to two members only; and in the other, to not more than fiveaccording to the numbers of which the legislature is at first to be composed. It is the interest, moreover, of the distant states, to prefer three fourths, as they will be oftenest absent, and need the interposing check of the President. The excess, rather than the deficiency, of laws was to be dreaded. The example of New York shows that two thirds is not sufficient to answer the purpose.

Mr. HAMILTON added his testimony to the fact, that two thirds in New York had been ineffectual, either where a popular object, or a legislative faction, operated; of which he mentioned some in

stances.

Mr. GERRY. It is necessary to consider the danger on the other side also. Two thirds will be a considerable, perhaps a proper, security. Three fourths puts too much in the power of a few men. The primary object of the revisionary check of the President is, not to protect the general interest, but to defend his own department. If three fourths be required, a few senators, having hopes from the nomination of the President to offices, will combine with him, and impede proper laws. Making the Vice-President speaker increases the

danger.

Mr. WILLIAMSON was less afraid of too few than of too many laws. He was, most of all, afraid that the repeal of bad laws might be rendered too difficult, by requiring three fourths to overcome the dissent of the President.

Col. MASON had always considered this as one of the most exceptionable parts of the system. As to the numerical argument of Mr. Gouverneur Morris, little arithmetic was necessary to understand that three fourths was more than two thirds, whatever the numbers of the legislature might be. The example of New York depended on the real merits of the laws. The gentlemen citing it had, no doubt, given their own opinions. But, perhaps, there were others of opposite opinions, who could equally paint the abuses on the other side. His leading view was, to guard against too great an impediment to the repeal of laws.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS dwelt on the danger to the public interest, from the instability of laws, as the most to be guarded against. On the other side, there could be little danger. If one man in office will not consent where he ought, every fourth year another can be substituted. This term was not too long for fair experiments. Many good laws are not tried long enough to prove their merit. This is often the case with new laws opposed to old habits. The inspection laws of Virginia and Maryland, to which all are now so much attached, were unpopular at first.

Mr. PINCKNEY was warmly in opposition to three fourths, as putting a dangerous power in the hands of a few senators, headed by the President.

Mr. MADISON. When three fourths was agreed to, the President was to be elected by the legislature, and for seven years. He

VOL. V.

68

is now to be elected by the people, and for four years. The object of the revisionary power is twofold, first, to defend the executive rights; secondly, to prevent popular or factious injustice. It was an important principle, in this and in the state constitutions, to check legislative injustice and encroachments. The experience of the states had demonstrated that their checks are insufficient. We must compare the danger from the weakness of two thirds with the danger from the strength of three fourths. He thought, on the whole, the former was the greater. As to the difficulty of repeals, it was probable that, in doubtful cases, the policy would soon take place of limiting the duration of laws, so as to require renewal, instead of repeal. The reconsideration being agreed to,

On the question to insert two thirds, in place of three fourths,

Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, (Mr. M'Henry, no,) North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, ay, 6; Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, (Gen. Washington, Mr. Blair, Mr. Madison, no; Col. Mason, Mr. Randolph, ay,) no, 4; New Hampshire, divided.

Mr. WILLIAMSON observed to the House, that no provision was yet made for juries in civil cases, and suggested the necessity of it. Mr. GORHAM. It is not possible to discriminate equity cases from those in which juries are proper. The representatives of the people may be safely trusted in this matter.

Mr. GERRY urged the necessity of juries to guard against corrupt judges. He proposed that the committee last appointed should be directed to provide a clause for securing the trial by juries.

Col. MASON perceived the difficulty mentioned by Mr. Gorham. The jury cases cannot be specified. A general principle laid down, on this and some other points, would be sufficient. He wished the plan had been prefaced with a bill of rights, and would second a motion, if made for the purpose. It would give great quiet to the people, and, with the aid of the state declarations, a bill might be prepared in a few hours.

Mr. GERRY concurred in the idea, and moved for a committee to prepare a bill of rights.

Col. MASON seconded the motion.

Mr. SHERMAN was for securing the rights of the people, where requisite. The state declarations of rights are not repealed by this Constitution, and, being in force, are sufficient. There are many cases, where juries are proper, which cannot be discriminated. The legislature may be safely trusted.

Col. MASON. The laws of the United States are to be paramount to state bills of rights.

On the question for a committee to prepare a bill of rights,—

New Hampshire, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, ay, 5; Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, no, 5; Massachusetts, absent.: 02

The clause relating to exports being reconsidered, at the instance of Col. MASON, who urged that the restrictions on the states would prevent the incidental duties necessary for the inspection and safe

keeping of their produce, and be ruinous to the staple states, as he called the five Southern States, he moved as follows:

"provided, nothing herein contained shall be construed to restrain any state from laying duties upon exports for the sole purpose of defraying the charges of inspect ing, packing, storing, and indemnifying the losses in keeping the commodities in the care of public officers, before exportation."

In answer to a remark which he anticipated, to wit, that the states could provide for these expenses by a tax in some other way, he stated the inconvenience of requiring the planters to pay a tax before the actual delivery for exportation.

Mr. MADISON seconded the motion. It would, at least, be harmless, and might have the good effect of restraining the states to bona fide duties for the purpose, as well as of authorizing explicitly such duties; though, perhaps, the best guard against an abuse of the power of the states on this subject was the right in the general government to regulate trade between state and state.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS saw no objection to the motion. He did not consider the dollar per hogshead laid on tobacco, in Virginia, as a duty on exportation, as no drawback would be allowed on tobacco taken out of the warehouse for internal consumption.

Mr. DAYTON was afraid the proviso would enable Pennsylvania to tax New Jersey, under the idea of inspection duties, of which Pennsylvania would judge.

