Tuesday 23 January 2018
Search - Content
Search SEO Glossary
PLG_SEARCH_JOOMBLOG
Contact Us

Elliot's Debates - Volume V - Part VI - Letters Writtten After the Adjournment of the Federal Convention

LETTERS WRITTEN AFTER THE ADJOURNMENT OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION.


TO GENERAL WASHINGTON.


NEW YORK, September 30, 1787

.

DEAR SIR, —

I found, on my arrival here, that certain ideas, unfavorable to the act of the Convention, which had created difficulties in that body, had made their way into Congress. They were patronized chiefly by Mr. R. H. Lee, and Mr. Dane, of Massachusetts. It was first urged, that, as the new Constitution was more than an alteration of the Articles of Confederation, under which Congress acted, and even subverted those Articles altogether, there was a constitutional impropriety in their taking any positive agency in the work. The answer given was, that the resolution of Congress in February had recommended the Convention as the best means of obtaining a firm national government; that, as the powers of the Convention were defined, by their commissions, in nearly the same terms with the powers of Congress given by the Confederation on the subject of alterations, Congress were not more restrained from acceding to the new plan, than the Convention were from proposing it. If the plan was within the powers of the Convention, it was within those of Congress; if beyond those powers, the same necessity which justified the Convention would justify Congress; and a failure of Congress to concur in what was done would imply, either that the Convention had done wrong in exceeding their powers, or that the government proposed was in itself liable to insuperable objections; that such an inference would be the more natural, as Congress had never scrupled to recommend measures foreign to their constitutional functions, whenever the public good seemed to require it; and had in several instances, particularly in the establishment of the new western governments, exercised assumed powers of a very high and delicate nature, under motives infinitely less urgent than the present state of our affairs, if any faith were due to the representations made by Congress themselves, echoed by twelve states in the Union, and confirmed by the general voice of the people. An attempt was made, in the next place, by R. H. L., to amend the act of the Convention before it should go forth from Congress. He proposed a Bill of Rights, provision for juries in civil cases, and several other things corresponding with the ideas of Col. Mason. He was supported by Mr. Melancthon Smith, of this state. It was contended, that Congress had an undoubted right to insert amendments, and that it was their duty to make use of it in a case where the essential guards of liberty had been omitted. On the other side, the right of Congress was not denied, but the inexpediency of exerting it was urged on the following grounds;—first, that every circumstance indicated that the introduction of Congress as a party to the reform was intended by the states merely as a matter of form and respect; secondly, that it was evident, from the contradictory objections which had been expressed by the different members who had animadverted on the plan, that a discussion of its merits would consume much time, without producing agreement even among its adversaries; thirdly, that it was clearly the intention of the states that the plan to be proposed should be the act of the Convention, with the assent of Congress, which could not be the case, if alterations were made, the Convention being no longer in existence to adopt them; fourthly, that as the act of the Convention, when altered, would instantly become the mere act of Congress, and must be proposed by them as such, and of course be addressed to the legislatures, not conventions of the states, and require the ratification of thirteen instead of nine states, and as the unaltered act would go forth to the states directly from the Convention, under the auspices of that body, some states might ratify the one and some the other of the plans, and confusion and disappointment be the least evils that would ensue. These difficulties, which at one time threatened a serious division in Congress, and popular alterations, with the yeas and nays on the Journals, were at length fortunately terminated by the following resolution: “Congress having received the report of the Convention lately assembled in Philadelphia, Resolved unanimously, that the said report, with the resolutions and letter accompanying the same, be transmitted to the several legislatures, in order to be submitted to a convention of delegates chosen in each state by the people thereof, in conformity to the resolves of the Convention made and provided in that case.” Eleven states were present—the absent ones, Rhode Island and Maryland. A more direct approbation would have been of advantage in this and some other states, where stress will be laid on the agency of Congress in the matter, and a handle be taken by adversaries of any ambiguity on the subject. With regard to Virginia and some other states, reserve on the part of Congress will do no injury. The circumstance of unanimity must be favorable every where.

The general voice of this city seems to espouse the new Constitution. It is supposed, nevertheless, that the party in power is strongly opposed to it. The country must finally decide, the sense of which is as yet wholly unknown. As far as Boston and Connecticut have been heard from, the first impression seems to be auspicious. I am waiting with anxiety for the echo from Virginia, but with very faint hopes of its corresponding with my wishes.

October 21, 1787

New York

Edmund Randolph

Randolph, Edmund

TO EDMUND RANDOLPH.


NEW YORK,

October 21, 1787

.

DEAR SIR, —

We hear that opinions are various in Virginia on the plan of the Convention. I have received, within a few days, a letter from the chancellor, by which I find that he gives it his approbation; and another from the president of William and Mary, which, though it does not absolutely reject the Constitution, criticises it pretty freely. The newspapers in the Northern and Middle States begin to teem with controversial publications. The attacks seem to be principally levelled against the organization of the government, and the omission of the provisions contended for in favor of the press, and juries, c. A new combatant, however, with considerable address and plausibility, strikes at the foundation. He represents the situation of the United States to be such as to render any government improper and impracticable which forms the states into one nation, and is to operate directly on the people. Judging from the newspapers, one would suppose that the adversaries were the most numerous and the most earnest. But there is no other evidence that it is the fact. On the contrary, we learn that the Assembly of New Hampshire, which received the Constitution on the point of their adjournment, were extremely pleased with it. All the information from Massachusetts denotes a favorable impression there. The legislature of Connecticut have unanimously recommended the choice of a convention in that state, and Mr. Baldwin, who is just from the spot, informs me, that, from present appearances, the opposition will be inconsiderable; that the Assembly, if it depended on them, would adopt the system almost unanimously; and that the clergy and all the literary men are exerting themselves in its favor. Rhode Island is divided; the majority being violently against it. The temper of this state cannot yet be fully discerned. A strong party is in favor of it. But they will probably be outnumbered, if those whose numbers are not yet known should take the opposite side. New Jersey appears to be zealous. Meetings of the people in different counties are declaring their approbation, and instructing their representatives. There will probably be a strong opposition in Pennsylvania. The other side, however, continue to be sanguine. Dr. Carroll, who came hither lately from Maryland, tells me, that the public voice there appears at present to be decidedly in favor of the Constitution. Notwithstanding all these circumstances, I am far from considering the public mind as fully known, or finally settled on the subject. They amount only to a strong presumption that the general sentiment in the Eastern and Middle States is friendly to the proposed system at this time.

October 24, 1787

New York

Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson, Thomas

TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.

[EXTRACT.]


NEW YORK,

October 24, 1787

.

DEAR SIR, —

When the plan of the Constitution proposed by the Convention came before Congress for their sanction, a very serious effort was made by R. H. Lee and Mr. Dane, from Massachusetts, to embarrass it. It was first contended, that Congress could not properly give any positive countenance to a measure which had for its object the subversion of the Constitution under which they acted. This ground of attack failing, the former gentleman urged the expediency of sending out the plan with amendments, and proposed a number of them corresponding with the objections of Col. Mason. This experiment had still less effect. In order, however, to obtain unanimity, it was necessary to couch the resolution in very moderate terms.

October 28, 1787

New York

General Washington

Washington, General

TO GENERAL WASHINGTON.

[EXTRACT.]


NEW YORK,

October 28, 1787

.

DEAR SIR, —

The mail of yesterday brought me your favor of the 22d instant. The communications from Richmond give me as much pleasure as they exceed my expectations. As I find by a letter from a member of the Assembly, however, that Col. Mason has not got down, and it appears that Mr. Henry is not at bottom a friend, I am not without fears that their combined influence and management may yet create difficulties. There is one consideration which I think ought to have some weight in the case, over and above the intrinsic inducements to embrace the Constitution, and which I have suggested to some of my correspondents. There is at present a very strong probability that nine states at least will pretty speedily concur in establishing it. What will become of the tardy remainder? They must be either left, as outcasts from the society, to shift for themselves, or be compelled to come in, or must come in of themselves when they will be allowed no credit for it. Can either of these situations be as eligible as a prompt and manly determination to support the Union, and share its common fortunes?

My last stated pretty fully the information which had arrived here from different quarters, concerning the proposed Constitution. I recollect nothing that is now to be added, further than that the Assembly of Massachusetts, now sitting, certainly gives it a friendly reception. I enclose a Boston paper, by which it appears that Gov. Hancock has ushered it to them in as propitious a manner as could have been required.

Mr. Charles Pinckney’s character is, as you observe, well marked by the publications which I enclosed. His printing the secret paper at this time could have no motive but the appetite for expected praise; for the subject to which it relates has been dormant a considerable time, and seems likely to remain so.

November 18, 1787

New York

Edmund Randolph

Randolph, Edmund

TO EDMUND RANDOLPH.


NEW YORK,

November 18, 1787

.

DEAR SIR, —

I have not, since my arrival, collected any additional information concerning the progress of the Federal Constitution. I discovered no evidence, on my journey through New Jersey, that any opposition whatever would be made in that state. The Convention of Pennsylvania is to meet on Tuesday next. The members returned, I was told by several persons, reduced the adoption of the plan in that state to absolute certainty, and by a greater majority than the most sanguine advocates had calculated. One of the counties, which had been set down by all on the list of opposition, had elected deputies of known attachment to the Constitution.

