Very little more power is granted to the president of the United States, by the above section, than what is vested in the governours of the different states. The propriety of vesting such powers in a supreme executive cannot be doubted. What would it signify to appoint an executive officer, and immediately after to make laws which would be a barrier to the execution of his commission?

It would answer the same end that the nominal power which is vested in the different states answers, that is, it would answer the end of paying for the support of a shaddow, without reaping the benefit of the substance.

It is certainly requisite that proper powers should be vested in an executive (and certainly no more than necessary powers are vested in the executive of the United States by the new constitution) or else the establishment of such a branch is needless.

Section 4, of article II. says, The president, vice-president, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.—Thus we see that no office, however exalted, can protect the miscreant, who dares invade the liberties of his country, or countenance in his crimes the impious villain who sacrilegiously attempts to trample upon the rights of freemen.

Who will be absurd enough to affirm, that the section alluded to, does not sufficiently prove that the federal convention have formed a government which provides that we shall be ruled by laws and not by men? None, surely, but an anti-federalist—and from them falsehood receives constant homage; for it is on the basis of falsehood and the summit of ignorance, that all opposition to the federal government is founded.

Section 1, of article III. provides, That the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferiour courts as Congress may from time to time appoint.—It has been asserted, that a federal court would be an engine of partiality in the government, a source of oppression and injustice to the poorer part of the community; but how far consistency influenced the conduct of the authors of such assertions, the publick must determine. The anti-federalists have said, that if a [pg 040] cause should come before one of state judicial courts, and judgment be given against the person who possessed most interest, that he would immediately appeal to the federal court, whose residence would be at the seat of government, and consequently at so great a distance that an inhabitant of the state of Georgia or New-Hampshire, if he was in low circumstances, would not be able to carry his cause before the federal court, and would, therefore, be obliged to give it up to his wealthier antagonist. The glaring improbability with which such insinuations abound, must be obvious to every one.

Can it be supposed, that any person would be so inconsistent, after a cause was given against him, in a court where judges presided whose characters, as honest and just men, were unrivalled, as to attempt to have the cause re-heard before the federal court?

Indeed if such a thing was to take place, the man in low circumstances would have nothing to fear, as the payment of all charges would fall upon the person who lost the cause, and there is not the shadow of a doubt, with respect to the person's losing the cause, who had lost it before in a court of justice in either of the states.

In regard to the equal administration of justice in all the states, a rattle brained anti-federalist, in the last Mass. Gazette, under the signature of Agrippa,14 has asserted, that the inequality of the administration of justice throughout the states, was a favourite argument in support of the new constitution—an assertion founded on as impudent and barefaced a falsehood as ever was uttered, for the very reverse is the case. The equality of the administration of justice in the different states, has ever been dwelt upon as recommendatory of the new plan of government. I am induced to think that Agrippa is non compos, and this might proceed from his close application to study, while the library of a celebrated university was under his care15—he seems to be one of those whom Pope describes when he says,

I hope my readers will forgive this digression, when they consider [pg 041] that such scandalous lies, absurdities, and misrepresentations as the productions of Agrippa, that political Quixote, abound with, may have a tendency to prejudice the minds of the misinformed against the new constitution, unless they are properly noticed.

Section 2, of Article III. provides, among other things, that the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the crime shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places, as Congress may by law have directed. It has been frequently asserted that the new constitution deprived the subject of the right of trial by jury; on what grounds such an assertion could be founded, is to me a mystery; for the constitution expressly says, that the trial shall be by jury, except in cases of impeachment. In our own state, if a civil officer is impeached he will not be tried by a jury, but by that branch of our legislature styled the senate. Tired, no doubt, with a repetition of arguments, upon parts of the constitution which did not appear quite plain till investigated and rightly construed, the anti-federalists have taken upon them to assert things which the proposed system does not afford them the least grounds for. Presumptuous, indeed, must they be in the highest degree, if they suppose any will be so blind as to listen to the most palpable falsehoods, uttered by them. Their conduct seems to evince, that they harbour sentiments similar to those of the Romish priests, in countries where the common people have scarcely any knowledge of things wherein their interests are insuperably connected, and imbibe their principles wholly from what the priests think proper to inform them. But such artifices will not avail to practice upon the inhabitants of America; for here, almost all have some knowledge of government, derived from their own study and experience; and very few are so stupidly ignorant as to believe all that is circulated by minions and miscreants.

Section 3, of article III. provides, that Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except [pg 042] during the life of the person attainted.—This section is truly republican in every sense of the expression, and is of itself fully adequate to proving that the members of the federal convention were actuated by principles the most liberal and free—this single section alone is sufficient to enroll their proceedings on the records of immortal fame.

Contrast this section with the laws of England, in regard to treason, and, notwithstanding the boasted rights of the subject in that isle, we shall find our own in this, as well as almost every other particular, far to exceed them.

Section 1, of article IV. says, full faith and credit shall be given in each state, to the publick acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state. The benefit to be derived from such a regulation must be great, especially to those who are sometimes obliged to have recourse to law, for the settlement of their affairs.

Section 2, of article IV. provides, that the citizens of each state shall be intitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. This section must also be a source of much advantage to the inhabitants of the different states, who may have business to transact in various parts of the continent, as being equally intitled to the rights of citizenship in one as well as another.

They will find less difficulty in pursuing their various concerns than if it were otherwise.

In the same article, section 3, it is provided, That new states may be admitted into the Union; but no new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state, nor any states be formed by the sanction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned, as well as of Congress. This section can be opposed by none who have the peace and happiness of the states at heart; for, by this section, the designs of those who wish to effect the disunion of the states, in order to get themselves established in posts of honour and profit, are entirely defeated. The majority of the citizens of Massachusetts, in particular, will see the good effects to be derived from such a regulation.

Cassius.

(To be Continued.)