James Wilson

FEW men of equal character, ability, and accomplishment have received less appreciation and gratitude from their countrymen than has James Wilson. In the words of a distinguished foreign critic, he was “ one of the luminaries of the time, to whom . . . subsequent generations of Americans have failed to do full justice.” He has had no painstaking biographer; his utterances have had no adequate collaborator. Yet his words are replete with wisdom, and his career has a great and enduring interest. The moral and intellectual qualities that distinguished him from his contemporaries and contributed most to his influence are largely traceable to the circumstances of his early life. He was born upon a farm, near St. Andrew’s, Scotland. Being early designed for the Church, he received the thorough education demanded for the Scottish pulpit of that age. And what an age was that in the history of Scotland,— the latter part of the eighteenth century ! Edinburgh was the resort of that celebrated literary coterie which included, with others, Hume, Ferguson, Adam Smith, Hugh Blair, and William Robertson. The one last named was Principal of the University, and at the height of his fame and activity as a theologian and historian ; Blair, as Regius Professor of Rhetoric, was delivering those lectures which embody the literary taste found in the classic pages of Addison. Pope, and Swift; and Adam Smith, Professor of Moral Philosophy at Glasgow, was developing his great system of political economy.

It was in this brilliant period of Scottish literature that James Wilson received his academic discipline. He attended first the neighboring University of St. Andrew’s, and then the Universities of Glasgow and Edinburgh. From this experience he came forth, at the age of twenty-two, with a mind well stored and trained, especially in the classics, and in logic, rhetoric, and history. That the development of his character had kept pace with that of his mind is evident from the way in which he determined his future. He showed much independence and courage. Notwithstanding the exalted influence of the Scotch pulpit and the purpose of his education, he declined to enter the ministry. He seems also not to have been attracted by the brilliant rewards of appreciation and distinction enjoyed by the Scotch literati. Before taking up any profession, he cut loose from the opportunities and associations of his native land, and determined to cast in his lot with the English colonies. In 1765 he emigrated to America. — a timely and generous contribution by Scotland of broad culture and sterling character to the large and urgent needs of the New World.

Once left to themselves, the bent of Wilson’s mind and the direction of his education determined the choice of a profession. He resolved to study law ; and, borrowing money for his support, he became a student in the office of John Dickinson. This association was singularly fortunate. It effectively completed the preparation of Wilson for public life; for it gave him the best opportunities for acquiring not only an extensive knowledge of law, but also an intimate acquaintance with colonial politics.

Dickinson was about ten years his elder. He had enjoyed a good legal training, including a three years’ course at the Temple, London, and had been in practice since 1755. In 1762 he had entered the Pennsylvania Assembly, and had soon become a leader of the proprietary party, in opposition to the popular party, led by Benjamin Franklin. More recently, in 1765, he had attended the Congress assembled at New York upon the passage of the Stamp Act, and, later, had issued to his constituents his first political pumphlet, urging uncompromising resistance to that measure. He followed this in 1767-68, about the time that Wilson was in his office, with his celebrated Letters from a Farmer, which circulated throughout the colonies, and made Dickinson next to Franklin the most prominent man in Pennsylvania.

Of this association Wilson was prepared to take full advantage. In the study of law, besides wide learning and thorough discipline, he displayed great zeal and diligence. In 1767 he was admitted to the bar, and within a few years attained the first rank in his profession. At the same time, those very talents, together with his intimacy with Dickinson, brought him into prominence in politics. He was strongly attached to his adopted country, and was deeply interested in the discussion that agitated the colonies. By the beginning of 1774 this discussion reached a crisis. Neither argument nor persuasion had induced America to submit to taxation by Parliament ; and now the British government resolved to compel submission, if need be, by force of arms. In this emergency the colonies felt the necessity of united deliberation and action. Accordingly, Massachusetts called a colonial congress to meet at Philadelphia the ensuing autumn. Soon afterward, in Pennsylvania, a provincial convention was assembled under the lead of Dickinson, to act upon that call, to consider the common grievances, and to determine the policy of the province. To this convention James Wilson was a delegate; and in its deliberations he exhibited a grasp of the situation and a familiarity with political science that placed him at once among the leading statesmen of the province. So favorably was the convention impressed with his services and his abilities that he was nominated with Dickinson to represent Pennsylvania in the coming congress, and would have been elected a delegate had it not been for a factious opposition.

The knowledge and readiness thus displayed by James Wilson in dealing with the dispute with Great Britain was partly the result of a thorough study of the principles of government in connection with the impending crisis. He now published — in August, 1774—a paper which he had written several years earlier. It was entitled Considerations on the Nature and Extent of the Legislative Authority of the British Parliament; and it had an aspect and presented conclusions that gave it a peculiar position in that age of political pamphlets.

