crown, and a Grand Council, to be named by the colonies through their legislatures. The functions of this body were to be directed to the relations with the Indian tribes, and to such other matters, as could neither be managed with conve- nience in England, nor by the separate, provincial legislatures. Fortunately this plan, the adoption of which might, by re- moving some causes of complaint, have prolonged our con- nexion with Europe, had the singular fate of giving satisfac- tion neither in England nor America, and it never went into effect. These proceedings, however, as well as those which took place in the Congress of 1765, convened for the discussion of colonial grievances, afforded excellent preparations for the more important acts which were to devolve on that assembly, by whom a new nation was hteraliy to be called into existence. When we reach the declaration of independence in 1776, and find the old Congress conducting war, making treaties with foreign powers, and the States regulating all matters of municipal concern, we have arrived at a period of our history which presents a full illustration of the union of the represen- tative and federative systems. But as the first notices of the British House of Commons, or even its present organization, offer but a very rude picture of the representative system, as now in exercise here, so in the distribution of powers between the general and state governments, even as fixed by the con- federation of 1778, we were very far from having attained the happiest arrangement of which the subject was susceptible. 35 The old continental Congress was a diplomatic, rather than a legislative body. The states were represented as in- dependent sovereignties, and Congress, instead of acting di- rectly upon individuals, could only make recommendatory suggestions, which might be carried into effect or not, . ac- cording to the varying views of the thirteen distinct legisla- tures. Our revolutionary fathers, who had emancipated us from foreign thraldom and achieved for us both liberty and in- dependence, would not have completed their noble work, had they not placed us in a position effectually to resist foreign ag- gression, and removed us from the danger of those intestine wars from which mere confederacies have never been exempt. The constitution of 1787, the phraseology of which it now appears from indubitable authority is justly ascribed to a former distinguished president of our Society,* and to which is at- tached the name of the father of his country, with those of many of his illustrious compeers, requires no encomium from any source. To analyse its peculiar provisions can scarcely be attempted at the end of a discourse already protracted be- yond the hmits usually assigned to such performances. I cannot, however, refrain from alluding to two points, by which it is distinguished from all previously existing attempts to form a federal government. I refer to the co-ordinate powers of the general and state authorities, and to the duty of the judiciary to determine on the constitutionality of an act of Congress, or of a state legislature. * Goiiverneur Morris. 36 Both the general and state governments are derived from the people, to whom all power, not granted in terms or by fair inference to the one or other set of agents, is reserved. Whenever the authority of the national government applies, it is of paramount obligation, and is, indeed, declared so to be in the instrument by which it is created, and which was sub- mitted to and approved, as fully as were their respective con- stitutions, by the people of the several states. In all matters not within the purview of the federal constitution, the state authorities may be supreme over their own citizens, if the local constitution has made them so ; otherwise, the power is reserved to the people in their primary capacity. _ In ge- neral, however, the grant of the legislative power is sufficiently ample to confer all the attributes of sovereignty not given to Congress. The United States, as well as the several states, are pro- vided with their own legislative, judicial, and executive de- partments, and neither authority requires the interposition of the other to aid it in the performance of its ordinary functions. It could not, however, be anticipated, that two co-ordinate powers would always avoid collision. (Questions, it might reasonably be supposed, would arise, where well-grounded doubts would be entertained as to the limits of the two autho- rities, both of which the citizen is bound to obey. It was therefore necessary to provide some means for settling them. To have confided their decision exclusively to the state go- vernments would have carried us back to the confederacy, and would have been attended with precisely those inconveniences 37 the existence of which induced the amendment of our poli- tical system. To