forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact; from which the Judicial as well as the other departments hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of Judicial power would annul the authority delegating it ; and the concurrence of this department with others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution, which all were instituted to preserve.

The truth declared in the resolution being established, the expediency of making the declaration at the present day, may safely be left to the temperate consideration and candid judgment of the American public. It will be remembered, that a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles, is solemnly enjoined by most of the State Constitutions, and particularly by our own, as a necessary safeguard against the danger of degeneracy to which republics are liable, as well as other governments; though in a less degree than others. And a fair comparison of the political doctrines not unfrequent at the present day, with those which characterized the epoch of our Revolution, and which form the basis of our Republican Constitutions, will best determine whether the declaratory recurrence here made to those principles ought to be viewed as unreasonable and improper, or as a vigilant discharge of an important duty. The authority of Constitutions over Governments, and of the sovereignty of the people over Constitutions are truths, which are at all times necessary to be kept in mind; and at no time, perhaps, more necessary than at present.

WH

HILE the fundamental distinction of the two parties, Federal and Republican, lay in the very nature of things, there was really but one party organization for the first twelve years of the national life. The Republican name was slowly adopted to cover a vastly incoherent opposition. As soon as the drift of those in power to construe the Constitution to suit their centralizing if not monarchical views, was perceived, opposition became organic.

Hamilton wrote soon after the Constitutional Convention: "It may triumph altogether over the State governments, and reduce them to entire subordination, dividing the large States into simpler districts. The organs of the general government may also acquire additional strength." Madison wrote that he separated from Hamilton because the latter wished "to administer the government into what he thought it ought to be; while on my part I endeavored to make it conform to the Constitution as understood by the Convention that produced it; and particularly by the State conventions that adopted it."

Opposition was for some time rather to measures

than to the Federal party. This antagonism was often passionate, occasionally unreasonable and mobocratic. There was a drift to bring about a necessary choice between anarchy and despotism. The disaffection shown so widely toward the Jay Treaty was a spontaneity of popular sentiment; an outburst not of party antagonism but of popular disgust. To some extent the nullification resolutions of 1798 indicated a stage over to more general political measures and method— tentative but resolute. The country stood in need of a second party to give orderly voice to opinion and senti

ment.

The Federalists had been accused of being Anglomen. This love for England was, however, the only reason why the party had coherence at all. It was the strong English instinct in the American people that brought them into any degree of co-operation—that taught them by heredity how to put a governmental machine in operation. New England especially had English sentiment. Decidedly independent, made up of the outs of English political and church life; it was, however, far from anarchical in temperament. Its Parliamentary history up to the Revolution had been peculiarly tactful. Massachusetts had governed herself for the first fifty years of her existence-she had lived under two charters and had made two constitutions. Entering into a general Union, New England was partial to strong government; but was equally fond of governing. So it came about that while she gave the Union its cradle, she was not ready to let it out of its cradle.

Although Anglo-Saxon instincts and institutions created a great and common foundation for government in both countries, the breach between the United States

and Great Britain was more vital than was assumed. The union of the States was established on commercial freedom. It also recognized not only that all government is from and of the people, but that it remains with the people. Government by "The Best," although selected by the people, proved as serious a failure as government by a single monarch chosen dei gratia. This was the lesson taught by the Federalist party. There is no question as to the real quality of these men. They were the best-the ablest men in America. But aristocracy has ever constituted the worst government in the world. It is by its nature a Ring; a Ring is an aristocracy. Invariably the people have fled from aristocracies to monarchy. Freytag shows that absolutism, of necessity, develops a lack of common sense, ending in mania or idiocy. It will not be surprising if this sort of insanity sometimes manifests itself under republican forms of government.

With a growing debt behind, with discord at home. and abroad, with new problems of vital importance ahead, the Federal party found itself broken into three fragments. Adams with a large section veered toward a broader nationalism; Pickering, Griswold, Cabot, Wolcott, and Strong held to the course marked out by the Alien and Sedition laws; Hamilton agreed with neither section; and while valued for his genius, was not trusted by any.

The young nation, as it approached 1800, was about to transfer its interests from those who believed they alone were fit to govern, to a new party. The " Republicans" were henceforth to be held responsible for the sacred cause of liberty. The Federal party indeed was dead; although Federalism was not dead. It was never so much alive as after it ceased to be the governing

force. Its existence will be attested as we shall see by several episodes of a sort we should be glad to expunge from our history.

While the two parties are in their death grapples in 1800, it will be worth our while to compare them as they then stand. The old party, now doomed to defeat, owed much of its trouble to that unfortunate element that had remained loyal to Parliament during the Revolution. Robert Livingston in January, 1784, wrote, "Our parties are, first the Tories who still hope for power. Second, the violent Whigs who are for expelling all Tories from the State; and third those who wish to suppress violence, and soften the rigor of the laws against loyalists." The Whigs issued an address, warning the people against attempts that would be made, imperceptibly to change the spirit of the govHamilton championed the moderates, and soon the Tories had political equality. This they exercised by throwing all their votes and influence for the Federalists, who grew out of the moderates.

ernment.

It is equally important to note that the Federalist party from first to last was a party of leaders, and never a party of the people. It was based on a distrust of the people. "A Democracy," said Dennis' Portfolio, "is scarcely tolerable at any period. It is on trial here; and the issue will be civil war, desolation, and anarchy." Fisher Ames said, "Our country is too big for Union, too sordid for patriotism, too democratic for liberty. Its vices will govern it by practicing upon its follies." Cabot said, "I hold democracy to be the government of the worst." Adams was by instinct democratic, by education autocratic; but he was the truest to the people of all the Federal leaders. At times, how-ever, he was very impatient and impetuous. In 1798