rier against the instability of legislative assemblies. He suggested the idea of requiring three-fourths of each House to repeal laws where the President should not concur. He had no great reliance on the revisionary power, as the Executive was now to be constituted (elected by Congress.) The Legislature will contrive to soften down the President. He recited the history of paper emissions, and the perseverance of the legislative assemblies in repeating them, with all the distressing effects of such measures before their eyes. Were the National Legislature formed, and a war was now to break out, this ruinous expedient would be again resorted to, if not guarded against. The requiring three-fourths to repeal would, though not a complete remedy, prevent the hasty passage of laws, and the frequency of those repeals which destroy faith in the public, and which are among our greatest calami

ties.

Mr. DICKINSON was strongly impressed with the remark of Mr. MERCER, as to the power of the Judges to set aside the law. He thought no such power ought to exist. He was, at the same time, at a loss what expedient to substitute. The Justiciary of Arragon, he observed, became by degrees the law-giver.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS suggested the expedient of an absolute negative in the Executive. He could not agree that the Judiciary, which was part of the Executive, should be bound to say, that a direct violation of the Constitution was law. A control over the Legislature might have its inconveniences. But view the danger on the other side. The most

virtuous citizens will often, as members of a Legislative body, concur in measures which afterwards, in their private capacity, they will be ashamed of. Encroachments of the popular branch of the Government ought to be guarded against. The Ephori at Sparta became in the end absolute. The Report of the Council of Censors in Pennsylvania points out the many invasions of the Legislative department on the Executive, numerous as the latter* is, within the short term of seven years; and in a State where a strong party is opposed to the Constitution, and watching every occasion of turning the public resentments against it. If the Executive be overturned by the popular branch, as happened in England, the tyranny of one man will ensue. In Rome, where the aristocracy overturned the throne, the consequence was different. He enlarged on the tendency of the Legislative authority to usurp on the Executive, and wished the section to be postponed, in order to consider of some more effectual check than requiring two-thirds only to overrule the negative of the Executive.

Mr. SHERMAN. Can one man be trusted better than all the others, if they all agree? This was neither wise nor safe. He disapproved of judges meddling in politics and parties. We have gone far enough in forming the negative, as it now stands.

Mr. CARROLL. When the negative to be overruled by two-thirds only was agreed to, the quorum was not fixed. He remarked that as a majority was now to be the quorum, seventeen in the larger, and

The Executive consisted at that time of about twenty members.

eight in the smaller, house, might carry points. The advantage that might be taken of this seemed to call for greater impediments to improper laws. He thought the controlling power, however, of the Executive, could not be well decided, till it was seen how the formation of that department would be finally regulated. He wished the consideration of the matter to be postponed.

Mr. GORHAM saw no end to these difficulties and postponements. Some could not agree to the form of government, before the powers were defined. Others could not agree to the powers till it was seen how the government was to be formed. He thought a majority as large a quorum as was necessary. It was the quorum almost every where fixed in the United States.

Mr. WILSON, after viewing the subject with all the coolness and attention possible, was most apprehensive of a dissolution of the Government from the Legislature swallowing up all the other powers. He remarked, that the prejudices against the Executive resulted from a misapplication of the adage, that the parliament was the palladium of liberty. Where the Executive was really formidable, king and tyrant were naturally associated in the minds of people; not legislature and tyranny. But where the Executive was not formidable, the two last were most properly associated. After the destruction of the King in Great Britain, a more pure and unmixed tyranny sprang up, in the Parliament than had been exercised by the monarch. He insisted that we had not guarded against the danger on this side, by a

sufficient self-defensive power, either to the Executive or Judiciary Department.

Mr. RUTLEDGE was strenuous against postponing; and complained much of the tediousness of the proceedings.

Mr. ELLSWORTH held the same language. We grow more and more sceptical as we proceed. If we do not decide soon, we shall be unable to come to any decision.

The question for postponement passed in the negative,-Delaware and Maryland only being in the affirmative.

Mr. WILLIAMSON moved to change, "two-thirds of each House," into "three-fourths," as requisite to overrule the dissent of the President. He saw no danger in this, and preferred giving the power to the President alone, to admitting the Judges into the business of legislation.

Mr. WILSON Seconds the motion; referring to and repeating the ideas of Mr. CARROLL.

On this motion for three-fourths, instead of twothirds; it passed in the affirmative,-Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, aye-6; New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Georgia, no-4; Pennsylvania, divided.

Mr. MADISON, observing that if the negative of the President was confined to bills, it would be evaded by acts under the form and name of Resolutions, votes, &c., proposed that "or resolve," should be added after "bill," in the beginning of section 13, with an exception as to votes of adjournment, &c. After a short and rather confused conversation on the subject, the question was put and rejected, the VOL. I.-84 *

votes being as follows,-Massachusetts, Delaware, North Carolina, aye-3; New Hampshire, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, no-8.

"Ten days (Sundays excepted)," instead of "seven," were allowed to the President for returning bills with his objections,-New Hampshire and Massachusetts only voting against it.

The thirteenth Section of Article 6, as amended was then agreed to. 310

Adjourned.

THURSDAY, AUGUST 16TH.

In Convention,-Mr. RANDOLPH, having thrown into a new form the motion putting votes, resolutions, &c. on a footing with bills, renewed it as follows"Every order, resolution, or vote, to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment, and in the cases hereinafter mentioned) shall be presented to the President for his revision; and before the same shall have force, shall be approved by him, or, being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill."

Mr. SHERMAN thought it unnecessary, except as to votes taking money out of the treasury, which might be provided for in another place.

On the question as moved by Mr. RANDOLPH, it was agreed to,-New Hampshire, Connecticut, Penn