1. DEBATE OVER CONSTITUTION

described the powers parted with and the powers reserved. By the state
constitutions, certain rights have been reserved in the people; or rather,
they have been recognized and established in such a manner, that state
legislatures are bound to respect them, and to make no laws infringing
upon them. The state legislatures are obliged to take notice of the bills
of rights of their respective states. The bills of rights, and the state
constitutions, are fundamental compacts only between those who gov-
ern, and the people of the same state.
In the year 1788 the people of the United States make a federal
constitution, which is a fundamental compact between them and their
federal rulers; these rulers, in the nature of things, cannot be bound
to take notice of any other compact. It would be absurd for them, in
making laws, to look over thirteen, fifteen, or twenty state constitutions,
to see what rights are established as fundamental, and must not be
infringed upon, in making laws in the society. It is true, they would be
bound to do it if the people, in their federal compact, should refer to
the state constitutions, recognize all parts not inconsistent with the fed-
eral constitution, and direct their federal rulers to take notice of them
accordingly; but this is not the case, as the plan stands proposed at
present; and it is absurd, to suppose so unnatural an idea is intended
or implied, I think my opinion is not only founded in reason, but I
think it is supported by the report of the convention itself. If there are
a number of rights established by the state constitutions, and which will
remain sacred, and the general government is bound to take notice of
them-it must take notice of one as well as another; and if unnecessary
to recognize or establish one by the federal constitution, it would be
unnecessary to recognize or establish another by it. If the federal con-
stitution is to be construed so far in connection with the state consti-
tutions, as to leave the trial by jury in civil causes, for instance, secured;
on the same principles it would have left the trial by jury in criminal
causes, the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus, &c. secured; they all
stand on the same footing; they are the common rights of Americans,
and have been recognized by the state constitutions: But the conven-
tion found it necessary to recognize or re-establish the benefits of that
writ, and the jury trial in criminal cases. As to EXPOST FACTO laws, the
convention has done the same in one case, and gone further in an-
other. It is a part of the compact between the people of each state and
the rulers, that no EXPOST FACTO laws shall be made. But the conven-
tion, by Art. 1. Sect. 10. have put a sanction upon this part even of the
state compacts. In fact, the 9th and 10th Sections in Art. 1. in the
proposed constitution, are no more nor less, than a partial bill of rights;

234