I do not find that a single state is represented except Virginia, and it seems very uncertain when a Congress will be made. There are individual members present from several states; and the attendance of this and the neighboring states may, I suppose, be obtained, when it will produce a quorum.

December 2, 1787

New York

Edmund Randolph

Randolph, Edmund

TO EDMUND RANDOLPH.


NEW YORK,

December 2, 1787

.

[ EXTRACT. ]

DEAR SIR, —

No recent indications of the views of the states as to the Constitution have come to my knowledge. The elections in Connecticut are over, and, as far as the returns are known, a large majority are friendly to it. Dr. Johnson says, it will be pretty certainly adopted; but there will be opposition. The power of taxing any thing but imports appears to be the most popular topic among the adversaries. The convention of Pennsylvania is sitting. The result there will not reach you first through my hands. The divisions on preparatory questions, as they are published in the newspapers, show that the party in favor of the Constitution have forty-four or forty-five versus twenty-two or twenty-four, or thereabouts.

The enclosed paper contains two numbers of the Federalist. This paper was begun about three weeks ago, and proposes to go through the subject. I have not been able to collect all the numbers, since my return from Philadelphia, or I would have sent them to you. I have been the less anxious, as I understand the printer means to make a pamphlet of them, when I can give them to you in a more convenient form. You will probably discover marks of different pens. I am not at liberty to give you any other key than that I am in myself for a few numbers, and that one besides myself was a member of the Convention. 270

December 20, 1787

New York

Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson, Thomas

TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.


NEW YORK,

December 20, 1787

.

[ EXTRACT. ]

DEAR SIR, —

Since the date of my other letter, the convention of Delaware have unanimously adopted the new Constitution. That of Pennsylvania has adopted it by a majority of 46 against 23. That of New Jersey is sitting, and will adopt pretty unanimously. These are all the conventions that have met. I hear, from North Carolina, that the Assembly there is well disposed.

December 20, 1787

New York

General Washington

Washington, General

TO GENERAL WASHINGTON.


NEW YORK,

December 20, 1787

.

[ EXTRACT. ]

DEAR SIR, —

I was favored on Saturday with your letter of the 7th instant, along with which was covered the printed letter of Col. R. H. Lee to the governor. [See p. 503, Vol. I. Elliot’s Debates. ] It does not appear to me to be a very formidable attack on the new Constitution; unless it should derive an influence from the names of the correspondents, which its intrinsic merits do not entitle it to. He is certainly not perfectly accurate in the statement of all his facts; and I should infer, from the tenor of the objections in Virginia, that his plan of an executive would hardly be viewed as an amendment of that of the Convention. It is a little singular that three of the most distinguished advocates for amendments, and who expect to unite the thirteen states in their project, appear to be pointedly at variance with each other on one of the capital articles of the system. Col. Lee proposes, hat the President should choose a council of eleven, and, with their advice, have the appointment of all officers. Col. Mason’s proposition is, that a council of six should be appointed by the Congress. What degree of power he would confide to it, I do not know. The idea of the governor is, that there should be a plurality of coequal heads, distinguished probably by other peculiarities in the organization. It is pretty certain that some others, who make a common cause with them in the general attempt to bring about alterations, differ still more from them than they do from each other; and that they themselves differ as much on some other great points as on the constitution of the executive.

You did not judge amiss of Mr. Jay. The paragraph affirming a change in his opinion of the plan of the Convention, was an arrant forgery. He has contradicted it in a letter to Mr. J. Vaughan, which has been printed in the Philadelphia gazettes. Tricks of this sort are not uncommon with the enemies of the new Constitution. Col. Mason’s objections were, as I am told, published in Boston, mutilated of that which pointed at the regulation of commerce. Dr. Franklin’s concluding speech, which you will meet with in one of the papers herewith enclosed, is both mutilated and adulterated, so as to change both the form and spirit of it.

The Philadelphia papers will have informed you of the result of the convention of that state. New Jersey is now in convention, and has probably by this time adopted the Constitution. Gen. Irvine, of the Pennsylvania delegation, who is just arrived here, and who conversed with some of the members at Trenton, tells me that great unanimity reigns in the convention.

Connecticut, it is pretty certain, will decide also in the affirmative by a large majority. So, it is presumed, will New Hampshire; though her convention will be a little later than could be wished. There are not enough of the returns in Massachusetts known for a final judgment of the probable event in that state. As far as the returns are known, they are extremely favorable; but as they are chiefly from the maritime parts of the state, they are a precarious index of the public sentiment. I have good reason to believe that if you are in correspondence with any gentleman in that quarter, and a proper occasion should offer for an explicit communication of your good wishes for the plan, so as barely to warrant an explicit assertion of the fact, that it would be attended with valuable effects. I barely drop the idea. The circumstances on which the propriety of it depends are best known to you, as they will be best judged of by yourself. The information from North Carolina gave me great pleasure. We have nothing from the states south of it. 271

January 10, 1788

New York

Edmund Randolph

Randolph, Edmund

TO EDMUND RANDOLPH.


NEW YORK,

January 10, 1788

.

DEAR SIR, —

I received two days ago your favor of December 27, enclosing a copy of your letter to the Assembly. I have read it with attention, and I can add with pleasure, because the spirit of it does as much honor to your candor, as the general reasoning does to your abilities. Nor can I believe that in this quarter the opponents of the Constitution will find encouragement in it. You are already aware that your objections are not viewed in the same decisive light by me that they are by you. I must own that I differ still more from your opinion, that a prosecution of the experiment of a second Convention will be favorable, even in Virginia, to the object which I am sure you have at heart. It is to me apparent that, had your duty led you to throw your influence into the opposite scale, it would have given it a decided and unalterable preponderance; and that Mr. Henry would either have suppressed his enmity, or been baffled in the policy which it has dictated. It appears also that the grounds taken by the opponents in different quarters forbid any hope of concord among them. Nothing can be farther from your views than the principles of different sets of men who have carried on their opposition under the respectability of your name. In this state, the party adverse to the Constitution notoriously meditate either a dissolution of the Union, or protracting it by patching up the Articles of Confederation. In Connecticut and Massachusetts, the opposition proceeds from that part of the people who have a repugnance in general to good government, or to any substantial abridgment of state powers, and a part of whom, in Massachusetts, are known to aim at confusion, and are suspected of wishing a reversal of the revolution. The minority in Pennsylvania, as far as they are governed by any other views than an habitual opposition to their rivals, are manifestly averse to some essential ingredients in a national government. You are better acquainted with Mr. Henry’s politics than I can be; but I have for some time considered him as no further concurring in the plan of amendments than as he hopes to render it subservient to his real designs. Viewing the matter in this light, the inference with me is unavoidable that, were a second trial to be made, the friends of a good constitution for the Union would not only find themselves not a little differing from each other as to the proper amendments, but perplexed and frustrated by men who had objects totally different. A second Convention would, of course, be formed under the influence, and composed in a great measure of the members, of the opposition in the several states. But were the first difficulties overcome, and the Constitution reëdited with amendments, the event would still be infinitely precarious. Whatever respect may be due to the rights of private judgment, (and no man feels more of it than I do,) there can be no doubt that there are subjects to which the capacities of the bulk of mankind are unequal, and on which they must and will be governed by those with whom they happen to have acquaintance and confidence. The proposed Constitution is of this description. The great body of those who are both for and against it must follow the judgment of others, not their own. Had the Constitution been framed and recommended by an obscure individual, instead of a body possessing public respect and confidence, there cannot be a doubt that, although it would have stood in the identical words, it would have commanded little attention from most of those who now admire its wisdom. Had yourself, Col. Mason, Col. R. H. Lee, Mr. Henry, and a few others, seen the Constitution in the same light with those who subscribed it, I have no doubt that Virginia would have been as zealous and unanimous, as she is now divided, on the subject. I infer from these considerations, that, if a government be ever adopted in America, it must result from a fortunate coincidence of leading opinions, and a general confidence of the people in those who may recommend it. The very attempt at a second Convention strikes at the confidence in the first; and the existence of a second, by opposing influence to influence, would in a manner destroy an effectual confidence in either, and give a loose rein to human opinions,—which must be as various and irreconcilable concerning theories of government, as doctrines of religion,—and give opportunities to designing men, which it might be impossible to counteract.

The Connecticut convention has probably come to a decision before this; but the event is not known here. It is understood that a great majority will adopt the Constitution. The accounts from Massachusetts vary extremely, according to the channels through which they come. It is said that S. Adams, who has hitherto been reserved, begins to make open declaration of his hostile views. His influence is not great, but this step argues an opinion that he can calculate on a considerable party. It is said here, and, I believe, on good ground, that North Carolina has postponed her convention till July, in order to have the previous example of Virginia. Should North Carolina fall into Mr. Henry’s politics, which does not appear to me improbable, it will endanger the Union more than any other circumstance that could happen. My apprehensions of this danger increase every day. The multiplied inducements, at this moment, to the local sacrifices necessary to keep the states together, can never be expected to coincide again, and they are counteracted by so many unpropitious circumstances, that their efficacy can with difficulty be confided in. I have no information from South Carolina, or Georgia, on which any certain opinion can be formed of the temper of those states. The prevailing idea has been, that both of them would speedily and generally embrace the Constitution. It is impossible, however, that the example of Virginia and North Carolina should not have an influence on their politics. I consider every thing, therefore, problematical from Maryland southward.

