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

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ frequent occasion for new divisions, I beg leave to propose for the consideration of the Committee another mode, which appears to me to be as equitable, more easily carried into practice, and more permanent in its nature.

      Let the weakest State say what proportion of money or force it is able and willing to furnish for the general purposes of the Union.

      Let all the others oblige themselves to furnish each an equal proportion.

      The whole of these joint supplies to be absolutely in the disposition of Congress.

      The Congress in this case to be composed of an equal number of Delegates from each State.

      And their decisions to be by the Majority of individual members voting.

      If these joint and equal supplies should on particular occasions not be sufficient, Let Congress make requisitions on the richer and more powerful States for further aids, to be voluntarily afforded, leaving to each State the right of considering the necessity and utility of the aid desired, and of giving more or less as it should be found proper.

      This mode is not new. It was formerly practised with success by the British Government with respect to Ireland and the Colonies. We sometimes gave even more than they expected, or thought just to accept; and in the last war carried on while we were united, they gave us back in 5 years a million Sterling. We should probably have continued such voluntary contributions, whenever the occasions appeared to require them for the common good of the Empire. It was not till they chose to force us, and to deprive us of the merit and pleasure of voluntary contributions that we refused & resisted. Those contributions however were to be disposed of at the pleasure of a Government in which we had no representative. I am therefore persuaded, that they will not be refused to one in which the Representation shall be equal.

      My learned colleague (Mr. Wilson) has already mentioned that the present method of voting by States, was submitted to originally by Congress, under a conviction of its impropriety, inequality, and injustice. This appears in the words of their Resolution. It is of September 6. 1774. The words are

      "Resolved that in determining questions in this Congress each Colony or province shall have one vote: The Congress not being possessed of or at present able to procure materials for ascertaining the importance of each Colony."

      On the question for agreeing to Mr. King's and Mr. Wilson's motion it passed in the affirmative.

      Massachusetts ay. Connecticut ay. N. Y. no. N. J. no. Pennsylvania ay. Del. no. Maryland divd. Virginia ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay.

      It was then moved by Mr. Rutlidge, seconded by Mr. Butler to add to the words "equitable ratio of representation" at the end of the motion just agreed to, the words "according to the quotas of contribution." On motion of Mr. Wilson seconded by Mr. Pinkney, this was postponed; in order to add, after the words "equitable ratio of representation" the words following: "in proportion to the whole number of white & other free Citizens & inhabitants of every age sex & condition including those bound to servitude for a term of years and three fifths of all other persons not comprehended in the foregoing description, except Indians not paying taxes, in each State," this being the rule in the Act of Congress agreed to by eleven States, for apportioning quotas of revenue on the States, and requiring a Census only every 5, 7, or 10 years.

Mr. Gerry thought property not the rule of representation. Why then should the blacks, who were property in the South, be in the rule of representation more than the Cattle & horses of the North.2

      On the question, — Mass: Con: N. Y. Pen: Maryland Virginia N. C. S. C. & Geo: were in the affirmative: N. J. & Del: in the negative.

Mr. Sherman moved that a question be taken whether each State shall have one vote in the 2d branch. Every thing he said depended on this. The smaller States would never agree to the plan on any other principle than an equality of suffrage in this branch. Mr. Elsworth3 seconded the motion.

      On the question for allowing each State one vote in the 2d branch,

      Massachusetts no. Connecticut ay. N. Y. ay. N. J. ay. Pennsylvania no. Del. ay. Maryland ay. Virginia no. N. C. no. S. C. no. Geo. no.

      Mr. Wilson & Mr. Hamilton moved that the right of suffrage in the 2d branch ought to be according to the same rule as in the 1st branch. On this question for making the ratio of representation the same in the 2d as in the 1st branch it passed in the affirmative;

      Massachusetts ay. Connecticut no. N. Y. no. N. J. no. Pennsylvania ay. Del. no. Maryland no. Virginia ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay.

      Resol: 11, for guarantying Republican Government & territory to each State, being considered — the words "or partition," were, on motion of Mr. Madison added, after the words "voluntary junction;"

      Mas. N. Y. P. Virginia N. C. S. C. G. ay. Con: N. J. Del: Maryland no.

      Mr. Read disliked the idea of guarantying territory. It abetted the idea of distinct States which would be a perpetual source of discord. There can be no cure for this evil but in doing away States altogether and uniting them all into one great Society.

Alterations having been made in the Resolution, making it read, "that a Republican Constitution & its existing laws ought to be guaranteed to each State by the U. States," the whole was agreed to nem. con.4

      Resolution 13. for amending the national Constitution hereafter without consent of the National Legislature being considered, Several members did not see the necessity of the Resolution at all, nor the propriety of making the consent of the National Legisl. unnecessary.

      Col. Mason urged the necessity of such a provision. The plan now to be formed will certainly be defective, as the Confederation has been found on trial to be. Amendments therefore will be necessary, and it will be better to provide for them, in an easy, regular and Constitutional way than to trust to chance and violence. It would be improper to require the consent of the National Legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent on that very account. The opportunity for such an abuse, may be the fault of the Constitution calling for amendment.

      Mr. Randolph enforced these arguments.

      The words, "without requiring the consent of the National Legislature" were postponed. The other provision in the clause passed nem. con.

Resolution 14. requiring oaths from the members of the State Governments to observe the National Constitution & laws, being considered,5

      Mr. Sherman opposed it as unnecessarily intruding into the State jurisdictions.

      Mr. Randolph considered it necessary to prevent that competition between the National Constitution & laws & those of the particular States, which had already been felt. The officers of the States are already under oath to the States. To preserve a due impartiality they ought to be equally bound to the National Government. The National authority needs every support we can give it. The Executive & Judiciary of the States, notwithstanding their nominal independence on the State Legislatures are in fact, so dependent on them, that unless they be brought under some tie to the National System, they will always lean too much to the State systems, whenever a contest arises between the two.

      Mr. Gerry did not like the clause. He thought there was as much reason for requiring an oath of fidelity СКАЧАТЬ