its character. That Congress was silent on its character is true. but could Cato find no other reason for their silence than that of disapprobation? I believe Congress were by no means dissatisfied with the freedom the Convention took with the Articles of Confederation; I believe further that with very few exceptions, that honorable body approves of the New Constitution; and that they did not accompany it to the States with a recommendatory capitation or circular letter, proceeded from a delicate attention to the members of the late Convention, to a few of their own body, and to the people of America at large. That the Convention went so earnestly into the business committed to their care ought, instead of being matter of chagrin, to occasion the liveliest expressions of approbation and gratitude-as matters stand just now. I think it may be fairly said, that no generous plan of government for the United States has ever been constructed, (the plan only excepted which is under consideration) so that it seems quite unnecessary in Cato to disturb the peace of society by a bombast appeal to their feelings, on the generous plan of power delivered down by their renowned forefathers. I venerate the memory of the slaughtered patriots of America, and rejoice as much as Cato that they did not bleed in vain, but I would have America profit by their death in a different manner from him. I believe they sought to obtain liberty for no particular State, but for the whole Union, indissolubly connected under one controlling and supreme head.

Cato complains of my anticipating parts of his subject which he intended for future periods. I shall break in no more upon his arrangements. All he can say against the New Constitution has been already disseminated in a neighboring State by the glorious defenders of Shayism. I shall therefore leave Cato to the wicked influences of his own heart, in the fullest persuasion that all good citizens will combine their influence to establish the fair fabric of American liberty beyond the reach of suspicion, violence, anarchy, and tyranny. When this glorious work is accomplished, what may America not hope to arrive at? I will venture to prophesy that the day on which the Union under the new government shall be ratified by the American States, that that day will begin an era which will be recorded and observed by future ages as a day which the Americans had marked by their wisdom in circumscribing the power and ascertaining the decline of the ancient nations in Christendom.

October 15.

CÆSAR.

SYDNEY.

(ROBERT YATES.)

IN

THE NEW YORK JOURNAL.

FRIDAY, JUNE 13, 1788.

TO THE CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

Although a variety of objections to the proposed new constitution for the government of the United States have been laid before the public by men of the best abilities, I am led to believe that representing it in a point of view which has escaped their observation may be of use, that is, by comparing it with the constitution of the State of New York.

The following contrast is therefore submitted to the public, to show in what instances the powers of the state government will be either totally or partially absorbed, and enable us to determine whether the remaining powers will, from those kind of pillars, be capable of supporting the mutilated fabric of a government, which even the advocates for the new constitution admit excels "the boasted models of Greece or Rome, and those of all other nations, in having precisely marked out the power of the government and the rights of the people."

It may be proper to premise that the pressure of necessity and distress (and not corruption) had a principal tendency to induce the adoption of the state constitutions and the existing confederation, that power was even then vested in the rulers with the greatest caution, and that, as from every circumstance we have reason to infer that the new constitution does not originate from a pure source, we ought deliberately to trace the extent and tendency of the trust we are about to repose, under the conviction that a re

assumption of that trust will at least be difficult, if not impracticable. If we take a retrospective view of the measures of Congress who have their secret journals, the conduct of their officers, at home and abroad, acting under an oath of secrecy, as well as of individuals who were intimately connected with them, from the year 1780 to the last convention, who also acted under an injunction of secrecy (and whose journals have not been published even to this day, but will no doubt continue buried in the dark womb of suspicious secrecy), we can scarcely entertain a doubt but that a plan has long since been framed to subvert the confederation; that that plan has been matured with the most persevering industry and unremitted attention, and that the objects expressed in the preamble to the constitution, that is "to promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity," were merely the ostensible, and not the real reasons of its framers. That necessity and danger have been the moving causes to the establishment of the confederation will appear from the words of Congress recommending its formation to the several legislatures which are "under a conviction of the absolute necessity of uniting all our councils and all our strength to maintain our common liberties. Let them be examined with liberality becoming brethren and fellow-citizens, surrounded by the same imminent dangers, contending for the same illustrious prize, and deeply interested in being forever bound and connected together by the ties the most intimate and indissoluble."