Up to this time the only question openly in dispute between England and America was, May Parliament tax the colonies? By most of the colonists, except such as were influenced by the British ministry or Board of Trade, it was asserted that America, not being represented in Parliament, could not lawfully or justly be taxed by that body. This position was taken also by the elder Pitt in Parliament. “ This kingdom,” he declared, “has no right to lay a tax upon the colonies. . . . Taxes are the voluntary gift and grant of the Commons alone.” Burke, while admitting the right, denied the expediency of taxing the colonies. But the majority in Parliament and the ministry affirmed both the right and the expediency. Moreover, it was within their policy — though not yet fully developed nor openly avowed — that Parliament might and should legislate for the colonies, not merely upon the subject of taxation, but upon all other subjects whatever. Even Pitt, excepting only taxation, asserted “the authority of this kingdom over the colonies to be sovereign and supreme in every circumstance of government and legislation ; and Burke, from his theory of the English Constitution, was unable to dispute this vicious and unwarranted exercise of parliamentary power. Thus the drift of English colonial policy toward absolutism received no effective check among English statesmen.

In the colonies the patriots generally were willing to submit to the legislative authority of Parliament with respect to most subjects. It was only to the right and the policy of taxation that their opposition was unanimous. This prevailing opinion was shared also by Wilson, at first. He began his inquiry, he says, “ with a view and expectation of being able to trace some constitutional line between those cases in which we ought and those in which we ought not to acknowledge the power of Parliament over us.” At its close he became convinced that the legislative authority of the English Parliament over the colonies must be denied in every instance.

In this position James Wilson stood forth in opposition to English statesmen and in advance of colonial leaders. The first squarely to antagonize the arbitrary tendency of English politics in its most aggressive form, he became the foremost champion of the liberties of Englishmen everywhere. Aware of the significance and the isolation of his position, he made sure that it was founded on the English Constitution and supported by political maxims and English history. His argument is as simple as it is conclusive : “The colonists are entitled to all the privileges of Britons,” the English law being the birthright of every English subject, wherever he may be. One such privilege and a maxim of the English law is that freemen may not be governed without the consent of their representatives ; and since the colonists are not actually represented in Parliament, they are not subject to its legislative authority. He then states the constitutional relation of Great Britain to the colonies, appealing to the tenor of their charters and to the circumstances of their settlement. He shows that at the time of the earliest settlements the dependence of the colonies on the mother country was understood both by the planters themselves and by the most eminent lawyers, including Lord Bacon, to denote “ the obedience and loyalty which the colonists owe to the kings of Great Britain.” In short, he held that the Americans were in no wise dependent on Parliament, but were subject only to the Crown.

This view of the proper relation between the parts of the British Empire was reached by James Wilson when less than thirty years of age. Yet it displays an originality, a penetration, a grasp, and a foresight that place him among the greatest political thinkers of his time. Rising above the level of contemporary political thought, he laid bare the absolutist tendency in the ministerial policy, showing that it was both false and dangerous to English liberty and to the English Constitution. At the same time, pointing to the history of colonization and the terms of the colonial charters, he showed what policy would both accord with legal precedent and promote the prosperity of the empire.

Could Wilson’s view have been made the basis of compromise and conciliation between England and her colonies, it might have changed the course of subsequent history. At any rate, the Revolution would not have taken place: its causes would have been wanting. But that view was inconsistent with the theory of the old colonial system to which the England of George III. was blindly devoted. According to that theory, a colony was “ a mere estate, out of which the mother country is to make a pecuniary profit;” and to this end the unlimited authority of Parliament was essential. Rather than yield one jot of that authority, England preferred to hazard, even to lose, her colonial empire.

Since that time, new colonies have sprung from the parent stock, but how different is their relation to the mother country! Convinced by the logic of events, England has gradually advanced to the position taken by James Wilson in 1774, and has conceded both freedom of trade and independence of Parliament. She has, “ once for all, ceased to be a stepmother,” as Professor J. R. Seeley expresses it, in his Expansion of England. She now finds it possible and expedient to attract the trade of her colonies, not by imposing arbitrary, selfish, and restrictive laws, but by offering superior inducements and by emphasizing common interests. The leading English statesmen and publicists to-day would heartily assent to the opinion of James Wilson, “that all regulations of trade are useless; that the greater part of them are hurtful; and that the stream of commerce never flows with so much beauty and advantage as when it is not diverted from its natural channels.” In like manner, that which England denied in 1774 to the thirteen colonies she has conceded in recent years to Canada and Australia, for over these colonies the legislative authority of Parliament does not extend. There exists to-day that connection which Wilson, more than a century ago, advocated as both just and constitutional. As he said, “the different members of the British Empire are distinct states, independent of each other, but connected together under the same sovereign in right of the same crown.”

