行前丨学科辅导丨AP丨SAT丨游学
思悟国际教育 | 读万卷书，行万里路
No. 85
Conclusion
by Alexander Hamilton
Conclusion
According to the formal division of the subject of these papers, announced in my ?rst number, there would appear still to remain for discussion two points. . . . “the analogy of the proposed government to your own state constitution,” and “the additional security which its adoption will afford to republican government, to liberty, and to property.” But these heads have been so fully anticipated, and so completely exhausted in the progress of the work, that it would now scarcely be possible to do any thing more than repeat, in a more dilated form, what has been already said; which the advanced stage of the question, and the time already spent upon it, conspire to forbid.
It is remarkable, that the resemblance of the plan of the convention to the act which organizes the government of this state, holds, not less with regard to many of the supposed defects, than to the real excellencies of the former. Among the pretended defects, are the re-eligibility of the executive; the want of a council; the omission of a formal bill of rights; the omission of a provision respecting the liberty of the press: these, and several others, which have been noted in the course of our inquiries, are as much chargeable on the existing constitution of this state, as on the one proposed for the union: and a man must have slender pretensions to consistency, who can rail at the latter for imperfections which he ?nds no dif?culty in excusing in the former. Nor indeed can there be a better proof of the insincerity and affectation of some of the zealous adversaries of the plan of the convention, who profess to be devoted admirers of the government of this state, than the fury with which they have attacked that plan, for matters in regard to which our own constitution is equally, or perhaps more vulnerable.
The additional securities to republican government, to liberty, and to property, to be derived from the adoption of the plan, consist chie?y in the restraints which the preservation of the union will impose upon local factions and insurrections, and upon the ambition of powerful individuals in single states, who might acquire credit and in?uence enough, from leaders and favourites, to become the despots of the people: in the diminution of the opportunities to foreign intrigue, which the dissolution of the confederacy would invite and facilitate; in the prevention of extensive military establish-ments, which could not fail to grow out of wars between the states in a disunited situation; in the express guarantee of a republican form of government to each; in the absolute and universal exclusion of titles of nobility; and in the precautions against the repetition of those practices on the part of the state governments, which have undermined the foundations of property and credit: have planted mutual distrust in the breasts of all classes of citizens; and have occasioned an almost universal prostration of morals.
Thus have I, fellow citizens, executed the task I had assigned to myself; with what success your conduct must determine. I trust, at least, you will admit, that I have not failed in the assurance I gave you respecting the spirit with which my endeavours should be conducted. I have addressed myself purely to your judgments, and have studiously avoided those asperities which are too apt to disgrace political disputants of all parties, and which have been not a little provoked by the language and conduct of the opponents of the constitution. The charge of a conspiracy against the liberties of the people, which has been indiscriminately brought against the advocates of the plan, has something in it too wanton and too malignant not to excite the indignation of every man who feels in his own bosom a refutation of the calumny. The perpetual changes which have been rung upon the wealthy, the well born, and the great, are such as to inspire the disgust of all sensible men. And the unwarrantable concealments and misrepresentations, which have been in various ways practised to keep the truth from the public eye, are of a nature to demand the reprobation of all honest men. It is possible that these circumstances may have occasionally betrayed me into intemperances of expression which I did not intend: it is certain that I have frequently felt a struggle between sensibility and moderation; and if the former has in some instances prevailed, it must be my excuse, that it has been neither often nor much.
Let us now pause, and ask ourselves whether, in the course of these papers, the proposed constitution has not been satisfactorily vindicated from the aspersions thrown upon it; and whether it has not been shown to be worthy of the public approbation, and necessary to the public safety and prosperity. Every man is bound to answer these questions to himself, according to the best of his conscience and understanding, and to act agreeably to the genuine and sober dictates of his judgment. This is a duty from which nothing can give him a dispensation. It is one that he is called upon, nay, constrained by all the obligations that form the bands on society, to discharge sincerely and honestly. No partial motive, no particular interest, no pride of opinion, no temporary passion or prejudice, will justify to himself, to his country, to his posterity, an improper election of the part he is to act. Let him beware of an obstinate adherence to party: let him re?ect, that the object upon which he is to decide is not a particular interest of the community, but the very existence of the nation: and let him remember, that a majority of America has already given its sanction to the plan which he is to approve or reject.
