and that they could do no harm. It is evi dent that not to him is due any of those pro visions which have made the fundamental law of our country so workable that under it we have grown to a mighty and powerful na tion. He was absent from the Convention during the last month of its sitting, and so did not sign the Constitution. But he gave it his hearty support. Indeed, after its adop tion his views seem to have changed. He was wise enough to perceive that the States having agreed to the plan for a National Government it was folly to curtail its powers. He determined therefore to strengthen the government in which those powers were vested. During his seven years in the Sen ate he was a consistent, though mild Federal ist, cordially supporting Washington. In January, 1788, he was a member of the Con necticut Convention which ratified the Con stitution, and upon the organization of the National Government he was elected to the short term in the Senate. Two years later he was re-elected for the full term. For the position of Senator he was well fitted. That was his true sphere as a public man. There his business ability came into play. The work of invention was superseded by that of application. Theory was to be reduced to practice. As I have detailed his conduct in the Constitutional Convention, it seems requisite, by way of contrast, to summarize his more valuable services in the Senate. When Rhode Island hung back, he proposed the bill which prevented importation of goods into the United States from that re calcitrant community and also authorized a demand to be made upon her for her pro portion of the public debt. This was effec tive for the purpose intended. The State promptly adopted the Constitution. As chairman of the committee appointed for that object, Senator Ellsworth was the father of the first Federal judiciary bill under which the Courts of the United States were organ ized. It is even to-day the basis of that ju dicial system, although the provision which
required the Justices of the Supreme Court to sit on the Circuit was undoubtedly uncon stitutional. It was only acquiesced in by Mr. Chief Justice Jay, his associates and their successors in order to avoid friction. By custom it has reached the established dignity of a binding obligation. Mr. Ellsworth vig orously supported Hamilton's scheme for funding the debt of the United States, al though he differed from it in one or two im portant particulars. He also aided material ly in Hamilton's plan for the incorporation of a bank of the United States. He was op posed to the Embargo Act. He not only ap proved of the mission of Mr. Chief Justice Jay to England, but it was he who proposed that mission to Washington and recom mended Jay as the special envoy. He be lieved that our greatest safety lay in friend ship with England, dreading the influence of French ascendency and the excesses of the French Revolution. Supporting Jay's treaty with England he disapproved the nomination of Rutledge to the Chief Justiceship and voted against his confirmation. After the declination of Mr. Justice Gushing, on March 4, 1796, Washington sent to the Senate the nomination of Mr. Ellsworth to the Chief Justiceship. He was immediately con firmed, and took his seat upon the Bench March 8. On that day John Marshall ar gued the case of Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dalí. 199. For nearly four years Mr. Chief Justice Ellsworth performed the duties of his high office. He had hesitated to accept this posi tion, because he doubted his fitness for it. His practice had been entirely among an agricultural community, and he knew little of commercial law. While Chief Justice he studied hard to make himself competent. His opinions were uniformly short and showed neither depth nor breadth of erudi tion. During the time that he presided over the Supreme Court there were few cases ar gued which are of interest to-day. He added nothing to the learning of the law. He con tributed nothing to the science of jurispru dence. I shall not therefore refer to any of