Under such a connection the American colonies, since their settlement, had enjoyed the privilege of governing themselves, under the supervision and protection of the Crown; and now, this privilege being threatened by parliamentary aggression, they claimed it as their right, guaranteed by their charters and by the English Constitution. Provided this right were acknowledged and respected, they were willing to make almost any concessions for the sake of preserving that relation with England under which they had grown and prospered. Hence they repeatedly petitioned their sovereign for redress of grievances, but in vain. In the fall of 1775 their final petition was rejected. They were declared rebels, and troops were sent for their subjugation. Meanwhile, English soldiers had fired upon New England yeomen at Lexington and Concord. A colonial army had quickly assembled to repel invasion, and Congress, compelled to assume control, had made Washington commander-in-chief. These events, all tending to conflict, destroyed hope of reconciliation. At the same time came the suggestion of independence. In January, 1776, Thomas Paine, developing the thought, stood forth as the people’s spokesman. In his famous pamphlet, entitled Common Sense, he declared that the time for debate was closed, and arms, the last resort, should decide the contest. The time seemed ripening for a permanent separation.

In the Continental Congress there was much sympathy with this movement, though a difference of opinion as to its maturity. One party, led by Samuel and John Adams, had long meditated independence, and now vehemently urged its declaration. The other party, led by John Dickinson and James Wilson, with equal earnestness opposed this proposition as premature. That the declaration of independence was inevitable Wilson did not deny; but as it was a final and irrevocable step, he insisted that it be preceded by the plain and unanimous approval of the thirteen colonies. This view finally prevailed. As Jefferson said : “It appearing in the course of the debates that the colonies of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and South Carolina were not yet matured for falling from the parent stem, but that they were fast advancing to that state, it was thought most prudent to wait awhile for them.”

This policy of delay was fully justified by what followed, for unanimity was obtained only with great difficulty. In Pennsylvania especially the opposition was determined and persistent, and the matter was involved in a struggle for supremacy between the old provincial Assembly and the new patriot conference. The instructions of the former were ambiguous in terms and impliedly unfavorable to independence; those of the latter were outspoken in its favor. Thus the delegates from that province were left to obey the one or the other, at their discretion or according to their sympathies; and at this point Wilson drew apart from Dickinson, with whom, first as his legal instructor and then as a political associate, he had long been upon intimate terms. In the final debate upon Lee’s resolution for independence Dickinson still led the opposition. Consulting his fears, he appeared to believe that the colonies would certainly be subjugated, and should not, by declaring their independence, cut off hope of clemency. But Wilson had hesitated not from fear, but from caution. During the delay the backward colonies had newly instructed their delegates, and as there was now substantial unanimity, he no longer refused to vote for independence.

It is possible for us to-day to appreciate the wisdom and patriotism of Wilson’s course, but at the time this was not so easy. Undoubtedly the success of the Revolution would have been greatly hazarded had there been a lack of unanimity in its formal beginning, the declaration of independence. This danger was avoided first by a firm and temperate resistance to premature action, and finally by a courageous sacrifice of party associations and personal attachments. For several years after this event, Wilson’s conduct was misunderstood and his character maligned. During these years he passed through an experience that on the one hand involved some of the most remarkable incidents of the Revolutionary struggle, and on the other severely tested his integrity and abilities.

It is difficult now to understand how much the American colonies suffered from internal misgovernment and partisanship during the Revolutionary era. The separation from the mother country necessitated in many cases the casting aside of the charters and other royal institutions, and the reorganization of government upon a more popular basis. In New England, where society was more stable and homogeneous, this process was accompanied with fewer evils; but in the Middle States the people were not so well prepared to institute and conduct a thorough yet temperate selfgovernment. Hence much disturbance and strife attended the change in their political institutions. In Pennsylvania the transition was complicated by an unusual development and bitterness of parties, to which allusion has already been made. The struggle for power between the proprietary and the popular parties, with John Dickinson and Benjamin Franklin as their respective leaders, had culminated over the question of separation, and the declaration of independence had marked the triumph of the popular party, who advocated that measure. The friends of independence followed up their advantage in a manner quasi-revolutionary. A convention controlled by them assembled, upon the pretext of framing a constitution for the State; but after choosing Franklin as its president it assumed executive and legislative power in a bold and arbitrary manner, practically deposing the governor and superseding the Assembly. Then, with thorough consistency, it proceeded to reconstruct the political institutions of Pennsylvania from the foundation, with but little regard for the teachings of colonial experience, and the constitution that resulted was suited rather to perpetuate partisan rule than to protect popular liberty; for it gave to a legislature of a single chamber all power of legislation, and to a council of twelve men full authority to guard the public safety and to execute the laws, — providing, however, no checks or balances whatever to prevent hasty or oppressive proceedings. It also violated freedom of conscience — the time-honored policy of Pennsylvania — by requiring in the official oath a peculiar statement of religious belief. As a fitting conclusion of the proceeding, this constitution, though by its terms unalterable for seven years, was not submitted to the people for their approval, but was adopted and put in force by the very convention that framed it.

