infused some drops of this foreign poison into the laws of the
United States. It considers a constitution as defective,
where the whole power is lodged in the hands of the people
or their representatives.[1] It represents the British standing army as harmless.[2] It calls a distinction between a confederacy and a consolidation of the states "more subtle than accurate."[3] It asserts that English liberty by the revolution of 1688 was "completely triumphant."[4] It ingeniously defends mercenary armies,[5] and it declares that in the usual progress of things, the necessities of a nation in every stage of its existence, will be found at least equal to its resources."[6] These, and a multitude of similar doctrines, swallowed by both the parties which have divided the nation between them, in the sweet but poisonous pill of confidence, must necessarily have bestowed upon legislation, a tone not perfectly in unison with the genuine policy of the United States. What, for instance, could a nation suffer, or
tyranny extort, between an eternal payment and dispensation of resources equal to its ability?
It was unfortunate that so great a mass of zeal, integrity and talents, should have been expended at the juncture of a controversy, calculated rather to inspire the ingenuity necessary to win a victory, than the cool inquiries necessary to discover truth; and that party collisions should subsequently have deprived it of the liberty of applying to this controversial composition, the test of a candid revision. I believe that one of the supposed authors at least does not approve of all its doctrines; and the occasion which produced them having passed, neither the feelings of its authors, nor the gratitude and applause of the publick, ought to undergo any change, from an effort to preserve the policy of the United States, which this book so eminently contributed to introduce; suggested by a conviction, that however it may abound, like Mr. Adams's, with republican principles, these,
