delegate to the Philadelphia Convention; and Hugh Williamson, of North Carolina, was a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania and had served his alma mater as professor of mathematics from 1760 to 1763. Abraham Baldwin, of Georgia, was the founder of the University of Georgia, and at one time president of that institution.

Such then in brief was the personnel of the Constitutional Convention of 1787. To its labors we will address ourselves in the succeeding chapters.

CHAPTER IV

THE CONTEST BETWEEN THE SMALL AND THE LARGE STATES IN THE FEDERAL CONVENTION

A WORD at the outset in regard to the sources of information for the work of the Federal Convention is in point. No student of history and the science of government can approach a study of the Constitutional Convention without a feeling of gratitude toward James Madison for the ability and foresight which he displayed in keeping an accurate and comprehensive record of the debates and proceedings of that great body. The deliberations, for reasons which will subsequently appear, were held in secret, and, as the bond of secrecy was remarkably well kept, the newspapers of the time were not able to preserve an account of the debates.

The official Journal of the Convention, kept by the secretary, William Jackson, was intrusted to Washington at the close of the sessions, and was later published by order of Congress. This record, however, from the historical standpoint, is very meagre and unsatisfactory. Yates, of New York, took a few notes, and Luther Martin, of Maryland, in a communication to the legislature of his State, gave his view of the proceedings of the Convention. Neither of these men, however, remained in the Convention during the entire time, and both were uncompromisingly hostile to the plan of union which was adopted. They were not present at the completion of the work and did not sign the document. Their accounts of the Convention

are, therefore, of small value when compared with Madison's complete synopsis of the debates. Madison realized, as few men did, the epoch-making importance of the Convention, and undertook to keep a careful record of the proceedings. He was a critical student of all governments, ancient and modern, and said that he experienced great difficulty in obtaining complete and authentic information in regard to the formation of the great confederacies of antiquity; and that this fact, together with an appreciation of the importance of the Convention, caused him to prepare his synopsis of the debates. In order that he might do his work well he chose a seat in front of the presiding officer, with the delegates on each side. He took hurried notes of the speeches as well as he could, making use of signs and abbreviations familiar only to himself, and wrote them out in full afterward while they were still fresh in his memory. He soon became the recognized chronicler of the Convention, and his work was facilitated by the members in various ways. Many of them corrected and approved his drafts of their speeches, and some of them handed him copies or synopses of their remarks. Franklin's speeches are particularly well reported, as he frequently committed his ideas to paper and had them read by his colleague James Wilson, because his own advanced age and indifferent health would not allow him to stand and deliver his speeches in the usual way. Madison's fidelity to his task was remarkable. He was not absent a single day during the entire Convention, "nor more than a casual fraction of an hour in any day," so that his notes are practically complete. These notes were carefully treasured by Madison and were not published until after his death, which occurred in 1836. He did not deem it proper that the publication should take place while any of the members of the famous Convention were still living; and strangely enough, he was himself the last of that noble body of men to pass away. Shortly after his death the manuscript was procured from Mrs. Madison by the government of the United States and published under

He was

its authority. This contemporary account remains the most comprehensive and almost the sole source of information in regard to the debates in the Constitutional Convention, and will be our constant guide throughout the present chapter.

May 14, 1787, was the day appointed for the meeting of the delegates, and Independence Hall, Philadelphia, was the place. Only a small number of delegates, however, appeared at the appointed time, and a quorum for the transaction of business was not obtained until the 25th. At that time there were at least two delegates present from a majority of the States, and the business of the Convention was taken up. Other delegates appeared from time to time until all the States, with the single exception of Rhode Island, were represented. There were two factions in Rhode Island and the predominant one was opposed to the Convention. The governor, however, sent a communication to that body, urging that the interests of his State be taken into consideration and intimating that it would federate at a later time. The absence of Rhode Island has

usually been accounted for by selfish motives. It is generally said that the reluctance of Rhode Island to enter the Convention was due to the fact that the people of that State were intensely infatuated with the paper money heresy and were convinced that the new form of government would put a stop to the issue of such money on the part of the States. Madison said that the State was "well known to have been swayed by an obdurate adherence to an advantage which her position gave her, of taxing her neighbors through their consumption of imported supplies, an advantage which it was foreseen would be taken from her by a revisal of the Articles of Confederation." It should be said, however, that Rhode Island has resented these imputations of narrow and selfish motives. This was done on May 29, 1890, when Rhode Island celebrated the one hundredth anniversary of its ratification of the Constitution of the United States.