QUESTIONS ON THE TEXT. 1. What provision did the Constitution make for its own ratification? 2. What was the general method of ratification in the states? 3. On what general grounds did the opposition to the Constitution seem to be based? 4. By what feature in the Constitution was the support of South Carolina and Georgia assured? Why was this support deemed peculiarly desirable? 5. What five states ratified the Constitution with little or no opposition? 6. What was the objection of Massachusetts and some other states to the Constitution? What course, therefore, did they adopt? 7. What three states after Massachusetts by their ratification made the adoption of the Constitution secure? 8. What four states subsequently gave in their support? 9. Give an account of the adoption of the first ten amend ments. 10. For what do these amendments provide? II. What powers are reserved to the states? § 8. A Few Words about Politics. taxation. A chief source of the opposition to the new federal government was the dread of federal taxation. People who found it hard to pay their town, county, Federal and state taxes felt that it would be ruinous to have to pay still another kind of tax. In the mere fact of federal taxation, therefore, they were inclined to see tyranny. With people in such a mood it was necessary to proceed cautiously in devising measures of federal taxation. This was well understood by our first secretary of the treasury, Alexander Hamilton, and in the course of his administration of the treasury he was once roughly reminded of it. The two methods of federal taxation adopted at his suggestion were duties on imports and excise on a few domestic products, such as whiskey and tobacco. The excise, being a tax which people could see and feel, was very unpopu Excise. lar, and in 1794 the opposition to it in western Pennsylvania grew into the famous "Whiskey Insurrection," against which President Washington thought it prudent to send an army of 16,000 men. This formidable display of federal power suppressed the insurrection without bloodshed. Tariff. Nowhere was there any such violent opposition to Hamilton's scheme of custom-house duties on imported goods. People had always been familiar with such duties. In the colonial times they had been levied by the British government without calling forth resistance until Charles Townshend made them the vehicle of a dangerous attack upon American self-government.1 After the Declaration of Independence, custom-house duties were levied by the state governments and the proceeds were paid into the treasuries of the several states. Before 1789, much trouble had arisen from oppressive tariff-laws enacted by some of the states against others. By taking away from the states the power of taxing imports, the new Constitution removed this source of irritation. It became possible to lighten the burden of custom-house duties, while by turning the full stream of them into the federal treasury an abundant national revenue was secured at once. Thus this part of Hamilton's policy met with general approval. The tariff has always been our favourite device for obtaining a national revenue. During our Civil War, indeed, the national government resorted extensively to direct taxation, chiefly in the form of revenue stamps, though it also put a tax upon billiard-tables, pianos, gold watches, and all sorts of things. But after the return of peace 1 See my War of Independence, pp. 58-83; and my History of the United States, for Schools, pp. 192–203. these unusual taxes were one after another discontinued, and since then our national revenue has been raised, as in Hamilton's time, from duties on imports and excise on a few domestic products, chiefly tobacco and distilled liquors. Origin of political par ties. Hamilton's measures as secretary of the treasury embodied an entire system of public policy, and the opposition to them resulted in the formation of the two political parties into which, under one name or another, the American people have at most times been divided. Hamilton's opponents, led by Jefferson, objected to his principal measures that they assumed powers in the national government which were not granted to it by the Constitution. Hamilton then fell back upon the Elastic Clause 1 of the Constitution, and maintained that such powers were implied in it. Jefferson held that this doctrine of "implied powers" stretched the Elastic Clause too far. He held that the Elastic Clause ought to be construed strictly and narrowly; Hamilton held that it ought to be construed loosely and liberally. Hence the names "strict-constructionist " and "looseconstructionist," which mark perhaps the most profound and abiding antagonism in the history of American politics. 1 Practically all will admit that the Elastic Clause, if construed strictly, ought not to be construed too narrowly; and, if construed liberally, ought not to be construed too loosely. Neither party has been consistent in applying its principles, but in the main we can call Hamilton the founder of the Federalist party, which has had for its successors the National Republicans of 1828, the Whigs of 1833 to 1852, and the Republicans of 1854 to the present time; while we can call 1 Article I., section viii., clause 18; see above, p. 245. Jefferson the founder of the party which called itself Republican from about 1792 to about 1828, and since then has been known as the Democratic party. This is rather a rough description in view of the real complication of the historical facts, but it is an approximation to the truth. Tariff, Internal Improvements Bank. It is not my purpose here to give a sketch of the history of American parties. Such a sketch, if given in due relative proportion, would double the size of this little book, of which the main purpose is to treat of civil government in the United States with reference to its origins. But it may here be and National said in general that the practical questions which have divided the two great parties have been concerned with the powers of the national government as to (1) the Tariff; (2) the making of roads, improving rivers and harbours, etc., under the general head of Internal Improvements; and (3) the establishment of a National Bank, with the national government as partner holding shares in it and taking a leading part in the direction of its affairs. On the question of such a national bank the Democratic party achieved a complete and decisive victory under President Tyler. On the question of internal improvements the opposite party still holds the ground, but most of its details have been settled by the great development of the powers of private enterprise during the past sixty years, and it is not at present a "burning question." The question of the tariff, however, remains to-day as a "burning question," but it is no longer argued on grounds of constitutional law, but on grounds of political economy. Hamilton's construction of the Elastic Clause has to this extent prevailed, and mainly for the reason that a liberal construction of that clause was needed in order to give the national government enough power to restrict the spread of slavery and suppress the great rebellion of which slavery was the exciting cause. Another political question, more important, if pos sible, than that of the Tariff, is to-day the question of the reform of the Civil Service; but it is Civil service not avowedly made a party question. Twenty reform. years ago both parties laughed at it; now both try to treat it with a show of respect and to render unto it lip-homage; and the control of the immediate political future probably lies with the party which treats it most seriously. It is a question that was not distinctly foreseen in the days of Hamilton and Jefferson, when the Constitution was made and adopted; otherwise, one is inclined to believe, the framers of the Constitution would have had something to say about it. The question as to the Civil Service arises from the fact that the president has the power of appointing a vast number of petty officials, chiefly postmasters and officials concerned with the collection of the federal revenue. Such officials have properly nothing to do with politics; they are simply the agents or clerks or servants of the national government in conducting its business; and if the business of the national government is to be managed on such ordinary principles of prudence as prevail in the management of private business, such servants ought to be selected for personal merit and retained for life or during good behaviour. It did not occur to our earlier presidents to regard the management of the public business in any other light than this. But as early as the beginning of the present century a vicious system was growing up in New York and Pennsylvania. In those states the appointive offices came to be used as bribes or as rewards for |