University of Virginia Library

Friday July 6th. in Convention

Mr. Govt. Morris moved to commit so much of the
Report as relates to "1 member for every 40,000
inhabitants." His view was that they might absolutely
fix the number for each State in the first
instance; leaving the Legislature at liberty to provide
for changes in the relative importance of the
States, and for the case of new States.

Mr. Wilson 2ded. the motion; but with a view of
leaving the Committee under no implied shackles.

Mr. Ghorum apprehended great inconveniency
from fixing directly the number of Representatives
to be allowed to each State. He thought the number
of Inhabitants the true guide; tho' perhaps
some departure might be expedient from the full
proportion. The States also would vary in their
relative extent by separations of parts of the largest
States. A part of Virga. is now on the point of a
separation. In the province of Mayne a Convention
is at this time deliberating on a separation from
Masts. In such events the number of representatives
ought certainly to be reduced. He hoped to
see all the States made small by proper divisions,
instead of their becoming formidable as was apprehended,
to the Small States. He conceived that let the
Genl. Government be modified as it might, there would

be a constant tendency in the State Governmts. to
encroach upon it: it was of importance therefore
that the extent of the States shd. be reduced as much
& as fast as possible. The stronger the Govt. shall
be made in the first instance the more easily will
these divisions be effected; as it will be of less consequence
in the opinion of the States whether they
be of great or small extent.

Mr. Gerry did not think with his Colleague that the
large States ought to be cut up. This policy has
been inculcated by the middling and smaller States,
ungenerously & contrary to the spirit of the Confederation.
Ambitious men will be apt to solicit
needless divisions, till the States be reduced to the
size of Counties. If this policy should still actuate
the small States, the large ones cou'd not confederate
safely with them; but would be obliged to consult
their safety by confederating only with one another.
He favored the commitment and thought that Representation
ought to be in the Combined ratio of numbers
of Inhabitants and of wealth, and not of either
singly.

Mr. King wished the clause to be committed,
chiefly in order to detach it from the Report with
which it had no connection. He thought also that
the Ratio of Representation proposed could not
be safely fixed, since in a century & a half our
computed increase of population would carry the
number of representatives to an enormous excess;
that ye number of inhabitants was not the proper
index of ability & wealth; that property was the

primary object of Society; and that in fixing a ratio
this ought not to be excluded from the estimate.—
With regard to new States, he observed that there
was something peculiar in the business which had
not been noticed. The U. S. were now admitted to
be proprietors of the Country N. West of the Ohio.
Congs. by one of their ordinances have impoliticly
laid it out into ten States, and have made it a fundamental
article of compact with those who may become
settlers, that as soon as the number in any
one state shall equal that of the smallest of the 13
original States, it may claim admission into the
Union. Delaware does not contain it is computed
more than 35,000 souls, and for obvious reasons will
not increase much for a considerable time. It is
possible then that if this plan be persisted in by
Congs. 10 new votes may be added, without a greater
addition of inhabitants than are represented by the
single vote of Pena. The plan as it respects one of
the new States is already irrevocable, the sale of the
lands having commenced, and the purchasers &
settlers will immediately become entitled to all the
privileges of the compact.

Mr. Butler agreed to the Commitment if the Committee
were to be left at liberty. He was persuaded
that the more the subject was examined, the less it
would appear that the number of inhabitants would
be a proper rule of proportion. If there were no
other objection the changeableness of the standard
would be sufficient. He concurred with those who
thought some balance was necessary between the old

& the new States. He contended strenuously that
property was the only just measure of representation.
This was the great object of Governt; the
great cause of war; the great means of carrying it on.

Mr. Pinkney saw no good reason for committing.
The value of land had been found on full investigation
to be an impracticable rule. The contributions
of revenue including imports & exports must be too
changeable in their amount; too difficult to be adjusted;
and too injurious to the non-commercial
States. The number of inhabitants appeared to him
the only just & practicable rule. He thought the
blacks ought to stand on an equality with the
whites: But wd. agree to the ratio settled by Congs.
He contended that Congs. had no right under the
articles of Confederation to authorize the admission
of new States; no such case having been provided
for.

