deemed by the collective body necessary to be embodied in the Constitution, they would be enabled, even if afterwards subdivided into committees, to act with greater expedition and with greater intelligence; that it is also no slight recommendation of the committee of the whole, that on account of its freedom from the stringent rules that hamper the Convention, and of the practice which usually prevails of not reporting fully, if at all, the speeches made in that committee, men unused to public debate are enticed from their benches, and encouraged to contribute their wisdom to the common stock; that it is also well not to forget, as one inducement to proceed in committee of the whole, that in all great legislative contests for freedom, the "Grand Committee," the committee of the whole, has been the instrument by which victory has been achieved; that the crowning argument, however, in favor of this committee, is, that if recourse be had to the alternative, the appointment of one or more select committees, it is difficult, if not practically impossible, to withstand their influence, or to modify their reports. A select committee naturally comprises the best talent in the house. When a report is brought in by it, pride of opinion leads it to defend its offspring, and this its skill and experience generally enable it to do successfully. In a free and unreported debate, however, in committee of the whole, in which the Constitution is taken up and read section by section, commented upon, and amended, no such danger need be apprehended. It is the opinion formally announced and published to the world, not the casual observation, unreported, and confessedly not mature, that its author defends with vigor and pertinacity.

§ 291. The objections to proceeding in committee of the whole, on the other hand, resolve themselves mainly into a question of time. It is said, that if every member of a Convention is permitted to introduce his scheme of a Constitution, or his proposition of amendment, with liberty and encouragement to discuss each and all of them ad libitum, the task of framing a Constitution would be endless; and not only so, but such a freedom of making and discussing propositions, instead of tending to harmonize the views of members, would introduce an element of division; that what a single member proposes in committee of the whole, is the conclusion of a single

mind, in which no other mind may agree; whilst, on the other hand, the report of a committee of leading members is, at least, the consentaneous opinion of many minds, and probably will be that of the whole Convention when it has been brought by discussion to understand the subject; that it is not always true that the wisdom or the experience of a Convention will be equal to that of a few of its leading minds, when we speak of it as embodying itself in action, whatever may be the case in relation to counsel; in a Convention there will be, of course, a greater total of wisdom and talent than in any committee of it less than the whole; but in those qualities a small committee, or a single person, may surpass the residue of the body, and yet it may go for nothing, unless the majority be very tractable. Hence, it is far better that the Convention should listen to the matured opinions of its few leading minds before committing itself by expressing its own; that the committee of the whole undoubtedly has its eminent uses in a Convention, but it is rather after than before the reports of standing or special committees have come in.1

§ 292. In favor of proceeding by committees charged severally with distinct parts of the Constitution, it has been urged, that it is the appropriate duty of a committee to prepare and lay out business for the deliberative body appointing it, and that neither a Convention nor a legislature can successfully proceed without them; that they contribute essentially to simplify the complex matters referred to them, and thus to expedite the labors of the Convention; that a committee chosen from a numerous assembly, and embracing a variety of talent and experience, will be able readily to prognosticate the determinations of the Convention, by divining its wishes, which are quite likely to accord with those of any fairly selected committee; that this consideration disposes of the objection, founded, perhaps, in part, upon the observed accordance between the votes of a numerous body and the recommendations of a committee of its leading members, namely, that committees are undesirable as possessing too

1 For full discussions of the advantages and disadvantages of proceeding in committee of the whole, in the first instance, see the Debates in the following Conventions Kentucky, 1849, pp. 39-54; New York, 1846, pp. 20-37; California, 1849, pp. 22–24; Michigan, 1850, pp. 20, 21; Ohio, 1850, pp. 47, 48; Pennsylvania, 1837, Vol. I. pp. 65, 66, 77, 95.

:

much influence, and as too much inclined to use that influence to secure the adoption of their own recommendations; that, thus viewed, committees do not so much dictate to those who appoint them, as discover to them in a few moments what is likely to be their own better judgment after floundering, perhaps, for weeks or months, in useless discussion; that, at all events, there need be no fear of excessive influence in committees, for the reason that, when their reports come in, they are open to debate and amendment if not satisfactory, precisely like propositions made by individual members, and so are likely to receive modification, if prejudiced or unreasonable.

§ 293. The objections to the use of committees have already, in part, been suggested. It is contended, that their reports are likely to want consistency and congruity, when considered as parts of a whole; that a Constitution built up by the action of a large number of committees is liable to lack provisions of essential importance, through inadvertent omissions; that however that may be, the labor of melting down into a consistent unit the heterogeneous reports of many committees, of discovering and supplying defects, and trimming down redundancies, is not less than that so much apprehended in committee of the whole; but it is chiefly objected, that when such committees do the work, the Convention loses its power of control over it; they will be organized in such a manner as that the talent and influence to be found in the Convention will be brought to bear upon particular propositions, and that individuals will be powerless to countervail them.