I shall not dissemble, that I feel an entire con?dence in the arguments which recommend the proposed system to your adoption; and that I am unable to discern any real force in those by which it has been assailed. I am persuaded, that it is the best which our political situation, habits, and opinions will admit, and superior to any the revolution has produced.
Concessions on the part of the friends of the plan, that it has not a claim to absolute perfection, have afforded matter of no small triumph to its enemies. Why, say they, should we adopt an imperfect thing? Why not amend it, and make it perfect before it is irrevocably established? This may be plausible, but it is plausible only. In the ?rst place I remark, that the extent of these concessions has been greatly exaggerated. They have been stated as amounting to an admission, that the plan is radically defective; and that, without material alterations, the rights and the interests of the community cannot be safely con?ded to it. This, as far as I have understood the meaning of those who make the concessions, is an entire perversion of their sense. No advocate of the measure can be found, who will not declare as his sentiment, that the system, though it may not be perfect in every part, is, upon the whole, a good one; is the best that the present views and circumstances of the country will permit; and is such a one as promises every species of security which a reasonable people can desire.
I answer in the next place, that I should esteem it the extreme of imprudence to prolong the precarious state of our national affairs, and to expose the union to the jeopardy of successive experiments, in the chimerical pursuit of a perfect plan. I never expect to see a perfect work from imperfect man. The result of the deliberations of all collective bodies, must necessarily be a compound as well of the errors and prejudices, as of the good sense and wisdom of the individuals of whom they are composed. The compacts which are to embrace thirteen distinct states, in a common bond of amity and union, must as necessarily be a compromise of as many dissimilar interests and inclinations. How can perfection spring from such materials?
The reasons assigned in an excellent little pamphlet lately published in this city,* unanswerably show the utter improbability of assembling a new convention, under circumstances in any degree so favourable to a happy issue, as those in which the late convention met, deliberated, and concluded. I will not repeat the arguments there used, as I presume the production itself has had an extensive circulation. It is certainly well worth the perusal of every friend to his country. There is however one point of light in which the subject of amendments still remains to be considered; and in which it has not yet been exhibited. I cannot resolve to conclude, without ?rst taking a survey of it in this aspect.
It appears to me susceptible of complete demonstration, that it will be far more easy to obtain subsequent than previous amendments to the constitution. The moment an alteration is made in the present plan, it becomes, to the purpose of adoption, a new one, and must undergo a new decision of each state. To its complete establishment throughout the union, it will therefore require the concurrence of thirteen states. If, on the contrary, the constitution should once be rati?ed by all the states as it stands, alterations in it may at any time be effected by nine states. In this view alone the chances are as thirteen to nine? in favour of subsequent amendments, rather than of the original adoption of an entire system.
This is not all. Every constitution for the United States must inevitably consist of a great variety of particulars, in which thirteen independent states are to be accommodated in their interests or opinions of interest. We may of course expect to see, in any body of men charged with its original formation, very different combinations of the parts upon different points. Many of those who form the majority on one question, may become the minority on a second, and an association dissimilar to either, may constitute the majority on a third. Hence the necessity of moulding and arranging all the particulars which are to compose the whole, in such a manner, as to satisfy all the parties to the compact; and hence also an immense multiplication of dif?culties and casualties in obtaining the collective assent to a ?nal act. The degree of that multiplication must evidently be in a ratio to the number of particulars and the number of parties.
But every amendment to the constitution, if once established, would be a single proposition, and might be brought forward singly. There would then be no necessity for management or compromise, in relation to any other point; no giving nor taking. The will of the requisite number, would at once bring the matter to a decisive issue. And consequently whenever nine, or rather ten states, were united in the desire of a particular amendment, that amendment must infallibly prevail. There can, therefore, be no comparison between the facility of affecting an amendment, and that of establishing in the ?rst instance a complete constitution.