render the constitution, with the treaties and laws made in pursuance thereof, obligatory on the judges of the several States, was not deemed a sufficient guaranty for uniformity of decision, or for the settlement of questions, where the conflicting rights of States, of citizens and foreigners, or of citizens of different States, might be brought into colli- sion. It was therefore determined, that, instead of leaving the ultimate construction of the constitution to a tribunal or- ganized under the authority of the people of one State, it should be referred to a judiciary emanating from the whole United States ; and to secure in this most important Court men of undoubted learning and disinterested patriotism, every possible precaution was taken. That the Supreme Court has ever been free from all undue attachment to the executive is hardly to be questioned. The judges can scarce- ly, from the tenure of their office, be all named by the same president, or even by the same political party. The spotless purity of the members of this tribunal, and the soundness of their decisions, are worthy of all admiration, and have acquired for them a reputation both at home and abroad, which could not have been the fruit of any political influence, however ex- tensive. " There is at Washington," says a distinguished foreigner,* " a power, which has neither guards, nor palaces, nor treasures : it is neither surrounded by clerks, nor over- loaded with records. Its magnificence consists in its justice, * M. de Marbois. 6 38 and in the publicity of its acts. This power is called the Su- preme Court of the United States/' To the Supreme Court is confided the all-important duty of keeping together our complex system. Should Congress transgress theu' legitimate bounds, the citizen, who is prose- cuted for a violation of the law, may defend himself on the ground of its unconstitutionality, and though the act may have been passed in accordance with all the usual forms, if the Court find that it contravenes the constitution — the supreme law of the land — it would be pronounced void and of no eflfect. In the same way, state laws, on matters respecting w^hich Congress has exclusive jurisdiction, have been declared null. Warned by the experience of the confederacy, eflfectual care was early taken by Congress to prevent the power of the Su- preme Court, when exercised within its constitutional sphere, being rendered inoperative, by the refusal of the state tribunals to conform to its decisions, and, at the same time, means were afforded for avoiding all collisions between courts emanating from distinct authorities.* The decrees of the federal judiciary * In the cases involving the construction of the constitution, treaties, and laws of the United States, and in which an appeal is given to the Supreme Court from the highest tribunal of the state, in which a decision in the suit could be had, it is provided that "the writ (of error) shall have the same effect, as if the judgment or decree complained of had been ren- dered or passed in a Circuit Court (of the United States,) and the pro- ceeding upon the reversal shall also be the same, except that the Supreme Court, instead of remanding the cause for a final decision, may, at their discretion, if the cause shall have been once remanded before, proceed to a final decision of the same, and award execution.^^ — Judiciary act of 1789, sect. 25. 39 are not executed, like those of the Amphictyonic Council against the Phocians, by carrying war into a whole territory, but are rendered operative by the mild and peaceful means furnished by the forms of civil process. For the forty-three years that the constitution has been in operation, this power has been found adequate to all its proposed objects, and the act of 1789 still remains a monument to the fame ^ Chief Justice Ellsworth, infinitely more honorable than any which statuaries can erect. It is true, that disaffection has existed at different periods in various parts of our extensive empire, and the timid and the cautious have more than once feared for the safety of the republic. Our legal annals furnish examples of occurrences in Pennsylvania and Virginia exhibiting strong indications of re- sistance to the constitutional authority of the Supreme Court.