And that all the larger States
should be unanimously in
the Negative, they would
make Negatives 36
---
In all 43
It is then apparent that the 14 carry the question against the
43, and the minority overpowers the majority, contrary to the
common practice of Assemblies in all Countries and Ages.
The greater States Sir are naturally as unwilling to have their
property left in the disposition of the smaller, as the smaller
are to have theirs in the disposition of the greater. An
honorable gentleman has, to avoid this difficulty, hinted a
proposition of equalizing the States. It appears to me an
equitable one, and I should, for my own part, not be against
such a measure, if it might be found practicable. Formerly,
indeed, when almost every province had a different Constitution,
some with greater others with fewer privileges, it was of
importance to the borderers when their boundaries were
contested, whether by running the division lines, they were
placed on one side or the other. At present when such
differences are done away, it is less material. The Interest of
a State is made up of the interests of its individual members.
If they are not injured, the State is not injured. Small States
are more easily well & happily governed than large ones. If
therefore in such an equal division, it should be found
necessary to diminish Pennsylvania, I should not be averse to
the giving a part of it to N. Jersey, and another to Delaware.
But as there would probably be considerable difficulties in
adjusting such a division; and however equally made at first, it
would be continually varying by the augmentation of inhabitants
in some States, and their fixed proportion in others; and thence
frequent occasion for new divisions, I beg leave to propose for
the consideration of the Committee another mode, which appears
to me to be as equitable, more easily carried into practice, and
more permanent in its nature.
Let the weakest State say what proportion of money or force it
is able and willing to furnish for the general purposes of the
Union.
Let all the others oblige themselves to furnish each an equal
proportion.
The whole of these joint supplies to be absolutely in the
disposition of Congress.
The Congress in this case to be composed of an equal number of
Delegates from each State.
And their decisions to be by the Majority of individual members
voting.
If these joint and equal supplies should on particular occasions
not be sufficient, Let Congress make requisitions on the richer
and more powerful States for further aids, to be voluntarily
afforded, leaving to each State the right of considering the
necessity and utility of the aid desired, and of giving more or
less as it should be found proper.
This mode is not new. It was formerly practised with success by
the British Government with respect to Ireland and the Colonies.
We sometimes gave even more than they expected, or thought just
to accept; and in the last war carried on while we were united,
they gave us back in 5 years a million Sterling. We should
probably have continued such voluntary contributions, whenever
the occasions appeared to require them for the common good of
the Empire. It was not till they chose to force us, and to
deprive us of the merit and pleasure of voluntary contributions
that we refused & resisted. Those contributions however were to
be disposed of at the pleasure of a Government in which we had
no representative. I am therefore persuaded, that they will not
be refused to one in which the Representation shall be equal.
My learned colleague (M^r Wilson) has already mentioned that the
present method of voting by States, was submitted to originally
by Congress, under a conviction of its impropriety, inequality,
and injustice. This appears in the words of their Resolution. It
is of Sep^r 6. 1774. The words are
"Resolved that in determining questions in this Cong^s each
Colony or province shall have one vote: The Cong^s not being
possessed of or at present able to procure materials for
ascertaining the importance of each Colony."
On the question for agreeing to M^r King's and M^r Wilson's motion it
passed in the affirmative.
Mass^{ts} ay. C^t ay. N. Y. no. N. J. no. P^a ay. Del. no.
M^d div^d. V^a ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay.
It was then moved by M^r Rutlidge, 2^{ded} by M^r Butler to add to the
words "equitable ratio of representation" at the end of the motion just
agreed to, the words "according to the quotas of contribution." On
motion of M^r Wilson seconded by M^r Pinkney, this was postponed; in
order to add, after the words "equitable ratio of representation" the
words following: "in proportion to the whole number of white & other
free Citizens & inhabitants of every age sex & condition including those
bound to servitude for a term of years and three fifths of all other
persons not comprehended in the foregoing description, except Indians
not paying taxes, in each State," this being the rule in the Act of
Congress agreed to by eleven States, for apportioning quotas of revenue
on the States, and requiring a Census only every 5, 7, or 10 years.
M^r Gerry thought property not the rule of representation. Why then
sh^d the blacks, who were property in the South, be in the rule of
representation more than the Cattle & horses of the North.[75]
[75] After Gerry spoke, according to Yates, "Mr. Madison was of
opinion at present, to fix the standard of representation,
and let the detail be the business of a
sub-committee."--_Secret Proceedings_, p. 116.
