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. 84
Concerning severalmiscellaneous objections
by Alexander Hamilton
Concerning several miscellaneous objections
In the course of the foregoing review of the constitution, I have endeavoured to answer most of the objections which have appeared against it. There remain, however, a few which either did not fall naturally under any particular head, or were forgotten in their proper places. These shall now be discussed: but as the subject has been drawn into great length, I shall so far consult brevity, as to comprise all my observations on these miscellaneous points in a single paper.
The most considerable of the remaining objections is, that the plan of the convention contains no bill of rights. Among other answers given to this, it has been upon different occasions remarked, that the constitutions of several of the states are in a similar predicament. I add, that New York is of the number. And yet the persons who in this state oppose the new system, while they profess an unlimited admiration for our particular constitution, are among the most intemperate partizans of a bill of rights. To justify their zeal in this matter, they allege two things: one is, that though the constitution of New York has no bill of rights pre?xed to it, yet it contains in the body of it, various provisions in favour of particular privileges and rights, which, in substance, amount to the same thing; the other is, that the constitution adopts, in their full extent, the common and statute law of Great Britain, by which many other rights, not expressed, are equally secured.
To the ?rst I answer, that the constitution offered by the convention contains, as well as the constitution of this state, a number of such provisions. Independent of those which relate to the structure of the government, we ?nd the following: Article I. section 3. clause 7. “Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from of?ce, and disquali?cation to hold and enjoy any of?ce of honour, trust, or pro?t under the United States; but the party convicted shall, nevertheless, be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment, according to law.” Section 9. of the same article, clause 2. “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” Clause 3. “No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.” Clause 7. “No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States; and no person holding any of?ce of pro?t or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the congress, accept of any present, emolument, of?ce, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.” Article III. section 2. clause 3. “The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the congress may by law have directed.” Section 3. of the same article: “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of trea-son, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.” And clause 3. of the same section: “The congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason; but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except during the life
of the person attainted.”
It may well be a question, whether these are not, upon the whole, of equal importance with any which are to be found in the constitution of this state. The establishment of the writ of habeas corpus, the prohibition of ex post facto laws, and of titles of nobility, to which we have no corresponding provisions in our constitution, are perhaps greater securities to liberty than any it contains. The creation of crimes after the commission of the fact, or, in other words, the subjecting of men to punishment for things which, when they were done, were breaches of no law; and the practice of arbitrary imprisonments have been, in all ages, the favourite and most formidable instruments of tyranny. The observations of the judicious Blackstone,* in reference to the latter, are well worthy of recital: “To bereave a man of life (says he) or by violence to con?scate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but con?nement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less stricking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government.” And as a remedy for this fatal evil, he is every where peculiarly emphatical in his encomiums on the habeas corpus act, which in one place he calls “the bulwark of the British constitution.”?
Nothing need be said to illustrate the importance of the prohibition of titles of nobility. This may truly be denominated the corner stone of republican government for so long as they are excluded, there can never be serious danger that the government will be any other than that of the people.
To the second, that is, to the pretended establishment of the common and statute law by the constitution, I answer, that they are expressly made subject “to such alterations and provisions as the legislature shall from time to time make concerning the same.” They are therefore at any moment liable to repeal by the ordinary legislative power, and of course have no constitutional sanction. The only use of the declaration was to recognize the ancient law, and to remove doubts which might have been occasioned by the revolution. This consequently can be considered as no part of a declaration of rights; which under our constitutions must be intended to limit the power of the government itself.
It has been several times truly remarked, that bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favour of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was magna charta, obtained by the Barons, sword in hand, from king John. Such were the subsequent con?rmations of that charter by succeeding princes. Such was the petition of right assented to by Charles the First, in the beginning of his reign. Such also, was the declaration of right presented by the lords and commons to the prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament, called the bill of rights. It is evident, therefore, that according to their primitive signi?cation, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations. “We the people of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America:” this is a better recognition of popular rights, than volumes of those aphorisms, which make the principal ?gure in several of our state bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics, than in a constitution of government.
But a minute detail of particular rights, is certainly far less applicable to a constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to one which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns. If therefore the loud clamours against the plan of convention, on this score, are well founded, no epithets of reprobation will be too strong for the constitution of this state. But the truth is, that both of them contain all which, in relation to their objects, is reasonably to be desired.
