Page:The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 Volume 3.djvu/520



CCCLXXXVIII.

Decr. 1831.

I return with my thanks the printed speech of Col. Hayne on the 4th. of July last. It is blotted with many strange errors, some of a kind not to have been looked for from a mind like that of the author.…

But I find that by a sweeping charge, my inconsistency is extended to “my opinions on almost every important question which has divided the public into parties”. In supporting this charge, an appeal is made to “Yates’ secret Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787”, as proving that I originally entertained opinions adverse to the Rights of the States; and to the writings of Col. Taylor of Caroline, as proving that I was in that convention, “an advocate for a consolidated national Government.

Of the Debates, it is certain that they abound in errors, some of them very material in relation to myself. Of the passages quoted, it may be remarked that they do not warrant the inference drawn from them. They import “that I was disposed to give Congress a power to repeal State laws”, and “that the States ought to be ''placed under the controul of the Genl. Government,'' at least as much as they were formerly when under the British King & Parliament”.

The obvious necessity of a controul on the laws of the States, so far as they might violate the Constn. & laws of the U.S. left no option but as to the mode. The modes presenting themselves, were 1. a Veto on the passage of the State laws. 2. a Congressional repeal of them, 3 a Judicial annulment of them. The first tho extensively favord, at the outset, was found on discussion, liable to insuperable objections, arising from the extent of Country, and the multiplicity of State laws. The second was not free from such as gave a preference to the third as now provided by the Constitution. The opinion that the States ought to be placed not less under the Govt. of the U.S. than they were under that of G.B, can provoke no censure from those who approve the Constitution as it stands with powers exceeding those ever allowed by the Colonies to G.B., particularly the vital power of taxation, which is so indefinitely vested in Congs. and to the claim of which by G.B. a bloody war, and final separation was preferred.

The author of the “Secret Debates”, tho highly respectable in his general character, was the representative of the portion of the State of New York, which was strenuously opposed to the object of the Convention, and was himself a zealous partizan. His notes