INDEX

[1]. The History of the Constitution of the United States (1882 ed.), Vol. II, p. 284.

[2]. American Historical Review, Vol. II, p. 13.

[3]. Bancroft, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 6.

[4]. It has been left to a Russian to explain to Englishmen the origin of Teutonism in historical writing. See the introduction to Vinogradoff, Villainage in England. W. J. Ashley, in his preface to the translation of Fustel de Coulanges, Origin of Property in Land, throws some light on the problem, but does not attempt a systematic study.

[5]. Note the painstaking documentation for the first chapters in Stubbs’ great work.

[6]. What Morley has said of Macaulay is true of many eminent American historical writers: “A popular author must, in a thoroughgoing way, take the accepted maxims for granted. He must suppress any whimsical fancy for applying the Socratic elenchus; or any other engine of criticism, scepticism, or verification to those sentiments or current precepts or morals which may in truth be very equivocal and may be much neglected in practice, but which the public opinion of his time requires to be treated in theory and in literature as if they had been cherished and held semper, ubique, et ab omnibus.” Miscellanies, Vol. I, p. 272.

[7]. For instance, intimate connections can be shown between the vogue of Darwinism and the competitive ideals of the mid-Victorian middle-class in England. Darwin got one of his leading ideas, the struggle for existence, from Malthus, who originated it as a club to destroy the social reformers, Godwin, Condorcet, and others, and then gave it a serious scientific guise as an afterthought.

[8]. See also the valuable and suggestive writings on American history by Professor W. E. Dodd, of Chicago University; W. A. Schaper, “Sectionalism in South Carolina,” American Historical Association Report (1900), Vol. I; A. Bentley, The Process of Government; C. H. Ambler, Sectionalism in Virginia. There are three works by socialist writers that deserve study: Simons, Social Forces in American History; Gustavus Myers, History of Great American Fortunes and History of the Supreme Court.

[9]. See Seligman, The Economic Interpretation of History.

[10]. Vincent, in his treatise on Historical Research (1911), dismisses the economic theory without critical examination.

[11]. The Congressional Record requires more care in use than any other great source of information on American politics.

[12]. Attention should be drawn, however, to the good work which is being done in the translation of several European legal studies, the “Modern Legal Philosophy Series,” under the editorial direction of the Association of American Law Schools. Perhaps the most hopeful sign of the times is the growth of interest in comparative jurisprudence. See Borchard, “Jurisprudence in Germany,” Columbia Law Review, April, 1912.

[13]. For examples of Maitland’s suggestiveness, see the English Historical Review, Vol. IX, p. 439, for a side light on the effect of money economy on the manor and consequently on feudal law. See also the closing pages of his Constitutional History of England, where he makes constitutional law in large part the history of the law of real property. “If we are to learn anything about the constitution, it is necessary first and foremost that we should learn a good deal about the land law. We can make no progress whatever in the history of parliament without speaking of tenure; indeed our whole constitutional law seems at times to be but an appendix to the law of real property” (p. 538). Maitland’s entire marvellous chapter on “The Definition of Constitutional Law” deserves the most careful study and reflection. He was entirely emancipated from bondage to systematists (p. 539).

[14]. J. C. Carter, The Proposed Codification of Our Common Law (1884), pp. 6–8.

[15]. Of the newer literature on law, see the following articles by Professor Roscoe Pound: “Do we need a Philosophy of Law?” Columbia Law Review, Vol. V, p. 339; “Need of a Sociological Jurisprudence,” Green Bag, Vol. XIX, p. 607; “Mechanical Jurisprudence,” Columbia Law Review, Vol. VIII, p. 605; “Law in Books and Law in Action,” American Law Review, Vol. XLIV, p. 12; Professor Munroe Smith, “Jurisprudence” (in the Columbia University Lectures in Arts and Sciences); Goodnow, Social Reform and the Constitution.

[16]. Consider, for example, the following remarks by this eminent Justice in his dissenting opinion in the New York Bakery case: “This case is decided upon an economic theory which a large part of the country does not entertain.... The Fourteenth Amendment does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer’s Social Statics.... General propositions do not decide concrete cases. The decision will depend on a judgment or intuition more subtle than any articulate major premise.” 198 U. S. 75.

[17]. Op. cit., Vol. II, p. 367.

[18]. 4 Wheaton, p. 316. No doubt the learned Justice was here more concerned with discrediting the doctrine of state’s rights than with establishing the popular basis of our government.

[19]. S. F. Miller, Lectures on the Constitution (1891), p. 71.

[20]. Op. cit., Vol. II, p. 324.

[21]. See A. Bentley, The Process of Government.

[22]. In the preface to his first edition, Jhering says: “Die Schrift, von der ich hiermit die erste Hälfte der Öffentlichkeit übergebe, ist eine Ausläuferin von meinem Werk über den Geist des römischen Rechts. Der letzte Band desselben ... schloss ab mit einer Grundlegung der Theorie der Rechte im subjektiven Sinn, in der ich eine von der herrschenden abweichende Begriffsbestimmung des Rechts im subjektiven Sinn gab, indem ich an Stelle des Willens, auf den jene den Begriff desselben gründete, das Interesse setze. Dem folgenden Bande war die weitere Rechtfertigung und Verwertung dieses Gesichtspunktes Vorbehalten.... Der Begriff des Interesses nötigte mich, den Zweck ins Auge zu fassen, und das Recht im subjektiven Sinn drängte mich zu dem im objektiven Sinn, und so gestaltete sich das ursprüngliche Untersuchungsobjekt zu einem ungleich erweiterten, zu dem des gegenwärtigen Buches: der Zweck im Recht.... Der Grundgedanke des gegenwärtigen Werkes besteht darin, dass der Zweck der Schöpfer des gesamten Rechts ist, dass es keinen Rechtssatz gibt, der nicht einem Zweck, d.i. einem praktischen Motiv seinen Ursprung verdankt.”

[23]. Was ist es, das den innersten Grund unserer politischen und socialen Kämpfe bildet? Der Begriff des erworbenen Rechts ist wieder einmal streitig geworden—und dieser Streit ist es, der das Herz der heutigen Welt durchzittert und die tief inwendigste Grundlage der politisch-socialen Kämpfe des Jahrhunderts bildet. Im Juristischen, Politischen, Oekonomischen ist der Begriff des erworbenen Rechts der treibende Springquell aller weitern Gestaltung, und wo sich das Juristische als das Privatrechtliche völlig von dem Politischen abzulösen scheint, da ist es noch viel politischer als das Politische selbst, dann da ist es das sociale Element. Preface to Das System der erworbenen Rechte by Ferdinand Lassalle.

[24]. And before Madison’s century, Harrington had perceived its significance. H. A. L. Fisher, Republican Tradition in Europe, p. 51.

[25]. Number 10.

[26]. The theory of the economic interpretation of history as stated by Professor Seligman seems as nearly axiomatic as any proposition in social science can be: “The existence of man depends upon his ability to sustain himself; the economic life is therefore the fundamental condition of all life. Since human life, however, is the life of man in society, individual existence moves within the framework of the social structure and is modified by it. What the conditions of maintenance are to the individual, the similar relations of production and consumption are to the community. To economic causes, therefore, must be traced in the last instance those transformations in the structure of society which themselves condition the relations of social classes and the various manifestations of social life.” The Economic Interpretation of History, p. 3.

[27]. The question of geographic distribution will be considered below, Chap. X.

[28]. A few years ago a negro attendant at the Treasury sold a cart-load or more of these records to a junk dealer. He was imprisoned for the offence, but this is a small consolation for scholars. The present writer was able to use some of the records only after a vacuum cleaner had been brought in to excavate the ruins.

[29]. See below, p. 50.

[30]. See Curtis, The Constitutional History of the United States, Book I, Chaps. II-VII; Fiske, Critical Period of American History; McMaster, History of the People of the United States, Vol. I; Channing, History of the United States, Vol. III.

[31]. See below, Chaps. IV and IX.

[32]. Working-men in the cities were not altogether indifferent spectators. See Becker, Political Parties in New York. They would have doubtless voted with the major interests of the cities in favor of the Constitution as against the agrarians had they been enfranchised. In fact, this is what happened in New York. See below, Chap. IX.

[33]. “If the authority be in their hands by the rule of suffrage,” struck out in the Ms. See also the important note to this speech in Farrand, Records, Vol. II, p. 204, note 17.

[34]. Farrand, Records, Vol. II, p. 203.

[35]. December 5, 1791. State Papers: Finance, Vol. I, p. 126.

[36]. Roosevelt, Gouverneur Morris, pp. 14 ff.

[37]. Ambler, Sectionalism in Virginia, p. 44.

[38]. Libby has shown the degree of correspondence between the rural vote on paper money measures, designed for the relief of debtors, and the vote against the ratification of the Constitution. Op. cit., pp. 50 ff.

[39]. See below, p. 205.

[40]. The landholders were able to do this largely because New York City was the entry port for Connecticut and New Jersey. The opportunity to shift the taxes not only to the consumers, but to the consumers of neighboring states, was too tempting to be resisted.

[41]. For a paragraph on nascent capitalism in South Carolina, see W. A. Schaper, “Sectionalism in South Carolina,” American Historical Association Report (1900), Vol. I. See the letter of Blount, Davie, and Williamson to the governor of North Carolina, below, p. 169.

[42]. It is not without interest to note that about the time Calhoun made this criticism of New England capitalist devices he was attempting to borrow several thousand dollars from a Massachusetts mill owner to engage in railway enterprise in the south.

[43]. See, however, State Papers: Finance, Vol. I, pp. 414 ff.

[44]. Ibid., Vol. I, pp. 442 ff.

[45]. See the picturesque description of the monetary system or lack of system in Fiske, Critical Period of American History.

[46]. See below, p. 146.

[47]. State Papers: Finance, Vol. I, p. 451; also see below, pp. 261–2.

[48]. State Papers: Finance, Vol. I, p. 19.

[49]. W. De Knight, History of the Currency, p. 21.

[50]. State Papers: Finance, Vol. I, p. 325.

