among whom were some of the most eminent men of that day. He was above middle stature, and well formed. His features were not strongly marked. His forehead was neither high nor expansive. His eyes blue and of middling size; his mouth handsome; his hair was black, and short on the forehead, and, in his latter years, unpowdered. He was very erect, and when speaking he raised his head, or rather, his chin was the most projected. part of his face. He had a complacent expression when he was speaking, and if he meant to be severe, it was seen in goodnatured sarcasm, rather than ill-natured words. It was said that the beautiful productions of his pen were the first flow of his mind, and hardly corrected for the press. Mr. Ames' life is supposed to have been shortened by his excessive anxiety about his country. Many of his predictions have been realized, and some of them in his lifetime. His air, manner, and countenance, were those of an honest and sincere man. The condition of the country furnishes abundant proof that he was, politically, a wise man; all his mournful prophecies may be in the course of fulfil

ment.

Rufus King was a member of this convention, from Newburyport. He had been in the first Congress. At this time he was thirty-three years of age. He was an uncommonly handsome man, in face and form; he had a powerful mind, well cultivated; and was a dignified and graceful speaker. He had the appearance of one who was a gentleman by nature, and who had well improved all her gifts. It is a rare occurrence to see a finer assemblage of personal and intellectual qualities, cultivated to the best effect, than were seen in this gentleman. He expected to have been chosen to the Senate of the United States after the adoption of the constitution; but this not having happened, he went in the following year to reside in New York. He was there elected to the Senate of the United States in 1789, and was sent by Washington minister to London in 1796, and remained there till 1803. He was twice afterwards elected to the Senate; and when he was far advanced in life, he was again sent to London; but his health was

so much impaired, that he came home in about a year, and died at the age of seventy-three. Mr. King's manner in the Senate was highly dignified, and in private life that of a polished gentleman. His speeches, in manner and weight, gave him an exalted rank. Among his superior advantages was an accurate knowledge of dates, and facts, of most essential service in the Senate. His two finest speeches are said to have been on the burning of Washington by the British; and on the exclusion of Mr. Gallatin from the Senate, for the reason that he had not been a citizen long enough to be entitled to a seat there. Mr. King was a public man throughout his long life, with few and short intervals; but, like all other men, in our country, whose pride or pleasure depends on office, he was subjected to some disappointments. Yet he may be considered as one of the most successful of the eminent men whose relations to the public endured so long. The private life of Mr. King is said to have been highly respectable; biographical sketches of him mention that he was a professor of Christianity.

Among other members of this convention, were Samuel Adams, Charles Jarvis, Christopher Gore, Benjamin Lincoln, Theophilus Parsons, George Cabot, Francis Dana, John Brooks, Caleb Strong, John Coffin Jones, Theodore Sedgwick. There may be occasion to mention these again, except Charles Jarvis, of whom it may be observed, that he was a zealous advocate for the constitution, though afterwards a decided opponent to the administration of it. This gentleman was a physician; he was a tall fine figure, bald head, rather large face, and small eyes. His motions were vehement, and he was of ardent character. He had a fine voice, and

a natural popular eloquence, rarely surpassed. He was accustomed to pause in his eloquence, when he had said something which he thought impressive, and to look round upon his audience for the effect. This was a hazardous experiment, but he never seemed to fail in it.

LETTER VIII.

FEB. 13, 1833.

The history of the world records no case of more intense interest than that which pervaded the United States, in the year 1788. Thirteen independent sovereignties, seriously alarmed for their preservation against each other, more alarmed with the apprehension that they might give up the liberty, which they had gained with the utmost exertion of mind and body from foreign tyranny, to one of their own creation within their own limits, called into the deliberative assemblies of the time all the able men of the country. Some union of the states was admitted by all, to be indispensable; but in what manner it should be effected, what powers should be given, and what powers reserved; how these should be modified, checked, and balanced, were points on which honest men might zealously contend. Here was a case, in which a whole people, unawed by any foreign power, in peace with all the world, sorely experienced in what may be the exercise of civil authority; dependent on no will but their own; convinced of the necessity of forming some government;-were called on to settle, by peaceful agreement among themselves, the most important questions which can be presented to the human mind.

