CHOOSING THE SENATE.

405

was, therefore, the more remarkable because of its American tone. It is usual to speak of Hamilton's speech to the Convention as one that raised the minds of its members to a clearer concept of a strong national government. It is eminently proper to say of Pinckney's speech that it raised their minds to a clearer concept of the unique situation of the American people, and to the conclusion that a government should be formed adapted to such a country as ours. Hamilton not only believed that the British Constitution was the best in existence, but he wished it copied as closely as possible in America. Pinckney acknowledged its excellence, but showed with larger wisdom that it was not adapted to the American people. From the time Pinckney spoke, and only a fragment of his speech is preserved, the members must have been persuaded, if any were yet in doubt, that the Constitution which they were making must be American in character.

The immediate question now was the manner of choosing the Senate. Wilson was convinced that it ought not to be elected by the assemblies, yet when he considered the amazing extent of the country, the immense population which was to fill it and the influence of the government about to be formed, he confessed that he was lost in the magnitude of the subject. The chief reason for an election from some other source was the necessity of observing the two-fold relation in which the people would stand as citizens of the government and of their own States. As both governments were derived from the people and were meant for them, both systems ought to be regulated on the same principles. A Senate chosen by the assemblies would cherish local interests and prejudices. The general government was not an assemblage of States, but of individuals for certain political purposes, and therefore individuals ought to be represented in it. The Sen

406

QUESTION OF EXTENT OF COUNTRY.

ate, he thought, should be chosen by electors chosen by the people for that purpose, but Wilson stood alone.

The Virginia plan, as thus far amended, called for a Senate chosen by the assemblies. The Convention believed that it was necessary to maintain the existence and agency of the States, therefore this mode of election was favored, for the members were confident that without the co-operation of the States it would be impossible to support a republican government over so great an extent of country. If Massachusetts could not keep the peace a hundred miles from her capitol,' what could the new republic do with a frontier on the Mississippi? Ellsworth touched the vital spot when he said that the only chance of supporting the general government lay in engrafting it on the governments of the individual States. Convinced of this necessity the members finally decided the method of choosing the Senate.2

It was unanimously agreed that a Senator should be required to be at least thirty years of age, but the senatorial term of seven years led Gorham to suggest one of four, with the Senate in four classes, each elected annually. The policy of rotation, said Randolph, would give

1 Referring to Shays' rebellion, in 1786.

2 The vote that the members of the second branch should be chosen by individual legislatures was, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, aye; Pennsylvania and Virginia, no. In explanation of this final vote Madison says, "It must be kept in view that the largest States, particularly Pennsylvania and Virginia, always considered the choice of the second branch by the State legislatures as opposed to a proportional representation, to which they were attached as a fundamental principle of just government. The smaller States who had opposed this were reenforced by the members from the large States most anxious to secure the importance of the State governments." Documentary History, III, 212; Elliot, V, 240.

SENATORIAL TERM.

407

wisdom and stability to the Senate, as it might always be in session, and thus give aid to the executive. It was agreed that the membership should "go out in fixed proportion," and Williamson and Sherman suggested that a term of six years would be more convenient than one of seven. Read and Robert Morris believed with Hamilton that the senatorial office should be for good behavior, but if the term was too long it would make the senators permanent residents of the seat of government, and thus, thought Pinckney, they would lose sight of the States which they were sent to represent, which would cause great disadvantage to the more distant ones. Gorham proposed six years with the retirement of one-third of the members biennially, thus following a general precedent set by the State constitutions.2 Read and Broom would have nine years, one-third of the Senate going out triennially.

1

The purpose of organizing a Senate, said Madison, was to secure a means for protecting the people against their rulers, and against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led; the Senate should operate as a check and balance in the general system. As the government about to be formed was intended to last for ages it must be adapted to all probable changes. The symptoms of what was called at the time, the leveling spirit, were a sign of future dangers. The establishment in the government of a body sufficiently respectable for its wisdom and virtue to meet emergencies, by throwing its

1 June 26.

2 The period of the retiring clause in these constitutions varied at this time, as in the retirement of one-third of the Council annually in Delaware, 1776; and of one-fourth of the Senate annually in Virginia, 1776.

3 This language is used by Chief-Justice Marshall in Cohens vs. Virginia (1821), 6 Wheaton, p. 387.

408

BASIS OF PROPERTY.

weight into the scale, was among the objects of the Senate, and therefore, it should have a long term. The national government should secure the permanent interests of the country against innovations. This meant that land-holders were to have a share in the government, and that their interest, duly represented, would check and balance the interests of other classes of citizens. The Senate, if possessing permanency and stability, would tend to protect the minority against the majority.1

Hamilton agreed with Madison that the unequal division of property constitutes the first and fundamental distinction in society, but denied the wisdom of Sherman's theory of a short time for the Senate, and that frequent elections could give permanency to government. Gerry, who was no friend to the national idea, expressed a wish that the delegates might be united in their plan of a permanent government, yet a long term of office for Senators would be construed by the people as a step toward monarchy, and would surely lead to a rejection of the plan. Wilson, taking a comprehensive view of the Nation in its foreign relations, remarked that the Senate would probably be the depository of the treaty making power, and therefore, should be made respectable in the eyes of foreign nations. Great Britain had refused to make a commercial treaty with us because she had no confidence in the efficiency or stability of our government. The functions of the Senate thus made clear, it was

1 Madison's idea of the character and functions of the Senate was elaborated in the Federalist, Nos. LXIV-LXV. The authorship of Nos. LXII and LXIII has been attributed both to Hamilton and to Madison. The similarity of the ideas in these numbers to the sentiments here expressed by Madison, on the Senate, tends to support his claim to the authorship.

A SENATE OF RICH MEN.

409

determined to establish a term of six years, one-third of the Senate to retire biennially.1

As the Senate was intended to represent the wealth of the country it ought to be composed of rich men, and Pinckney thought that its members should receive no compensation for their services. Franklin agreed with him, though probably for a different reason. It soon developed that the objection was not to compensation but to the idea of making it fixed, and with this idea abandoned, that of compensation was acceptable to nearly all. Whether it should be derived from the national treasury or from the States led to a discussion similar to that on the payment of members of the House. The State party believed, with Ellsworth, that it would strengthen the government, if the Senate had the confidence of the States and was paid by them, for they would have an interest in keeping up representation. But Madison characterized such a procedure as a departure from principle and a subversion of the end intended by the long senatorial term. If the Senators were paid by the States, they would hold their places at the pleasure of the assemblies, but it was only by a majority of one that the provision for payment from the State treasuries was rejected.3

There were strong precedents in the State governments for requiring a property qualification of Senators, and

1 Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, aye; New York, New Jersey and South Carolina, no.

2 South Carolina alone opposed.

3 Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, aye; Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, no.

4 It varied from that of freeholder, value undetermined, as in New York, Delaware and Virginia to that of a freehold estate of the value of two thousand pounds, as in South Carolina. For the qualifications of senators prescribed by the State constitutions