[51]. Ibid., Vol, I, p. 231.

[52]. Callender, not a very reliable authority on most matters concerning Hamilton, claims that twenty-five million dollars was made by the funding of the public debt, and that about ten millions more was made out of the state debt assumption process. He further declared that a public debt of eighty million dollars had been created of which only about thirty millions was all that was necessary. Gallatin held also that the unnecessary debt created by the assumption act amounted to about eleven million dollars. Callender, A History of the United States for 1796, pp. 224 ff. The ethics of redeeming the debt at face value is not here considered although the present writer believes that the success of the national government could not have been secured under any other policy than that pursued by Hamilton. Callender claims that those who held it were, in large measure, speculators and that they made huge fortunes out of the transaction. By a stroke of the pen the federal government created capital to the amount of millions in the hands of the holders.

[53]. A Statistical View of the Commerce of the United States, p. 31.

[54]. Tables from Pitkin, A Statistical View of the Commerce of the United States, pp. 367–368, and An Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of the United States for the Year 1795, p. 65

[56]. Undoubtedly a large appreciation had taken place between 1787 and 1800.

[57]. “The public securities of the United States of America were a dead, inactive kind of property, previous to the establishment of the constitution of the new government; then they became at once the object of avarice. They before had an existence as to value, on the slender hope of having something done for them at some distant future period; and obtained a motion only from the sagacity of the few, who happened to be right in their conjectures respecting the then future events of American financeering. Upon the adoption of the new system of government they assumed all the properties of a rising credit, and became an immense active capital for commerce.” James Sullivan, An Inquiry into the Origin and Use of Money (1792). Duane Pamphlets, Library of Congress.

[58]. Tench Coxe, A View of the United States of America (1795), p. 360. Tucker, Progress of the United States (1843), p. 205.

[59]. Farrand, Records, Vol. II, p. 114.

[60]. Ibid., Vol. II, p. 119.

[61]. Ibid., Vol. III, p. 43.

[62]. “A large majority of the officers of the army of the Revolution were in favor of the new Constitution. The Cincinnati were mostly among its warmest advocates; and as they were organized and were, many of them, of exalted private and public worth and could act in concert through all the states, their influence was foreseen and feared by its opponents.” Blair, The Virginia Convention of 1788, Vol. I, p. 36, note 41.

[63]. American Museum, Vol. I, p. 313. Other signers were C. Pettit, J. Ross, I. Hazlehurst, M. Lewis, T. Coxe, R. Wells, J. M. Nesbit, J. Nixon, J. Wilcocks, S. Howell, and C. Biddle.

[64]. State Papers: Finance, Vol. I, p. 9.

[65]. American State Papers: Finance, Vol. I, pp. 5 ff.

[66]. Carey, American Museum, Vol. IV, p. 348. See also Winsor, Memorial History of Boston, Vol. IV, p. 77.

[67]. For illustrative evidence that the protection of manufactures and shipping was being widely agitated previous to the adoption of the Constitution, and that an extensive consciousness of identity of interest was being developed among the individuals concerned, see the articles in The American Museum, Vol. I, on American Manufactures; Winsor, Memorial History of Boston, Vol. IV, Chap. III. See memorials in The American Museum, from Philadelphia mercantile interests (April 6, 1785), Vol. I, p. 313; from Boston merchants, ibid., Vol. I, p. 320. For the merchants’ movement in New York, see the Magazine of American History, April, 1893, pp. 324 ff.

[68]. Vol. I, p. 117.

[69]. M. Carey, The American Museum, for January, 1787, Vol. I, pp. 5 ff.

[70]. The Historical Magazine (1871), Vol. IX, Second Series, pp. 157 ff.

[71]. For an interesting and novel view of the state of commerce under the Articles of Confederation, see Channing, History of the United States, Vol. III, pp. 422 ff.

[72]. Haskins, The Yazoo Land Companies, p. 62. American Historical Association Papers for 1891. See also the lists printed in A. M. Dyer, First Ownership of Ohio Lands (1911).

[73]. Documentary History of the Constitution, Vol. IV, p. 678.

[74]. But see Madison’s view as to the chief reason for calling the Convention, below, p. 178.

[75]. A study of the newspapers of the period shows a large number of prominent advocates of the Constitution among the merchants and brokers advertising in the Federalist press.

[76]. Bancroft, op. cit., Book I, Chaps. II-VII; Fiske, Critical Period; Marshall, Life of Washington (1850 ed.), Vol. II, pp. 75 ff.

[77]. The Connecticut Courant, September 10, 1787.

[78]. Bancroft, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 29.

[79]. See below, p. 109.

[80]. Elliot’s Debates, Vol. I, p. 95. See below, Chaps. V and VII.

[81]. Bancroft, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 190.

[82]. See below, p. 263.

[83]. See above, p. 46 n.

[84]. Ambler, Sectionalism in Virginia, p. 48.

[85]. Ms. Library of Congress: Papers of the Continental Congress (Memorials), No. 41, Vol. VI, p. 283. Simpson, Eminent Philadelphians.

[86]. Ibid., No. 42, Vol. VI, p. 254.

[87]. Documentary History of the Constitution, Vol. IV, p. 20.

[88]. Documentary History of the Constitution, Vol. IV, p. 30.

[89]. Ibid., Vol. IV, p. 83.

[90]. Ibid., Vol. IV, p. 88.

[91]. Division and Reunion, p. 12.

[92]. James Monroe to James Madison. New York, September 3, 1786. “I consider the convention of Annapolis as a most important æra in our affairs—the eastern men be assur’d mean it as leading further than the object originally comprehended. If they do not obtain that things shall be arranged to suit them in every respect, their intrigues will extend to the objects I have suggested above—Pennsylvania is their object—upon succeeding or failing with her they will gain or lose confidence—I doubt not the emissaries of foreign countries will be on the ground.” Documentary History of the Constitution, Vol. IV, p. 25.

[93]. Political Science and Constitutional Law, Vol. I, p. 103.

[94]. Writings of James Madison (1865), Vol. I, p. 246.

[95]. On the suffrage and elections in general in the eighteenth century, see the state constitutions in the well-known collections of Poore and Thorpe; A. E. McKinley, The Suffrage Franchise in the Thirteen English Colonies; Paullin’s “The First Elections under the Constitution,” Iowa Journal of History and Politics, Vol. II; Jameson, “Did the Fathers Vote,” New England Magazine, January, 1890; Thorpe, Constitutional History of the American People; S. H. Miller, “Legal Qualifications for Office,” American Historical Association Report (1899), Vol. I; F. A. Cleveland, Growth of Democracy; C. F. Bishop, History of Elections in the American Colonies; see below, Chap. IX.

[96]. The data on the constitutions here given are taken from Thorpe’s collection, Charters, Constitutions, etc.

[97]. Senators were apportioned among the respective districts on the basis of public taxes paid by the said districts.

[98]. The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies, p. 414.

[99]. Greene’s Register for the State of Connecticut, for the Year 1786, p. 4.

[100]. Magazine of American History, April, 1893, p. 311.

[101]. See below, p. 241.

[102]. New York Journal, June 5, 1788.

[103]. Ibid.

[104]. McKinley, The Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies, p. 270.

[105]. Tench Coxe fixes the number of “taxables” in Pennsylvania at 39,765 in 1770 and 91,177 in 1793. A View of the United States, p. 413.

[106]. Ambler, Sectionalism in Virginia, p. 29, note 11; for details see McKinley, op. cit., pp. 40 ff.

[107]. Schaper, “Sectionalism in South Carolina,” American Historical Association Report (1900), Vol. I, p. 368.

[108]. Statutes at Large (S.C.), Vol. IV, p. 99.

[109]. See below, p. 242.

[110]. Ibid., p. 167.

[111]. Some of the states selected delegates before Congress issued the call. Bancroft, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 269 ff.

[112]. Herring, National Portrait Gallery, Vol. IV.

[113]. Ms. Treasury Department: Connecticut Loan Office, Ledger B, Assumed Debt, folio 135; ibid., Ledger C, folio 135; ibid., Ledger A, folio 136.

[114]. Ibid., Ledger E, Treasury, Vol. 44, folio 46; Ledger C, Treasury, 6 per cents, Vol. 42, folio 55; and Treasury Ledgers, passim. Consult Index.

[115]. It is here assumed that when a member of the Convention appears upon the funding books of the new government he was a public creditor at the time of the Convention. Of course, it is possible that some of the members who are recorded as security holders possessed no paper when they went to Philadelphia, but purchased it afterward for speculation. But it is hardly to be supposed that many of them would sink to the level of mere speculators. There is plenty of evidence for the statement that many of the members did possess public paper before the meeting of the Convention, but the incompleteness of the old records prevents the fixing of the exact number. Those members who purchased after the Convention for speculation must have had idle capital seeking investment.

[116]. Papers of the Delaware Historical Society, No. XXIX (1900).

[117]. National Encyclopædia of Biography, Vol. XI, p. 530.

[118]. History of the Bank of North America, p. 68.

[119]. Ms. Treasury Department: Ledger E, Treasury, Vol. 44, folio 26; and ibid., Ledger C, Treasury, 6 per cents, Vol. 42, folio 33.

[120]. National Encyclopædia of Biography, Vol. XI, p. 530.

[121]. Delaware Mss., Tax Lists; Library of Congress. This was probably the father of the member of the Convention.

[122]. Ms. Treasury Department: Loan Office, Delaware, 1777–1784, see under date, May, 1779.

[123]. Journal C; Register of Certificates (1777); and Ledger C.

[124]. Biographia Americana, p. 48.

[125]. Farrand, Records, Vol. III, p. 95.

[126]. Ms. Treasury Department: Loan Office (Va.) Register of Subscriptions, 1791, see date March 8, 1791.

[127]. Ibid., Register of Certificates of Public Debt Presented.

[128]. Ibid., Virginia Loan Office, 1791, under date September 30, 1791.

[129]. National Encyclopædia of Biography, Vol. VII, p. 206.

