constitution for Pennsylvania, and in this instrument he secured the
adoption of two of his favorite ideas. He believed that a Legislature
should consist of only one House, and that the executive authority,
instead of being vested in a single person, should be exercised by a
committee. The executive department of Pennsylvania became, therefore, a
Supreme Executive Council of twelve members elected by the different
counties. In order to make up for the lack of a double House, there was
a sort of makeshift provision providing that every bill must pass two
sessions of the Assembly before it became a law. There was also a
curious body called the Council of Censors, two from each city and
county, who were to see that the constitution was not violated and that
all departments of government did their duty. It was a crude and awkward
attempt to prevent unconstitutional legislation, and proved an utter
failure. The whole constitution was a most bungling contrivance which
wrought great harm to the State and was replaced by a more suitable one
in 1790.
But Franklin heartily approved of it, and in 1790 protested most
earnestly against a change. He argued at length against a single
executive and in favor of a single house Legislature in the teeth of
innumerable facts proving the utter impracticability of both. No other
important public men of the time believed in them, and they had been
rejected in the national Constitution. He was, however, as humorous and
clever in this argument as if he had been in the right. A double-branch
Legislature would, he said, be too weak in each branch to support a good
measure or obstruct a bad one.
"Has not the famous political fable of the snake with two heads
and one body some useful instruction contained in it? She was
going to a brook to drink, and in her way was to pass through a
hedge, a twig of which opposed her direct course; one head chose
to go on the right side of the twig, the other on the left; so
that time was spent in the contest, and, before the decision was
completed, the poor snake died with thirst." (Bigelow's Works of
Franklin, vol. x. p. 186.)
After Franklin had taken part in framing the Pennsylvania constitution
of 1776 and had gone to Paris as ambassador to France, he had all the
new Revolutionary constitutions of the American States translated into
French and widely circulated. Much importance has been attached to this
translation by some writers, Thomas Paine saying that these translated
constitutions "were to liberty what grammar is to language: they define
its parts of speech and practically construct them into syntax;" and
both he and some of Franklin's biographers ascribe to them a vast
influence in shaping the course of the French Revolution. Franklin wrote
to the Rev. Dr. Cooper, of Boston, that the French people read the
translations with rapture, and added,--
"There are such numbers everywhere who talk of removing to
America with their families and fortunes as soon as peace and
our independence shall be established that it is generally
believed we shall have a prodigious addition of strength, wealth
and arts from the emigration of Europe; and it is thought that
to lessen or prevent such emigration the tyrannies established
there must relax and allow more liberty to their people. Hence
it is a common observation here that our cause is the cause of
all mankind and that we are fighting for their liberty in
defending our own."
As there was none of the vast emigration out of France which he speaks
of, and the great emigration from Europe did not begin until after the
year 1820, it may very well be that both he and his biographers have
exaggerated the effect of the translations. But there seems to be no
doubt that the translations must, on general principles, have had a
stimulating effect on liberal ideas, although we may not be able to
measure accurately the full force of their influence. They also were
valuable in arousing the enthusiasm of the French forces, and making
more sure of their assistance and alliance.
His last work in constitution-making was in 1787, when the convention
met at Philadelphia to frame the national document which was to take the
place of the old Articles of Confederation, and this was also the last
important work of his life. He was then eighty-one years old, and
suffering so much from the gout and stone that he could not remain
standing for any length of time. His important speeches he usually wrote
out and had his colleague, Mr. Wilson, read them to the convention. This
was in some respects an advantage, for these speeches have been
preserved entire in Madison's notes of the debates, while what was said
by the other members was written by Madison from memory or much
abbreviated. It was Franklin's characteristic good luck attending him to
the last.
Considering his age and infirmity, one would naturally not expect much
from him, and, as we go over the debates, some propositions which he
advocated and his treatment by the other members incline us at first to
the opinion that he had passed his days of great usefulness, and that he
was in the position of an old man whose whims are treated with kindness.
One of the principles which he advocated most earnestly was that the
President, or whatever the head of the government should be called,
should receive no salary. He moved to amend the part relating to the
salary by substituting for it "whose necessary expenses shall be
defrayed, but who shall receive no salary, stipend, fee, or reward
whatsoever for their services."
