the feelings of the human heart, it was answered, that it was admitted to be contrary to the feelings of pride and ambition; but those were feelings which ought not to be gratified at the expense of freedom.

"It was urged that the position that great states would have great cbjects in view, in which they would suffer the less states to thwart them, was one of the strongest reasons why inequality of representation ought not to be admitted. If those great objects were not inconsistent with the interest of the less states, they would readily concur in them; but if they were inconsistent with the interest of a majority of the states composing the government, in that case two or three states ought not to have it in their power to aggrandize themselves at the expense of all the rest. To those who alleged that equality of suffrage, in our federal government, was the poisonous source from which all cur misfortunes flowed, it was answered that the allegation was not founded in fact that equality of suffrage had never been complained of by the states, as a defect in our federal system-that, among the eminent writers, foreigners and others, who had treated of the defects in our confederation, and proposed alterations, none had proposed an alteration in this part of the system; and members of the convention, both in and out of Congress, who advocated the equality of suffrage, called upon their opponents, both in and out of Congress, and challenged them to produce one single instance where a bad measure had been adopted, or a good measure had failed of adoption, in consequence of the states having an equal vote. On the contrary, they urged. that all our evils flowed from the want of power in the federal head, and that, let the right of suffrage in the states be altered in any manner whatever, if no greater power were given to the government, the same inconveniences would continue.

"It was denied that the equality of suffrage was originally agreed to on principles of necessity or expediency; on the contrary, that it was adopted on the principles of the rights of men, and the rights of states, which were then well known, and which then influenced our conduct, although they now seem to be forgotten. For this the journals of Congress were appealed to. It was from them shown that when the committee of Congress re

ported to that body the Articles of Confederation, the very first article which became subject of discussion was that respecting equality of suffrage—that Virginia proposed divers modes of suffrage, all on the principle of inequality, which were almost unanimously rejected--that on the question of adopting the articles, it passed, Virginia being the only state which voted in the negative-that, after the Articles of Confederation were submitted to the states, by them to be ratified, almost every state proposed certain amendments, which they instructed their delegates to endeavor to obtain before ratification; and that, among all the amendments proposed, not one state, not even Virginia, proposed an amendment of that article securing the equality of suffrage; the most convincing proof it was agreed to, and adopted, not from necessity, but upon a full conviction that, according to the principles of free government, the states had a right to that equality of suffrage.

"But it was to no purpose that the futility of their objections was shown. When driven from the pretence that the equality of suf frage had been originally agreed to on principles of expediency and necessity, the representatives of the large states persisted in a decla ration, that they would never agree to admit the smaller states to an equality of suffrage. In answer to this, they were informed, and informed in terms the most strong and energetic that could possibly be used, that we never could agree to a system giving them the undue influence and superiority they proposed-that we would risk every possible consequence that from anarchy and confusion order might arise that slavery was the worst that could ensue, and we considered the system proposed to be the most complete, most abject system of slavery that the wit of man ever devised, under the tence of forming a government for free states-that we never would submit tamely and servilely to a present certain evil in dread of a future, which might be imaginary-that we were sensible the eyes of our country and the world were upon us-that we would not labor under the imputation of being unwilling to form a strong and energetic federal government; but we would publish the system which we approved, and also that which we opposed, and leave it to our country and the world at large to judge, between us, who best. understood the rights of freemen and free states, and who best ad

pre

vocated them; and to the same tribunal we would submit, who ought to be answerable for all the consequences which might arise to the Union, from the convention breaking up without proposing any system to their constituents. During this debate we were threatened that, if we did not agree to the system proposed, we never should have an opportunity of meeting in convention to deliberate on another; and this was frequently urged In answer, we called upon them to show what was to prevent it, and from what quarter was our danger to proceed. Was it from a foreign enemy? Our distance from Europe, and the political situation of that country left us but little to fear. Was there any amibitious state or states, who, in violation of every sacred obligation, was preparing to enslave the other states, and raise itself to consequence on the ruin of the others? Or was there any such ambitious individual? We did not apprehend it to be the case. But suppose it to be true; it rendered it the more necessary that we should sacredly guard against a system which might enable all those ambitious views to be carried into effect, even under the sanction of the Constitution and government. In fine, all these threats were treated with contempt, and they were told that we apprehended but one reason to prevent the states meeting again in convention; that, when they discovered the part this convention had acted, and how much its members were abusing the trust reposed in them, the states would never trust another convention."