[130]. Haskins, The Yazoo Companies, p. 83.

[131]. Encyclopædia of Biography, Vol. VII, p. 206.

[132]. Ms. Treasury Department: Loan Office, N. C., 1791–1797, folio 75.

[133]. The Brearley Family Genealogy (Library of Congress).

[134]. Biographia Americana, p. 49.

[135]. L. Elmer, Constitution and Government of New Jersey, p. 274.

[136]. Ms. Treasury Department: Register—Loan Office, N.J., under date, Feb. 1779.

[137]. Ibid., Loan Office, N. J., Ledger C/2, folio 38.

[138]. Brearley Family Genealogy (L. C.).

[139]. See records in Treasury for N. J. Loan Office, passim; also Family Genealogy.

[140]. Genealogy.

[141]. W. W. Campbell, Life and Character of Jacob Broom, Papers of the Historical Society of Delaware, Vol. LI, pp. 10, 26.

[142]. History of the Insurance Company of North America, p. 138.

[143]. Campbell, op. cit., p. 26.

[144]. Ms. Treasury Department: Ledger E, Treasury, 3%, Vol. 44, folio 67; also ibid., Ledger C, Treasury, 6%, Vol. 42, folio 67.

[145]. Calendar Madison Correspondence, under Broom.

[146]. National Encyclopædia of Biography, Vol. II, p. 162.

[147]. Farrand, Records, Vol. III, p. 97.

[148]. Ms. Treasury Department: Loan Office, S. C., 1791–1797, folio 128. The entry in the ledger notes the residence of Sarah Butler as Charleston; there was another Sarah Butler in South Carolina at the time, but according to the first Census she did not reside in that city. For the evidence that Sarah Butler was the daughter of Pierce Butler, see Salley, South Carolina Marriages, p. 108, for the record of her marriage.

[149]. Farrand, Records, Vol. III, p. 93.

[150]. Madison Ms: Letter to James Madison, October 28, 1787. Library of Congress.

[151]. State Papers: Finance, Vol. I, p. 6.

[152]. Ms. Treasury Department: Loan Office, Maryland, 1790–1797, folio 98; Loan Office, Penna., 1790–1791, folio 94; Ledger C, 3% Stock (Pa.), folio 54. Alphabet to Dividend Book of Domestic Debt, Maryland, under “C” (book not found). Charles Carroll was also a holder of securities. Ms. Treasury Department: Maryland Loan Office, 1790–1797, folios 157 and 226 for over $5000 worth of sixes and threes.

[153]. Scharf, History of Western Maryland, Vol. I, p. 679; H. Crew, History of Washington, p. 108.

[154]. Magazine of American History, Vol. V, p. 196.

[155]. Sanderson, Biography of the Signers (1831 ed.), Vol. III, p. 147.

[156]. Sanderson, ibid., p. 150.

[157]. Simpson, Lives of Eminent Philadelphians (1859 ed.), p. 693.

[158]. Sanderson, ibid., p. 147.

[159]. McMaster and Stone, Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution, p. 705.

[160]. Ms. Treasury Department: Ledger C, 3% Stock, Pa., folio 231; see also Ledger E, Treasury, 3%, Vol. 44, folio 170; and Ledger C, Treasury, 6%, Vol. 42, folio 114. The existence of this latter small account in sixes in 1797 is the basis for the surmise above that Clymer held also his quota of sixes. With his business acumen he might very well have disposed of most of this stock after “taking the rise” in 1787–1792, for he could have made more money in business than from the interest which the government paid.

[161]. Peele, Lives of Distinguished North Carolinians, p. 59.

[162]. Ibid., p. 69.

[163]. Ibid., p. 69.

[164]. Ibid., p. 80.

[165]. Ibid., p. 78.

[166]. State Papers: Public Lands, Vol. I, pp. 104–106.

[167]. Ibid., p. 129.

[168]. Ibid., p. 118.

[169]. John Wood, Suppressed History of the Administration of John Adams, pp. 149 ff.

[170]. Ms. Treasury Department: N. Y. Loan Office, 1791, folio 130.

[171]. Ibid., N. Y. Office, Deferred 6%, 1790–1796, folio 208.

[172]. Ibid., Ledger B, New York Office, Deferred 6% Stock, 1790, folio 55.

[173]. J. Wood, Suppressed History of the Administration of John Adams (1846 ed.), p. 145.

[174]. Stillé, Life and Times of John Dickinson, p. 14.

[175]. Ibid., p. 35.

[176]. Eminent Philadelphians, p. 747.

[177]. Stillé, p. 331.

[178]. Ibid., p. 327.

[179]. The Index in the Treasury Department gives the name of John Dickinson among the security holders, but the volume referred to was not found.

[180]. Morris Ms. in the Library of Congress, Private Letter Book, Vol. III, p. 160.

[181]. G. Brown, The Life of Oliver Ellsworth, p. 11.

[182]. Brown, ibid., p. 23.

[183]. Ms. Treasury Department: Connecticut Loan Office, Ledgers A, B, and C, folio 21 in each volume.

[184]. Consult same volumes through the Index.

[185]. Facts here are taken from his Autobiography, in the Magazine of American History, Vol. VII, pp. 343 ff.

[186]. Haskins, The Yazoo Land Companies, p. 81.

[187]. Ms. Treasury Department: Register of Certificates of Public Debt Presented to the Auditor of the Treasury.

[188]. Volume 31, folio 346.

[189]. McMaster and Stone, Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution, p. 706.

[190]. Simpson, Eminent Philadelphians, p. 373.

[191]. McMaster and Stone, op. cit., p. 707.

[192]. Simpson, op. cit., 373.

[193]. Sumner, The Financier and the Finances of the Revolution, Vol. II, p. 294.

[194]. Maclay, Journal (1890 ed.), p. 178.

[195]. Ms. Treasury Department: Register of Certificates of Public Debt Presented to the Auditor of the Treasury.

[196]. Ibid., See Ledger E, Treasury, 3%, Vol. 44, folio 335. Also Ledger C, Treasury, 6%, Vol. 42, folio 300 for small entries.

[197]. Morris Mss. in the Library of Congress: Private Letter Book, Vol. I, p. 529. Marshall (a brother of John Marshall) was the confidential and trusted agent of Morris in large transactions in land.

[198]. Bigelow, Life of Franklin, Vol. III, p. 470.

[199]. Haskins, The Yazoo Land Companies, p. 62.

[200]. Bigelow, Works, Vol. X, pp. 206 ff.

[201]. Farrand, Records, Vol. III, p. 232.

[202]. Consult the Loan Office Records of New Hampshire in the Treasury Department, passim.

[203]. Ms. Treasury Department: Ledger C, Treasury, 6%, Vol. 42, folio 368.

[204]. State Papers: Public Lands, Vol. I, p. 118.

[205]. Hammond, State Papers of New Hampshire, Vol. XVIII, p. 790.

[206]. Sanderson, Lives of the Signers (1831 ed.), Vol. I, p. 197; Austin, Life of Gerry.

[207]. Sanderson, Biography of the Signers, Vol. I, p. 230.

[208]. Farrand, Records, Vol. II, p. 356.

[209]. Ibid., 413.

[210]. Ms. Treasury Department: Mass. Loan Office, Register of Certificates of Interest Issued (Vellum bound), folios 15 ff.

[211]. Ibid., Mass. Loan Office, Certificates for Liquidated Debt, folios 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. This paper had evidently been bought by Gerry for speculation.

[212]. Ibid., Loan Office, Pa., 1790–1791, folio 60.

[213]. Ibid., Ledger C, 3% Stocks, Pa., folio 37.

[214]. Ibid., Massachusetts Loan Office, 1791, Item 582; this was also paper bought up by Gerry for speculation.

[215]. Gerry was accused by Ellsworth (q.v.) of having turned against the new Constitution because the Convention refused to put the old continental paper money on the same basis as other securities. Toward the close of the Convention, “Gerry,” says Ellsworth, “introduced a motion respecting the redemption of the old continental money—that it should be placed on a footing with other liquidated securities of the United States. As Mr. Gerry was supposed to be possessed of large quantities of this species of paper, his motion appeared to be founded in such bare-faced selfishness and injustice, that it at once accounted for all his former plausibility and concession, while the rejection of it by the convention inspired its author with the utmost rage and intemperate opposition to the whole system he had formerly praised.” Ford, Essays on the Constitution, p. 174. Gerry indignantly denied that he ever made such a motion in the Convention, or that he held much continental money. Ibid., p. 127. It does not appear in Farrand, Records, that any such motion was made in the Convention; and under the circumstances it seems not unjust to remark that Ellsworth’s charges were made with very bad grace, particularly in view of the fact that he and members of his family and intimate friends held considerable amounts of public securities. “Bare-faced selfishness” was not monopolized by Gerry in the Convention.

[216]. See above, p. 49.

[217]. King, Life and Correspondence, Vol. I, p. 72.

[218]. A. M. Dyer, The Ownership of Ohio Lands, p. 68.

[219]. Sumner, The Financier and the Finances of the Revolution, Vol. II, pp. 253 ff. See Turner, Pioneer History of the Holland Purchase of Western New York, pp. 326 ff.

[220]. T. Wyman, Genealogies and Estates of Charlestown, Vol. I, p. 424.

[221]. To be found in the Hamilton Mss., Library of Congress.

[222]. Haskins, The Yazoo Land Companies.

[223]. State Papers: Finance, Vol. I, p. 8.

[224]. Hamilton, Works (Lodge ed.), Vol. VI, p. 453.

[225]. Ibid., Vol. VI, p. 454; Annals of Congress, Vol. III, pp. 900 ff.

[226]. See below, p. 112.

[227]. Mr. Lodge calls the three investigators “inquisitors,” but this seems like a strong word to apply to members of Congress engaged in running down rumors relative to the official conduct of a government officer. Works (Lodge ed.), Vol. VI, p. 450 note. The impropriety of Monroe’s action in allowing the story to escape is another matter.

[228]. The pamphlet by Hamilton in his defence is printed in the Lodge edition, Vol. VI, pp. 449 ff.

