University of Virginia Library

XXIII

To introduce this government, it is the opinion
of this Convention, that each assenting Convention

should notify its assent and ratification to the United
States in Congress assembled; that Congress, after
receiving the assent and ratification of the Conventions
of—States, should appoint and publish a
day, as early as may be, and appoint a place, for
commencing proceedings under this Constitution;
that after such publication, the Legislatures of the
several States should elect members of the Senate,
and direct the election of members of the House of
Representatives; and that the members of the Legislature
should meet at the time and place assigned by
Congress, and should, as soon as may be, after their
meeting, choose the President of the United States,
and proceed to execute this Constitution."

A motion was made to adjourn till Wednesday, in
order to give leisure to examine the Report; which
passed in the negative—N. H. no. Mas. no. Ct. no.
Pa. ay. Md. ay. Virg. ay. N. C. no. S. C. no.

The House then adjourned till to-morrow 11 OC.

Tuesday August 7th.[17] In Convention

The Report of the Committee of detail being taken
up,
Mr. Pinkney moved that it be referred to a Committee
of the whole. This was strongly opposed by

Mr. Ghorum & several others, as likely to produce
unnecessary delay; and was negatived, Delaware
Maryd. & Virga. only being in the affirmative.

The preamble of the Report was agreed to nem.
con. So were Art: I & II.

Art: III considered. Col. Mason doubted the propriety
of giving each branch a negative on the other
"in all cases." There were some cases in which it
was he supposed not intended to be given as in the
case of balloting for appointments.

Mr. Govr. Morris moved to insert "legislative acts"
instead of "all cases."

Mr. Williamson 2ds. him.

Mr. Sherman. This will restrain the operation of
the clause too much. It will particularly exclude a
mutual negative in the case of ballots, which he
hoped would take place.

Mr. Ghorum contended that elections ought to be
made by joint ballot. If separate ballots should be
made for the President, and the two branches should
be each attached to a favorite, great delay contention
& confusion may ensue. These inconveniences
have been felt in Masts. in the election of officers of
little importance compared with the Executive of

the U. States. The only objection agst. a joint ballot
is that it may deprive the Senate of their due weight;
but this ought not to prevail over the respect due to
the public tranquility & welfare.

Mr. Wilson was for a joint ballot in several cases
at least; particularly in the choice of the President,
and was therefore for the amendment. Disputes between
the two Houses during & concerng. the vacancy
of the Executive might have dangerous consequences.

Col. Mason thought the amendment of Mr. Govr.
Morris extended too far. Treaties are in a subsequent
part declared to be laws, they will therefore
be subjected to a negative; altho' they are to be
made as proposed by the Senate alone. He proposed
that the mutual negative should be restrained
to "cases requiring the distinct assent" of the two
Houses.

Mr. Govr. Morris thought this but a repetition of the
same thing; the mutual negative and distinct assent,
being equivalent expressions. Treaties he thought
were not laws.

Mr. Madison moved to strike out the words "each
of which shall in all cases, have a negative on the
other; the idea being sufficiently expressed in the
preceding member of the article; vesting the "legislative
power" in "distinct bodies," especially as the
respective powers and mode of exercising them were
fully delineated in a subsequent article.

Genl. Pinkney 2ded. the motion.

On question for inserting legislative Acts as
moved by Mr. Govr. Morris

N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct. ay. Pa. ay. Del. no.
Md. no. Va. no. N. C. ay. S. C. no. Geo. no.

On question for agreeing to Mr. M's motion to
strike out & c.—

N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct. no. Pa. ay. Del. ay.
Md. no. Va. ay. N. C. no. S. C. ay. Geo. ay.

Mr. Madison wished to know the reasons of the
Come. for fixing by ye. Constitution the time of Meeting
for the Legislature; and suggested, that it be
required only that one meeting at least should be
held every year leaving the time to be fixed or varied
by law.

Mr. Govr. Morris moved to strike out the sentence.
It was improper to tie down the Legislature to a particular
time, or even to require a meeting every year.
The public business might not require it.

Mr. Pinkney concurred with Mr. Madison.

