Essays on the Constitution of the United States Part 27

There are attacks on Chase, by "Steady" in the _Maryland Journal_ of September 28, 1787, and by "Spectator," in the _Maryland Journal_ of October 9, 1787.

Caution.

The Maryland Journal, (Number 976)

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1787.

TO THE INHABITANTS OF BALTIMORE TOWN,

An attempt to _surprise_ you into any _public_ measure, ought to meet your indignation and contempt. When violence or cunning is subst.i.tuted for argument and reason, suspicion should take the alarm, and prudence should dictate the propriety of deliberation. Questions of consequence in private life ought not to be _hastily_ decided, and with greater reason, determinations that involve the future felicity of a whole people, ought not to be taken before the most mature and deliberate consideration, and a free and full examination of the subject and all its consequences. These reflections occurred on being informed that some gentlemen of this Town employ themselves in carrying about and soliciting subscribers to a pet.i.tion, addressed to the General a.s.sembly, requesting them to call a Convention to ratify the new system of government, proposed for the United States by the late Convention at Philadelphia. If this pet.i.tion contained no more, it would not have been worthy of notice; but it publishes to the world your entire approbation of the New Federal Government, and your desire that it should be adopted and confirmed by this State, as it stands, _without any amendment or alteration_.

The ostensible cause for offering you the pet.i.tion to sign is, that you may express your sentiments to the legislature, that they ought to call a Convention to ratify the new form of government for the United States; but the real design of the promoters of the pet.i.tion is to draw you into a declaration in favour of the _whole_ system, and to bind you hereafter to support it, which you must do, or allege deception and surprise, if, on further reflection, you should discover that you rashly gave an opinion against your real interests. If the _real_ intention of the promoters and carriers of this pet.i.tion was _only_ to obtain your opinion in favour of calling a Convention, it might have been expressed in a _few_ lines; and no one would oppose such a pet.i.tion, although improper and unnecessary, because your Delegates will certainly move for, and exert themselves to procure, the calling a Convention; and no member of the General a.s.sembly will deny that, in so doing, your Delegates speak your sentiments.

In my opinion, it is not necessary or proper for you, _at this time_, to express your approbation, or disapprobation, of the new const.i.tution for the United States, for the following reasons:

First-because the decision, _for_ or _against_ the plan, is of the greatest consequence, as it involves no less than the happiness or misery of you and all your posterity forever; and therefore, I think, requires your dispa.s.sionate and most deliberate consideration. Secondly-because you want information, and have not had time yourselves to examine the proposed system, and to consider the consequences that may flow from rejecting or adopting it. Thirdly-because time is not given for your countrymen in this, and the other States, to consider the subject, and to lay their sentiments and reasons for or against the measure before you.

Fourthly-because you ought to hear _both_ sides, as the man who determines on hearing one part only, will almost always be mistaken in his judgment.

He may be in the right, but it will be by _chance_ and not by _reason_.

Fifthly-because you are not pressed in point of time to determine on the subject; you have at least three months for deliberation; to decide, therefore, in a few days will be rashness and folly. Sixthly-when men urge you to determine in _haste_, on so momentous a subject, it is not _unreasonable_ to require their motives; and it is not _uncharitable_ to suspect that they are improper; and no possible mischief or inconvenience can happen from delay.

_October 11, 1787._

CAUTION.

LETTER OF A FRIEND TO THE CONSt.i.tUTION, WRITTEN BY DANIEL CARROLL.

Printed In The Maryland Journal, October, 1787.

Note.

Daniel Carroll wrote Madison that he had replied to Chase's "Caution," and as this is the only direct reply to that article I have been able to find, I have ventured to ascribe this to him. The letter is in the Madison Papers in the Department of State, which at present are restricted from use, so I am unable to print it here.

A Friend To The Const.i.tution.

The Maryland Journal, (Number 977)

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1787.

TO THE INHABITANTS OF BALTIMORE TOWN.

You have been addressed in the last Friday's paper, by a writer under the signature of _Caution_, who would persuade you that you ought to withhold your approbation, at this time, from the Federal Const.i.tution recommended by the Convention.

This writer may have the best intentions in the world towards the _public welfare_, and the _prosperity of Baltimore_; but every one must perceive that he is an enemy to the proposed Const.i.tution, and wishes to prevent you from expressing yourselves in its favour, not only _at this time_, but at any _future time_.

Mr. C-- is said to be the author of this admonition; but that this is a malicious insinuation, aimed at his sincerity, will appear by considering his _recent promise_ on this subject, signed and published by himself, in reference with the resolution of the Convention, upon which that promise is founded. I shall state both the resolution and promise, that you may judge for yourselves.

The resolve of the Convention declares, that the Const.i.tution should be submitted to a Convention of Delegates, chosen in each State by the people, under the recommendation of its legislature, _for their a.s.sent and ratification_.

Mr. C-- being called upon, before his election, to declare himself on this point, promises to the people, "that he will use his endeavours, if elected, to call a Convention."

