Hamilton's influence as an advocate was equally supreme. As a lawyer he deserves to rank with Marshall and Webster. On this point Lodge says: "His power of statement and clear cogent reasoning were admirably adapted for arguments to the court on points of law and equity, and in this field he shone from the outset." Judge Spencer, before whom both Hamilton and Webster tried cases, says: "In power of reasoning Hamilton was the equal of Webster, and more than this can be said of no man. In creative power Hamilton was infinitely Webster's superior. . . . He, more than any other man, did the thinking of the time." And Guizot, the great historian, adds this testimony: "There is not in the Constitution of the United States an element of order, of force, or of duration, which he has not powerfully contributed to introduce into it and caused to predominate."

Careful to select law cases the justice of which he believed in, it was almost certain that Hamilton would get the verdict. Men believed that if he took a case, that judge and jury alike would agree with him; that his force of will and intellect would compel decisions in his favor. Young lawyers of the present time might well follow this example. “As men listened to him, they felt profoundly the mastery of the strong nature, the imperious will, and the passionate energy which gave such force to his pathos, to his invective, and to the even flow of clear telling argument."

Hamilton was a man of unblemished character. His motives were pure and disinterested. Truth and honor were his motto. He entertained only the loftiest sentiments of patriotism. He rose above the influence of party and became the philosopher, the prophet of his day. He kept "steadily in view the prosperity and honor of the whole country," and constantly held that the highest duty of a public servant is to advance the interests of the race.

As statesman and orator Hamilton's place. is secure. He will be honored in the centuries to come as the greatest political philosopher of his generation, esteemed by his opponents for the clearness and force with which he proposed and upheld the policies of the Constitution; for his letters and documents are found to contain the leading features of the Constitution long before they were adopted. As a statesman John Marshall ranked Hamilton next to Washington. Henry Cabot Lodge says: “It is given to few men to impress their individuality indelibly upon the history of a great nation. . . . Hamilton's versatility was extraordinary. He was a great orator and lawyer, and he was also the ablest political and constitutional writer of his day, a good soldier, and possessed of a wonderful capacity for organization and practical administration. But wherever he is placed, so long as the people of the United States form one nation, the name of Alexander Hamilton will be held in high and lasting honor, and even in the wreck of governments that great intellect would still command the homage of men."

"As a public speaker," says Justice Brewer, "Hamilton illustrates the power of intellect, subtle and persistent, flexible in its method, comprehensive in its scope, far-reaching in its grasp of the future. He was not an orator in the same sense Patrick Henry was, but behind every word he has left on record there is the power of a great mind.”

COMPROMISES OF THE CONSTITUTION

This is one of a number of speeches delivered by Hamilton in the New York State Convention, which was called in 1788 for the purpose of ratifying the federal Constitution. Forty-six of the sixty-five delegates at first opposed ratification. But Hamilton, in a series of speeches, expounded the Constitution with such skill that when the vote was taken there was a majority of three for ratification. Judged by its results, this may be considered one of the greatest triumphs in the history of oratory.

I. COERCION OF DELINQUENT STATES

Mr. Chairman, the honorable member who spoke yesterday went into an explanation of a variety of circumstances to prove the expediency of a change in our national government, and the necessity of a firm Union; at the same time he described the great advantages which this state, in particular, receives from the Confederacy, and its peculiar weaknesses when abstracted from the Union. In doing this, he advanced a variety of arguments which deserve serious consideration. Gentlemen have this day come forward to answer him. He has been treated as having wandered in the flowery fields of fancy, and attempts have been made to take off from the minds of the committee that sober impression which might be expected from his arguments. I trust, sir, that observations of this kind are not thrown out to cast a light air on this important subject, or to give any personal bias on the great question before us. I will not agree with gentlemen who trifle with the weaknesses of our country; and suppose that they are enumerated to answer a party purpose, and to terrify with supposed dangers. No; I believe these weaknesses to be real, and pregnant with destruction. Yet, however weak our country may be, I hope we shall never sacrifice our liberties. If, therefore, on a full and candid discussion, the proposed system shall appear to have that tendency, let us reject it! But let us not mistake words for things, nor accept doubtful surmises as the evidence of truth. Let us consider the Constitution calmly and dispassionately, and attend to those things only which merit consideration.

No arguments drawn from embarrassment or inconvenience ought to prevail upon us to adopt a system of government radically bad; yet it is proper that these arguments, among others, should be brought into view. In doing this, yesterday, it was necessary to reflect upon our situation; to dwell upon the imbecility of our Union; and to consider whether we, as a state, could stand alone.

Although I am persuaded this convention will be resolved to adopt nothing that is bad, yet I think every prudent man will consider the merits of the plan in connection with the circumstances of our country; and that a rejection of the Constitution may involve most fatal consequences. I make these remarks to show that though we ought not to be actuated by unreasonable fear, yet we ought to be prudent.

Sir, it appears to me extraordinary that while gentlemen in one breath acknowledge that the old Confederation requires many material amendments, they should, in the next, deny that its defects have been the cause of our political weakness and the consequent calamities of our country. I cannot but infer from this that there is still some lurking favorite imagination that this system, with corrections, might become a safe and permanent one. It is proper that we should examine this matter. We contend that the radical vice in the old Confederation is that the laws of the Union apply only to the states in their corporate capacity. Has not every man who has been in our legislature experienced the truth of this position? It is inseparable from the disposition of bodies who have a constitutional power of resistance, to examine the merits of a law. This has ever been the case with the federal requisitions. In this examination, not being furnished with those lights which directed the deliberations of the general government, and incapable of embracing the general interests of the Union, the states have almost uniformly weighed the requisitions by their own local interests; and have only executed them so far as answered their particular convenience or advantage. Hence there have ever been thirteen different bodies to judge of the measures

of Congress, and the operations of government have been distracted by their taking different courses. Those which were to be benefited, have complied with the requisitions; others have totally disregarded them. Have not all of us been witnesses to the unhappy embarrassments which resulted from these proceedings? Even during the late war, while the pressure of common danger connected strongly the bond of our union, and excited to vigorous exertions, we have felt many distressing effects of the impotent system. How have we seen this state, though most exposed to the calamities of the war, complying, in an unexampled manner, with the federal requisitions, and compelled by the delinquency of others to bear most unusual burdens! Of this truth we have the most solemn evidence on our records. In 1779 and 1780, when the state, from the ravages of war, and from her great exertions to resist them, became weak, distressed, and forlorn, every man avowed the principle we now contend for; that our misfortunes, in a great degree, proceeded from the want of vigor in the Continental government. These were our sentiments when we did not speculate, but feel. We saw our weakness, and found ourselves its victims. Let us reflect that this may again, in all probability, be our situation. This is a weak state, and its relative station is dangerous. Your capital is accessible by land, and by sea is exposed to every daring invader; and on the northwest you are open to the inroads of a powerful foreign nation. Indeed this state, from its situation, will, in time of war, probably be the theater of its operations.

Gentlemen have said that the noncompliance of the states has been occasioned by their sufferings. This may in part be true. But has this state been delinquent? Amidst all our distresses we have fully complied. If New York could comply wholly with the requisitions, is it not to be supposed that the other states could in part comply? Certainly every state in the Union might have executed them in some degree. But New Hampshire, who has not suffered at all, is totally delinquent. North Carolina is totally delinquent. Many others have contributed in a very small