aerostatic experiment, when M. Pilatre de Rozier publicly offered
himself to be the first adventurer in the newly invented aerial machine.
His offer was accepted; his courage remained undaunted; and on October
15, 1783, he actually ascended, to the astonishment of a gazing
multitude. The following are the particulars of this experiment:
"The accident which happened to the aerostatic machine at Versailles,
and its imperfect construction, induced M. Montgolfier to construct
another machine, of a larger size and more solid. With this intent,
sufficient time was allowed for the work to be properly done; and by
October 10th the aerostat was completed, in a garden in the Faubourg
St.-Antoine. It had an oval shape; its diameter being about forty-eight
feet, and its height about seventy-four. The outside was elegantly
painted and decorated with the signs of the zodiac, with the cipher of
the King's name in _fleurs-de-lis_, etc. The aperture or lower part of
the machine had a wicker gallery about three feet broad, with a
balustrade both within and without about three feet high. The inner
diameter of this gallery, and of the aperture of the machine, the neck
of which passed through it, was near sixteen feet. In the middle of this
aperture an iron grate or brazier was supported by chains which came
down from the sides of the machine.
"In this construction, when the machine was in the air, with a fire
lighted in the grate, it was easy for a person who stood in the gallery,
and had fuel with him, to keep up the fire in the mouth of the machine,
by throwing the fuel on the grate through port-holes made in the neck of
the machine. By this means it was expected, as indeed it was found by
experience, that the machine might have been kept up as long as the
person in its gallery thought proper, or while he had fuel to supply the
fire with. The weight of this aerostat was upward of 16,000 pounds.
"On Wednesday, October 15th, this memorable experiment was performed.
The fire being lighted, and the machine inflated, M. Pilatre de Rozier
placed himself in the gallery, and, after a few trials close to the
ground, he desired to ascend to a great height; the machine was
accordingly permitted to rise, and it ascended as high as the ropes,
which were purposely placed to detain it, would allow, which was about
eighty-four feet from the ground. There M. de Rozier kept the machine
afloat during four minutes twenty-five seconds, by throwing straw and
wool into the grate to keep up the fire; then the machine descended very
gently; but such was its tendency to ascend, that after touching the
ground, the moment M. de Rozier came out of the gallery, it rebounded
again to a considerable height. The intrepid adventurer, returning from
the sky, assured his friends, and the multitude that gazed on him with
admiration, with wonder, and with fear, that he had not experienced the
least inconvenience, either in going up, in remaining there, or in
descending; no giddiness, no incommoding motion, no shock whatever. He
received the compliments due to his courage and audacity, having shown
the world the accomplishment of that which had been for ages desired,
but attempted in vain.
"On October 17th, M. Pilatre de Rozier repeated the experiment with
nearly the same success as he had two days before. The machine was
elevated to about the same height, being still detained by ropes; but
the wind being strong, it did not sustain itself so well, and
consequently did not afford so fine a spectacle to the concourse of
people, which at this time was much greater than at the preceding
experiment.
"On the Sunday following, which was the 19th, the weather proving
favorable, M. Montgolfier employed his machine to make the following
experiments. At half past four o'clock the machine was filled, in five
minutes' time; then M. Pilatre de Rozier placed himself in the gallery,
a counterpoise of 100 pounds being put in the opposite side of it, to
preserve the balance. The size of the gallery had now been diminished.
The machine was permitted to ascend to the height of about 210 feet,
where it remained during six minutes, not having any fire in the grate;
and then it descended very gently.
"Soon after, everything remaining as before, except that now a fire was
put into the grate, the machine was permitted to ascend to about 262
feet, where it remained stationary during eight minutes and a half. On
pulling it down, a gust of wind carried it over some large trees in an
adjoining garden, where it would have been in great danger had not M. de
Rozier, with great presence of mind and address, increased the fire by
throwing some straw upon it; by which means the machine was extricated
from so dangerous a situation, and rose majestically to its former
situation, among the acclamations of the spectators. On descending, M.
de Rozier threw some straw upon the fire, which made the machine ascend
once more, remaining up for about the same length of time.
"This experiment showed that the aerostat may be made to ascend and
descend at the pleasure of those who are in it; to effect which, they
have nothing more to do than to increase or diminish the fire in the
grate; which was an important point in the subject of aerostation.
