Now politicians of all kinds, Who are not yet decided, May see how Yankees speak their minds, And yet are not divided. Yankee doodle, &c. Then from this sample let 'em cease For Freedom, Happiness and Peace, So here I end my Fed'ral song, SPIRIT OF THE PRESS. [In both the Chronicle and Centinel, series of elaborate essays in favor of and opposed to the Federal Constitution, were continued during the period that the question of ratification was pending. From many, as exhibiting the tone and scope of the discussion, we have selected the following from the Independent Chronicle.] ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. NUMBER ONE. It is impossible for an honest and feeling mind, of any nation or country whatever, to be insensible to the present circumstances of America. Were I an East Indian or a Turk, I should consider this singular situation of a part of my fellow creatures, as most curious and interesting. Intimately connected with the country, as a citizen of the Union, I confess it entirely engrosses my mind and feelings. To take a proper view of the ground on which we stand, it may be necessary to recollect the manner in which the United States were originally settled and established. Want of charity in the religious systems of Europe and of justice in their political governments, were the principal moving causes which drove the emigrants of various countries to the American continent. The Congregationalists, Quakers, Presbyterians and other British dissenters, the Catholics of England and Ireland, the Huguenots of France, the German Lutherans,, Calvinists and Moravians, with several other societies, established themselves in the different colonies, thereby laying the ground of that catholicism in ecclesiastical affairs, which has been observable since the late Revolution. Religious liberty naturally promotes corresponding dispositions in matters of government. The Constitution of England, as it stood on paper, was one of the freest at that time existing in the world, and the American colonies considered themselves as entitled to the fullest enjoyment of it. Thus, when the ill-judged discussions of later times in England brought into question the rights of this country as it stood con nected with the British crown, we were found more strongly impressed with their importance, and accurately acquainted with their extent, than the wisest and most learned of our brethren beyond the Atlantic. When the greatest names in Parliament insisted on the power of that body over the commerce of the colonies, and even the right to bind us in all cases whatsoever, America, seeing that it was only another form of tyranny, insisted upon the immutable truth, that taxation and representation are inseparable, and while a desire of harmony and other considerations induced her into an acquiescence in the commercial regulations of Great Britain, it was done from the declared necessity of the case, and with a cautious, full and absolute saving of our voluntarily suspended rights. The Parliament was persevering, and America continued firm till hostilities and open war commenced, and finally the late Revolution closed the contest forever. 'Tis evident from this short detail, and the reflections which arise from it, that the quarrel between the United States and the Parliament of Great Britain, did not arise so much from objections to the form of government, though undoubtedly a better one by far is now within our reach, as from a difference concerning certain important rights resulting from the essential principles of liberty, which the Constitution preserved to all the subjects actually residing within the realm. It was not asserted by America that the people of the Island of Great Britain were slaves, but that we, though possessed absolutely of the same rights, were not admitted to enjoy an equal degree of freedom. When the Declaration of Independence completed the separation between the two countries, new governments were necessarily established. Many circumstances led to the adoption of the republican form, among which was the predilection of the people. In devising the frames of government it may have been difficult to avoid extremes opposite to the vices of that we had just rejected; nevertheless, many of the State Constitutions we have chosen, are truly excellent. Our misfortunes have been, that in the first instance we adopted no national government at all, but we kept together by common danger only, and that in the confusions of a civil war we framed a Federal Constitution, now universally admitted to be inadequate to the preservation of liberty, property, and the Union. The question is not, then, how far our State Constitutions are good, or otherwise the object of our wishes is, to amend and supply the evident and allowed errors and defects of the Federal government. Let us consider awhile, that which is now proposed to us-let us compare it with the so much boasted British form of government, and see how much more it favors the people, and how completely it secures their rights, remembering at the same time, that we did not dissolve our connection with that country so much on account of its Constitution, as the perversion and maladministration of it. In the first place, let us look at the nature and powers of the head of that country, and those of the ostensible head of ours. The British King is the great Bishop or Supreme Head of an established church, with an immense patronage annexed. In this capacity he commands a number of votes in the House of Lords, by creating bishops, who, besides their great incomes, have votes in that assembly, and are judges in the last resort. They have also many honorable and lucrative places to bestow, and thus, from their wealth, learning, dignities, powers and patronage, give a great lustre and an enormous influence to the crown. In America, our President will not only be without these influencing advantages, but they will be in the possession of the people at large, to strengthen their hands in the event of a contest with him. All religious funds, honors and powers, are in the gift of numberless unconnected, disunited and contending corporations, wherein the principle of perfect equality universally prevails. In short, danger from ecclesiastical tyranny, that long standing and still remaining curse of the people-that sacrilegious engine of royal power in some countries, can be feared by no man in the United States. In Britain, their king is for life; in America, our president will always be one of the people at the end of four years. In that country, the king is hereditary, and may be an idiot, a knave, or a tyrant by nature, or ignorant from neglect of his education, yet cannot be removed, for "he can do no wrong." In America, as the president is to be one of the people at the end of his short term, so will he and his fellow-citizens remember, that he was originally Fur one of the people, and that he is created by their breath. ther, he cannot be an idiot, probably not a knave or a tyrant, for those whom nature makes so, discover it before the age of thirty-five, until which period he cannot be elected. It appears that we have not admitted that he can do no wrong, but have rather presupposed he may and will sometimes do wrong, by providing for his impeachment, his trial, and his peaceable and complete removal. In England, the king has a power to create members of the upper house, who are judges in the highest court, as well as legislators. Our president not only cannot make members of the upper house, but their creation, like his own, is by the people, through their representatives, and a member of assembly may and will be as certainly dismissed at the end of his year for electing a weak or wicked senator, as for any other blunder or misconduct. The king of England has legislative power, while our president can only use it when the other servants of the people are divided. But in all great cases affecting the national interests or safety, his modified and restrained power must give way to the sense of two-thirds of the legislature. In fact, it amounts to no more than a serious duty imposed upon him, to request both houses to reconsider any matter on which he entertains doubts or feels apprehensions, and here the people have a strong hold upon him, from his sole and personal responsibility. ers on some occasions. The president of the upper house (or the chancellor) in England, is appointed by the king, while our vice-president, who is chosen by the people through the electors and the senate, is not at all dependent on the president, but may exercise equal powIn all royal governments an helpless infant or an inexperienced youth, may wear the crown. Our president must be matured by the experience of years, and being born among us, his character at thirty-five must be fully understood. Wisdom, virtue, and active qualities of mind and body, can alone make him the first servant of a free and enlightened people. Our president will fall very far short indeed of any prince in his annual income, which will not be hereditary, but the absolute allowance of the people passing through the hands of their |