The Great Debate That Made the U.S. Constitution. Madison James

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ wrote the following note to accompany his journal:

      "The length of the Document laid before the Convention, and other circumstances having prevented the taking of a copy at the time, that which is here inserted was taken from the paper furnished to the Secretary of State, and contained in the Journal of the Convention published in 1819. On comparing the paper with the Constitution in its final form, or in some of its Stages; and with the propositions, and speeches of Mr. Pinckney in the Convention, it would seem that considerable errour must have crept into the paper; occasioned possibly by the loss of the Document laid before the convention (neither that nor the Resolutions offered by Mr. Patterson being among the preserved papers) and by a consequent resort for a copy to the rough draught, in which erasures and interlineations following what passed in the convention, might be confounded with the original text, and after a lapse of more than thirty years, confounded also in the memory of the author.

      "There is in the paper a similarity in some cases, and an identity in others, with details, expressions, and definitions, the results of critical discussions and modifications that can not be ascribed to accident or anticipation.

      "Examples may be noticed in Article VIII of the paper; which is remarkable also for the circumstance, that whilst it specifies the functions of the President, no provision is contained in the paper for the election of such an officer, nor indeed for the appointment of any executive magistracy; notwithstanding the evident purpose of the author to provide an entire plan of a Federal Government.

      "Again, in several instances where the paper corresponds with the Constitution, it is at variance with the ideas of Mr. Pinckney, as decidedly expressed in his propositions, and in his arguments, the former in the Journal of the Convention, the latter in the report of its debates: Thus in Art: VIII of the paper, provision is made for removing the President by impeachment; when it appears that in the convention, July 20. he was opposed to any impeachability of the Executive magistrate: In Art: III, it is required that all money-bills shall originate in the first Branch of the Legislature; which he strenuously opposed Aug: 8 and again Aug: 11: In Art: V members of each House are made ineligible to, as well as incapable of holding, any office under the union &c. as was the case at one Stage of the Constitution; a disqualification highly disapproved and opposed by him Aug: 14.

      "A still more conclusive evidence of errour in the paper is seen in Art: III, which provides, as the Constitution does, that the first Branch of the Legislature shall be chosen by the people of the several States; whilst it appears that on the 6th of June, a few days only after the Draft was laid before the convention, its author opposed that mode of choice, urging & proposing in place of it, an election by the Legislatures of the several States.

      "The remarks here made tho' not material in themselves, were due to the authenticity and accuracy aimed at, in this Record of the proceedings of a Publick Body, so much an object, sometimes, of curious research, as at all times, of profound interest." — Mad. MSS.

      This note, as given in Gilpin's Madison Papers (1840), is freely edited. The Pinckney plan is given here as Pinckney sent it to Adams. Chief-Justice Charles C. Nott, of the U. S. Court of Claims, informs the editor that correspondence with Pinckney's descendants reveals the fact that none of the notes to which he alludes in his letters are extant.

      The letter of December 30, 1818, and plan, are printed in The Documentary History of the Constitution, i., 309 et seq.

7

      "… What will be the result of their meeting I cannot with any certainty determine, but I hardly think much good can come of it; the people of America don't appear to me to be ripe for any great innovations & it seems they are ultimately to ratify or reject: the weight of General Washington as you justly observe is very great in America, but I hardly think it is sufficient to induce the people to pay money or part with power.

      "The delegates from the Eastwood are for a very strong government, & wish to prostrate all the State legislatures, & form a general system out of the whole; but I don't learn that the people are with them, on the contrary in Massachusetts they think that government too strong, & are about rebelling again, for the purpose of making it more democratical: In Connecticut they have rejected the requisition for the present year decidedly, & no Man there would be elected to the office of a constable if he was to declare that he meant to pay a copper towards the domestic debt: — R. Island has refused to send members — the cry there is for a good government after they have paid their debts in depreciated paper: — first demolish the Philistines (i. e. their creditors) then for propiety.

      "N. Hampshire has not paid a shilling, since peace, & does not ever mean to pay on to all eternity: — if it was attempted to tax the people for the domestic debt 500 Shays would arise in a fortnight. — In N. York they pay well because they can do it by plundering N. Jersey & Connecticut. — Jersey will go great lengths from motives of revenge and Interest: Pensylvany will join provided you let the sessions of the Executive of America be fixed in Philadelphia & give her other advantages in trade to compensate for the loss of State power. I shall make no observations on the Southern States, but I think they will be (perhaps from different motives) as little disposed to part with efficient power as any in the Union…." — William Grayson to James Monroe, New York, May 29, 1787. Monroe MSS.

      Wednesday May 30

       Table of Contents

      Roger Sherman (from Connecticut) took his seat.

      The House went into Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union. Mr. Gorham was elected to the Chair by Ballot.

      The propositions of Mr. Randolph which had been referred to the Committee being taken up. He moved on the suggestion of Mr. G. Morris, that the first of his propositions to wit "Resolved that the articles of Confederation ought to be so corrected & enlarged, as to accomplish the objects proposed by their institution; namely, common defence, security of liberty, and general welfare, — should be postponed, in order to consider the 3 following:

      1. that a union of the States merely federal will not accomplish the objects proposed by the articles of Confederation, namely common defence, security of liberty, & general welfare.

      2. that no treaty or treaties among the whole or part of the States, as individual Sovereignties, would be sufficient.

      3. that a national Government ought to be established consisting of a supreme Legislative, Executive & Judiciary.

      The motion for postponing was seconded by Mr. Gouverneur Morris and unanimously agreed to.

      Some verbal criticisms were raised against the first proposition, and it was agreed on motion of Mr. Butler seconded by Mr. Randolph, to pass on to the third, which underwent a discussion, less however on its general merits than on the force and extent of the particular terms national & supreme.

      Mr. Charles Pinkney wished to know of Mr. Randolph, whether he meant to abolish the State Governments altogether. Mr. R. replied that he meant by these general propositions merely to introduce the particular ones which explained the outlines of the system he had in view.

      Mr. Butler said he had not made up his mind on the subject, and was open to the light which discussion might throw on it. After some general observations he concluded with saying that he had opposed the grant of powers to Congress heretofore, because the whole power was vested in one body. The proposed distribution of the powers into different bodies changed the case, and would induce him СКАЧАТЬ