constitutional check upon the legislature. The people themselves are another most powerful check; for they will know the vote of their representatives, and if they deem the law for which they voted to be unconstitutional, they will order them to depart at the ensuing election, and replace them with others more wise and more virtuous. Here were two peaceable and happy modes of correcting the mischief: whereas, for one or more jealous state legislatures to endeavour to repel or control the acts of Congress by their sovereign power, was at once to introduce disunion and civil war. The government of the Union, which might have yielded to fair reason and argument, will never give way to the threats or force of these rival sovereignties. If they do, the powers and energies of the Federal Government would be from that moment destroyed. They will determine to try the experiment whether the Union shall govern a few states, or a few states shall rule the Union. The certain consequence will be a resort to arms, civil war, and carnage, and a probable dismemberment of the Union.

Qf such consequences, in such an event, the framers of the Constitution were aware. They, therefore, wisely in the tenth section of the first article declared that "no state shall, without the consent of the Congress, enter into any agreement or compact with another state or with a foreign power." The resolution last cited, however, invited the other states to "take the necessary and proper measures for co-operating with this state in maintaining unimpaired the authorities, rights, and liberties reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Could other states co-operate with this for these purposes, unless by virtue of some previous agreement or compact? To co-operate, was to act in concert. Must not some agreement or compact among the states precede their acting in concert? It must in the nature of things. Does not the Constitution forbid this agreement or compact in positive and express terms? Were we not, then, inviting our sister states to a deliberate and palpable breach of the Constitution; and this at the moment when we were so liberally reviling Congress for an imputed breach of the same instrument? Did their example authorize us to violate what we had solemnly sworn to support and preserve? Or did an act which was not to be tolerated in the wicked Congress, become venial or laudable when committed by the saints composing this Assembly?

These resolutions, continued Mr. Taylor, must have some ultimate object; and it had been demanded what that object was? The gentleman from Caroline had answered, that it was ultimately to induce the states to call another general convention for the amendment of the Constitution. How unfortunate and ruinous such an experiment would be, the reflection of a few moments must convince us.

When the circumstances and the time when the convention assembled which formed our present Constitution, and the importance and difficulty of the task which they undertook and executed, were considered, we had ample cause to return our fervent thanks to the Almighty for the issue of their labours. At that time the weakness and inefficacy of the articles of confederation was perceived and acknowledged by us all; our contracts were undischarged; our credit was destroyed; and our character as a

nation was contemptible both at home and abroad. All America united in the sentiment that change was essential: all America deputed members to the convention which introduced that change. Foreign nations despised us too much to interfere in the deliberations of that body, or of the state conventions which afterwards adopted the instrument. Even under these circumstances, the harmony with which the plan was recommended, and the unanimity with which it was adopted, were subjects of amazement and wonder.

But what would be the consequence and effect of a convention sum. moned to amend the Constitution at the present moment? Now, said he, party-spirit unfortunately flames and rages. Some think the Constitution as perfect as it could be made, while others consider it as the harbinger of monarchy, and others again, supposed that the powers of government require an increase of energy and power. A spirit of mutual concession could no longer be expected. The delegates from the northern and southern parts of the Union would behold each other with jealousy and suspicion. They would never unite in the same project. They might agree indeed, in pulling down the present building, but they would never agree in erecting another.

This too, is a period when the whole European world is convulsed and in arms; our rising importance attracts their attention and excites their fears. Even in the present state of things, their ministers and agents were continually intriguing among our citizens. Would they remain idle and unemployed while the convention was deliberating? Would they not afford fuel to the flame of party, and prepare the public mind to reject every scheme which might be proposed? Was it not reasonable to be expected that the consequence of their exertions, and our own ferments, would be confusion, anarchy, civil war, and disunion? Enjoying, then, as we do, every happiness to which reason can aspire, shall we, said he, wantonly attempt a change by which little could be obtained, and everything might be sacrificed.