To this degree of warmth-almost of anger-did the debate on this important subject proceed, and on the vote being taken it was found to be equally divided, five States voting for an inequality of representation, and five against it. A conference committee was accordingly appointed from the different parties to endeavor to come to an agreement; and the result was that the opponents of an unequal representation agreed to yield their objections to it in the lower house-in reference to which the debate had taken place-provided its advocates would pledge themselves to support an equal representation in the senate. Thus, by an equitable compromise, the framers of the Constitution came to a determination on this cardinal question, in regard to which their radical differences of opinion threatened to destroy the Union, and to turn the convention into a

direct means for the overthrow of the confederation they had been commissioned to amend.

The committee to which the twenty-three resolutions were committed on the 26th of July, reported their draft of a Constitution on the 7th of August. In its phraseology we discover one singular difference between it and the resolutions. In the latter we find the word national repeatedly used in connection with the United States. The legislature of the United States is called the national legislature, their executive a national executive, and their judiciary a national judiciary. In the draft of the committee this expression nowhere appears. It had been adopted, and its use strongly urged by the monarchical party, and those who favored the obliteration of States and the erection of a consolidated government, on which account it was opposed by the wiser men who did not desire to overthrow but to confirm the federal character of the bond between the States. In the debate upon the fourth resolution, which, in its original form, spoke of "the national legislature," it was moved to erase the word "national," and to substitute the words "of the United States," and the motion was carried in the affirmative. The same word, however, reappears in later resolutions, but from the time of their commitment it never afterwards occurs. The truth is, this word, from the characters and aims of those who sought to introduce it, was invested with a sinister significance. No one had denied that the confederation was a national confederation. No one now denied that the United States would form a national union under the new Constitution. But the use of this term by the monarchists and consolidationists, in order to impart the notion of such nationality to the Union, as is understood to exist in consolidated monarchies, was bitterly opposed by men who understood and intended it to be a simple bond between sovereign and independent States, delegating to a common agency only certain specified and well-defined functions of their independent sovereignties. Hence, though even in the committee some may have desired that it should be retained, it was felt that the mere use of this word in the Constitution would suffice to cause its absolute rejection by the States, and it was dropped accordingly.

The draft presented by the committee was submitted to a rigor

ous examination and discussion from the 7th of August till the 8th of September, when, with the various changes and amendments made to it in convention, it was again committed to a committee of revision, who were charged to revise its style, and arrange the articles agreed to by the house.

On the 12th of September the committee of revision delivered their report at the secretary's table; and if we compare it with the draft from which it was prepared, we find at once a very striking change in the preamble. In the first draft the preamble was as follows:

We, the people of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, do ordain, declare, and establish the following Constitution, for the government of ourselves and our posterity."

In the convention this preamble had been adopted without amendment. In the revised draft the enumeration of the States is entirely omitted; and the preamble, which is that of the Constitution as finally adopted, reads thus:

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

From the omission of the names of the several States in the Constitution as adopted, and the substitution of the phrase, "We, the people of the United States," some, who have not yet abandoned the hope of converting the union of sovereign States established by our fathers into the consolidated empire they deliberately refused to make, have argued that, by the adoption of the latter phraseology, "the people of the United States," are represented as one corporation; that is to say, that the Constitution declares the Union to be a corporation of the individual citizens of all the States, and not a corporation of States. Nothing could be more absurd than such a train of reasoning. It might as well be asserted that the Constitution was not intended to create a government, nor to be of