s one of gratitude to the
editor for having taken such care to reproduce the work with the
greatest possible correctness of text, obtained by patient collation of
the different editions: regarding his labors as those of a disinterested
historical student, ambitious to bring before the public a work full of
warning and wisdom for this terrible national crisis, we at first saw in
his annotations and comments only the labor of love whereby a standard
work is illustrated and made more emphatic and complete: but, ere long,
we found a spirit of detraction at work, a want of sympathy with the
tone and a want of understanding of the motives of the authors, which
made us regret that, instead of this partisan edition, the 'Federalist'
had not been reissued with a brief explanatory introduction, and without
note or comment.

Instead of a hearty recognition, we find a narrow interpretation of
these eminent men: long-exploded slanders, born of partisan spite, are
more in the mind of the editor than the permanent and invaluable traits
which, to a generous and refined mind, constitute the legitimate claims
of the work itself and the authors thereof. Guizot remarks: 'In the
discussions of the numbers' (the 'Federalist'), 'for all that combines a
profound knowledge of the great elementary principles of human
government with the wisest maxims of practical administration, I do not
know in the whole compass of my reading, whether from ancient or modern
authors, so able a work.' _The Edinburgh Review_ says: 'The 'Federalist'
is a publication that exhibits an extent and precision of information, a
profundity of research and an acuteness of understanding, which would
have done honor to the most illustrious statesmen of ancient or modern
times.'

In contrast with these and similar instances of eminent foreign
appreciation, the editor of this edition of the 'Federalist' attributes
to tact what is due to truth, represents the people, as such, as opposed
to the Constitution, and Hamilton, Jay, and Madison 'poor antagonists'
in combating their objections; if so, how does he account for the
remarkable triumph of their dispassionate exposition and lucid
arguments? In all political and literary history there are few more
benign and distinguished examples of the practical efficiency of
intelligent, patriotic, and conscientious reasoning against ignorance,
prejudice, and partisan misrepresentation. And yet, in the face of this
testimony, by the self-