That these principles equally applied to the formation of our state constitution no person can seriously doubt who recollects the rapid progress of the British troops in this state and in Jersey in the year 1776, and the despondence which prevailed among the people on that occasion. The convention of this state, about that period, in explaining to the people the justice of the American cause, addressed them as follows: "You and all men were created free and authorised to establish civil government for the preservation of our rights against civil oppression, and the security of that freedom which God had given you, against the rapacious hand of tyranny and lawless power. If then God hath given us freedom, are we not responsible to him for that as well as other talents? If it is our birthright, let us not sell it for a mess of pottage, nor suffer it to be torn from us by the hand of violence."

The omission of a bill of rights in this State has given occasion

to an inference that the omission was equally warrantable in the constitution for the United States. On this it may be necessary to observe that while the constitution of this State was in agitation, there appeared doubts upon the propriety of the measure, from the peculiar situation in which the country then was; our connection with Britain dissolved, and her government formally renounced-no substitute devised--all the powers of government avowedly temporary, and solely calculated for defence; it was urged by those in favor of a bill of rights that the power of the rulers ought to be circumscribed, the better to protect the people at large from the oppression and usurpation of their rulers. The English petition of rights, in the reign of Charles the First, and the bill of rights in the reign of king William, were mentioned as examples to support their opinions. Those in opposition admitted that in established governments, which had an implied constitution, a declaration of rights might be necessary to prevent the usurpation of ambitious men, but that was not our situation, for upon the declaration of independence it had become necessary that the exercise of every kind of authority "under the former government should be totally suppressed, and all the power of government exerted under the authority of the people of the colonies;" that we could not suppose that we had an existing constitution or form of government, express or implied, and therefore our situation resembled a people in a state of nature, who are preparing "to institute a government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness," and as such, the constitution to be formed would operate as a bill of rights.

These and the like considerations operated to induce the convention of New York to dismiss the idea of a bill of rights, and the more especially as the legislative state officers being elected by the people at short periods, and thereby rendered from time to time. liable to be displaced in case of mal-conduct. But these reasons will not apply to the general government, because it will appear in the sequel that the state governments are considered in it as mere dependencies, existing solely by its toleration, and possessing powers of which they may be deprived whenever the general gov ernment is disposed so to do. If then the powers of the state governments are to be totally absorbed, in which all agree, and only differ as to the mode, whether it will be effected by rapid

progression, or by as certain, but slower, operations: what is to limit the oppression of the general government? Where are the rights, which are declared to be incapable of violation? And what security have people against the wanton oppression of unprincipled governors? No constitutional redress is pointed out, and no express declaration is contained in it, to limit the bounda ries of their rulers; besides which the mode and period of their being elected tends to take away their responsibility to the people over whom they may, by the power of the purse and the sword, domineer at discretion; nor is there a power on earth to tell them, What dost thou? or, Why dost thou so?

I shall now proceed to compare the constitution of the state of New York with the proposed federal government, distinguishing the paragraphs in the former, which are rendered nugatory by the litter; those which are in a great measure enervated, and such as are in the discretion of the general government to permit or not. The 1st and 37th paragraphs of the constitution of the state of New York.

The 1st "Ordains, determines, and declares that no authority shall on any pretence whatever be exercised over the people or members of this State, but such as shall be derived from and granted by them."

The 37th," That no purchases or contracts for the sale of lands with or of the Indians within the limits of this state, shall be binding on the Indians, or deemed valid, unless made under the authority and with the consent of the legislature of this state."

I beg here to observe that the whole history of this spurious constitution for the government of the United States, from its origin to the present day, and the measures taken by Congress respecting the Indian affairs in this state, are a series of violations of these paragraphs, and of the 13th article of the confederation.

It was a violation of the state constitution for the senate and assembly, on the 19th of February, 1787, to instruct their members to move in Congress for an act recommending a convention; and it was also a violation of the 13th article of the confederation for Congress, on the 21st day of February, to recommend a convention to the several legislatures. It was a further violation of the constitution of this state, by the senate and assembly, on the 27th day of March, to join and to appoint delegates to meet in convention, and it being done in that hasty, if not surreptitious manner,