Mr. Ghorum. If the time be not fixed by the Constitution,
disputes will arise in the Legislature; and
the States will be at a loss to adjust thereto, the
times of their elections. In the N. England States
the annual time of meeting had been long fixed by
their Charters & Constitutions, and no inconveniencey
had resulted. He thought it necessary that there
should be one meeting at least every year as a check
on the Executive department.

Mr. Elseworth was agst. striking out the words. The
Legislature will not know till they are met whether
the public interest required their meeting or not. He
could see no impropriety in fixing the day, as the Convention
could judge of it as well as the Legislature.

Mr. Wilson thought on the whole it would be best
to fix the day.

Mr. King could not think there would be a necessity
for a meeting every year. A great vice in our
system was that of legislating too much. The most
numerous objects of legislation belong to the States.
Those of the Natl. Legislature were but few. The
chief of them were commerce & revenue. When
these should be once settled alterations would be
rarely necessary & easily made.

Mr. Madison thought if the time of meeting should
be fixed by a law it wd. be sufficiently fixed & there
would be no difficulty then as had been suggested,
on the part of the States in adjusting their elections
to it. One consideration appeared to him to militate
strongly agst. fixing a time by the Constitution.
It might happen that the Legislature might be called
together by the public exigencies & finish their Session
but a short time before the annual period. In
this case it would be extremely inconvenient to reassemble
so quickly & without the least necessity.
He thought one annual meeting ought to be required;
but did not wish to make two unavoidable.

Col. Mason thought the objections against fixing
the time insuperable: but that an annual meeting
ought to be required as essential to the preservation
of the Constitution. The extent of the Country will
supply business. And if it should not, the Legislature,
besides legislative, is to have inquisitorial powers,
which cannot safely be long kept in a state of suspension.

Mr. Sherman was decided for fixing the time, as
well as for frequent meetings of the Legislative body.
Disputes and difficulties will arise between the two
Houses, & between both & the States, if the time be
changeable—frequent meetings of Parliament were
required at the Revolution in England as an essential
safeguard of liberty. So also are annual meetings
in most of the American charters & constitutions.
There will be business eno' to require it. The Western
Country, and the great extent and varying
state of our affairs in general will supply objects.

Mr. Randolph was agst. fixing any day irrevocably;
but as there was no provision made any where in
the Constitution for regulating the periods of meeting,
and some precise time must be fixed, untill the
Legislature shall make provision, he could not agree
to strike out the words altogether. Instead of which
he moved to add the words following—"unless a
different day shall be appointed by law."

Mr. Madison 2ded. the motion, & on the question

N. H. no. Mass. ay. Ct. no. Pa. ay. Del. ay.
Md. ay. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay.

Mr. Govr. Morris moved to strike out Decr. & insert
May. It might frequently happen that our measures
ought to be influenced by those in Europe,
which were generally planned during the Winter and
of which intelligence would arrive in the Spring.

Mr. Madison 2ded. the motion, he preferred May to
Decr. because the latter would require the travelling
to & from the seat of Govt. in the most inconvenient
seasons of the year.

Mr. Wilson. The Winter is the most convenient
season for business.

Mr. Elseworth. The summer will interfere too
much with private business, that of almost all the
probable members of the Legislature being more or
less connected with agriculture.

Mr. Randolph. The time is of no great moment
now, as the Legislature can vary it. On looking into
the Constitutions of the States, he found that the
times of their elections with which the election of
the Natl. Representatives would no doubt be made
to coincide, would suit better with Decr. than May.
And it was advisable to render our innovations as
little incommodious as possible.

On the question for "May" instead of "Decr."

N. H. no. Mass. no. Ct. no. Pa. no. Del. no.
Md. no. Va. no. N. C. no. S. C. ay. Geo. ay.

Mr. Read moved to insert after the word "Senate,"
the words, "subject to the Negative to be hereafter
provided." His object was to give an absolute
Negative to the Executive—He considered this as so
essential to the Constitution, to the preservation of
liberty, & to the public welfare, that his duty compelled
him to make the Motion.

Mr. Govr. Morris 2ded. him. And on the question

N. H. no. Mass. no. Ct. no. Pa. no. Del. ay.
Md. no. Va. no. N. C. no. S. C. no. Geo. no.

Mr. Rutlidge. Altho' it is agreed on all hands that
an annual meeting of the Legislature should be made
necessary, yet that point seems not to be free from
doubt as the clause stands. On this suggestion,

"Once at least in every year," were inserted, nem.
con.