[229]. Compare the date of the receipts on page 20 of Mr. Fox’s A Study in Hamilton with the date in the pamphlet (Lodge ed.), Vol. VI, p. 494.

[230]. Works of Hamilton (Lodge ed.), Vol. VIII, p. 268. Perhaps the remnant of an old account of Hamilton on the Treasury Books in 1797 refers to this petty holding. Ms. Treasury Department: Ledger E, Treasury, 3%, Vol. 44, folio 434.

[231]. J. A. Hamilton, Reminiscences, p. 18.

[232]. W. Maclay, Journal (1890 ed.), p. 188.

[233]. State Papers: Finance, Vol. I, p. 188.

[234]. Reminiscences of J. A. Hamilton, p. 18.

[235]. Ms. Treasury Department: N. Y. Loan Office, 1791, folio 24. See also the volume of N. Y. Loan Office Receipts in the Mss. Division of the Library of Congress for General Schuyler’s receipts for interest on securities. The intimate correspondence between Hamilton and General Schuyler during the period of the formation of the Constitution was destroyed by a son of one of the latter’s executors. American Historical Review, Vol. X, p. 181. See Tuckerman, Life of General Schuyler.

[236]. Ms. Treasury Department: N. Y. Office, Deferred 6%, 1790–1796, folio 325.

[237].

Philadelphia, Feby. 24th, 1790.

[Alexander Hamilton, Esq.,

Secretary of the Treasury at New York.]

Sir:

I have had this day the honor of yours inclosing your power of substitution on behalf of Mr. Church. At present the sale of stock, and indeed every other money transaction is nearly at a stand. The produce of the State and the sale of Bills of Exchange will alone command it, untill we receive a supply from sea.

Mr. Constable has informed me of the purchase he had made of 20 shares and when they appear the transfer will be compleated.

I observe what you say respecting the sale of what remains of Mr. Church’s shares and shall do whatever may be in my power to dispose of them, whenever I receive the certificates and your orders to make the sale. I am, Sir, with great respect,

Yr Obedt Servt

Thos. Willing.

Hamilton Mss., Vol. XXIII, p. 1.

[238]. Library of Congress: Hamilton Mss., Vol. XX, p. 180.

[239]. Ibid., Vol. XX, pp. 182 ff. Lodge omits references to this correspondence on Seton’s part, although he gives selected letters from Hamilton to Seton. Works of Alexander Hamilton, Vol. VIII, pp. 231 ff.

[240]. Library of Congress: Hamilton Mss., Vol. XXIII, p. 180.

[241]. A. M. Dyer, The Ownership of Ohio Lands, p. 69.

[242]. Mss. Library of Congress: Treasury Department, 1790–1792 (Washington papers), folio 291.

[243]. P. 108.

[244]. Life and Correspondence of Rufus King, Vol. I, p. 402.

[245]. Library of Congress, Hamilton Mss., Vol. XVI, p. 126. The editor of King’s letters says this letter is lost.

[246]. Hamilton’s Works (Lodge ed.), Vol. VIII, p. 234.

[247]. Ibid., Vol. VIII, p. 240, date March 14, 1792.

[248]. Ms. Treasury Department: Ledger B, N. Y. Office, 1790, Deferred 6% Stock, folio 260; also N. Y. Office, Deferred 6%, 1790–1796, folio 144.

[249]. T. A. Glenn, William Churchill Houston, pp. 71–72 (Privately printed), copy in Library of Congress.

[250]. Farrand, Records, Vol. III, p. 97.

[251]. Simpson, Eminent Philadelphians, p. 596.

[252]. His private fortune was much impaired by the failure of Robert Morris, for whom he had pledged his faith in several transactions. Morris Mss., Library of Congress: Private Letter Book, Vol. II, pp. 193, 261, 327, 351, 414.

[253]. H. Binney, Leaders of the Old Philadelphia Bar, p. 83; State Papers: Finance, Vol. I, p. 81.

[254]. Farrand, Records, Vol. III, p. 93.

[255]. Census of 1790: Heads of Families, p. 51; consult Index.

[256]. Appleton, Encyclopædia of American Biography, Vol. III, p. 426.

[257]. Ms. Treasury Department: Maryland Loan Office, 1790–1797, folio 14.

[258]. Ibid., folio 134.

[259]. Beardsley, Life and Times of William Samuel Johnson, pp. 8–9.

[260]. Writings of Jefferson (Ford ed.), Vol. I, p. 223.

[261]. Ms. Treasury Department: Ledger B, New York Office, Deferred 6%, 1790, folios 10, 152, 457.

[262]. Folios 152 and 457 of above Ledger B.

[263]. Ms. Treasury Department: Connecticut Loan Office, Ledger A, folio 15; Ledger B, folio 15; Ledger C, folio 15. Connecticut Loan Office Receipts, Library of Congress, Mss. Division.

[264]. Ibid., New York Loan Office, 6% Ledger, 1791–1797, folio 161; ibid., New York Office, Deferred 6%, 1790–1796, folio 107—two entries of about $25,000 each. Ledger B, New York Office, Deferred 6% Stock, 1790, folios, 152, 457. Ledger E, Treasury, 3%, Vol. 44, folio 529. There can be no question of the identity of the Robert Charles Johnson who appears on the public security records and the Robert Charles Johnson who was the son of William Samuel. The cross entries between father and son in the records constitute one piece of evidence. The residence of Robert Charles in Stratford presents another, for that was the family place. Furthermore, the signature to the Loan Office Receipts is the signature of Robert Charles, son of William Samuel Johnson.

[265]. Rufus King, Life and Correspondence, Vol. I, 132.

[266]. Life and Correspondence of King, Vol. I, p. 624.

[267]. Writings (Ford ed.), Vol. I, p. 223. Maclay makes some quite uncomplimentary remarks about King, Journal, p. 315.

[268]. Dunlap’s Daily Advertiser, October 23, 1791.

[269]. Ms. Treasury Department: N. Y. Office, 6%, Ledger, 1791–1799, folio 14. Ibid., Ledger B, N. Y. Office, Deferred 6%, 1790, folio 60; ibid., Deferred 6%, 1790–1796, folio 14. The Treasury Index gives a number of references to volumes not found.

[270]. See above, p. 112.

[271]. C. W. Brewster, Rambles about Old Portsmouth (1859), pp. 360–361.

[272]. Farrand, Records, Vol. III, p. 233.

[273]. Batchellor, New Hampshire State Papers, Vol. XXI, p. 804 note.

[274]. Ibid., Vol. XX, p. 868.

[275]. Batchellor, New Hampshire State Papers, Vol. XX, p. 872.

[276]. Journal of William Maclay (1890 ed.), p. 178.

[277]. Ms. Treasury Department: See Loan Office Certificate Book, New Hampshire (Loan of 1777 passim).

[278]. Ibid., New Hampshire Loan Office, Journal A, folio 4, date March, 1791, and passim.

[279]. Hammond, State Papers of New Hampshire, Vol. XVIII, p. 824.

[280]. Farrand, Records, Vol. III, p. 90.

[281]. Ms. Treasury Department: New York Loan Office, 1791, folio 97.

[282]. Johannis, Garrit, Abraham, John J., Henry R., and other Lansings appear on Ledger C, Funded 6%, 1790, Ms. Treasury Department. Consult Index.

[283]. L. Elmer, The Constitution and Government of New Jersey (1872), pp. 57–59.

[284]. Ms. Treasury Department: Ledger B, N. Y. Office, Deferred 6% Stock, 1790, folios, 72, 306, etc.

[285]. Ibid., N. Y., 6%, Ledger, 1791–1797, folio 123.

[286]. Ibid., Virginia Loan Office, 1791, under date of September 30, 1791; Ledger A, Funded 6% Stock, 1790, folio 123.

[287]. In a letter of February 13, 1791, Madison advises his father to fund his Virginia certificates at Richmond: “I do not see what better you can do with your certificates than to subscribe them to the public fund at Richmond.” Writings of James Madison (1865 ed.), Vol. I, p. 529.

[288]. Writings (1865 ed.), Vol. I, p. 538.

[289]. National Encyclopædia of Biography, Vol. IV, p. 420.

[290]. The Census of 1790—Heads of Families, p. 168, places the number of Martin’s slaves at 47.

[291]. Herring, National Portrait Gallery, Vol. IV.

[292]. See Index to Private Letter Books of Robert Morris, Library of Congress: Mss. Division.

[293]. Census of 1790—Heads of Families, Maryland, p. 18.

[294]. Ms. Treasury Department: Maryland Loan Office, 1790–1797, folios, 80, 81, 194.

[295]. See below, p. 205.

[296]. Rowland, The Life of George Mason, Vol. I, pp. 48 ff., 55 ff.

[297]. Ibid., I, p. 56.

[298]. Rowland, The Life of George Mason, Vol. I, p. 58.

[299]. Ibid., I, p. 60.

[300]. Ibid., I, pp. 117, 154.

[301]. Ibid., I, p. 119.

[302]. Ibid., I, p. 270.

[303]. Ibid., Vol. II, p. 368.

[304]. Ms. Treasury Department: Ledger A, Funded 6% Stock, 1790, folio 130; see Loan Office Virginia, 1790–1793, folio 132. The Index gives references to other volumes not found, Vols. 41, 43, 45, folios 93, 15, and 18 respectively.

[305]. Elliot, Debates (1836 ed.), Vol. III, pp. 528–529.

[306]. Ibid., p. 529.

[307]. Duyckinck, Cyclopœdia of American Literature (1855 ed.), Vol. I, p. 283.

[308]. Ms. Treasury Department: Ledger A, Funded 6% Stock, 1790, folio 18.

[309]. Ibid., Loan Office: Register of Subscriptions, Virginia (1791), see date, no folio given.

[310]. Dunlap’s Daily Advertiser, October 23, 1791.

[311]. Magazine of American History, Vol. VII, p. 104.

[312]. Steiner, The Life and Correspondence of James McHenry, p. 2.

