Reply to "A Landholder," I
by Elbridge Gerry
You are desired to inform the publick from good authority,
that Mr. GERRY, by giving his dissent to the proposed Constitution,
could have no motives for preserving an office, for he
holds none under the United States, or any of them; that he has
not, as has been asserted, exchanged Continental for State Securities,
and if he had, it would have been for his interest to have
supported the new system, because thereby the states are restrained
from impairing the obligation of contracts, and by a
transfer of such securities, they may be recovered in the new
federal court; that he never heard, in the Convention, a motion
made, much less did make any, “for the redemption of the old
continental money;” but that he proposed the public debt should
be made neither better nor worse by the new system, but stand
precisely on the same ground by the Articles of Confederation;
that had there been such a motion, he was not interested in it, as
he did not then, neither does he now, own the value of ten pounds
in continental money; that he neither was called on for his reasons
for not signing, but stated them fully in the progress of the
business. His objections are chiefly contained in his letter to the
Legislature; that he believes his colleagues men of too much
honour to assert what is not truth; that his reasons in the Convention
“were totally different from those which he published,”
that his only motive for dissenting from the Constitution, was a
firm persuasion that it would endanger the liberties of America;
that if the people are of a different opinion, they have a right to
adopt; but he was not authorized to an act, which appeared to
him was a surrender of their liberties; that a representative of a
free state, he was bound in honour to vote according to his idea
of her true interest, and that he should do the same in similar
circumstances.
Cambridge, January 3, 1788.