Citizens," and bound the judiciary of the states to proper observance. It also gave the national executive the right to call forth the power of the states to compel obedience by the states to such acts or treaties.

This plan left the character of Congress unchanged, with an equal state vote and choice of delegates by the state legislatures; it adopted the separation of national powers; and specified the supremacy of the Union within its sphere. These were, to this extent, concessions to the recognized need for a more efficient government, but they did not go far. They merely patched up the old Articles.

THE COMPROMISE

THE BATTLE between the large and small states was joined. Out of the conflict, which threatened to disrupt the convention, emerged on July 16 the adoption of the Great Compromise, urged by the Connecticut deputies. This gave representation based on population in the lower house, and to that house the exclusive power to originate money bills; but in the upper house an equal state vote. The special financial power of the lower house was also a provision in some of the state constitutions; but it was later practically nullified by giving the Senate the right of unrestricted amendment. During the discussion of this compromise, the cleavage between the northern and southern states developed, due to the latter's demand, when population was substituted for wealth as the basis of representation, for representation of its slave population. A part of the compromise was, therefore, that three-fifths of the slaves should be counted as inhabitants. A similar proposal as a basis of requisitions upon the states had been before the Continental Congress; and as a phase of this agreement the direct taxes, which under the new government would take the place of the old requisitions, were given the same basis of levy upon the states. This compromise, together with the election of the Senate by the state legislatures, did much to quiet the apprehension of the small-state party; but it was not a victory for those who wished to preserve the principles of the Articles of Confederation, and when later each senator was given a separate vote the idea of state representation in the upper house was weakened.

This compromise made it evident that sectional questions as well as those involving state rights were to be met-evidences that were prophetic of future trouble. Much of the history of the nation throughout its first six decades was to turn, not upon state rights as they involved the differences between small and large states, but upon state sovereignty in combination with sectional divergencies.

The southern deputies, from a region entirely agricultural, were fearful that unrestrained control by the central government over foreign commerce might result in navigation acts unfavorable to their section. Out of this another compromise developed which left the commercial power unrestricted but forbade an export tax, or interference with the foreign slave trade before 1808.

LAW OF THE LAND

THE NEXT important question was that of national control over state laws and actions; its need was generally recognized, but a direct veto and military enforcement of obedience were objectionable. The plan introduced by Paterson on June 15 suggested the remedy, which was adopted unanimously on July 17. This made the laws and treaties of the national government the supreme law, to which the state judiciaries were bound in their decisions. Later the Constitution itself was added to the laws and treaties and the "supreme law of the States" was made the "supreme Law of the Land," which change might be considered as emphasizing the origin of the Constitution as the work of the whole of the people and not of the states.

This great "Law of the Land" clause has been called the linchpin of the Constitution, since it effectively binds the parts into the whole. It has always been the chief basis upon which the courts have passed on the constitutionality of legislation, whether state or national. It embodies the principle of direct action by the national government upon the inhabitants, for the enactments of the Congress are laws directly binding upon the people themselves.

METHOD OF RATIFICATION AND AMENDMENT

THE VIRGINIA plan had called for ratification of the Constitution by state conventions especially chosen by the people. Only two of the existing state constitutions had been framed by conventions chosen exclusively for this task; and only in these two had the constitution been submitted to the people for approval or rejection. Elsewhere legislatures, all but three of them freshly chosen, however, framed the constitutions and put them in force. The amendments proposed to the Articles of Confederation were also voted upon by the legislatures.

The more direct appeal under the new Constitution to the freemen themselves, through the action of conventions especially

chesen for the purpose, was in harmony with the main principles of a document which began with "We the People," and which cut loose so completely from the existing confederate principles. Attention may be called here to the fact that in this as in other respects the Constitution led toward that greater democratic spirit that operated more and more within the state governments themselves; an element that had no small influence in cementing the Union.

More was to follow the convention's adoption on July 23 of this method of ratification, for on August 31 it was voted that ratification by nine states would be sufficient for establishing the Constitution over the states so ratifying, and that the approbation of the Continental Congress was not required. Both of these decisions were clearly revolutionary. The Articles of Confederation required unanimous ratification of amendment, and the resolution calling the convention stated that the alterations and provisions made by the convention should be submitted to Congress as well as to the states; in other words, that the convention should act, not as an independent body, but as a committee or agent of Congress. The method by which the new Constitution might be amended also did away with the need of unanimity; but left to the Congress under the new Constitution to decide, in proposing amendments, whether the ratification should be by legislatures or conventions of the people.