I go further, and af?rm, that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done, which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would fur-nish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an author-ity, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a right to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.
On the subject of the liberty of the press, as much has been said, I cannot forbear adding a remark or two: in the ?rst place, I observe that there is not a syllable concerning it in the constitution of this state; in the next, I contend that whatever has been said about it in that of any other state, amounts to nothing. What signi?es a declaration, that “the liberty of the press shall be inviolably preserved?” What is the liberty of the press? Who can give it any de?nition which would not leave the utmost latitude for evasion? I hold it to be impracticable; and from this I infer, that its security, whatever ?ne decla-rations may be inserted in any constitution respecting it, must altogether depend on public opinion, and on the general spirit of the people and of the government.* And here, after all, as intimated upon another occasion, must we seek for the only solid basis of all our rights.
There remains but one other view of this matter to conclude the point. The truth is, after all the declamation we have heard, that the constitution is itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, a bill of rights. The several bills of rights, in Great Britain, form its constitution, and conversely the constitution of each state is its bill of rights. In like man-ner the proposed constitution, if adopted, will be the bill of rights of the union. Is it one object of a bill of rights to declare and specify the political privileges of the citizens in the structure and administration of the government? This is done in the most ample and precise manner in the plan of the convention; comprehending various precautions for the public security, which are not to be found in any of the state constitutions. Is another object of a bill of rights to de?ne certain immunities and modes of proceeding, which are relative to personal and private concerns? This we have seen has also been attended to, in a variety of cases, in the same plan. Adverting therefore to the substantial meaning of a bill of rights, it is absurd to allege that it is not to be found in the work of the convention. It may be said that it does not go far enough, though it will not be easy to make this appear; but it can with no propriety be contended that there is no such thing. It certainly must be immaterial what mode is observed as to the order of declaring the rights of the citizens, if they are provided for in any part of the instrument which establishes the government. Whence it must be apparent, that much of what has been said on this subject rests merely on verbal and nominal distinctions, entirely foreign to the substance of the thing.
Another objection, which, from the frequency of its repetition, may be presumed to be relied on, is of this nature: it is improper (say the objectors) to confer such large powers, as are proposed, upon the national government; because the seat of that government must of necessity be too remote from many of the states to admit of a proper knowledge on the part of the constituent, of the conduct of the representative body. This argument, if it proves any thing, proves that there ought to be no general government whatever. For the powers which, it seems to be agreed on all hands, ought to be vested in the union, cannot be safely intrusted to a body which is not under every requisite control. But there are satisfactory reasons to show, that the objection is, in reality, not well founded. There is in most of the arguments which relate to distance, a palpable illusion of the imagination. What are the sources of information, by which the people in any distant county must regulate their judgment of the conduct of their representatives in the state legislature? Of personal observation they can have no bene?t. This is con?ned to the citizens on the spot. They must therefore depend on the information of intelligent men, in whom they con?de: and how must these men obtain their information? Evidently from the complexion of public measures, from the public prints, from correspondences with their representatives, and with other per-sons who reside at the place of their deliberations.
It is equally evident that the like sources of information would be open to the people, in relation to the conduct of their representatives in the general government: and the impediments to a prompt communication which distance may be supposed to create, will be overbalanced by the effects of the vigilance of the state governments. The executive and legislative bodies of each state will be so many sentinels over the persons employed in every department of the national administration; and as it will be in their power to adopt and pursue a regular and effectual system of intelligence, they can never be at a loss to know the behaviour of those who represent their constituents in the national councils, and can readily communicate the same knowledge to the people. Their disposition to apprize the community of whatever may prejudice its interests from another quarter, may be relied upon, if it were only from the rivalship of power. And we may conclude with the fullest assurance, that the people, through that channel, will be better in-formed of the conduct of their national representatives, than they can be by any means they now possess, of that of their state representatives.
It ought also to be remembered, that the citizens who inhabit the country at and near the seat of government will, in all questions that affect the general liberty and prosperity, have the same interest with those who are at a distance; and that they will stand ready to sound the alarm when necessary, and to point out the actors in any pernicious project. The public papers will be expeditious messengers of intelligence to the most remote inhabitants of the union.