We have no Congress yet. The number of states on the spot does not exceed five. It is probable that a quorum will now be soon made. A delegate from New Hampshire is expected, which will make up a representation from that state. The termination of the Connecticut convention will set her delegates at liberty, and the meeting of the Assembly of this state will fill the vacancy which has some time existed in her delegation. 272

January 27, 1788

New York

Edmund Randolph

Randolph, Edmund

TO EDMUND RANDOLPH.


NEW YORK,

January 27, 1788

.

DEAR SIR, —

A Congress was made, for the first time, on Monday last, and our friend C. Griffin placed in the chair. There was no competition in the case, which you will wonder at, as Virginia has so lately supplied a president. New Jersey did not like it, I believe, very well, but acquiesced.

I postponed writing by the last mail, in hopes of being able, by this, to acquaint you with the probable result of the convention of Massachusetts. It appears, however, that the prospect continues too equivocal to justify a conjecture on the subject. The representations vary somewhat, but they all tend to excite, rather than diminish, anxiety. Mr. Gerry had been introduced to a seat, for the purpose of stating facts. On the arrival of the discussion at the article concerning the Senate, he signified, without being called on, that he had important information to communicate on that subject. Mr. Dana and several others remarked on the impropriety of Mr. Gerry’s conduct. Gerry rose to justify. Others opposed it as irregular. A warm conversation arose, and continued till the adjournment; after which a still warmer one took place between Gerry and Dana. The members gathered around them, took sides as they were for or against the Constitution, and strong symptoms of confusion appeared. At length, however, they separated. It was expected that the subject would be renewed in the convention the next morning. This was the state of things when the post came off.

In one of the papers enclosed, you will find your letter to the Assembly reviewed by some critic of this place. I can form no guess who he is. I have seen another attack grounded on a comparative view of your objections, Col. Mason’s, and Mr. Gerry’s. This was from Philadelphia. I have not the paper, or I would add it. 273

February 3, 1788

New York

General Washington

Washington, General

TO GENERAL WASHINGTON.


NEW YORK,

February 3, 1788

.

DEAR SIR, —

Another mail has arrived from Boston without terminating the conflict between our hopes and fears. I have a letter from Mr. King, of the 27th, which, after dilating somewhat on the ideas in his former letters, concludes with the following paragraph: “We have avoided every question which would have shown the division of the House. Of consequence, we are not positive of the numbers on each side. By the last calculation we made on our side, we were doubtful whether we exceeded them, or they us, in numbers. They, however, say that they have a majority of eight or twelve against us. We by no means despair.” Another letter of the same date, from another member, gives the following picture: “Never was there an assembly in this state in possession of greater ability and information than the present convention; yet I am in doubt whether they will approve the Constitution. There are, unhappily, three parties opposed to it—first, all men who are in favor of paper money and tender laws,—these are, more or less, in every part of the state; secondly, all the late insurgents and their abettors,—in the three great western counties they are very numerous; we have, in the convention, eighteen or twenty who were actually in Shay’s army; thirdly, a great majority of the members from the Province of Maine. Many of them and their constituents are only squatters on other people’s land, and they are afraid of being brought to account; they also think, though erroneously, that their favorite plan, of being a separate state, will be defeated. Add to these the honest doubting people, and they make a powerful host. The leaders of this party are—Mr. Widgery, Mr. Thomson, and Mr. Nasson, from the Province of Maine; Dr. Taylor, from the county of Worcester; and Mr. Bishop, from the neighborhood of Rhode Island. To manage the cause against them are the present and late governors, three judges of the Supreme Court, fifteen members of the Senate, twenty from among the most respectable of the clergy, ten or twelve of the first characters at the bar, judges of probate, high sheriffs of counties, and many other respectable people, merchants, c., Generals Heath, Lincoln, Brooks, and others of the late army. With all this ability in support of the cause, I am pretty well satisfied we shall lose the question, unless we can take off some of the opposition by amendments. I do not mean such as are to be made conditions of the ratification, but recommendations only. Upon this plan I flatter myself we may possibly get a majority of twelve or fifteen, if not more.”

The legislature of this state has voted a convention on the 17th of June. 274

March 3, 1788

New York

Edmund Randolph

Randolph, Edmund

TO EDMUND RANDOLPH.


NEW YORK,

March 3, 1788

.

DEAR SIR, —

The convention of New Hampshire have disappointed the general expectation. They have not rejected the Constitution, but they have adjourned without adopting it. It was found that, on a final question, there would be a majority of three or four in the negative; but in this number were included some who, with instructions from their towns against the Constitution, had been proselyted by the discussions. These, concurring with the federalists in the adjournment, carried it by fifty-seven against forty-seven, if I am rightly informed as to the numbers. The second meeting is not to be till the last week in June. I have inquired of the gentlemen from that quarter, what particularly recommended so late a day, supposing it might refer to the times fixed by New York and Virginia. They tell me it was governed by the intermediate annual elections and courts. If the opposition in that state be such as they are described, it is not probable that they pursue any sort of plan, more than that of Massachusetts. This event, whatever cause may have produced it, or whatever consequences it may have in New Hampshire, is no small check to the progress of the business. The opposition here, which are unquestionably hostile to every thing beyond the federal principle, will take new spirits. The event in Massachusetts had almost extinguished their hopes. That in Pennsylvania will, probably, be equally encouraged. 275

July 2, 1788

New York

Edmund Randolph

Randolph, Edmund

TO EDMUND RANDOLPH.

[EXTRACT.]


NEW YORK,

July 2, 1788

.

DEAR SIR, —

There are public letters just arrived from Jefferson. The contents are not yet known. His private letters to me and others refer to his public for political news. I find that he is becoming more and more a friend to the new Constitution, his objections being gradually dispelled by his own further reflections on the subject. He particularly renounces his opinion concerning the expediency of a ratification by nine, and a repeal by four, states, considering the mode pursued by Massachusetts as the only rational one, but disapproving some of the alterations recommended by that state. He will see still more room for disapprobation in the recommendation of other states. The defects of the Constitution which he continues to criticise are, the omission of a bill of rights, and of the principle of rotation, at least in the executive department. 276

July 16, 1788

New York

Edmund Randolph

Randolph, Edmund

TO EDMUND RANDOLPH.


NEW YORK,

July 16, 1788

.

DEAR SIR, —

The enclosed papers will give you the latest intelligence from Poughkeepsie. It seems by no means certain what the result there will be. Some of the most sanguine calculate on a ratification. The best informed apprehend some clog that will amount to a condition. The question is made peculiarly interesting in this place, by its connection with the question relative to the place to be recommended for the meeting of the first Congress under the new government.

Thirteen states are at present represented. A plan for setting this new machine in motion has been reported some days, but will not be hurried to a conclusion. Having been but a little time here, I am not yet fully in the politics of Congress.

July 22, 1788

New York

Edmund Randolph

Randolph, Edmund

TO EDMUND RANDOLPH.


NEW YORK,

July 22, 1788

.

DEAR SIR, —

The enclosed papers will give you a view of the business in the convention at Poughkeepsie. It is not as yet certain that the ratification will take any final shape that can make new York immediately a member of the new Union. The opponents cannot come to that point without yielding a complete victory to the federalists, which must be a severe sacrifice of their pride. It is supposed, too, that some of them would not be displeased at seeing a bar to the pretensions of this city to the first meeting of the new government. On the other side, the zeal for an unconditional ratification is not a little increased by contrary wishes.

August 22, 1788

New York

Edmund Randolph

Randolph, Edmund

TO EDMUND RANDOLPH.

[EXTRACT.]


NEW YORK,

August 22, 1788

.

DEAR SIR, —

I have your favor of the 13th. The effect of Clinton’s circular letter in Virginia does not surprise me. It is a signal of concord and hope to the enemies of the Constitution every where, and will, I fear, prove extremely dangerous. Notwithstanding your own remarks on the subject, I cannot but think that an early convention will be an unadvised measure. It will evidently be the offspring of party and passion, and will, probably, for that reason alone, be the parent of error and public injury. It is pretty clear that a majority of the people of the Union are in favor of the Constitution as it stands, or at least are not dissatisfied with it in that form; or, if this be not the case, it is at least clear that a greater proportion unite in that system than are likely to unite in any other theory. Should radical alterations take place, therefore, they will not result from the deliberate sense of the people, but will be obtained by management, or extorted by menaces, and will be a real sacrifice of the public will, as well as of the public good, to the views of individuals, and perhaps the ambition of state legislatures. *

September 24, 1788

New York

Edmund Randolph

Randolph, Edmund

TO EDMUND RANDOLPH.

[EXTRACT.]


NEW YORK,

September 24, 1788

.