In Virginia, Mr. Taylor said, the general sentiment was that the government of the United States verges towards, and will ultimately settle in, a monarchy. But the measures of that government are supported by a majority of the House of Representatives, and by a still greater majority of the Senate. From this obvious proof of the prevailing sentiment throughout the Union, was it to be expected that another government would be framed vesting smaller or fewer powers in the executive, than he at present exercises? Would not our object, on the contrary, be defeated, since the general convention would probably enlarge instead of diminish the powers of the national government? No other consequence, therefore, could at the present time, and under existing circumstances, follow such an experiment, but increase of dissatisfaction and disgust, and a more ardent disposition to dissever the bonds of union which now connect all America.

In such a convention, in vain should we reckon on the superior importance, power, and influence of Virginia. A majority of states would never agree to summon another convention unless it should be previously agreed and declared that the votes shall be taken as in the former conven

tion, by states. In such a convention, where the influence of Delaware or Rhode Island would be as great, and their respective votes would weigh as much as those of Virginia and Pennsylvania, what would be our chance of carrying our particular objects into effect. The smaller states already behold us with jealousy and apprehension. Each representative would come prepared to watch, to oppose and circumvent every other. Northern and southern, eastern and western parties and interests would immediately appear; and the convention, after a restless and turbulent session, which would increase instead of diminish the rage of faction among their constituents, would rise in confusion. The sound of peace would be no longer heard; the sentiment of union would no longer continue, but the sword would be drawn, the union for ever dismembered, and the bloody history of Europe would be retraced in the melancholy annals of divided and hostile America.

How sad and gloomy a contrast would such a state of things afford to the present flattering and happy aspect of our affairs. At this day, said Mr. Taylor, America, united under one government, experiences an increase of wealth and population unknown to any other country. Mild and equal laws, industrious and enterprising citizens, peace among ourselves and respect from foreign nations, render us the envy of every other part of the globe. Mr. Taylor then concluded with the following observation: May HE who rules the hearts of men, still dispose us to yield obedience to the constitutional acts of the majority; may He avert the mischiefs which these resolutions are calculated to produce; may He increase the love of union among our citizens; may no precipitate acts of the Legislature of Virginia convulse or destroy it; and to sum up all in one word, may it be perpetual!

Mr. GILES arose next, and said, as he had but lately appeared before the committee, he would not have obtruded any observations upon it, had not some remarks which had fallen from gentlemen made some impression upon him. Therefore, though unprepared, he would make a few observations. He then observed, that for several years past he had had an opportunity of considering the systems pursued by both the state government and General Government. Of those he considered the system of Virginia the best and mildest. For after twenty years' operation, little mischief could be proved to have proceeded from it; but, on the contrary, much good had been done by the administration of it in that time. There had been no complaint that he had heard respecting the injury of person or property; and there had been at the same time less energy in it than in any other government whatever. The injunctions of law had been duly obeyed, and of the laws of the United States particularly, of as much so here as in any other state. What had been the cause of this? Not the rigour, but the mildness of the laws. And were such principle always to be attended to, the necessity of energy in the executive branch would never exist. Mr. Giles then asked what was that energy? It was despotism. Whence had sprung the distinction of parties? Not while Virginia was left to herself. He then proceeded to pass a high eulogium on her system, which had been felt by him in private life; for he confessed that he had never acted

in a public character in this body before? Whence then did party-spirit arise? It had been since that new doctrine had taken place of strengthening the hands of the executive of the United States, to give it an energy. And he proceeded to show of what kind that was.