Among the many curious objections which have appeared against the proposed constitution, the most extraordinary and the least colourable is derived from the want of some provision respecting the debts due to the United States. This has been represented as a tacit relinquishment of those debts, and as a wicked contrivance to screen public defaulters. The newspapers have teemed with the most in?ammatory railings on this head; yet there is nothing clearer than that the suggestion is entirely void of foundation, the offspring of extreme ignorance or extreme dishonesty. In addition to the remarks I have made upon the subject in another place, I shall only observe, that as it is a plain dictate of common sense, so it is also an established doctrine of political law, that “states neither lose any of their rights, nor are discharged from any of their obligations, by a change in the form of their civil government.”*
The last objection of any consequence at present recollected, turns upon the article of expense. If it were even true, that the adoption of the proposed government would occasion a considerable increase of expense, it would be an objection that ought to have no weight against the plan. The great bulk of the citizens of America, are with reason convinced that union is the basis of their political happiness. Men of sense of all parties now, with few exceptions, agree that it cannot be preserved under the present system, nor without radical alterations; that new and extensive powers ought to be granted to the national head, and that these require a different organization of the federal government; a single body being an unsafe depository of such ample authorities. In conceding all this, the question of expense is given up; for it is impossible, with any degree of safety, to narrow the foundation upon which the system is to stand. The two branches of the legislature are, in the ?rst instance, to consist of only sixty-?ve persons; the same number of which congress, under the existing confederation, may be composed. It is true that this number is intended to be increased; but this is to keep pace with the progress of the population and resources of the country. It is evident, that a less number would, even in the ?rst instance, have been unsafe; and that a continuance of the present number would, in a more advanced stage of population, be a very inadequate representation of the people.
Whence is the dreaded augmentation of expense to spring? One source indicated, is the multiplication of of?ces under the new government. Let us examine this a little.
It is evident that the principal departments of the administration under the present government, are the same which will be required under the new. There are now a secretary at war, a secretary for foreign affairs, a secretary for domestic affairs, a board of treasury consisting of three persons, a treasurer,assistants, clerks, &c. These of?ces are indispensable under any system, and will suf?ce under the new, as well as the old. As to ambassadors and other ministers and agents in foreign countries, the proposed constitution can make no other difference, than to render their characters, where they reside, more respectable, and their services more useful. As to persons to be em-ployed in the collection of the revenues, it is unquestionably true that these will form a very considerable addition to the number of federal of?cers; but it will not follow, that this will occasion an increase of public expense. It will be in most cases nothing more than an exchange of state for national of?cers. In the collection of all duties, for instance, the persons employed will be wholly of the latter description. The states individually, will stand in no need of any for this purpose. What difference can it make in point of expense, to pay of?cers of the customs appointed by the state, or by the United States.
Where then are we to seek for those additional articles of expense, which are to swell the account to the enormous size that has been represented? The chief item which occurs to me, respects the support of the judges of the United States. I do not add the president, because there is now a president of congress, whose expenses may not be far, if any thing, short of those which will be incurred on account of the president of the United States. The support of the judges will clearly be an extra expense, but to what extent will depend on the particular plan which may be adopted in regard to this matter. But upon no reasonable plan can it amount to a sum which will be an object of material consequence.
Let us now see what there is to counterbalance any extra expense that may attend the establishment of the proposed government. The ?rst thing which presents itself is, that a great part of the business, that now keeps congress sitting through the year, will be transacted by the president. Even the management of foreign negotiations will naturally devolve upon him, according to general principles concerted with the senate, and subject to their ?nal concurrence. Hence it is evident, that a portion of the year will suf?ce for the session of both the senate and the house of representatives: we may suppose about a fourth for the latter, and a third, or perhaps half, for the former. The extra business of treaties and appointments may give this extra occupation to the senate. From this circumstance we may infer, that until the house of representatives shall be increased greatly beyond its present number, there will be a considerable saving of expense from the difference between the constant session of the present, and the temporary session of the future congress.
