tions will always operate against the states. Congress being the paramount supreme power, must not be disappointed. Thus congress will have an unlimited, unbounded command over the soul of this commonwealth. After satisfying their uncontrolled demands, what can be left for the states? Not a sufficiency even to defray the expense of their internal administration. They must therefore glide imperceptibly and gradually out of existence, and the nation will naturally terminate in a consolidation. This, sir, may do for other people, but it never shall do for me.

If we are to have one representative for every 30,000 souls, it must be by implication. The constitution does not positively secure it. Even say it is a natural implication, why not give us a right to that proportion in express terms-in language that will not admit of evasions or subterfuges? If they can use implication for us, they can also use implication against us. We are giving power; they are getting power; judge then, on which side the implication will be used. When we once put it in their option to assume constructive power, danger will inevitably follow. Trial by jury and liberty of the press, too, are secured to us on no better basis than that of implication. If they encroach on these rights, and you give your implication for a plea, you are cast; for they will be justified by the last part of it, which gives them full power, "To make ALL laws which shall be necessary and proper to carry their powers into execution." Implication is dangerous, because it is unbounded. If it be admitted at all, and no limits be prescribed, it admits of the utmost extension. They say that every thing that is not given is retained. The reverse of the proposition is true by implication. They do not carry their implication so far when they speak of the general welfare. No implication when the sweeping clause comes. Implication is only ne

cessary when the existence of privileges is in dispute. The existence of powers is sufficiently established. If we trust our dearest rights to implication, we shall be in a very unhappy state.

Implication in England has been a source of much dissension. There has been a long war of implication between the king and people. For one hundred years did the mother country struggle under the uncertainty of implication. The people insisted that their rights were implied: the monarch denied the doctrine. Their bill of rights in some degree terminated the dispute. By a bold implication, they said they had a right to bind us in all cases whatsoever. This constructive power we opposed, and successfully. Thirteen or fourteen years ago, the most important thing that could be thought of, was to exclude the possibility of construction and implication. These, sir, were then deemed perilous. The first thing that was thought of, was a bill of rights. We were not satisfied with your constructive argumentative rights.

Sir, unless there be great and awful dangers in the present system, the change is dangerous, and the experiment ought not to be made. In estimating the magnitude of these dangers, we are obliged to take a most serious view of them, to feel them, to handle them, and to be familiar with them. It is not sufficient to feign mere imaginary ones: there must be palpable realities. The great question between us is, do those realities exist? These dangers are partially attributed to bad laws, execrated by the community at large. It is said the people wish to change the government. I should be happy to meet them on that ground. Should the people wish to change it, we should be innocent of the dangers. But I assert it as a fact, that the people do not wish to change their government. But how am I to prove it? It must rest on my bare assertion, unless supported by an internal conviction in men's breasts.

My poor say-so is a mere nonentity. But, sir, I am persuaded that four fifths of the people of Virginia must have amendments to the new plan, to reconcile them to such a change of their government. My assertions, or even those of the honourable gentleman, form but a slip. pery foundation for the people to rest their political salvation on. No government can flourish unless it be founded on the affection of the people. Unless gentlemen can be sure that this new system is founded on that ground, they ought to stop their career.

I dislike repeating what the gentlemen say—but I will mention one thing. There is a dispute between us and the Spaniards about the right of navigating the Mississippi. This dispute has sprung from the federal government. I wish this subject to be fully discussed. I wish to know the origin and progress of the business, as the knowledge of it would probably unfold great dangers. In my opinion the preservation of that river calls for our most serious consideration. It has been agitated in congress. Seven states have voted so as that it must be known to the Spaniards, that under our existing system, the Mississippi will be taken from them. Seven states wished to relinquish that river to them. The six southern states opposed it. Seven states not being sufficient to convey it away, it still remains our's. If I am wrong, there are several gentlemen on this floor, who can contradict the facts, in which case I will readily retract. This new government, I conceive, will enable those states who have already discovered their inclination that way, to give away this river. Will the honourable gentleman advise us to relinquish that inestimable navigation, and place formidable enemies on our backs? This weak, this poor confederation, it is said, cannot secure us; and we are resolved to take shelter under the shield of federal authority in America. Yet the southern parts of America have VOL. I.

been protected by that weakness so much execrated. I hope this will be explained. I was not in congress when these transactions took place. I may not have stated every fact. I may have misrepresented matters. I hope to be fully acquainted with every thing relative to the subject. Let us hear how the great and important right of navigating that river has been attended to; and whether I am mistaken in my opinion, that federal measures will lose it to us forever. If a bare majority of congress can make laws, the situation of our western citizens is dreadful.

We have been threatened with danger by the non-payment of the debt due to France; but information from an illustrious citizen of Virginia, who is now in Paris, disproves all the suggestions of such danger. That citizen has not lived in the airy regions of theoretic speculation*-He is our ambassador: and let me tell gentlemen that the ambassador of the United States of America is not so despised as some people would make us believe. A servant of a republic is as much respected as that of a monarch. The honourable gentleman tells us, that hostile fleets are to be sent to make reprisals upon uswhile our ambassador positively says, that the king of France has taken it into consideration to enter into commercial regulations on reciprocal terms with us, which will be of peculiar advantage to this country. Does this look like hostility? I might go further; I might say, not from public authority, but good information, that the opinion of that respectable citizen is, that you reject this government. His character and abilities are in the highest estimation-he is well acquainted in every respect, with this country-and not less so with the policy of the European nations. He advises you to reject this government, till it be amended. His sentiments coincide entirely with our's. His attachment to, and services done for this

This was Mr. Jefferson. ED.

country, are well known. At a great distance from us, he remembers us, and studies our happiness. Living in splendour and dissipation, he thinks yet of bills of rights -thinks of those little despised things called republican maxims. Let us follow the sage advice of this common friend of our happiness. It is little usual for nations to send armies to collect debts. The house of Bourbon, that great friend of America, will never attack her for the unwilling delay of payment. Give me leave to say, that the powers of Europe are too much engaged about objects of greater importance to themselves, to attend to us. On that great theatre of the world, such trivial concerns as American matters vanish. Do you believe, that the mighty monarch of France, beholding the greatest scenes that ever engaged the attention of a prince of that country, will divert himself from those important objects, and now call for a settlement of accounts with America? Such a supposition is not warranted by good sense. The friendly disposition to us, and the actual situation of France, render the idea of danger from that quarter absurd. Would this countryman of our's be fond of advising us to a measure which he knew to be dangerous? And can it be reasonably supposed, that he can be ignorant of any premeditated hostility against this country? The honourable gentleman may suspect the account, but I will do our friend the justice to say, that he would warn us of any danger from France.

Do you suppose the Spanish monarch will risk a contest with the United States, when his feeble colonies are exposed to them? Every advance the people here make to the westward, makes him tremble for Mexico and Peru. Despised as we are among ourselves, under our present government, we are terrible to that monarchy. If this be not a fact, it is generally thought to be so.

We are in the next place threatened with dangers from Holland. We must change our government to escape