Since that period, he said, efforts to resist had originated. Mr. Giles then requested the committee to examine the powers of the General Government, and observe what was the opinion formed of them at its commencement. He then mentioned certain systems which had been established in the course of its operation, such as the funding-system, bank, &c. These systems being established, it would be thought necessary from time to time, to give them energy. He said, there was a kind of sophistry used by the General Government in assigning that for the means which was in fact the end; and stated for example the case of invasion and insurrection. The sedition-law had been called the means for preventing them; but he (Mr. Giles) declared the contrary to be the fact. The sedition-law was truly the end, and an invasion was made use of as the means to introduce it. He would examine the Constitution, he said; and there he found the language as plain as the English language could be. Still, however, that language, plain as it was, was avoided by calling an end a means. The sedition-law, then, was an end to suppress a certain party in the United States. But it had been predicted by gentlemen, that many mischievous consequences would attend the adoption of the plan proposed by the resolutions before the committee. Mr. Giles contended, however, that if such consequences did take place, they would not proceed from any act of this Assembly, but from these acts of Congress already passed. As for himself, he wished as much as others to preserve happiness. His efforts were tending to that end. An oath, too, had been spoken of. What was it? "To support the Constitution of the United States." It became then the duty of the members of this Assembly, who had taken such an oath, to support the Constitution. But it had been said, that on this occasion a resort must be made to the judiciary and to the people. Why so? said Mr. Giles. The members of this Assembly have taken the same oath to support the Constitution as the judiciary and the people. It became then as much their duty to support it, as it was that of the others. He then asked, how was the Constitution to be supported; and said, that it was by resisting all attacks upon it, not any particular acts only. But the right of the members of this Assembly to speak their opinions upon the subject was questioned. It was said, that they must inform the people so: that they must do it, that the judges must do it, and that they their representatives wished not to do it themselves. Mr. Giles then said, that the measures of our present government tended to the establishment of monarchy, limited or absolute. It had been said, too, that the people only were parties to the compact. But Mr. Giles asked what was an association of people? A federal? No; it was a social compact. How then would they support it as a federal compact, if it were only a social compact? The state government was truly of the latter kind. The General Government was partly of each kind. The objection to the word only then was correct, and before he concluded, he should move to strike it out. But he acknowledged that they were then acting as a state. The

gentleman from Westmoreland had delivered his opinion respecting the formation of the government. In this opinion, Mr. Giles said, the gentleman was partly correct, and partly incorrect. The United States would perhaps have been in a different situation, if what the gentleman had asserted had been established. He then proceeded to show in what manner several states in the Union appointed their electors to choose a Presi dent, which was by their legislatures. The federal idea, then, of the other side was not correct. And if, on the other hand, the government were a social compact, he pronounced monarchy to be near at hand, the symptoms and causes of which he particularly pointed out: and concluded that the state legislatures alone, at this time prevented monarchy. He then said, that in proportion as the powers of the government were extended, new excuses for more energy would arise. And what was energy? A coercing of the public will. He then observed how little energy was exerted in Virginia. The energy of the laws was sufficient. He hoped, then, that the right of the committee to proceed to examine the subject would not be denied. The gentleman from Prince George had dwelt upon the present happiness of the people, to disprove which Mr. Giles called to mind the rigorous proceedings of the government, and particularly cited the case of Matthew Lyon, whom, notwithstanding the reports propagated to his prejudice, he said he would aver to be a man of much worth. The effects of these laws of Congress were not yet sufficiently known. The medium of information had heretofore been contracted and imperfect. This House was then undertaking to make them more known. The critical situation of the United States, too, had been mentioned: that France and England both had a view towards us; and that therefore great cau. tion should be used.

He then proceeded to take notice of the measures adopted by the last Congress. The cause for them held out, was the danger to be apprehended from a certain foreign power. This cause had produced the laws respecting the navy, the army, aliens, and the sedition-law, which last operated upon citizens, and not foreigners. Those gentlemen, he said, who never had been about the seat of government, could form no conception of the exertions of persons who were continually infusing into men's minds, the notions of energy. Mr. Giles then read an answer of the President of the United States, to show what he had in view in respect to that foreign power so much feared. It was his answer to the address of the people of Bath. He read it, and proceeded to comment on the latter part of it respecting a party in Virginia to be crushed into dust and ashes. He asked what was that party? They were said to be French partisans. But by whom were they so called? He asked, too, who were the favourers of the resolutions? Not Frenchmen, but good citizens. This was the party then to be crushed, before the schemes of the President could be effected. He said that he could produce more answers of the President, avowing the same principles and design, as that already cited, but he would not tire the committee with them. He declared himself, however, to be as good a citizen as the President. Why then was he to be crushed into dust and ashes? He then expressed his disapprobation of the measures adopted by the government respecting the army and