DEAR SIR, —

I have been favored with yours of the 12th instant. The picture it gives of the state of our country is the more distressing as it seems to exceed all the known resources for immediate relief. Nothing, in my opinion, can give the desired facility to the discharge of debts, but a reëstablishment of that confidence which will at once make the creditor more patient, and open to the solvent debtor other means than bringing his property to market. How far the new government will produce these effects, cannot yet be decided. But the utmost success that can be hoped from it will leave in full force the causes of intermediate embarrassment. The additional pressure apprehended from British debts, is an evil also for which I perceive at present no certain remedy. As far, however, as the favorable influence of the new government may extend, that may be one source of alleviation. It may be expected also that the British creditors will feel several motives to indulgence. And I will not suppress a hope that the new government will be both able and willing to effect something by negotiation. Perhaps it might not be amiss for the Assembly to prepare the way by some act or other, for drawing the attention of the first session of the Congress to this subject. The possession of the posts by Great Britain, after the removal of the grounds of her complaint by the provision in the new Constitution with regard to the treaty, will justify a renewal of our demands, and an interference in favor of American citizens on whom the performance of the treaty on our side depends.

October 17, 1788

New York

Edmund Randolph

Randolph, Edmund

TO EDMUND RANDOLPH.


NEW YORK,

October 17, 1788

.

DEAR SIR, —

I have a letter from Mr. Jefferson, but it contains nothing of much consequence. His public letters, to which it refers, have not yet been communicated from the office of foreign affairs. Through other authentic channels, I learn that the States-General will pretty certainly be convened in May next. The efficacy of that cure for the public maladies will depend materially on the mode in which the deputies may be selected, which appears to be not yet settled. There is good reason also to presume that, as the spirit which at present agitates the nation has been in a great measure caught from the American revolution, so the result of the struggle there will be not a little affected by the character which liberty may receive from the experiment now on foot here. The tranquil and successful establishment of a great reform, by the reason of the community, must give as much force to the doctrines urged on one side, as a contrary event would do to the policy maintained on the other.

As Col. Carrington will be with you before this gets to hand, I leave it with him to detail all matters of a date previous to his departure. Of a subsequent date I recollect nothing worth adding. I requested him also to confer with you in full confidence on the appointments to the Senate and House of Representatives, so far as my friends may consider me in relation to either. He is fully possessed of my real sentiments, and will explain them more conveniently than can be done on paper. I mean not to decline an agency in launching the new government, if such should be assigned me, in one of the Houses, and I prefer the House of Representatives, chiefly because, if I can render any service there, it can only be to the public, and not, even in imputation, to myself. At the same time my preference, I own, is somewhat founded on the supposition, that the arrangements for the popular elections may secure me against any competition which would require, on my part, any step that would speak a solicitude which I do not feel, or have the appearance of a spirit of electioneering, which I despise.

November 2, 1788

New York

Edmund Randolph

Randolph, Edmund

TO EDMUND RANDOLPH.


NEW YORK,

November 2, 1788

.

DEAR SIR, —

I received yesterday your favor of the 23d ultimo. The first countenance of the Assembly corresponds with the picture which my imagination had formed of it. The views of the greater part of the opposition to the federal government have, ever since the Convention, been regarded by me as permanently hostile, and likely to produce every effort that might endanger or embarrass it.

My last letter, with Col. Carrington’s communications, to which it referred, will have sufficiently explained my sentiments with regard to the legislative service under the new Constitution. My first wish is, to see the government put into quiet and successful operation, and to afford any service that may be acceptable from me for that purpose. My second wish, if that were to be consulted, would prefer, for reasons formerly hinted, an opportunity of contributing that service in the House of Representatives, rather than in the Senate, provided the opportunity be attainable from the spontaneous suffrage of the constituents. Should the real friends of the 277 Constitution think this preference inconsistent with any primary object, as Col. Carrington tells me is the case with some who are entitled to peculiar respect, and view my renouncing it as of any material consequence, I shall not hesitate to comply. You will not infer, from the freedom with which these observations are made, that I am in the least unaware of the probability that, whatever my inclinations or those of my friends may be, they are likely to be of little avail in the present case. I take it for certain that a clear majority of the Assembly are enemies to the government, and I have no reason to suppose that I can be less obnoxious than others on the opposite side. An election into the Senate, therefore, can hardly come into question. I know, also, that a good deal will depend on the arrangements for the election of the other branch, and that much may depend, moreover, on the steps to be taken by the candidates, which will not be taken by me. Here again, therefore, there must be great uncertainty, if not improbability, of my election. With these circumstances in view, it is impossible that I can be the dupe of false calculations, even if I were in other cases disposed to indulge them. I trust it is equally impossible for the result, whatever it may be, to rob me of any reflections which enter into the internal fund of comfort and happiness. Popular favor or disfavor is no criterion of the character maintained with those whose esteem an honorable ambition must court: much less can it be a criterion of that maintained with one’s self. And when the spirit of party directs the public voice, it must be a little mind, indeed, that can suffer in its own estimation, or apprehend danger of suffering in that of others.

APPENDIX TO THE DEBATES IN THE FEDERAL CONVENTION.


No. 1.


See page 125.

James M. Varnum

Varnum, James M.

June 18, 1787

Newport

Letter from James M. Varnum, of Rhode Island, to the President of the Convention, enclosing the subjoined Communication, from certain Citizens of Rhode Island, to the Federal Convention.


NEWPORT,

June 18, 1787

.

SIR, —

THE enclosed address, of which I presume your Excellency has received a duplicate, was returned to me, from New York, after my arrival in this state. I flattered myself that our legislature, which convened on Monday last, would have receded from the resolution therein referred to, and have complied with the recommendation of Congress in sending delegates to the Federal Convention. The upper House, or governor and council, embraced the measure; but it was negatived in the House of Assembly by a large majority, notwithstanding that the greatest exertions were made to support it.

Being disappointed in their expectations, the minority in the administration, and all the worthy citizens of this state whose minds are well informed, regretting the peculiarities of their situation, place their fullest confidence in the wisdom and moderation of the national council, and indulge the warmest hopes of being favorably considered in their deliberations. From these deliberations they anticipate a political system which must finally be adopted, and from which will result the safety, the honor, and the happiness, of the United States.

Permit me, sir, to observe, that the measures of our present legislature do not exhibit the real character of the state. They are equally reprobated and abhorred by gentlemen of the learned professions, by the whole mercantile body, and by most of the respectable farmers and mechanics. The majority of the administration is composed of a licentious number of men, destitute of education, and many of them void of principle. From anarchy and confusion they derive their temporary consequence; and this they endeavor to prolong by debauching the minds of the common people, whose attention is wholly directed to the abolition of debts, public and private. With these are associated the disaffected of every description, particularly those who were unfriendly during the war. Their paper money system, founded in oppression and fraud, they are determined to support at every hazard; and, rather than relinquish their favorite pursuit, they trample upon the most sacred obligations. As a proof of this, they refused to comply with a requisition of Congress for repealing all laws repugnant to the treaty of peace with Great Britain, and urged, as their principal reason, that it would be calling in question the propriety of their former measures.

These may be attributed partly to the extreme freedom of our constitution, and partly to the want of energy in the Federal Union; and it is greatly to be apprehended that they cannot speedily be removed, but by uncommon and very serious exertions. It is fortunate, however, that the wealth and resources of this state are chiefly in possession of the well-affected, and that they are entirely devoted to the public good.

I have the honor of being, sir,

With the greatest veneration and esteem,

Your Excellency’s very obedient and

most humble servant, *

His Excellency, Gen. WASHINGTON.

John Brown

Brown, John

John Jinkes

Jinkes, John

Joseph Nightingale

Nightingale, Joseph

Welcome Arnold

Arnold, Welcome

Levi Hall

Hall, Levi

William Russell

Russell, William

Philip Allen

Allen, Philip

Jeremiah Olney

Olney, Jeremiah

Paul Allen

Allen, Paul

William Barton

Barton, William

Jabez Bowen

Bowen, Jabez

Thomas Lloyd Halsey

Halsey, Thomas Lloyd

Nicholas Brown

Brown, Nicholas

May 11, 1787

Letter from certain Citizens of Rhode Island to the Federal Convention, enclosed in the preceding.


PROVIDENCE,

May 11, 1787

.

GENTLEMEN, —

Since the legislature of this state have finally declined sending delegates to meet you in Convention, for the purposes mentioned in the resolve of Congress of the 21st February, 1787, the merchants, tradesmen, and others, of this place, deeply affected with the evils of the present unhappy times, have thought proper to communicate in writing their approbation of your meeting, and their regret that it will fall short of a complete representation of the Federal Union.

The failure of this state was owing to the non-concurrence of the upper House of Assembly with a vote passed in the lower House, for appointing delegates to attend the said Convention, at their session holden at Newport, on the first Wednesday of the present month.

It is the general opinion here, and, we believe, of the well-informed throughout this state, that full power for the regulation of the commerce of the United States, both foreign and domestic, ought to be vested in the national council, and that effectual arrangements should also be made for giving operation to the present powers of Congress in their requisitions for national purposes.

As the object of this letter is chiefly to prevent any impression unfavorable to the commercial interest of the state from taking place in our sister states, from the circumstance of our being unrepresented in the present national Convention, we shall not presume to enter into any detail of the objects we hope your deliberations will embrace and provide for, being convinced they will be such as have a tendency to strengthen the union, promote the commerce, increase the power, and establish the credit, of the United States.