* * The collision in Pennsylvania between the federal judiciary and the State authorities grew out of a question, which arose as far back as 1778, as to the power of the old continental Court of Appeals in prize cases, and it was immediately occasioned by a decree on the admiralty side of the District Court of the United States for Pennsylvania, (Olmstead vs. the Executrices of Rittenhouse,) which that Court was required, by a pe- remptory mandamus from the Supreme Court, (United States vs. Peters, 5 Cranch, 115) to carry into effect. The object in view was the recovery of a fund, received by their testator, while treasurer of the state, which the respondents had, in pursuance of a state law passed in 1803, paid into the treasury, but which had been, by the old Court of Appeals, awarded to the libellants. To resist the process of the United States, the Governor, as he was required to do by an act of the legislature, called out the militia. The decree of the federal court was, however, executed by the marshal, and Chief Justice Tilgman, of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, re- 40 Even the State judges, in Massachusetts, did not always keep themselves free from temporary excitement, but abetted, by fused to release, when brought before him on habeas corpus^ one of the respondents, who had been taken into custody, by virtue of the attachment. The authority under which the mihtia had acted was subsequently declared void, and the Circuit Court sentenced (May 2, 1809) the ofiicers of the militia who had resisted the process of the United States to various terms of imprisonment. The general of the brigade, as well as several of his associates, was conducted to prison, and the constitutional authority of the federal judiciary was thus fully asserted. It was during the irritation created by this transaction that Pennsylvania passed resolutions, declaring " that no provision is made in the constitution for determining disputes between the general and state governments by an impartial tribunal," and instructing and requesting her senators and representatives to use their injluence to procure an amendment to the constitution to establish such a tribunal. But, notwithstanding these proceedings, such was the change in public sentiments, which a few years produced, that in 1830, the vote of the Pennsylvania delegation in the House of Representatives was unanimous against even considering a proposition to repeal the 25th section of the ju- diciary act. In the Virginia case, which involved the construction of the treaties of 1783 and 1794, a writ of error was awarded, to the highest court of the State, and the judgment of that tribunal having been reversed by the Su- preme Court, (Fairfax's devisee, vs. Hunter's lessee, 7 Cranch, 603) the Court of Appeals was required to cause the original judgment, which that court had reversed, to be carried into execution. The state court denied the appellate jurisdiction of the federal judiciary in the case and refused obedience to the mandate. A writ of error having been awarded on this refusal, (1 Wheaton, 304) the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was maintained, and though no change was made in the record of the Court of Appeals, the decision of the United States' Court has ever since been acquiesced in, as governing the title to the property in question. 41 iheir formal opinions,* (and at a time, too, when our country was at war with the most powerful nation in Christendom,) the resistance of the executive to requisitions of the National Government for the militia, since universally admitted to have been Vithin the President's legitimate powers. The hostile measures adopted by Ohio and Kentucky against the National Bank, the constitutionality and expediency of w^iich they are now among the most ready to admit, present further illustrations of the truth of our remarks. But for all apprehended difficulties time has hitherto proved a sovereign panacea ; and though in the Virginia case, already referred to, and, as it is understood, in one which has recently come up from another State, the local tri- bunal refused to alter its record according to the mandate of the Court, no effectual opposition has ever yet been made to the execution by its appropriate officers of the decrees of the fe- deral judiciary. The collisions, which now menace us are not, assuredly, to be lightly regarded. It is, however, satis- The final decision of the Supreme Court, in the last mentioned case, took place in 1816. It is worthy of remark, that, when the authority of the federal judiciary was attacked by Pennsylvania in 1808-9, by no State was it more zealously upheld than by Virginia. Her legislature, referring to the proposition for the establishment of a new tribunal to decide disputes between the general and state governments, unanimously declared, " that a tribunal was already provided by the constitution of the United States, to wit, the Supreme Court, more eminently qualified from their habits and duties — from the mode of their selection, and from the tenure of their offices — to decide the disputes aforesaid in an enlightened and impartial manner, than any other tribunal, which could be created." * See 8 Mass. R. 550. 