University of Virginia Library

TO GEORGE WASHINGTON.

Dear Sir,—I have been this day honored with
your favor of the 10th. instant, under the same cover
with which is a copy of Col. Mason's objections to
the Work of the Convention.[8] As he persists in the
temper which produced his dissent it is no small
satisfaction to find him reduced to such distress for
a proper gloss on it; for no other consideration
surely could have led him to dwell on an objection

which he acknowledged to have been in some degree
removed by the Convention themselves—on the
paltry right of the Senate to propose alterations in
money bills—on the appointment of the vice President
President of the Senate instead of making the
President of the Senate the vice President, which
seemed to be the alternative—and on the possibility,
that Congress may misconstrue their powers & betray
their trust so far as to grant monopolies in
trade &c—. If I do not forget too some of his other
reasons were either not at all or very faintly urged
at the time when alone they ought to have been
urged, such as the power of the Senate in the case of
treaties & of impeachments; and their duration in
office. With respect to the latter point I recollect
well that he more than once disclaimed opposition to
it. My memory fails me also if he did not acquiesce
in if not vote for, the term allowed for the further
importation of slaves,[9] and the prohibition of duties
on exports by the States. What he means by the
dangerous tendency of the Judiciary I am at some
loss to comprehend. It was never intended, nor can
it be supposed that in ordinary cases the inferior tribunals
will not have final jurisdiction in order to prevent
the evils of which he complains. The great
mass of suits in every State lie between Citizen &
Citizen, and relate to matters not of federal cognizance.
Notwithstanding the stress laid on the
necessity of a Council to the President I strongly suspect,
tho' I was a friend to the thing, that if such an
one as Col. Mason proposed, had been established,
and the power of the Senate in appointments to offices
transferred to it, that as great a clamour would
have been heard from some quarters which in general
echo his objections. What can he mean by saying
that the Common law is not secured by the new
Constitution, though it has been adopted by the
State Constitutions. The common law is nothing
more than the unwritten law, and is left by all constitutions
equally liable to legislative alterations. I
am not sure that any notice is particularly taken of
it in the Constitutions of the States. If there is,
nothing more is provided than a general declaration
that it shall continue along with other branches of
law to be in force till legally changed. The Constitution
of Virga. drawn up by Col Mason himself, is
absolutely silent on the subject. An ordinance
passed during the same Session, declared the common
law as heretofore & all Statutes of prior date to the
4 of James I to be still the law of the land, merely to
obviate pretexts that the separation from G. Britain
threw us into a State of nature, and abolished all
civil rights and objections. Since the Revolution
every State has made great inroads & with great
propriety in many instances on this monarchical code.
The "revisal of the laws" by a Com̃ittee of wch.
Col. Mason was a member, though not an acting one,
abounds with such innovations. The abolition of
the right of primogeniture, which I am sure Col.
Mason does not disapprove, falls under this head.
What could the Convention have done? If they had
in general terms declared the Common law to be in
force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code
of every State in the most material points; they wd.
have done more, they would have brought over from
G. B. a thousand heterogeneous & antirepublican
doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself,
for that is a part of the Common law. If they
had undertaken a discrimination, they would have
formed a digest of laws, instead of a Constitution.
This objection surely was not brought forward in
the Convention, or it wd. have been placed in such a
light that a repetition of it out of doors would
scarcely have been hazarded. Were it allowed the
weight which Col. M. may suppose it deserves, it
would remain to be decided whether it be candid to
arraign the Convention for omissions which were
never suggested to them—or prudent to vindicate the
dissent by reasons which either were not previously
thought of, or must have been wilfully concealed.
But I am running into a comment as prolix as it is
out of place.

I find by a letter from the Chancellor (Mr. Pendleton)
that he views the act of the Convention in its
true light, and gives it his unequivocal approbation.
His support will have great effect. The accounts we
have here of some other respectable characters vary
considerably. Much will depend on Mr. Henry, and
I [am] glad to find by your letter that his favorable

decision on the subject may yet be hoped for.[10] —The
Newspapers here begin to teem with vehement &
violent calumniations of the proposed Govt.. As they
are chiefly borrowed from the Pensylvania papers,
you see them of course. The reports however from
different quarters continue to be rather flattering.

With the highest respect & sincerest attachment
I remain Dear Sir,