gentleman over the way said. He rose with great triumph and exultation, saying that we had conceded that the government was national. The honorable gentleman is so little used to triumph on the grounds of reasoning, that he suffers himself to be quite captivated by the least appearance of victory. What reason had he to say that we admitted it to be a national government? We agree that the sword and the purse are in the hands of the general government for different designated purposes. What had the honorable member conceded? That the objects of the government were general, as designated in that system, equally affecting the interests of the people of every state. This was the sole concession, and which by no means warrants his conclusion. Then why did the honorable gentleman seize it as a victory? Does he mean to object to the Constitution by putting words into our mouths which we never uttered? Did that gentleman say that the happiness of the people depended on the private virtues of the members of the government, and not on its construction? Did any gentleman admit this, as he insinuated? No, sir, we never admitted such a conclusion. Why, then, take up the time of this house in declaiming on words we never said? We say that it will secure our liberty and happiness, and that it is so constructed and organized, that we need apprehend no danger.
But, says he, the creature destroys the creator. How has he proved it.^ By his bare assertion. By ascribing infinitude to powers clearly limited and defined, for certain designated purposes. I shall not repeat the arguments which have fully refuted this idea of the honorable gentleman.
But gentlemen say that we must apply to the militia to execute the constitutional laws, without the interposition of the civil power, and that a military officer is to be substituted for the sheriff in all cases. This unwarrantable objection is urged, like many others, to produce the rejection of this government, though contrary to reason. What is the meaning of the clause under debate? Does not their explanation violate the natural meaning of language? Is it to be inferred that, when the laws are not opposed, judgments must be executed by the militia.^ Is this the right and liberal way of discussing the general national objects? I am astonished that gentlemen should attempt to impose so absurd a construction upon us.