FINISHING THE WORK

THE REST of the work of the convention was largely detail-important detail, but little that involved great principles. Like the basic ideas, the results were arrived at for the most part through compromise. A definite statement of the national powers had to be made, since the residuary ones were left to the states; the national judiciary and its jurisdiction stated; and the election and powers of the President decided upon.

The demand for a single executive won; but the idea of a council, inherited from colonial times, when such a body was both the upper house of legislature and the governor's adviser, persisted, and finally the Senate was given power to ratify treaties and also approve appointments. The Cabinet of the President, which has evolved as his adviser, has no legal existence as a body. The method of choosing the President had to be worked out without aid from precedents, except the provision in the Maryland constitution of an electoral college for senatorial elections; and the original intention has been twisted entirely out of shape by the development of political parties.

Committees of detail and of style performed their tasks, and finally on September 17, 1787, the draft was ready for the signatures of the deputies. Of the fifty-five who had attended the convention, only forty-one remained, and three of these refused to sign. To the thirty-eight signatures was added, at his request, that of one absent deputy, and it is probable that a large majority of those absent would have signed if present. With Hamilton signing for New York, though he had refrained from voting on its final passage since alone he could not represent the state, the draft was sent forth by the "Unanimous Consent of the States present." This form was itself a compromise which induced various members to sign who would not otherwise have done so. These were willing to certify by their signatures that the draft had received the votes of all of the states, but not that it had their personal approval.

Most truly has the Constitution been called a "bundle of compromises . . . a mosaic of second choices accepted in the interest of union."

RATIFICATION

THE DRAFT was submitted to the consideration of the "United States in Congress assembled," with the expression of opinion that Congress pass it on to the state legislatures, to be submitted by them to the mercies of state conventions. Doubtless, had Congress refused to do this, the states could and probably would have taken independent action. The Pennsylvania deputies presented the draft to their legislature on September 18, 1787, before it was known to Congress, and other copies were sent by delegates to their states or to friends. The Congress accepted its modest rôle. On September 28, eleven states being present, without a word of favorable comment upon the contents of the document, it was unanimously transmitted to the state legislatures. The unanimity, like that of the convention itself, was rather fictitious, and possible only because comment was withheld. During the convention, there had been newspaper speculation and statements as to its progress, based for the most part merely on rumor; but with the publication of the signed Constitution the expression of public opinion came at once to full flood. The extensive and virulent use of newsletters and pamphlets was greater than on any previous occasion; and wherever people gathered, whether for town meetings, church, or gossip at the country stores on the crossroads, the topic was evidently a universal one. It raged for months, and it is to be noticed that ratification became more difficult as the discussion progressed.

The honor of first ratification went to Delaware. Her convention was a mere formality, and approval was unanimously given on December 7, 1787. Five days later Pennsylvania, under the influence of Wilson's vigorous arguments, added her name, though the Antifederalists raised the cry of trickery. The convention of New Jersey resolved on ratification without dissent on December 18, 1787. Georgia gave her adherence on January 2, 1788, and Connecticut was just a week later. One large state, two small states, and two that occupied rather a middle position on this question had now given their approval. The convention of Massachusetts came next and here, where but recently the Shays Rebellion, the worst of the radical outbreaks, had threatened the stability of the state itself, there was a real battle.

The issue fought out in the ratification contest had many phases: the old question of state rights and sovereignty; the danger to the liberties of the people from a strong central government; sectional antagonism; class prejudices; desire to escape obligations and enjoy the unearned increment of cheap money; backwoods life, where ignorance of the real needs prevailed; and fear of anything new or novel.

There were strong leaders on both sides. Samuel Adams was in doubt, Hancock inclined to wait and see which way the popular wind would blow, and Gerry voiced his reasons for refusing to sign the Constitution. Governor George Clinton of New York strongly opposed ratification. Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, George Mason, who had refused to sign the Constitution, and James Monroe headed the opposition in Virginia. The leaders of the convention rallied to its support-King and Strong in Massachusetts, and Hamilton, assisted by Jay and Benson, in New York. Madison was a tower of strength in Virginia, ably seconded by Randolph, even though he also had refused to sign, and by the young John Marshall, ignorant of what his own career would mean in constitutional history, but already firm in the principles that were to give him immortal fame and his government a dynamic entity. Above all, the fact that Washington and Franklin had signed the draft was of immeasurable importance. Both sides realized this: the Federalists pointed with pride; the Antifederalists declared that these great men had been deceived and that the claim of their support of the plan was misleading.

Washington took no direct active share in the ratification contest, but he made no secret of his support. His correspondence teemed with the subject and his almost daily intercourse with visi