But there is another circumstance, of great importance in the view of economy. The business of the United States has hitherto occupied the state legislatures, as well as congress. The latter has made requisitions which the former have had to provide for. It has thence happened, that the sessions of the state legislatures have been protracted greatly beyond what was necessary for the execution of the mere local business. More than half their time has been frequently employed in matters which related to the United States. Now the members who compose the legislatures of the several states amount to two thousand and upwards; which number has hitherto performed what, under the new system, will be done in the ?rst instance by sixty-?ve persons, and probably at no future period by above a fourth or a ?fth of that number. The congress under the proposed government will do all the business of the United States themselves, without the intervention of the state legislatures, who thenceforth will have only to attend to the affairs of their particular states, and will not have to sit in any proportion as long as they have hereto-fore done. This difference, in the time of the sessions of the state legisla-tures, will be clear gain, and will alone form an article of saving, which may be regarded as an equivalent for any additional objects of expense that may be occasioned by the adoption of the new system.
The result from these observations is, that the sources of additional expense from the establishment of the proposed constitution, are much fewer than may have been imagined; that they are counterbalanced by considerable objects of saving; that that, while it is questionable on which side of the scale will preponderate, it is certain that a government less expensive would be incompetent to the purposes of the union.
publius
*Vide Blackstone’s Commentaries, vol. 1, page 136. ?Idem. vol. 4, page 438.