The history of the American Revolution presents few political episodes so extraordinary as this. In the confusion and distraction of the times, a single party— nay, a party convention, a minute portion of the population — saddled the people with a government both in its origin and in its nature wrongful and mischievous ; and that, too, with the approval and guidance of Benjamin Franklin, the most popular and most brilliant man in the State. Surely, this was an ominous step for Pennsylvania in the path of popular government; and it boded ill also for a stable and rational union among the States. It clearly tended to the destruction, not to the preservation, of republican liberty.

Fortunately, the nature and tendency of the tactics and principles here employed were evident to most of the leading men in the State. From James Wilson they received severe condemnation and determined opposition ; and with him sided John Dickinson, Thomas McKean, Dr. Benjamin Rush, Robert Morris, and many others. They took the name of Republicans, pledged themselves not to accept office under this state government, and endeavored by agitation to secure its proper amendment. But Franklin and his party — styling themselves Constitutionalists — were equally determined and vigilant. The latter controlled the government, and used their power against their opponents. James Wilson, from his eminent position and distinguished talents, was among the first to attract their attention. Since May, 1775, he had represented Pennsylvania in the Continental Congress, and had been a useful and influential member. But his services did not avail. In view of his outspoken opposition to the new state government he was superseded in 1777.

Wilson’s constant resistance to arbitrary rule and courageous performance of duty did not simply deprive him of office. In one instance they nearly cost him his life. The incident here referred to occurred soon after the evacuation of Philadelphia by Sir Henry Clinton in 1778. The condition of the city at this time illustrated most of the evils of the Revolutionary War. During the British occupation the Tories had been allowed to gratify their animosity and greed. Besides persecuting the Whigs still remaining in the city, they had, in company with British officers, seized or destroyed property to the extent of nearly a million dollars ; and the consequent resentment and misery of the Whigs upon regaining possession of their plundered or ruined homes may be imagined more easily than described. To add to the general distress, there was a dearth of food and of other necessaries of life. Merchants and shop-keepers generally were loath to exchange their goods for Continental currency that was rapidly depreciating; and some of them may have improved the opportunity of increasing their gains by enhancing prices. At any rate, in addition to and in connection with the chronic strife over the state constitution, much ill-feeling arose between the merchants and shop-keepers on the one side and the citizens in general on the other. The latter, calling a town meeting, appointed a committee to fix prices; and immediately, without the consent of the merchants, an arbitrary schedule was adopted, and penalties for its violation were fixed. This action was of course loudly denounced by the tradesmen and merchants as an invasion of the right of property, a tax on one class for the benefit of another. Such it certainly was ; and as such it was opposed also by James Wilson.

Wilson thus became doubly obnoxious to the democracy. Since the British occupation he had practiced law in Philadelphia, and had on several occasions, when retained, defended Tories when they were prosecuted for treason. Recently these prosecutions had increased in number, but not fast enough to satisfy the popular resentment. Hence the militia determined to take more energetic measures. At first they appointed a committee for the purpose of arresting British sympathizers; but later, enlarging their plans, they avowed the intent of punishing not only Tories, but also monopolizers and engrossers, together with the lawyers that had dared to defend the one class and to abet the other. Shortly afterward placards were posted in several parts of the city, denouncing James Wilson, Robert Morris, and others ; and on the same day the militia proceeded to carry out their threats. Led by several bold spirits, including a ship-joiner and a tailor, they set out, some two hundred in number, to find James Wilson. At his house, a large brick building, a company of friends, including Robert Morris, had assembled, armed for common protection. The troop of cavalry that had been summoned at an early hour to keep the peace had just dispersed to their homes for the midday meal, so that no resistance was offered to the rapid advance of the mob. On reaching the house, they found it prepared for defense ; but not to be balked of their prey, and maddened by shots from the building, they rushed forward to force an entrance, broke down the door, and attacked the inmates. They would probably have killed them all had not a troop of horse, at this moment, galloped down the street and effected a rescue. As it was, three persons were killed, several were wounded, and the city was thrown into intense excitement, which was allayed only by strenuous exertions of the authorities. At the wish and by the advice of his friends, Wilson withdrew temporarily from the city. General amnesty was declared; and the affair of “Fort Wilson,” as it was called, was soon overshadowed by ensuing events.

