The Cadiz sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1864-1911, 1864-07-27

| held under the auspices of the British Coy
ernment. The delegated unanimously de-
clarcd in favor of Federal Union, and
adopted a scheme of confederation, prepar
ed by Franklin. 1t was diSapproved BY the
mother Government and by every provincial
Assembly. The encroachments of the
| Crown reused the colonies again to the ne
cessity of Union In l174 they sent dele
gates to Philadelphia. They were sent for
! consultation and advise. They exhausted
their power in doing that. Their successors
| met in l77j 1t was the revolutionary Con
| gress 1t was that Congress whose State
/ papers Lord Chatham declared to he unSur-
passed in the history OF diplomacy. Their
/ authority was to take counsel; their esisa-
! ton was recommendation. They sat for
| year and then they declared that the united
! colonies were free and independent State
4 not State--but each a free and indepcn-
| dent State: and to maintain this declaration
| they pledged to each other their lives,
their fortunes, and their sacred honor. =
| ] his declaration converted colonies into IN
dependent States, whose sole selection TO
! each other would thenceforth depend upon
| their own will .'... a. . ....
On the same day the Articles of Confcd-
Grafton were proposed. They were adopted
by the first State IN July, lI7S, by the last
in 81. We have been told BY one high in
authority thar the States were never out OF
the Union. What was Their condition be-
tween July, l776, and July rs? They were
independent States cooperating, acting in
unison, uniting their armies for their com
mon defense, There were-Ito defined rela-
tons; no fixed duties, no prescribed obhga-
| tions There was no treaty, DO compact, no
contract. Some of them were ready to en-
ter confederation, some had authorized their
delegates to agree to and sign articles; but
this had not been DONE and until it was done
the cooperation was purely voluntary, and
each State was the sole Judge Of the extent
and character Of its cooperation. The pres
sure of war ceased the Articles of Conled-
Grafton were disregaided the Union was
fast going to pieces The Convention which
framed the Constitution met The student
of political history will find much to interest
lin. The men OF this day would find food
for reflection in history OF parties and men
| il that Convention. Randolp ph and Madison
of Vii eiuia, Iinckney OF South Carolina,
scarcely less than Hamilton, We're advocates
of strong consolidated govtrnmant OPP
pressed by sense of the insufilciency OF
the power Of the Confederation Of which
they each had large experience, they sought
a remedy in centlaiiZation They were CIT
izens Of large States and large States were
safe by reason of their numbers and wealth
The delegates from the small States were
opposed to consolidation. New Hampshire,
| Connecticut New Jersey, Delaware We're
the friends Of confederation | have not
time to trace the action OF the Convention.
| will content myself with one or two par
ticuars as Illustrations of the spirit Of the
members and of the conclusions which
were attained. ... #.. ..f-+
Mr. Hamilton proposed that the Govern
ors OF the States should be appointed by the
General Government. Mr. Pinckney de-
clared himself warmly in favor of this plan,
and desired in addition to give the Govern
ors control over State laws. It met appa-
lently with little favor, however, and was
not passed,
The power of the national Legislature to
negative the laws Of the States elected much
discussion. Mr. Randolph proposed that
the power should extend to all laws con
travening in the opinion of the national leg
islature, the articles Of Union or any treaty
subsisting under the authority Of the T.
Mon Mr. Charles Pinckney proposed
that it should extend to revise the laws OF
the several States that may be supposed to
infringe the powers exclusively delegated by
the Constitution to Congress-, and to mega
tive and annul such as do. Z" MIR. Charles
Cotesworth pnckney moved, 'that the ma
tional Legislature should have authority to
negative all laws which they should Judge to
be improper" Mr.. Madison seconded the
motion. H could not but regard on indie
finite power to negative legislature acts of
the States as absolutely necessary to a per-
feet system" The debate was warm. Mr.
l finckneys motion was rcjected-Masst-
chlHetts Pennsylvania and Virginia only vo-
ting for it. And the proposition Of Mr.
handohh wa, also rejected Mas sachusetts,
and Virginia alone voting for it, Madison
Papers 732. 735, lllG.) 1t was in this de-
i, bate that Mr. Madison said:
SHOULD no such prccaution be taken. the
only remedy would be an appeal to coeltion.
Was such remedy eligible? Was it prac-
ticable? Could the national resources, if
exercse ed to, the utmost, enforce a uatiohal
decree against Massachusetts,. ahetted, per
haps, by several of, her neghbors? 1t
: would rot be possible. Any government
for the United States, folnod on the sup
nosed rlacticaLilitv of nsirr force against
the Unconstitutional proceedings OF the
4 states, woild prove as visionary as the
government of Congress. --4ladisoa Iu-
pe,,s, So
And on the question whether any mega
tive Of any kind on State laws should lie
given. the vote stood New Hampshire,
PENNSYLVANIA. Delaware, MARYLAND and Viz
ginia in favor of. ana Massachusetts. Con
nectieut' New Jersey. North Carolina.
South Carolina. and Georgia against it..
Madison PAPERS. I4l2. tIj 81
:, The rule of suffrage in the national Ieeis-
lature was so difficult of adjustment as to
leonard the con. .inuance OF the Convention.
The contest was between those who insisted
4 on an equality of votes as in the Confedera-
ton. and those who desire to apportion the
/. ,rotns oncn,l;ro r., rt,n,hors' on iotharv;sn