Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

gislature, composed of different branches, constructed on such different principles, would improperly unite for the purpose of displacing a Judge.

On the question for agreeing to Mr. Dickinson's motion, it was negatived,-Connecticut, aye; all the other States present, no.

On the question on Article 11, Section 2, as reported, Delaware and Maryland only, no.

Mr. MADISON and Mr. McHENRY moved to re-instate the words, “ increased or," before the word “diminished,” in Article 11, Section 2.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS opposed it, for reasons urged by him on a former occasion.

Colonel Mason contended strenuously for the motion. There was no weight, he said, in the argument drawn from changes in the value of the metals, because this might be provided for by an increase of salaries, so made as not to affect persons in office; -and this was the only argument on which much stress seemed to have been laid.

General PINCKNEY. The importance of the Judiciary will require men of the first talents: large salaries will therefore be necessary, larger than the United States can afford in the first instance. He was not satisfied with the expedient mentioned by Col. Mason. He did not think it would have a good effect, or a good appearance, for new Judges to come in with higher salaries than the old ones.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS said the expedient might be evaded, and therefore amounted to nothing. Judges might resign, and then be re-appointed to increased salaries.

On the question,

Virginia, aye--1; New Hampshire, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware, South Carolina, no—5; Maryland, divided; Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, Georgia, absent.

Mr. RANDOLPH and Mr. MADISON then moved to add the following words to Article 11, Section 2: “nor increased by any act of the Legislature which shall operate before the expiration of three years after the passing thereof.”

On the question,-Maryland, Virginia, aye—2; New Hampshire, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware, South Carolina, no—5; Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, Georgia, absent.357

Article 11, Section 3, being taken up, the following clause was postponed, viz: "to the trial of impeachments of officers of the United States ;" by which the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was extended to such cases.

Mr. MADISON and Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS moved to insert, after the word "controversies,” the words, "to which the United States shall be a party;" which was agreed to, nem. con.

Doctor Johnson moved to insert the words, “this Constitution and the," before the word “laws."

Mr. Madison doubted whether it was not going too far, to extend the jurisdiction of the Court generally to cases arising under the Constitution, and whether it ought not to be limited to cases of a judiciary nature. The right of expounding the Constitution, in cases not of this nature, ought not to be given to that department.

The motion of Doctor JOHNSON was agreed to, nem. con., it being generally supposed, that the ju

risdiction given was constructively limited to cases of a judiciary nature.

On motion of Mr. RUTLEDGE, the words “passed by the Legislature,” were struck out; and after the words, “United States,” were inserted, nem. con., the words, “and treaties made or which shall be made under their authority,” conformably to a preceding amendment in another place.

The clause, “in cases of impeachment,” was postponed.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS wished to know what was meant by the words: “In all the cases beforementioned it [jurisdiction] shall be appellate, with such exceptions, &c.”—whether it extended to matters of fact as well as law-and to cases of common law, as well as civil law.

Mr. Wilson. The Committee, he believed, meant facts as well as law, and common as well as civil law. The jurisdiction of the Federal court of appeals had, he said, been so construed.

Mr. DICKINSON moved to add, after the word “appellate," the words,“ both as to law and fact;" which was agreed to, nem. con.

Mr. Madison and Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS moved to strike out the beginning of the third section, “The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court," and to insert the words, “the Judicial power,” which was agreed to,

nem. con.

The following motion was disagreed to, to wit, to insert, “In all the other cases beforementioned, the judicial power shall be exercised in such manner as the Legislature shall direct."

Delaware, Virginia, aye—2; New Hampshire,

Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Maryland, South Carolina, Georgia, no—6.

On a question for striking out the last sentence of the third Section, “The Legislature may assign, &c." it passed, nem. con.

Mr. SHERMAN moved to insert, after the words, " between citizens of different States," the words, “ between citizens of the same State claiming lands under grants of different States,"-according to the provision in the 9th Article of the Confederation; which was agreed to, nem. con.*

Adjourned.

TUESDAY, AUGUST 28TH. In Convention,-Mr. SHERMAN, from the Committee to whom were referred several propositions on the twenty-fifth instant, made the following report; which was ordered to lie on the table:

“ That there be inserted, after the fourth clause of the 7th Section : 'Nor shall any regulation of commerce or revenue give preference to the ports of one State over those of another, or oblige vessels bound to or from any State to enter clear or pay duties in another; and all tonnage, duties, imposts, and excises laid by the Legislature, shall be uniform throughout the United States.'

Article 11, Section 3, being considered, it was moved to strike out the words, “it shall be appellate,” and to insert the words, “ the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction,”—in order to prevent uncertainty whether “it” referred to the Supreme Court, or to the Judicial

power.

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

Section 4 was so amended, nem. con., as to read: · The trial of all crimes (except in cases of impeachment) shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the State where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, then the trial shall be at such place or places as the Legislature may direct." The object of this amendment was, to provide for trial by jury of offences committed out of any State.

Mr. PINCKNEY, urging the propriety of securing the benefit of the Habeas Corpus in the most ample manner, moved, that it should not be suspended but on the most urgent occasions, and then only for a limited time not exceeding twelve months.

Mr. RUTLEDGE was for declaring the Habeas Corpus inviolate. He did not conceive that a suspension could ever be necessary, at the same time, through all the States.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR Morris moved, that, “The privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless where, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.”

Mr. Wilson doubted whether in any case a suspension could be necessary, as the discretion now exists with Judges, in most important cases, to keep in gaol or admit to bail.

The first part of Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS's motion, to the word “unless," was agreed to, nem. con. On the remaining part, -New Hampshire, Massa

« ZurückWeiter »