1. DEBATE OVER CONSTITUTION

itself is indefensible. Upon a subject so momentous, the public has a
right to the sentiments of every individual that will reason: I therefore
do not think any apology necessary for appearing in print; and I hope
to avoid, at least, the indiscriminate censure which you have, with so
much candor and liberality, thrown on those who will not worship your
idol-"that they are industriously endeavouring to prevent and destroy
it, by insidious and clandestine attempts." Give me leave just to suggest,
that perhaps these clandestine attempts might have been owing to the
terror of your mob, which so nobly endeavoured to prevent all freedom
of action and of speech.' The reptile Doctor, who was employed to blow
the trumpet of persecution, would have answered the public reasoning
of an opponent, by hounding on him the rage of a deluded populace.2
It was to such men, and under such impressions, that you made the
speech which I am now to examine; no wonder then that it was received
with loud and unanimous testamonies of their approbation. They were
vociferating through you the panegyric of their own intemperate opin-
ions.
Your first attempt is to apologize for so very obvious a defect as-
the omission of a declaration of rights. This apology consists in a very
ingenious discovery; that in the state constitutions, whatever is not re-
served is given; but in the congressional constitution, whatever is not
given, is reserved. This has more the quaintness of a conundrum, than
the dignity of an argument. The conventions that made the state and
the general constitutions, sprang from the same source, were delegated
for the same purpose-that is, for framing rules by which we should
be governed, and ascertaining those powers which it was necessary to
vest in our rulers. Where then is this distinction to be found, but in
your assumption? Is it in the powers given to the members of conven-
tion? no-Is it in the constitution? not a word of it:-And yet on this
play of words, this dictum of yours, this distinction without a difference,
you would persuade us to rest our most essential rights. I trust, however,
that the good sense of this free people cannot be so easily imposed on
by professional figments. The confederation, in its very outset, de-
clares-that what is not expressly given, is reserved. This constitution
makes no such reservation. The presumption therefore is, that the
framers of the proposed constitution, did not mean to subject it to the
same exception.
You instance, Sir, the liberty of the press; which you would persuade
us, is in no danger, though not secured, because there is no express
power granted to regulate literary publications. But you surely know,
Sir, that where general powers are expressly granted, the particular

162