the treaties of the other belligerents, were signed 30 Nov. 1782. The arrangement was then revealed to Vergennes, who, at first, indignant at the apparent bad faith, was pacified by Franklin's soothing explanations. As a matter of fact, both Frenchmen and Americans had scrupulously fulfilled the letter of their agreement in everything which had been exactly stipulated, and in other matters, each nation equally had acted in accordance with its own views of interest. The definitive treaty, signed in connection with the treaties between Great Britain and the other belligerents 3 Sept. 1783, recognized in its first article the independence of the several thirteen States. The boundaries of the new nation were, on the west, the Mississippi River south to the 31st parallel; on the south, the 31st parallel from the Mississippi to the Chattahoochee, down that river to its junction with the Flint, thence in a straight line to the source of the Saint Mary's and thence to the sea; on the north, practically the line of the Lakes and the Saint Lawrence, leaving stretches at the northeast and northwest corners so indefinitely described that much trouble was experienced at these points in later times. Both countries were to have free navigation of the Mississippi. The United States was to enjoy the right of fishing at all places where the inhabitants of both countries used at any time heretofore to fish, and the liberty of drying and curing fish on lands, except Newfoundland, which were unsettled. Creditors on either side were to receive no impediment to the recovery of the full value of debts heretofore contracted. Congress was earnestly to recommend to the States to pass acts in relief of the Loyalists. Provision was made for bringing hostilities to a close. By a separate and secret article it was provided that if Great Britain should win back the Floridas from Spain, the southern boundary of the United States between the Mississippi and the Chattahoochee should be the parallel of 32 degrees and 30 minutes. The conclusion of this peace has been generally regarded as a remarkable achievement on the part of the American commissioners, and its successful outcome is to be attributed not only to the daring statesmanship which disregarded the instructions of Congress, but also to the influence of Franklin in France, and the skill with which appeal was made to the enlightened generosity of the sentiments of the ministry in power in Great Britain. of Bibliography-Fiske, 'Critical Period American History); Lecky, 'History of England in the Eighteenth Century, Vol. IV.; Biographies of Franklin, Jay, and Adams in American Statesmen Series'; Fitzmaurice, Life of Shelburne'; Winsor, Narrative and Critical History, Vol. VII.; Wharton, The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence'; Works of Franklin, John Adams, John Jay. to that all of the States had finally signed it. The defects of this scheme of government were so numerous and serious that for a time it looked as if the Union would go to pieces. Under such circumstances attempts were made at various times to change the Articles in such a manner as to give more power to the central government in those matters in which it was most seriously hampered: the finances, commerce, and power to coerce the States. The first proposal to amend the Articles was made on 1 Feb. 1781, even before they went into effect. This was known as the Five Per Cent Amendment. Its avowed purpose was to give to Congress the power to levy a five per cent ad valorem tax on most articles imported and on all prizes taken on the high seas during the war. The proceeds of this tax were to go toward paying the principal and interest of the debt contracted during the war. Within a year 12 of the States had consented to the passage of this amendment, but Rhode Island refused. As the approval of all States was necessary for an amendment, this naturally failed. On 16 March 1781, Madison submitted a report of a committee which recom mended giving to Congress the power coerce the States to fulfil their federal engagements. This power was to be embodied in an additional article to the Articles of Confederation. This report was referred to a grand committee on 2 May 1781, and reported back by it on 20 July, of the same year. On its recommendation a new special committee of three was constituted to prepare an exposition of the Confederation, a plan for "its complete execution and supplemental articles." This committee reported on 22 August, and thought it ought to be discharged from the exposition of the Confederation because such a comment would be voluminous if co-extensive with the subject. The committee, nevertheless, made a report on the defects of the Articles of Confederation, and made strong recommendations that many supplemental powers be given to Congress. The committee further advocated that a committee be appointed to prepare representations to the several States of the necessity of these supplemental powers, and of pursuing, in the modification of the Articles, one uniform plan. These recommendations, however, came to naught. The matter of the defects of the Articles was taken up from the outside and on 26 Feb. 1783, Pelatiah Webster issued A Dissertation on the Political Union and Constitution of the Thirteen United States,' in which he advocated the adoption of very thoroughgoing changes in the Articles. He proposed to divide Congress into two bodies and to give it greater power over the States and