Kitabı oku: «A Collection of Essays and Fugitiv Writings», sayfa 10

No. XI

 NEW LONDON, OCTOBER, 1786.

DESULTORY THOUGHTS

No government has preserved more general and uninterrupted tranquillity for a long period, than that of Connecticut. This is a strong proof of the force of habit, and the danger that ever attends great alterations of government or a suspension of law. Every system of civil policy must take its complexion from the spirit and manners of the people.

Whatever political constitutions may be formed on paper, or in the philosopher's closet, those only can be permanent which arise out of the genius of the people.

A jealous uneasy temper has sometimes appeared, among the people of this State; but as this has always proceeded from restless, ambitious men, whose designs have been reprobated as soon as detected, this uneasiness has always subsided without any violence to the Constitution. We do not advert to the time when the course of law has been forcibly obstructed in Connecticut.

In the middle and southern States the corrupt English mode of elections has been adopted: We see men meanly stoop to advertise for an office, or beg the votes of their countrymen. In those States elections are often mere riots; almost always attended with disputes and bloody noses, and sometimes with greater violence. In Connecticut, a man never advertises for an office, nor do we know that a man ever solicited a vote for himself. We cannot name the election that produced a dispute, even in words.

It belongs to the unprincipled of other States and countries to deride religion and its preachers. It belongs to the coxcombs of courts, the productions of dancing schools and playhouses, to ridicule our bashful deportment and simplicity of manners. We revere the ancient institutions of schools and churches in this State. We revere the discipline which has given such a mild complexion to the manners of its inhabitants, and secured private satisfaction and public tranquillity.

Paper money is the present hobby horse of the States, and every State has more or less of the paper madness. What a pity it is mankind will not discern their right hands from their left. Cash is scarce, is the general cry. Well, this proves nothing more than that the balance of trade is against us, and that we eat, drink, and wear more foreign commodities than we can pay for in produce: That is, we spend more than we earn; or in other words, we are poor.

But nothing shows the folly of people more, than their attempts to remedy the evil by a paper currency. This is ignorance, it is absurdity in the extreme. Do not people know that the addition of millions and millions of money does not increase the value of a circulating medium one farthing. Do they not know that the value of a medium ought not to be increased beyond a certain ratio, even if it could be? and that to increase the circulating cash of one State beyond the circulating cash of other States, is a material injury to it. These propositions are as demonstrable as any problem in Euclid. Ten millions of dollars in specie were supposed to be the medium in America before the war. Congress issued at first five millions in bills. As these came into circulation, specie went out; consequently they held their nominal and real value on par, for the nominal value of the medium was not much increased. Congress sent out another sum in bills; the nominal value of the medium was doubled, the bills sunk one half, and the real value of the medium remained the same. This was the subsequent progress; every emission sunk the real value of bills, and two hundred millions of dollars were, in the end, worth just ten millions in specie, and no more. Towards the close of the war, the specie in America was more than doubled; it sunk to less than half its former value, and the paper bills sunk in the same proportion; from forty to eighty for one, nearly. We had too much specie in the country, in the years 1782 and 1783; it ruined hundreds of merchants, and injured the community.

But it is said, we want a circulating medium. This is not true; we have too much in circulation. The specie and paper now circulating in America, amounts to fifty or sixty millions of dollars; whereas we want not more than ten or fifteen millions. The paper is therefore sunk in real value, so as to reduce the real value of the whole medium to that sum which is wanted. We may make millions of paper if we please; but we shall not add one farthing to the property of the State. Money is not wealth in a State, but the representativ of wealth. A paper currency may answer a temporary purpose of enabling people to pay debts; but it is not an advantage even to the debtor, unless it is depreciated; and in this case it is an injury to the creditor. If the paper retains its value, the debtor must sooner or later purchase it with the produce of his labor; and if it depreciates, it is the tool of knaves while it circulates; it ruins thousands of honest unsuspecting people; it gives the game to the idle speculator, who is a nuisance to the State; it stabs public credit and private confidence; and what is worse than all, it unhinges the obligations which unite mankind. A fluctuation of medium in a State makes more fatal ravages among the morals of people, than a pestilence among their lives. O America! happy would it have been for thy peace, thy morals, thy industry, if, instead of a depreciation of paper bills and securities, stamped with public faith, millions of infernal spirits had been let loose among thy inhabitants! Never, never wilt thou experience the return of industry, economy, private confidence and public content, till every species of depreciated and fluctuating medium shall be annihilated; till Legislatures learn to revere justice, and dread a breach of faith more than the vengeance of vindictiv heaven!