"After this, the machine was raised again with two persons in its
gallery, M. Pilatre de Rozier and M. Girond de Villette, the latter of
whom was therefore the second aerostatic adventurer. The machine
ascended to the height of about 300 feet, where it remained perfectly
steady for at least nine minutes, hovering over Paris, in sight of its
numerous inhabitants, many of whom could plainly distinguish, through
telescopes, the aerostatic adventurers, and especially M. de Rozier, who
was busy in managing the fire. When the machine came down, the Marquis
d'Arlandes, a major of infantry, took the place of M. Villette, and the
balloon was sent up once more. This last experiment was attended with
the same success as the preceding; which proved that the persons who
ascended with the machine did not suffer the least inconvenience, owing
to the gradual and gentle ascent and descent of the machine, and to its
steadiness or equilibrium while it remained in the air.
"If we consider for a moment the sensation which these first aerial
adventurers must have felt in their exalted situation, we can almost
feel the contagion of their thrilling experience ourselves. Imagine a
man elevated to such a height, into immense space, by means altogether
new, viewing under his feet, like a map, a vast tract of country, with
one of the greatest existing cities--the streets and environs of which
were crowded with spectators--attentive to him alone, and all expressing
in every possible manner their amazement and anxiety. Reflect on the
prospect, the encomiums, and the consequences; then see if your mind
remains in a state of quiet indifference.
"An instructive observation may be derived from these experiments; which
is, that when an aerostatic machine is attached to the earth by
ropes--especially when it is at a considerable height--the wind, blowing
on it, will drive it in its own horizontal direction; so that the cords
which hold the machine must make an angle with the horizon (which is
greater when the wind is stronger, and contrariwise); in consequence of
which the machine must be severely strained, it being acted on by three
forces in three different directions; namely, its power of ascension,
the tension of the ropes, which is opposite to the first, and the action
of the wind, which is across the other two. It is therefore infinitely
more judicious to abandon the machine entirely to the air, because it
will then stand perfectly balanced, and, therefore, under no strain
whatever."
In consequence of the report of the foregoing experiments, signed by the
commissaries of the Academy of Sciences, that learned and respectable
body ordered: (1) That the said report should be printed and published;
and (2) that the annual prize of six hundred livres, from the fund
provided by an anonymous citizen, be given to Messrs. Montgolfier, for
the year 1783.
FOOTNOTES:
[31] Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette.
FRAMING OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
A.D. 1787
ANDREW W. YOUNG JOSEPH STORY
It was a "critical period of American history" in which the
fundamental or organic law of the United States, the Federal
Constitution, was formulated. That instrument has not only
commanded the reverence of American patriots--statesmen and
people--during a century and more; it has engaged the
attentive study and aroused the respect and admiration of
foreign students and critics of political institutions.
"After all deductions," says Bryce, it "ranks above every
other written constitution, for the intrinsic excellence of
its scheme, its adaptation to the circumstances of the
people, the simplicity, brevity, and precision of its
language, its judicious mixture of definiteness in principle
with elasticity in details."
The story of this Constitution is as plain and simple as any
in American annals; yet its real features have sometimes
been missed even by friendly commentators. It is a mistake
to say, with Gladstone, that "it is the greatest work ever
struck off at any one time by the mind and purpose of man,"
for the true record of its making shows how deliberate and
difficult the process was. Equally misleading is the
judgment of so profound a master in legal history as Sir
Henry Sumner Maine, when he says that the "Constitution of
the United States is a modified version of the British
Constitution which was in existence between 1760 and 1787."
A juster view is held by the critical scholars of America, a
view which indeed should be deducible, without need of
special scholarship, from the recorded history of the
Constitutional period. "The real source of the
Constitution," says a living American historian, "is the
experience of Americans. They had established and developed
admirable little commonwealths in the colonies; since the
beginning of the Revolution they had had experience of State
governments organized on a different basis from the
colonial; and, finally, they had carried on two successive
national governments, with which they had been profoundly
discontented. The general outline of the new Constitution
seems to be English; it was really colonial."
From the year 1775 there was a federal union in which each
colony regulated its internal affairs by its own
constitution, while the general affairs of the union were
controlled by the Continental Congress. This mode was
substantially continued after the colonies (1776-1779)
became States, with new State constitutions. It was not
finally superseded until the Articles of Confederation,
adopted by the Continental Congress in 1777, had been
ratified by all the separate colonies or States. Under the
articles a new government went into effect March 1, 1781.
The Articles of Confederation proving inadequate to the
requirements of the Federal Government, it came to be seen
that a general revision of them was needed, and a convention
for that purpose was called. This convention went beyond its
original purpose, which proved impracticable, and took upon
itself the task of framing wholly anew the present
Constitution of the United States. The following accounts
furnish the reader with the circumstances which directly led
to the calling of the convention, and with a clear and
concise report of its proceedings and the subsequent action
thereon taken by the States.