[313]. Hamilton Mss., Library of Congress, Vol. XXIII, p. 156.

[314]. T. Montgomery, History of the Insurance Company of North America, p. 142.

[315]. Ms. Treasury Department: Ledger E, Treasury, 3%, Vol. 45, folio 22.

[316]. State Papers: Finance, Vol. I, p. 8.

[317]. Census of 1790—Heads of Families, Maryland, p. 41.

[318]. Ms. Treasury Department: Loan Office Maryland, 1790–1797, 3%, folios 72, 135, and other loan office records of that state, passim.

[319]. McMaster and Stone, Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution, p. 701.

[320]. The American Museum, Vol. II, p. 248.

[321]. Ms. Treasury Department: Pa. Loan Office Certificates, 1788, folio 45.

[322]. Ibid.: Ledger C, 3% Stock, Pa., folio 48. John F. Mifflin was a holder of paper to the amount of several thousand dollars funded in 1790. Ibid., Loan Office, Pa., 1790–1791, folio 6; Ledger C, 3% Stock, Pa., folio 6.

[323]. Roosevelt, G. Morris, pp. 1, 24.

[324]. Ibid., p. 167.

[325]. Oberholtzer, Robert Morris, p. 4.

[326]. Ibid., p. 108.

[327]. For his multifarious operations see Oberholtzer, Robert Morris; Sumner, The Financier and the Finances of the American Revolution, 2 vols.

[328]. Library of Congress: Morris Mss. Consult the Index to the three volumes of Morris’ Letter Books of Private Correspondence for references, under “James Marshall.” Only by turning over this enormous mass of correspondence can one gain a correct notion of the ramifications of Morris’ interests and the number of prominent men involved in his schemes.

[329]. Hamilton Mss., Library of Congress, Vol. XXII, p. 179; two minor illustrations of his operations may be given: January 1, 1791, $7588.78, July 1, 1792, $26,408.66. See also the enormous transactions in the name of Willing and Morris scattered through the books of nearly every state. Ms. Treasury Department: Ledger C, 3%, Pa., folio 334; Register of Certificates of Public Debt Presented: Auditor of Treasury; folios not given. Consult Index to holders of old securities in the Treasury Department.

[330]. Op. cit., pp. 237 ff.

[331]. L. Elmer, The Constitution and Government of New Jersey, p. 77.

[332]. American Historical Review, Vol. III, p. 312.

[333]. Calendar of Madison Correspondence, Library of Congress. Mss.

[334]. Herring, National Portrait Gallery, Vol. IV.

[335]. Census of 1790—Heads of Families, S.C., p. 33.

[336]. Speaking of the nature of the practice in Charleston just after the Revolution, Charles Fraser says, in Reminiscences of Charleston, p. 71: “It was stated by the Duc de Liancourt, who was well acquainted with most or all of the gentlemen named, that General Pinckney, Mr. Rutledge, Mr. Pringle, and Mr. Holmes, made from eighteen to twenty-three thousand dollars a year.... The extensive commercial business of Charleston at that time opened a wide field of litigation. Our courts were constantly employed in heavy insurance cases—in questions of charter party, foreign and inland bills of exchange, and in adjusting foreign claims. There was also a good deal of business in admiralty, and, occasionally, a rich prize case.”

[337]. Ms. Treasury Department: Loan Office, S.C., 1791–1797, folio 38. For other entries, Loan Office, S.C., folio 70; a later entry of $8721.53 in trust for Mary Pinckney, ibid., folio 152.

[338]. Census of 1790—Heads of Families, S.C., p. 34.

[339]. Ms. Treasury Department: Loan Office, S.C., 1791–1797, folio 221.

[340]. Madison Mss., Library of Congress, under date of March 28, 1789.

[341]. M. Conway, Edmund Randolph, p. 48.

[342]. Ibid., p. 372.

[343]. Ibid., p. 384.

[344]. Ms. Treasury Department: Current Accounts, Va., 1791–1796, folios 6, 13, 21; Ledger B, Assumed Debt, Va., folio 87.

[345]. Hamilton Mss., Library of Congress, Vol. XX, p. 57.

[346]. Sanderson, Biography of the Signers (1831 ed.), Vol. III, p. 351.

[347]. W. T. Read, Life of George Read, p. 575.

[348]. History of the Bank of North America, p. 147.

[349]. Ms. Treasury Department: Loan Office, Delaware, 1777–1784, passim. His mother and daughter bore the name of “Mary.” J. W. Reed, The Reed Family, pp. 433 and 436.

[350]. Ibid., Ledger E, Treasury, 3%, Vol. 45, folio 202. The Index gives references to several other volumes which were not found.

[351]. Herring, National Portrait Gallery, Vol. IV.

[352]. Flanders, Lives of the Chief Justices, Vol. I, p. 551.

[353]. Census of 1790—Heads of Families, S.C., p. 42.

[354]. When Roger Sherman resided in Park Lane and ran a store in New Milford, Connecticut, he lost money through the depreciation of bills of credit, and he thereupon declared a war on paper money which he continued to the end of his days. Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society, 1906–1907, pp. 214 ff.

[355]. Sanderson, Lives of the Signers, Vol. II, p. 66.

[356]. Ms. Treasury Department: Loan Office: Connecticut, Ledgers A, B, and C, Threes and Sixes, folio 28 in each; January, 1792.

[357]. Farrand, Records, Vol. III, p. 95.

[358]. Census of 1790—Heads of Families, N.C., p. 130.

[359]. Ms. Treasury Department: Ledger E, Treasury, 3%, Vol. 45, folio 308.

[360]. Encyclopædia of National Biography, Vol. I, p. 110.

[361]. Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings, 1791–1835, Vol. I, pp. 290 ff.

[362]. Ms. Treasury Department: Mass. Loan Office, 1791, Vol. III, item No. 1284.

[363]. Sparks, Life of Washington, Appendix, No. IX.

[364]. W. C. Ford, The Federalist, p. xi, note 3.

[365]. Bancroft, History of the Constitution (1882 ed.), Vol. II, p. 411.

[366]. D. Hosack, Biographical Memoir of Hugh Williamson, p. 18.

[367]. Ms. Treasury Department: Loan Office, N.C., 1791, folio 3.

[368]. Hamilton Mss., Library of Congress, Vol. XXIV, pp. 70 ff.

[369]. Documentary History of the Constitution, Vol. IV, p. 678.

[370]. Hosack, op. cit., p. 85.

[371]. Simpson, Eminent Philadelphians, p. 966.

[372]. Oberholtzer, Robert Morris, p. 108.

[373]. History of the Insurance Company of North America, p. 146.

[374]. State Papers: Public Lands, Vol. I, p. 141.

[375]. Yazoo Land Companies, p. 83.

[376]. Ms. Treasury Department: Ledger C, 3% Stock, Pa., folio 195.

[377]. Sanderson, Biography of the Signers (1831 ed.), Vol. IV, pp. 172 ff.

[378]. Ms. Treasury Department: Loan Office: Register of Subscriptions, Va., 1791, see date. Also Ledger A, Assumed Debt, Va., folio 32.

[379]. Appendix to the Secret Proceedings and Debates of the Federal Convention (1821, Albany).

[380]. Records of the New York Loan Office in the Treasury Department.

[381]. See above, p. 75, n. 3.

[382]. See above, p. 124. Livingston’s holdings are problematical.

[383]. The fact that a few members of the Convention, who had considerable economic interests at stake, refused to support the Constitution does not invalidate the general conclusions here presented. In the cases of Yates, Lansing, Luther Martin, and Mason, definite economic reasons for their action are forthcoming; but this is a minor detail.

[384]. A great deal of this valuable material has been printed in the Documentary History of the Constitution, Vols. IV and V; a considerable amount has been published in the letters and papers of the eminent men of the period; but an enormous mass still remains in manuscript form. Fortunately, such important papers as those of Washington, Hamilton, Madison, and others are in the Library of Congress; but they are not complete, of course.

[385]. From this point of view, the old conception of the battle at Philadelphia as a contest between small and large states—as political entities—will have to be severely modified. See Professor Farrand’s illuminating paper on the so-called compromises of the Constitution in the Report of the American Historical Association, 1903, Vol. I, pp. 73 ff. J. C. Welling, “States’ Rights Conflict over the Public Lands,” ibid. (1888), pp. 184 ff.

[386]. The Federalist, No. 73.

[387]. See J. A. Smith, The Spirit of American Government.

[388]. See Noah Webster’s consideration of the subject of government and property; Ford, Pamphlets on the Constitution, pp. 57 ff.

[389]. Farrand, Records, Vol. II, p. 203.

[390]. This view was set forth by Madison in a letter to Jefferson in 1788. “Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Governments the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the constituents. This is a truth of great importance, but not yet sufficiently attended to, and is probably more strongly impressed upon my mind by facts, and reflections suggested by them, than on yours which has contemplated abuses of power issuing from a very different quarter. Wherever there is an interest and power to do wrong, wrong will generally be done, and not less readily by a powerful and interested party than by a powerful and interested prince.” Documentary History of the Constitution, Vol. V, p. 88.

[391]. The Federalist, No. 48.

[392]. Ibid., No. 49.

[393]. The Federalist, No. 51.

[394]. Ibid., No. 51.

[395]. Ibid., No. 60.

[396]. Beard, The Supreme Court and the Constitution. See also the criticisms of this work by Professor W. F. Dodd, in the American Historical Review for January, 1913.

[397]. Number 78.

[398]. American Historical Association Report (1899), Vol. I, p. 108.

[399]. Farrand, Records, Vol. II, pp. 123–124.

[400]. Ibid., pp. 201 ff.

[401]. Ibid., p. 216.

[402]. Farrand, Records, Vol. II, p. 121.

[403]. Ibid., pp. 121–122.

[404]. Debate in Farrand, Records, Vol. II, pp. 123–124.

[405]. See above, pp. 65 ff. The members of the Convention could not foresee the French Revolution which was to break out just as the new federal government was being put into operation in 1789.

