FRtR > Documents > The Anti-Federalist Papers > 9
The Anti-Federalist Papers
*** Index
* Quote
* Context ***
- MR. PINCKNEY
- moved "that the National Legislature should
have authority to negative all laws which they should judge to be
improper." He urged that such a universality of the power was
indispensably necessary to render it effectual; that the States
must he kept in due subordination to the nation; that if the States
were left to act of thelnselves in any case, it would be impossible
to defend the national prerogatives, however extensive they might
be on paper; that the acts of Congress had been defeated by this
means; nor had foreign treaties escaped repeated violations; that
this universal negative was in fact the corner stone of an efficient
national government; that under the British government the
negative of the Crown had been found beneficial, and the States
are more one nation now, than the Colonies were then.
- MR. MADISON
- seconded the motion. He could not but regard
an indefinite power to negative legislative acts of the States as
absolutely necessary to a perfect system. Experience had evinced
a constant tendency in the States to encroach on the federal
authority; to violate national Treaties; to infringe the rights and
interests of each other; to oppress the weaker party within their
respective jurisdictions. A negative was the mildest expedient
that could be devised for preventing these mischiefs. The existence of such a check would prevent attempts to commit them.
Should no such precaution be engrafted, the only remedy would
lie in an appeal to coercion. Was such a remedy eligible? was it
practicable? Could the national resources, if exerted to the utrnost enforce a national decree against Massachusetts abetted
perhaps by several of her neighbours? It would not be possible.
A small proportion of the Community, in a compact situation,
acting on the defensive, and at one of its extremities might at any
time bid defiance to the National authority. Any government for
the United States formed on the supposed practicability of using
force against the unconstitutional proceedings of the States, would
prove as visionary and fallacious as the government of
Congress. The negative would render the use of force unnecessary.
The States could of themselves then pass no operative act, any
more than one branch of a Legislature where there are two
branches, can proceed without the other. But in order to give the
negative this efficacy, it must extend to all cases A discriminatiou
would only he a flesh source of contention between the two
auiborities. In a word, to recur to the illustrations borrowed from
the planetary system. This prerogative of the General government is the great pervading principle that must control the
centrifugal tendency of the States; which, without it, will continually
fly out of their proper orbits and destroy the order and harmony
of the political System.
- MR. WLLIAMSON
- was against giving a power that might
restrain the States from regulating their internal police.
- MR. GERRY
- could not see tbe extent of such a power, and was
against every power that was not necessary. He thought a
remonstrance against unreasonable acts of the States would reclaim
them. If it should not force might be resorted to. He had no
objection to authorize a negative to paper money and similar
measures. When the confederation was depending before Congress, Massachusetts was then for inserting the power of emitting
paper money among the exclusive powers of Congress. He observed that the proposed negative would extend to the regulations
of the Militia, a matter on which the existence of a State might
depend. The National Legislature with such a power may enslave
the States. Such an idea as this will never be acceded to. It has
never been suggested or conceived among the people. No speculative projector, and there are enough of that character among us,
in politics as well as in other things, has in any pamphlet or
newspaper thrown out the idea. The States too have different
interests and are ignorant of each other's interests. The negative
therefore will be abused. New States too having separate views
from the old States will never come into the Union. They may
even be under some foreign influence; are they in such case to
participate in the negative on the will of the other States?
- MR. SHERMAN
- thought the cases in which the negative ought to
be exercised, might be defined. He wished the point might not
be decided till a trial at least should be made for that purpose.
