Mr. WILSON. This motion being seconded, it is necessary now to speak freely. He expressed in strong terms his disapprobation of the expedient proposed, particularly the suspending the plan of the Convention on the approbation of Congress. He declared it to be worse than folly, to rely on the concurrence of the Rhode Island members of Congress in the plan. Maryland had voted, on this floor, for requiring the unanimous assent of the thirteen states to the proposed change in the federal system. New York has not been represented for a long time past in the Convention. Many individual deputies from other states have spoken much against the plan. Under these circumstances, can it be safe to make the assent of Congress necessary? After spending four or five months in the laborious and arduous task of forming a government for our country, we are ourselves throwing insuperable obstacles in the way of its success.

Mr. CLYMER thought that the mode proposed by Mr. Hamilton would fetter and embarrass Congress as much as the original one, since it equally involved a breach of the Articles of Confederation.

Mr. KING concurred with Mr. Clymer. If Congress can accede to one mode, they can to the other. If the approbation of Congress be made necessary, and they should not approve, the state legislatures will not propose the plan to conventions; or if the states themselves are to provide that nine states shall suffice to establish the system, that provision will be omitted, every thing will go into confusion, and all our labor be lost.

Mr. RUTLEDGE viewed the matter in the same light with Mr. King.

On the question to postpone, in order to take up Col. Hamilton's motion,

Connecticut, ay, 1; New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, no, 10. A question being then taken on the article 21, it was agreed to unanimously.

Col. HAMILTON withdrew the remainder of the motion to postpone article 22; observing that his purpose was defeated by the vote just given.

Mr. WILLIAMSON and Mr. GERRY moved to reinstate the words "for the approbation of Congress," in article 22; which was disagreed to, nem. con.2

260

Mr. RANDOLPH took this opportunity to state his objections to the system. They turned on the Senate's being made the court of impeachment for trying the executive on the necessity of three fourths instead of two thirds of each House to overrule the negative of the President on the smallness of the number of the representative branch on the want of limitation to a standing army on the general clause concerning necessary and proper laws on the want of some particular restraint on navigation acts -on the power to lay duties on exports—on the authority of the general legislature to in

terpose on the application of the executives of the states on the want of a more definite boundary between the general and state legislatures, and between the general and state judiciaries on the unqualified power of the President to pardon treasons on the want of some limit to the power of the legislature in regulating their own compensations. With these difficulties in his mind, what course, he asked, was he to pursue? Was he to promote the establishment of a plan which he verily believed would end in tyranny? He was unwilling, he said, to impede the wishes and judgment of the Convention, but he must keep himself free, in case he should be honored with a seat in the convention of his state, to act according to the dictates of his judgment. The only mode in which his embarrassment could be removed was that of submitting the plan to Congress, to go from them to the state legislatures, and from these to state conventions, having power to adopt, reject, or amend; the process to close with another General Convention, with full power to adopt or reject the alterations proposed by the state conventions, and to establish finally the government. He accordingly proposed a resolution to this effect. 261

Dr. FRANKLIN seconded the motion.

Col. MASON urged and obtained that the motion should lie on the table for a day or two, to see what steps might be taken with regard to the parts of the system objected to by Mr. Randolph.

Mr. PINCKNEY moved,

"that it be an instruction to the committee for revising the style and arrangement of the articles agreed on, to prepare an address to the people, to accompany the present Constitution, and to be laid, with the same, before the United States in Congress."

*The motion itself was referred to the committee, nem. con.

* Mr. RANDOLPH moved to refer to the committee, also, a motion relating to pardons in cases of treason; which was agreed to,

nem. con.

Adjourned.

TUESDAY, September 11.

In Convention. The report of the committee of style and arrangement not being made, and being waited for,

The House adjourned.

WEDNESDAY, September 12.

In Convention. Dr. JOHNSON, from the committee of style, &c., reported a digest of the plan, of which printed copies were ordered to be furnished to the members. He also reported a letter to accompany the plan to Congress.

* These motions are not entered in the printed Journal.

REPORT.*

[Here follows a copy of the Constitution.]

LETTER.

"We have now the honor to submit to the consideration of the United States in Congress assembled that Constitution which has appeared to us the most advisable. "The friends of our country have long seen and desired, that the power of making war, peace, and treaties; that of levying money and regulating commerce; and the correspondent executive and judicial authorities, should be fully and effectually vested in the general government of the Union. But the impropriety of delegating such extensive trust to one body of men is evident. Thence results the necessity of a different organization. It is obviously impracticable, in the federal government of these states, to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all. Individuals entering into society must give up a share of liberty, to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstances, as on the object to be obtained. It is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line between those rights which must be surrendered and those which may be reserved. And on the present occasion this difficulty was increased by a difference among the several states as to their situation, extent, habits, and particular interests.

"In all our deliberations on this subject, we kept steadily in our view that which appeared to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our union, in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps our national existence. This important consideration, seriously and deeply impressed on our minds, led each state in the Convention to be less rigid in points of inferior magnitude than might have been otherwise expected. And thus the Constitution which we now present is the result of a spirit of amity, and of that mutual deference and concession, which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensable. "That it will meet the full and entire approbation of every state is not, perhaps, to be expected. But each will doubtless consider, that, had her interest alone been consulted, the consequences might have been particularly disagreeable and injurious to others. That it is liable to as few exceptions as could reasonably have been expected, we hope and believe; that it may promote the lasting welfare of that country so dear to us all, and secure her freedom and happiness, is our most ardent wish."

