The legislature of 1799 assembled at Frankfort on the 4th of November and by an overwhelming majority John Breckinridge, the mover of the resolutions of 1798, was elected speaker of the house. On the following day, Governor Garrard, after delivering his inaugural address, sent to the legislature the answers which the different states had made to the resolutions of 1798. It was, at first, thought best to take no further action upon these answers than to print eight hundred copies for distribution, which was done. Further reflection, however, led to a different conclusion.

On the 8th of November, therefore, the house resolved itself into a committee of the

whole on the state of the commonwealth with Joseph Desha, the member from Mason, afterwards governor of the state, in the chair, when John Breckinridge offered for adoption a preamble and resolution which he had drawn as a rejoiner to the answers of the different states. On the 14th of November, 1799, this preamble and resolution was unanimously adopted by the house precisely as they had been drawn and offered by Mr. Breckinridge, and after they had been concurred in by the senate and approved by the governor, went forth as the Kentucky Resolutions of 1799. Eight hundred copies were printed for distribution with the answers of the different states to the resolutions of 1798, and the following is a copy of these originals now in the possession of Col. R. T. Durrett of Louisville, to whom the author acknowledges his indebtedness there

for, as well as for the original resolutions of 1798 prepared by Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Breckinridge.

"KENTUCKY LEGISLATURE

"In the House of Representatives,
"November 14, 1799.

"The House according to the standing order of the day, resolved itself into a committee of the whole house on the state of the commonwealth, Mr. Desha in the chair, and after some time spent therein, the speaker resumed the chair and Mr. Desha reported that the committee had taken under consideration sun

dry resolutions passed by several state legislatures on the subject of the Alien and Sedition laws and had come to a resolution thereon which he delivered at the clerk's desk where it was read and unanimously agreed to by the house as follows:

"The Representatives of the good people of this Commonwealth in General Assembly Convened, having maturely considered the answers of several States in the Union to their resolutions passed at the last session, respecting certain unconstitutional laws of Congress, commonly called the Alien and Sedition laws, would be faithless indeed to themselves and to those they represent, were they silently to acquiesce in the principles and doctrines attempted to be maintained in all those answers, that of Virginia alone excepted. To again enter the field of argument and attempt more fully or forcibly to expose the unconstitutionality of these obnoxious laws would, it is apprehended, be as unnecessary as unavailing. We cannot, however, but lament that in the discussion of those interesting subjects, by sundry of the Legislatures of our sister States, unfounded suggestions

and uncandid insinuations, derogatory of the true character and principles of the good people of this Commonwealth, have been substituted in place of fair reasoning and sound argument. Our opinions on those alarming measures of the General Government, together with our reasons for those opinions, were detailed with decency and with good temper, and submitted to the judgment and discussion of our fellow citizens throughout the Union. Whether the like decency and temper have been observed in the answers of most of those States who have denied or attempted to obviate the great truths contained in these resolutions we have now only to submit to a candid world. Faithful to the true principles of the Federal Union, unconscious of any designs to disturb the harmony of that Union and anxious only to escape the fangs of despotism, the good people of this Commonwealth are regardless of censure or calumniation. Lest, however, the silence of this Commonwealth should be construed into an acquiescence in the doctrines and principles advanced and attempted to be maintained by the said answers, or lest those of our fellow citizens throughout the Union who so widely differ from us on these important subjects, should be deluded by the expectation that we shall be deterred from what we conceive our duty, or shrink from the principles contained in these Resolutions, therefore:

"Resolved, That this Commonwealth considers the Federal Union upon the terms and for the purposes specified in the late compact, as conducive to the liberty and happiness of the several States: That it does now unequivocably declare its attachment to the Union and to that compact agreeable to its obvious and real intention and will be the last to seek its dissolution: That if those who administer the General Government be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by that compact, by a total disregard to the special delegations of power therein contained, an annihilation of the State Governments and the erection upon their ruins of a general consolidated government will be the inevitable consequence.

