In a debate on the 21st of October, 1775, respecting the expediency of opening the American ports for foreign trade, Mr. Wythe said :

"Why should not America have a navy? No maritime power, near the sea-coast, can be safe without it. It is no chimera. The Romans suddenly built one in their Carthaginian War. Why may we not lay a foundation for it? We abound with firs, iron ore, tar, pitch, turpentine; we have all the materials for the construction of a navy. No country exceeds us in felicity of climate, or fertility of soil. America is one of the wings on which the British eagle has soared to the skies. I am sanguine and enthusiastical enough to wish and to hope that it will be sung, - America inter nubila condit."

In the close of the same speech, he pronounced, with a prophet's fire: "Our petition [to the King] may be declared to be received graciously, and promised to be laid before Parliament; but we can expect no success from it. Have they ever condescended to take notice of you? Rapine, depopulation, burning, murder. Turn your eyes to Concord, Lexington, Charleston, Bristol, New York; there you see the character of Ministry and Parliament."

In another debate on the 16th of January, 1776, urging the importance of forming treaties of commerce with foreign powers, he used this manly and noble language:

"But other things are to be considered, before such a measure is adopted. In what character shall we treat? As subjects of Great Britain? As rebels? Why should we be so fond of calling ourselves dutiful subjects? If we should offer our trade to the court of France, would they take notice of it, any more than if Bristol or Liverpool should offer theirs, while we profess to be subjects? No: we must declare ourselves a free people." See Works of John Adams, vol. 11. pp. 479, 480, and 486.

CHAPTER XXVIII.

Mr. Madison's Opinions respecting Nature of Reforms in Federal System - His Letter to General Washington on the Subject-Congressional Negative on State Laws - Power of Judiciary to declare null and void Laws contrary to the Constitution, then unsettled - History of the Question - Early Decisions of the Courts of Virginia upon it — Opinions of Judges Pendleton and Wythe - Meeting of Federal Convention - Washington elected President of the Convention - Characters of Delegates from the Several States-Delegation of Pennsylvania, Franklin, Morris, Wilson, &c. &c.- Of New Hampshire, Langdon and Gilman Of Massachusetts, Gerry, King, &c. &c.—Of Connecticut, Johnson, Sherman, and Ellsworth - Of New York, Hamilton, Yates, and Lansing-Of New Jersey, Livingston, Patterson, &c. &c. - Of Delaware, Dickinson, Read, &c. &c.— Of Maryland, M‘Henry, Carroll, Mercer, &c. &c. Of North Carolina, Alexander Martin, Davie, Williamson, &c. &c. Of South Carolina, Rutledge, the PinckOf Georgia, Few, Baldwin, &c. - Tribute of Mr. Madison to Character of the Convention-He prepares to report their Proceedings and Debates.

neys, &c..

As the time approached for the meeting of the convention, Mr. Madison applied his thoughts to preparing a definite sketch of the reforms to be proposed to that body. Virginia, having been the first of the States to move in the matter, he supposed that her delegation would be naturally looked to for some initiatory proposition which might serve as the basis of the deliberations of the convention. His ideas of the nature and extent of the reforms

required were first communicated in a letter of the 19th of March, 1787, to Mr. Jefferson, then in Paris, with whom he kept up, during the whole period of his absence from the country, an unreserved correspondence on all the great questions of American policy. The same ideas were embodied, in a subsequent letter of the 8th of April to Governor Randolph, and repeated, with more precision and fulness of development, in a letter addressed to General Washington on the 16th of April, 1787.

The outline contained in these letters is believed, to use the language of Mr. Madison himself,1 to be "the earliest sketch on paper of a constitutional government for the Union (organized into the regular departments, with physical means operating on individuals), to be sanctioned by the people of the States, acting in their original and sovereign character." It deserves, therefore, by every title, to be brought to the notice of the reader. We give it from the letter to General Washington, as being the latest, and perhaps most carefully considered, expression of the views of the writer, though all of the three versions are essentially the same.

"Having," he said, "been lately led to revolve the subject which is to undergo the discussion of the convention, and formed in my mind some outlines of a new system, I take the liberty of submitting them, without apology, to your eye. Considering that an individual independence of

1 Madison Debates and Correspondence, vol. 11. p. 714.

the States is totally irreconcilable with their aggregate sovereignty, and that a consolidation of the whole into one simple republic would be as inexpedient as it is unattainable, I have sought for some middle ground, which may at once support a due supremacy of the national authority, and not exclude the local authorities, wherever they may be subordinately useful.

"I would propose, as the groundwork, that a change be made in the principle of representation. According to the present form of the Union, in which the intervention of the States is, in all great cases, necessary to effectuate the measures of Congress, an equality of suffrage does not destroy the inequality of importance in the several members. No one will deny that Virginia and Massachusetts have more weight and influence, both within and without Congress, than Delaware or Rhode Island. Under a system which would operate, in many essential points, without the intervention of the State legislatures, the case would be materially altered. A vote in the national councils from Delaware would then have the same effect and value as one from the largest State in the Union...

"I would propose next, that, in addition to the present Federal powers, the national government should be armed with positive and complete authority, in all cases which require uniformity; such as the regulation of trade (including the right of taxing both exports and imports), the

fixing of the terms and forms of naturalization, &c. &c.

“Over and above this positive power, a negative in all cases whatever on the legislative acts of the States, as heretofore exercised by the kingly prerogative, appears to me to be absolutely necessary, and to be the least possible encroachment on the State jurisdictions. Without this defensive power, every possible power that can be given on paper [to the national authority] will be evaded and defeated. The States will continue to invade the national jurisdiction, to violate treaties and the law of nations, and to harass each other with rival and spiteful measures, dictated by mistaken views of interest. Another happy effect of this prerogative would be its control over the internal vicissitudes of State policy, and the aggressions of interested majorities on the rights of minorities and individuals. . . . There has not been any moment since the peace, at which the representatives of the Union would have given an assent to paper money, or any other measures of a kindred nature.

"The national supremacy ought also to be extended, as I conceive, to the judiciary department. If those who are to expound and apply the laws are connected by their interests and their oaths with the particular States wholly, and not with the Union, the participation of the Union in the making of the laws may be possibly rendered unavailing. It seems, at least, necessary that the oaths of the judges should include a fidelity to