On the question,--Mass: Con: N. Y. Pen: Mary^d Virg^a N. C. S. C. &
Geo: were in the affirmative: N. J. & Del: in the negative.
M^r Sherman moved that a question be taken whether each State shall have
one vote in the 2^d branch. Every thing he said depended on this. The
smaller States would never agree to the plan on any other principle than
an equality of suffrage in this branch. M^r Elsworth[76] seconded the
motion.
[76] "M^r Elsworth is a Judge of the Supreme Court in
Connecticut;--he is Gentleman of a clear, deep, and copius
understanding; eloquent, and connected in public debate; and
always attentive to his duty. He is very happy in a reply,
and choice in selecting such parts of his adversary's
arguments as he finds make the strongest impressions,--in
order to take off the force of them, so as to admit the
power of his own. M^r Elsworth is about 37 years of age, a
Man much respected for his integrity, and venerated for his
abilities."--Pierce's Notes, _Am. Hist. Rev._, iii., 326.
On the question for allowing each State one vote in the 2^d branch,
Mass^{ts} no. Con^t ay. N. Y. ay. N. J. ay. P^a no. Del. ay.
M^d ay. V^a no. N. C. no. S. C. no. Geo. no.
M^r Wilson & M^r Hamilton moved that the right of suffrage in the 2^d
branch ought to be according to the same rule as in the 1^{st} branch.
On this question for making the ratio of representation the same in the
2^d as in the 1^{st} branch it passed in the affirmative;
Mass^{ts} ay. Con^t no. N. Y. no. N. J. no. P^a ay. Del. no.
M^d no. V^a ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay.
Resol: 11, for guarantying Republican Gov^t & territory to each State,
being considered--the words "or partition," were, on motion of M^r
Madison added, after the words "voluntary junction;"
Mas. N. Y. P. V^a N. C. S. C. G. ay. Con: N. J. Del: M^d no.
M^r Read disliked the idea of guarantying territory. It abetted the idea
of distinct States w^{ch} would be a perpetual source of discord. There
can be no cure for this evil but in doing away States altogether and
uniting them all into one great Society.
Alterations having been made in the Resolution, making it read, "that a
Republican Constitution & its existing laws ought to be guaranteed to
each State by the U. States," the whole was agreed to nem. con.[77]
[77] Yates attributes this amendment to Madison. "Mr.
Madison moved an amendment, to add to or alter the
resolution as follows: The republican constitutions and the
existing laws of each state, to be guaranteed by the United
States."--_Secret Proceedings_, etc., 116.
Resolution 13. for amending the national Constitution hereafter without
consent of the Nat^l Legislature being considered, Several members did
not see the necessity of the Resolution at all, nor the propriety of
making the consent of the Nat^l Legisl. unnecessary.
Col. Mason urged the necessity of such a provision. The plan now to be
formed will certainly be defective, as the Confederation has been found
on trial to be. Amendments therefore will be necessary, and it will be
better to provide for them, in an easy, regular and Constitutional way
than to trust to chance and violence. It would be improper to require
the consent of the Nat^l Legislature, because they may abuse their
power, and refuse their consent on that very account. The opportunity
for such an abuse, may be the fault of the Constitution calling for
amendm^t.
M^r Randolph enforced these arguments.
The words, "without requiring the consent of the Nat^l Legislature" were
postponed. The other provision in the clause passed nem. con.
Resolution 14. requiring oaths from the members of the State Gov^{ts} to
observe the Nat^l Constitution & laws, being considered,[78]
[78] "Mr. Williamson. This resolve will be unnecessary, as the
union will become the law of the land."--Yates, _Secret
Proceedings_, etc., 117.
M^r Sherman opposed it as unnecessarily intruding into the State
jurisdictions.
M^r Randolph considered it necessary to prevent that competition between
the National Constitution & laws & those of the particular States, which
had already been felt. The officers of the States are already under oath
to the States. To preserve a due impartiality they ought to be equally
bound to the Nat^l Gov^t. The Nat^l authority needs every support we can
give it. The Executive & Judiciary of the States, notwithstanding their
nominal independence on the State Legislatures are in fact, so dependent
on them, that unless they be brought under some tie to the Nat^l System,
they will always lean too much to the State systems, whenever a contest
arises between the two.
M^r Gerry did not like the clause. He thought there was as much reason
for requiring an oath of fidelity to the States from Nat^l officers, as
vice versa.
M^r Luther Martin moved to strike out the words requiring such an oath
from the State officers, viz "within the several States," observing that
if the new oath should be contrary to that already taken by them it
would be improper; if coincident the oaths already taken will be
sufficient.