ANDREW W. YOUNG
The day appointed for the assembling of the Convention[32] to revise the
Articles of Confederation was May 14, 1787. Delegations from a majority
of the States did not attend until the 25th, on which day the business
of the convention commenced. The delegates from New Hampshire did not
arrive until July 23d. Rhode Island did not appoint delegates.
A political body combining greater talents, wisdom, and patriotism, or
whose labors have produced results more beneficial to the cause of civil
and religious liberty, has probably never assembled. The two most
distinguished members were Washington and Franklin, to whom the eyes of
the convention were directed for a presiding officer. Washington, having
been nominated by Lewis Morris, of Pennsylvania, was elected president
of the convention. William Jackson was appointed secretary. The rules of
proceeding adopted by the convention were chiefly the same as those of
Congress. A quorum was to consist of the deputies of at least seven
States, and all questions were to be decided by the greater number of
those which were fully represented--at least two delegates being
necessary to constitute a full representation. Another rule was the
injunction of secrecy upon all their proceedings.
The first important question determined by the convention was, whether
the confederation should be amended or a new government formed? The
delegates of some States had been instructed only to amend. And the
resolution of Congress sanctioning a call for a convention recommended
it "for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of
Confederation." A majority, however, considering the plan of
confederation radically defective, resolved to form "a national
government, consisting of a supreme judicial, legislative, and
executive." The objection to the new system on the ground of previous
instructions was deemed of little weight, as any plan that might be
agreed on would necessarily be submitted to the people of the States for
ratification.
In conformity with this decision Edmund Randolph, of Virginia, on May
29th, offered fifteen resolutions, containing the outlines of a plan of
government for the consideration of the convention. These resolutions
proposed: That the voice of each State in the National Legislature
should be in proportion to its taxes or to its free population; that the
Legislature should consist of two branches, the members of the first to
be elected by the people of the States, those of the second to be chosen
by the members of the first, out of a proper number of persons nominated
by the State legislatures; and the National Legislature to be vested
with all the powers of "Congress under the Confederation," with the
additional power to legislate in all cases to which the separate States
were incompetent; to negative all State laws which should, in the
opinion of the National Legislature, be repugnant to the Articles of
Union or to any treaty subsisting under them; to call out the force of
the Union against any State refusing to fulfil its duty:
That there should be a national executive, to be chosen by the National
Legislature, and to be ineligible a second time. The executive, with a
convenient number of the national judiciary, was to constitute a council
of revision, with a qualified negative upon all laws, State and
national:
A national judiciary, the judges to hold their offices during good
behavior.
In discussing this plan, called the "Virginia plan," the lines of party
were distinctly drawn. We have already had occasion to allude to the
jealousy, on the part of States, of the power of the General Government.
A majority of the peculiar friends of State rights in the convention
were from the small States. These States, apprehending danger from the
overwhelming power of a strong national government, as well as from the
combined power of the large States, represented in proportion to their
wealth and population, were unwilling to be deprived of their equal vote
in Congress. Not less strenuously did the friends of the national plan
insist on a proportional representation. This opposition of sentiment,
which divided the convention into parties, did not terminate with the
proceedings of that body, but has at times marked the politics of the
nation down to the present day. It is worthy of remark, however, that
the most jealous regard for State rights now prevails in States in which
the plan of a national government then found its ablest and most zealous
advocates.
The plan suggested by Randolph's resolutions was the subject of
deliberation for about two weeks, when, having been in several respects
modified in committee, and reduced to form, it was reported to the
House. It contained the following provisions:
A national legislature to consist of two branches, the first to be
elected by the people for three years; the second to be chosen by the
State legislatures for seven years, the members of both branches to be
apportioned on the basis finally adopted; the Legislature to possess
powers nearly the same as those originally proposed by Edmund Randolph.
The executive was to consist of a single person to be chosen by the
National Legislature for seven years, and limited to a single term, and
to have a qualified veto; all bills not approved by him to be passed by
a vote of three-fourths of both Houses in order to become laws. A
national judiciary to consist of a supreme court, the judges to be
appointed by the second branch of the Legislature for the term of good
behavior, and of such inferior courts as Congress might think proper to
establish.
This plan being highly objectionable to the State rights party, a scheme
agreeable to their views was submitted by William Paterson, of New
Jersey. This scheme, called the "New Jersey plan," proposed no
alteration in the constitution of the Legislature, but simply to give it
the additional power to raise a revenue by duties on foreign goods
imported, and by stamp and postage taxes; to regulate trade with foreign
nations and among the States; and, when requisitions made upon the
States were not complied with, to collect them by its own authority.