He wrote an interesting speech in support of his amendment. But it is
easy to see that his suggestion is not a wise one. No one familiar with
modern politics would approve of it, and scarcely any one in the
convention looked upon it with favor. Madison records that Hamilton
seconded the motion merely to bring it before the House and out of
regard for Dr. Franklin. It was indefinitely postponed without debate,
and Madison adds that "it was treated with great respect, but rather for
the author of it than from any apparent conviction of its expediency or
practicability."
He also clung steadfastly to his old notions that the executive
authority should be vested in a number of persons,--a sort of council,
like the absurd arrangement in Pennsylvania,--and that the Legislature
should consist of only one House. These two propositions he advocated to
the end of the session. We find, moreover, that he seconded the motion
giving the President authority to suspend the laws for a limited time,
certainly a most dangerous power to give, and very inconsistent with
Franklin's other opinions on the subject of liberty.
On the other hand, however, we find him opposing earnestly any
restrictions on the right to vote. He was always urging the members to
a spirit of conciliation and a compromise of their violent opinions on
the ground that it was only by this means that a national government
could be created. It was for this purpose that he proposed the daily
reading of prayers by some minister of the Gospel, which was rejected by
the convention, because, as they had not begun in this way, their taking
it up in the midst of their proceedings would cause the outside world to
think that they were in great difficulties.
He was strongly in favor of a clause allowing the President to be
impeached for misdemeanors, which would, he said, be much better than
the ordinary old-fashioned way of assassination; and he was opposed to
allowing the President an absolute veto on legislation. All matters
relating to money should, he thought, be made public; there should be no
limitation of the power of Congress to increase the compensation of the
judges, and very positive proof should be required in cases of treason.
In these matters he was in full accord with the majority of the
convention.
But his great work was done in settling the question of the amount of
representation to be given to the smaller States, and was accomplished
in a curious way. John Dickinson, of Delaware, was the champion of the
interests of the small commonwealths, which naturally feared that if
representation in both Houses of Congress was to be in proportion to
population, their interests would be made subordinate to those of the
States which outnumbered them in inhabitants. This was one of the most
serious difficulties the convention had to face, and the strenuousness
with which the small States maintained their rights came near breaking
up the convention.
Franklin was in favor of only one House of Congress, with the
representation in it proportioned to population, and he made a most
ingenious and fallacious argument to show that there was more danger of
the smaller States absorbing the larger than of the larger swallowing
the smaller. But, in the hope of conciliating Dickinson and his
followers, he suggested several compromises, the first one of which was
very cumbersome and impracticable and need not be mentioned here. It
seemed to take for granted that there was to be only one House of
Congress.
Afterwards, when it was definitely decided to have two Houses, the
question as to the position of the smaller States was again raised in
deciding how the Senate was to be composed. Some were for making its
representation proportional to population, like that of the lower House,
and this the small States resisted. Franklin said that the trouble
seemed to be that with proportional representation in the Senate the
small States thought their liberties in danger, and if each State had an
equal vote in the Senate the large States thought their money was in
danger. He would, therefore, try to unite the two factions. Let each
State have an equal number of delegates in the Senate, but when any
question of appropriating money arose, let these delegates "have
suffrage in proportion to the sums which their respective States do
actually contribute to the treasury." This was not very practical, but
it proved to be a step which led him in the right direction.
A few days afterwards, in a committee appointed to consider the
question, he altered his suggestion so that in the lower House the
representation should be in proportion to population, but in the Senate
each State should have an equal vote, and that money bills should
originate only in the lower House. The committee reported in favor of
his plan, and it was substantially adopted in the Constitution. The
lower House was given proportional representatives, and the Senate was
composed of two Senators from each State, which gave absolute equality
of representation in that body to all the States. Money bills were
allowed to originate only in the lower House, but the Senate could
propose or concur with amendments as on other bills.
