from large standing armies, it is best to prevent them by an effectuai provision for a good militia.

On the question to agree to Mr. Madison's motion,

New Hampshire, South Carolina, Georgia, (in the printed Journal, Georgia, no,) ay, 3; Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, no, 8.

On the question to agree to the "reserving to the states the ap pointment of the officers," it was agreed to, nem. con.

"and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by the United States,"

New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Mary. land, North Carolina, ay, 7; Delaware, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, no, 4. On the question to agree to article 7, sect. 7, as reported, it passed,

Mr. PINCKNEY urged the necessity of preserving foreign ministers, and other officers of the United States, independent of external influence; and moved to insert, after article 7, sect. 7, the clause following:

"No person holding any office of trust or profit under the United States shall, without the consent of the legislature, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state,”

which passed, nem. con.

Mr. RUTLEDGE moved to amend article 8, to read as follows: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, and all the treaties made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the several states, and of their citizens and inhabitants; and the judges of the several states shall be bound thereby in their decisions, any thing in the constitutions or laws of the several states to the contrary notwithstanding,"

which was agreed to, nem. con.

Article 9 being next for consideration,

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS argued against the appointment of officers by the Senate. He considered the body as too numerous for that purpose, as subject to cabal, and as devoid of responsibility. If judges were to be tried by the Senate, according to a late report of a committee, it was particularly wrong to let the Senate have the filling of vacancies which its own decrees were to create.

Mr. WILSON was of the same opinion, and for like reasons. Article 9 being waived, and article 7, sect. 1, being resumed, Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS moved to strike the following words out of the eighteenth clause, "enforce treaties," as being superfluous, since treaties were to be "laws," which was agreed to,

nem. con.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS moved to alter the first part of the eighteenth clause, so as to read,

"to provide for calling forth the militia, to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions,"

which was agreed to, nem. con.

On the question, then, to agree to the eighteenth clause of article 7, sect. 1, as amended, it passed in the affirmative, nem. con.

Mr. CHARLES PINCKNEY moved to add, as an additional power to be vested in the legislature of the United States,

"to negative all laws passed by the several states, interfering, in the opinion of the legislature, with the general interests and harmony of the Union, provided that two thirds of the members of each House assent to the same."

This principle, he observed, had formerly been agreed to. He considered the precaution as essentially necessary. The objection drawn from the predominance of the large states had been removed by the equality established in the Senate.

Mr. BROOM seconded the proposition.

Mr. SHERMAN thought it unnecessary, the laws of the general government being supreme and paramount to the state laws, according to the plan as it now stands.

Mr. MADISON proposed that it should be committed. He had been, from the beginning, a friend to the principle, but thought the modification might be made better.

Mr. MASON wished to know how the power was to be exercised. Are all laws whatever to be brought up? Is no road nor bridge to be established without the sanction of the general legislature? Is this to sit constantly, in order to receive and revise the state laws? He did not mean, by these remarks, to condemn the expedient, but he was apprehensive that great objections would lie against it.

Mr. WILLIAMSON thought it unnecessary, and, having been already decided, a revival of the question was a waste of time.

Mr. WILSON considered this as the key-stone wanted to complete the wide arch of government we are raising. The power of self-defence had been urged as necessary for the state governments. It was equally necessary for the general government. The firmness of judges is not, of itself, sufficient. Something further is requisite. It will be better to prevent the passage of an improper law, than to declare it void, when passed.

Mr. RUTLEDGE. If nothing else, this alone would damn, and ought to damn, the Constitution. Will any state ever agree to be bound hand and foot in this manner? It is worse than making mere corporations of them, whose by-laws would not be subject to this shackle.

Mr. ELLSWORTH observed, that the power contended for would require, either that all laws of the state legislature should, previously to their taking effect, be transmitted to the general legislature, or be repealable by the latter; or that the state executives should be appointed by the general government, and have a control over the state laws. If the last was meditated, let it be declared.

Mr. PINCKNEY declared, that he thought the state executives ought to be so appointed, with such a control; and that it would be so provided if another Convention should take place.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS did not see the utility or practicability of the proposition of Mr. Pinckney, but wished it to be referred to the consideration of a committee.

Mr. LANGDON was in favor of the proposition. He considered it as resolvable into the question, whether the extent of the nationa! Constitution was to be judged of by the general or the state govern

ments.

On the question for commitment, it passed in the negative.

New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, ay, 5; Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, no, 6. Mr. PINCKNEY then withdrew his proposition.229

The first clause of article 7, sect. 1, being so amended as to read,

"The legislature shall fulfil the engagements and discharge the debts of the United States; and shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises;"

was agreed to.

Mr. BUTLER expressed his dissatisfaction, lest it should compel payment, as well to the blood-suckers who had speculated on the distresses of others, as to those who had fought and bled for their country. He would be ready, he said, to-morrow, to vote for a discrimination between those classes of people; and gave notice that he would move for a reconsideration.

Article 9, sect. 1, being resumed, to wit,

"The Senate of the United States shall have power to make treaties, and to appoint ambassadors and judges of the supreme court, Mr. MADISON observed, that the Senate represented the states alone; and that for this, as well as other obvious reasons, it was proper that the President should be an agent in treaties.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS did not know that he should agree to refer the making of treaties to the Senate at all but for the present would move to add, as an amendment to the section, after " treaties," the following:

"But no treaty shall be binding on the United States which is not ratified by law."

