University of Virginia Library

Friday Augst. 10. in Convention

Art. VI. Sect. 2. taken up.

Mr. Pinkney. The Committee as he had conceived
were instructed to report the proper qualifications of
property for the members of the Natl. Legislature;
instead of which they have referred the task to the
Natl. Legislature itself. Should it be left on this
footing, the first Legislature will meet without any
particular qualifications of property; and if it
should happen to consist of rich men they might fix
such qualifications as may be too favorable to the
rich; if of poor men, an opposite extreme might be
run into. He was opposed to the establishment of
an undue aristocratic influence in the Constitution

but he thought it essential that the members of the
Legislature, the Executive, and the Judges, should
be possessed of competent property to make them
independent & respectable. It was prudent when
such great powers were to be trusted to connect the
tie of property with that of reputation in securing a
faithful administration. The Legislature would have
the fate of the Nation put into their hands. The
President would also have a very great influence on
it. The Judges would have not only important
causes between Citizen & Citizen but also where foreigners
are concerned. They will even be the Umpires
between the U. States and individual States as
well as between one State & another. Were he to
fix the quantum of property which should be required,
he should not think of less than one hundred
thousand dollars for the President, half of that sum
for each of the Judges, and in like proportion for the
members of the Natl. Legislature. He would however
leave the sums blank. His motion was that the
President of the U. S. the Judges, and members of
the Legislature should be required to swear that they
were respectively possessed of a cleared unincumbered
Estate to the amount of—in the case of
the President &c &c.

Mr. Rutlidge seconded the motion, observing that
the Committee had reported no qualifications because
they could not agree on any among themselves, being
embarrassed by the danger on one side of displeasing
the people by making them high, and on the other
of rendering them nugatory by making them low.

Mr. Elseworth. The different circumstances of different
parts of the U.S. and the probable difference
between the present and future circumstances of the
whole, render it improper to have either uniform or
fixed qualifications. Make them so high as to be
useful in the S. States, and they will be inapplicable
to the E. States. Suit them to the latter, and they
will serve no purpose in the former. In like manner
what may be accommodated to the existing State of
things among us, may be very inconvenient in some
future state of them. He thought for these reasons
that it was better to leave this matter to the Legislative
discretion than to attempt a provision for it
in the Constitution.

Doctr. Franklin expressed his dislike of every thing
that tended to debase the spirit of the common
people. If honesty was often the companion of
wealth, and if poverty was exposed to peculiar temptation,
it was not less true that the possession of
property increased the desire of more property.
Some of the greatest rogues he was ever acquainted
with, were the richest rogues. We should remember
the character which the Scripture requires in Rulers,
that they should be men hating covetousness. This
Constitution will be much read and attended to in
Europe, and if it should betray a great partiality to
the rich will not only hurt us in the esteem of the most
liberal and enlightened men there, but discourage
the common people from removing to this Country.

The Motion of Mr. Pinkney was rejected by so
general a no, that the States were not called.

Mr. Madison was opposed to the Section as vesting
an improper & dangerous power in the Legislature.
The qualifications of electors and elected were fundamental
articles in a Republican Govt. and ought
to be fixed by the Constitution. If the Legislature
could regulate those of either, it can by degrees subvert
the Constitution. A Republic may be converted
into an aristocracy or oligarchy as well by
limiting the number capable of being elected, as the
number authorized to elect. In all cases where the
representatives of the people will have a personal
interest distinct from that of their Constituents,
there was the same reason for being jealous of them,
as there was for relying on them with full confidence,
when they had a common interest. This was one
of the former cases. It was as improper as to allow
them to fix their own wages, or their own privileges.
It was a power also which might be made subservient
to the views of one faction agst. another. Qualifications
founded on artificial distinctions may be
devised, by the stronger in order to keep out partizans
of a weaker faction.

Mr. Elseworth, admitted that the power was not
unexceptionable; but he could not view it as dangerous.
Such a power with regard to the electors
would be dangerous because it would be much more
liable to abuse.

Mr. Govr. Morris moved to strike out "with regard
to property" in order to leave the Legislature entirely
at large.

Mr. Williamson. This would surely never be admitted.