- MR. WILSON
- would not say what modifications of the proposed
power might be practicable or expedient. But however novel it
might appear the principle of it when viewed with a close and
steady eye, is right. There is no instance in which the laws say
that the individual should be bound in one case, and at liberty to
judge whether he will obey or disobey in another. The cases are
parallel. Abuses of the power over the individnal person may
happen as well as over the individual States. Federal liberty is to
States, What civil liberty, is to private individuals. And States are
not more unwilling to purchase it, by the necessary concession of
their political sovereignty, that the savage is to purchase civil
liberty by the surrender of his personal sovereignty, which he
enjoys in a State of nature. A definition of the cases in which the
Negative should be exercised, is impracticable. A discretion
must be left on one side or the other? will it not be most safely
lodged on the side of the National government? Among the first
sentiments expressed in the first Congress one was that Virginia
is no more, that Massachusetts is no, that Pennsylvania is no
more etc., etc. We are now one nation of brethren. We must
bury all local interests and distinctions. This language continued
for some time. The tables at length began to turn. No sooner
were the State governments formed than their jealousy and
ambition began to display themselves. Each endeavoured to cut a
slice from the common loaf, to add to its own morsel, till at
length the confederation became frittered down to the impotent
condition in which it now stands. Review the progress of the
articles of Confederation through Congress and compare the first
and last draught of it. To correct its vices is the business of this
convention. one of its vices is the want of an effectual control in
the whole over its parts. What danger is there that the whole will
unnecessarily sacrifice a part? But reversethecase, and leave the
whole at the mercy of each part, and will not thegeneral interest
be continually sacrificed to local interests?
- MR. DICKINSON
- deemed it impossible to draw a line between
the Cases proper and improper for the exercise of the negative.
We must take our choice of two things. We must either subject
the states to the danger of being injured by the power of the
National government or the latter to the danger of being injured
by that of the States. He thought the danger greater from the
States. To leave the power doubtful, would be opening another
spring of discord and he was for shutting as many of them as
possible.
- MR. BEDFORD.
- In answer to his colleague's question where
would be the danger to the States from this power, would refer
him to the smallness of his own State which may be injured at
pleasure without redress. It was meant he found to strip the small
States of their equal right of suffrage. In this case Delaware
would have about one ninetieth for its share in the General
Councils, whiIst Pennsylvania and Virginia would possess one
third of the whole. Is there no difference of interests, no rivalship
of commerce, of manufactures? Will not these large States crush
the small ones whenever they stand in the way of their ambitious
or interested views. This shows the impossibility of adopting
such a system as that on the table, or any other founded on a
change in the principle of representation. And after all, if a
State does not obey the law of the new System, must not force be
resorted to as the only ultimate remedy, in this as in any other
system. It seems as if Pennsylvania and Virginia by the conduct
of their deputies wished to provide a system in which they would
have an enormous and monstrous influence. Besides, how can it
be thought that the proposed negative can be exercised? are the
laws of the States to be suspended in the most urgent cases until
they can be sent seven or eight hundred miles, and undergo the
deliberations of a body who may be incapable of Judging of
them? Is the National Iegislature too to sit continually in order
to revise the laws of the States?
- MR. MADISON
- observed that the difficulties which had been
stated were worthy of attention and ought to be answered before
the qnestion was put. The case of laws of urgent necessity must
be provided for by some emanation of the power from the
National government into each State so far as to give a tempo
rary assent at least. This was the practice in Royal Colonies
before the Revolution and would not have been inconvenient, if
the supreme power of negativing had been faithful to the
American interest, and had possessed the necesary information. He
supposed that the negative might be very properly lodged in the
senate alone, and that the more numerous and expensive branch
therefore might not be obliged to sit constantly.He asked Mr.
Bedford what would be the consequence to the small States of a
dissolution of the Union which seemed likely to happen if no
effectual substitute was made for the defective System existing,
and he did not conceive any effectual system could he substituted
on any other basis than that of a proportional suffrage? If the
large States possessed the avarice and ambition with which they
were charged, would the small ones in their neighbourhood, be
more secure when all control of a General Government was
withdrawn.
- MR. BUTLER
- was vehement against the Negative in the proposed
extent, as cutting off all hope of equal justice to the distant
States. The people there would not he was sure give it a hearing.