Mr. MADISON suggested the inconvenience of requiring a legal ratification of treaties of alliance, for the purposes of war, &c., &c.

Mr. GORHAM. Many other disadvantages must be experienced, if treaties of peace and all negotiations are to be previously ratified; and if not previously, the ministers would be at a loss how to proceed. What would be the case in Great Britain, if the king were to proceed in this manner? American ministers must go abroad not instructed by the same authority (as will be the case with other ministers) which is to ratify their proceedings.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS. As to treaties of alliance, they will oblige foreign powers to send their ministers here, the very thing we should wish for. Such treaties could not be otherwise made, if his amendment should succeed. In general, he was not solicitous to multiply and facilitate treaties. He wished none to be made with Great Britain, till she should be at war. Then a good bargain might be made with her. So with other foreign powers. The more difficulty in making treaties, the more value will be set on them.

Mr. WILSON. In the most important treaties, the king of Great Britain, being obliged to resort to Parliament for the execution of them, is under the same fetters as the amendment of Mr. Morris will impose on the Senate. It was refused yesterday to permit even the legislature to lay duties on exports. Under the clause without the amendment, the Senate alone can make a treaty requiring all the rice of South Carolina to be sent to some one particular port.

Mr. DICKINSON concurred in the amendment, as most safe and proper, though he was sensible it was unfavorable to the little states, which would otherwise have an equal share in making treaties.

Dr. JOHNSON thought there was something of solecism in saying that the acts of a minister with plenipotentiary powers from one body should depend for ratification on another body. The example of the king of Great Britain was not parallel. Full and complete power was vested in him. If the Parliament should fail to provide the necessary means of execution, the treaty would be violated.

Mr. GORHAM, in answer to Mr. Gouverneur Morris, said, that negotiations on the spot were not to be desired by us; especially, if the whole legislature is to have any thing to do with treaties. It will be generally influenced by two or three men, who will be corrupted by the ambassadors here. In such a government as ours, it is necessary to guard against the government itself being seduced.

Mr. RANDOLPH, observing that almost every speaker had made objections to the clause as it stood, moved, in order to a further consideration of the subject, that the motion of Mr. Gouverneur Morris should be postponed; and on this question, it was lost, the states being equally divided.

New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, ay, 5; Massachusetts, Connecticut, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, no, 5.

On Mr. Gouverneur Morris's motion,

Pennsylvania, ay, 1; Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, no, 8; North Carolina, divided.

The several clauses of article 9, sect. 1, were then separately postponed, after inserting, "and other public ministers," next after "ambassadors."

Mr. MADISON hinted, for consideration, whether a distinction might not be made between different sorts of treaties; allowing the President and Senate to make treaties eventual, and of alliance for limited terms, and requiring the concurrence of the whole legislature in other treaties. 230

The first section of article 9, was finally referred, nem. con., to the committee of five, and the House then adjourned.

FRIDAY, August 24.

In Convention.- Gov. Livingston, from the committee of eleven, to whom were referred the two remaining clauses of the fourth section, and the fifth and sixth sections of the seventh article, delivered in the following report:

"Strike out so much of the fourth section as was referred to the committee, and insert 'The migration or importation of such persons as the several states, now existing, shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the legislature prior to the year 1800; but a tax or duty may be imposed on such migration or importation, at a rate not exceeding the average of the duties laid on imports.'

"The fifth section to remain as in the report.

"The sixth section to be stricken out."

Mr. BUTLER, according to notice, moved that the first clause of article 7, sect. 1, as to the discharge of debts, be reconsidered tomorrow. He dwelt on the division of opinion concerning the domestic debts, and the different pretensions of the different classes of holders.

Gen. PINCKNEY seconded him.

Mr. RANDOLPH wished for a reconsideration, in order to better the expression, and to provide for the case of the state debts as is done by Congress.

On the question for reconsidering,

Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, ay, 7; New Hampshire, Maryland, no, 2; Pennsylvania, North Carolina, absent.

And to-morrow assigned for the reconsideration.

The second and third sections of article 9, being taken up,

Mr. RUTLEDGE said, this provision for deciding controversies between the states was necessary under the Confederation, but will be rendered unnecessary by the national judiciary now to be established; and moved to strike it out.

Dr. JOHNSON seconded the motion.

Mr. SHERMAN concurred. So did Mr. DAYTON.

Mr. WILLIAMSON was for postponing instead of striking out, in order to consider whether this might not be a good provision, in cases where the judiciary were interested, or too closely connected with the parties.

Mr. GORHAM had doubts as to striking out. The judges might be connected with the states being parties. He was inclined to think the mode proposed in the clause would be more satisfactory than to refer such cases to the judiciary.

On the question for postponing the second and third sections, it passed in the negative,

New Hampshire, North Carolina, Georgia, ay, 3; Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, South Carolina, no, 7; Pennsylvania, absent.

Mr. WILSON urged the striking out, the judiciary being a better provision.

On the question for striking out the second and third sections of article 9,

New Hampshire, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, South Carolina, ay, 8; North Carolina, Georgia, no, 2; Pennsylvania, absent.231

Article 10, sect. 1.

The executive power of the United States shall be vested in a single person. Ilis style shall be The President of the United States of America,' and his title