"That the principle and construction contended for by several of the State Legislatures that the General Government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism since the discretion of those who administer the Government and not the Constitution, would be the measure of their powers: That the several States who formed that instrument, being

sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable. right to judge of its infraction, and that a nullification by these sovereignties of all unauthorized acts

done under color of that instrument is the rightful remedy: That this Commonwealth does, upon the most deliberate reconsideration, declare that the said Alien and Sedition laws, are, in their opinion, palpable violations of the said Constitution, and however cheerfully it may be disposed to surrender its opinion to a majority of its sister States in matters of ordinary or doubtful policy, yet in momentous regulations like the present, which so vitally wound the best rights of the citizen, it would consider a silent acquiescence as highly criminal: That although this Commonwealth, as a party to the Federal compact, will bow to the laws of the Union, yet it does, at the same time, declare that it will not now, nor ever hereafter, cease to oppose in a constitutional manner, every attempt, from what quarter soever offered, to violate that compact, and finally, in order that no pretexts or arguments may be drawn from a supposed acquiescence in the part of this Commonwealth in the constitutionality of those laws, and be thereby used as precedents for similar future violations of the Federal Compact, this Commonwealth does now enter against them its solemn protest."

These resolutions, while firmly reasserting those of 1798, contain the following nullification words not to be found in those of 1798: "That the several states who formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of its infraction and that a nullification by those sovereignties of all unauthorized acts done. under color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy."

This, however, is quite a different nullification from that of Mr. Jefferson, whose resolutions assert the right of a single state to nullify an act of congress, while those of Mr. Breckinridge lodge this power in all the states, subject to the constitution. The difference is broad; it is the difference between one and all; the difference between one and many. In the debate upon the resolutions of 1798, Mr. Breckinridge took the ground that a majority of the states might rightfully nullify an unauthorized act of congress. The nearest that he approached to the doctrine of nullification as asserted by Mr. Jefferson, was that

a majority of the states, acting in their sovereign capacity and exercising original powers not delegated to congress, might declare null and void an act of congress plainly unauthorized by the constitution and protect their citizens from its operation within their respective domains. And this seems to have been the Kentucky understanding of these resolutions, for it appeared from the answers that came from the different states, that nearly a majority had declared against the resolutions of 1798 instead of in favor of them, and that Virginia alone was in full sympathy with Kentucky. The resolutions of 1799 ended with a solemn protest against the unconstitutional acts instead of providing for ordinances to nullify them and protect citizens from their operation.

Ours is a constitutional government designed to be ordered at all times in accordance with an instrument made more than a century ago modified from time to time in solemn manner; treated as a sacred thing born of deliberation hardly less inspired by infallible wisdom than were the writers of Holy Writ. We maintain a ponderously a ponderously learned body of men whose most sacred duty it is to keep us in the way of obedience to the constitution. It is seemingly assumed that to vary from the constitution is to commit the unpardonable sin. Our land has been wet with the precious blood of our own people because of this constitution. Sacred though it be, yet the people are strongly at variance in the construction of that instrument. Though the greatest civil war of all history has solved certain of its problems, there remain yet others to vex and disturb the commonwealth. Chief Justice Marshall, the

greatest exponent of that instrument, is said. by some learned in the law to have given vital form to the meaning of the Great Charter of our government. Others, great in their legal knowledge, have disagreed, they disagree today with the chief justice of the highest court in Christendom. The very authors of that great instrument fell out among themselves, as to the meaning of their act. The differences of their day are the differences of today; will be the differences until time has passed away and the heavens are rolled together like a scroll. It became the bond of union of the colonies with, in certain instances, a half-hearted acceptance by those who sacrificed their individual and separate political and national entity for the beautiful promises of federation.

To some thoughtful ones our representative government has over it the shadow of failure, in that the people's representatives do not represent the people's good. The representative should be not merely the mouthpiece of those by whom he is elected; he should be their leader, their wise counsellor, their best friend, expert in public things, clean in his great office. Too often, he is not all this, but because he is not, none should despair of constitutional government. The system of our government is a true one, our constitution in the momentous contest of the War Between the States stood the test of the greatest conflict known to modern ages and if, unhappily, it must meet yet other great tests, the hope and patriotic strength of the people will be about it as a buckler and a shield and it will emerge purified, it may be, by the fires of contest, but yet stronger and more beautiful for the perils through which it has passed.

The people of Kentucky, many of them at least, were not satisfied with the provisions of their first constitution, as many of those of today are dissatisfied with the latest production of a constitutional convention which supplied the organic system under which the state today endeavors to advance in material interests, yet finds its steps clogged by the unwise provisions of a crudely conceived and unwisely constructed instrument. It is no answer to this indictment to state that the people of the state at the polls approved of the new constitution by a majority of more than 130,000. The wonder is that the majority was not greater. The people of Kentucky were inclined to accept any constitution offered them, rather than have that convention go back to Frankfort and again endeavor to evolve an organic law. They voted for our latest constitution in fear and trembling, hoping thus to escape a possibly worse fate. Those who think these words too strong are requested to study the provisions of the present constitution of Kentucky on the subject of taxation.

