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

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ of each part, and will not the general interest be continually sacrificed to local interests?

      Mr. Dickenson deemed it impossible to draw a line between the cases proper & improper for the exercise of the negative. We must take our choice of two things. We must either subject the States to the danger of being injured by the power of the National Government or the latter to the danger of being injured by that of the States. He thought the danger greater from the States. To leave the power doubtful, would be opening another spring of discord, and he was for shutting as many of them as possible.

      Mr. Bedford. In answer to his colleague's question, where would be the danger to the States from this power, would refer him to the smallness of his own State which may be injured at pleasure without redress. It was meant he found to strip the small States of their equal right of suffrage. In this case Delaware would have about 1/90 for its share in the General Councils, whilst Pennsylvania & Virginia would possess 1/3 of the whole. Is there no difference of interests, no rivalship of commerce, of manufactures? Will not these large States crush the small ones whenever they stand in the way of their ambitious or interested views. This shews the impossibility of adopting such a system as that on the table, or any other founded on a change in the priñple of representation. And after all, if a State does not obey the law of the new System, must not force be resorted to as the only ultimate remedy, in this as in any other system. It seems as if Pennsylvania & Virginia by the conduct of their deputies wished to provide a system in which they would have an enormous & monstrous influence. Besides, How can it be thought that the proposed negative can be exercised? Are the laws of the States to be suspended in the most urgent cases until they can be sent seven or eight hundred miles, and undergo the deliberation of a body who may be incapable of Judging of them? Is the National Legislature too to sit continually in order to revise the laws of the States?

      Mr. Madison observed that the difficulties which had been started were worthy of attention and ought to be answered before the question was put. The case of laws of urgent necessity must be provided for by some emanation of the power from the National Government into each State so far as to give a temporary assent at least. This was the practice in the Royal Colonies before the Revolution and would not have been inconvenient if the supreme power of negativing had been faithful to the American interest, and had possessed the necessary information. He supposed that the negative might be very properly lodged in the senate alone, and that the more numerous & expensive branch therefore might not be obliged to sit constantly. He asked Mr. B. what would be the consequence to the small States of a dissolution of the Union which seemed likely to happen if no effectual substitute was made for the defective System existing, and he did not conceive any effectual system could be substituted on any other basis than that of a proportional suffrage? If the large States possessed the Avarice & ambition with which they were charged, would the small ones in their neighbourhood, be more secure when all controul of a General Government was withdrawn.

      Mr. Butler was vehement against the Negative in the proposed extent, as cutting off all hope of equal justice to the distant States. The people there would not he was sure give it a hearing.

      On the question for extending the negative power to all cases as proposed by (Mr. P. & Mr. M.) Mass. ay. Connecticut no. N. Y. no. N. J. no. Pennsylvania ay. Del. divd. Mr. Read & Mr. Dickenson ay. Mr. Bedford & Mr. Basset no. Maryland no. Virginia ay. Mr. R. Mr. Mason no. Mr. Blair, Doctor Mc Cg Mr. M. ay. General W. not consulted. N. C. no. S. C. no. Geo no.

      On motion of Mr. Gerry and Mr. King tomorrow was assigned for reconsidering the mode of appointing the National Executive: the reconsideration being voted for by all the States except Connecticut & N. Carolina.

      Mr. Pinkney and Mr. Rutlidge moved to add to the Resolution 4. agreed to by the Committee the following, viz. "that the States be divided into three classes, the 1stclass to have 3 members, the 2d two, & the 3d one member each, that an estimate be taken of the comparative importance of each State at fixed periods, so as to ascertain the number of members they may from time to time be entitled to." The Committee then rose and the House adjourned.

Saturday June 9th1 Mr. Luther Martin From Maryland Took His Seat. In Committee Of The Whole

       Table of Contents

      Mr. Gerry, according to previous notice given by him, moved "that the national Executive should be elected by the Executives of the States whose proportion of votes should be the same with that allowed to the States in the election of the Senate." If the appointment should be made by the National Legislature, it would lessen that independence of the Executive which ought to prevail, would give birth to intrigue and corruption between the Executive & Legislature previous to the election, and to partiality in the Executive afterwards to the friends who promoted him. Some other mode therefore appeared to him necessary. He proposed that of appointing by the State Executives as most analogous to the principle observed in electing the other branches of the National Government; the first branch being chosen by the people of the States, & the 2d by the Legislatures of the States, he did not see any objection against letting the Executive be appointed by the Executives of the States. He supposed the Executives would be most likely to select the fittest men, and that it would be their interest to support the man of their own choice.

      Mr. Randolph urged strongly the inexpediency of Mr. Gerry's mode of appointing the National Executive. The confidence of the people would not be secured by it to the National magistrate. The small States would lose all chance of an appointment from within themselves. Bad appointments would be made; the Executives of the States being little conversant with characters not within their own small spheres. The State Executives too notwithstanding their constitutional independence, being in fact dependent on the State Legislatures will generally be guided by the views of the latter, and prefer either favorites within the States, or such as it may be expected will be most partial to the interests of the State. A National Executive thus chosen will not be likely to defend with becoming vigilance & firmness the National rights against State encroachments. Vacancies also must happen. How can these be filled? He could not suppose either that the Executives would feel the interest in supporting the National Executive which had been imagined. They will not cherish the great Oak which is to reduce them to paltry shrubs.

On the question for referring the appointment of the National Executive to the State Executives as proposed by Mr. Gerry Massachusetts no. Connecticut no. N. Y. no. N. J. no. Pennsylvania no. Del. divd. Maryland no. Virginia no. S. C. no. Geo. no.2

      Mr. Patterson moves that the Committee resume the clause relating to the rule of suffrage in the National Legislature.

Mr. Brearly3 seconds him. He was sorry he said that any question on this point was brought into view. It had been much agitated in Congress at the time of forming the Confederation, and was then rightly settled by allowing to each sovereign State an equal vote. Otherwise the smaller States must have been destroyed instead of being saved. The substitution of a ratio, he admitted carried fairness on the face of it; but on a deeper examination was unfair and unjust. Judging of the disparity of the States by the quota of Congress, Virginia would have 16 votes, and Georgia but one. A like proportion to the others will make the whole number ninety. There will be 3 large states, and 10 small ones. The large States by which he meant Massachusetts Pennsylvania & Virginia will carry every thing before them. It had been admitted, and was known to him from facts within N. Jersey that where large & small counties were united into a district for electing representatives for the district, the large counties always carried their point, and Consequently that the large States would do so. Virginia with her sixteen votes will be a solid column indeed, a formidable phalanx. While Georgia with her Solitary vote, and the other little States СКАЧАТЬ