Americans! you talk of a scarcity of cash. Well, the only remedy is, to enable Congress to place our commerce on a footing with the trade of other nations. Foreign States have nothing to do with Massachusetts or New York. They must make treaties with United America, or not make them at all. And while we boast of the independence of particular States, we lose all the benefits of independence. For fear that Congress would abuse their powers and enrich themselves, we, like the dog in the manger, will not even enrich ourselves. We complain of poverty, and yet giv the profits of our trade to foreign nations. Infatuated men! We have one truth to learn—That nothing but the absolute power of regulating our commerce, vested in some federal head, can ever restore to us cash, or turn the balance of trade in our favor. New York alone, by its advantageous situation, is growing rich upon the spoils of her neighbors, and impoverishing the continent to fill her own treasury.

Lawyers, you say, O deluded Americans! are an evil. Will you always be fools? Why lawyers are as good men as others: I venture to say further, that lawyers in this country have devised and brought about the wisest public measures that any State has adopted. My countrymen, the expense of supporting a hundred lawyers is a very great and a very needless expense. You pay to lawyers and courts every year thirty or forty thousand pounds. A great expense, indeed! But courts and lawyers are not to be blamed. The people are the cause of the evil, and they alone, as individuals, are able to remedy it. And yet the remedy is very simple. Cease to run in debt, or pay your debts punctually; then lawyers will cease to exist, and court houses will be shut. If you wish or expect any other remedy than this, you certainly will be disappointed. A man, who purposely rushes down a precipice and breaks his arm, has no right to say, that surgeons are an evil in society. A Legislature may unjustly limit the surgeon's fee; but the broken arm must be healed, and a surgeon is the only man to do it.

My friends, learn wisdom. You are peaceable yet, and let the distractions of your neighbors teach you to preserve your tranquillity.

Spend less money than you earn, and you will every day grow richer. Never run in debt, and lawyers will become farmers. Never make paper money, and you will not cheat your citizens, nor have it to redeem. Above all, pay your public debts, for independence and the confederation require it.

No. XII

 NEW HAVEN, DECEMBER, 1786.

ADVICE to CONNECTICUT FOLKS

my friends,

Times are hard; money is scarce; taxes are high, and private debts push us. What shall we do? Why, hear a few facts, stubborn facts, and then take a bit of advice.

In the year 1637, our good forefathers declared an offensiv war against the Pequot Indians. Their troops were ninety men. Weathersfield was ordered to furnish a hog for this army, Windsor a ram goat, and Hartford a hogshead of beer, and four or five gallons of strong water.⁴¹

This was ancient simplicity! Let us make a little estimation of the expenses annually incurred in Connecticut. (I say incurred, for we can contract debts, though we cannot pay them.)

I will just make a distinction between necessary and unnecessary expenses.

Now comes RUM, my friends.

Ninety nine hundredths unnecessary.

This is a fact: Deny it if you can, good folks. Now, say not a word about taxes, judges, lawyers, courts, and women's extravagance. Your government, your courts, your lawyers, your clergymen, your schools, and your poor, do not all cost you so much as one paltry article, which does you little or no good, but is as destructiv of your lives as fire and brimstone.

But let us proceed.

The whole settlement will stand thus:

Now, good people, I have a word of advice for you. I will tell you how to pay your taxes and debts, without feeling them.

1st. Fee no lawyers.