42 factory to know, that to emancipate one of our Sister States from a species of population, of which, owing to the earlier settlement of this colony, we are happily free, while we pre- serve unimpaired the authority of the Supreme Court— the key-stone of the federal arch— requires but liberal appropria- tions from a redundant treasury. As to the discontent else- where prevalent — if our national legislature will only take for their guide the spirit of the constitution, and scrupidously ab- stain from imposing or continuing any unnecessary restric- tions on the freedom of industry, and from interfering in other matters not entrusted to them — we may calmly await the pe- riod when the passions of the day, will, as on previous occa- sions, yield to considerations of enlightened patriotism. Nor are associations, Mr. President, such as ours, without their utility in contributing to the perpetuation of a system which has fully solved the problem, how to produce "the greatest happiness of the greatest number." No researches can be made into our history, without our being constantly reminded of the thousand ties by which all the colonies were early connected, while a lecollection of the efforts made in common in a cause which has been the admiiation of man- kind, and in the formation of a constitution, which is univer- sally esteemed a model for the imitation of all free nations, is eminently calculated to induce us to surrender all sectional feeUngs, and to sacrifice all sordid views at the altar of the Union. As Rome extended her conquests, not only were the inha- bitants of the other Italian towns incorporated with her, but 43 the rights of citizenship were accorded to whole nations of barbarians, as they were termed, whose local position forbade any real participation in political power. The consequence was, that abuses of every sort were practised by the func- tionaries in the remote provinces, from whom all real amena- bihty to the Senate and people of Rome was removed, and the division of the empire, had no other causes contributed to it, must have been brought about by the inability of the superin- tending authority to afford that protection, for life and pro- perty, which is the great end of civil government. The unwise rejection of the federative system has, for the last half century, placed the people of France at the mercy of the mobs, who have successively obtained the control of the capital, while the practical inconveniences of a republic, one and indivisible, tended most effectually to reconcile the pro- vinces to the usurpation of Napoleon, and to the downfal of democratical institutions. In the United States, the powers committed by the people to their state governments place the inhabitants of the most distant parts of the Union on an equality with those in the neighborhood of the federal district, and indeed the citizens of .Maine and Louisiana enjoy a participation in political power even denied, for peculiar reasons, to those who are do- miciliated within the very precincts of the capitol. The rally- ing points, also, which the States furnish for the vindication of political rights, afford the most effectual guarantees, which human ingenuity can devise, against the usurpation of future Napoleons. 44 At the same time, our federal institutions enable us, in our relations with foreign powers, to assume that attitude, and command that consideration which would never be accorded to inconsiderable states or principalities. Our citizens, instead of being restricted to the circuit of a few miles around the spot in which they were born, have secured to them an almost in- terminable range of country, in which to advance their for- tunes and provide for their happiness. And whatever may be the policy of their own or other governments as to a free inter- change of commodities, they are sure of having a market, for their produce and manufactures, which may well compare with the one, which the whole world afforded a century since. May we then ever bear in mind, that, with the preservation of both the general and state governments, in their appro- priate spheres, our national independence and individual li- berties are indissolubly connected ! On the continuance of the one depends our immunity from foreign aggression and in- ternal dissentions, while the other is required to protect us from what is even more to be deprecated, that tyranny and despot- ism, which would but too probably follow in the train of con- solidation. ^ij^>r "^: ^^<^^^^o^> ^^s^^^^^ »" 5S^^^^ > >>^5V. 13^ !»> > ^^^ J« ^ J» '^' y^ > J) ^ .J» >> ^ :3>- _> ^^ :3»'.>-:3» '^?^ ^^TSr^'OTJ-^- > ^^:> -> -3» o. -^ 7.' .^-i -> >» ^ . > ■■__^j> '^j> " -^ >-3> C::^ >ji> ~5 >->^ i^> -•5> ^ T »' > > ;i: »► ,'0:> >> . > _j> ^ -Jf^ \>^ '^^ • > ra w '-> :> ^ • - • J ;"^ » > ■>^> ->. *j ^ > :3P^ >> -;>' :» :3^ >3j> :^' > ^ 13 m jyj> - > > jl ii»-^>.>> ^ ■ >■ > Z38 >^J> > ' ^ Z^f^ • >>^ 2> ^ ^> "^ji» >-> :> _^JKKf^ -^ > > . » J }0p :> i>> > c» > > . > »» \» :> > --> 3P> \ - ~> 3-3 ■^S*' ^ >r3:> u> ^ - -> J> !> > ?>> ^^>^ 3j?^ ^^:p ^^::3SB^,.\ -^^ ..J>.):^>i:r>Jjm^ \: mm. ■Mi mmM >:_>iB> ■^5 J^£.^ wsm