§ 294. The reasonings in favor of the mode of proceeding in committee of the whole, without standing committees, of which I have given an outline, however plausible they seem, have failed, in every case, to convince the Conventions to which they were addressed, and those bodies have adopted, as have all the Conventions but one whose proceedings have reached me, the mode of proceeding by one or more standing committees, in preference to it. The Pennsylvania Convention of 1789, alone pursued the other plan, taking up the Constitution of 1776 in committee of the whole, and inquiring, during a large part of the session, "whether and wherein " it required alteration or amendment.1

1 Jour. Pa. Conv. 1789, p. 143, et seq. In the North Carolina Convention of 1835, Mr. Speight said he believed the Convention which framed the old Consti

§ 295. The precedents established in the various Conventions in relation to the number of committees, and of members apportioned to each, have been far from uniform. With the exception of the ten Conventions already specified, in which a single committee was raised to draft and report a Constitution, and of the Pennsylvania Convention of 1789, in which, as I have just stated, the subject was taken up in committee of the whole, all the Conventions ever held, so far as I am advised, have appointed several committees, the least number being four, and the highest thirty-one. The number of committees has commonly been determined by the views entertained by members as to the number of distinct parts of the Constitution, or separate topics embraced in it, needing revision. To the committees charged with these, is commonly added a number of business committees, as on Printing for the Convention, and the like. In determining the number of members in each committee, regard is generally had to the importance of the subjects committed, and the number of delegates in the body, the work being commonly so apportioned as to give each member some share in the committee-labor.

§ 296. How the number of standing committees, and of the members of which each shall consist, shall be determined, has in many cases been the subject of vehement discussion. This has been the consequence mainly of jealousies between the friends and the opponents of the reforms contemplated in calling the

tution, first proceeded in committee of the whole, and then made a reference of the different subjects to their appropriate committees. Deb. N. C. Conv. 1835, p. 17.

one on

1 The Virginia Convention of 1829 had four Standing Committees, each of the departments, Legislative, Executive, and Judicial, and one on the residue of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. The Illinois Convention of 1862 had thirty-one committees, upon the following subjects: Executive Department; Legislative Department; Judiciary; Judicial Circuits; Bill of Rights; Congressional Apportionment; Legislative Apportionment; Federal Relations; Banks and Currency; Revenue; Finance; Railroad Corporations; Counties; Municipal Corporations; Miscellaneous Corporations; Education ; Militia and Military Affairs; Elections and Right of Suffrage; Schedule; Revision and Adjustment of the Articles of the Constitution; Internal Improvements; Roads and Internal Navigation; Public Accounts and Expenditures; Township Organization; State Institutions, Buildings, and Grounds; Canal and Canal Lands; Penitentiary; Retrenchment and Reform; Manufactures and Agriculture; Printing and Binding; and Miscellaneous Subjects.

Conventions. In the Pennsylvania Convention of 1837, the New York Convention of 1846, and the Kentucky Convention of 1849, the mode of determining the committees, which was finally adopted, was vigorously opposed as calculated to favor particular views of reform. That mode was to appoint a select committee to report generally upon the best mode of proceeding, including such a scheme of committees as should in its view cover the whole ground of needed changes in the Constitution. This course evidently remits the entire question of methods and instrumentalities, in the first instance, to a committee of the Convention, with the well understood purpose of conceding to its recommendations, unless clearly unjust or impracticable, a decisive influence. It has, nevertheless, been generally deemed the most satisfactory one that could be adopted, though in two of the three cases in which it was most largely discussed, another course was pursued. It was followed in the two Virginia Conventions, held in 1829 and 1850; the last two of New York, in 1821, and 1846; the North Carolina Convention of 1835; the New Jersey Convention of 1844; that of Missouri, of 1845; the Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana Conventions of 1850; that of Wisconsin, of 1848; the two Minnesota Conventions, and the Iowa Convention held in 1857; and the Massachusetts Convention of 1853. Where this mode is pursued, the preliminary committee is usually appointed immediately after the permanent organization of the Convention, and commonly consists of one or more members from each senatorial or other political division of the State. In its report, this committee generally contents itself with recommending a list of standing committees based on its view of the prospective work of the Convention, though sometimes there is added a resolution relating to the disposition of propositions of amendment introduced in Convention. Where this mode is not pursued, the committees are commonly appointed either on the motion of some member,1 or upon the recommendation of the committee on rules, a list of them in such cases forming a part of its report.2

1 They were thus appointed in the Louisiana Conventions of 1844, 1852, and 1864; in that of Kentucky of 1849, Maryland of 1864, and Massachusetts of 1820.

2 This was the case in the Pennsylvania Convention of 1837, and in those of Illinois, of 1847 and 1862. The Maryland Convention of 1850 appointed Standing Committees, but upon whose recommendation does not appear.