The result of your deliberations, tending to these desirable purposes, we still hope may finally be approved and adopted by this state, for which we pledge our influence and best exertions.

[ * This will be delivered you by the Hon. JAMES M. VARNUM, Esq., who will communicate (with your permission) in person, more particularly, our sentiments on the subject-matter of our address.]

In behalf of the merchants, tradesmen, c., we have the honor, c. c.

(Signed)

John Brown, John Jinkes,

Joseph Nightingale, Welcome Arnold,

Levi Hall, William Russell,

Philip Allen, Jeremiah Olney,

Paul Allen, William Barton,

Jabez Bowen, Thomas Lloyd Halsey,

Committee.

Nicholas Brown,

The Honorable the Chairman of the General Convention, Philadelphia.

No. 2.


See page 129.

Note of Mr. Madison to the Plan of Charles Pinckney, May 29, 1787.


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 inserted in the debates was taken from the paper furnished to the secretary of state, and contained in the Journal of the Convention, published in 1819; which, it being taken for granted that it was a true copy, was not then examined. The coincidence in several instances between that and the Constitution, as adopted, having attracted the notice of others, was at length suggested to mine. 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 was apparent that considerable error had crept into the paper, occasioned possibly by the loss of the document laid before the Convention, (neither that nor the resolution 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, in part at least, 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 modification in the Convention, that could not have been anticipated.

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 Article VIII. of the paper, provision is made for removing the President by impeachment, when it appears that, in the Convention, on the 20th of July, he was opposed to any impeachability of the executive magistrate. In Article III., it is required that all money bills shall originate in the first branch of the legislature; which he strenuously opposed on the 8th of August, and again on the 11th of August. In Article 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 on the 14th of August.

A still more conclusive evidence of error in the paper is seen in Article 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, according to previous notice, too, a few days only after the draught was laid before the Convention, its author opposed that mode of choice, urging and proposing, in place of it, an election by the legislatures of the several states.

The remarks here made, though not material in themselves, were due to the authenticity and accuracy aimed at in this record of the proceedings of a public body so much an object, sometimes, of curious research, as at all times of profound interest. *

No. 3.


Project communicated by Mr. E. Randolph, July 10, as an accommodating Proposition to small States.


See page 317.

I. Resolved, That in the second branch each state have one vote in the following cases:

1. In granting exclusive rights to ports.

2. In subjecting vessels or seamen of the United States to tonnage duties, or other impositions.

3. In regulating the navigation of rivers.

4. In regulating the rights to be enjoyed by citizens of one state in the other states.

5. In questions arising in the guaranty of territory.

6. In declaring war, or taking measures for subduing a rebellion.

7. In regulating corn.

8. In establishing and regulating the post-office.

9. In the admission of new states into the Union.

10. In establishing rules for the government of the militia.

11. In raising a regular army.

12. In the appointment of the executive.

13. In fixing the seat of government.

That in all other cases the right of suffrage be proportioned according to an equitable rule of representation.

II. That, for the determination of certain important questions in the second branch, a greater number of votes than a mere majority be requisite.

III. That the people of each state ought to retain the perfect right of adopting, from time to time, such forms of republican government as to them may seem best, and of making all laws not contrary to the Articles of Union; subject to the supremacy of the general government in those instances only in which that supremacy shall be expressly declared by the Articles of the Union.

IV. That, although every negative given to the law of a particular state shall prevent its operation, any state may appeal to the national judiciary against a negative; and that such negative, if adjudged to be contrary to the powers granted by the Articles of the Union, shall be void.

V. That any individual, conceiving himself injured or oppressed by the partiality or injustice of a law of any particular state, may resort to the national judiciary, who may adjudge such law to be void, if found contrary to the principles of equity and justice.

No. 4.


Note to Speech of Mr. Madison of August 7, 1787, on the Right of Popular Suffrage.


See page 387.

As appointments for the general government here contemplated will, in part, be made by the state governments, all the citizens in states where the right of suffrage is not limited to the holders of property will have an indirect share of representation in the general government. But this does not satisfy the fundamental principle, that men cannot be justly bound by laws in making which they have no part. Persons and property being both essential objects of government, the most that either can claim is such a structure of it as will leave a reasonable security for the other. And the most obvious provision, of this double character, seems to be that of confining to the holders of property—the object deemed least secure in popular governments—the right of suffrage for one of the two legislative branches. This is not without example among us; as well as other constitutional modifications, favoring the influence of property in the government. But the United States have not reached the stage of society in which conflicting feelings of the class with, and the class without, property, have the operation natural to them in countries fully peopled. The most difficult of all political arrangements is that of so adjusting the claims of the two classes as to give security to each, and to promote the welfare of all. The federal principle, which enlarges the sphere of power without departing from the elective basis of it, and controls in various ways the propensity in small republics to rash measures, and the facility of forming and executing them, will be found the best expedient yet tried for solving the problem.

Second Note to Speech of Mr. Madison of August 7, 1787.


These observations (see Debates in the Convention of 1787, August 7) do not convey the speaker’s more full and matured view of the subject, which is subjoined. He felt too much at the time the example of Virginia.

The right of suffrage is a fundamental article in republican constitutions. The regulation of it is, at the same time, a task of peculiar delicacy. Allow the right exclusively to property, and the rights of persons may be oppressed. The feudal polity alone sufficiently proves it. Extend it equally to all, and the rights of property, or the claims of justice, may be overruled by a majority without property, or interested in measures of injustice. Of this, abundant proof is afforded by other popular governments: and is not without examples in our own, particularly in the laws impairing the obligation of contracts.

In civilized communities, property, as well as personal rights, is an essential object of the laws, which encourage industry by securing the enjoyment of its fruits,—that industry from which property results, and that enjoyment which consists, not merely in its immediate use, but in its posthumous destination to objects of choice and of kindred or affection.

In a just and a free government, therefore, the rights both of property and of persons ought to be effectually guarded. Will the former be so in case of a universal and equal suffrage? Will the latter be so in case of a suffrage confined to the holders of property?

As the holders of property have at stake all the other rights common to those without property, they may be the more restrained from infringing, as well as the less tempted to infringe, the rights of the latter. It is nevertheless certain that there are various ways in which the rich may oppress the poor; in which property may oppress liberty; and that the world is filled with examples. It is necessary that the poor should have a defence against the danger.

On the other hand, the danger to the holders of property cannot be disguised, if they be underfended against a majority without property. Bodies of men are not less awayed by interest than individuals, and are less controlled by the dread of reproach and the other motives felt by individuals. Hence the liability of the rights of property, and of the impartiality of laws affecting it, to be violated by legislative majorities having an interest, real or supposed, in the injustice: hence agrarian laws, and other levelling schemes: hence the cancelling or evading of debts, and other violations of contracts. We must not shut our eyes to the nature of man, nor to the light of experience. Who would rely on a fair decision from three individuals, if two had an interest in the case opposed to the rights of the third? Make the number as great as you please, the impartiality will not be increased, nor any further security against injustice be obtained, than what may result from the greater difficulty of uniting the willa of a greater number. In all governments there is a power which is capable of oppressive exercise. In monarchies and aristocracies, oppression proceeds from a want of sympathy and responsibility in the government towards the people. In popular governments, the danger lies in an undue sympathy among individuals composing a majority, and a want of responsibility in the majority to the minority. The characteristic excellence of the political system of the United States arises from a distribution and organization of its powers, which, at the same time that they secure the dependence of the government on the will of the nation, provide better guards than are found in any other popular government against interested combinations of a majority against the rights of a minority.

The United States have a precious advantage, also, in the actual distribution of property, particularly the landed property, and in the universal hope of acquiring property. This latter peculiarity is among the happiest contrasts in their situation to that of the old world, where no anticipated change in this respect can generally inspire a like sympathy with the rights of property. There may be at present a majority of the nation who are even freeholders, or the heirs or aspirants to freeholds, and the day may not be very near when such will cease to make up a majority of the community. But they cannot always so continue. With every admissible subdivision of the arable lands, a populousness not greater than that of England or France will reduce the holders to a minority. And whenever the majority shall be without landed or other equivalent property, and without the means or hope of acquiring it, what is to secure the rights of property against the danger from an equality and universality of suffrage, vesting complete power over property in hands without a share in it—not to speak of a danger in the mean time from a dependence of an increasing number on the wealth of a few? In other countries this dependence results—in some from the relations between landlords and tenants, in others both from that source and from the relations between wealthy capitalists and indigent laborers. In the United States, the occurrence must happen from the last source; from the connection between the great capitalists in manufactures and commerce, and the numbers employed by them. Nor will accumulations of capital for a certain time be precluded by our laws of descent and of distribution; such being the enterprise inspired by free institutions, that great wealth in the hands of individuals and associations may not be unfrequent. But it may be observed, that the opportunities may be diminished, and the permanency defeated, by the equalizing tendency of our laws.

