probably in the same state in his correction of Washington's draught sent to him the 10th August, and further enlarged in his revision sent the 6th September. Washington has struck Hamilton's revised clause from the end of a paragraph, and has put in its place a clause almost identical with it, omitting but a single line. This is the second of the instances, so far as I have discovered, which bear upon the inquiry suggested by the Preface to the autograph copy in Mr. Irving's work, whether Washington made the alterations in his autograph "during the writing" or after the entire copy was made. To show the extent of the change, the clause in Hamilton's original draught, enlarged in Hamilton's correction of Washington's draught, and still further extended in what I infer to be Hamilton's revision, and the clause as it stands in the Farewell Address, are here presented in parallel columns.

Of course such an alteration as this does not affect the question of authorship, but it affects the secondary question of the time and manner of Washington's alteration. If the right hand paragraph is written in the autograph after the middle or cancelled paragraph, and not by interlineation, then if no blank space had been left for it, it must have been done when the autograph was in the course of being written, and not after it had been completely copied in the order of the revision. If there had been a blank space left, or the new paragraph was interlined, then the opposite consequence follows. The Preface says there are many interlineations, but does not indicate them distributively, and does not say whether this was or was not one of them. It is a point of little importance, except in the history of the autograph.

The last of the two clauses I distinguished from the ten, is at page 366; and it is quite an interesting alteration, and must have received much consideration on the part of Washington. We shall insert here, in parallel columns, three clauses: one from Hamilton's original draught as it stands; another, as we infer, from Hamilton's amended copy, or revision; and in a third column, from Washington's autograph, the passage in the paragraph which Washington inserted after striking out a part of the paragraph contained. within brackets in the middle column:

HAMILTON.

ORIGINAL DRAUGHT.

And remember also, that for the efficacious management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a govern ment of as much force and strength as is consistent

with the perfect security of liberty, is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and arranged, its surest guardian and protector.― [In my opinion, the real danger in our system is, that the general government, organized as at present, will prove too weak rather than too powerful.] -Hamilton's Works, vol. vii, p. 584.

HAMILTON.

AMENDED AND REVISED.

And remember especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty, is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. [Owing to you as I do a frank and free disclosure of my heart, I shall not conceal from you the belief I entertain, that your government, as at present constituted, is far more likely to prove too feeble than too powerful.]—5 Irving's Washington, 366.

WASHINGTON.

AUTOGRAPH.

And remember especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a gov. ernment of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty, is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. [It is indeed little less than

a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.]-Ibid.

Washington's own clause within brackets in the right hand column, has perhaps some advantages in point of expression over both the others. It implies the same truth which the others strongly express; and in its terms, as a conclusion from the premises just before stated, it is an equally explicit truth; while it keeps back the declaration of an abstract opinion, which might have been misunderstood by reason of its generality, and extensively perverted by

misapplication. It gives out, at the same time, a definite opinion in favor of a government of more strength, by illustrations which few would refuse to receive as evidences of constitutional weakness, and which was felt in some of the trying periods of Washington's administration.

This is the clause in which, I suppose, Washington meant to express, or at least to include, his dissent from what is now the principle of State rights,-that the only constitutional powers of the United States are such as are expressly given in the Constitution, or are necessarily implied from those which are expressly given; a principle which, in regard to the Constitution of a Nation, the Supreme power of the Union, one of the co-equal powers of the world, would seem to be more reasonably applied to the restraints which are expressed in it, than to the powers themselves. In regard to three great examples under the treaty-making power, the acquisitions of Louisiana and of parts of Mexico, and the boundary treaty with England, the principle of express power, or necessary implication, seems to have had but little play in abridging the fairly implied powers of the Constitution. The main effect of that principle upon internal legislation, seems hitherto to have been felt, and, probably, will always be most sensibly felt, in the generation of parties, which will make a feeble government, whatever the Constitution may have intended. If it succeeds finally and completely, it will look very much like what, in early times, would have been called an anti-Federal triumph after a Federal victory, which the adoption of the Constitution by the States was acknowledged by all parties to have been.

The remaining instances of interposed new paragraphs by Washington call for little remark. The three paragraphs

upon the right, the duty, and the inducements of interest, to issue and maintain the proclamation of neutrality, are, one of them probably, an alteration of Hamilton's revision; and the other two, perhaps, are Washington's, though this is not clear. Neither of the three was in Hamilton's original draught, though a blank space was left in that part, which Hamilton possibly filled up in his amended copy, or in his revision; but, in the autograph, Washington wrote out the first paragraph, and, from a certain point, cancelled it, and interlined several lines. He then wrote, on a separate piece of paper, a paragraph in substitution of the whole, having, nevertheless, the same substance, and wafered it over both the original and the interlined words, making a note on the margin in these words: "This is the first draught, and it is questionable which of "the two is to be preferred." Of course, this wafering must have occurred after the entire address had been copied. If this is written on the margin of the wafered paper, the first draught was probably Hamilton's; but, if it was written on the margin of the copy-book, I am at fault. The other two, which have not been altered in any respect, may have been written by either; but the good old Doric phrase, “humanly speaking," in the last of the three, is more like Washington than Hamilton.

The penultimate clause of the draught before him, which Washington has cancelled, he has excluded as having "the

66

appearance of self-distrust and mere vanity;" as, for a like reason, he had obliterated a preceding one, "to avoid the "imputation of affected modesty." Such alterations might be thought to prove that Washington was revising what another had indited, and not what he had composed himself.