I would just observe on this resolve and promise: First-that the resolve makes it an _absolute condition_ that the legislature recommend a Convention _to a.s.sent to, and ratify, the Const.i.tution_. Secondly-that the _promise_ made by Mr. C-- is obligatory upon him, to use his endeavors to procure a Convention _for this purpose_.

Another remark, which occurs on this occasion, is, that Mr. C-- could not mean that a Convention ought to be called _for any other purpose_ than to a.s.sent to, and ratify, the Const.i.tution; for it is absurd to suppose he meant the Convention should be authorized by the legislature to propose amendments or alterations, that being _contrary_ to the declared intention of the resolution, and the sense which his friends entertained of his engagement at the time he entered into it. Mr. C--, therefore (without presuming him capable of doing the greatest violence to his promise), cannot be considered as the _author of Caution_, who argues strenuously, though indirectly, _against adopting the Const.i.tution_.

From this brief view of the nature and intention of the resolve, I think it is evident that the people ought, _without delay_, to signify their approbation of the Const.i.tution by _a pet.i.tion to the legislature_, to the end that the legislature, which is called upon by the Convention and Congress to recommend to the people to choose Delegates to ratify it, may have the _authority of the largest and most promising commercial and manufacturing Town in the State_ to countenance so _important a recommendation_. But _Caution_ thinks a pet.i.tion _improper_ and _unnecessary_; because, says he, "your Delegates will move for, and exert themselves to procure, the calling a Convention." Admitting your Delegates to move to have a Convention called, does it follow that they will add to their motion these _essential words, to confirm and ratify the Const.i.tution_? Does it not rather appear, from the tenor of this writer's remarks, that your Delegates ought to leave these words out of their motion? But the _propriety_ and _necessity_ of a pet.i.tion does not depend on what your Delegates may, or may not do. It is _proper_ at this time, because the Const.i.tution meets your approbation. It is _necessary_ at this time, because wanted as an inducement to the legislature to call upon the people to appoint a Convention to carry into effect the object of the resolution. In other words, as the recommendation for a Convention _involves the legislature in a complete approbation of the Const.i.tution_, there is the greatest _propriety_ and _necessity_ for your telling the legislature _that it meets your approbation_.

I am sorry to find, by _Caution's_ publication and insinuations, which I am told are circulated with great industry, that an opposition is opened against the Const.i.tution. I did not, I confess, expect to see it adopted without some opposition; but I could not bring myself to believe, that this opposition could have originated in Baltimore, which is _so peculiarly interested in its speedy adoption_. But what I intended to say on this point, is so well expressed in a late speech of Mr. Wilson, to the people of Philadelphia, previous to their election for representatives, that I shall take the liberty of closing with it.

"After all, my fellow-citizens, (says this excellent politician) it is neither extraordinary nor unexpected, that the Const.i.tution offered to your consideration should meet with opposition. It is the nature of man to pursue his own interest in preference to the _public good_; and I do not mean to make any personal reflection, when I add, that it is _the interest of a very numerous, powerful and respectable body to counteract and destroy the excellent work produced by the late Convention_. All the offices of government, and all the appointments for the administration of justice, and the collection of the public revenue, which are transferred from the individual to the aggregate sovereignty of the States, will necessarily turn the stream of influence and emolument into a new channel.

_Every person, therefore, who either enjoys, or expects to enjoy, a place of profit under the present establishment, will object to the proposed innovations, not, in truth, because it is injurious to the liberties of his country; but because it affects his schemes of wealth and consequence._ I will confess, indeed, that I am not a blind admirer of this plan of government, and _that there are some parts of it_, which, if my wish had prevailed, would certainly have been altered. But, when I reflect how widely men differ in their opinions, and that every man (and the observation applies likewise to every state) has an equal pretension to a.s.sert his own, I am satisfied that anything _nearer to perfection_ could not have been accomplished. If there are errors, _it should be remembered_, that the seeds of reformation are sown in the work itself, and the concurrence of two-thirds of the Congress may, at any time, introduce _alterations and amendments_. Regarding it, then, in every point of view, with a candid and disinterested mind, I am bold to a.s.sert, that is the _best form of government which has ever been offered to the world_."

A FRIEND TO THE CONSt.i.tUTION.

_Baltimore, October 13, 1787._

THE LETTERS OF LUTHER MARTIN.

Printed In The Maryland Journal, January-March, 1788.

Note.

Luther Martin, afterwards nick-named the "bull-dog of federalism," was at this time the leading Anti-federalist in Maryland. From his pen came the pamphlet ent.i.tled _Genuine Information ... Relative to the Proceedings of the General Convention_; and when the "Landholder," (see _Ante_, page 135), attacked Elbridge Gerry, he began this series of articles in defense of that gentleman, but eventually, by the replies, was compelled to continue the series as a personal vindication. According to a letter of Daniel Carrol, Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer replied in the newspapers to Martin, but I have not been able to identify this.