chose to worship, of his being of their communion. And this was alleged to be an abridgment of the right to worship God with such denomination as one might choose. One was, indeed, allowed the privilege, but was subject to some inconvenience and expense in securing its enjoyment. In March, 1800, a law was passed on the subject, considered more consistent with religious liberty, and more favorable to the smaller sects, than the former statutes, enacted before the revolution. It provided, that one who was of a different denomination from the majority of a town might pay towards the support of the teacher on whose instructions he usually attended, instead of paying, as had before been required, to the teacher of the town, whom it was not his choice to hear. But even this law did not give full satisfaction to all religious sects. It was still objected, that those who belonged to congregational churches had peculiar privileges. And it was not till the passage of the law of 1811, which removed all hostilities, that those who had complained of ecclesiastical oppression became contented with the legal provisions of the state, for the support of religious teachers and worship. But those who approved of the article in the constitution, requiring religious worship and instruction, considered the last mentioned law as a dangerous innovation; since, in effect, it allowed a small portion of the people in a town to decide whether they would have any religious teachers at all.

In 1798, while Governor Sumner was in the chair, a question arose in Virginia, as to the constitutionality of two acts of congress; and the subject was discussed with uncommon interest, in all parts of the country. These were the sedition and alien acts; by which the president was authorized to send aliens out of the United States, if he should deem them dangerous characters, without trial; and persons were made liable to prosecution for a libel, if they accused the members of administration unjustly. The first law was objected to, as being arbitrary, and as giving too much power to the executive; and the latter, as interfering with the freedom of speech, and of the press; which was highly improper in a free government. The legis lature of Virginia pronounced these laws to be unconstitutional, and as exceeding the power given to the federal government: and therefore declared them to be null and void. They also appealed to the other states, in the hope that they would unite in declaring them unconstitutional and unjust. When Governor Sumner communicated these proceedings of Virginia to the general court, he expressed an opinion in favor of the acts of congress, to which they referred; as aliens, if dangerous per

sons, by misrepresenting the measures of government, might justly be required to leave the country, without demanding the right of legal process, to which the citizens would be entitled; and as those, charged with a libel against the rulers, could justify themselves by showing that the charges, alleged to be libellous, were well founded and true. He thought the safety of the United States required or justified such laws by the federal government. The majority of the general court sustained the governor in his views; and expressed their opinion, that the acts of congress were constitutional and proper, which the legislature of Virginia, and some other states, had declared arbitrary and unjust.

The report made, on this occasion, in the house of representatives, which was adopted by a vote of one hundred and sixteen to twenty-nine, contained the following resolutions:"That this legislature are persuaded, that the decision of all cases, in law and equity, arising under the constitution of the United States, and the construction of all laws made in pursuance thereof, are exclusively vested by the people, in the judicial courts of the United States:-That the people, in that solemn compact, which is declared to be the supreme law of the land, have not constituted the state legislatures the judges of the acts or measures of the federal government, but have confided to them the power of proposing such amendments of the constitution as shall appear to them necessary to the interests, or conformable to the wishes of the people whom they represent:-That by this construction of the constitution, an amicable and dispassionate remedy is pointed out, for any evil which experience may prove to exist, and the peace and prosperity of the United States may be preserved without interruption."

Governor Sumner died in June, 1799, and Moses Gill, the lieutenant governor, acted as chief magistrate through the In 1800, Caleb Strong was elected governor, but by year. a small majority of votes; Elbridge Gerry was the opposing candidate. Mr. Gerry was supported by the democratic, or anti-federal party. He was opposed to the constitution of the United States, from a belief that the power of the individual states would be too much restricted, and that its tendency was to consolidation. He had also been an apologist for France, in most cases of dispute between that government and the United States, and condemned the policy of the federal administration in relation to that country and to England. Mr. Strong received the full support of the federal party, that period, the two parties were nearly equally divided in

At

Massachusetts, and through the union. The different opinions and views of the parties were such as had distinguished them for several years. Their prejudices and partialities were the same. Governor Strong had been long in public life, when he was elected chief magistrate of the state. He was active in the revolution, and had repeatedly been a member of the legislature. He was a delegate from Massachusetts, in the general convention of 1787, which framed the federal constitution, and a member of the convention, by which it was adopted in the state. When the federal government was first established, he was appointed a senator in congress, where his services were very useful; especially as chairman of the committee to prepare a law for organizing the judiciary of the United States. Before this, he had been eminent as a counsellor of law; and had been appointed a justice of the supreme court of Massachusetts. His talents were of a high order, and his moral character was remarkably pure and elevated. In his political views, he agreed entirely with General Washington and President Adams; and the measures of their administration received his official approba tion and support. General Washington died a few months* before Governor Strong was elected chief magistrate; and in his first address to the general court, he spoke of him in the following high, but just terms of eulogy. "His patriotism and eminent services endeared him to every friend of America; and his fame has spread through the civilized world. His integrity and his purity of manners, his respect for the institutions of religion, and his zeal for the public welfare, made him equally conspicuous, and ought to be imitated by the citizens of the United States. Let us cherish the remembrance of his modest worth, and form ourselves after the example of his private and public virtues; and we shall be safe and happy, and shall inherit the land forever."