No free country has ever been without parties, which are a natural offspring of freedom. An obvious and permanent division of every people is into the owners of the soil and the other inhabitants. In a certain sense, the country may be said to belong to the former. If each landholder has an exclusive property in his share, the body of landholders have an exclusive property in the whole. As the soil becomes subdivided, and actually cultivated by the owners, this view of the subject derives force from the principle of natural law which vests in individuals an exclusive right to the portions of ground with which they have incorporated their labor and improvements. Whatever may be the rights of others, derived from their birth in the country, from their interest in the highways and other tracts left open for common use, as well as in the national edifices and monuments, from their share in the public defence, and from their concurrent support of the government, it would seem unreasonable to extend the right so far as to give them, when become the majority, a power of legislation over the landed property without the consent of the proprietors. Some shield against the invasion of their rights would not be out of place in a just and provident system of government. The principle of such an arrangement has prevailed in all governments where peculiar privileges or interests, held by a part, were to be secured against violation, and in the various associations where pecuniary or other property forms the stake. In the former case, a defensive right has been allowed; and if the arrangement be wrong, it is not in the defence, but in the kind of privilege to be defended. In the latter case, the shares of suffrage allotted to individuals have been, with acknowledged justice, apportioned more or less to their respective interests in the common stock.

These reflections suggest the expediency of such a modification of government as would give security to the part of the society having most at stake, and being most exposed to danger. These modifications present themselves.

1. Confining the right of suffrage to freeholders, and to such as hold an equivalent property, convertible of course into freeholds. The objection to this regulation is obvious. It violates the vital principle of free government, that those who are to be bound by laws ought to have a voice in making them. And the violation would be more strikingly unjust as the law-makers become the minority. The regulation would be as unpropitious, also, as it would be unjust. It would engage the numerical and physical force in a constant struggle against the public authority, unless kept down by a standing army fatal to all parties.

2. Confining the right of suffrage for one branch to the holders of property, and for the other branch to those without property. This arrangement, which would give a mutual defence where there might be mutual danger of encroachment, has an aspect of equality and fairness. But it would not be in fact either equal or fair, because the rights to be defended would be unequal, being on one side those of property as well as of persons, and on the other those of persons only. The temptation, also, to encroach, though in a certain degree mutual, would be felt more strongly on one side than on the other. It would be more likely to beget an abuse of the legislative negative, in extorting concessions at the expense of property, than the reverse. The division of the state into two classes, with distinct and independent organs of power, and without any intermingled agency whatever, might lead to contests and antipathies not dissimilar to those between the patricians and plebeians at Rome.

3. Confining the right of electing one branch of the legislature to freeholders, and admitting all others to a common right with holders of property in electing the other branch. This would give a defensive power to the holders of property, and to the class also without property, when becoming a majority of electors, without depriving them in the mean time of a participation in the public councils. If the holders of property would thus have a twofold share of representation, they would have at the same time a twofold stake in it—the rights of property as well as of persons, the twofold object of political institutions. And if no exact and safe equilibrium can be introduced, it is more reasonable that a preponderating weight should be allowed to the greater interest than to the lesser. Experience alone can decide how far the practice in this case would accord with the theory. Such a distribution of the right of suffrage was tried in New York, and has been abandoned,—whether from experienced evils, or party calculations, may possibly be a question. It is still on trial in North Carolina,—with what practical indications, is not known. It is certain that the trial, to be satisfactory, ought to be continued for no inconsiderable period; until, in fact, the non-freeholders should be the majority.

4. Should experience or public opinion require an equal and universal suffrage for each branch of the government, such as prevails generally in the United States, a resource favorable to the right of the landed and other property, when its possessors become the minority, may be found in an enlargement of the election districts for one branch of the legislature, and a prolongation of its period of service. Large districts are manifestly favorable to the election of persons of general respectability, and of probable attachment to the rights of property, over competitors depending on the personal solicitation practicable on a contracted theatre. And, although an ambitious candidate, of personal distinction, might occasionally recommend himself to popular choice by espousing a popular though unjust object, it might rarely happen to many districts at the same time. The tendency of a longer period of service would be to render the body more stable in its policy, and more capable of stemming popular currents taking a wrong direction, till reason and justice could regain their ascendency.

5. Should even such a modification as the last be deemed inadmissible, and universal suffrage, and very short periods of election, within contracted spheres, be required for each branch of the government, the security for the holders of property, when the minority, can only be derived from the ordinary influence possessed by property, and the superior information incident to its holders; from the popular sense or justice, enlightened and enlarged by a diffusive education; and from the difficulty of combining and effectuating unjust purposes throughout an extensive country,—a difficulty essentially distinguishing the United States, and even most of the individual states, from the small communities, where a mistaken interest, or contagious passion, could readily unite a majority of the whole, under a factious leader, in trampling on the rights of the minor party.

Under every view of the subject, it seems indispensable that the mass of citizens should not be without a voice in making the laws which they are to obey, and in choosing the magistrates who are to administer them. And if the only alternative be between an equal and universal right of suffrage for each branch of the government and a confinement of the entire right to a part of the citizens, it is better that those having the greater interest at stake—namely, that of property and persons both—should be deprived of half their share in the government, than that those having the lesser interest—that of personal rights only—should be deprived of the whole.

Third Note on the same Subject, during the Virginia Convention for amending the Constitution of the State, 1829—30.


The right of suffrage being of vital importance, and approving an extension of it to housekeepers and heads of families, I will suggest a few considerations which govern my judgment on the subject.

Were the Constitution on hand to be adapted to the present circumstances of our country, without taking into view the changes which time is rapidly producing, an unlimited extension of the right would probably vary little the character of our public councils or measures. But, as we are to prepare a system of government for a period which it is hoped will be a long one, we must look to the prospective changes in the condition and composition of the society on which it is to act.

It is a law of nature, now well understood, that the earth, under a civilized cultivation, is capable of yielding subsistence for a large surplus of consumers beyond those having an immediate interest in the soil; a surplus which must increase with the increasing improvements in agriculture, and the labor-saving arts applied to it. And it is a lot of humanity, that of this surplus a large proportion is necessarily reduced, by a competition for employment, to wages which afford them the bare necessaries of life. The proportion being without property, or the hope of acquiring it, cannot be expected to sympathize sufficiently with its rights, to be safe depositaries of power over them.

What is to be done with this unfavored class of the community? If it be, on one hand, unsafe to admit them to a full share of political power, it must be recollected, on the other, that it cannot be expedient to rest a republican government on a portion of society having a numerical and physical force excluded from and liable to be turned against it, and which would lead to a standing military force, dangerous to all parties, and to liberty itself.

This view of the subject makes it proper to embrace, in the partnership of power, every description of citizens having a sufficient stake in the public order and the stable administration of the laws; and particularly the housekeeper and heads of families; most of whom, “having given hostages to fortune,” will have given them to their country also.

This portion of the community, added to those who, although not possessed of a share of the soil, are deeply interested in other species of property, and both of them added to the territorial proprietors, who in a certain sense may be regarded as the owners of the country itself, form the safest basis of free government. To the security for such a government, afforded by these combined numbers, may be further added the political and moral influence emanating from the actual possession of authority, and a just and beneficial exercise of it.

It would be happy if a state of society could be found or framed, in which an equal voice in making the laws might be allowed to every individual bound to obey them. But this is a theory which, like most theories, confessedly requires limitations and modifications. And the only question to be decided, in this as in other cases, turns on the particular degree of departure, in practice, required by the essence and object of the theory itself.

It must not be supposed that a crowded state of population, of which we have no example, and which we know only by the image reflected from examples elsewhere, is too remote to claim attention.

The ratio of increase in the United States shows that the present

12 millions will, in 25 years, be 24 millions.

24 millions will, 50 years, 48 millions.

48 millions will, 75 years, 96 millions.

96 millions will, 100 years, 192 millions.

There may be a gradual decrease of the rate of increase; but it will be small as long as the agriculture shall yield its abundance. Great Britain has doubled her population in the last 50 years, notwithstanding its amount in proportion to its territory at the commencement of that period; and Ireland is a much stronger proof of the effect of an increasing product of food in multiplying the consumers.

How far this view of the subject will be affected by the republican laws of descent and distribution, in equalizing the property of the citizens, and in reducing to the minimum mutual surpluses for mutual supplies, cannot be inferred from any direct and adequate experiment. One result would seem to be a deficiency of the capital for the expensive establishments which facilitate labor and cheapen its products, on one hand, and, on the other, of the capacity to purchase the costly and ornamental articles consumed by the wealthy alone, who must cease to be idlers and become laborers; another, the increased mass of laborers added to the production of necessaries, by the withdrawal, for this object, of a part of those now employed in producing luxuries, and the addition to the laborers from the class of present consumers of luxuries. To the effect of these changes, intellectual, moral, and social, the institutions and laws of the country must be adapted, and it will require for the task all the wisdom of the wisest patriots.

Supposing the estimate of the growing population of the United States to be nearly correct, and the extent of their territory to be eight or nine hundred millions of acres, and one fourth of it to consist of inarable surface; there will, in a century or little more, be nearly as crowded a population in the United States as in Great Britain or France; and if the present constitution, [of Virginia,] with all its flaws, has lasted more than half a century, it is not an unreasonable hope that an amended one will last more than a century.

