Richard Dobbs Spaight to James Iredell

by Richard Dobbs Spaight

SPAIGHT TO IREDELL.

PHILADELPHIA, August 12th, 1787.

DEAR SIR : The Convention having agreed upon the outlines of a plan of government for the United States, referred it to a small committee to detail: that committee have reported, and the plan is now under consideration. I am in hopes we shall be able to get through it by the 1st or 15th of September.

It is not probable that the United States will in future be so ideal as to risk their happiness upon the unanimity of the whole; and thereby put it in the power of one or two States to defeat the most salutary propositions, and prevent the Union from rising out of that contemptible situation to which it is at present reduced. There is no man of reflection, who has maturely considered what must and will result from the weakness of our present Federal Government, ard the tyrannical and unjust proceedings of most of the State governments, if longer persevered in, but must sincerely wish for a strong and efficient National Government. We may naturally suppose that all those persons who are possessed of popularity in the different States, and which they make use of, not for the public benefit, but for their private emolument, will oppose any system of this kind.

The late determination of our judges at Newbern, must, in my opinion, produce the most serious reflections in the breast of every thinking man, and of every well-wisher to his country. It cannot be denied, but that the Assembly have passed laws unjust in themselves, and militating in their principles against the Constitution, in more instances than one, and in my opinion of a more alarming and destructive nature than the one which the judges, by their own authority, thought proper to set aside and declare void. The laws I allude to are the tender laws, and the laws for increasing the jurisdiction of the justices of the peace out of court: the latter they have allowed to operate without censure or opposition; the former they have openly and avowedly supported, to the great disgrace of their characters. I do not pretend to vindicate the law, which has been the subject of controversy: it is immaterial what law they have declared void; it is their usurpation of the authority to do it, that I complain of, as I do most positively deny that they have any such power; nor can they find any thing in the Constitution, either directly or impliedly, that will support them, or give them any color of right to exercise that authority. Besides, it would have been absurd, and contrary to the practice of all the world, had the Constitution vested such powers in them, as they would have operated as an absolute negative on the proceedings of the Legislature, which no judiciary ought ever to possess: and the State, instead of being governed by the representatives in general Assembly, would be subject to the will of three individuals, who united in their own persons the legislative and judiciary powers, which no monarch in Europe enjoys, and which would be more despotic than the Roman Decemvirate, and equally as insufferable. If they possessed the power, what check or control would there be to their proceedings? or who is there to take the same liberty with them, that they have taken with the Legislature, and declare their opinions to be erroneous? none that I know of. In consequence of which, whenever the judges should become corrupt, they might at pleasure set aside every law, however just or consistent with the Constitution, to answer their designs; and the persons and property of every individual would be completely at their disposal. Many instances might be brought to show the absurdity and impropriety of such a power being lodged with the judges.

It must be acknowledged that our Constitution, unfortunately, has not provided a sufficient check, to prevent the intemperate and unjust proceedings of our Legislature, though such a check would be very beneficial, and, I think, absolutely necessary to our well-being: the only one that I know of, is the annual election, which, by leaving out such members as have supported improper measures, will in some degree remedy, though it cannot prevent, such evils as may arise. I should not have intruded this subject upon you, but as it must certainly undergo a public discussion, I wish to know what is the general opinion on that transaction.

Since I wrote you Mr. Morris has had the satisfaction of receiving accounts that his bills that had been protested for nonacceptance, have been paid, &c., &c.

RICHARD DOBBS SPAIGHT.