Another reason which I had in stating the amendments to be made, was to shew how nearly those who are for admitting the system with the necessary alterations, agree with those who are for rejecting this system and amending the confederation. In point of convenience, the confederation amended would be infinitely preferable to the proposed constitution. In amending the former, we know the powers granted, and are subject to no perplexity; but in reforming the latter, the business is excessively intricate, and great part of the checks on Congress are lost. It is to be remembered too, that if you are so far charmed with eloquence, and misled by fair representations and charitable constructions, as to adopt an undefined system, there will be no saying afterwards that you were mistaken, and wish to correct it. _It will then be the constitution of our country, and entitled to defence._ If Congress should chuse to avail themselves of a popular commotion to continue in being, as the fourth section justifies, and as the British parliament has repeatedly done, the only answer will be, that it is the constitution of our country, and the people chose it. It is therefore necessary to be exceedingly critical. Whatsoever way shall be chosen to secure our rights, the same resolve ought to contain the whole system of amendment. If it is rejected, the resolve should contain the amendations of the old system; and if accepted, it should contain the corrections of the new one. AGRIPPA. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ _A writer in the Gazette of 29th January, under the signature of Captain M__c__Daniel, having with civility and apparent candour, called for an explanation of what was said in one of my former papers, I have chosen to mention him with respect, as the only one of my reviewers who deserves an answer._ REPLIES TO THE STRICTURES OF A LANDHOLDER, BY ELBRIDGE GERRY. Printed In The Massachusetts Centinel, And The American Herald, January-April 1788. Note. The refusal of Gerry to sign or support the Constitution, being the only northern member of the federal convention to do so, made him the general target of attack by the federal writers of New England. To most of these Gerry paid no attention, but the charges of “A Landholder” were so positive, and so evidently written by a fellow member of the federal convention, that an answer was necessary. To neither of the two pieces here printed did Gerry put his name, but the subject and internal evidence are both conclusive that they were written by him. Not being able to find a copy of the _American Herald_, I have been compelled to reprint the second article from the _New York Journal_. For more on this subject see the letters of A Landholder and of Luther Martin in this collection. Reply To A Landholder, I. The Massachusetts Centinel, (Number 32 of Volume VIII) SATURDAY, JANUARY 5, 1788. MR. RUSSELL: