Abbildungen der Seite

held after such notification by the Legislature of the United States to the Executive of such State.

"All duties, imposts and excises, prohibitions or restraints, laid or made by the Legislature of the United States, shall be uniform and equal throughout the United States."

These several propositions were referred, nem. con., to a committee composed of a member from each State. The Committee, appointed by ballot, were, Mr. LANGDON, Mr. GORHAM, Mr. SHERMAN, Mr. DAYTON, Mr. FITZSIMONS, Mr. READ, Mr. CARROLL, Mr. Mason, Mr. WILLIAMSON, Mr. BUTLER, Mr. Few.

On the question now taken on Mr. DICKINSON'S motion of yesterday, allowing appointments to offices to be referred by the General Legislature to “the Executives of the several States," as a further amendment to Article 10, Sect. 2, the votes were,Connecticut, Virginia, Georgia, aye—3; New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Delaware, North Carolina, South Carolina, no-6; Maryland, divided.

In amendment of the same section, the words, “other public Ministers,” were inserted after “ambassadors."

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS moved to strike out of the section, “and may correspond with the supreme Executives of the several States," as unnecessary, and implying that he could not correspond with others.

Mr. BROOM seconded him.

On the question,— New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, aye—9; Maryland, no-1.

The clause, “ Shall receive ambassadors and other public Ministers,” was agreed to, nem. con.

Mr. SHERMAN moved to amend the power to grant reprieves and pardons,” so as to read,“ to grant reprieves until the ensuing session of the Senate, and pardons with consent of the Senate.”

On the question - Connecticut, aye-1; New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, no8.336

The words, “except in cases of impeachment,” were inserted, nem. con., after“ pardons."

On the question to agree to,“ but his pardon shall not be pleadable in bar,” it passed in the negative,New Hampshire, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, aye—4; Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, Georgia, no—6.


MONDAY, August 27th.

In Convention, -Article 10, Section 2, being resumed,

Mr. L. Martin moved to insert the words, “after conviction,” after the words, “reprieves and pardons.”

Mr. Wilson objected, that pardon before conviction might be necessary, in order to obtain the testimony of accomplices. He stated the case of forgeries, in which this might particularly happen.

Mr. L. MARTIN withdrew his motion.
Mr. SHERMAN moved to amend the clause giving

the Executive the command of the militia, so as to read: “and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States ;" and on the question,

New Hampshire, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, Georgia, aye—6; Delaware, South Carolina, no—2; Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, absent.

The clause for removing the President, on impeachment by the House of Representatives, and conviction in the Supreme Court, of treason, bribery, or corruption, was postponed, nem. con. at the instance of Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS; who thought the tribunal an improper one, particularly, if the first Judge was to be of the Privy Council.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIs objected also to the President of the Senate being provisional successor to the President, and suggested a designation of the Chief Justice.

Mr. Madison adds, as a ground of objection, that the Senate might retard the appointment of a President, in order to carry points whilst the revisionary power was in the President of their own body; but suggested that the executive powers during a vacancy be administered by the persons composing the Council to the President.

Mr. WILLIAMSON suggested that the Legislature ought to have power to provide for occasional successors; and moved that the last clause of Article 10, Sect. 2, relating to a provisional successor to the President, be postponed.

Mr. DICKINSON seconded the postponement, remarking that it was too vague. What is the ex

tent of the term “disability,” and who is to be the judge of it ?

The postponement was agreed to, nem. con.

Col. Mason and Mr. MADISON moved to add to the oath to be taken by the Supreme Executive, “and will, to the best of my judgment and power, preserve, protect, and defend, the Constitution of the United States."

Mr. Wilson thought the general provision for oaths of office, in a subsequent place, rendered the amendment unnecessary.

On the question,

New Hampshire, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, aye—7; Delaware, no—1; Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, absent.

Article 11, being next taken up,

Doctor JOHNSON suggested that the judicial power ought to extend to equity as well as law; and moved to insert the words,“ both in law and equity,” after the words, “United States,” in the first line of the first section.

Mr. Read objected to vesting these powers in the same court.

On the question,

New Hampshire, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, aye—6; Delaware, Maryland, no-2; Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, absent.

On the question to agree to Article 11, Sect. 1, as amended, the States were the same as on the preceding question.

Mr. DICKINSON moved, as an amendment to Article

11, Sect. 2, after the words, "good behaviour," the words, “provided that they may be removed by the Executive on the application by the Senate and House of Representatives.”

Mr. GERRY seconded the motion.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS thought it a contradiction in terms, to say that the Judges should hold their offices during good behaviour, and yet be removeable without a trial. Besides, it was fundamentally wrong to subject judges to so arbitrary an authority

Mr. Sherman saw no contradiction or impropriety, if this were made a part of the constitutional regulation of the Judiciary establishment. He observed that a like provision was contained in the British statutes.

Mr. RUTLEDGE. If the Supreme Court is to judge between the United States and particular States, this alone is an insuperable objection to the motion.

Mr. Wilson considered such a provision in the British Government as less dangerous than here; the House of Lords and House of Commons being less likely to concur on the same occasions. Chief Justice Holt, he remarked, had successively offended, by his independent conduct, both Houses of Parliament. Had this happened at the same time, he would have been ousted. The Judges would be in a bad situation, if made to depend on any gust of faction which might prevail in the two branches of our Government.

Mr. RANDOLPH opposed the motion, as weakening too much the independence of the Judges.

Mr. DICKINSON was not apprehensive that the Le

« ZurückWeiter »