This outbreak was a natural result of the arbitrary rule, partisan strife, and public distress that afflicted Philadelphia at this period of the Revolution. Through the whole Wilson had pursued a straightforward course. He did not yield his political principles to an unscrupulous majority nor to a maddened populace. His professional duty he performed at all hazards. The value of such a course at the time cannot easily be estimated. In addition to the war with Great Britain, the people of the thirteen colonies were then working out the problem of thorough self-government for a locality, a State ; and upon its proper solution depended the fate of the nation. In Pennsylvania, a large, powerful, central State, the popular party, ignorant, undisciplined, harassed, misguided, early obtained control; and they instituted and conducted government in a manner inconsistent with English precedents and subversive of English liberty. To this tide James Wilson presented unyielding resistance. He checked, if he did not stem, its course.

Valuable as was this early struggle of Wilson in Pennsylvania, it does not constitute his most important work in the evolution of popular government in the United States. This he performed in a larger sphere, — the arena of national politics. Within a few years after the affair of Fort Wilson, the consistency and uprightness of his conduct were appreciated. He was returned to the Continental Congress as a delegate from Pennsylvania, and was retained in that capacity, one year excepted, during the continuance of the confederation. He was thus in Congress during the critical period of American history following the close of the Revolutionary War. He took a leading part, in particular proposing the plan of general taxation adopted in 1783. He witnessed the failure of this and of the other efforts of Congress to meet the obligations and provide for the necessities of the United States; and he soon fixed the cause of those failures in the defects of the Articles of Confederation as a form of union and an instrument of government. When at last a like conviction was brought to the minds of the people by the discipline of general distress and national dishonor, he was among that distinguished company of men chosen in 1787 for their experience and learning in politics to consider the nature of the general government, and to make it adequate to the exigencies of the Union.

The first duty of the Convention of 1787 was to assert the residence of sovereign power in the people of the United States as an aggregate. The several colonies, founded on the Atlantic seaboard in the seventeenth century, organized under their charters, acknowledged the sovereignty and received the protection of the English Crown. Drawn together at first by a community of allegiance and of blood, then by a rapid assimilation of institutions and sentiments, they were finally united by a common danger : their king, instead of a protector, became an oppressor. Thereupon, the people of the thirteen colonies, through their representatives in Congress assembled, disowned his sovereignty and declared their independence. Thereby exercising sovereign power, they became a nation, — a sovereign people in thirteen States.

This supreme result of the Revolution had not yet been properly formulated. Indeed, it was not generally recognized. In the earliest attempts at union a feeling of unity and fraternity did indeed arise. As James Wilson stated before the Convention : “ Among the first sentiments expressed in the first Congress, one was that Virginia is no more, that Massachusetts is no more, that Pennsylvania is no more, etc. : we are now one nation of brethren ; we must bury all local interests and distinctions. . . . No sooner were the state governments formed than their jealousy and ambition began to display themselves.” Thenceforward it was a widely accepted notion that by the declaration of independence the thirteen colonies had become sovereign and independent, not collectively, but individually. This is that evil principle that so persistently and perniciously afflicted the body politic from 1776 to 1864. Brought into being and nourished by state jealousy, it finally produced as its perfect fruit ultra “state rights,” secession, and rebellion. But its earliest important recognition and expression was in the Articles of Confederation. This instrument instituted a general government, resting in and acting on the States, with powers to be executed through the agency, not of individuals, but of States. In practice, subjected thus to the capricious wills of thirteen distinct communities, that government had proved an utter failure. It broke down largely by reason of the vicious assumption that supreme power in government rested in the States as individual communities.

It was to consider this failure and to provide a remedy that the Constitutional Convention had been called. Among the delegates, the larger, abler party, convinced that the weakness of the existing government was essential, not superficial, determined to discard the Articles of Confederation, and to build anew from the true foundation of popular sovereignty, — the doctrine that supreme power in government rests in the people of the United States as an aggregate. This party may be called the Nationalists, and their most active and influential leaders were James Madison and James Wilson. Their plan contemplated a government really national,

— resting in and acting on individuals, not States, and consisting of a supreme legislature, executive, and judiciary, drawn from the people as contrasted with the States.

In promoting their object the Nationalists exhibited much address. According to a preconcerted agreement among the delegates from Virginia and Pennsylvania, a scheme of a national government was brought forward immediately upon the opening of the Convention, and thus the main issue was at once squarely raised. In terms it was as stated by Edmund Randolph, “ Whether we shall adhere to the Federal plan or introduce the National plan.” But in reality it was a contest between the principles upon which these plans were based,

— state supremacy and popular sovereignty ; and as such it was frankly acknowledged in the ensuing debate. Luther Martin declared that at the separation from Great Britain the people of America were thrown into a state of nature, and preferred the establishment of themselves into thirteen separate sovereignties instead of incorporating themselves into one. To this James Wilson replied : “ In the Declaration of Independence the united colonies were declared to be free and independent States ; independent not individually, but unitedly.” The latter view prevailed. The Convention, by adopting a resolution to establish a national government, made a decision of supreme importance to the future of republican government. For it made the first conspicuous assertion that the United States is a nation, and it established an authoritative precedent for future interpreters and defenders of the Union.