Should a majority of the Legislature be
composed of any particular description of men, of
lawyers for example, which is no improbable supposition,
the future elections might be secured to their
own body.

Mr. Madison observed that the British Parliamt.
possessed the power of regulating the qualifications
both of the electors, and the elected; and the abuse
they had made of it was a lesson worthy of our attention.
They had made the changes in both cases
subservient to their own views, or to the views of
political or Religious parties.

Question on the motion to strike out with regard
to property

N. H. no. Mass. no. Ct. ay. N. J. ay. Pa. ay
Del.[21] no. Md. no. Va. no. N. C. no. S. C. no
Geo. ay.

Mr. Rutlidge was opposed to leaving the power to
the Legislature—He proposed that the qualifications
should be the same as for members of the State
Legislatures.

Mr. Wilson thought it would be best on the whole
to let the Section go out. A uniform rule would
probably never be fixed by the Legislature, and this
particular power would constructively exclude every
other power of regulating qualifications.

On the question for agreeing to Art. VI. Sect. 2d.

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

On motion of Mr. Wilson to reconsider Art: IV.

Sect. 2; so as to restore 3 in place of seven years of
citizenship as a qualification for being elected into
the House of Represents.

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

Monday next was then assigned for the reconsideration;
all the States being ay. except Massts. &
Georgia

Art: VI. Sect. 3. taken up.

Mr. Ghorum contended that less than a majority in
each House should be made a Quorum, otherwise
great delay might happen in business, and great inconvenience
from the future increase of numbers.

Mr Mercer was also for less than a majority. So
great a number will put it in the power of a few by
seceding at a critical moment to introduce convulsions,
and endanger the Governmt. Examples of secession
have already happened in some of the States.
He was for leaving it to the Legislature to fix the
Quorum, as in Great Britain, where the requisite
number is small & no inconveniency has been experienced.

Col. Mason. This is a valuable & necessary part
of the plan. In this extended Country, embracing
so great a diversity of interests, it would be dangerous
to the distant parts to allow a small number of
members of the two Houses to make laws. The
Central States could always take care to be on the
Spot and by meeting earlier than the distant ones,
Of wearying their patience, and outstaying them,

could carry such measures as they pleased. He admitted
that inconveniences might spring from the
secession of a small number; But he had also known
good produced by an apprehension, of it. He had
known a paper emission prevented by that cause in
Virginia. He thought the Constitution as now
moulded was founded on sound principles, and was
disposed to put into it extensive powers. At the
same time he wished to guard agst. abuses as much as
possible. If the Legislature should be able to reduce
the number at all, it might reduce it as low as it
pleased & the U. States might be governed by a
Juncto—A majority of the number which had been
agreed on, was so few that he feared it would be
made an objection agst. the plan.

Mr. King admitted there might be some danger of
giving an advantage to the Central States; but he
was of opinion that the public inconveniency on the
other side was more to be dreaded.

Mr. Govr. Morris moved to fix the quorum at 33
members in the H. of Reps & 14 in the Senate. This
is a majority of the present number, and will be a
bar to the Legislature: fix the number low and they
will generally attend knowing that advantage may
be taken of their absence, the Secession of a small
number ought not to be suffered to break a quorum.
Such events in the States may have been of little
consequence. In the national Councils they may be
fatal. Besides other mischiefs, if a few can break
up a quorum, they may seize a moment when a particular
part of the Continent may be in need of immediate

aid, to extort, by threatening a secession,
some unjust & selfish measure.

Mr. Mercer 2ded. the motion.

Mr. King said he had just prepared a motion which
instead of fixing the numbers proposed by Mr. Govr.
Morris as Quorums, made those the lowest numbers,
leaving the Legislature at liberty to increase them or
not. He thought the future increase of members
would render a majority of the whole extremely
cumbersome.

Mr. Mercer agreed to substitute Mr. King's motion
in place of Mr. Morris's.

Mr. Elseworth was opposed to it. It would be a
pleasing ground of confidence to the people that no
law or burden could be imposed on them by a few
men. He reminded the movers that the Constitution
proposed to give such a discretion with regard
to the number of Representatives that a very inconvenient
number was not to be apprehended. The
inconveniency of secessions may be guarded agst. by
giving to each House an authority to require the
attendance of absent members.