[406]. It was a curious turn of fortune that this provision prevented the agrarians and populists in 1894 from shifting a part of the burden of taxes to the great cities of the East. Thus the Zweck im Recht is sometimes reversed.

[407]. Clark, The Records of North Carolina, Vol. XX, p. 778.

[408]. The Federalist, Number 12.

[409]. The Federalist, No. 4.

[410]. Ibid.

[411]. The Federalist, No. 11.

[412]. Washington’s farewell address which was partially written by Hamilton is one of the most ingenious partisan documents ever written. It, too, has its economic interpretation.

[413]. The Federalist, No. 11.

[414]. Ibid., No. 21.

[415]. The Federalist, No. 43.

[416]. Ibid., No. 35.

[417]. See the entire letter of Blount, Spaight, and Williamson, cited above, p. 169.

[418]. No. 11.

[419]. J. C. Welling, “States’ Rights Conflict over the Public Lands,” Report of the American Historical Association (1888), pp. 174 ff.

[420]. Farrand, Records, Vol. II, p. 371.

[421]. Ibid., p. 371.

[422]. There are, of course, some restrictions on Congress laid down in the Constitution; but the powers of the national legislature are limited and the restrictions are not of the same significance. Radical action on the part of the national legislature was anticipated in the structure of the government itself, but specific provision had to be made against the assaults of popular majorities in state legislatures on property rights.

[423]. Writings of James Madison (1865), Vol. I, p. 350. This entire letter deserves careful study by anyone who would understand the Constitution as an economic document.

[424]. The Federalist, No. 44.

[425]. Ms. Library of Congress: Treasury Department Letters, 1789–1790 (Washington Papers), folio 297.

[426]. The American Museum, Vol. I, p. 118.

[427]. See below, p. 295.

[428]. Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheaton, pp. 213 ff.

[429]. The Federalist, No. 6.

[430]. The Federalist, No. 3.

[431]. Ibid., No. 5.

[432]. Ibid.

[433]. Ibid., No. 6.

[434]. The Federalist, No. 4.

[435]. Ibid., No. 6.

[436]. Ibid., No. 7.

[437]. A few whose views were not ascertained are omitted.

[438]. Farrand, Records, Vol. I, p. 469.

[439]. Above, p. 65.

[440]. Farrand, Records, Vol. I, p. 100.

[441]. Farrand, Records, Vol. I, p. 421.

[442]. Ibid., Vol. II, p. 32.

[443]. Ibid., Vol. II, p. 33.

[444]. Ibid., Vol. II, p. 390.

[445]. Ibid., Vol. I, p. 144.

[446]. Ibid., p. 529.

[447]. Ibid., p. 562.

[448]. Ibid., p. 605.

[449]. Ibid., Vol. II, p. 300.

[450]. Sanderson, op. cit., p. 168.

[451]. Ibid., p. 169.

[452]. Farrand, Records, Vol. I, p. 593.

[453]. Ibid., Vol. I, p. 542.

[454]. Farrand, Records, Vol. III, p. 350.

[455]. McRee, Life and Correspondence of James Iredell, Vol. II, pp. 161, 168.

[456]. Peele, Lives of Distinguished North Carolinians, p. 75. Davie’s great collection of papers was destroyed in Sherman’s raid. Ibid., p. 78.

[457]. Farrand, Records, Vol. I, p. 86.

[458]. Ibid., Vol. II, p. 202.

[459]. Farrand, Ibid., Vol. II, p. 207.

[460]. H. J. Ford, Rise and Growth of American Politics, p. 113.

[461]. Farrand, Records, Vol. II, pp. 57, 58, 63, 101, 108, 111.

[462]. Ibid., Vol. II, p. 73.

[463]. Ibid., Vol. II, p. 207.

[464]. Beard, The Supreme Court and the Constitution, pp. 71–72.

[465]. Farrand, Records, Vol. II, p. 201.

[466]. Ibid., pp. 362, 529, 589.

[467]. Ibid., Vol. I, p. 48; Vol. III, p. 297.

[468]. Ibid., Vol. I, pp. 94, 99.

[469]. Ibid., Vol. II, p. 204.

[470]. Scharf and Wescott, History of Philadelphia, Vol. I, p. 447.

[471]. Farrand, Records, Vol. I, p. 48.

[472]. Ibid., Vol. I, p. 154.

[473]. Ibid., Vol. II, p. 122 and pp. 73–79.

[474]. Ibid., Vol. I, p. 288.

[475]. Ibid., Vol. I, pp. 299 ff.

[476]. Farrand, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 48.

[477]. See above, p. 70.

[478]. H. Binney, Leaders of the Old Bar of Philadelphia, p. 86.

[479]. Ibid., p. 87.

[480]. Farrand, Records, Vol. II, p. 66.

[481]. Beard, The Supreme Court and the Constitution, p. 29.

[482]. Farrand, Records, Vol. II, p. 439.

[483]. See below, p. 312.

[484]. Observations on Government, Including Some Animadversions on Mr. Adams’s Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, etc., published in 1787, by Livingston, under the pen-name of “A Farmer of New Jersey.” The pamphlet is sometimes ascribed to J. Stevens, but there is good authority for believing that Livingston is the author. It is not inconsistent with his notions on judicial control; see American Historical Review, Vol. IV, pp. 460 ff.

[485]. Farrand, Records, Vol. II, p. 33.

[486]. Farrand, Records, Vol. II, p. 36.

[487]. Documentary History of the Constitution, Vol. IV, p. 245.

[488]. Letter to Hamilton, Library of Congress, Hamilton Mss., Vol. XXIII, p. 93.

[489]. American Museum, Vol. IV, p. 333.

[490]. Steiner, Life and Correspondence, p. 527.

[491]. Above, p. 156. Mr. E. W. Crecraft, of Columbia University, has in preparation a dissertation on Madison’s political philosophy.

[492]. Farrand, Records, Vol. III, pp. 214 ff.

[493]. Farrand, Records, Vol. I, p. 428.

[494]. Ibid., Vol. II, p. 121.

[495]. See above, p. 128.

[496]. Farrand, Records, Vol. II, p. 205.

[497]. Farrand, Records, Vol. II, pp. 202 ff.

[498]. Roosevelt, Gouverneur Morris, p. 140.

[499]. See The Federalist, No. 51.

[500]. Farrand, Records, Vol. I, p. 409.

[501]. For an example see ibid., p. 11, note. He also entertained Washington during the sessions of the Convention. American Historical Association Report (1902), Vol. I, p. 92.

[502]. Beard, The Supreme Court and the Constitution, p. 37.

[503]. Farrand, Records, Vol. I, p. 474.

[504]. Ibid., Vol. III, p. 100.

[505]. Ibid., Vol. II, p. 248.

[506]. Madison Mss., Library of Congress; date of March 28, 1788.

[507]. Farrand, Records, Vol. I, p. 426.

[508]. Ibid., Vol. II, p. 122.

[509]. Ibid., Vol. I, p. 51 and p. 218.

[510]. Ibid., Vol. I, p. 136.

[511]. Ibid., Vol. II, p. 200.

[512]. Ibid., Vol. I, p. 409.

[513]. Ibid., Vol. I, p. 582.

[514]. Ibid., Vol. II, p. 249.

[515]. Ibid., Vol. I, p. 211.

[516]. Ibid., Vol. II, p. 364.

[517]. Farrand, Records, Vol. I, p. 48; also p. 154.

[518]. Ibid., Vol. II, p. 525.

[519]. Beard, The Supreme Court and the Constitution, p. 53.

[520]. Elliot, Debates, Vol. IV, p. 207.

[521]. Farrand, Records, Vol. I, 361.

[522]. Ibid., p. 72.

[523]. Ibid., p. 219.

[524]. Writings (Sparks ed., 1848), Vol. XII, p. 222; see below, p. 299.

[525]. Ibid., Vol. X, p. 429.

[526]. Ibid., Vol. X, p. 179.

[527]. Farrand, Records, Vol. II, pp. 201, 250.

[528]. Ibid., Vol. I, p. 140.

[529]. Ibid., Vol. I, p. 140.

[530]. Above, p. 146.

[531]. Farrand, Vol. II, 376.

[532]. Farrand, Records, Vol. I, p. 49 and passim.

[533]. Ibid., p. 52 and passim.

[534]. Ibid., p. 68 and passim.

[535]. Ibid., Vol. I, p. 375; Vol. II, p. 125 and passim.

[536]. Ibid., Vol. I, p. 98; Beard, The Supreme Court and the Constitution, p. 42.

[537]. Lectures on Law (1804 ed.) Vol. I, pp. 398 ff.

[538]. Beard, The Supreme Court and the Constitution, p. 48.

[539]. “What they [the Convention] actually did, stripped of all fiction and verbiage, was to assume constituent powers, ordain a constitution of government and of liberty, and demand a plébiscite thereon over the heads of all existing legally organized powers. Had Julius or Napoleon committed these acts they would have been pronounced coups d’état.” Political Science and Comparative Constitutional Law, Vol. I, p. 105.

[540]. Farrand, Records, Vol. I, p. 123.

[541]. Ibid., Vol. II, p. 89.

[542]. Farrand, Records, Vol. III, p. 137.

[543]. Farrand, Records, Vol. I, pp. 255 ff.; p. 283.

[544]. No. 40.

[545]. Harding, The Federal Constitution in Massachusetts, pp. 118–119.

[546]. The Massachusetts Centinel, January 2, 1788.

[547]. Batchellor, State Papers of New Hampshire, Vol. XXI, pp. 151–165; Documentary History of the Constitution, II, p. 141.

[548]. J. B. Walker, A History of the New Hampshire Convention, pp. 22 ff.

[549]. Four members are not recorded, and “there is a pretty well authenticated tradition that a certain prominent federalist of Concord gave a dinner party on the last day of the session at which several members reckoned as opposed to ratification were present and discussing the dinner when the final vote was taken.” Ibid., p. 43, note.

[550]. Harding, The Federal Constitution in Massachusetts, p. 67.

[551]. Harding, op. cit., p. 99.

[552]. Harding, op. cit., p. 101.

