Autograph Letter Signed

Protection of Pennsylvania and Standing Armies

Bradford describes in detail the constitutionally acceptable methods of defending the port of Philadelphia and the frontiers. Discusses the affects of war in Europe on trade and peace in United States. Insists that there is "nothing in the constitution which prohibits the states from keeping troops in time of War." Do Indian hostilities count as a time of war?

1794

04

02

Henry Knox

William Bradford

Thomas Mifflin

Indians

Pennsylvania

Philadelphia

infant settlements

frontier

port

fort

Fort Mifflin

defense

protection

standing army

ships

1794040240101

1

April 2d 1794
Sir
By your letter of the 31st ulto I understand that a question is made how far the measures contemplated by an act of Pennsylvania for securing the trade, peace and safety of the port of Philadelphia and defending the Western Frontier of the Commonwealth, are consistent with the Constitution of the United States. I have therefore considered that question with attention, & have now the honor to state to you my opinion agreeably to your request.
The act authorises the Governor to raise by enlistment from the militia of the Commonwealth three companies of riflemen and one of Artillery to serve under his orders and instructions for eight months & from thence untill the next meeting of the Legislature, if in his opinion the state of the war in Europe or on the frontiers shall require it. The artillery company is to be stationed at Fort Mifflin for the purpose of securing the trade, peace & safety of the port of Philadelphia, a measure which the preamble declares to be expedient
during the continuance of the war which now rages in Europe. The rest of the companies, (with a detachment of the artillery, which the Governor is authorised to make) are to be stationed for the defence of the Western frontiers & to protect the infant settlement at Presque Isle.
By the Constitution of the U. S. it is provided "That no State shall without the consent of Congress lay any duty of Tonnage, keep troops or ships of war in time of peace" &c. This restriction on the power of keeping Troops, I am of opinion, is not absolute; but that the natural & grammatical construction of words connects the qualification intended by the terms - "in time of peace" - with this restriction, as well as with that on keeping ships of War. There is therefore nothing which in the constitution which prohibits the states from keeping Troops in time of War.
So far, therefore, as the acts in question contemplates the defence of the Western Frontiers against the hostilities of the Indians ow at War with the United States, I consider it as within the strictest limits of the
Constitution. Such measures have heretofore been pursued by the state of Pennsylvania without objection; & a practical construction upon this clause in the Constitution has thus been given.
The rest of the act is much however is very questionable and it is not without great hesitation that I decide upon it. The spirit of a restriction on the power of keeping prohibition to keep troops in time of peace seems to imply that the Troops raised and kept in time of War, ought to be raised, kept & employed with reference to the objects of that war. It is easy to perceive, that the dangers which it is probable the framers people of the Constitution United States probably intended to guard against by this prohibition, in the constitution may will exist if on every breaking out of indian or other hostilities may the separate states may raise troops & build ships of war for any objects but that of repelling such hostilities. But altho' these consequences are evident, I cannot find in the constitution itself anything which prohibits the states from stating one & employing the troops which they have a right to keep in time of war, in what manner they plead within the bounds of their respective states. I consider Those clauses in the constitution of the
United States, which restrict the powers of the several states, as subject to a strict construction, and that the prohibitions are not to be extended by implication, nor is the natural & obvious meaning of the words to be enlarged by a consideration of inconvenience which may possibly reside from abiding by adhering to it.
But as the state of Pennsylvania has no power to keep troops when the United States are not at war, so much of the act as goes to authorise the Governor to keep up these companies if the circumstances of the war in Europe should in his opinion require it is not, I apprehend compatible with the Constitution of the United States. If Peace shall be made with the Indians, & no other war, these company troops cannot be constitutionally kept up by Pennsylvania, altho' the War in Europe should continue, & the terms of the enlistment should be unexpired.
I have the honor to be, with great respect & esteem Sir
Your most obet Serv
W Bradford
Secretary of War.
[Marginalia: A-60]