Thus the great question was settled by one of those strokes of
Franklin's sublime luck or genius. He disapproved of the whole idea of a
double-headed Congress, and thought the fears of the small States
ridiculous; but, for the sake of conciliation and compromise with John
Dickinson and his earnest followers, his masterful intellect worked out
an arrangement which satisfied everybody and is one of the most
important fundamental principles of our Constitution. Without it there
would be no federal union. We would be a mere collection of warring,
revolutionary communities like those of South America. It has never been
changed and in all human probability never will be so long as we
retain even the semblance of a republic.
[Illustration: FRANKLIN'S GRAVE IN CHRIST CHURCH GRAVEYARD,
PHILADELPHIA]
This was Franklin's greatest and most permanent service to his country,
more valuable than his work in England or France, and a fitting close to
his long life. The most active period of his life, as he has told us,
was between his seventieth and eighty-second years. How much can be done
in eighty vigorous years, and what labors had he performed and what
pleasures and vast experiences enjoyed in that time! Few men do their
best work at such a great age. Moses, however, we are told, was eighty
years old before he began his life's greatest work of leading the
children of Israel out of Egypt. But it would be difficult to find any
other instances in history except Franklin.
After the Constitution as prepared by the convention had been engrossed
and read, it became a question whether all the members of the convention
could be persuaded to sign it, and Franklin handed one of his happy
speeches to Mr. Wilson to be read. He admitted that the Constitution did
not satisfy him; it was not as he would have had it prepared; but still
he would sign it. With all its faults it was better than none. A new
convention would not make a better one, for it would merely bring
together a new set of prejudices and passions. He was old enough, he
said, to doubt somewhat the infallibility of his own judgment. He was
willing to believe that others might be right as well as he; and he
amused the members with his humor and the witty story of the French lady
who, in a dispute with her sister, said, "I don't know how it happens,
sister, but I meet with nobody but myself that is always in the right."
"It therefore astonishes me, sir, to find this system
approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it
will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to
hear that our councils are confounded, like those of the
builders of Babel, and that our States are on the point of
separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting
one another's throats....
"On the whole, sir, I cannot help expressing a wish, that every
member of the Convention who may still have objections to it,
would with me on this occasion doubt a little of his own
infallibility, and, to make _manifest_ our _unanimity_, put his
name to this instrument."
At the close of the reading of his speech Franklin moved that the
Constitution be signed, and offered as a convenient form,--
"Done in Convention by the unanimous consent of the States
present the 17th day of September, etc. In witness whereof we
have hereunto subscribed our names."
Madison explains that this form, with the words "consent of the States,"
had been drawn up by Gouverneur Morris to gain the doubtful States'
rights party. It was given to Franklin, he says, "that it might have the
better chance of success."
"Whilst the last members were signing," says Madison, "Dr.
Franklin, looking towards the president's chair, at the back of
which a rising sun happened to be painted, observed to a few
members near him that painters had found it difficult to
distinguish in their art a rising from a setting sun. 'I have,'
said he, 'often and often in the course of the session and the
vicissitudes of my hopes and fears as to its issue, looked at
that behind the president, without being able to tell whether it
was rising or setting, but now at length I have the happiness to
know that it is a rising and not a setting sun.'"
So Franklin, from whose life picturesqueness and charm were seldom
absent, gave, in his easy manner, to the close of the dry details of the
convention a touch of beautiful and true sentiment which can never be
dissociated from the history of the republic he had helped to create.
FOOTNOTES:
[29] Pp. 218, 231-236.
Appendix to Page 104
FRANKLIN'S DAUGHTER, MRS. FOXCROFT
It was impossible in the text at page 104 to give in full all the
letters which showed that Mrs. Foxcroft was Franklin's daughter. Most of
them, however, were cited. It seems necessary now to give them in full,
because since the book was first published the correctness of the
statement in the text has been questioned; and the reasons for
questioning it have been set forth by a reviewer in a New York newspaper
called _The Nation_. A reply to this review appeared in _Lippincott's
Magazine_ for May, 1899, and this reply, so far as it relates to Mrs.