You say lawyers have too high fees. I say they have not. They cost me not one farthing. Do as I have always done, and lawyers' fees will be no trouble at all. If I want a new coat, or my wife wants a new gown, we have agreed to wear the old ones until we have got cash or produce to pay for them. When we buy, we pay in hand; we get things cheaper than our neighbors; merchants never dun us, and we have no lawyers' fees to pay. When we see sheriffs and duns knocking at the doors of our neighbors, we laugh at their folly. Besides, I keep a little drawer in my desk, with money enough in it to pay the next tax; and I never touch a farthing until the collector calls. Now, good folks, if you will take the same method, you will save out of lawyers' fees and court charges, on the most moderate calculations, 20,000l. a year.

2dly. I allow my family but two gallons of rum a year. This is enough for any family, and too much for most of them. I drink cyder and beer of my own manufacture; and my wife makes excellent beer, I assure you. I advise you all to do the same. I am astonished at you, good folks. Not a mechanic or a laborer goes to work for a merchant, but he carries home a bottle of rum. Not a load of wood comes to town, but a gallon bottle is tied to the cart stake to be filled with rum. Scarcely a woman comes to town with tow cloth, but she has a wooden gallon bottle in one side of her saddle bags, to fill with rum. A stranger would think you to be a nation of Indians by your thirst for this paltry liquor. Take a bit of advice from a good friend of yours. Get two gallons of rum in a year; have two or three frolics of innocent mirth; keep a little spirit for a medicine, and let your common drink be the produce or manufacture of this country. This will make a saving of almost 400,000 gallons of rum, or 80,000l. a year.

3dly. Never buy any useless clothing.

Keep a good suit for Sundays and other public days; but let your common wearing apparel be good substantial cloths, and linens of your own manufacture. Let your wives and daughters lay aside their plumes. Feathers and fripperies suit the Cherokees or the wench in your kitchen; but they little become the fair daughters of America.⁴² Out of the dry goods imported, you may save 50,000l. a year.

These savings amount to 150,000l. a year. This is more than enough to pay the interest of all our public debts.

My countrymen, I am not trifling with you: I am serious. You feel the facts I state; you know you are poor, and ought to know, the fault is all your own. Are you not satisfied with the food and drink which this country affords? The beef, the pork, the wheat, the corn, the butter, the cheese, the cyder, the beer, those luxuries which are heaped in profusion upon your tables? If not, you must expect to be poor. In vain do you wish for mines of gold and silver. A mine would be the greatest curse that could befal this country. There is gold and silver enough in the world, and if you have not enough of it, it is because you consume all you earn in useless food and drink. In vain do you wish to increase the quantity of cash by a mint, or by paper emissions. Should it rain millions of joes into your chimnies, on your present system of expenses, you would still have no money. It would leave the country in streams. Trifle not with serious subjects, nor spend your breath in empty wishes. Reform; economize. This is the whole of your political duty. You may reason, speculate, complain, raise mobs, spend life in railing at Congress and your rulers; but unless you import less than you export, unless you spend less than you earn, you will eternally be poor.

No. XIII

 NEW YORK, DECEMBER, 1787.

To the DISSENTING MEMBERS of the late Convention of Pennsylvania

gentlemen,

Your long and elaborate publication, assigning the reasons for your refusing to subscribe the ratification of the new Federal Constitution, has made its appearance in the public papers, and, I flatter myself, will be read throughout the United States. It will feed the flame of opposition among the weak, the wicked, the designing, and the factious; but it will make many new converts to the proposed government, and furnish the old friends of it with new weapons of defence. The very attempt to excite uneasiness and disturbance in a State, about a measure legally and constitutionally adopted, after a long and ample discussion in a convention of the people's delegates, will create suspicions of the goodness of your cause. My address to you will not be so lengthy as your publication; your arguments are few, altho your harangue is long and insidious.

