Page:The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 Volume 3.djvu/470

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

the Constitution? Nay, has not the distinguished individual alluded to, when subsequently President of the United States, in a solemn message to Congress, denied that any such power was conferred by the Constitution? Surely it would not have been unknown to him, if the Convention had ever intended to delegate the power. Consult, also, the work recently published by Mr. Yates, another member of the Convention, and nothing will be found favorable to the presumption. At the present moment, we have in this very body a distinguished member of that Convention.[1] He was present, and voted on the amendment I have read from the Journal. Doubtless he will be able to inform us whether the rejection of the amendment proceeded from a belief in the Convention that the power was conferred in some other clause of the Constitution.[2] This second presumption, then, is fallacious, and, consequently, Congress have no power, either express or implied, over the subject of roads and canals.


ⅭⅭⅭⅬⅣ. T.H. Benton on Retiring of Rufus King from the United States Senate.[3]

In one of our conversations, and upon the formation of the constitution in the federal convention of 1787, he said some things to me which, I think ought to be remembered by future generations, to enable them to appreciate justly those founders of our government who were in favor of a stronger organization than was adopted. He said: “You young men who have been born since the Revolution, look with horror upon the name of a King, and upon all propositions for a strong government. It was not so with us. We were born the subjects of a King, and were accustomed to subscribe ourselves ‘His Majesty’s most faithful subjects;’ and we began the quarrel which ended in the Revolution, not against the King, but against his parliament; and in making the new government many propositions were submitted which would not bear discussion; and ought not to be quoted against their authors, being offered for consideration, and to bring out opinions, and which, though behind the opinions of this day, were in advance of those of that day.”—These things were said chiefly in relation to General Hamilton, who had submitted propositions stronger than those adopted, but nothing like those which party spirit attributed to him.


  1. Hon. Rufus King, of New York.
  2. In this part of his remarks, Mr. C. addressed himself to Mr. K. who, shaking his head, is understood to have said, “Such a thing was not thought of.” Mr. K. voted against the bill.
  3. T.H. Benton, Thirty Years’ View, Ⅰ, 58.