Foxcroft, was as follows:
The best way to discuss the above statement, and a great deal
more nonsense that the reviewer has written on this subject, is
to give in full the letters and reasons which have led the
members of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania to believe
that a certain manuscript letter in the possession of the
society showed that Franklin had an illegitimate daughter.
The letter itself, which Mr. Fisher gives in his book, is
addressed to Franklin at his Craven Street lodgings in London,
and is as follows:
PHILADA. Feby. 2d, 1772.
Dear Sir:
I have the happiness to acquaint you that your daughter was
safely brot to Bed the 20th ulto. and presented me with a
sweet little girl, they are both in good spirits and are
likely to do very well.
I was seized with a Giddyness in my head the Day before
yesterday as I had 20 oz. of blood taken from me and took
physick wch does not seem in the least to have relieved me.
I am hardly able to write this. Mrs. F. Joins me in best
affections to yourself and compts to Mrs. Stevenson and Mr.
and Mrs. Huson.
I am Dr Sir
yrs affectionately
JOHN FOXCROFT.
Mrs. Franklin, Mrs. Bache, little Ben & Family at Burlington
are all well. I had a letter from yr. Govr. yesterday.
J. F.
It is to be observed that the above letter is an entirely serious one
from beginning to end; there is no attempt to joke or make sport, as
some of Franklin's correspondents did; and the first sentence in the
letter states that the writer's wife was Franklin's daughter and that
she had given birth to a girl. The letter is apparently written to
announce that event to Franklin. Such a statement, made by a man about
his wife, is certainly deserving of serious consideration. Would he on
such an occasion and in such a manner have said that she was Franklin's
daughter unless he firmly believed that she was?
If she was Franklin's daughter, as her husband describes her, she must
have been illegitimate, for it is well known that Franklin's only
legitimate daughter was Mrs. Sarah Bache.
John Foxcroft, the writer of the letter, is well known as the deputy
postmaster of Philadelphia at that time, and Franklin was
postmaster-general of the Colonies. Foxcroft and Franklin were close
friends and often corresponded on business matters. We shall give,
therefore, the letters of Franklin to Foxcroft in which he refers to
Mrs. Foxcroft as his daughter, and we shall give them in full, so that
the connection can be seen. Some of these letters are in the collection
of Franklin's papers in the State Department at Washington, and have
been copied from that source. Others are from the collection of the
American Philosophical Society at Philadelphia, and one or two can be
found in Bigelow's "Works of Franklin."
American Philosophical Society Collection, vol. xlv., No. 46:
LONDON, Feb. 4, 1772.
MR. FOXCROFT,
Dear Friend
I have written two or three small letters to you since my return
from Ireland and Scotland. I now have before me your favours of
Oct. 1, Nov. 5 and Nov. 13.
Mr. Todd has not yet shown me that which you wrote to him about
the New Colony, tho he mentioned it and will let me see it, I
suppose, when I call on him. I told you in one of mine, that he
had advanced for your share what has been paid by others, tho I
was ready to [torn] and shall in the whole Affair take the same
care of your interests as of my own. You take notice that Mr.
Wharton's friends will not allow me _any Merit_ in this
transaction, but insist _the Whole_ is owing to his superior
Abilities. It is a common error in Friends when they would extol
their Friend to make comparison and depreciate the merit of
others. It was not necessary for his Friends to do so in this
case. Mr. Wharton will in truth have a good deal of Merit in the
Affair if it succeeds, he having been exceedingly active and
industrious in soliciting it, and in drawing up Memorials and
Papers to support the Application, remove objections &c. But tho
I have not been equally active (it not being thought proper that
I should appear much in the solicitation since I became a little
obnoxious to the Ministry on acct. of my Letters to America) yet
I suppose my Advice may have been thought of some use since it
has been asked in every step, and I believe that being longer
and better known here than Mr. Wharton, I may have lent some
weight to his Negotiations by joining in the Affair, from the
greater confidence men are apt to place in one they know than in
a stranger. However, as I neither ask or expect any particular
consideration for any service I may have done and only think I
ought to escape censure, I shall not enlarge on this invidious
topic. Let us all do our endeavours, in our several capacities,
for the common Service, and if one has the ability or
opportunity of doing more for his Friends than another let him
think that a happiness and be satisfied.
