2. Will it prevent encroachments on the federal authority? A tendency to such encroachments has been sufficiently exemplified, among ourselves, as well as in every other confederated republic antient and modern. By the federal articles, transactions with the Indians appertain to Cong^s. Yet in several instances, the States have entered into treaties & wars with them. In like manner no two or more States can form among themselves any treaties &c. without the consent of Cong^s. Yet Virg^a & Mary^d in one instance--Pen^a & N. Jersey in another, have entered into compacts, without previous application or subsequent apology. No State again can of right raise troops in time of peace without the like consent. Of all cases of the league, this seems to require the most scrupulous observance. Has not Mass^{ts}, notwithstanding, the most powerful member of the Union, already raised a body of troops? Is she not now augmenting them, without having even deigned to apprise Cong^s of Her intention? In fine--Have we not seen the public land dealt out to Con^t to bribe her acquiescence in the decree constitutionally awarded ag^{st} her claim on the territory of Pen^a: for no other possible motive can account for the policy of Cong^s in that measure?--If we recur to the examples of other confederacies, we shall find in all of them the same tendency of the parts to encroach on the authority of the whole. He then reviewed the Amphyctionic & Achæan confederacies among the antients, and the Helvetic, Germanic & Belgic among the moderns, tracing their analogy to the U. States in the constitution and extent of their federal authorities--in the tendency of the particular members to usurp on these authorities, and to bring confusion & ruin on the whole.--He observed that the plan of Mr. Pat[er]son, besides omitting a controul over the States as a general defence of the federal prerogatives was particularly defective in two of its provisions. 1. Its ratification was not to be by the people at large, but by the _legislatures_. It could not therefore render the acts of Cong^s in pursuance of their powers, even legally _paramount_ to the acts of the States. 2. It gave to the federal Tribunal an appellate jurisdiction only--even in the criminal cases enumerated. The necessity of any such provision supposed a danger of undue acquittals in the State tribunals, of what avail c^d an appellate tribunal be, after an acquittal? Besides in most if not all of the States, the Executives have by their respective _Constitutions_, the right of pard^g. How could this be taken from them by a _legislative_ ratification only?