I Think It Absolutely Necessary That The

[the Proposed Establishment] Will Have A . . . Tendency To Banish Our Citizens. . . . To Superadd A Fresh Motive To Emigration By Revoking The Liberty Which They Now Enjoy, Would Be The Same Species Of Folly Which Has Dishonoured And Depopulated Flourishing Kingdoms.

Enlightened Statesmen Will Not Always Be At The Helm.

How Could A Readiness For War In Time Of Peace Be Safely Prohibited, Unless We Could Prohibit, In Like Manner, The Preparations And Establishments Of Every Hostile Nation? The Means Of Security Can Only Be Regulated By The Means And The Danger Of Attack. They Will, In Fact, Be Ever Determined By These Rules, And By No Others . . . . If One Nation Maintains Constantly A Disciplined Army, Ready For Service Of Ambition Or Revenge, It Obliges The Most Pacific Nations Who May Be Within The Reach Of Its Enterprises To Take Corresponding Precautions.

The Proposed Constitution, Therefore, Even When Tested By The Rules Laid Down By Its Antagonists, Is, In Strictness, Neither A National Nor A Federal Constitution; But A Composition Of Both. In Its Foundation It Is Federal, Not National; In The Sources From Which The Ordinary Powers Of The Government Are Drawn, It Is Partly Federal, And Partly National; In The Operation Of These Powers, It Is National, Not Federal; In The Extent Of Them Again, It Is Federal, Not National; And Finally, In The Authoritative Mode Of Introducing Amendments, It Is Neither Wholly Federal, Nor Wholly National.

That The Foundation Of Our National Policy Should Be Laid In Private Morality. If Individuals Be Not Influenced By Moral Principles, It Is In Vain To Look For Public Virtue; It Is, Therefore, The Duty Of Legislators To Enforce, Both By Precept And Example, The Utility, As Well As The Necessity, Of A Strict Adherence To The Rules Of Distributive Justice.