Mr. Davy was for committing the clause in order
to get at the merits of the question arising on the
Report. He seemed to think that wealth or property
ought to be represented in the 2d. branch; and
numbers in the 1st branch.

On the Motion for committing as made by Mr.
Govr. Morris,

Massts. ay. Cont. ay. N. Y. no. N. J. no. Pa. ay.
Del. no. Md. divd. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay.
Geo. ay.

The members appd. by Ballot were Mr. Govr. Morris,
Mr. Gorham, Mr. Randolph, Mr. Rutlidge, Mr. King.

Mr. Wilson signified that his view in agreeing to

the com̃itmt. was that the Come might consider the
propriety of adopting a scale similar to that established
by the Constitution of Massts. which wd. give
an advantage to ye. small States without substantially
departing from the rule of proportion.

Mr. Wilson & Mr. Mason moved to postpone the
clause relating to money bills in order to take up the
clause relating to an equality of votes in the Second
branch.

On the question Massts. no. Cont. no. N. Y. ay.
N. J. ay. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. ay. Va. ay. N. C.
no. S. C. ay. Geo. ay.

The clause relating to equality of votes being under
consideration.

Docr. Franklin observed that this question could
not be properly put by itself, the Com̃ittee having
reported several propositions as mutual conditions of
each other. He could not vote for it if separately
taken, but should vote for the whole together.

Col. Mason perceived the difficulty & suggested a
reference of the rest of the Report to ye. Committee
just appointed, that the whole might be brought
into one view.

Mr. Randolph disliked ye. reference to that Committee,
as it consisted of members from States
opposed to the wishes of the smaller States, and
could not therefore be acceptable to the latter.

Mr. Martin & Mr. Jenifer moved to postpone the
clause till the Come. last appointed shd. report.

Mr. Madison observed that if the uncommitted part
of the Report was connected with the part just

committed, it ought also to be committed; if not
connected, it need not be postponed till report
should be made.

On the question for postponing, moved by Mr.
Martin & Mr. Jenifer,—Cont. N. J. Del. Md. Va. Geo.
ay Pa. N. C. S. C. no Mass. N. Y. divided.

The 1st. clause relating to the originating of money
bills was then resumed.

Mr. Governr. Morris was opposed to a restriction of
this right in either branch, considered merely in
itself and as unconnected with the point of representation
in the 2d. branch. It will disable the 2d.
branch from proposing its own money plans, and
giving the people an opportunity of judging by comparison
of the merits of those proposed by the 1st.
branch.

Mr. Wilson could see nothing like a concession
here on the part of the smaller States. If both
branches were to say yes or no, it was of little consequence
which should say yes or no first, which last.
If either was indiscriminately to have the right of
originating, the reverse of the Report, would he
thought be most proper; since it was a maxim that
the least numerous body was the fittest for deliberation;
the most numerous for decision. He observed
that this discrimination had been transcribed from
the British into several American constitutions.
But he was persuaded that on examination of the
American experiments it would be found to be a
trifle light as air. Nor could he ever discover the
advantage of it in the Parliamentary history of G.

Britain. He hoped if there was any advantage in
the privilege, that it would be pointed out.

Mr. Williamson thought that if the privilege were
not common to both branches it ought rather to be
confined to the 2d. as the bills in that case would be
more narrowly watched, than if they originated with
the branch having most of the popular confidence.

Mr. Mason. The consideration which weighed with
the Committee was that the 1st. branch would be the
immediate representatives of the people, the 2d.
would not. Should the latter have the power of
giving away the people's money, they might soon
forget the source from whence they received it. We
might soon have an aristocracy. He had been much
concerned at the principles which had been advanced
by some gentlemen, but had the satisfaction to find
they did not generally prevail. He was a friend to
proportional representation in both branches; but
supposed that some points must be yielded for the
sake of accomodation.

Mr. Wilson. If he had proposed that the 2d. branch
should have an independent disposal of public money,
the observations of (Col. Mason) would have been a
satisfactory answer. But nothing could be farther
from what he had said. His question was how is the
power of the 1st. branch increased or that of the 2d
diminished by giving the proposed privilege to the
former? Where is the difference, in which branch it
begins, if both must concur, in the end?

