tion did so, thinking that neither a monarchy nor an aristocracy would ensue, but that they should thereby preserve and ameliorate the Republic of America; but never until now, that His Excellency has let the cat out of the bag, did I suppose that any member of the Convention, at least from the Republican State of Virginia, would accept a Constitution, whereby the Republic of his constituents is to be sacrificed in its infancy, and before it has had a fair trial. But His Excellency will adopt this Constitution "BECAUSE HE WOULD REGULATE HIMSELF BY THE SPIRIT OF AMERICA." But is His Excellency a prophet, as well as a politician? Can he foretell future events? How else can he at this time discover what the spirit of America is? But, admitting his infallibility for a moment, how far will his principle carry him? Why, that if the dominion of Shays, instead of that of the new Constitution, should be generally accepted, and become the spirit of America, His Excellency, too, would turn Shayite! And yet this question of the Constitution is "ONE ON WHICH THE FATE OF THOUSANDS YET UNBORN DEPENDS." It is His Excellency's opinion, as expressed in the aforesaid letter, that the powers which are acknowledged necessary for supporting the Union, cannot safely be entrusted to our Congress as at present constituted; and his vain objection is "that the representation of the States bears no proportion to their importance." This is literally true, but is equally true of the Senate of the proposed Constitution, which is to be an essential part of the Legislature; and yet His Excellency will accept the latter, and not agree to invest the necessary powers in the former, although the above objection equally applies to both. Nay, I am inclined to believe that the injurious consequences of this unequal representation will operate more strongly under the new government, for under the present Confederation the members of Congress are removable at the pleasure of their constituents; whereas, under the proposed Constitution, the only method of removing a wicked, unskilful or treacherous senator, will be by impeachment before the Senate itself, of which he is a member.

These, Mr. Printer, are some of the inconsistencies which even a slight observation of the above letter will suggest. It is not my purpose to oppose now, or to investigate, the merits of the Constitution. This I leave to abler pens, and to the common sense of my countrymen. The science of government is in itself simple and plain; and if in the history of mankind no perfect government can be found, let it be attributed to the chicane, perfidy and ambition of those who fabricate them, and who are, more or less, in common with all mankind, infected with a lust of power. It is, however, certainly not consistent with sound sense to accept a Constitution, knowing it to be imperfect; and His Excellency acknowledges the proposed one to have radical objections. A Constitution ought to be like Cæsar's wife, not only good, but unsuspected, since it is the highest compact which men are capable of forming, and involves the dearest rights of life, liberty and property. I fear His Excellency has done no service to his favorite scheme of amendment (and he, too, seems to be of the same opinion), by his very candid declaration at the end of his letter. Subtlety and chicane in politics are equally odious and dishonorable; but when it is considered that the present is not the golden age-the epoch of virtue, candor and integrity-that the views of ambitious and designing men are continually working to their own aggrandizement, and to the overthrow of liberty, and that the discordant interests of thirteen different Commonwealths are to be reconciled and promoted by one general government; common reason will teach us that the utmost caution, secrecy, and political sagacity is requisite to secure to each the important blessings of a good government.

I shall now take my leave of his Excellency and the above-mentioned letter, declaring my highest veneration for his character and abilities; and it can be no impeachment of the talents of any man who has not served a regular apprenticeship to politics, to say, that his opinions on an intricate political question are erroneous. For if, as the celebrated Dr. Blackstone observes, "in every art, occupation or science, commercial or mechanical, some method of instruc

tion or apprenticeship is held necessary, how much more requisite will such apprenticeship be found to be, in the science of government, the noblest and most difficult of any.-A PLAIN DEALER.

2. CASE OF MCCULLOCH v. MARYLAND.*

To the Editor of the Enquirer:

I.

