M^r Rutlidge moved to postpone the 6^{th} Resolution, defining the
powers of Cong^s in order to take up the 7 & 8 which involved the most
fundamental points; the rules of suffrage in the 2 branches which was
agreed to nem. con.
A question being proposed on the Resol: 7; declaring that the suffrage
in the first branch sh^d be according to an equitable ratio.
M^r L. Martin[115] contended at great length and with great eagerness
that the General Gov^t was meant merely to preserve the State
Govern^{ts} not to govern individuals: that its powers ought to be kept
within narrow limits: that if too little power was given to it, more
might be added; but that if too much, it could never be resumed: that
individuals as such have little to do but with their own States; that
the Gen^l Gov^t has no more to apprehend from the States composing the
Union, while it pursues proper measures, that Gov^t over individuals has
to apprehend from its subjects: that to resort to the Citizens at large
for their sanction to a new Govern^t will be throwing them back into a
state of Nature; that the dissolution of the State Gov^{ts} is involved
in the nature of the process; that the people have no right to do this
without the consent of those to whom they have delegated their power for
State purposes: through their tongues only they can speak, through their
ears, only can hear: that the States have shewn a good disposition to
comply with the Acts of Cong^s, weak, contemptibly weak as that body has
been; and have failed through inability alone to comply: that the
heaviness of the private debts, and the waste of property during the
war, were the chief causes of this inability; that he did not conceive
the instances mentioned by M^r Madison of compacts between V^a & M^d
between P^a & N. J. or of troops raised by Mass^{ts} for defence against
the Rebels, to be violations of the articles of confederation--that an
equal vote in each State was essential to the federal idea, and was
founded in justice & freedom, not merely in policy: that tho' the States
may give up this right of sovereignty, yet they had not, and ought not:
that the States like individuals were in a State of nature equally
sovereign & free. In order to prove that individuals in a State of
Nature are equally free & independent he read passages from Locke,
Vattel, Lord Summers--Priestly. To prove that the case is the same with
States till they surrender their equal sovereignty, he read other
passages in Locke & Vattel, and also Rutherford: that the States being
equal cannot treat or confederate so as to give up an equality of votes
without giving up their liberty: that the propositions on the table were
a system of slavery for 10 States: that as V^a Mass^{ts} & P^a have
42/90 of the votes they can do as they please without a miraculous Union
of the other ten: that they will have nothing to do, but to gain over
one of the ten to make them compleat masters of the rest; that they can
then appoint an Execut^e & Judiciary & legislate for them as they
please: that there was & would continue a natural predilection &
partiality in men for their own States; that the States, particularly
the smaller, would never allow a negative to be exercised over their
laws: that no State in Ratifying the Confederation had objected to the
equality of votes; that the complaints at present run not ag^{st} this
equality but the want of power: that 16 members from V^a would be more
likely to act in concert than a like number formed of members from
different States: that instead of a junction of the small States as a
remedy, he thought a division of the large States would be more
eligible.--This was the substance of a speech which was continued more
than three hours. He was too much exhausted he said to finish his
remarks, and reminded the House that he should tomorrow, resume them.
[115] "Mr. Martin, the Attorney-General from Maryland, spoke
on this subject upwards of three hours. As his arguments
were too diffuse, and in many instances desultory, it was
not possible to trace him through the whole, or to methodize
his ideas into a systematic or argumentative
arrangement."--Yates, _Secret Proceedings_, etc., 174.
Adj^d.