over individuals. On 18 April 1783, a Revenue Amendment was introduced into Congress. The object of this was to obtain for Congress the power to levy specific duties on certain articles imported and a five per cent ad valorem duty on all other goods at the time and place of importation. The collectors of the duties were to be appointed by the various States, and after appointment were to be amenable to and removable by Congress. The proceeds from the duties were to be applied to the payment of the principal and interest of the debt. Under the same amendment the States were to make provision, during a term not longer than twenty-five years, for the collection and payment UNITED STATES-THE FORMATION OF STATE CONSTITUTIONS recom of their proportion of the Federal expenses. In the same connection it was suggested that the basis for the calculation of such proportions be changed from the value of land in each State, as was prescribed in the eighth article of the Articles of Confederation, to the number of people in each State. Again twelve States approved of this amendment, but this time New York, having just worked out an elaborate scheme of duties for herself against the other States, refused to ratify it. Alexander Hamilton of New York drew up an elaborate exposition of the defects of the Articles, and on 3 June 1783, intended to present it to Congress along with a resolution calling for a general convention to revise the Articles, but he abandoned his project for want of support. On 30 April 1784, another amendment was mended by Congress. This time Congress asked to have given to it for a period of 15 years the power of forbidding trade with foreign powers having no treaty of commerce with the United States and of prohibiting the citizens of any foreign state from importing into the United States any articles which were not the produce or manufacture of that State. This proposal, so essential in its essence for the government of every country to have in that age of restricted trade, was ratified by only two States, and therefore failed of adoption. In 1785, another man outside the halls of Congress, Noah Webster, put forth, in his work entitled 'Sketches of American Policy,' suggestions for the improvement of the Articles. Like many other men of the time he recommended a strong executive and giving to Congress the power to coerce the States. About the same time James Monroe introduced in Congress a proposition to change article nine of the Articles in such a way as to give Congress the power to place retaliatory duties on the products of foreign States that discriminated against the United States. The proceeds of such duties, however, were not to go to the Federal government, but were to go to the State in which they were collected. This proposition was referred on 28 March 1785, to a committee of which Monroe was chairman, and on 13 and 14 July of the same year was discussed in Congress, but no action was taken. A similar proposition to that of Monroe's was embodied in the report on trade and revenue presented to Congress by a grand committee on 14 Aug. 1786. Additional proposals in the same report recommended that the States which delayed to pay their proportions of the funds required for the running expenses of the federal government should have to pay fines in addition, that in States which made no provision for collecting the sums asked for Congress should have power to step in and order them collected by State officers and in case of necessity appoint officers or agents of its own to collect them, and that States offering resistance to Congress or its agents in making such collections should be considered as violating the Federal compact. Further provisions in this committee report gave Congress the power to introduce new systems of revenue and to make regulations for the finances, and if 11 of the States agreed to such systems or regulations, they were to become binding on all. In addition Congress was to be given the power to institute a court of seven members to try officials of the Federal govern ment and to hear appeals from the State courts concerning the interpretation of treaties or regulations made by the Federal government. On the report of this grand committee Congress took no action. The longer the Confederation existed the more hopeless the chance for a strong central government became. From all sides came expressions of fear and alarm for the Union itself. As early as 1783 Washington, in a circular letter to the State governors, had expressed fear for the Union and declared that there must somewhere be lodged a supreme power to regulate and govern the general concern of the Confederated Republic, or it would go to pieces. Jay, in a letter to Washington in 1786, said: "I am uneasy and apprehensive, more so than during the war." From our former friends in Europe came the disquieting news that they no longer had confidence in our credit. Adams in trying to negotiate a loan in Holland in 1784 was met with expressions of distrust in the stability of the Union-a distrust which the London Gazettes did everything to encourage. As Congress had failed utterly in all attempts it had made to have the Articles amended, help had to come, if it came at all, from some other quarter. Congress had lost the respect of the country through no fault of its own. The most capable men had deserted its halls for those of the State legislatures. Everything seemed to point to a speedy dissolution of the Union as it