Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

employed by Moses, and which Luther renders Erloss, (Eng, vers. release,) is, like many other terms of law, not so etymologically clear as could be wished. At the same time it includes nothing that indicates a total remission of debt. By a comparison with the Syriac and Arabic languages, its original signification would appear to have been, suspend or let fall.The complete phrase, ver. 2, 3, means, the creditor shall not in the seventh year let fall his hand (Shamot Jado), which is equivalent to saying, he shall not seize the debtor, or as a Roman would have expressed it, manum non injiciet : and if there should be any doubt how Moses wished this to be understood, he himself explained it in ver. 2, by saying, he shall not exact it of his debtor. Here follow the words as I translate them, to a person who prefers having them, though in bad German, yet more close to the Hebrew : Nach Ablauf von sieben Jahren sollst du Schemitta machen. Schemitta aber est, dass jeder Glaubijer der seinem Nachsten geborget hat, seine hand fallen lasst; er soll seinem Nachsten und Bruder nicht exequiren. In English: After the expiration of seven years, thou shalt make a Schemitta; but a Schemitta is, that every creditor who has lent to his neighbor, let fall his hand; he shall not have recourse to legal execution on his neighbor and brother. Now, let every man judge for himself, which of these two things Moses intended-whether,

“1. In the seventh year, no debtors should be dunned, or debts sued for; which was a very rational precept, because then the Israelite derived no income from his land or whether,

“ 2. In the seventh year all debts were to be completely and for ever extinguished, and without the creditor having it in his power to demand them either in the seventh or eighth or any subsequent year ;--a precept which has not the most remote rational connexion with the fallow of the seventh year, but would have been altogether arbitrary and insulated.”

NOTE Q.--LECTURE 5, p. 208.

As an illustration of the success with which conflicting views have been reconciled in former times, I will refer to an incident in the history of the Convention which framed the Constitution of the United States; and I do it the more readily as the occasion formed an important crisis in the history of the nation, and we sometimes have accounts of the proceedings which do not accord with the facts. A correspondent of the New-York Observer has recently given the following spirited description of the whole scene :

[ocr errors]

“ MIESSRS. EDITORS,--The following narrative, relating a fine, not to say a sublime scene, in the Convention that framed the Constitution of the United States, was originally derived from Gen. Jonathan Dayton of Jersey. He was the 'Junior member? that moved the re-consideration' mentioned below. The account is full of interest and instruction at the present time, when the spirit of discord and selfishness is so rife in our national councils. Would that a copy of it could be sent to every member of our National Legislature, and that it could be read by every Christian and patriot throughout the land.

"I was (said General Dayton) a delegate from New Jersey in the General Convention which assembled in Philadelphia, for the purpose of digesting a Constitution for the United States, and I believe I was the youngest member of that body. The great and good Washington was then our President, and Dr. Franklin, among other great men, was a delegate from Pennsylvania. A disposition was soon discovered in some members to display themselves in oratorical flourishes--but the good sense and discretion of the majority put down all such attempts. We had convened to deliberate upon, and if possible effect, a great national object--to search for political wisdom and truth; these, we meant to pursue with simplicity, and to avoid every thing which would have a tendency to divert our attention or perplex our scheme.

“A great variety of projects were proposed-all republican in general outlines, but differing in their details. It was therefore determined that certain elementary principles should at the first be established in each branch of the intended Constitution, and afterwards the details should be debated and filled up.

“ There was little or no difficulty in determining upon the elementary principles--such as, for instance, that the government should be a republican representative government that it should be divided into three branches, i. e. Legislative, Executive and Judical, &c. But when the organization of the Legislative branch came under consideration, it was easy to be perceived that the Eastern and Southern States had distinct interests, which it was difficult to reconcile, and that the larger States were disposed to form a constitution in which the smaller States would be mere appendages and satellites to the larger ones. On the first of these subjects much animated and somewhat angry debate had taken place, when the ratio of representation in the lower house of Congress was before us—the Southern States claiming for themselves the whole number of black population; while the Eastern States were for confining the elective franchise to freemen only, without respect to color,

" As the different parties adhered pertinaciously to their different positions, it was feared that this would prove an insurmountable obstacle; but as the members were already generally satisfied that no constitution could be formed, which would meet the views and subserve the interests of each individual State, it was evident that it must be a matter of compromise and mutual concession. Under these impressions, and with these views, it was agreed at length that each State should be entitled to one delegate in the House of Representatives for every 30,000 of its inhabitants in which number should be included three-fifths of the whole number of their slaves.