But to return to the first constitution is a pleasing relaxation after considering the latest production the state has endured in that line. Under the provisions of an act of the legislature, the people in 1797 voted upon the question of calling a convention for the enactment of a new constitution. There were then

twenty-one counties organized in the state. The vote in favor of a new constitution was 9,814, for, and 440 against it; but as five counties made no returns, the requisite constitutional majority was not apparent and the proposition therefore failed.

At the succeeding session of the legislature a bill providing for a second vote passed the house but was defeated in the senate. The people resented this action and demanded that at the next election they be given the right to express their views as to the calling of a convention. There was much discussion in the press and on the hustings. Kentuckians have long been noted for the tendency to have their opinions known of men; they have never been proven guilty of the charge of reticence, but, to the contrary, have always, without fear or favor, informed the world of their opinions. So, in this matter of a second call for a convention there was much eloquence on the hustings and an enlarged discussion in the then meager press of the state.

Under the first constitution, a body of electors, not the voters at large, chose the governor and also the members of the senate. The people, very naturally did not like these conditions. They had fought King George in the Revolution for the right to be represented by men of their own choice; they had fought the Indian for the right to live in Kentucky, and they did not propose to have a small and

select body of men say who should be their governor, or who should sit as their grave and reverend senators.

Notwithstanding this sentiment, the vote in favor of a new constitution again failed to receive the necessary majority, through ten counties failing to report the vote cast therein. The sentiment in favor of a convention, however, was so strong that when the general assembly met, the necessary two-thirds majority was received and authority was given for the assembling of a constitutional convention which assembled July 22, 1799, with Alexander C. Bullitt, of Jefferson, as president and Thomas Todd as secretary. The new organic law provided that the governor should be chosen for a term of four years by a majority of the electorate at the polls, instead of by a small body of electors who also chose the senate. This latter body, it was provided, should be chosen by the people in twenty-four senatorial districts, an additional senator to be chosen for the three representatives who should be chosen above fifty-eight. After the first three years, the senators held their offices for four years as now. The governor's disapproval of an enactment of the general assembly, instead of being absolute, as under the first constitution, could be overruled by a majority of each house, as is provided today. These changes were the most important made in the first instrument and after being in session but twenty-seven days, the Convention adjourned, declaring that the former Constitution should remain in full force and effect until June 1, 1800, on which date the second instrument was to become effective.

A constitution written and adopted in twenty-seven days! Evidently the absence of stenographers and a printing-press at immediate command, tends to shorten the work of statesmen who build organic structures. Kentucky has been known to suffer the infliction of a constitutional convention which assem

bled on September 8, 1890, and adjourned September 28, 1891, and which, during its sessions, filled four large volumes, the whole containing 6,480 pages, with what that body was pleased to term "discussion." And there have been criticisms of the work they turned out, notwithstanding the extended sessions and the continuous discussion on points both large and small. The day is perhaps not far distant when Kentucky will have a constitution in keeping with the spirit of the age and which will attract, rather than repel, the attention of those whose presence and capital would add to the dignity and importance of the State.

Reference has been made in preceding pages to the sympathy of the people with the French and to the formation in certain towns of what were called Democratic clubs. This sympathy was a natural one. La Fayette, a boy soldier of nineteen years, had left the sunny fields of France and the ease of an aristocratic circle, to suffer amid the privations of the Continental soldiers struggling for freedom; Rochambeau, with a French fleet of war vessels, had sailed up the James River and lent powerful physical and moral support to General Washington when his ragged troops invested Yorktown and forced Cornwallis to surrender. That the people should be kindly disposed to France was not only natural, but greatly to their credit. Then too, they did not look with approval on the treaty with England for which country they had not yet cultivated feelings of affection, remembering, as they did, the recent war and more than all else the atrocities of the Indian tribes incited thereto by the English commanders on the border. The bitter sentiment against England was as natural as was that of affectionate regard for France. Yet France was not behaving very nicely towards the United States. Incensed at the treaty with England, when Charles Pinckney succeeded James Monroe as Minister to that country, the