[553]. Documentary History of the Constitution, Vol. II, pp. 86–87; Connecticut Courant, October 22, 1787.

[554]. Bancroft, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 257.

[555]. Debates and Proceedings of the New York State Convention (1905 ed.), p. 3.

[556]. Bancroft, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 340.

[557]. Ibid., p. 340; and see below, p. 244.

[558]. State Papers: Miscellaneous, Vol. I, p. 7. For valuable side-lights on the opposition to the Constitution, see E. P. Smith’s essay, “The Movement towards a Second Constitutional Convention,” in Jameson, Essays in the Constitutional History of the United States, pp. 46 ff.

[559]. Documentary History of the Constitution, Vol. II, pp. 46 ff.

[560]. Bancroft, History of the Constitution of the United States, Vol. II, p. 250; Documentary History of the Constitution, Vol. II, p. 25; Delaware State Council Minutes, 1776–1792, pp. 1081–82 (Delaware Historical Society Papers); Connecticut Courant, Dec. 24, 1787.

[561]. See above, p. 82.

[562]. McMaster and Stone, Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution, p. 3.

[563]. McMaster and Stone, op. cit., p. 4.

[564]. Ibid., p. 14.

[565]. Ibid., p. 15.

[566]. McMaster and Stone, op. cit., p. 20. The following year [1788] when the ratification of the Constitution was celebrated in Philadelphia, James Wilson, in an oration on the great achievement said: “A people free and enlightened, establishing and ratifying a system of government which they have previously considered, examined, and approved! This is the spectacle which we are assembled to celebrate; and it is the most dignified one that has yet appeared on our globe.... What is the object exhibited to our contemplation? A whole people exercising its first and greatest power—performing an act of sovereignty, original and unlimited!... Happy country! May thy happiness be perpetual!” Works (1804 ed.), Vol. III, pp. 299 ff.

[567]. Bancroft, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 278; Votes and Proceedings of the Senate of Maryland, November Session, 1787, pp. 5 ff.

[568]. Ibid., p. 283.

[569]. Bancroft, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 316. The resolution provided that the “election shall be held in the month of March next on the first day of the court to be held for each county, city, or corporation respectively.” The qualifications of voters were “the same as those now established by law.” Blair, The Virginia Convention of 1788, Vol. I, p. 56–57. Only freeholders were eligible to seats in the Convention. Ibid., p. 56. Hening, Statutes at Large, Vol. XII, p. 462.

[570]. Laws of North Carolina (1821), Vol. I, p. 597; North Carolina Assembly Journals, 1785–98, p. 22.

[571]. Bancroft, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 349.

[572]. Hugh Williamson, writing to Madison on May 21, 1789, said: “Our people near the sea-coast are in great pain on the idea of being shut out from the Union. They say that unless they can continue in the coasting trade without the alien duty, they must starve with their families or remove from the state. Can no exception be made in favor of such apparent aliens for so long a period as the first of January next?” Madison Mss., Library of Congress.

[573]. Bancroft, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 293.

[574]. Documentary History of the Constitution, Vol. II, pp. 82 ff.

[575]. F. G. Bates, Rhode Island and the Union, pp. 192 ff.

[576]. Ibid., p. 197.

[577]. See below, p. 248.

[578]. See above, p. 234.

[579]. Ibid., p. 72.

[580]. Dodd, The Revision and Amendment of Constitutions; and Garner, in The American Political Science Review, February, 1907.

[581]. McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheaton, 316.

[582]. Batchellor, State Papers of New Hampshire, Vol. XXI, p. 165.

[583]. Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 1788 (1856), p. 23.

[584]. Connecticut Courant, October 22, 1787.

[585]. Documentary History of the Constitution, Vol. II, p. 61.

[586]. Delaware State Council Minutes, 1776–1792, pp. 1080–1082.

[587]. McMaster and Stone, Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution, p. 72.

[588]. Votes and Proceedings of the Senate of Maryland, November Session, 1787, pp. 5 ff.

[589]. Above, p. 69. Blair, The Virginia Convention of 1788, Vol. I, pp. 56–57. Only freeholders could sit in the Convention.

[590]. North Carolina Assembly Journals, 1785–1789, p. 22.

[591]. Documentary History of the Constitution, Vol. II, p. 83.

[592]. Libby, Geographical Distribution of the Vote on the Federal Constitution, p. 26, and note.

[593]. Article cited below, p. 243.

[594]. McKinley, Suffrage Franchise in the English Colonies, p. 420.

[595]. Dr. J. F. Jameson, “Did the Fathers Vote,” New England Magazine, January, 1890.

[596]. A detailed statement of the vote in many Connecticut towns on the members of the state convention could doubtless be compiled after great labor from the local records described in the report on the public archives of Connecticut, Report of the American Historical Association for 1906, Vol. II.

[597]. Harding, The Federal Constitution in Massachusetts, p. 55, note 3. The Connecticut Courant gives the number as 763, December 17, 1787.

[608]. The Journal for June 5 reports the Anti-Federalist ticket carried in Washington County by a vote of two to one.

[609]. See below, p. 270.

[610]. See a forthcoming dissertation on this subject by Wm. Feigenbaum. There was a threat of secession on the part of some New York City interests in case the Constitution was defeated. Weight was given to this threat by the news of the ratification from New Hampshire and Virginia. The possibility of retaining New York as the seat of the new Government was used by Jay, Hamilton, and Duane as an argument in favor of ratification. James Madison, Writings, Vol. I, p. 405.

[611]. McMaster and Stone, op. cit., p. 460.

[612]. Scharf and Wescott, History of Philadelphia, Vol. I, p. 447.

[613]. Hartford Courant, April 28, 1788.

[614]. American Historical Review, Vol. V, p. 221.

[615]. “Appius,” To the Citizens of South Carolina (1794). Library of Congress, Duane Pamphlets, Vol. 83.

[616]. By a careful study of local geography and the distribution of representation this could be accurately figured out.

[617]. “The First Elections under the Constitution,” Iowa Journal of History and Politics, Vol. II, pp. 3 ff.

[618]. It will be recalled that the Constitution was put into effect without either North Carolina or Rhode Island.

[619]. See above, p. 248.

[620]. See below, p. 299.

[621]. Libby, op. cit., pp. 50 ff.

[622]. Above, Chapter V.

[623]. Massachusetts and the Federal Constitution (Harvard Studies).

[624]. Sectionalism in Virginia.

[625]. Libby, op. cit., pp. 7–8.

[626]. Ibid., p. 11.

[627]. Data given here are from State Papers: Finance, Vol. I, p. 442. It should be remembered that the figures would have been relatively different in 1787 on account of the union of Vermont with New Hampshire, but they are doubtless roughly correct.

[628]. Some painstaking research in the Treasury Department would produce valuable data toward the solution of this problem.

[629]. State Papers: Finance, Vol. I, p. 442 (public funds included. See p. 419).

[630]. See above for the table, p. 36.

[631]. Ms. Treasury Department: New Hampshire Loan Office Books.

[632]. Libby, op. cit., p. 12.

[633]. The Federal Constitution in Massachusetts, p. 75.

[634]. As to the opposition in Maine, see General Knox’s view, below, p. 301.

[635]. The Federal Constitution in Massachusetts, pp. 63–66.

[636]. State Papers: Finance, Vol. I, pp. 451. Of course some changes in distribution may have occurred between 1789 and 1792, but this may be taken as approximately correct.

[637]. State Papers: Finance, Vol. I, p. 443; Libby, op. cit., p. 107 for the vote.

[638]. Libby, op. cit., for vote, p. 107; State Papers: Finance, Vol. I. pp. 450 and 449 for taxes lists.

[639]. The full significance of the Worcester vote and property lists would involve an analysis of the distribution of each among the towns.

[640]. American Antiquarian Society Proceedings (1911), p. 65.

[641]. Ms. Treasury Department: Index to the Three Per Cents (Mass.). Gore, Dawes, and Phillips appear on the New Hampshire Journals and other Massachusetts Records.

[642]. The Index shows several holders by the name of Davis: Jonathan, James, Aaron, Susanna, John, Nathl., Joseph, Moses, Thomas, Saml., Wendell, and John G. Whether they were relatives of Caleb is not apparent. Leonard and Nathl. Jarvis also appear on the Book. Also Mary and Belcher Hancock.

[643]. All of these men except Wales and Warren appear on the Index to the Three Per Cents (Mass.). Wales and Warren appear on the books as holders of old certificates (Loan Office Certificates, 1779–1788, Mass.); and it does not appear when or how they disposed of their holdings.

[644]. See above, p. 75, note 3.

[645]. On September 3, 1787, the Connecticut Courant in a letter from Philadelphia (Aug. 24) says: “One of the first objects with the national government to be elected under the new constitution, it is said, will be to provide funds for the payment of the national debt, and thereby restore the credit of the United States, which has been so much impaired by the individual states. Every holder of a public security of any kind is, therefore, deeply interested in the cordial reception and speedy establishment of a vigorous continental government.”

[646]. Libby, op. cit., p. 14.

[647]. Ibid., p. 113.

[648]. Towns not represented or not voting in the convention are counted against the Constitution.

[649]. The assumed debt is taken because the Ledgers of that debt are in excellent shape and apparently complete. They do not contain, however, half of the security holders in that state. Several of the towns that had no assumed debt-holders were represented in the convention by holders of other paper. See table, p. 267.

[650]. See above, p. 15.

[651]. State Papers: Finance, Vol. I, p. 423.

[652]. The sources for the information as to these securities are in the Treasury Department: Connecticut Loan Office, 1781–1783 (Register of Certificates); Connecticut Loan Office, Ledger B, Assumed Debt; Ledger C, 1790–1796; Ledger A, 1790–1797; Loan Office Certificates of 1779, etc.

[653]. No doubt a study of local economic interests in Connecticut would yield highly important data. See, for example, the early capitalist enterprises connected with the navigation of the Connecticut River. Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society, 1903–1904, p. 404. Such local histories as E. D. Larned, A History of Windham County, contain veritable mines of information on the economic interests of men prominent in local politics.