Though securing the formal approval of their plan, the Nationalists were not so fortunate in the reception of its details. The most important of these was the popularization of the legislature,— the election of members of Congress directly by the people, and proportionally to the population. But this measure was also novel and radical. It ignored the state governments, and regarded only the people. Of course such an innovation would greatly reduce the relative influence of the small States in national affairs, and hence it was opposed by their delegates in the Convention. Led by John Dickinson, of Delaware, and Oliver Ellsworth, of Connecticut, they determined, at all hazards, to uphold the prestige and equality of their States. To this end, though in the main favoring a national government, they joined the advocates of the federal plan in demanding that, as under the Confederation, representatives in Congress should be elected by the state legislatures and be apportioned equally among the States. For weeks these two views, equally advocated, but diametrically opposed, divided and distracted the Convention. They blocked its further progress, and nearly brought it to failure and despair.

In this extremity, the champions of equality among the States shrewdly endeavored, through a show of compromise, substantially to gain their point. They proposed that the Lower House of Congress be constituted according to the nationalist view, and the Senate upon the federal plan, — that Representatives be elected by the people in proportion to population, but Senators by the state legislatures, the same number for each State. But for the Nationalists it was inconsistent to recognize the equality of the States at all, either in the Senate or the Lower House ; and it was James Wilson who saw this most clearly and maintained it most forcibly. Possessing an original, ready, and logical mind, he alone followed, without hesitation or deviation, to its complete, consistent development the idea of a government by the people. His reasoning was axiomatic : “ As all authority is derived from the people, equal numbers of the people ought to have equal numbers of representatives; . . . the majority, wherever found, ought to rule.” His conclusion was equally simple, — that the States, not being equal in population, should not have an equal influence in either branch of Congress. Similarly, the people, being the source of power, should be represented through delegates chosen by themselves, not by the state legislatures. “ Representation ought to be the exact transcript of society.... The general government is not an assembly of States, but of individuals, for certain political purposes; it is not meant for the States, but for the individuals comprising them : the individuals, therefore, not the States, ought to be represented in it.” These conclusions he deemed essential to a government truly national. With intense feeling and prophetic insight he exclaimed : “We are laying the foundation of a building in which millions are interested, and which is to last for ages. In laying one stone amiss we may injure the superstructure ; and what will be the consequence if the cornerstone should be loosely placed ! ”

In this crisis of the debate, Wilson did not receive the firm and united support of his party. Madison, hitherto his most effective ally, was now overcautious and undecided. He expressed the opinion that, in regard to the Senate, the popular election might well be “ refined by successive filtrations; ” and he was willing that, in apportioning Senators, the slaves should be counted in the population. Some of the Nationalists went so far as to welcome the compromise. Unable wholly to free themselves from state prejudices and attachments, they had become convinced by the reiterated assertion of the opposition that the thorough development of the national idea would degrade and belittle the state governments, and hence be obnoxious to the people. It was in vain that Wilson and Madison declared that the adoption of proportional representation would not affect the proper powers and influence of the States, and, being founded in justice, must be acceptable to the people. They were overruled, and the compromise was accepted. As a result, the constitution of the Senate of the United States is to-day an anomaly in representative government.

Nevertheless, anomalous as it was, it conciliated the delegates from the small States, and secured their support in the further application of the national principle. Henceforth the Convention was impeded not so much by contention as liy inexperience. This was the case particularly in constituting the national executive. Should there be a single president or an executive board, and what should be the method of selection ? As Bancroft points out, “ Federal government in Greece, in Switzerland, and in Holland, like the confederation of the United States, had been without a separate executive branch ; and the elective monarchies of Poland, of the Papal States, and of Germany offered no available precedents.”

In dealing with this subject the genius of James Wilson was again evident. First and last he advocated the unity and popular election of the national executive. Though inferior to none in a knowledge of foreign politics and history, he recalled attention to the experience of the States: every one of the thirteen had a single executive. Then reminding the Convention of its primary design, the establishment of government by the people, he urged that the executive be made first of all “ the man of the people.” To this end he deemed a popular election essential, but, with a view to protect it from intrigue and corruption, suggested the medium of electors chosen by the people.