*To show that there is a power in the constitution, by which the liberty of the press may be affected, recourse has been had to the power of taxation. It is said, that duties may be laid upon publications so high as to amount to a prohibition. I know not by what logic it could be maintained, that the declarations in the state constitutions, in favour of the freedom of the press, would be a constitutional impediment to the imposition of duties upon publications by the state legislatures. It cannot certainly be pretended that any degree of duties, however low, would be an abridgment of the liberty of the press. We know that newspapers are taxed in Great Britain, and yet it is notorious that the press no where enjoys greater liberty than in that country. And if duties of any kind may be laid without a violation of that liberty, it is evident that the extent must depend on legislative discretion, regulated by public opinion; so that after all general declarations respecting the liberty of the press, will give it no greater security than it will have without them. The same invasions of it may be effected under the state constitutions which contain those dec-larations through the means of taxation, as under the proposed constitution, which has nothing of the kind. It would be quite as signi?cant to declare, that government ought to be free, that taxes ought not to be excessive, &c. as that the liberty of the press ought not to be restrained.
*Vide Rutherford’s Institutes, vol. 2, book II, chap. x, sect. xiv, and xv. . . . Vide also Grotius, book 11, chap. ix, sect. viii, and ix.
No. 84
探讨并反驳对宪法的某些一般性的
及其他的反对意见
原载１７８８年麦克莱恩版
第八十四篇（汉密尔顿）
致纽约州人民： 
在上述评论中，笔者已尽力对宪法讨论中的大部分反对意见作出答复，但仍遗留若干问题，或因未能并入任一特定题目，或因忽略未在适当文内涉及。现拟在此文中进行探讨。由于这一主题的论述延续至此，已显冗长，为此拟简略就笔者对上述零散问题的全部看法汇集于一文之中。
在遗留的反对意见中最堪重视者，乃认为制宪会议草案的内容未列入人权法案。前文对其他问题所作的答复中，曾在不同场合提到，有若干州宪法与此类似，可补充提到纽约州即为其中之一。然自称无限拥护本州宪法的若干新体制反对派，却成为人权法案最激烈的支持者。此派诸公以以下两点作为其在此点上如此激昂慷慨的论据：其一，尽管纽约州宪法未在前言中列入人权法案，但于内文中列入有关支持各种特权及权利的条款，其实质与列入人权法案相同；其二，宪法全部沿用大不列颠之习惯法及成文法，许多未作明文规定的权利可同样得到保证。
笔者对第一点的答复是：由制宪会议提出的联邦宪法与本州宪法一样，亦包括许多此类条款。
除涉及政府机构条款之外，可以发现以下条款：第一条第三项第七节——“弹劾案之判决以撤职及剥夺其担任或享受任何合众国荣誉职位、委任职位或有酬金利益职位之资格为限，但被定罪之人仍可作为依法起诉、审讯、判决及惩办之对象。”同条第九项第二节——“人身保护令特权除遇内乱或外患在公安上要求必须停止情况外不得停止之。
”第三条——不得通过公权褫夺令或追溯既往之法律。”第八节——“合众国不得授与贵族爵位；不经同会许可，在合众国政府领薪、任职之人不得接受外国国王、君主或国家之赠与、薪金、官职或爵位。”第三条第二项第三节——“除弹劾案外，一切刑事犯罪之审判应由陪审团审理；审判应在罪行发生之州举行；但如案情并非发生于任何一州时，国会得以法律规定一处或一处以上审判地点。”同条第三项——对合众国所犯之叛国罪仅包括对其作战，或依附其敌人，给予其敌人以帮助及支援。非证人二人对同一明显行为作证或在公开法庭上自行认罪，不得对任何人判定叛国罪。同项第三节——“国会有宣告对叛国罪处刑之权；但对叛国罪犯之褫夺公权令除非在被褫夺公权 犯生时不得具有‘血统玷污’法律效力，亦不得没收其财产。”