SIR-I have read with considerable attention the opinion pronounced by the Chief Justice of the U. S. in the case of McCulloch against the State of Maryland. In that opinion we are informed, First, That it is the unanimous and decided opinion of the Supreme Court, that the Act to incorporate the Bank of the U. S. is a law, made in pursuance of the Constitution, and is a part of the supreme law of the land; and, Secondly, That the court is also unanimously of opinion that the law of Maryland, imposing a tax on the Bank of Maryland, is unconstitutional and void. We are not informed whether this this whole court united in the course of reasoning adopted by the Chief Justice, nor whether they all accorded in the various positions and principles which he advanced. It may be, that some of them admitted that the bank law is unconstitutional, and yet did not think proper to deny that the several States are parties to the Federal compact, it may be, that some of them, without giving to the term "necessary" the liberal and latitudinous construction attached to it by the Chief Justice, and before him by Mr. Secretary Hamilton, may yet have thought that the measure of incorporating a bank was "necessary and proper" for carrying into execution some of the specific powers granted to Congress; or some of them may have believed that it was the duty of Congress to have judged of that "necessity and propriety;" and having exercised their un

*The papers signed "Amphictyon" have been identified by examination of the Jefferson and Madison correspondence now in the Library of Congress.

doubted functions in so deciding, that it was not consistent with judicial modesty to say "there was no such necessity," and thus to arrogate to themselves a right of putting their veto upon a law; or it may be, that some members of the court thought the bank law "necessary and proper" to carry into effect one power, whilst others thought that it was the instrument for effectuating another and a different power, Although they have all arrived at the same place, they may have traveled thither by different roads; although they have come to the same conclusion, yet their reasons may have been considerably variant from each other. I confess, that as a citizen, I should have been better pleased to have seen the separate opinions of the judges. The occasion called for seriatim opinions. On this great constitutional question, affecting very much the rights of the several States composing the confederacy, the decision of which abrogated the law of one State, and is supposed to have formed a rule for the future conduct of other States, the people had surely a right to expect that each judge should assign his own reasons for the vote which he gave. This court seems to have thought that it was sitting as an umpire to decide between the conflicting claims of a sovereign State on the one hand, and the whole United States on the other, and yet the judges decline the expression of the principles on which they have separately formed their judgments! Having thus declined the declaration of their separate opinions, we are driven, however reluctantly, to the conclusion that each judge approves. of each argument and position advanced by the Chief Justice.

That this opinion is very able every one must admit. This was to have been expected, proceeding as it does from a man of the most profound legal attainments, and upon a subject which has employed his thoughts, his tongue, and his pen, as a politician, and an historian for more than thirty years. The subject, too, is one

which has, perhaps more than any other, heretofore drawn a broad line of distinction between the two great parties in this country, on which line no one has taken a more distinguished and decided

rank than the judge who has thus expounded the supreme law of the land. It is not in my power to carry on a contest upon such a subject with a man of his gigantic powers, but I trust it will not be thought rash or presumptuous to endeavor to point out the consequences of some of the doctrines maintained by the Supreme Court, and to oppose to their adjudication some of the principles which have heretofore been advocated by the Republican party in this country.

There are two principles advocated and decided on by the Supreme Court, which appear to me to endanger the very existence of State Rights. The first is the denial that the powers of the Federal Government were delegated by the States; and the second is, that the grant of powers to that government, and particularly the grant of powers "necessary and proper" to carry the other powers into effect, ought to be construed in a liberal, rather than a restricted sense. Both of these principles tend directly to consolidation of the States, and to strip them of some of the most important attributes of their sovereignty. If the Congress of the United States should think proper to legislate to the full extent, upon the principles now adjudicated by the Supreme Court, it is difficult to say how small would be the remnant of power left in the hands of the State authorities.

The first position, that the powers of the Federal Government are not delegated by the States, or in other words, that the States are not parties to the compact, is untenable in itself, and fatal in its consequences. But for what purpose, I will ask, did the Federal Court decide that question? To ascertain whether the bank law was consistent with the Constitution, or not, it was necessary, I apprehend, that the court should have enquired into the source from whence the authority of the government was derived. Whether the powers of the Federal Government were delegated to it by the States in their sovereign capacity, or by the people, can make but little difference as to the extent of those powers. In either case, it is still true that the powers of that government are limited by