The sun., 1882-06-18

| moyod that ,ho Glance ha postponod Tho
motion was agreed to mem. con. 1t turned out in
the subsequent deliberations that the Conven-
| tion was pretty evenly divided between the ad-
| hcrents of tho New Jersey project for loose
| confederation which should derive its revenue
| from acquisitions on tho States. and tho sup
| portcrs o. the national plan under which taxes
| would bc levied directly on individuals and
collected by means OF Federal courts. The
main argument against the New Jersey
scheme was that 1t might involve the
| coercion Of States. an expedent for which
Madison, Hamilton. and tho advocates
OF tho plan which ultimately prevailed cX-
pressed q kind OF horror Thus Randolph.
who supported tho national features OF the
Constitution. and. though he wavered for
a time. ultimately defended the whole in
strument I'm the Virginia state Convention,
said on juno 16 1857, There are but two
modes by which the end OF n general Gov
ernment can be attained; the first by coercion.
as proposed by Mr.. Pattersons plan, the sec
ond by legislation bearing on individuals as
proposed by the other plan" Coercion he pro-
nounced "impracticable. expensive. cruel to
individuals. Ii tended also to habtuate the in
struments of ii to shed the blood and riot in
the spoils OF their fellow citizens, and conse-
qucntly train them up for the service OF am
btion. We must resort therefore, to a national
legislation over individuals"
Col Mason of Virginia who took an active
share in the advocacy of the national project
and whose ultimate hostility to the Constitu-
ton was aroused by the power vested in Con-
gross of missing a navigation net Inv n majority
Of one, spoke to much the same effect 1T was
acknowledged. he said by Mr.. Patterson that
the New Jersey plan could not be enforced
without military coercion. Does be consider
the force of this CONCESSIONS The most iarrine
elements of nature fire and water themselves
arc not more INCOMPATIBLE than such
n mixture Of civil liberty md military
execution. Will the militia march from
one State into another in order to col
lect the arrears of taxes from the dclinauent
members of the republic g? viii the Congress
maintain an army for this purposeP VIII not
the citizens OF the invaded States assist one
another till they rise as one man and shake Off
the Union altogether?" Again, Madison.
arguing for the pronrinty Of giving the Federal
Legislature a negative on State statutes. ex-
pressed fear that without such a precaution
there would be no remedy except through an
appeal to coercion. which he deemed fruitless
and improper. Was such remedy eligible.
was 1t practicable? Could tho national re-
sources. If eXerted to the utmost. enforce II
national decree against Massachusetts,. apetted.
perhaps by several OF her neighbors 1t would
not be possible. Any government for the
United States formed on the supposed prac-
ticability OF using force against the unconsti-
tutonal proceedings OF the States. would prove
as visionary and fallacious as the govern
ment OF Congress under the articles OF
confederation. And Hamilton himself.
speaking on June IL. insisted that the
national plan, as opposed to the New
Jersey plan. contemplated coercion OF laws
instead Of the coercion OF arms. How"
he asks. can force be eNertcd on States col
lectlvelyr 1t Is Impossible: 1t amounts to a
war between the parties. Foreign powers. also.
will not be idle spectators. They would inter-
fere. the confusion would increase. and dis
solution OF the Union would ensue." Such are
some OF the declarations regarding coercion
which were made in the Federal Convention.
not, be it observed. by the opponents OF our pres
ent Constitution. but by the very men who in
sisted upon giving strong powers 10 the central
Government
But it may be imagined that tho views
of Hamilton. for instance. on this point
were modified during the interval between
the framing Of the Constitution and the SUBJ
mission OF it for ratification to the State Con-
vention of New York. Let us see what he said
in the latter body 1T has been observed"
said Hamilton that to cocrce the States is
one of the maddcst projects that was ever de-
yised. A failure Of compliance will never be
confined TO n single State: this being the case
can VIC suppose it wise to hazard civil war?
Suppose Massachusetts, or any large State
should refuse. and Congress should attempt to
compel them would they not have influence to
procure assistance. especially from those States
which are In the same situation as themselves?
What picture does this idea present to our view?
| A omplying State at war with non-complying
State. Congress marching the troops OF one State
into the bosom OF another. this State collect
ing auxiliaries and forming perhaps. ma
jority against its Federal head. Here is ma
ton at war with itself. Can any reasonable
man be well disposed toward the Government
which makes war and carnage the only means
OF supporting itself, a Government that can
cxlst only by the sword = Ana again; Can
we believe that one state VIII ever sniior itself
10 Do used as an instrument OF coercion Ihe
thlhG Is u dreah. IL ID lihposslDe' Iheh we
are brought To thls dilemma either Federal
standing army Ia 10 enforce reiulsltlons or the
Federal treasury Is lett without supplies, what.