Oliver Ellsworth. brought out of chaos. For this work Ells worth's caliber was sadly lacking. He op posed the proposition of Hamilton for a rev enue to be collected under the authority of Congress. But he gave his cordial consent to the final compromise. With Madison and Hamilton he was placed upon the important committee to report a plan for organizing the civil department of the government. This was his last service in the Confederate Congress. Although re-elected a delegate, he declined to serve. He also refused to act as Commissioner of the Treasury to which office he was elected by the Congress in 1784. The first crisis was over. Perhaps he felt that his talents were not suited to the work which now pressed upon the National Legis lature. At any rate he returned home. In 1780 he had been elected a member of the Governor's Council. This was the upper house of the Connecticut Assembly. It also constituted the Supreme Court of Er rors. He continued to be re-elected to this until 1785. In 1784 he was ap pointed a Judge of the Superior Court. The following year an act was passed which prohibited the same man from be ing a member of the Council and a Judge of the Superior Court at the same time. Judge Ellsworth therefore resigned from the Council. The jurisprudence of Connecticut was at that time in a curious state. It was not known how much of the Common Law was the law of the Common wealth. An attempt had been made to mod ify its application and its rules. There had been no reports of decisions. The whole system was in an amorphous condition. It does not appear that Judge Ellsworth was instrumental in ameliorating that unfortu nate predicament. So much of his labors on the Superior Court as have been preserved are reported in Kirby and the first volume of Root. They are not of sufficient importance or eminence to detain us here. He left his judicial duties in May. 1787, to attend the Constitutional Convention at Philadelphia.
505
Years afterward, upon the floor of the Senate of the United States, John C. Calhoun eulo gized Mr. Ellsworth's work in that Conven tion in the following words: "It is owing,— I speak it here in honor of New England and the Northern States,—it is owing mainly to the States of Connecticut and New Jersey that we have a Federal instead of a National government; that we have the best govern ment instead of the most despotic and intolerable on the earth. Who were the men of these States to whom we are indebted for this admirable government. I will name them. Their names ought to be engraven on brass, and live forever. They were Chief Justice Ellsworth, Roger Sher man and Judge Patterson." Perhaps no further comment is necessary. It may be well, however, in order to show how abso lutely wrong the future Chief Justice was upon almost every question, to give here a summary of the measures which he there advocated. He had two fixed ideas: the lim itation of the national power, and the pres ervation of democratic simplicity. He ob jected to the term "National Government." He wanted no central authority to interfere with the supreme sovereignty of the States. In spite of the fact that the Articles of Confederation had been found utterly inade quate, he urged that no new frame of govern ment should be attempted, that only Amend ments to them should be made. Consider the crisis. Think of the peculiar mental gestation that could produce such an atti tude! He opposed at first the payment of representatives in Congress out of the Na tional Treasury. Of course he advocated the equality of representation of each State in both branches of the Legislature. He supported the proposition to make the Jus tices of the Supreme Court an Executive Council with revisionary powers. He was hostile to giving the Executive authority to appoint judges. He wanted to leave the question of the qualifications for suffrage en tirely to the States. He favored annual elections, saying that the people liked them