In opposition to the probability of subsequent amendments it has been urged, that the persons delegated to the administration of the national government, will always be disinclined to yield up any portion of the authority of which they were once possessed. For my own part, I acknowledge a thorough conviction that any amendments which may, upon mature consideration, be thought useful, will be applicable to the organization of the government, not to the mass of its powers; and on this account alone, I think there is no weight in the observation just stated. I also think there is little force in it on another account. The intrinsic dif?culty of governing thirteen states, independent of calculations upon an ordinary degree of public spirit and integrity, will, in my opinion, constantly impose on the national rulers, the necessity of a spirit of accommodation to the reasonable expectations of their constituents. But there is yet a further consideration, which proves beyond the possibility of doubt, that the observation is futile. It is this, that the national rulers, whenever nine states concur, will have no option upon the subject. By the ?fth article of the plan the congress will be obliged, “on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states, (which at present amount to nine) to call a convention for proposing amendments, which shall
be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the constitution, when rati?ed by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states or by conventions in three-fourths thereof.” The words of this article are peremptory. The con-gress “shall call a convention.” Nothing in this particular is left to discretion. Of consequence all the declamation about the disinclination to a change, vanishes in air. Nor, however dif?cult it may be supposed to unite two-thirds, or three-fourths of the state legislatures, in amendments which may affect local interests, can there be any room to apprehend any such dif?culty in a union on points which are merely relative to the general liberty or security of the people. We may safely rely on the disposition of the state legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.
If the foregoing argument be a fallacy, certain it is that I am myself deceived by it; for it is, in my conception, one of those rare instances in which a political truth can be brought to the test of mathematical demonstration. Those who see the matter in the same light, however zealous they may be for amendments, must agree in the propriety of a previous adoption, as the most direct road to their object.