existed under the Articles of Confederation, when aid came from an unexpected quarter and quite by accident. This was the Alexandria Convention, called to settle commercial disputes between Virginia and Maryland. From this grew the Constitutional Convention. The new Constitution (q.v.) drafted by that body was ratified by nine States and 4 March 1789 set for its inauguration. On 2 March 1789 the Congress of the Confederation adjourned sine die, and thus brought the government under the Articles of Confederation to an end. - Bibliography. Bancroft, 'Constitution'; Fiske, Critical Period'; bibliography in Channing and Hart, 'Guide to the Study of American History.' JAMES SULLIVAN, PH.D., Professor of History, High School of Commerce, New York. 7. United States The Formation of State Constitutions. When the resistance to Great Britain first began, independence was not the aim, and in consequence only provisional governments were established, temporarily to take the place of the English colonial governments which had one by one succumbed or been suppressed. Provisional Congresses or Conventions in the several colonies assumed political control, intrusting the executive function to Committees of Correspondence and of Public Safety. Under these loose revolutionary organizations government was conducted for several months, but as it soon became evident that the contest was to be a prolonged one, there gradually arose a conviction that more regular and permanent forms of government should be ordained. The several colonies turned to the Continental Congress, representing all the colonies, for direction, and this body took the initiative in inaugurating the several State governments. Quite naturally, the first request came from the Provincial Congress of Massachusetts, as in that colony hostilities already had broken out. On 16 May 1775 that body asked its "explicit advice respecting the taking up and exercising the powers of civil government." The Congress replied 9 June, recommending that they should call upon the several towns entitled to representation in the assembly to elect members, and the assembly so chosen should select a council, the two bodies should govern in approximate conformity to the spirit and substance of the colonial charter, until a governor of his majesty's appointment should consent to govern according to that instrument. This advice was promptly followed and the government so organized remained in force until 1780, when the first constitution of that State was established. A few months later New Hampshire, South Carolina and Virginia successively sought guidance with respect to the establishment of their civil governments, and by November Congress advised them respectively "to call a full and free representation of the people" that they may adopt "such a form of government as in their judgment would best promote the happiness of the people and most effectively secure peace and good order in the province during the continuance of the dispute with Great Britain." Finally as the movement in favor of independence gained adherents, Congress 10 May, in anticipation of the Declaration of Independence, recommended that the colonies that had not already done so should establish regularly ordained governments. In consequence of this advice, the colonies, each soon claiming to be of right a free, sovereign and independent State, were shortly inaugurating their first State constitutions. New Hampshire's constitution was completed 5 Jan. 1776, to be followed by South Carolina on 26 March. Both of these constitutions were incomplete and unsatisfactory, and proved but temporary, as they were replaced by new ones within a few years. Rhode Island and Connecticut retained their colonial charters. The former simply discharged its people from their allegiance to the king by act of the Legislature of 4 May, the latter provisionally effected a similar change 14 June, which it made permanent by act of 10 October, at the same time enacting a short bill of rights. Virginia adopted its constitution 29 June, and New Jersey's was proclaimed on 3 July. Thus before the Declaration of Independence seven States had assumed independent governments, and four had drawn up written constitutions. Four other States followed in the same year, Delaware, 21 September; Pennsylvania, 28 September; Maryland, 11 November, and North Carolina, 18 December. In the year 1777 Georgia adopted a constitution on 5 February, and New York did likewise on 20 April. South Carolina's second constitution was promulgated 19 March 1778. Massachusetts continued under its provisional government until 16 June 1780, when its constitution went into force. New Hampshire finally secured a new frame of government, 2 June 1784. Vermont, although unrecognized by the other States, pursued her own independent course, framing two constitutions during this period, those of 1777 and 1786. The first was largely copied from that of Pennsylvania. No other State constitutions were adopted prior to the ratification of the Federal Constitution. The compact theory, especially as put forth by John Locke in justification of the English Revolution of 1688, was generally accepted in America by the constitution makers of the Revolutionary period. Its principles as explicitly set forth not only in the Declaration of Independence, but in all the State constitutions as well, were that the people have the natural right to abolish or alter their form of government when in their judgment