If these observations be just, every mind will be able to develop and apply them.

No. 5.


Copy of a Paper communicated to James Madison by Col. Hamilton, about the close of the Convention in Philadelphia, 1787, which, he said, delineated the Constitution which he would have wished to be proposed by the Convention. He had stated the principles of it in the course of the deliberations.


The people of the United States of America do ordain and establish this Constitution for the government of themselves and their posterity:—

ARTICLE I.—Sec. 1. The legislative power shall be vested in two distinct bodies of men, one to be called the Assembly, the other the Senate, subject to the negative hereinafter mentioned.

Sec. 2. The executive power, with the qualifications hereinafter specified, shall be vested in a President of the United States.

Sec. 3. The supreme judicial authority, except in the cases otherwise provided for in this Constitution, shall be vested in a court, to be called the Supreme Court, to consist of not less than six nor more than twelve judges.

ART. II.—Sec. 1. The Assembly shall consist of persons to be called representatives, who shall be chosen, except in the first instance, by the free male citizens and inhabitants of the several states comprehended in the Union, all of whom, of the age of twenty-one years and upwards, shall be entitled to an equal vote.

Sec. 2. But the first Assembly shall be chosen in the manner prescribed in the last Article, and shall consist of one hundred members; of whom New Hampshire shall have five; Massachusetts, thirteen; Rhode Island, two; Connecticut, seven; New York, nine; New Jersey, six; Pennsylvania, twelve; Delaware, two; Maryland, eight; Virginia, sixteen; North Carolina, eight; South Carolina, eight; Georgia, four.

Sec. 3. The legislature shall provide for the future elections of representatives, apportioning them in each state, from time to time, as nearly as may be to the number of persons described in the fourth section of the seventh article, so as that the whole number of representatives shall never be less than one hundred, nor more than—hundred. There shall be a census taken for this purpose within three years after the first meeting of the legislature, and within every successive period of ten years. The term for which representatives shall be elected shall be determined by the legislature, but shall not exceed three years. There shall be a general election at least once in three years, and the time of service of all the members in each assembly shall begin (except in filling vacancies) on the same day, and shall always end on the same day.

Sec. 4. Forty members shall make a House sufficient to proceed to business, but their number may be increased by the legislature, yet so as never to exceed a majority of the whole number of representatives.

Sec. 5. The Assembly shall choose its president the other officers; shall judge of the qualifications and elections of its own members; punish them for improper conduct in their capacity of representatives, not extending to life or limb; and shall exclusively possess the power of impeachment, except in the case of the President of the United States; but no impeachment of a member of the Senate shall be by less than two thirds of the representatives present.

Sec. 6. Representatives may vote by proxy; but no representative present shall be proxy for more than one who is absent. *

Sec. 7. Bills for raising revenue, and bills for appropriating moneys for the support of fleets and armies, and for paying the salaries of the officers of government, shall originate in the Assembly; but may be altered and amended by the Senate.

Sec. 8. The acceptance of an office under the United States by a representative shall vacate his seat in the Assembly.

ART. III.—Sec. 1. The Senate shall consist of persons to be chosen, except in the first instance, by electors elected for that purpose by the citizens and inhabitants of the several states comprehended in the Union, who shall have, in their own right, or in the right of their wives, an estate in land, for not less than life, or a term of years, whereof, at the time of giving their votes, there shall be at least fourteen years unexpired.

Sec. 2. But the first Senate shall be chosen in the manner prescribed in the last article; and shall consist of forty members, to be called senators; of whom New Hampshire shall have—; Massachusetts,—; Rhode Island,—; Connecticut,—; New York,—; New Jersey,—; Pennsylvania,—; Delaware,—; Maryland,—; Virginia,—; North Carolina,—South Carolina,—; Georgia,—.

Sec. 3. The legislature shall provide for the future elections of senators, for which purpose the states, respectively, which have more than one senator, shall be divided into convenient districts, to which the senators shall be apportioned. A state having but one senator, shall be itself a district. On the death, resignation, or removal from officer of a senator, his place shall be supplied by a new election in the district from which he came. Upon each election there shall be not less than six, nor more than twelve, electors chosen in a district.

Sec. 4. The number of senators shall never be less than forty, nor shall any state, if the same shall not hereafter be divided, ever have less than the number allotted to it in the second section of this article; but the legislature may increase the whole number of senators, in the same proportion to the whole number of representatives, as forty is to one hundred; and such increase beyond the present number shall be apportioned to the respective states in a ratio to the respective numbers of their representatives.

Sec. 5. If states shall be divided, or if a new arrangement of the boundaries of two or more states shall take place, the legislature shall apportion the number of senators (in elections succeeding such division or new arrangement) to which the constituent parts were entitled according to the change of situation, having regard to the number of persons described in the fourth section of the seventh article.

Sec. 6. The senators shall hold their places during good behavior, removable only by conviction, on impeachment, for some crime or misdemeanor. They shall continue to exercise their offices, when impeached, until a conviction shall take place. Sixteen senators attending in person shall be sufficient to make a House to transact business; but the legislature may increase this number, yet so as never to exceed a majority of the whole number of senators. The senators may vote by proxy, but no senator who is present shall be proxy for more than two who are absent.

Sec. 7. The Senate shall choose its president and other officers; shall judge of the qualifications and elections of its members; and shall punish them for improper conduct in their capacity of senators; but such punishment shall not extend to life or limb, nor to expulsion. In the absence of their president they may choose a temporary president. The president shall only have a casting vote when the House is equally divided.

Sec. 8. The Senate shall exclusively possess the power of declaring war. No treaty shall be made without their advice and consent; which shall also be necessary to the appointment of all officers except such for which a different provision is made in this Constitution.

ART. IV.—Sec. 1. The President of the United States of America (except in the first instance) shall be elected in the manner following: The judges of the Supreme Court shall, within sixty days after a vacancy shall happen, cause public notice to be given, in each state, of such vacancy; appointing therein three several days for the several purposes following—to wit, a day for commencing the election of electors for the purposes hereinafter specified, to be called the first electors, which day shall not be less than forty, nor more than sixty days, after the day of the publication of the notice in each state; another day for the meeting of the electors, not less [than] forty, nor more than ninety, days from the day for commencing their election; another day for the meeting of electors to be chosen by the first electors, for the purpose hereinafter specified, and to be called the second electors, which day shall be not less than forty, nor more than sixty, days after the day for the meeting of the first electors.

Sec. 2. After notice of a vacancy shall have been given, there shall be chosen in each state a number of persons, as the first electors in the preceding section mentioned, equal to the whole number of the representatives and senators of such state in the legislature of the United States; which electors shall be chosen by the citizens of such state having an estate of inheritance, or for three lives, in land, or a clear personal estate of the value of one thousand Spanish milled dollars of the present standard.

Sec. 3. These first electors shall meet, in their respective states, at the time appointed, at one place, and shall proceed to vote by ballot for a President, who shall not be one of their own number, unless the legislature upon experiment should hereafter direct otherwise. They shall cause two lists to be made of the name or names of the person or persons voted for, which they, or the major part of them, shall sign and certify. They shall then proceed each to nominate, openly, in the presence of the others, two persons as for second electors; and out of the persons who shall have the four highest numbers of nominations, they shall afterwards by ballot, by plurality of votes, choose two who shall be the second electors, to each of whom shall be delivered one of the lists before mentioned. These second electors shall not be any of the persons voted for as President. A copy of the same list, signed and certified in like manner, shall be transmitted by the first electors to the seat of the government of the United States, under a sealed cover directed to the president of the Assembly; which, after the meeting of the second electors, shall be opened for the inspection of the two Houses of the legislature.

Sec. 4. The second electors shall meet precisely on the day appointed, and not on another day, at one place. The chief justice of the Supreme Court, or, if there be no chief justice, the judge senior in office in such court, or, if there be no one judge senior in office, some other judge of that court, by the choice of the rest of the judges, or of a majority of them, shall attend at the same place, and shall preside at the meeting, but shall have no vote. Two thirds of the whole number of the electors shall constitute a sufficient meeting for the execution of their trust. At this meeting the lists delivered to the respective electors shall be produced and inspected; and if there be any person who has a majority of the whole number of votes given by the first electors, he shall be the President of the United States; but if there be no such person, the second electors so met shall proceed to vote by ballot, for one of the persons named in the lists, who shall have the three highest numbers of the votes of the first electors; and if upon the first or any succeeding ballot, on the day of their meeting, either of those persons shall have a number of votes equal to a majority of the whole number of second electors chosen, he shall be the President. But if no such choice be made on the day appointed for the meeting, either by reason of the non-attendance of the second electors, or their not agreeing, or any other matter, the person having the greatest number of votes of the first electors shall be the President.

Sec. 5. If it should happen that the chief justice or some other judge of the Supreme Court should not attend in due time, the second electors shall proceed to the execution of their trust without him.

Sec. 6. If the judges should neglect to cause the notice required by the first section of this article to be given within the time therein limited, they may nevertheless cause it to be afterwards given; but their neglect, if wilful, is hereby declared to be an offence for which they may be impeached, and, if convicted, they shall be punished as in other cases of conviction on impeachment.

