tribunal, since the appellate jurisdiction extends to criminal as well as to civil cases.

And in all those cases where the general government has jurisdiction in civil questions, the proposed constitution not only makes no provision for the trial by jury in the first instance, but by its appellate jurisdiction absolutely takes away that inestimable privilege, since it expressly declares the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction both as to law and fact. Should therefore a jury be adopted in the inferior court, it would only be a needless expence, since on an appeal the determination of that jury, even on questions of fact, however honest and upright, is to be of no possible effect-the supreme court is to take up all questions of fact-to examine the evidence relative thereto-to decide upon them in the same manner as if they had never been tried by a jury-nor is trial by jury secured in criminal cases. It is true, that in the first instance, in the inferior court, the trial is to be by jury; in this and in this only, is the difference between criminal and civil cases. But, sir, the appellate jurisdiction extends, as I have observed, to cases criminal as well as to civil, and on the appeal the court is to decide not only on the law but on the fact. If, therefore, even in criminal cases, the general government is not satisfied with the verdict of the jury, its officer may remove the prosecution to the supreme court, and there the verdict of the jury is to be of no effect, but the judges of this court are to decide upon the fact as well as the law, the same as in civil cases.

Thus, sir,jury trials, which have ever been the boast of the English constitution, which have been by our several state constitutions so cautiously secured to us-jury trials which have so long been considered the surest barrier against arbitrary power, and the palladium of liberty -with the loss of which the loss of our freedom may be dated, are taken away by the proposed form of government, not only in a great variety of questions between in

dividual and individual, but in every case whether civil or criminal arising under the laws of the United States, or the execution of those laws. It is taken away in those very cases where of all others it is most essential for our liberty, to have it sacredly guarded and preserved, in every case, whether civil or criminal, between government and its officers on the one part, and the subject or citizen on the other. Nor was this the effect of inattention, nor did it arise from any real difficulty in establishing and securing jury trials by the proposed constitution, if the convention had wished so to do: but the same reason influenced here as in the case of the establishment of inferior courts; as they could not trust state judges, so would they not confide in state juries. They alledged that the general government and the state governments would always be at variance; that the citizens of the different states would enter into the views and interests of their respective states, and therefore ought not to be trusted in determining causes in which the general government was any way interested, without giving the general government an opportunity, if it disapproved the verdict of the jury, to appeal, and to have the facts examined into again and decided upon by its own judges, on whom it was thought a reliance might be had by the general government, they being appointed under its authority.

Thus, sir, in consequence of this appellate jurisdiction and its extension to facts as well as to law, every arbitrary act of the general government, and every oppression of all those variety of officers appointed under its authority for the collection of taxes, duties, impost, excise, and other purposes, must be submitted to by the individual, or must be opposed with little prospect of success, and almost a certain prospect of ruin, at least in those cases where the middle and common class of citizens are interested: Since to avoid that oppression, or to obtain redress, the application must be made to one of the courts

of the United States-by good fortune should this application be in the first instance attended with success, and should damages be recovered equivalent to the injury sustained, an appeal lies to the supreme court, in which case the citizen must at once give up his cause, or he must attend to it at the distance of perhaps more than a thousand miles from the place of his residence, and must take measures to procure before that court on the appeal all the evidence necessary to support his action, which even if ultimately prosperous must be attended with a loss of time, a neglect of business, and an expense which will be greater than the original grievance, and to which men in moderate circumstances would be utterly unequal.

By the third section of this article, it is declared, that treason against the United States, shall consist in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort.

By the principles of the American revolution arbitrary power may and ought to be resisted even by arms if necessary The time may come when it shall be the duty of a state, in order to preserve itself from the oppression of the general government, to have recourse to the sword -In which case the proposed form of government declares, that the state and every of its citizens who act under its authority, are guilty of a direct act of treason; reducing by this provision the different states to this alternative, that they must tamely and passively yield to despotism, or their citizens must oppose it at the hazard of the halter if unsuccessful-and reducing the citizens of the state which shall take arms, to a situation in which they must be exposed to punishment, let them act as they will, since if they obey the authority of their state government, they will be guilty of treason against the United Statesif they join the general government they will be guilty of treason against their own state.

L

To save the citizens of the respective states from this disagreeable dilemma, and to secure them from being punishable as traitors to the United States, when acting expressly in obedience to the authority of their own state, I wished to have obtained as an amendment to the third section of this article the following clause: "Provided, that no act or acts done by one or more of the states against the United States, or by any citizen of any one of the United States under the authority of one or more of the said states, shall be deemned treason or punished as such; but in case of war being levied by one or more of the states against the United States, the conduct of each party towards the other, and their adherents respectively, shall be regulated by the laws of war and of nations."

But this provision was not adopted, being too much opposed to the great object of many of the leading members of the convention, which was by all means to leave the states, at the mercy of the general government, since they could not succeed in their immediate and entire abolition.

By the third section of the fourth article, no new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state, without the consent of the legislature of such state.

There are a number of states which are so circumstanced, with respect to themselves and to the other states, that every principle of justice and sound policy require their dismemberment or division into smaller states.Massachusetts is divided into two districts, totally separated from each other by the state of New-Hampshire, on the north-east side of which lies the provinces of Maine and Sagadobock, more extensive in point of territory, but less populous than old Massachusetts, which lies on the other side of New-Hampshire. No person can cast his eye on the map of that state but he must in a mo

ment admit, that every argument drawn from convenience, interest, and justice, require that the provinces of Maine and Sagadohock should be erected into a new state, and that they should not be compelled to remain connected with old Massachusetts under all the inconveniences of their situation.

The state of Georgia is larger in extent than the whole island of Great Britain, extending from its sea coast to the Mississippi, a distance of eight hundred miles or more; its breadth for the most part, about three hundred miles. The states of North Carolina and Virginia in the same manner reach from the sea coast unto the Mississippi.

The hardship, the inconvenience, and the injustice of compelling the inhabitants of those states who may dwell on the western side of the mountains and along the Ohio and Mississippi rivers to remain connected with the inhabitants of those states respectively, on the atlantic side of the mountains, and subject to the same state goverments, would be such, as would, in my opinion, justify even recourse to arms, to free themselves from, and to shake off, so ignominious a yoke.

This representation was made in convention, and it was further urged, that the territory of these states were too large, and that the inhabitants thereof would be too much disconnected for a republican government to extend to them its benefits, which is only suited to a small and compact territory: That a regard also for the peace and safety of the union, ought to excite a desire that those states should become in time divided into separate states, since when their population should become proportioned in any degree to their territory, they would from their strength and power become dangerous members of a federal government. It was further said, that if the general government was not by its constitution to interfere, the inconvenience would soon remedy itself, for that as the