it has become destructive of their rights. Seven of the constitutions expressly declare that their former relations are dissolved because the king had violated the compact. This served as the basis for the legal defense of their action. Sovereignty, it was commonly held, rested in the people, and from them alone emanated the power to inaugurate a new form of government. But in practice they departed somewhat from this theory. Although in most of the States the people were consulted through their choice of representatives to a provincial convention, which should draft a frame of government, there were several exceptions, as in the case of both the constitutions of South Carolina. Neither was the Virginia Provincial Convention, nor the New Jersey Congress specifically empowered to frame a constitution, but each assumed that they were authorized to act in accordance with the advice of Congress. Again in the framing of the early revolutionary constitutions that careful distinction that came later to be made between a legislative body and a constitutional convention was not observed. Owing to the exigency of the times, the Provincial Congress or Convention in each of the States that framed constitutions during the years 1776 and 1777, with one exception, acted not only in the capacity of a constitutional convention, but also assumed the powers of legislation and administration. The one exception was in the State of Delaware, where a convention not only was chosen for the express purpose of framing a constitution, but dissolved upon the completion of that work. None of these constitutions was submitted to the voters for their approval, but went into operation at once upon their adoption by the convention. The first State to inaugurate the practice of seeking the sanction of the people upon the work of the convention was Massachusetts in 1778. In that year a constitution, which had been drawn by a convention elected for the sole and express purpose of framing a fundamental law, was submitted to the voters for their approval and was rejected. Two years later a constitution similarly framed was adopted by the people of Massachusetts. This practice was followed by New Hampshire in the inauguration of its second constitution in 1784. The State constitutions reveal the continuity in the development of American political institutions. They have been called by Bryce "the oldest things in the political history of America, for they are the continuations and representations of the colonial charters." It is in the colonial charters, especially in the corporate colonies, that we find their prototype. These documents served as the written constitutions of the respective colonies, according to which they were governed. So liberal were those granted to Connecticut and Rhode Island that they served these States respectively until well into the 19th century. But in addition to the charters there were other elements that entered into the State constitutions. The colonists had a century and a half of experience to draw upon, during which UNITED STATES—THE E FORMATION OF STATE CONSTITUTIONS their governments had undergone great develop ment and many new features both written and unwritten had been added to their fundamental law. Moreover, at the basis of all their legal ideas was the English constitution and the common law, both of which profoundly and perhaps unconsciously, influenced them. They also accepted the prevailing political philosophy of the age, as above indicated-which was derived chiefly from English sources, although no one writer exerted a greater influence upon them than Montesquieu (q.v.) through his "Spirit of Laws." Speaking generally "the first State constitutions were little more than the pre-existing colonial constitutions adapted to the changed circumstances." The main features of the constitution consisted of the Bill of Rights (q.v.),- in some introduced by a preamble, and the constitution proper. Eight of the instruments of this period, if we include Vermont, were prefaced by bills or declarations of rights, and in the other constitutions there were important provisions of this character. The first of these was adopted by Virginia, and was drafted by George Mason. To a considerable extent it served as a model for the other States. In all the bills of rights there were some one hundred different provisions. They were a statement of what Americans regarded as the inherent rights of man. While doubtless suggested by the English Bill of Rights, they were much more comprehensive and explicit than their English prototype, and deal much more with the rights of the individual. Thus typical provisions are the declaration that "all men are born free and equal," and are to be protected in their personal and property rights. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to bear arms and of trial by jury are all carefully guarded. Similarly the freedom of the press, freedom of election, the right of as sembly and of petition are guaranteed. Excessive bail and fines, cruel and unusual punishments, unwarranted search and seizures, the quartering of troops in times of peace are all prohibited. The granting of titles of nobility, hereditary honors or exclusive privileges are forbidden. All of these are principles that have been accepted as essential to the perpetuity of a democratic republic. All the constitutions recognized the principle of the threefold separation of powers, and provided for the establishment of distinct legislative, executive and judicial departments. Not only had the experience of the Colonial period tended toward the differentiation of these three departments, but its importance had been emphasized by Montesquieu. Some of these instruments explicitly declared, as that of Massachusetts, that no one of the departments should ever exercise any of the powers of the other two, but in practice this principle was frequently not observed. In the organization of the legislative department ail the States except two made provision for the bicameral system which had been developed during the colonial times. Pennsylvania and Georgia were the exceptions. They retained their single house. The lower branch was the more popular and numerous, the Senate, as the upper house was most frequently styled, being not more than one third or one fourth its size. Representatives were variously apportioned, not in general according to the population, but the local divisions of the town in New England and of the county elsewhere served as the basis of representation. Old inequalities were continued and in some instances new ones were introduced. For the Senate the same unit of representation served as for the House in four States, but special senatorial districts were created in others. The members of the lower house were elected annually except in South Carolina, where the term was two years. In the majority of the States the term for the upper branch was also one year, but in four it varied from three to five years. In all of the States save three the members of both houses were elected directly by the qualified voters, but by the first constitutions of New Hampshire and South Carolina the members of the upper house were chosen by the lower out of their number and in Maryland there was a senatorial electoral college. A freehold or property qualification was required in all the States for membership in either branch, and also for the executive, except in Pennsylvania, where the payment of a poll tax was sufficient. In addition to a higher age and residence requirement for senators, a larger property qualification was usually called for, as the Senate was supposed to represent property. Thus in New Hampshire a senator must possess a freehold of £200, the governor £500; in South Carolina £2,000 and £10,000 for the respective offices. In addition religious qualifications were required by all the States for governor and members of the legis lature, except New York and Virginia. The usual one was that the member must be a Protestant, in two a Christian, but in four a believer in the inspiration of the Scriptures, and in Délaware of the doctrine of the Trinity as well. In the organization of the executive department all the constitutions, except two, made provision for a single executive, who was usually called the governor. By the first constitution of New Hampshire there was no provision for a distinct executive. In Pennsylvania an executive board was established. In only three States was the executive elected by the people, in the others he was chosen by the legislature. His term of office was usually one year, but in two middle States it was three years and in South Carolina two. In nearly all the States an executive council, elected by the legislature, was associated with the governor. This body inherited the advisory and administrative functions of the old colonial council. It was to act as a check upon the governor, sharing with him the exercise of those few powers that had not been already vested in the legislature. A comparison of the powers conferred upon the legislative and the executive departments reveals the fact that the constitution makers were very much influenced by their colonial experience. They were mindful of the recent contests between the royal and proprietary governors and the legislatures. This led them to fear executive usurpation, while it gave them great confidence in the legislature, which had boldly championed the rights of the people. Accordingly almost unlimited powers were conferred upon the legislature, while the governor was deprived of nearly all the customary powers of the colonial executive. He was entrusted with a qualified veto in Massachusetts alone. The appointing power was exercised by the legislature in five of the States, in several they chose the more important officers, while in a few the governor was allowed to share this power with the coun ell. As commander of the military and naval forces of the State the governor presents a more imposing figure than as a civil officer. On the other hand, save for the provisions in the Bill of Rights, almost no limitations were placed upon the powers of the legislature. In addition to strictly legislative power it exercised also important administrative functions, as previously indicated. In several States the upper house possessed certain judicial powers which were brought over from the colonial council, and suggest similar functions of the House of Lords, as the trial of impeachments, and in a few cases it acted as a court of last resort. The judicial system of the colonies was in general retained under the State governments. While differing in particulars there was a similarity in the organization of this department in all the States. Many of the details were left for statutory enactment. The chief provisions in the constitution, related to the method of appointment and removal and the tenure of office of the judges. In Georgia alone the judges, with