Mr. WILLIAMSON moved to reconsider the clause requiring three fourths of each House to overrule the negative of the President, in order to strike out three fourths and insert two thirds. He had, he remarked, himself proposed three fourths instead of two thirds; but he had since been convinced that the latter proportion was the best. The former puts too much in the power of the President.

Mr. SHERMAN was of the same opinion; adding, that the states would not like to see so small a minority, and the President, prevailing over the general voice. In making laws, regard should be had to the sense of the people who are to be bound by them; and it was more probable that a single man should mistake or betray this sense, than the legislature.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS. Considering the difference between the two proportions numerically, it amounts, in one House,

* A literal copy of the printed report follows. The copy in the printed Journals contains some immaterial alterations subsequently made in the House. The copy of the Constitution is omitted, as that instrument, as signed, on the 17th September, is inserted at large hereafter.

to two members only; and in the other, to not more than five according to the numbers of which the legislature is at first to be composed. It is the interest, moreover, of the distant states, to prefer three fourths, as they will be oftenest absent, and need the interposing check of the President. The excess, rather than the deficiency, of laws was to be dreaded. The example of New York shows that two thirds is not sufficient to answer the purpose.

Mr. HAMILTON added his testimony to the fact, that two thirds in New York had been ineffectual, either where a popular object, or a legislative faction, operated; of which he mentioned some instances.

Mr. GERRY. It is necessary to consider the danger on the other side also. Two thirds will be a considerable, perhaps a proper, security. Three fourths puts too much in the power of a few men. The primary object of the revisionary check of the President is, not to protect the general interest, but to defend his own department. If three fourths be required, a few senators, having hopes from the nomination of the President to offices, will combine with him, and impede proper laws. Making the Vice-President speaker increases the

danger.

Mr. WILLIAMSON was less afraid of too few than of too many laws. He was, most of all, afraid that the repeal of bad laws might be rendered too difficult, by requiring three fourths to overcome the dissent of the President.

Col. MASON had always considered this as one of the most exceptionable parts of the system. As to the numerical argument of Mr. Gouverneur Morris, little arithmetic was necessary to understand that three fourths was more than two thirds, whatever the numbers of the legislature might be. The example of New York depended on the real merits of the laws. The gentlemen citing it had, no doubt, given their own opinions. But, perhaps, there were others of opposite opinions, who could equally paint the abuses on the other side. His leading view was, to guard against too great an impediment to the repeal of laws.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS dwelt on the danger to the public interest, from the instability of laws, as the most to be guarded against. On the other side, there could be little danger. If one man in office will not consent where he ought, every fourth year another can be substituted. This term was not too long for fair experiments. Many good laws are not tried long enough to prove their merit. This is often the case with new laws opposed to old habits. The inspection laws of Virginia and Maryland, to which all are now so much attached, were unpopular at first.

Mr. PINCKNEY was warmly in opposition to three fourths, as putting a dangerous power in the hands of a few senators, headed by the President.

Mr. MADISON. When three fourths was agreed to, the President was to be elected by the legislature, and for seven years. He

is now to be elected by the people, and for four years. The object of the revisionary power is twofold, first, to defend the executive rights; secondly, to prevent popular or factious injustice. It was an important principle, in this and in the state constitutions, to check legislative injustice and encroachments. The experience of the states had demonstrated that their checks are insufficient. We must compare the danger from the weakness of two thirds with the danger from the strength of three fourths. He thought, on the whole, the former was the greater. As to the difficulty of repeals, it was probable that, in doubtful cases, the policy would soon take place of limiting the duration of laws, so as to require renewal, instead of repeal. The reconsideration being agreed to,

On the question to insert two thirds, in place of three fourths,

Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, (Mr. M'Henry, no,) North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, ay, 6; Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, (Gen. Washington, Mr. Blair, Mr. Madison, no; Col. Mason, Mr. Randolph, ay,) no, 4; New Hampshire, divided.

Mr. WILLIAMSON observed to the House, that no provision was yet made for juries in civil cases, and suggested the necessity of it. Mr. GORHAM. It is not possible to discriminate equity cases from those in which juries are proper. The representatives of the people may be safely trusted in this matter.

Mr. GERRY urged the necessity of juries to guard against corrupt judges. He proposed that the committee last appointed should be directed to provide a clause for securing the trial by juries.

Col. MASON perceived the difficulty mentioned by Mr. Gorham. The jury cases cannot be specified. A general principle laid down, on this and some other points, would be sufficient. He wished the plan had been prefaced with a bill of rights, and would second a motion, if made for the purpose. It would give great quiet to the people, and, with the aid of the state declarations, a bill might be prepared in a few hours.

Mr. GERRY concurred in the idea, and moved for a committee to prepare a bill of rights.

Col. MASON seconded the motion.

Mr. SHERMAN was for securing the rights of the people, where requisite. The state declarations of rights are not repealed by this Constitution, and, being in force, are sufficient. There are many cases, where juries are proper, which cannot be discriminated. The legislature may be safely trusted.

Col. MASON. The laws of the United States are to be paramount to state bills of rights.

On the question for a committee to prepare a bill of rights,—

New Hampshire, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, ay, 5; Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, no, 5; Massachusetts, absent.262

The clause relating to exports being reconsidered, at the instance of Col. MASON, who urged that the restrictions on the states would prevent the incidental duties necessary for the inspection and safe