The first, and most comprehensive point of division, was found in the extent of power to be granted to the national government. Some men were disposed to guard state rights, and, at all events, to avoid the establishment of powers which might gradually absorb them, and result in a consolidation, through the dominion of an aristocracy, or despotism. Others foresaw the necessity of vesting powers adequate to the preservation of peace among the states, to enabling all of them to act as one in relation to all foreign governments, and to secure a coercive power, for all national purposes, over the citizens of the several states. How, then,

were these powers, so liable to abuse, to be defined and regulated to the satisfaction of all parties?

There may have been some men, who desired to be free from all national government, and who preferred to rely on the strength of their own state governments. This number, probably, was not great. It is believed that a large majority of the thinking men were decided, that there must be some confederation of the states. The discussion, in convention and in the public papers, on the powers to be given, and those to be reserved, became more and more zealous, and divided the country into two great parties, who took the name of Federalists, and Anti-federalists. This may be called the second division into parties; the preceding one, during the war, having been that of whigs and tories, borrowed from English politics, as far back as the reign of the Charles's.

It is to be remembered, that the popular conventions, assembled in the states, were not to settle what the powers of the national government were to be, but whether the powers defined, in the proposed constitution, should be those to be exercised; and, consequently, whether the constitution was to be accepted, or rejected. This question necessarily led to the most searching discussion of these powers, according to the views which the federalists and anti-federalists entertained. Those who desire to be accurately informed as to the ground of difference, will find an able summary in Judge Story's first volume of Commentaries, Book III., ch. II., in which this learned and indefatigable student has referred to all the authentic sources of information.

We are now looking back to those eventful days, after an experience of more than forty years. It is humiliating to find, how groundless were some of the fears of the honest and able, and how unperceived were some of the perils, and the most dangerous ones too, which time has disclosed. The objection least insisted upon was the abuse of executive power; that most insisted upon was the abuse of legislative power. The danger is now known to be from the former source, and that if there be any preventive power, it is to be found in the latter. In the sketch of de

bates in the Massachusetts convention, there is no notice of objections to the executive power; the discussion appears to have been warm and zealous on that of the legislature. There has been unwise and improvident legislation in abundance, but none hitherto that has endangered the liberties of the country, which did not arise from executive suggestion. In what danger these liberties are, under the combined dominion of "the people's" president, and an association of artful, selfish, and unprincipled men, and a subservient congress, is a very serious inquiry. This is precisely the case which Mr. Ames so eloquently discussed in his political writings.

How truly Mr. Ames foresaw a coming state of this country, may be seen from an essay of his entitled "No Revolutionist," published in 1801. "The deceivers of the people tire out their adversaries; they try again and again; and an attempt that is never abandoned, at last, will not fail. We have an enlightened people, who are not poor, and who are, therefore, interested to keep jacobinism down, which ever seeks plunder as the end, and confusion as the means. Yet, the best informed of this mighty people are lazy; or ambitious, and go over to the cause of confusion; or are artfully rendered unpopular, because they will not go over. The sense, the virtue, and the property of the country, therefore, will not govern it; but every day shows that its vice, and poverty, and ambition, will. We have thought that virtue, with so many bright rewards, had some solid power; and that with ten thousand charms, she could always command an hundred thousand votes. Alas! these illusions are as thin as the gloss on other bubbles. Politicians have supposed that man really is what he should be; that his reason would do all it can, and his passions, and prejudices, no more than they ought; whereas, his reason is a mere looker-on; it is moderation, when it should be zeal; is often corrupted to vindicate, where it should condemn; and is a coward, or a trimmer, that will take hush-money."

To return to the convention; it has been observed, that the adoption of the constitution in Massachusetts may have depended