The character of Governor Strong, both as a man and a politician, may be justly perceived, so far as his opinions would portray it, (and his life and practice were entirely in unison with his professions) by the following declarations in his first public speech to the legislature; for, in sincerity, probity and moral purity, he resembled General Washington, whose high and excellent qualities he so fully appreciated. "As virtue and submission to the laws are essential in a republic, and form the only sure basis of its prosperity, these qualities must in a peculiar manner be requisite in those appointed to office in a free government. A man who is not under the influence

* His death was in December, 1799.

of moral principles can have no just claims to the public confidence. * * * There is no opinion more prevalent in civilized nations than that religious principles are essential to morality, and the principal support of lawful government; and that the obligation of piety is imposed on man by his nature. If opposite opinions are patronised, and revealed religion, in particular, is represented as unfriendly to individual or social happiness, it becomes those who believe the truth of christianity, to endeavor to prevent the progress of infidelity, by every mild and prudent method; by promoting institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge, by excluding vicious and profligate persons from the employment of instructing youth, by supporting teachers of piety, religion and morality; and by manifesting, in their own conduct, the genuine effects of the religion, which they regard as the purest source of human felicity.'

In 1801, Governor Strong was re-elected for the place of chief magistrate, by a larger vote than he received the year before; and Mr. Gerry was again the candidate of the antifederal or democratic party. The political parties had not materially changed in Massachusetts, though in the whole United States, the anti-federalists had become the majority; and Mr. Jefferson was elected president, in opposition to Mr. Adams, then the incumbent and the federal candidate. Mr. Jefferson had been vice-president with Mr. Adams; and was secretary of state under Pesident Washington. He had been long considered the head of the anti-federal or democratic party through the country. When the constitution was formed, he objected to it, as monarchy in disguise; and he was believed to be opposed to the policy pursued, during the administration, of his predecessors. His professions were in favor of reform and of economy, as to public expenditures, and of making the will of the people a more general guide. He was disposed to apologize for the injustice and depredations of the French, and inclined to exaggerate the misconduct of the British. His views respecting commerce were such, as to render him more unpopular in Massachusetts, than even his abstract political sentiments, or his supposed partiality for France. Many of the most intelligent citizens were ready to predict great evils from his administration. But Governor

Strong, in his public speech to the general court, spoke of Mr. Jefferson in a very candid and conciliating manner. It was not his disposition to criminate those who differed from him; nor to excite party feeling among the people by addressing their prejudices and passions. Although, (he said)

in the choice of a president of the United States, the result has not corresponded with the wishes of many citizens of the commonwealth, yet they will reflect, that, in republics, the opinion of the majority must prevail, and that obedience to the laws and respect for constitutional authority are essential to the character of good citizens. We are encouraged to expect that the chief magistrate of the nation will not depart from the essential principles of the constitution; and so long as his administration shall be guided by those principles, he will be entitled to the confidence of the people; and their interests require that he should possess it. But if it shall appear hereafter, that their anticipations are not realized, a sense of decorum and a regard to justice and the public welfare should exclude asperity and false coloring, from all discussions of public measures. For the morals and liberties of the people will be in danger, if the press should be prostituted to faction and falsehood." This is the language of a virtuous and enlightened statesman; and such a spirit in rulers and men of influence, in times of party excitement, would certainly prevent much evil and mischief in a republican government.

In 1802, the general court voted to build a state prison; which was afterward erected in Charlestown; confinement to hard labor had before been provided, on Castle Island, instead of public whipping, and sitting in the pillory. The design of a state prison was both for punishment and reform. The plan was to confine convicts to hard labor, and at the same time provide moral discipline and religious instruction; in the hope, that while society was rendered safe from the depredations of evil men, some, not sadly depraved and hardened, might reform, and be sent back into the community with good principles and habits of industry. The criminal law was altered as to some cases; burglary, which had been punishable with death, was made a capital offence only, when the person charged, was armed with a deadly weapon, or gave evidence of an intention to commit murder, as well as to rob and plunder. The results of the establishment were not immediately so favorable as had been expected; the expense of the building and the support of officers, for several years, was also very great; and the public was not fully satisfied with the plan. But the friends of the penitentiary system were unwilling to abandon it; for they contended that the experiment at first was necessarily expensive; and they also insisted that the trial had not been fairly made, as to the probable and expected benefits to the criminals; since the building was not sufficiently large to keep the convicts separate by