Though the Convention soon adopted Wilson’s idea of a single executive, it did not at first approve his expedient of an electoral college. Over this question— the method of electing the President— the statesmen of 1787 suffered much perplexity, and fell into “ an anarchy of opinion.” After all, they were brought to accept the mode proposed by Wilson in the beginning,—election by the people through the medium of electors. This result, he believed, partly offset his defeat in the plan he advocated for the constitution of the Senate. For, as he afterward said, “ the true principle of representation is carried into the House of Representatives and into the choice of the President ; and without the assistance of the one or the other the Senate is inactive, and can do neither good nor evil.”

In the constitution of the judiciary the Nationalists experienced much less difficulty. Here too Wilson’s mind predominated. His suggestion that the judges be appointed by the President was preferred to Madison’s, that they be chosen by the Senate. Wilson was acknowledged to be the “ best read lawyer ” in the! Convention ; and he was placed with Rutledge, Randolph, and Ellsworth upon the important committee of detail. The report of this committee outlining the judiciary system was adopted, essentially unchanged, by the Convention.

It has been seen that in the constitution of the three great departments of the government of the United States, Congress, the Presidency, and the Judiciary,— in the main the plan of the Nationalists was executed. Thus at last the sovereignty of the people was asserted against the supremacy of the States, and the fabric of republican liberty was fixed upon a sure foundation. Englishmen, though in exile, had maintained their capacity for government.

It is not possible here to expatiate upon the services of James Wilson in this great work. Enough has been said to show that they were unique. No one of his associates was so well constituted for usefulness. It is true that Hamilton shared with Wilson the advantage of foreign birth, whereby they were able to regard these momentous problems in politics with minds comparatively free from state prejudice and local jealousy. But in the case of the former this advantage was qualified by a lack of sympathy with local institutions, and by an outspoken prejudice against republican government. He was therefore deemed an unsafe leader. As Lansing expressed it, Hamilton “was praised by everybody, but supported by none.” Madison, like Wilson, had a deep faith in a general government based on the people, and together they were the chief agents in its realization. But by Wilson the idea was more clearly and thoroughly conceived, more readily and consistently developed. With at least equal learning and experience, Wilson was the more fervid, more eloquent advocate. Bancroft calls Wilson “ the most learned civilian,” and Madison “the most careful statesman,” of the Convention. Hence it was that Wilson had such a commanding position among his associates. He arrested their attention by his originality, readiness, and learning, and compelled their assent by his logic and eloquence. More than all, he impressed them with his breadth of view and elevation of spirit. “ In forming the general government,” he declared, “ we must forget our local habits and attachments, lay aside our state connections, and act for the general good of the whole. . . . When I consider the amazing extent of country, the immense population which is to fill it, the influence which the government we are to form will have, not only on the present generation of our people and their multiplied posterity, but on the whole globe, I am lost in the magnitude of the object.”

The part taken by James Wilson in the Convention of 1787 was not his final service in behalf of the Constitution of the United States. That was his timely and decisive influence in securing its ratification by Pennsylvania, — a work the more valuable because it involved a final and victorious struggle against error and misrule in local politics. The character of the state government, the circumstances of its origin, together with the party strife to which they gave rise, have already been described. This strife now revived with even greater bitterness and intensity over the question of ratifying the Constitution of the United States. The government framed for the nation was in many respects directly opposite to that existing in Pennsylvania, and the ratification of the former would inevitably lead to the amendment or downfall of the latter; hence it was resisted to the utmost by those of the patriot party who upheld the existing system.

But the advocates of ratification — the Federalists — were confident and aggressive. Within twenty-four hours after the Constitution was submitted by Congress, they caused a convention to be called for its consideration, and thus precipitated a discussion which for warmth and virulence had scarcely been equaled in American history. The chief medium was the newspapers. In the Independent Gazetteer, or Chronicle of Freedom, attacks upon the Constitution appeared in rapid succession, — observations by Philadelphiensis, the celebrated letters by Centinel, and squibs by Columbus, Gouvero, Tom Peep, ByeStander, Tar-and-Feathers, etc. ; while in the Pennsylvania Packet and other papers these attacks were answered over names equally striking, including Plain Truth, Conciliator, and the New Roof.

In this campaign James Wilson was one of the chief actors. Some of the more able and temperate letters were attributed to his pen ; and he was selected as the champion of the Federalists publicly to present their views. Accordingly, in a speech at the State House, Philadelphia, he examined and refuted the objections to the Constitution, and explained and elucidated many of its principles and provisions. Though frankly confessing that in some respects he would have had it different, he asserted that on the whole “ it is the best form of government which has ever been offered to the world.”

According to Bancroft, “this speech was promptly reprinted in New York as a reply to the insinuations of Lee, and through the agency of Washington it was republished in Richmond.” Its effectiveness in Pennsylvania was shown by the means used to break its force. When argument had been vainly exhausted, resort was had to vituperation. Wilson was called a haughty aristocrat and nicknamed James the Caledonian, while the Constitutional Convention itself was described as the Dark Conclave.