The zeal for attempts to amend, prior to the establishment of the constitution, must abate in every man, who is ready to accede to the truth of the following observations of a writer, equally solid and ingenious: “to balance a large state or society (says he) whether monarchical or republican, on general laws, is a work of so great dif?culty, that no human genius, however comprehensive, is able by the mere dint of reason and re?ection, to effect it. The judgments of many must unite in the work: experience must guide their labour: time must bring it to perfection: and the feeling of inconveniences must correct the mistakes which they inevitably fall into, in their ?rst trials and experiments.”* These judicious re?ections contain a lesson of moderation to all the sincere lovers of the union, and ought to put them upon their guard against hazarding anarchy, civil war, a perpetual alienation of the states from each other, and perhaps the military despotism of a victorious demagogue, in the pursuit of what they are not likely to obtain, but from time and experience. It may be in me a defect of political fortitude, but I acknowledge that I cannot entertain an equal tranquillity with those who affect to treat the dangers of a longer continuance in our present situation as imaginary. A nation without a national government, is an awful spectacle. The establishment of a constitution, in time of profound peace, by the voluntary consent of a whole people, is a prodigy, to the completion of which I look forward with trembling anxiety. In so arduous an enterprise, I can reconcile it to no rules of prudence to let go the hold we now have, upon seven out of the thirteen states; and after having passed over so considerable a part of the ground, to recommence the course. I dread the more the consequences of new attempts, because I know that powerful individuals, in this and in other states, are enemies to a general national government in every possible shape.
publius
*Entitled “An Address to the people of the state of New York.”
?It may rather be said ten, for though two-thirds may set on foot the measure, three-fourths must ratify.
*Hume’s Essays, vol. 1, page 128. . . . The rise of arts and sciences.
No. 85
结束语
原载麦克莱恩版
第八十五篇（汉密尔顿）
致纽约州人民： 
按照本文集之第一篇所宣布的主题分类，尚有两点未曾论及：“拟议中的政府与你们本州宪法的一致性”，以及“宪法通过以后将对共和政体、自由、财产提供的更大保 证”。但以上问题在草拟前文过程中已作过充分论述，现在除重复而外不甚可能再加补充。从本文的开展与用过的时间考虑，实不宜再致力于此。
宪法草案与本州政府组织法的相似，不仅说明反对派所谓的许多缺点，而恰好说明前者的完善，实为值得称道之处。在所谓的缺点中列有：总统得以连选连任，未设行政会议机构，未列入正式的人权法案，未列入尊重出版自由的条款。以上各点以及已在前文涉及的其他各点，均可使本州现行宪法与拟议中的联邦宪法同样受到责难。对后者大肆攻击而轻易对前者加以宽恕的人，实在难以掩饰其本身的缺乏一贯性。吾辈之中极力反对宪法草案者，一方面宣称其本人坚定拥护其所居住州的政府，一方面就本州宪法同样具有、或更易受到攻击的问题大发雷霆，诋毁宪法草案，其缺乏严肃态度与偏激情绪昭然若揭。
采纳拟议中的宪法草案，当为共和政体、自由、财产提供更大保证，主要体现在：联邦的保持将能对地方派别和叛乱行为、个别州内权势人物的野心加以节制，以免其买通各州领导人物与亲信人等以猎取声誉，扩大影响，成为迫害人民的专制者；当可减少外国因邦联解散借机进行阴谋活动的机会；当可防止各州穷兵赎武，从而在邦联解体情况下酿成州际间的战争；当可明文保证各州的共和政体；将绝对、普遍地废除贵族爵位；当可防止各州政府重复曾经使财产、债务的结构基础发生动摇的作法，致失信于各阶层公民，造成几乎遍于全民的道德沦丧状态。
