embly,--that the senate should, in its nature, be somewhat
more permanent, and that the two houses should be completely independent
of each other. These _principles_ are right--for the present we will
suppose they will be supported--there then remains to be considered no
considerable difference between the constitutional government which is
proposed, and your present government, except that the time for which you
choose your present rulers is only for six and twelve months, and the time
for which you are to choose your continental rulers is for two, four and
six years.

The convention were mistaken if they supposed they should lessen the evils
of tumultuous elections by making elections less frequent. But are your
liberties endangered by this measure? Philosophy may mislead you. Ask
experience. Are not the liberties of the people of England as safe as
yours?--They are not as free as yours, because much of their government is
in the hands of _hereditary majesty_ and _nobility_. But is not that part
of the government which is under the control of the commons exceedingly
well guarded? But still the house of commons is only a third branch--the
_only_ branch who are appointed by the people--and they are chosen but once
in _seven years_. Is there then any danger to be apprehended from the
length of time that your rulers are to serve? when none are to serve more
than six years--one whole house but two years, and your President but four.

The great power and influence of an hereditary monarch of Britain has
spread many alarms, from an apprehension that the commons would sacrifice
the liberties of the people to the money or influence of the crown: but
the influence of a powerful _hereditary_ monarch, with the national
Treasury--Army--and fleet at his command--and the whole executive
government--and one-third of the legislative in his hands constantly
operating on a house of commons, whose duration is never less than _seven
years_, unless this same monarch should _end_ it, (which he can do in an
hour,) has never yet been sufficient to obtain one vote of the house of
commons which has taken from the people the _liberty of the press_,--_trial
by jury_,--_the rights of conscience, or of private property_.

Can you then apprehend danger of oppression and tyranny from the too great
duration of the power of _your_ rulers?

THE LETTERS OF A CITIZEN OF NEW HAVEN, WRITTEN BY ROGER SHERMAN.

Printed In
The New Haven Gazette,