Art. III with the foregoing alterations was agd. to
nem. con., and is as follows: "The Legislative power
shall be vested in a Congress to consist of 2 separate
& distinct bodies of men; a House of Reps. & a Senate.
The Legislature shall meet at least once in
every year, and such meeting shall be on the 1st.
Monday in Decr. unless a different day shall be appointed
by law."

"Article IV. Sect. 1. taken up."

Mr. Govr. Morris moved to strike out the last member
of the section beginning with the words "qualifications
of Electors," in order that some other
provision might be substituted which wd. restrain
the right of suffrage to freeholders.

Mr. Fitzsimons 2ded. the motion

Mr. Williamson was opposed to it.

Mr. Wilson. This part of the Report was well considered
by the Committee, and he did not think it
could be changed for the better. It was difficult to
form any uniform rule of qualifications for all the
States. Unnecessary innovations he thought too
should be avoided. It would be very hard & disagreeable
for the same persons at the same time, to
vote for representatives in the State Legislature and
to be excluded from a vote for those in the Natl.
Legislature.

Mr. Govr. Morris. Such a hardship would be neither
great nor novel. The people are accustomed to it
and not dissatisfied with it, in several of the States.

In some the qualifications are different for the choice
of the Govr. & Representatives; In others for different
Houses of the Legislature. Another objection
agst. the clause as it stands is that it makes the qualifications
of the Natl. Legislature depend on the will
of the States, which he thought not proper.

Mr. Elseworth. thought the qualifications of the
electors stood on the most proper footing. The
right of suffrage was a tender point, and strongly
guarded by most of the State Constitutions. The
people will not readily subscribe to the Natl. Constitution
if it should subject them to be disfranchised.
The States are the best Judges of the circumstances
& temper of their own people.

Col. Mason. The force of habit is certainly not
attended to by those Gentlemen who wish for innovations
on this point. Eight or nine States have
extended the right of suffrage beyond the freeholders.
What will the people there say, if they should be disfranchised.
A power to alter the qualifications
would be a dangerous power in the hands of the
Legislature.

Mr. Butler. There is no right of which the people
are more jealous than that of suffrage Abridgments
of it tend to the same revolution as in Holland
where they have at length thrown all power into
the hands of the Senates, who fill up vacancies themselves,
and form a rank aristocracy.

Mr. Dickinson. had a very different idea of the tendency
of vesting the right of suffrage in the freeholders
of the Country. He considered them as the

best guardians of liberty; And the restriction of the
right to them as a necessary defence agst. the dangerous
influence of those multitudes without property
& without principle with which our Country like all
others, will in time abound. As to the unpopularity
of the innovation it was in his opinion chimerical.
The great mass of our Citizens is composed
at this time of freeholders, and will be pleased
with it.

Mr. Elseworth. How shall the freehold be defined?
Ought not every man who pays a tax, to vote
for the representative who is to levy & dispose of his
money? Shall the wealthy merchants & manufacturers,
who will bear a full share of the public burthens
be not allowed a voice in the imposition
of them. Taxation & representation ought to go
together.

Mr. Govr. Morris. He had long learned not to be
the dupe of words. The sound of aristocracy therefore
had no effect on him. It was the thing, not
the name, to which he was opposed, and one of his
principal objections to the Constitution as it is now
before us, is that it threatens this Country with an
aristocracy. The aristocracy will grow out of the
House of Representatives. Give the votes to people
who have no property, and they will sell them to the
rich who will be able to buy them. We should not
confine our attention to the present moment. The
time is not distant when this Country will abound
with mechanics & manufacturers who will receive
their bread from their employers. Will such men be

the secure & faithful guardians of liberty? Will they
be the impregnable barrier agst. aristocracy?—He was
as little duped by the association of the words, "taxation
& Representation." The man who does not
give his vote freely is not represented. It is the
man who dictates the vote. Children do not vote.
Why? because they want prudence, because they
have no will of their own. The ignorant & the dependent
can be as little trusted with the public
interest. He did not conceive the difficulty of defining
"freeholders" to be insuperable. Still less that
the restriction could be unpopular. 9/10 of the people
are at present freeholders and these will certainly be
pleased with it. As to Merchts. &c. if they have
wealth & value the right they can acquire it. If not
they don't deserve it.