请我公民同胞鉴查，至此笔者已完成自许的任务，效果成就如何将视诸君的行动而 定。笔者相信，至少诸君应能承认笔者已实践本人诺言：以原来提出的精神致力于本文 件的写作。笔者力图诉之于诸君的判断，避免用刻薄语言伤害各党派的政治论争人士， 虽然宪法反对派的言行颇宜以刻薄语言回敬。彼等对宪法支持者任意横加阴谋破坏人民自由罪名，其蛮横、恶毒不能不引起身受诽谤人士的愤懑；向富有者、高贵者、显赫者 鼓噪不休的责难，已引起一切有识之士的厌烦；以各种方式掩盖事实真象、加以肆意歪 曲等作法已为一切诚实的公民所不齿。而由于此类情况致使笔者采用某些违背本意的激 烈语言非无可能，肯定笔者曾不时感觉到确有感情上的冲动与节制的斗争；前者时或有 居于上锋的情况。笔者唯一可为本人开脱的是：此种情况尚非经常出现，所用的激烈语 言为数不多。
现在我辈不妨自问：在前文铺述过程中，是否已充分驳倒对宪法草案的诽谤？是否已阐明宪法草案为一值得大家拥护的文本，乃维护公共安全与社会繁荣所必需？人人均需根据本人的良知与理解作出回答，并根据本人真实、清醒的判断行事，此乃每人责无旁贷的义务。凡我公民均被召唤，不，均受社会义务的约束，以严肃与诚实态度履行之。
凡党派动机、特殊利害、自尊心、感情或偏见均不应指使其采取愧对本人、国家、后代的不恰当行动。应警惕依附于党派的顽固性；考虑到有待其作出决定的并非关系社会的某人具体利害，而是有关国家存亡的大计；牢记待其同意或否定的宪法草案业已获得大部美国人的批准。
笔者不拟佯做信心十足认为诸君定可采纳这一新的体制，或者无从察觉反对此一新体制的论点有任何说服力。我倾向于相信此一新体制为我国政治情况、习惯、舆论所能接受的最佳方案，胜于革命以来的任何方案。
赞成宪法草案方面承认草案并非完美无缺使反对派大为雀跃。此辈扬言：“何以采纳不完善的方案？为何不在事前修订以至于完善，以免一旦通过，无从挽回？”此论不过似是而非。首先笔者可以提到赞成宪法草案者承认草案并非完善已被过份夸大为似乎相当于承认草案大有缺陷，如不切实改订则群众的权利与利益将得不到保证。据笔者所知，此种说法已完全歪曲原意。赞成者每人均可公开认定拟议中的体制虽非在一切方面均尽完善，但就总体而论仍是优秀的方案；是我国目前舆论与情况下所能容许的最佳方案；并且包含了通情达理的人民所希望得到的一切保证。
其次，笔者以为继续延长目前国事危殆的状态，使联邦陷入不断试验体制以求完美无缺，乃极其不慎之举。从来笔者不曾期待由谁不完美之人制出完美之物。一切经过集体讨论制定的方案均为各种意见的混合体，必然混杂每个个人的良知和智慧，错误和偏见。将十三个不同的州以友好、联合的共同纽带联结一起的契约，必然是许多不同利益与倾向互相让步的结果。此种料安能制出完美无缺的成品？本城市最近出版了一本异常出色的小册子①，其中表明召集新的制宪会议决不可能有如前一制宪会议召集时的情况那么有利于产生良好结果。其所提理由亦均难以驳倒。笔者不拟重复该文用过的论点，因估计此文已广泛发行，值得每一爱国人士仔细阅读。但有一点有关修改宪法问题尚未向公众讲明。在未就此一方面探讨以前，笔者不能结束此文。
笔者认为对宪法进行事后修改补充较事前修订远为容易。目前草案一经修改即需重新通过，每州均需作出新的决定。在整个联邦中确立又需十三州的同意。而如宪法草案照抄样为各州批准，宪法条文的变更在任何时候均可由九州批准生效。其比例为十三比九，说明事后批准手续较简，而整个体制的批准手续较繁。
不仅如此，为合众国制定的任何宪法总要包括许多细节，在细节之中容纳十三州之不同利益与想法。受委为合众国开创制度的任何个人组成的团体中，自然可以期待在不同点上有非常不同的组合。在一个问题上形成多数，在第二个问题上可能成为少数，而在第三点上可能出现完全不同的组合。因此有必要将组成文件整体的各项细节进行斟酌与安排以满足参加契约的各方；而为了谋求集体的最后批准，还会遇到繁复的困难，做出繁复的牺牲，其繁复程度定会与细节项目的多寡，成员的多寡成正比。
而宪法修正案则一经提出即形成一项新的议案，可作为单独议案提出，因而亦无需 与任何其他问题联系，讨价还价。在必要人数的共同意志下即可定案。因此，一经九个州，或应说十个州，要求修正某一具体条款，此修正案必定成立。通过宪法修正案手续的简易与开始时通过宪法全文在手续方面无法相比。
认为事后不大可能修正宪法的人曾经提出，派往联邦政的行政官员必将不愿让出其已经获得的权势。就笔者而言，本人坚信，任何经过慎重考虑、有实用意义的宪法修正案应系应用于政府组织方面，而非政府的权力方面；仅因此故，笔者认为前一看法并无份量可言。笔者亦认为，从另一原因看，这一看法的份量亦是不大的。联邦领导人，除其一般品格与公务精神方面的考虑而外，仅从主管十三州事务的复杂性出发，亦应经常感到容纳选民合理期望的必要性。再进一步考虑更能证明前一看法的肯定不足取：联邦领导人在九个州同意的情况下，对此并无选择余地。按照宪法草案第五条，国会有义务 “因各州三分之二〔目前为九州〕之州议会之请求，召集会议提议修正案，经四分之三 的州议会或?四分之三的各州国民大会之批准，即作为本宪法之实际部分而发生效力。”本条的措词是带强制性的。国会“应召集会议”。在此一问题上国会无灵活机动之权。因此，一切所谓不愿变动的论点均成泡影。不论设想在涉及地方利益修正案中联合三分之二或四分之三州议会如何困难，在仅涉及人员的普遍自由与安全的问题上，实无遇到此种困难的余地。吾人可以信任州议会反对联邦政府对州权侵犯的警惕，并为之设置障 碍。
如果以上论点竟属不实，则笔者本人必为此论点所感，因据笔者所见，此为政治真理为数学演算所能证明的极少例证之一。与笔者所见略同者，不论如何热心于宪法的修正，必能同意先行予以通过实为达到其目标的捷径。
热心于在宪法通过之前先行修正者必因一同样可靠与明智的作家之以下言词而有所收敛：“（他说）在一般法律方面欲平衡一大国或社会，无论其为君主或共和政体，乃极为艰巨的工作，任何人间才子，尽管博学多能，亦不能仅靠理性与沉思可以期冀完成。
在此项工作中必须集中众人的判断；以经验为先导；靠时间以完善之，在其初次试验中不能避免发生的错误，须由实践中感到不便时加以改正”。以上明确论点应为真诚拥戴联邦人士的明鉴，警惕不要在一味追求不甚可能一旦达到的目标，而招致无政府主义， 形成内战、造成各州间永久分裂状态，乃至使一时得势的煽动家得以建立军事独裁。完美之目标只能积以时日、积累经验始能达到。笔者可能有缺乏政治坚定性，但实不能象一些以为延续目前状态所具有的危险性只是幻想的人，竟能处之泰然。依笔者看来，一 个国家无一全国性政府实为危险可怖的状况。值此宁静和平时刻，经全民自愿批准制定宪法乃极为壮丽的事业，笔者以焦虑不安的心情期待其完成。如果放弃目前在如此艰巨的事业上所已取得的进展：在十三州中已有七州通过，取得了如此可观进展之后，使之功亏一篑，又复重新开始，实在不符合审慎行事的任何规律。使笔者更为不安的是，重新开始的后果，因为据悉本州与他州中的某些权势人物对建立一切可能形式的全国性政 府一概采取反对态度。
普布利乌斯