You begin with telling the world, that no defect was discovered in the present confederation, till after the war. Why did you not publish the truth? You know, gentlemen, that during six years of the war, we had no confederation at all. You know that the war commenced in April, 1775, and that we had no confederation till March, 1781. You know (for some of you are men of abilities and reading) or ought to know, a principle of fear, in time of war, operates more powerfully in binding together the States which have a common interest, than all the parchment compacts on earth. Could we, then, discover the defects of our present confederation, with two years' experience only, and an enemy in our country? You know we could not.

I will not undertake to detect the falsehood of every assertion, or the fallacy of all your reasoning on each article. In the most of them the public will anticipate any thing I could say, and confute your arguments as fast as they read them. But, gentlemen, your reasoning against the new Constitution resembles that of Mr. Hume on miracles. You begin with some gratis dicta, which are denied; you assume premises which are totally false, and then reason on them with great address. Your whole reasoning, and that of all the opposers of the federal government, is built on this false principle, that the federal Legislature will be a body distinct from and independent of the people. Unless your opposition is grounded on that principle, it stands on nothing; and on any other supposition, your arguments are but declamatory nonsense.

But the principle is false. The Congress, under the proposed constitution, will have the same interest as the people; they are a part of the people; their interest is inseparable from that of the people; and this union of interest will eternally remain, while the right of election shall continue in the people. Over this right Congress will have no control: The time and manner of exercising that right are very wisely vested in Congress; otherwise a delinquent State might embarrass the measures of the Union. The safety of the public requires that the federal body should prevent any particular delinquency; but the right of election is above their control; it must remain in the people, and be exercised once in two, four or six years. A body thus organized, with thirteen Legislatures watching their measures, and several millions of jealous eyes inspecting their conduct, would not be apt to betray their constituents. Yet this is not the best ground of safety. The first and almost only principle that governs men, is interest. Love of our country is a powerful auxiliary motiv to patriotic actions; but rarely or never operates against private interest. The only requisit to secure liberty, is to connect the interest of the governors with that of the governed. Blend these interests; make them inseparable, and both are safe from voluntary invasion. How shall this union be formed? This question is answered. The union is formed by the equal principles on which the people of these States hold their property and their rights. But how shall this union of interests be perpetuated? The answer is easy; bar all perpetuities of estates; prevent any exclusiv rights; preserve all preferment dependent on the choice of the people; suffer no power to exist independent of the people or their representativs. While there exists no power in a State, which is independent of the will of the electors, the rights of the people are secure. The only barrier against tyranny, that is necessary in any State, is the election of legislators by the yeomanry of that State. Preserve that, and every privilege is safe. The legislators thus chosen to represent the people, should have all the power that the people would have, were they assembled in one body to deliberate upon public measures. The distinction between the powers of the people and of their representativs in the Legislature, is as absurd in theory, as it proves pernicious in practice. A distinction, which has already countenanced and supported one rebellion in America; has prevented many good measures; has produced many bad; has created animosities in many States, and embarrassments in all.⁴³ It has taught the people a lesson, which, if they continue to practise, will bring laws into contempt, and frequently mark our country with blood.

You object, gentlemen, to the powers vested in Congress. Permit me, to ask you, where will you limit their powers? What bounds will you prescribe? You will reply—we will reserve certain rights, which we deem invaluable, and restrain our rulers from abridging them. But, gentlemen, let me ask you, how will you define these rights? would you say, the liberty of the press shall not be restrained? Well, what is this liberty of the press? Is it an unlimited licence to publish any thing and every thing with impunity? If so, the author and printer of any treatise, however obscene and blasphemous, will be screened from punishment. You know, gentlemen, that there are books extant, so shockingly and infamously obscene and so daringly blasphemous, that no society on earth would be vindicable in suffering the publishers to pass unpunished. You certainly know that such cases have happened, and may happen again: Nay, you know that they are probable. Would not that indefinite expression, the liberty of the press, extend to the justification of every possible publication? Yes, gentlemen, you know, that under such a general license, a man who should publish a treatise to prove his Maker a knave, must be screened from legal punishment. I shudder at the thought! But the truth must not be concealed. The constitutions of several States guarantee that very license.