Col. Mason. We all feel too strongly the remains
of antient prejudices, and view things too much
through a British medium. A Freehold is the qualification
in England, & hence it is imagined to be the
only proper one. The true idea in his opinion was
that every man having evidence of attachment to &
permanent common interest with the Society ought
to share in all its rights & privileges. Was this
qualification restrained to freeholders? Does no
other kind of property but land evidence a common
interest in the proprietor? does nothing besides
property mark a permanent attachment. Ought the
merchant, the monied man, the parent of a number
of children whose fortunes are to be pursued in his
own Country to be viewed as suspicious characters,

and unworthy to be trusted with the common rights
of their fellow Citizens

Mr. Madison. the right of suffrage is certainly one
of the fundamental articles of republican Government,
and ought not to be left to be regulated by the
Legislature. A gradual abridgment of this right has
been the mode in which aristocracies have been
built on the ruins of popular forms. Whether the
Constitutional qualification ought to be a freehold,
would with him depend much on the probable reception
such a change would meet with in States
where the right was now exercised by every description
of people. In several of the States a freehold
was now the qualification. Viewing the subject in
its merits alone, the freeholders of the Country
would be the safest depositories of Republican liberty.
In future times a great majority of the people
will not only be without landed, but any other sort
of property. These will either combine, under the
influence of their common situation: in which case,
the rights of property & the public liberty, will not
be secure in their hands: or which is more probable,
they will become the tools of opulence & ambition,
in which case there will be equal danger on another
side. The example of England has been misconceived
(by Col. Mason.) A very small proportion of
the Representatives are there chosen by freeholders.
The greatest part are chosen by the Cities & boroughs,
in many of which the qualification of suffrage
is as low as it is in any one of the U. S. and
it was in the boroughs & Cities rather than the

Counties, that bribery most prevailed, & the influence
of the Crown on elections was most dangerously
exerted.[18]

Docr. Franklin. It is of great consequence that we
shd. not depress the virtue & public spirit of our

common people; of which they displayed a great deal
during the war, and which contributed principally to
the favorable issue of it. He related the honorable
refusal of the American seamen who were carried
in great numbers into the British Prisons during the
war, to redeem themselves from misery or to seek
their fortunes, by entering on board the Ships of the
Enemies to their Country; contrasting their patriotism
with a contemporary instance in which the
British seamen made prisoners by the Americans,
readily entered on the ships of the latter on being
promised a share of the prizes that might be made
out of their own Country. This proceeded he said
from the different manner in which the common
people were treated in America & G. Britain. He
did not think that the elected had any right in any
case to narrow the privileges of the electors. He
quoted as arbitrary the British Statute setting forth
the danger of tumultuous meetings, and under that
pretext narrowing the right of suffrage to persons
having freeholds of a certain value; observing that
this Statute was soon followed by another under the
succeeding Parliamt. subjecting the people who had
no votes to peculiar labors & hardships. He was
persuaded also that such a restriction as was proposed
would give great uneasiness in the populous
States. The sons of a substantial farmer, not being
themselves freeholders, would not be pleased at
being disfranchised, and there are a great many persons
of that description.

Mr. Mercer. The Constitution is objectionable in
many points, but in none more than the present.
He objected to the footing on which the qualification
was put, but particularly to the mode of election by
the people. The people can not know & judge of the
characters of Candidates. The worse possible choice
will be made. He quoted the case of the Senate in
Virga. as an example in point. The people in Towns
can unite their votes in favor of one favorite; & by
that means always prevail over the people of the
Country, who being dispersed will scatter their votes
among a variety of candidates.

Mr. Rutlidge thought the idea of restraining the
right of suffrage to the freeholders a very unadvised
one. It would create division among the people &
make enemies of all those who should be excluded.

On the question for striking out as moved by Mr.
Govr. Morris, from the word "qualifications" to the
end of the III article

N. H. no. Mass. no. Ct. no. Pa. no. Del. ay.
Md. divd. Va. no. N. C. no. S. C. no. Geo. not
prest.

Adjourned