in a dedication, tells the Pope that the only difference between our churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, "the Church of Rome is infallible, and the Church of England is never in the wrong." But though many private persons think as highly of their own infallibility as that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain French lady who, in a dispute with her sister, said, "I don't know how it happens, sister, but I meet with nobody but myself that is always in the right -il n'y a que moi qui a toujours raison." ... Thus I consent, sir, to this Constitution, because I expect no better, and because I am not sure that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die. . On the whole, sir, I cannot help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion, doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument.' Rutledge signed the Constitution, and heartily recommended it to his constituents.

CHAPTER XIV.

MEMBER OF THE STATE CONVENTION.

1788.

THE Federal Convention adjourned on the 17th of September, 1787, after a session of nearly four months. The plan of government they had devised was laid before the Legislature of South Carolina on the 10th of January, 1788. It met with strong opposition. Rutledge was present, and participated in the discussions. Rawlins Lowndes, a gentleman of good abilities, but never in advance of public opinion, and seldom keeping pace with it, was the leading opponent of the new system. Reading that article which declares the Constitution, and the laws made in pursuance of it, together with treaties made under the authority of the United States, the su preme law of the land, he demanded if there was an instance in the history of the known world, of the rulers of a republic being allowed to go so far? Even the most arbitrary kings,' he said, 'possessed nothing like it.' Rutledge replied. Every treaty was law paramount, he said, and must operate. It was so under the Articles of Confederation. As a proof of it, he instanced the treaty with France, which secured to that country certain privileges. Now,' thus he continued, 'supposing any law had passed taking those privileges away, would not the treaty be a sufficient bar to any local or municipal laws? What sort of power is that which leaves individuals in

full power to reject or approve? Suppose a treaty was unexpectedly concluded between nations at war, would individual subjects ravage and plunder under letters of marque and reprisal? Certainly not. The treaty concluded, even secretly, would be a sufficient bar to the establishment. Pray, what solid reasons could be urged to support gentlemen's fears, that our new governors would wish to promote measures injurious to their native land? Was it not more reasonable, that if every State in the Union had a negative voice, a single State might be tampered with, and defeat every good intention?" Adverting to the objection relative to the instalment law being done away,' he asked, supposing a person gave security conformable to that law, whether, judging from precedent, the judges would permit any further proceedings contrary to it. He scouted the idea that only ten members would ever be left to manage the business of the Senate; yet, even if so, our delegates might be part of that ten, and consequently our interest secured. He described difficulties experienced in Congress in 1781 and '82. In those times business of vast importance stood still because nine States could not be kept together. Having said that the laws would stand just as they did before, the chancellor asked whether gentlemen seriously could suppose that a President, who has a character at stake, would be such a fool and knave as to join with ten others to tear up liberty by the roots, when a full Senate was competent to impeach him.2

Most of the men who had gained distinction in the revolutionary contest were members of the Legislature, and most of them were friendly to the Constitution.

A law for the relief of debtors.

2 We have followed the Reporter's notes, printed in Elliot's Debates, vol. iv., p. 268.

6

The objections raised by Lowndes brought into the arena of debate the best political talents of the State. He was not, however, to be driven from his purpose; and he defended his positions with zeal and pertinacity. Differing with his constituents respecting the Constitution, and therefore not expecting to be returned to the Convention, should the Legislature decide to call one, Lowndes availed himself of his present position fully to declare his sentiments. Let us not,' he said, 'receive this proffered system with implicit confidence, as carrying with it the stamp of superior perfection; rather let us compare what we already possess with what we are offered for it. We are now under the government of a most excellent Constitution, one that had stood the test of time, and carried us through difficulties generally supposed insurmountable; one that had raised us high in the eyes of all nations, and given to us the enviable blessings of liberty and independence; a Constitution sent like a blessing from heaven; yet we are impatient to change it for another that vested power in a few men to pull down that fabric which we had raised at the expense of our blood. . . . It has been said that this new government was to be considered as an experiment. . . . So far from having any expectation of success from such experiments, he sincerely believed that, when this new Constitution should be adopted, the sun of the Southern States would set, never to rise again.' South Carolina would dwindle, he said, into a mere skeleton of what it was, 'its legislative powers would be pared down to little more than those now vested in the corporation; and he should value the honor of a seat in the Legislature in no higher estimation than a seat in the city council.' He observed, that he had been accused of obstinacy in standing out against such a formidable opposition; but he assured the House that he was as open to conviction as any gentleman on

the floor, yet would not be mislead by specious argu

ments.1

Rutledge replied. He said he had often heard the honorable gentleman with much pleasure; but, on the present occasion, he was astonished at his perseverance. 'Well might he apologize for taking up the time of gentlemen when, in the very outset, he declared that this Constitution must necessarily be submitted to a future Convention of the people. Why, then, enter so largely in argument on its merits, when the ultimate decision depended on another body? . . . . The gentleman had declared that his sentiments were so much in contradiction to the voice of his constituents, that he did not expect to be appointed a member of the Convention. Rutledge hoped he would be appointed, and did not hesitate to pledge himself to prove, demonstrably, that all those grounds on which he dwelt so much amounted to nothing more than mere declamation; that this boasted Confederation was not worth a farthing; and that, if Mr. Chairman was intrenched in such instruments up to his chin, they would not shield him from one single national calamity. So far from thinking that the sun of this country was obscured by the new Constitution, he did not doubt but that, whenever it was adopted, the sun of this State, united with twelve other suns, would exhibit a meridian radiance astonishing to the world. The gentleman's obstinacy brought to his recollection a friend to this country, once a member of that house, who said, "It is generally imputed to me that I am obstinate. This is a mistake. I am not so, but sometimes hard to be convinced."

The debates continued three days. On the 19th of

'Mr. Lowndes spoke several times, and the extracts in the text are taken from different speeches.