But if you attempt to define the liberty of the press, and ascertain what cases shall fall within that privilege, during the course of centuries, where will you begin? Or rather, where will you end? Here, gentlemen, you will be puzzled. Some publications certainly may be a breach of civil law: You will not have the effrontery to deny a truth so obvious and intuitivly evident. Admit that principle; and unless you can define precisely the cases, which are, and are not a breach of law, you have no right to say, the liberty of the press shall not be restrained; for such a license would warrant any breach of law. Rather than hazard such an abuse of privilege, is it not better to leave the right altogether with your rulers and your posterity? No attempts have ever been made by a legislativ body in America, to abridge that privilege; and in this free enlightened country, no attempts could succeed, unless the public should be convinced that an abuse of it would warrant the restriction. Should this ever be the case, you have no right to say, that a future Legislature, or that posterity shall not abridge the privilege, or punish its abuses.

But you say, that trial by jury is an unalienable right, that ought not to be trusted with our rulers. Why not? If it is such a darling privilege, will not Congress be as fond of it, as their constituents? An elevation into that council, does not render a man insensible to his privileges, nor place him beyond the necessity of securing them. A member of Congress is liable to all the operations of law, except during his attendance on public business; and should he consent to a law, annihilating any right whatever, he deprives himself, his family and estate, of the benefit resulting from that right, as well as his constituents. This circumstance alone, is a sufficient security.

But, why this outcry about juries? If the people esteem them so highly, why do they ever neglect them, and suffer the trial by them to go into disuse? In some States, Courts of Admiralty have no juries, nor Courts of Chancery at all. In the City Courts of some States, juries are rarely or never called, altho the parties may demand them; and one State, at least, has lately passed an act, empowering the parties to submit both law and fact to the court. It is found, that the judgment of a court gives as much satisfaction, as the verdict of a jury; for the court are as good judges of fact, as juries, and much better judges of law. I have no desire to abolish trials by jury, altho the original design and excellence of them, is in many cases superseded. While the people remain attached to this mode of deciding causes, I am confident, that no Congress can wrest the privilege from them.

But, gentlemen, our legal proceedings want a reform. Involved in all the mazes of perplexity, which the chicanery of lawyers could invent, in the course of five hundred years, our road to justice and redressis tedious, fatiguing and expensiv. Our judicial proceedings are capable of being simplified, and improved in almost every particular. For mercy's sake, gentlemen, do not shut the door against improvement. If the people of America, should ever spurn the shackles of opinion, and venture to leave the road, which is so overgrown with briers and thorns, as to strip a man's clothes from his back as he passes, I am certain they can devise a more easy, safe, and expeditious mode of administering the laws, than that which harasses every poor mortal, that is wretched enough to want legal justice. In States where very respectable merchants, have repeatedly told me, they had rather lose a debt of fifty pounds, than attempt to recover it by a legal process, one would think that men, who value liberty and property, would not restrain any government from suggesting a remedy for such disorders.

Another right, which you would place beyond the reach of Congress, is the writ of habeas corpus. Will you say that this right may not be suspended in any case? You dare not. If it may be suspended in any case, and the Congress are to judge of the necessity, what security have you in a declaration in its favor? You had much better say nothing upon the subject.

But you are frightened at a standing army. I beg you, gentlemen, to define a standing army. If you would refuse to giv Congress power to raise troops, to guard our frontiers, and garrison forts, or in short, to enlist men for any purpose, then we understand you; you tie the hands of your rulers, so that they cannot defend you against any invasion. This is protection, indeed! But if Congress can raise a body of troops for a year, they can raise them for a hundred years, and your declaration against standing armies can have no other effect, than to prevent Congress from denominating their troops, a standing army. You would only introduce into this country the English farce of mechanically passing an annual bill for the support of troops which are never disbanded.