可能存在一个问题，即以上是否与本州宪法所包含的内容具有同等重要性。确立人身保护令、禁止追溯既往内容的法律及授与贵族爵位等规定，与本州宪法所包含之一切规定相较，似为对自由与共和政体更为确实的保障，凡此本州宪法中均无相应条款。事后确立罪状，或换言之，以发生时并不违法的行为为根据加以惩办及任意拘禁公民的作法，历来是暴政所善用及最恐怖的手段。睿智之布莱克斯通有关滥行拘禁公民的提法值得在此重述：“不经起诉、审判而剥夺一人生命或强行没收其财产乃是粗暴恶劣的行为，必须立即引起全国对暴政的警惕；但秘密拘禁、匆匆投人入狱，其痛苦不为人知或被人 遗忘，事件不公开、不引人注目，故为专制政府更为危险的手段。”为铲除此一严重弊端，布莱克斯通对人身保护法不惜到处推崇，并曾于一场合称之为：“英国宪法之屏障。”
禁止授与贵族爵位的重要性勿庸赘述。确实可以称之为共和政体的基石；只要摒弃此点，政府之属于人民即可无虞。
至于第二点——关于宪法沿袭全部习惯法与成文法问题，笔者的答复是：上述法律明文规定“立法机关得随时修改补充之”，故随时可为普通立法机关所废除，自无宪法的约束力。上述沿用习惯法与成文法声明的惟一用意为确认古法、解除革命可能对此造成的疑问，不能解释为权利宣言性质，或在我国宪法中有限制政府本身权力的用意。
有人曾多次正确指明：人权法案就其来源而论，乃君主与臣属间的规定，用以削减君权、扩大臣属特权，保留不拟交付君主行使的权利。英国贵族在武力逼迫下获得英王约翰同意的“大宪章”就是如此。大宪章嗣后为历届英王所确认亦然。为英王查理一世即位之初所承认的“权利请愿书”亦然。同样，１６８８年上院与下院呈递奥兰治亲王的“权利宣言”，嗣后成为国会的一项立法，称为“人权法案”者亦然。故考之原意，凡此均不能应用于已公开宣称基于人民权力、由人民的直接代表与公仆执行的宪法之中甚为明显。就严格意义而论，人民不交出任何权利；既然人民保留全部权利，自然无需 再宣布保留任何个别权利。”美国人民为谋今后使我国人民及后世永享自由生活起见， 爰制定美利坚合众国宪法。”与若干州人权法案所列成篇累牍的文字相较，此语乃对民众权利更好的承认。各州人权宣言中此类文字作为一篇伦理学论文的内容较之列入一部政府宪法更为合宜。
但对各别权利详细列数自然对拟议中的宪法较之对个人与私营事业均皆做出规定的宪法，其适用性要相差甚远。因此，如据此以反对制宪会议的宪法草案为合理，则用任何词句非难本州宪法均不为过份。但事实是：二者就其各自之目的而论，均已包括可以合理要求的一切。
笔者还可进一步断言：人权法案，从目前争论的意义与范围而论，列入拟议中的宪法，不仅无此必要，甚至可以造成危害。人权法案条款中包括若干未曾授与政府的权力限制；而正因如此，将为政府要求多于已授权力的借口。既然此事政府无权处理，则何必宣布不得如此处理？例如，既然并未授权政府如何限制出版自由，则何必声明不得限制之？笔者并非谓这类规定将形成处理权的授予；但它将为擅权者提供争夺此项权利的借口则甚为明显。彼等可能以似是而非的理由声称：宪法何能如此荒谬，竟然限制对未曾授予权力的专擅？而关于不得限制出版自由的规定明白暗示授权政府得以制定有关此事的适当法规。由于鼓吹人权法案者的盲目热情必将使持建设性权力论者得到许多把柄。此即为一例证。
关于出版自由问题，既已谈及，笔者不得不再作几句评述：首先，本州宪法无一字提及；其次，无论其他各州宪法如何提法，均无任何意义。宣称：“出版自由应受保护，不得侵犯”有何意义？何谓出版自由？谁能作出任何定义使之不留任何规避的余地？笔者认为此种设想并不现实；从而使我认定：不论在任何宪法中对之作出如何完美的规定，其保障端在于公众舆论，在于人民以及政府所具有的总的精神。正如在另一处所已论及的：归根结蒂，吾人需在此处寻找一切权利的唯一牢固基础。
尚有一种观点拟在结束此点之前加以说明。在领教过一切议论之后，可谓实际上宪法本身在一切合理的意义上以及一切实际的目的上，即为一种人权法案。大不列颠的几个人权法案即组成其宪法；反之，各州的宪法亦为其各自的人权法案。拟议中的宪法草案，如获通过，亦即为联邦的人权法案。人权法案的目的之一是否为宣布并列举公民的政治特权与政府的行政结构？此项内容已以最充分精确的方式载入宪法草案；其中维护公共安全的内容尚为各州宪法所阙如。人权法案的另一目的是否为就若干豁免权及个人与私营企业的诉讼方式加以规范？此项内容亦在宪法草案中作出各类情况的关注。故以 实质性内容而论，指责宪法草案无人权法案内容实在荒谬。或可谓宪法草案不够深入， 而欲说明此点亦非易事；但谓无人权法案内容的说法实在甚为不当。在建立政体的大法 的任何部分中既可发现人权法案的内容，则公民权利的次序如何列举自然无关宏旨。因此可谓有关议论纯系限于措词和形式上的不同意见，完全与事物的本质无关。