The Business is not yet quite completed and as many Things
happen between the Cup and the Lip, perhaps there may be nothing
of this kind for Friends to dispute about. For if no body should
receive any Benefit there would be no scrambling for the Honour.
Stavers is in the wrong to talk of my promising him the Rider's
Place again. I only told him that I would (as he requested it)
recommend him to Mr. Hubbard to be replaced if it could be done
without impropriety or inconveniency. This I did & the rather as
I had always understood him to have been a good honest punctual
Rider. His behaviour to you entitles him to no Favour, and I
believe any Application he may make here will be to little
purpose.
In yours from N York of July 3 you mention your intention of
purchasing a Bill to send hither as soon as you return home from
your journey. I have not since received any from you, which I
only take notice of to you, that if you have sent one you may
not blame me for not acknowledging the Receipt of it.
In mine of April 20 I explained to you what I had before
mentioned that in settling our private Account I had paid you
the sum of 389£ (or thereabouts) in my own Wrong, having before
paid it for you to the General Post Office. I hope that since
you have received your Books and looked over the Accounts you
are satisfied of this. I am anxious for your Answer upon it, the
sum being large and what cannot prudently for you or me be left
long without an Adjustment.
My Love to my Daughter and compliments to your Brother, I am
ever my dear Friend
Yours most affectionately
B FRANKLIN
The above letter is taken from the copy kept by Franklin in his own
handwriting in the collection of the American Philosophical Society.
The same letter, with some verbal differences and without the last
clause relating to the daughter, appears in Bigelow's "Works of
Franklin," vol. iv., p. 473.
Library of State Department, Washington, 11 R, 8:
LONDON, Oct. 7, 1772.
MR. FOXCROFT,
Dear Sir--
I had no line from you by this last Packet, but find with
Pleasure by yours to Mr. Todd that you and yours are well.
The affair of the Patent is in good Train and we hope, if new
Difficulties unexpected do not arise, we may get thro' it as
soon as the Board meet. We are glad you made no Bargain [torn]
your Share and hope none of our Partners [torn] do any such
thing; for the Report of such a Bargain before the Business is
completed might overset the whole.
Mr. Colden has promised by this Packet that we shall certainly
have the Accounts by the next. If they do not come I think we
shall be blamed, and he will be superseded; For their Lordships
our masters are incensed with the long Delay.
I hope you have by this time examined our private Accounts as
you promised, and satisfyd yourself that I did, as I certainly
did, pay you that Ballance of about 389£ in my own wrong. It
would relieve me of some uneasiness to have the Matter settled
between us, as it is a Sum of Importance and in case of Death
might be not so easily understood as while we are both living.
With love to my Daughter and best Wishes of Prosperity to you
both, and to the little one, I am ever my dear Friend
Yours most affectionately,
B. FRANKLIN
Library of State Department, Washington, 11 R, 12:
LONDON Nov 3 1772
MR. FOXCROFT
Dear Sir
I received your Favour of June 22d by Mr. Finlay and shall be
glad of an opportunity of rendering him any service on your
Recommendation. There does not at present appear to be any
Disposition in the Board to appoint a Riding Surveyor, nor does
Mr. Finlay seem desirous of such an Employment. Everything at
the Office remains as when I last wrote only the Impatience for
the Accounts seems increasing. I hope they are in the October
Packet now soon expected agreeable to Mr. Colden's last
promise.
I spent a Fortnight lately at West Wycomb with our good master
Lord Le Despencer and left him well.
The Board has begun to act again and I hope our Business will
again go forward.
My love to my Daughter concludes from
Your affectionate Friend
and humble servant
B. F.
There is a letter to Foxcroft in the Library of the State Department,
Washington, 11 R, 8, dated London, December 2, 1772, which need not
perhaps be given in full, because Franklin sends love to his daughter
and then crosses it out as follows:
I can now only add my Love to my Daughter and best Wishes of
Happiness to you and yours from Dear Friend
Yours most affectionately
B. FRANKLIN.