COMMENTARIES, 22 NOVEMBER 1787

9. Under the Constitution, New York had only six representatives in the U.S. House
of Representatives. On 21 June 1788 Antifederalist John Williams repeated this argument,
almost in the same words, in the New York Convention (V below).
10. See "Brutus" III, New York Journal, 15 November (above).
Cincinnatus IV: To James Wilson, Esquire
New York Journal, 22 November 1787
The printer of the New York Journal received "Cincinnatus" IV on 15 No-
vember, stating that it "will be attended to." Four days later, he announced
that the essay was "reserved for next Thursday's [22 November] Paper." (For
the significance of wanting to print on Thursday, see the headnote to "Cato"
V, New York Journal, 22 November, immediately above.) On 11 December the
Salem Mercury reprinted paragraphs two through four of "Cincinnatus" IV
which answered James Wilson's 6 October speech before a Philadelphia public
meeting (CC:134. See also "New York Reprinting ofJames Wilson's 6 October
Speech Before a Philadelphia Public Meeting," 13-25 October, above.). The
Mercury preceded these paragraphs from "Cincinnatus" with a preface stating
that the essay was "Supposed to have been written" by Virginia congressman
Richard Henry Lee. This attribution undoubtedly came from an extract of a
Wilmington, Del., letter asserting that Lee was "Cincinnatus" (Pennsylvania
Gazette, 21 November, CC:280). The Mercury reprinted this extract immediately
after the paragraphs taken from "Cincinnatus."
On 30 January 1788 the Antifederalist Philadelphia Freeman's Journal re-
printed "Cincinnatus" IV with this prefatory statement by "L. M.": "Mr. BAI-
LEY, Inclosed is the Fourth Number of Cincinnatus which you did not receive,
owing to some mishap; it is no matter of surprise to me, that it was stopped."
"L. M." refers to "Centinel's" charge that major Antifederalist articles from
the New York Journal, such as "Brutus," "Cato," and "Cincinnatus," were not
reprinted in Philadelphia during the meeting of the Pennsylvania Convention
(20 November-15 December) because they had "miscarried in their convey-
ance." Federalist newspapers, however, did not miscarry ("Centinel" IX and
XI, Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, 8, 16 January, CC:427, 453. See also
CC:Vol. 4, Appendix II, "The Controversy over the Post Office and the Cir-
culation of Newspapers," especially pp. 540-47; and "New York Journal and
the Post Office," 10 January-25 March, below.).
SIR, The public appear to me, sir, to be much indebted to you, for
informing them; for what purpose a power was given by the proposed
Constitution, of raising and supporting armies.-Some, indeed, might
have suspected, that such a power, uncontrouled by any declaration,
that the military should always be subject to the civil power, might be
intended for the purposes of ambition. Your declaration has removed
all doubt. Every principle of policy, you say, would be subverted unless
we kept up armies-for what-for our defence?-no,-to support dec-
larations of war-to strike home, with dispatch and secrecy, before the

281