as to foreign concerns, and keep us distinct in domestic ones, gives the outline of the proper division of powers between the general and particular Governments. But, to enable the Federal head to exercise the powers, given it, to best advantage, it should be organized, as the particular ones are, into Legislative, Executive and Judiciary. The first and last are already separated. The second should be. When last with Congress, I often proposed to members to do this, by making of the Committee of the States an Executive Committee, during the recess of Congress; and, during its session, to appoint a committee to receive and despatch all Executive business, so that Congress itself should meddle only with what should be Legislative. But I question if any Congress (much less all successively) can have self-denial enough to go through with this distribution. The distribution, then, should be imposed on them."*

This, as far as I have been able to discover, after no inconsiderable research, is the first embodied conception of the general outline of those proper changes of the old Constitution or Articles of Confederation, which were subsequently, as we shall see, actually and in fact, ingrafted on the old system of Confederations; and which makes the most marked difference between ours, and all other like systems. Of all the Statesmen in this country, none ever excelled Mr. Jefferson in grasp of political ideas, and a thorough understanding of the principles of human Government.

This is a brief, but unquestionable, history of the complaints under the old system. The great leading object, at the time, wita Congress, was to get additional power to regulate trade, and to raise revenue directly by law,

* Jefferson's Complete Works, vol. ii, p. 66.

operating on the individual citizens of the States, and not on the States in their corporate character. Under the Articles of Union, as they then were, Congress could regulate trade, as we have seen, with the Indian tribes, but not between the States respectively, or with foreign nations; nor could they raise revenue, as we have seen, except by requisitions upon the States. The main and leading objects were to get the Federal Constitution amended in these particulars. Could these new ideas and new principles be incorporated in a system strictly Federal? This was the great problem of that day. Congress gave consent to the calling of a Convention of the States, as desired, for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation, to the attainment, if possible, of these ends and objects. No intimation was given, in any of the proceedings that led to the call of this Convention, of any wish, much less a desire, to change the character of the Federal system, or to transform it from a Confederate Republic, as it was then acknowledged to be, into a consolidated nation. It is important to pay strict attention to the proceedings at this time. The Convention was called, not to change the nature of the General Government, but to delegate to it some few additional powers, and to adjust its machinery, in accordance with these additional powers. It was with this view, and for this purpose, with this "sole and express purpose," that the States, in Congress, gave the movement their sanction. Now, then, how did this matter proceed? How did the States, in their Sovereign capacities, respond to this call for a Convention, to change the Articles of their Confederation, so as to remedy the evils complained of? Each of the States, be it remembered, at that time, was a perfect State, clothed with all the attributes of Sov

ereignty. In our inquiries into the nature and extent of the changes in the fundamental law, especially so far as they trenched upon the Sovereign powers of the States, proposed by that Convention, it is of the utmost importance to know what the States did, both anterior to the call of the Convention, and subsequently.

Let us, then, direct our special attention to the responses of each of the States to the call itself. Here are the responses of all of them.* We will take them up singly and separately.

FIRST, GEORGIA.

The response of my own State is seen in the following ordinance:

"An ordinance for the appointment of deputies from this State for the purpose of revising the Federal Constitution.

"Be it ordained, by the Representatives of the State of Georgia, in General Assembly met, and by authority of the same, that William Few, Abraham Baldwin, William Pierce, George Walton, William Houston, and Nathaniel Pendleton, Esqrs., be, and they are hereby, appointed Commissioners, who, or any two or more of them, are hereby authorized, as deputies from this State, to meet such deputies as may be appointed and authorized by other States, to assemble in Convention at Philadelphia, and to join with them in devising and discussing all such alterations and further provisions as may be necessary to render the Federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of the Union, and in reporting such an Act for that purpose to the United States in Congress assembled, as, when agreed to by them, and duly confirmed by the several States, will effectually provide for the same.

* Elliot's Debates, vol. i, pp. 126–138.

In