The plan proposed a federal executive, to consist of a number of persons
selected by Congress; and a federal judiciary, the judges to be
appointed by the executive, and to hold their offices during good
behavior.
The Virginia and New Jersey plans were now (June 19th) referred to a new
committee of the whole. Another debate arose, in which the powers of the
convention was the principal subject of discussion. It was again urged
that their power had been, by express instruction, limited to an
amendment of the existing confederation, and that the new system would
not be adopted by the States. The vote was taken on the 19th, and the
propositions of William Paterson were rejected; only New York, New
Jersey, and Delaware voting in the affirmative; seven States in the
negative, and the members from Maryland equally divided.
Randolph's propositions, as modified and reported by the committee of
the whole, were now taken up and considered separately. The division of
the Legislature into two branches, a House of Representatives and a
Senate, was agreed to almost unanimously, one State only, Pennsylvania,
dissenting; but the proposition to apportion the members to the States
according to population was violently opposed. The small States insisted
strenuously on retaining an equal vote in the Legislature, but at length
consented to a proportional representation in the House on condition
that they should have an equal vote in the Senate.
Accordingly, on June 29th, Oliver Ellsworth, of Connecticut, offered a
motion, "that in the second branch, each State shall have an equal
vote." This motion gave rise to a protracted and vehement debate. It was
supported by Messrs. Ellsworth; Baldwin, of Georgia; Bradford, of
Delaware, and others. It was urged on the ground of the necessity of a
compromise between the friends of the confederation and those of a
national government, and as a measure which would secure tranquillity
and meet the objections of the larger States. Equal representation in
one branch would make the government partly federal, and a proportional
representation in the other would make it partly national. Equality in
the second branch would enable the small States to protect themselves
against the combined power of the large States. Fears were expressed
that without this advantage to the small States, it would be in the
power of a few large States to control the rest. The small States, it
was said, must possess this power of self-defence, or be ruined.
The motion was opposed by Messrs. Madison, Wilson, of Pennsylvania;
King, of Massachusetts, and Dr. Franklin. Mr. Madison thought there was
no danger from the quarter from which it was apprehended. The great
source of danger to the General Government was the opposing interests of
the North and the South, as would appear from the votes of Congress,
which had been divided by geographical lines, not according to the size
of the States. James Wilson objected to State equality; that it would
enable one-fourth of the Union to control three-fourths. Respecting the
danger of the three larger States combining together to give rise to a
monarchy or an aristocracy, he thought it more probable that a rivalship
would exist between them than that they would unite in a confederacy.
Rufus King said the rights of Scotland were secure from all danger,
though in the Parliament she had a small representation. Dr. Franklin,
now in his eighty-second year, said, as it was not easy to see what the
greater States could gain by swallowing up the smaller, he did not
apprehend they would attempt it. In voting by States--the mode then
existing--it was equally in the power of the smaller States to swallow
up the greater. He thought the number of representatives ought to bear
some proportion to the number of the represented.
On July 2d the question was taken on Mr. Ellsworth's motion, and lost:
Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland voting in the
affirmative; Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, and
South Carolina in the negative; Georgia divided. It will be remembered
that the delegates from New Hampshire were not yet present, and that
Rhode Island had appointed none. This has been regarded by some as a
fortunate circumstance, as the votes of these two small States would
probably have given an equal vote to the States in both Houses, if not
have defeated the plan of national government.
The excitement now became intense, and the convention seemed to be on
the point of dissolution. Luther Martin, of Maryland, who had taken a
leading part in advocating the views of the State rights party, said
each State must have an equal vote, or the business of the convention
was at an end. It having become apparent that this unhappy result could
be avoided only by a compromise, Roger Sherman, of Connecticut, moved
the appointment of a committee of conference, to consist of one member
from each State, and the motion prevailed. The convention then adjourned
for three days, thus giving time for consultation, and an opportunity to
celebrate the anniversary of independence.
The report of this committee, which was made on July 5th, proposed: (1)
That in the first branch of the Legislature each State should have one
representative for every forty thousand inhabitants (three-fifths of the
slaves being counted); that each State not containing that number should
be allowed one representative; and that money bills should originate in
this branch; (2) that in the second branch each State should have one
vote. These propositions were reported, it is said, at the suggestion of
Dr. Franklin, one of the committee of conference.
The report, of course, met with greater favor from the State rights
party than from their opponents. The equal vote in the Senate continued
to receive the most determined opposition from the National party. In
relation to the rule of representation in the first branch of the
Legislature, also, a great diversity of opinion prevailed. The
conflicting interests to be reconciled in the settlement of this
question, however, were those of the Northern and Southern, commercial
and planting, rather than the imaginary interests of small and large
States.