the best. The opinions I have had of its errors I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die. On the whole, sir, I cannot help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion, doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument." He then moved that the Constitution be signed, and suggested the following form: "Done in Convention by the unanimous consent of the States present, the seventeenth of September, &c. In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names." This form was made purposely ambiguous so as to gain the signatures of the malcontents. The "unanimous consent of the States" is mentioned, but not that of the individual delegates. Gouverneur Morris drew the form and placed it in the hands of Franklin, "that it might have the better chance of success." The form did gain the signature of William Blount, of North Carolina, who had before declared that he would not sign the Constitution, but it in no wise affected the determination of Randolph, Gerry, or Mason.

The speech of Franklin was not without its effect. Mr. Randolph felt called upon to apologize to the Convention for his refusal to sign the Constitution, "notwithstanding the vast majority and venerable names that would give sanction to its wisdom and its worth." He persisted in his determination, however, but explained "that he did not mean by this refusal to decide that he should oppose the Constitution without doors." Gouverneur Morris also remarked that the new plan was objectionable to him in many of its features, but that he would "take it with all its faults," as the best attainable under the circumstances. Mr. Williamson, though ready to sign the Constitution himself, suggested that the matter might be made more agreeable to some members by confining the signing to a letter which should accompany the Constitution.

No

action was taken upon the suggestion, however, and the form proposed by Dr. Franklin was later adopted by an almost unanimous vote of the States. General Pinckney and Mr. Butler voted in the negative, because they "disliked the equivocal form of signing." Mr. Hamilton was anxious that every member should sign the document, as "infinite mischief" might be done by the opposition or refusal to sign of "a few characters of consequence.

No member's ideas were more remote from the plan than his own were known to be; but is it possible," he argued, "to deliberate between anarchy and convulsion on one side, and the chance of good to be expected from the plan on the other?" Mr. Randolph "repeated, that, in refusing to sign the Constitution, he took a step which might be the most awful of his life; but it was dictated by his conscience, and it was not possible for him to hesitate,-much less, to change." Mr. Gerry also explained his explanation by describing the "painful feelings" and the "embarrassments" of the occasion. He was gloomier than ever and still more incorrect than usual in his prophecies. He saw civil war as the inevitable and only logical result of the proposed form of government, and prophesied that in his own State, Massachusetts, the conflict would be particularly severe. was then decided, as noted above, to adopt the form for signature suggested by Dr. Franklin. The Constitution was signed shortly after by all the members present, thirty-nine in number, except Gerry, of Massachusetts, and Randolph and Mason, of Virginia.

It

The question of the disposal of the journal of the Convention came up during the last moments. The deliberations had been in secret, so that the disposition of the records was an important matter. Mr. King thought that they should either be destroyed or put into the custody of the president of the Convention. He was of the opinion that "a bad use would be made of them by those who would wish to prevent the adoption of the Constitution," in case they were made public. Mr. Wilson's first thought was that they should

be destroyed; but, on maturer deliberation, he came to the conclusion that they should be preserved, as they would be useful in refuting false rumors which might be propagated. It was therefore decided by a vote of ten to one that the journal and other papers of the Convention should be placed in the hands of Washington. He was instructed to retain these papers, “subject to the order of Congress, if ever formed under the Constitution." The delegates from Maryland felt obliged to vote against this disposition of the documents, because their instructions "required them to report to the State the proceedings of the Convention."

The last act of the Convention was the solemn signing of the Constitution. While this was in progress Franklin made a happy remark, which, though often quoted, is never trite. "Whilst the last members were signing," says Madison, "Doctor Franklin, looking toward the President's chair, at the back of which a rising sun happened to be painted, observed to a few members near him, that painters had found it difficult to distinguish in their art, a rising, from a setting sun. I have,' said he, often and often, in the course of the session, and in the vicissitudes of my hopes and fears as to its issue, looked at that behind the president, without being able to tell whether it was rising or setting; but now at length, I have the happiness to know, that it is a rising, and not a setting sun.""

The work of the Convention being done, it adjourned, sine die, on the 17th of September, 1787.

CHAPTER VII

THE RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION

WOULD the States accept the work of the Convention? The people of the United States, with great eagerness, and the people of Europe, with somewhat of interest, had awaited the results of the Convention. Although that body had been in session for several months, the public knew little, and nothing authoritatively, of the nature of the plan of government agreed upon. The Convention had wisely put upon itself a bond of secrecy, and this bond was remarkably well kept. The work was now done, but there was, as yet, no authoritative utterance in regard to its character. The journal and other papers committed to the care of Washington upon the dissolution of the Convention were deposited by him in 1796 in the Department of State. Copying these papers was forbidden. They remained in the State Department until printed by order of Congress in 1818. Yates's notes on the Convention were not printed until 1821, and Madison's not until 1840. The finished work of the Convention, however, could no longer be withheld; and on the 19th of September, two days after the close of the Convention, the Constitution was printed in full in the Philadelphia newspapers. It was soon copied by the press of other cities, and the great secret was disclosed. The die was cast and the contest for ratification was on.

The first impression made by the new form of government was a decidedly favorable one. This was due somewhat to the fact that the Constitution was not so bad as

some had feared. The little items of information which had leaked out from time to time had been distorted and magnified into all conceivable shapes and sizes. In the absence of positive information, the imaginations of some had begun to work with the most astonishing results. One rumor had it that the local governments were to be abolished entirely under the new form. Another was to the effect that a monarchy was to be established, with the Bishop of Osnaburg upon the throne. There was a large number of persons in the United States at the time, mostly Loyalists, who would have been pleased to see a monarchy established. The Bishop of Osnaburg might easily be a candidate for the throne in such an event. He was none other than the Duke of York and second son of George III. of England. He was twenty-four years of age at the time, and had been chosen Bishop of Osnaburg at the tender age of one year. His ecclesiastical duties, however, do not seem to have weighed heavily upon him, although he continued to be called the Bishop of Osnaburg until created Duke of York. His ethical standards do not seem to have been of a very high order, yet he was seriously thought of by the Loyalists as a probable and becoming sovereign of the new America.

It is, of course, a well-known fact that such a reversion to monarchy was seriously discussed in some quarters. Hamilton remarked at the time: "A reunion with Great Britain, from universal disgust at a state of commotion, is not improbable, though not much to be feared. The most plausible shape of such a business would be the establishment of a son of the present monarch in the supreme government of this country, with a family compact." Rumors of such a proceeding as this were current from time to time during the Convention, and the members received numerous and anxious inquiries from their constituents in regard to the proceedings of the "dark conclave." The unsatisfactory replies which the members thus addressed were compelled to give did little to allay the fears of the people. These disquieting and absurd rumors were, however, speedily