the exception of the chief justice, were elected by the voters. Elsewhere they were appointed, in. about half the States by the legislature, in the others by the governor and council. The usual tenure of the supreme court judges was for good behavior, but in most of the States they were removable. In all the States their salary was fixed by the legislature. The judiciary lacked security and independence owing to its dependence upon the legislature, but fortunately in general that body refrained from interfering with the freedom of the courts. Property qualifications were prescribed for the exercise of the suffrage in all the 13 States either in the constitution or by law. These varied from the requirement that the elector should be a taxpayer to that of the possession of freehold of the value of £100. In a few States a larger amount was required for the electors of senators than for representatives. In South Carolina the suffrage was further restricted to those who believed in God and in a future state of rewards and punishments. As a result of these provisions the majority of white men were unable to vote. Although freedom of religion was proclaimed in almost every constitution, in several there was a close connection between church and state. In addition to the religious qualifications for office holding already referred to, the legislature was empowered in two New England States to require the support of Protestant clergy at public expense, and in Maryland of the Christian religion. South Carolina declared the Christian Protestant religion to be the established religion. Provision was made for amendment in eight of these constitutions. Five under various restrictions reserved this power to conventions. Three gave the amending power to the legislature, but under such restrictions as a vote by two successive legislatures or requiring a larger majority than for ordinary legislation; in the remainder there was no provision for amendment, thus leaving the power in the complete control of the legislature. Space does not permit the further analysis of these documents. It should, however, be noted that the later constitutions, as those of New York and Massachusetts, were more complete and more carefully drawn than the earlier ones, their framers profiting from the experience of the other States. All of these constitutions, while republican, were not democratic in character, as judged by later standards. The religious and property qualification, so characteristic of 18th century ideas, gradually disappeared with the advance of the new century, and the chief defects of these instruments, the excessive power placed in the hands of the legislature and the weakness of the executive, were in time corrected. So conservative, however, were some of the original States, and so well adapted were these constitutions to serve the purpose for which they were designed, that five of them, although amended, were not superseded for more than a half-century, and one, that of Massachu setts, is still in force. The period from 1776 to 1780, it has been truly said, is "the most eventful constitutionmaking epoch in our history." It marks the transition from colonial to commonwealth governments. Moreover just as these constitutions were largely based upon the organic law of the colonies, so in turn they served as models and furnished the chief features for the Federal Constitution. In addition, Judge Jameson has pointed out that from the revolutionary conventions of the earlier part of this period, there developed before its close that peculiarly American institution, the constitutional convention,- such as the ones held in Massachusetts and New Hampshire,- which in subsequent years was accepted as the all important organ for framing the State constitutions. The method these two States employed in drafting their constitutions through a constitutional convention, and its subsequent submission to the voters for their approval came to be the normal practice followed in the other States in ordaining their organic law. See CONSTITUTION; GOVERNMENT. Bibliography.- Poore, Charters and Constitutions) (1878); Journals of Congress, I. (105, 108, 215, 219); II. (158, 166), (1800); Jameson, A Treatise on Constitutional Conventions' (1887); Jellinek, The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of Citizens' (1901); Thorpe, A Constitutional History of the American People' (1898); Webster, A Comparative Study of the State Constitutions of the American Revolution' Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science'; Bancroft, History of the United States' (V. ch. IX.); Hildreth, The History of the United States' (III., 374); Borgeaud, 'Adoption and Amendment of Constitutions in Europe and America) (1895); Cushing, Transition from Provincial to Commonwealth Government in Massachusetts'; articles on several State constitutions in 'Political Science Quarterly) (III., 489, X., 426); and in Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science' (XIII, 481; XVI., 477). HERMAN V. AMES, Professor of History, University of Pennsyl vania. 8. United States The Peopling of the. During the first 60 years of the 17th century a substantial beginning of the permanent colonization of the Atlantic seaboard had been made. In this work the English, Dutch, and Swedes each played a part, but the chief role had been taken by the English. Their colonization efforts, at first chiefly prompted by commercial reasons, were feeble. The Virginia colony |