You object to the indefinite power of taxation in Congress. You must then limit the exercise of that power by the sums of money to be raised; or leaving the sums indefinite, must prescribe the particular mode in which, and the articles on which the money is to be raised. But the sums cannot be ascertained, because the necessities of the States cannot be foreseen nor defined. It is beyond even your wisdom and profound knowlege, gentlemen, to ascertain the public exigencies, and reduce them to the provisions of a constitution. And if you would prescribe the mode of raising money, you will meet with equal difficulty. The different States have different modes of taxation, and I question much whether even your skill, gentlemen, could invent a uniform system that would fit easy upon every State. It must therefore be left to experiment, with a power that can correct the errors of a system, and suit it to the habits of the people. And if no uniform mode will answer this purpose, it will be in the power of Congress to lay taxes in each State, according to its particular practice.

You know that requisitions on the States are ineffectual; that they cannot be rendered effectual, but by a compulsory power in Congress; that without an efficient power to raise money, government cannot secure person, property or justice; that such power is as safely lodged in your Representativs in Congress, as it is in your Representativs in your distinct Legislatures.

You would likewise restrain Congress from requiring excessiv bail or imposing excessiv fines and unusual punishment. But unless you can, in every possible instance, previously define the words excessiv and unusual; if you leave the discretion of Congress to define them on occasion, any restriction of their power by a general indefinit expression, is a nullity—mere formal nonsense. What consummate arrogance must you possess, to presume you can now make better provision for the government of these States, during the course of ages and centuries, than the future Legislatures can, on the spur of the occasion! Yet your whole reasoning on the subject implies this arrogance, and a presumption that you have a right to legislate for posterity!

But to complete the list of unalienable rights, you would insert a clause in your declaration, that every body shall, in good weather, hunt on his own land, and catch fish in rivers that are public property. Here, gentlemen, you must have exerted the whole force of your genius! Not even the all important subject of legislating for a world, can restrain my laughter at this clause! As a supplement to that article of your bill of rights, I would suggest the following restriction:—"That Congress shall never restrain any inhabitant of America from eating and drinking, at seasonable times, or prevent his lying on his left side, in a long winter's night, or even on his back, when he is fatigued by lying on his right." This article is of just as much consequence as the eighth clause of your proposed bill of rights.

But to be more serious, gentlemen, you must have had in idea the forest laws in Europe, when you inserted that article; for no circumstance that ever took place in America, could have suggested the thought of a declaration in favor of hunting and fishing. Will you forever persist in error? Do you not reflect that the state of property in America, is directly the reverse of what it is in Europe? Do you not consider, that the forest laws in Europe originated in feudal tyranny, of which not a trace is to be found in America? Do you not know that in this country almost every farmer is lord of his own soil? That instead of suffering under the oppression of a monarch and nobles, a class of haughty masters, totally independent of the people, almost every man in America is a lord himself, enjoying his property in fee? Where then the necessity of laws to secure hunting and fishing? You may just as well ask for a clause, giving license for every man to till his own land, or milk his own cows. The barons in Europe procured forest laws to secure the right of hunting on their own land, from the intrusion of those who had no property in lands. But the distribution of land in America, not only supersedes the necessity of any laws upon this subject, but renders them absolutely trifling. The same laws which secure the property in land, secure to the owner the right of using it as he pleases.

But you are frightened at the prospect of a consolidation of the States. I differ from you very widely. I am afraid, after all our attempts to unite the States, that contending interests, and the pride of State sovereignties, will either prevent our union, or render our federal government weak, slow and inefficient. The danger is all on this side. If any thing under heaven now endangers our liberties and independence, it is that single circumstance.

You harp upon that clause of the new constitution, which declares, that the laws of the United States, &c. shall be the supreme law of the land; when you know that the powers of the Congress are defined, to extend only to those matters which are in their nature and effects, general. You know, the Congress cannot meddle with the internal police of any State, or abridge its sovereignty. And you know, at the same time, that in all general concerns, the laws of Congress must be supreme, or they must be nothing.