另有一种意见，曾经不断重复提出，显系有所仗恃者，似属下列性质：“（反对者说）草案建议授予联邦政府的权力过大，因政府所在地必然距许多州甚远，难以使选民了解代议机构的所作所为。”此种论点不过证明不应建立任何联邦政府而已。似乎一致同意：应授与联邦的权力不能交与不在严密控制之下的机构。但亦有充分理由说明这一意见的论据并不充分。此类关于距离远近的论点均有一定幻想成分。蒙哥马利县人民从何处了解其派往州立法机关代表的所作所为从而加以判断？彼等无法亲自进行观察。只能当时 在场的公民始能做到亲自观察。因此彼等必须依靠彼等信任的有识之士；而彼等的消息又从何得来？自然，可以来自公共措施的倾向性，来自出版物，来自与代表的通信往还，来自居住于开会地点的其他人士等。凡此不限于蒙哥马利县一处，凡距政府所在地一定距离以外的各县均然。
同样，人民亦可以同样方式了解其联邦政府代表的所作所为。而且，由于距离给予及时通信了解的障碍可以由州政府的监视工作加以平衡而有余。各州的行政与立法机构均可监视联邦政府各部之雇员；彼等有权设立正规而有效的情报系统，决不会无法了解其派往联邦各种会议的代表的所作所为，并及时通报与本州人民。即便仅从权力竞争的角度出发，亦可信赖彼等定能将他方损害本州利益的情况传达与本州选民。故可有充分把握断言人民通过此种渠道得以更好了解其派往联邦政府代表的行为，决非彼等目前了解州代表的任何办法所能比拟。
尚需记住居住点靠近联邦政府所在地的公民与居住较远的公民对影响人民自由繁荣的一切问题同等关注。彼等在必要时亦将呼吁并指出任何进行阴谋活动的人物。新闻报纸乃联络联邦各地居民传递消息的有效工具。
在反对宪法草案的许多离奇意见中，最怪诞不经的意见是宪法未曾包含合众国应还 债务的有关规定。指责其暗中废除债务，图谋掩护窃盗公款人犯。报纸曾经对此大肆叫嚣；而实际上此项攻击毫无根据乃是十分明显的事，如非出于极度无知则系出于公然欺骗。除在他处已经论及外，笔者仅指出一点：“国家不因政府形式之改变而失掉任何权利，亦不因之而解除其任何义务。”这是明显的常识，也是公认的政法原则。
目前我所能想到有任何意义的最后一条意见涉及政府开支的条款。如果通过拟议中的政府结构确将增加相当大的一笔开支，亦不能形成反对宪法草案的有力根据。
美国绝大多数公民有理由相信联邦为其政治幸福的基础。除少数例外，各党有识之士俱都同意公民的幸福在目前制度下难以保存，非有急剧变动不可；必须授予全国性政府以新的范围广泛的权利，而为此则需要改组联邦政府（单一的机构不堪委以如此广泛的权威）。如果同意以上诸点，则开支问题必须放弃；因建立此一体系的基础不能再加缩减。首先，立法机关的两院仅包括六十五人，此即为现在邦联制度国会组成可能包括的人数。的确其人数准备予以增加；但将与人口与国家资源的增长相应。很明显，数目再少则作为开始亦不稳妥，而在人口增长之后，如维持目前数目将不能恰当代表人民。
惟恐开支增加之论从何而来？从一个来源看，系由于新政府机构的增加，现就此略作评述。
很明显，目前政府的主要行政部门与新政府所需设立的部门相同。现政府设国防部长一人、外交部长一人、内务部长一人，财政部由财政部长一人、助理与办事员若干人组成等等。凡此官职在任何政体下均属不可缺少，在新体制下亦如旧体制已敷需要。至于派往外国的大使、其他使节与代理人，宪法草案除使其在任所的地位更受尊重、其工作更为有效之外与原来无异。至于政府雇用的税务人员，无疑将使联邦政府雇员数目有相当数量的增加；但并不因此即使财政开支有所增加。在多数情况下，无非将州政府官员变为联邦政府官员而已。例如对一切进口税的征课，将全由联邦政府人员执行。各州 无需设置此项工作人员。从财政开支看来，由各州任命或由合众国任命海关官员，其支薪有何差别？
那末，另外还有何条款造成如吾人所听到的浩大开支？笔者想到的一项涉及到合众国法官的薪俸问题。笔者不提总统，因现在有国会主席，其薪俸开支较合众国总统的开支不会相差很大。法官的薪俸明显为一额外开支，其费用多少，端在于或将采用的具体方案。但任何合理方案均不致使此项开支金额成为关系重大的问题。
现在可以探讨如何抵消建立拟议中政府的额外开支。首先可以设想：使议会常年集会之大量事务将由总统处置。根据与参议院协调的一般原则，并由参议院最后批准的条件下，甚至对外谈判亦将自然转交总统处理。因此，参议院和众议院显然无需全年集会；可以设想，对后者三个月左右，前者四个月或者半年已经足够。参议院之额外会期系因其可能处理条约和任命等额外事务。由此可以推论，除非众议院议员人数较今大量增加，则由现今常年集会改为将来议会之临时集会，将会节省相当的开支。
但是，从经济观念看来，还有另一极为重要的情况。迄今为止，合众国事务除占用议会时间外，还占用各州立法会议之时间。议会提出要求，各州立法会议即须供给。因此，各州立法会议曾有时大量拖长会期，而并非仅仅处置本州地方事务所必需。各州立法会议常把过半之会期用于涉及合众国之事务。然而，各州立法议会之议员多达二千有余，如此众多之人按照新体制立即将由六十五人代行其事，即在将来亦不会超过原来人数之五分之一或四分之一。根据拟议中之政府组成，议会本身处置一切合众国事务，不受各州立法机关之干预，各州立法机关今后仅须照管各该州本身之事务，因而无需如迄今长期集会之可比。各州立法机关集会时间之长短，乃系明显之改进，其本身亦为节省之措施，可以抵消采取新体制可能引起的任何额外开支。
以上探讨说明：批准宪草造成的额外开支，远不及可以想象之多；并可以由相当节省所抵消；虽然节约与额外开支究竟何者为多尚难预计，但可以肯定的则是：再事节支之政府必难维护联邦之宗旨。
普布利乌斯