The use of such methods disclosed the weakness of the opposition, — a fact that became quite evident upon the assembling of the state convention. Among the delegates, the Federalists outnumbered their opponents nearly two to one. Nevertheless, as this was the first state convention to consider the Constitution, they deemed it proper to permit a fair, open, and candid discussion. Accordingly, for three weeks the Anti-Federalists were allowed to present every objection that ingenuity could devise or exasperation suggest.

Among the Federalist delegates, James Wilson alone had assisted in framing the Constitution : hence upon him, ably seconded by Dr. Benjamin Rush and Chief Justice McKean, fell the burden of its defense; and this opportunity he made in many respects the greatest occasion of his life. First examining and refuting every objection, however weak or petty, he would rise to the situation and the subject. With great dignity and eloquence he described the difficulties under which the ramers had labored, the spirit with which they had been inspired, the purposes which they had kept in view, and the results which they had accomplished. Taking up the Constitution itself, he not only explained its provisions in detail, but also traced its underlying principles and broad features,— and that with a reach of view comprehending the history and politics of foreign nations as well as the hopes and possibilities for the United States. James Wilson’s speeches before the Pennsylvania convention should be ranked with the letters of Hamilton, Madison, and Jay in The Federalist as political classics and commentaries on the Constitution. Professor James Bryce, in his recent book, The American Commonwealth. expresses the opinion that the speeches of Wilson “ in the Pennsylvania ratifying convention, as well as in the great Convention of 1787, display an amplitude and profundity of view in matters of constitutional theory which place him in the front rank of political thinkers of his age.”

At the outset and repeatedly in the debate, it again became necessary to confute the heresy of state sovereignty. “ I am astonished,” Wilson exclaimed, “ to hear the ill-founded doctrine that States alone ought to be represented in the federal government; these must possess sovereign authority, forsooth, and the people be forgot ! No: let us reascend to first principles. . . . The people of the United States are now in the possession and exercise of their original rights, and while this doctrine is known and operates we shall have a cure for every disease.” This, indeed, was the guiding and inspiring force in Wilson’s political career, — faith in the people. “ Oft have I marked,” he says, “with silent pleasure and admiration the force and prevalence through the United States of the principle that the supreme power resides in the people, and that they never part with it. . . . The streams of power run in different directions, but they all originally flow from one abundant fountain. In this Constitution all authority is derived from the people.” Of the method by which the people rule, representation, he says : “ The principle of representation, unknown to the ancients, is confined to a narrow corner of the British Constitution. For the American States were reserved the glory and happiness of diffusing this vital principle throughout the constituent parts of government.”

With such a leader the Federalists carried all before them. Sure of ratification, they brought the debate toward a close ; and Wilson, in a final appeal, looking far into the future, made a prediction as eloquent in language as it has been remarkable for its fulfillment. It was a fitting climax to his defense of the Constitution. “ By adopting this system, we shall probably lay a foundation for erecting temples of liberty in every part of the earth. It has been thought by many that on the success of the struggle America has made for freedom will depend the exertions of the brave and enlightened of other nations. The advantages resulting from this system will not be confined to the United States ; it will draw from Europe many worthy characters, who pant for the enjoyment of freedom. It will induce princes, in order to preserve their subjects, to restore to them a portion of that liberty of which they have for so many ages been deprived. It will be subservient to the great designs of Providence, with regard to this globe, in the multiplication of mankind, their improvement in knowledge, and their advancement in happiness.”

The ratification of the Constitution by Pennsylvania had a twofold effect, national and local. Though in the midst of the strongest Anti-Federalist activity, it was the first large State to accept the new government. A wave of sentiment in its favor was thus started, which swept on, increasing, over the whole seaboard. Equally great and beneficial was the effect in improving the political system of Pennsylvania. The recent debate had enlightened the people concerning the defectiveness of their government, and public sentiment soon compelled Its thorough revision. In the state convention called for this purpose, Wilson was upon the committee charged with preparing a new constitution, and himself performed the task of drawing the instrument. Radical changes were made: the supreme executive council was abolished, a senate was created, and the office of president was superseded by that of governor. In all important respects the new government was made to conform to the system lately adopted for the United States.

This establishment of order and good government in his adopted State was the final triumph of Wilson’s political career. He could now say to his fellowcitizens of the State and of the nation : “ I am happy in the expectation of seeing accomplished what has been long my ardent wish, — that you will hereafter have a salutary permanency in magistracy and stability in the laws.” Indeed. this is the most prominent fact in his life, — a great and beneficent purpose, early conceived, steadfastly pursued, and ultimately accomplished. That purpose was the establishment of republican liberty in the United States.

Frank Gaylord Cook.