Mr. GORHAM and Mr. LANGDON thought there would be no security, if the proviso should be agreed to, for the states exporting through other states, against these oppressions of the latter. How was redress to be obtained, in case duties should be laid beyond the purpose expressed?

Mr. MADISON. There will be the same security as in other cases. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court must be the source of redress. So far, only, had provision been made by the plan against injurious acts of the states. His own opinion was, that this was insufficient. A negative on the state laws alone could meet all the shapes which these could assume. But this had been overruled.

Mr. FITZSIMONS. Incidental duties on tobacco and flour never have been, and never can be, considered as duties on exports.

Mr. DICKINSON. Nothing will save the states in the situation of New Hampshire, New Jersey, Delaware, &c., from being oppressed by their neighbors, but requiring the assent of Congress to inspection duties. He moved that this assent should accordingly be required.

Mr. BUTLER seconded the motion. Adjourned.

THURSDAY, September 13. In Convention. Col. MASON. He had moved, without success, for a power to make sumptuary regulations. He had not yet lost sight of his object. After descanting on the extravagance of our manners, the excessive consumption of foreign superfluities, and the necessity of restricting it, as well with economical as republican

views, he moved that a committee be appointed, to report articles of association for encouraging, by the advice, the influence, and the example, of the members of the Convention, economy, frugality, and American manufactures.

Dr. JOHNSON seconded the motion, which was, without debate, agreed to, nem. con., and a committee appointed, consisting of Col. Mason, Dr. Franklin, Mr. Dickinson, Dr. Johnson, and Mr. Livingston.*

Col. MASON renewed his proposition of yesterday, on the subject of inspection laws, with an additional clause, giving to Congress a control over them, in case of abuse, as follows:

"Provided, that no state shall be restrained from imposing the usual duties on produce exported from such state, for the sole purpose of defraying the charges of inspecting, packing, storing, and indemnifying the losses on such produce while in the custody of public officers; but all such regulations shall, in case of abuse, be subject to the revision and control of Congress."

There was no debate, and, on the question,

New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, ay, 7; Pennsylvania, Delaware, South Carolina, no, 3.264

The report from the committee of style and arrangement was taken up, in order to be compared with the articles of the plan, as agreed to by the House, and referred to the committee, and to receive the final corrections and sanction of the Convention.

Article 1, sect. 2. On motion of Mr. RANDOLPH, the word "servitude" was struck out, and "service" unanimously inserted, the former being thought to express the condition of slaves, and the latter the obligations of free persons.

Mr. DICKINSON and Mr. WILSON moved to strike out "and direct taxes" from article 1, sect. 2, as improperly placed in a clause relating merely to the constitution of the House of Representatives.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS. The insertion here was in consequence of what had passed on this point; in order to exclude the appearance of counting the negroes in the representation. The including of them may now be referred to the object of direct taxes, and incidentally only to that of representation.

On the motion to strike out "and direct taxes" from this place, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, ay, 3; New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, no, 8. Article 1, sect. 7,

"If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him," &c.

Mr. MADISON moved to insert, between "after" and "it," in article 1, sect. 7, the words "the day on which," in order to prevent a question whether the day on which the bill be presented ought to be counted, or not, as one of the ten days.

Mr. RANDOLPH seconded the motion.

* This motion, and appointment of the committee, do not appear in the prirted Journal. No report was made by the committee.

+ See page 372 of the printed Journal

The amendment is unneces

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS. sary. The law knows no fractions of days.

A number of members being very impatient, and calling for the question,

Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, ay, 3; New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Con necticut, New Jersey, Delaware, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, no, 8.

Dr. JOHNSON made a further report from the committee of style, &c., of the following resolutions, to be substituted for articles 22 and 23: 265

"Resolved, That the preceding Constitution be laid before the United States in Congress assembled; and that it is the opinion of this Convention, that it should afterwards be submitted to a convention of delegates chosen in each state by the people thereof, under the recommendation of its legislature, for their assent and ratification; and that each convention assenting to and ratifying the same should give notice thereof to the United States in Congress assembled.

"Resolved, That it is the opinion of this Convention, that as soon as the conventions of nine states shall have ratified this Constitution, the United States in Congress assembled should fix a day on which electors should be appointed by the states which shall have ratified the same; and a day on which the electors should assemble to vote for the President; and the time and place for commencing proceedings under this Constitution: that, after such publication, the electors should be appointed, and the senators and representatives elected; that the electors should meet on the day fixed for the election of the President, and should transmit their votes, certified, signed, sealed, and directed, as the Constitution requires, to the secretary of the United States in Congress assembled: that the senators and representatives should convene at the time and place assigned; that the senators should appoint a president for the sole purpose of receiving, opening, and counting the votes for President, and that after he shall be chosen, the Congress, together with the President, should, without delay, proceed to execute this Constitution." 266

Adjourned.

FRIDAY, September 14.

In Convention. The report of the committee of style and arrangement being resumed,

Mr. WILLIAMSON moved to reconsider, in order to increase the number of representatives fixed for the first legislature. His purpose was to make an addition of one half generally to the number allotted to the respective states; and to allow two to the smallest states. On this motion,

Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, ay, 5; New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, South Carolina, Georgia, no, 6.

Article 1, sect. 3, the words "by lot "* were struck out, nem. con., on motion of Mr. MADISON, that some rule might prevail in the rotation that would prevent both the members from the same state from going out at the same time.

"Ex officio" struck out of the same section, as superfluous, nem. con.; and "or affirmation," after "oath," inserted,also unanimously.

Mr. RUTLEDGE and Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS moved, — "that persons impeached be suspended from their offices until they be tried and acquitted."

"By lot" had been reinstated from the report of the committee of five, made on the 6th of August, as a correction of the printed report by the committee of style, &c. See page, 377.