[654]. Libby, op. cit., p. 18. Libby here takes the vote in the New York convention, but that did not precisely represent the popular vote. Above, p. 244.

[655]. State Papers: Finance, Vol. I, p. 425.

[656]. Libby, op. cit., p. 59.

[657]. Those marked “C 6”, Ms. Treasury Department: New York, 6% Funds, 1790; “N. Y. 3” ibid., 3% Funds; “R,” New York Loan Office Receipts, Ms. Division, Library of Congress. Melancton Smith appears on the Ledgers of the Connecticut Loan Office; and N. Y. Loan Office, 1791, folio 138, for $10,000 worth of sixes and threes.

[658]. See above, p. 107.

[659]. Not present on final vote, but see Elliot, Debates, Vol. II, p. 411.

[660]. Libby, op. cit., pp. 60–61. Writing on October 14, 1787, Madison said “I do not learn that any opposition is likely to be made [to the ratification] in New Jersey,” Writings of James Madison, Vol. I, p. 342.

[661]. These records are drawn principally from incomplete lists of early certificates issued, or from some later funding books in the Treasury Department. The real weight of securities in the New Jersey convention must remain problematical, at least, for the present. The amounts set down to the names above recorded are for the most part insignificant—a few hundred or thousand dollars at the most, and often smaller. The point, it may be repeated, is not the amount but the practical information derived from holding even one certificate of the nominal value of $10.

[662]. Dr. Jameson says of the records of the Delaware convention: “Neither journal nor debates, has, I believe, ever been published,” American Historical Association Report (1902), Vol. I, p. 165.

[663]. Libby, op. cit., pp. 26 ff.

[664]. The Massachusetts Gazette, on October 19, 1787, prints a letter from Philadelphia (dated October 5) in which the activities of speculators in public securities are fully set forth: “Since the grand federal convention has opened the budget and published their scheme of government, all goes well here. Continental loan office certificates and all such securities have risen twenty-five per cent. Even the old emission which has long lain dormant begins to show its head. Last week many thousand pounds’ worth of it were bought up. Moneyed men have their agents employed to buy up all the continental securities they can—foreseeing the rapid rise of our funds. Such men as have the cash to spare will certainly make large fortunes.... We send our factors to the distant towns who know nothing of the rise and buy them cheap; for there is no buying them on reasonable terms in Philadelphia, as the wealthy men are purchasing them to lay up. Thus we go on—pray how is it with you?”

[665]. Ms. Treasury Department: “I,” Index to Funded 6 C; “JA,” Journal A, 1790–1791 (sixes and threes); “JB,” Journal B; “R,” Register Loan Office Certificates, 1788; “77,” Register Certificates of 1777; “3 C,” Ledger C, 3% Stock; “LT,” Treasury Ledger; “M,” Miscellaneous.

[666]. Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution. It will be noted that there were at least seven members of the Order of Cincinnati in the convention, all of whom were in favor of the Constitution.

[667]. Libby, op. cit., p. 66.

[668]. Letter, quoted in Libby, op. cit., p. 65.

[669]. Sectionalism in Virginia, pp. 6–9; p. 58.

[670]. Ambler, op. cit., pp. 8, 59.

[671]. Ibid., pp. 15–16.

[672]. Ambler, op. cit., pp. 48–52.

[673]. Henry not only refused to attend but opposed the adoption of the Constitution with all his might.

[674]. Ibid., p. 36.

[675]. Ambler, op. cit., pp. 53 ff.

[676]. For an explanation of the Federalist complexion of this region see Ambler’s explanation, Sectionalism in Virginia, p. 16.

[677]. Libby, op. cit., pp. 34–35.

[678]. Voted against ratification.

[679]. This is evident from the records in the Treasury Department.

[680]. Libby, op. cit., pp. 38 ff.

[681]. Ibid., p. 42–43.

[682]. “Appius,” To the Citizens of South Carolina (1794), Library of Congress, Duane Pamphlets, Vol. 83.

[683]. See above, p. 248.

[684]. State Papers: Finance, Vol. I, p. 462. In 1783 an attempt to establish a bank with $100,000 capital was made in Charleston, S.C., but it failed. “Soon after the adoption of the funding system, three banks were established in Charleston whose capitals in the whole amounted to twenty times the sum proposed in 1783.” D. Ramsay, History of South Carolina (1858 ed.), Vol. II, p. 106.

[685]. Ms. Treasury Department: South Carolina Loan Office Ledger, consult Index. No general search was made for other names.

[686]. On the subject of ratification in Georgia, Dr. Jameson says: “Nothing of either journal or debates is known to have been printed, unless in some contemporary newspaper outside the state; the Georgia newspapers seem to have nothing of the sort.” American Historical Association Report (1902), Vol. I, p. 167.

[687]. This danger may have had some influence in the concessions made by the Georgia delegates in the Convention for they were kept informed of the Indian troubles in the summer of 1787. Force Transcripts, Georgia Records, 1782–1789: Library of Congress.

[688]. Some holders of public securities are found among the opponents of the Constitution, but they are not numerous.

[689]. Writings, Vol. I, p. 423.

[690]. “Address to the Freemen of America,” The American Museum for June, 1787. Vol. I, p. 494.

[691]. New Hampshire Spy, November 30, 1787.

[692]. American Museum, July, 1788, Vol. IV, p. 85.

[693]. Above, p. 156.

[694]. McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheaton, 316; below, p. 299.

[695]. Vol. II (1850 ed.), p. 99 ff.

[696]. Farrand, Records, Vol. III, p. 232. Speaking of New Hampshire, Madison says, “The opposition [to the Constitution], I understand, is composed precisely of the same description of characters with that of Massachusetts and stands contrasted to all the wealth, abilities, and respectability of the State.” Writings, Vol. I, p. 383.

[697]. Documentary History of the Constitution, Vol. IV, p. 442.

[698]. Report of the Manuscripts Commission of the American Historical Association, December 20, 1896, p. 754. A writer in the Chronicle of Freedom (reprinted in the Massachusetts Centinel, October, 27, 1787) complains of the dangers to the freedom of the press from the new Constitution and continues: “One thing, however, is calculated to alarm our fears on this head;—I mean the fashionable language which now prevails so much and is so frequent in the mouths of some who formerly held very different opinions;—That common people have no business to trouble themselves about government.” The Massachusetts Centinel (November 24, 1787) declares it to be “a notorious fact that three of the principle enemies of the proposed constitution were heart and hand with the insurgents last winter.”

[699]. Life and Letters, Vol. I, pp. 314 ff.

[700]. Harding, The Federal Constitution in Massachusetts, pp. 123–124.

[701]. Ford, Essays on the Constitution, p. 139.

[702]. Ford, Essays on the Constitution, pp. 144 ff.

[703]. Libby, op. cit., p. 58.

[704]. Connecticut Courant, May 21, 1787.

[705]. See above, p. 156.

[706]. Documentary History of the Constitution, Vol. IV, p. 288. On the antagonism in New York see some clues afforded in an article in The Magazine of American History, April, 1893, pp. 326 ff.

[707]. Dickinson’s Fabius letters were printed after the ratification by Delaware and were directed to the “general public” rather than fellow-citizens in that commonwealth. Among the opponents to the Constitution, he put “men without principles or fortunes who think they may have a chance to mend their circumstances with impunity under a weak government.” Ford, Pamphlets on the Constitution, p. 165.

[708]. See Harding, “Party struggles over the First Pennsylvania Constitution,” American Historical Association Report (1894).

[709]. Documentary History of the Constitution, Vol. IV, p. 305.

[710]. Ibid., Vol. IV, p. 339.

[711]. Ibid., Vol. IV, p. 358.

[712]. McMaster and Stone, op. cit., p. 73.

[713]. Ibid., p. 567.

[714]. Ibid., p. 367.

[715]. McMaster and Stone, op. cit., pp. 568–569.

[716]. Ibid., pp. 569–570.

[717]. Connecticut Courant, Oct. 1, 1787.

[718]. See the valuable articles on “Maryland’s Adoption of the Constitution,” by Dr. Steiner in the American Historical Review, Vol. V.

[719]. Ford, Pamphlets on the Constitution, p. 254.

[720]. See above, p. 205.

[721]. Maryland Journal, March 21, 1788.

[722]. Documentary History of the Constitution, Vol. IV, p. 398. For the economics of this, see above, p. 30.

[723]. P. 295.

[724]. “It is currently reported,” says the New Hampshire Spy, on December 7, 1787, “that there are only two men in Virginia who are not in debt, to be found among the enemies to the federal constitution. Debtors, speculators in papers, and states demagogues act consistently in opposing it.”

[725]. Documentary History of the Constitution, Vol. IV, p. 584.

[726]. Ibid., p. 577.

[727]. Elliot, Debates, Vol. III, p. 592. See W. C. Ford, “The Federal Constitution in Virginia,” in the Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society for October, 1903.

[728]. Elliot, Debates, Vol. IV, p. 159.

[729]. Elliot, Debates, Vol. IV, p. 90.

[730]. McRee, Life and Correspondence of James Iredell, Vol. II, pp. 216, 219.

[731]. McRee, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 164 note.

[732]. See W. A. Schaper, “Sectionalism in South Carolina,” American Historical Association Report (1900), Vol. I.

[733]. Summary by T. Ford, The Constitutionalist (1794), p. 21.

[734]. Ford, op. cit., pp. 21–22.

[735]. Op. cit., p. 13.

[736]. Ford, Pamphlets on the Constitution, p. 379. On May 24, 1788, after the Constitution had been approved in South Carolina, General Pinckney wrote to Rufus King, saying, “The Anti-Federalists had been most mischievously industrious in prejudicing the minds of our citizens against the Constitution. Pamphlets, speeches, & Protests from the disaffected in Pennsylvania were circulated throughout the state, particularly in the back country.” King, Life and Correspondence, Vol. I, p. 329.

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES

  1. Silently corrected obvious typographical errors and variations in spelling.
  2. Retained archaic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings as printed.