“ When the details of the House of Representatives were disposed of, a more knotty point presented itself in the organization of the Senate. The larger States contended that the same ratio as to States should be common to both branches of the Legislature; or, in other words, that each State should be entitled to a representation in the Senate, (whatever might be the number fixed on,) in proportion to its population, as in the House of Representatives. The smaller States on the other hand contended, that the House of Representatives might be considered as the guardian of the liberties of the people, and therefore ought to have a just proportion to their numbers; but that the Senate represented the sovereignty of the States, and that as each State, whether great or small, was equally an independent and sovereign State, it ought in this branch of the Legislature to have equal weight and authority. Without this, they said, there would be no security for their equal rights, and they would by such a distribution of power, be merged and lost in the larger States.

6. This reasoning, however plain and powerful, had but little in

fluence on the minds of the delegates from the larger States; and as they formed a large majority of the Convention, the question, after passing through the forms of debate, was decided that each State should be represented in the Senate in proportion to its po. pulation.

“When the Convention had adjourned over to the next day, the delegates of the four smallest States, viz. Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey and Deleware, convened to consult what course was to be pursued in the important crisis at which we had arrived. After serious investigation, it was solemnly determined to ask for a reconsideration the next morning; and if it was not granted-or if, when granted, that offensive feature of the constitution could not be expunged, and the smaller States put upon an equal footing with the largest, we would secede from the Convention; and returning to our constituents, inform them that no compact could be formed with the large States, but one which would sacrifice our sovereignty and independence.

“I was deputed to be the organ through which this communication should be made. I know not why, unless it be that young men are generally chosen to perform rash actions. Accordingly, when the Convention had assembled, and as soon as the minutes of the last sitting were read, I rose and stated the view we had taken of the organization of the Senate, our desire to obtain a reconsideration and suitable modification of that article, and in failure thereof, our determination to secede from the Convention, and return to our constituents.

“ This disclosure, it may readily be supposed, produced an immediate and great excitement in every part of the house. Several members were immediately on the floor to express their surprise or indignation. They represented that the question had received a full and fair investigation, and had been definitively settled by a very large majority. That it was altogether unparliamentary and unreasonable for one of the minority to propose a reconsideration at the moment their act had become a matter of record, and without pretending that any new light could be thrown on the subject. That if such a precedent should be established, it would in future be impossible to say when any one point was distinctly settled, as a small minority might at any moment, again and again, move and obtain a reconsideration. They therefore hoped the Convention would express its decided disapprobation by passing silently to the business before them.

“ There was much warm and some acrimonious feeling exhibited by a number of the speakers; a rupture appeared almost inevitable, and the bosom of Washington seemed to labor with the most anxious solicitude for its issue. Happily for the United States, the Convention contained some individuals possessed of talents and virtues of the highest order, whose hearts were deeply interested in the establishment of a new and efficient form of government, and whose penetrating minds had already deplored the evils which would spring up in our newly established republic, should the present attempt to consolidate it prove abortive, Among these personages the most prominent was Dr. Franklin, He was esteemed the Mentor of our body. To a mind naturally strong and capacious, enriched by much reading and the experience of many years, he added a manner of communicating his thoughts peculiarly his own, in which simplicity, beauty, and strength were equally conspicuous. As soon as the angry orators who had preceded him had left him an opening, the Doctor rose, evidently impressed with the weight of the subject before them, and the difficulty of managing it successfully. “We have arrived, Mr. President, said he, at a very momentous and interesting crisis in our deliberations. Hitherto our views have been as harmonious, and our progress as great, as could reasonably have been expected. But now an unlooked for and formidable obstacle is thrown in our way, which threatens to arrest our course, and, if not skilfully removed, to render all our fond hopes of a Constitution abortive. The ground which has been taken by the delegates of the four smallest States was as unexpected by me, and as repugnant to my feelings, as it can be to any other member of this Convention. After what I thought a full and impartial investigation of the subject, I recorded my vote on the affirmative side of the question, and I have not yet heard any thing which induces me to change my opinion. But I will not conclude it is impossible for me to be wrong. I will not say that those gentlemen who differ from me are under a delusion-much less will I charge them with an intention of needlessly embarrassing our deliberations. It is possible some change in our late proceedings ought to take place upon principles of political justice; or that, all things considered, the majority may see cause to recede from some of

« AnteriorContinuar »