Mr. Wilson concurred in the sentiments of Mr.
Elseworth.

Mr. Gerry seemed to think that some further precautions
than merely fixing the quorum might be
necessary. He observed that as 17 wd. be a majority
of a quorum of 33, and 8 of 14, questions might by
possibility be carried in the H. of Reps. by 2 large
States, and in the Senate by the same States with the
aid of two small ones.—He proposed that the number

for a quorum in the H. of Reps. should not exceed
50, nor be less than 33, leaving the intermediate discretion
to the Legislature.

Mr.King. As the quorum could not be altered
witht. the concurrence of the President by less than
⅔ of each House, he thought there could be no danger
in trusting the Legislature.

Mr. Carrol This would be no security agst. a continuance
of the quorums at 33 & 14. when they
ought to be increased.

On Question on Mr. Kings motion "that not less
than 33 in the H. of Reps. nor less than 14 in the
Senate shd. constitute a Quroum which may be increased
by a law, on additions of the members in
either House.

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

Mr. Randolph & Mr. Madison moved to add to the
end of Art. VI. Sect. 3, "and may be authorized to
compel the attendance of absent members in such
manner & under such penalties as each House may
provide." Agreed to by all except Pena. which was
divided.

Art. VI. Sect. 3. agreed to as amended nem. con.

 

Sect. 4. Sect. 5.

Agreed to nem. con.

Mr. Madison observed that the right of expulsion
(Art. VI. Sect. 6.) was too important to be exercised
by a bare majority of a quorum: and in emergencies
of faction might be dangerously abused. He moved

that, "with the concurrence of 2/3," might be inserted
between may & expel.

Mr. Randolph & Mr. Mason approved the idea.

Mr. Govr. Morris. This power may be safely trusted
to a majority. To require more may produce abuses
on the side of the minority. A few men from factious
motives may keep in a member who ought to
be expelled.

Mr.Carrol thought that the concurrence of 2/3 at
least ought to be required.

On the question requiring 2/3 in cases of expelling
a member.

N. H. ay. Mass. ay. Ct. ay. N. J. ay. Pa. divd.
Del. ay. Md. ay. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay.
Geo. ay.

Art. VI. Sect. 6. as thus amended agreed to nem.
con.

Art: VI. Sect. 7. taken up.

Mr. Govr. Morris urged that if the yeas & nays were
proper at all any individual ought to be authorized
to call for them; and moved an amendment to that
effect.—The small States may otherwise be under a
disadvantage, and find it difficult to get a concurrence
of 1/5.

Mr. Randolph 2ded. ye. motion.

Mr. Sherman had rather strike out the yeas & nays
altogether. They never have done any good, and
have done much mischief. They are not proper as
the reasons governing the voter never appear along
with them.

Mr. Elseworth was of the same opinion.

Col. Mason liked the Section as it stood. it was a
middle way between two extremes.

Mr. Ghorum was opposed to the motion for allowing
a single member to call the yeas & nays, and recited
the abuses of it in Massts. 1 in stuffing the
journals with them on frivolous occasions. 2 in misleading
the people who never know the reasons
determing the votes.

The motion for allowing a single member to call
the yeas & nays was disagd. to nem. con.

Mr. Carrol. & Mr. Randolph moved to strike out the
words, "each House" and to insert the words, "the
House of Representatives" in Sect. 7. Art. 6. and to
add to the section the words "and any member of
the Senate shall be at liberty to enter his dissent."

Mr. Govr. Morris & Mr. Wilson observed that if the
minority were to have a right to enter their votes &
reasons, the other side would have a right to complain,
if it were not extended to them: & to allow
it to both, would fill the Journals, like the records of
a Court, with replications, rejoinders &c.

Question on Mr. Carrols motion to allow a member
to enter his dissent

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

Mr. Gerry moved to strike out the words "when it
shall be acting in its legislative capacity" in order to
extend the provision to the Senate when exercising
its peculiar authorities and to insert "except such
parts thereof as in their judgment require secrecy"

after the words "publish them."—(It was thought
by others that provision should be made with respect
to these when that part came under consideration
which proposed to vest those additional
authorities in the Senate.)

On this question for striking out the words "when
acting in its legislative capacity"

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

Adjourned.