|
To the Citizens of the State of New-York.
I flatter myself that my last address established this position, that to reduce the Thirteen States into
one government, would prove the destruction of your liberties.
But lest this truth should be doubted by some, I will now proceed to consider its merits.
Though it should be admitted, that the argument[s] against reducing all the states into one consolidated
government, are not sufficient fully to establish this point; yet they will, at least, justify this conclusion,
that in forming a constitution for such a country, great care should be taken to limit and define its
powers, adjust its parts, and guard against an abuse of authority. How far attention has been paid to
these objects, shall be the subject of future enquiry. When a building is to be erected which is intended
to stand for ages, the foundation should be firmly laid. The constitution proposed to your acceptance,
is designed not for yourselves alone, but for generations yet unborn. The principles, therefore, upon
which the social compact is founded, ought to have been clearly and precisely stated, and the most express
and full declaration of rights to have been made—But on this subject there is almost an entire silence.
If we may collect the sentiments of the people of America, from their own most solemn declarations, they
hold this truth as self evident, that all men are by nature free. No one man, therefore, or any class
of men, have a right, by the law of nature, or of God, to assume or exercise authority over their fellows.
The origin of society then is to be sought, not in any natural right which one man has to exercise authority
over another, but in the united consent of those who associate. The mutual wants of men, at first dictated
the propriety of forming societies; and when they were established, protection and defence pointed out
the necessity of instituting government. In a state of nature every individual pursues his own interest;
in this pursuit it frequently happened, that the possessions or enjoyments of one were sacrificed to the
views and designs of another; thus the weak were a prey to the strong, the simple and unwary were subject
to impositions from those who were more crafty and designing. In this state of things, every individual
was insecure; common interest therefore directed, that government should be established, in which the
force of the whole community should be collected, and under such directions, as to protect and defend
every one who composed it. The common good, therefore, is the end of civil government, and common consent,
the foundation on which it is established. To effect this end, it was necessary that a certain portion
of natural liberty should be surrendered, in order, that what remained should be preserved: how great
a proportion of natural freedom is necessary to be yielded by individuals, when they submit to government,
I shall not now enquire. So much, however, must be given up, as will be sufficient to enable those, to
whom the administration of the government is committed, to establish laws for the promoting of the happiness
of the community, and to carry those laws into effect. But it is not necessary, for this purpose, that
individuals should relinquish all their natural rights. Some are of such a nature that they cannot be
surrendered. Of this kind are the rights of conscience, the right of enjoying and defending life, etc.
Others are not necessary to be resigned, in order to attain the end for which government is instituted,
these therefore ought not to be given up. To surrender them, would counteract the very end of government,
to wit, the common good. From these observations it appears, that in forming a government on its true
principles, the foundation should be laid in the manner I before stated, by expressly reserving to the
people such of their essential natural rights, as are not necessary to be parted with. The same reasons
which at first introduced mankind to associate and institute government, will operate to influence them
to observe this precaution. If they had been disposed to conform themselves to the rule of immutable righteousness,
government would not have been requisite. It was because one part exercised fraud, oppression, and violence
on the other, that men came together, and agreed that certain rules should be formed, to regulate the
conduct of all, and the power of the whole community lodged in the hands of rulers to enforce an obedience
to them. But rulers have the same propensities as other men; they are as likely to use the power with
which they are vested for private purposes, and to the injury and oppression of those over whom they are
placed, as individuals in a state of nature are to injure and oppress one another. It is therefore as
proper that bounds should be set to their authority, as that government should have at first been instituted
to restrain private injuries.
This principle, which seems so evidently founded in the reason and nature of things, is confirmed by universal
experience. Those who have governed, have been found in all ages ever active to enlarge their powers and
abridge the public liberty. This has induced the people in all countries, where any sense of freedom remained,
to fix barriers against the encroachments of their rulers. The country from which we have derived our
origin, is an eminent example of this. Their magna charts and bill of rights have long been the boast,
as well as the security, of that nation. I need say no more, I presume, to an American, than, that this
principle is a fundamental one, in all the constitutions of our own states; there is not one of them but
what is either founded on a declaration or bill of rights, or has certain express reservation of rights
interwoven in the body of them. From this is appears, that at a time when the pulse of liberty beat high
and when an appeal was made to the people to form constitutions for the government of themselves, it was
their universal sense, that such declarations should make a part of their frames of government. It is
therefore the more astonishing, that this grand security, to the rights of the people, is not to be found
in this constitution. It has been said, in answer to this objection, that such declaration[s] of rights,
however requisite they might be in the constitutions of the states, are not necessary in the general constitution,
because, "in the former case, everything which is not reserved is given, but in the latter the reverse
of the proposition prevails, and every thing which is not given is reserved." It requires but little
attention to discover, that this mode of reasoning is rather specious than solid. The powers, rights,
and authority, granted to the general government by this constitution, are as complete, with respect to
every object to which they extend, as that of any state government —It reaches to every thing which concerns
human happiness—Life, liberty, and property, are under its control. There is the same reason, therefore,
that the exercise of power, in this case, should be restrained within proper limits, as in that of the
state governments. To set this matter in a clear light, permit me to instance some of the articles of
the bills of rights of the individual states, and apply them to the case in question.
|