Mr. Gerry would not say that the concession was
a sufficient one on the part of the small States. But

he could not but regard it in the light of a concession.
It wd. make it a constitutional principle that the 2d.
branch were not possessed of the Confidence of the
people in money matters, which wd. lessen their
weight & influence. In the next place if the 2d.
branch were dispossessed of the privilege, they wd.
be deprived of the opportunity which their continuance
in office 3 times as long as the 1st. branch would
give them of making three successive essays in favor
of a particular point.

Mr. Pinkney thought it evident that the Concession
was wholly on one side, that of the large States, the
privilege of originating money bills being of no
account.

Mr. Govr. Morris had waited to hear the good effects
of the restriction. As to the alarm sounded, of an
aristocracy, his creed was that there never was, nor
ever will be a civilized Society without an aristocracy.
His endeavor was to keep it as much as possible
from doing mischief. The restriction if it has
any real operation, will deprive us of the services of
the 2d. branch in digesting & proposing money bills
of which it will be more capable than the 1st. branch.
It will take away the responsibility of the 2d. branch,
the great security for good behavior. It will always
leave a plea, as to an obnoxious money bill that it
was disliked, but could not be constitutionally
amended; nor safely rejected. It will be a dangerous
source of disputes between the two Houses. We
should either take the British Constitution altogether
or make one for ourselves. The Executive there

has dissolved two Houses as the only cure for such
disputes. Will our Executive be able to apply such
a remedy? Every law directly or indirectly takes
money out of the pockets of the people. Again
What use may be made of such a privilege in case of
great emergency? Suppose an Enemy at the door,
and money instantly & absolutely necessary for repelling
him, may not the popular branch avail itself
of this duress, to extort concessions from the Senate
destructive of the Constitution itself. He illustrated
this danger by the example of the Long Parliament's
expedts. for subverting the H. of Lords; concluding
on the whole that the restriction would be either useless
or pernicious.

Docr. Franklin did not mean to go into a justification
of the Report, but as it had been asked what
would be the use of restraining the 2d. branch from
medling with money bills, he could not but remark
that it was always of importance that the people
should know who had disposed of their money, &
how it had been disposed of. It was a maxim that
those who feel, can best judge. This end would, he
thought, be best attained, if money affairs were to
be confined to the immediate representatives of the
people. This was his inducement to concur in the
report. As to the danger or difficulty that might
arise from a Negative in the 2d. where the people
wd. not be proportionately represented, it might
easily be got over by declaring that there should
be no such negative; or if that will not do, by
declaring that there shall be no such branch at all.

Mr. Martin said that it was understood in the Committee
that the difficulties and disputes which had
been apprehended, should be guarded agst. in the
detailing of the plan.

Mr. Wilson. The difficulties & disputes will increase
with the attempts to define & obviate them.
Queen Anne was obliged to dissolve her Parliamt. in
order to terminate one of these obstinate disputes
between the two Houses. Had it not been for the
mediation of the Crown, no one can say what the
result would have been. The point is still sub judice
in England. He approved of the principles laid
down by the Honble President (Doctr. Franklin) his
Colleague, as to the expediency of keeping the people
informed of their money affairs. But thought they
would know as much, and be as well satisfied, in one
way as in the other.

Genl. Pinkney was astonished that this point
should have been considered as a concession He remarked
that the restriction to money bills had been
rejected on the merits singly considered, by 8 States
agst. 3. and that the very States which now called it
a concession, were then agst. it as nugatory or improper
in itself.

On the Question whether the clause relating to
money bills in the Report of the Come. consisting of a
member from each State, shd. stand as part of the
Report

Massts. dividd. Cont. ay. N. Y. divd. N. J. ay. Pa.
no. Del. ay. Md. ay. Va. no. N. C. ay. S. C.
no. Geo. divd.

A Question was then raised whether the question
was carried in the affirmative; there being but 5
ays out of 11. States present. The words of the rule
are (see May 28).

On this question: Mas. Cont. N. J. Pa. Del. Md.
N. C. S. C. Geo. ay N. Y. Va. no

(In several preceding instances like votes had sub
silentio been entered as decided in the affirmative.)

Adjourned