Sec. 7. The legislature shall, by permanent laws, provide such further regulations as may be necessary for the more orderly election of the President, not contravening the provisions herein contained.

Sec. 8. The President, before he shall enter upon the execution of his office, shall take an oath, or affirmation, faithfully to execute the same, and to the utmost of his judgment and power to protect the rights of the people, and preserve the Constitution inviolate. This oath, or affirmation, shall be administered by the president of the Senate for the time being, in the presence of both Houses of the legislature.

Sec. 9. The Senate and the Assembly shall always convene in session on the day appointed for the meeting of the second electors, and shall continue sitting till the President take the oath, or affirmation, of office. He shall hold his place during good be havior, * removable only by conviction upon impeachment for some crime or misdemeanor.

Sec. 10. The President, at the beginning of every meeting of the legislature, as soon as they shall be ready to proceed to business, shall convene them together at the place where the Senate shall sit, and shall communicate to them all such matters as may be necessary for their information, or as may require their consideration. He may by message, during the session, communicate all other matters which may appear to him proper. He may, whenever, in his opinion, the public business shall require it, convene the Senate and Assembly, or either of them, and may prorogue them for a time not exceeding forty days at one prorogation; and if they should disagree about their adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper. He shall have a right to negative all bills, resolutions, or acts, of the two Houses of the legislature about to be passed into laws. He shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. He shall be the commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia within the several states, and shall have the direction of war when commenced; but he shall not take the actual command, in the field, of an army, without the consent of the Senate and Assembly. All treaties, conventions, and agreements with foreign nations, shall be made by him, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. He shall have the appointment of the principal or chief officers of each of the departments of war, naval affairs, finance, and foreign affairs; and shall have the nomination, and by and with the consent of the Senate, the appointment of all other officers to be appointed under the authority of the United States, except such for whom different provision is made by this Constitution; and provided that this shall not be construed to prevent the legislature from appointing, by name in their laws, persons to special and particular trusts created in such laws; nor shall be construed to prevent principals in offices merely ministerial from constituting deputies. In the recess of the Senate he may fill vacancies in offices, by appointments to continue in force until the end of the next session of the Senate. And he shall commission all officers. He shall have power to pardon all offences, except treason, for which he may grant reprieves, until the opinion of the Senate and Assembly can be had; and, with their concurrence, may pardon the same.

Sec. 11. He shall receive a fixed compensation for his services, to be paid to him at stated times, and not to be increased nor diminished during his continuance in office.

Sec. 12. If he depart out of the United States without the consent of the Senate and Assembly, he shall thereby abdicate his office.

Sec. 13. He may be impeached for any crime or misdemeanor by the two Houses of the legislature, two thirds of each House concurring; and, if convicted, shall be removed from office. He may be afterwards tried and punished in the ordinary course of law. His impeachment shall operate as a suspension from office until the determination thereof.

Sec. 14. The president of the Senate shall be Vice-President of the United States. On the death, resignation, or impeachment, removal from office, or absence from the United States, of the President thereof, the Vice-President shall exercise all the powers by this Constitution vested in the President, until another shall be appointed, or until he shall return within the United States, if his absence was with the consent of the Senate and Assembly.

ART. V.—Sec. 1. There shall be a chief justice of the Supreme Court, who, together with the other judges thereof, shall hold the office during good behavior, removable only by conviction on impeachment for some crime or misdemeanor. Each judge shall have a competent salary, to be paid to him at stated times, and not to be diminished during his continuance in office.

The Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in all causes in which the United States shall be a party; in all controversies between the United States and a particular state, or between two or more states, except such as relate to a claim of territory between the United States and one or more states, which shall be determined in the mode prescribed in the sixth article, in all cases affecting foreign ministers, consuls, and agents; and an appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, in all cases which shall concern the citizens of foreign nations; in all questions between the citizens of different states; and in all others in which the fundamental rights of this Constitution are involved, subject to such exceptions as are herein contained, and to such regulations as the legislature shall provide.

The judges of all courts which may be constituted by the legislature shall also hold their places during good behavior, removable only by conviction, on impeachment, for some crime or misdemeanor; and shall have competent salaries, to be paid at stated times, and not to be diminished during their continuance in office; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to prevent the legislature from abolishing such courts themselves.

All crimes, except upon impeachment, shall be tried by a jury of twelve men; and if they shall have been committed within any state, shall be tried within such state; and all civil causes arising under this Constitution, of the like kind with those which have been heretofore triable by jury in the respective states, shall in like manner be tried by jury; unless in special cases the legislature shall think proper to make different provision; to which provision the concurrence of two thirds of both Houses shall be necessary.

Sec. 2. Impeachments of the President and Vice-President of the United States, members of the Senate, the governors and presidents of the several states, the principal or chief officers of the departments enumerated in the tenth section of the fourth article, ambassadors, and other like public ministers, the judges of the Supreme Court, generals, and admirals of the navy, shall be tried by a court to consist of the judges of the Supreme Court, and the chief justice, or first or senior judge of the superior court of law in each state, of whom twelve shall constitute a court. A majority of the judges present may convict. All other persons shall be tried, on impeachment, by a court to consist of the judges of the Supreme Court and six senators drawn by lot; a majority of whom may convict.

Impeachments shall clearly specify the particular offence for which the party accused is to be tried, and judgment on conviction, upon the trial thereof, shall be, either removal from office singly, or removal from office and disqualification for holding any future office, or place of trust; but no judgment on impeachment shall prevent prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law; provided, that no judge concerned in such conviction shall sit as judge on the second trial. The legislature may remove the disabilities incurred by conviction on impeachment.

ART. VI.—Controversies about the right of territory between the United States and particular states shall be determined by a court to be constituted in manner following: The state or states claiming in opposition to the United States, as parties, shall nominate a number of persons, equal to double the number of the judges of the Supreme Court for the time being, of whom none shall be citizens by birth of the states which are parties, nor inhabitants thereof when nominated, and of whom not more than two shall have their actual residence in one state. Out of the persons so nominated, the Senate shall elect one half, who, together with the judges of the Supreme Court, shall form the court. Two thirds of the whole number may hear and determine the controversy, by plurality of voices. The states concerned may, at their option, claim a decision by the Supreme Court only. All the members of the court hereby instituted shall, prior to the hearing of the cause, take an oath, impartially, and according to the best of their judgments and consciences, to hear and determine the controversy.

ART. VII.—Sec. 1. The legislature of the United States shall have power to pass all laws which they shall judge necessary to the common defence and general welfare of the Union. But no bill, resolution, or act, of the Senate and Assembly shall have the force of a law until it shall have received the assent of the President, or of the Vice-President when exercising the powers of the President; and if such assent shall not have been given within ten days after such bill, resolution, or other act, shall have been presented to him for that purpose, the same shall not be a law. No bill, resolution, or other act, not assented to, shall be revived in the same session of the legislature. The mode of signifying such assent shall be by signing the bill, act, or resolution, and returning it, so signed, to either House of the legislature.

Sec. 2. The enacting style of all laws shall be, “Be it enacted by the people of the United States of America.”

Sec. 3. No bill of attainder shall be passed, nor any ex post facto law; nor shall any title of nobility be granted by the United States, or by either of them; nor shall any person holding an office or place of trust under the United States, without the permission of the legislature, accept any present, emolument, office, or title, from a foreign prince or state. Nor shall any religious sect, or denomination, or religious test for any office or place, be ever established by law.

Sec. 4. Taxes on lands, houses, and other real estate, and capitation taxes, shall be proportioned, in each state, by the whole number of free persons, except Indians not taxed, and by three fifths of all other persons.

Sec. 5. The two Houses of the legislature may, by joint ballot, appoint a treasurer of the United States. Neither House, in the session of both Houses, without the consent of the other, shall adjourn for more than three days at a time. The senators and representatives, in attending, going to, and coming from, the session of their respective Houses, shall be privileged from arrest, except for crimes, and breaches of the peace. The place of meeting shall always be at the seat of government, which shall be fixed by law.

Sec. 6. The laws of the United States, and the treaties which have been made under the Articles of the Confederation, and which shall be made under this Constitution, shall be the supreme law of the land, and shall be so construed by the courts of the several states.

Sec. 7. The legislature shall convene at least once in each year; which, unless otherwise provided for by law, shall be on the first Monday in December.

Sec. 8. The members of the two Houses of the legislature shall receive a reasonable compensation for their services, to be paid out of the treasury of the United States, and ascertained by law. The law for making such provision shall be passed with the concurrence of the first assembly, and shall extend to succeeding assemblies; and no succeeding assembly shall concur in an alteration of such provision so as to increase its own compensation; but there shall be always a law in existence for making such provision.

ART. VIII.—Sec. 1. The governor or president of each state shall be appointed under the authority of the United States, and shall have a right to negative all laws about to be passed in the state of which he shall be governor or president, subject to such qualifications and regulations as the legislature of the United States shall prescribe. He shall in other respects have the same powers only which the constitution of the state does, or shall, allow to its governor or president, except as to the appointment of officers of the militia.

Sec. 2. Each governor or president of a state shall hold his office until a successor be actually appointed, unless he die or resign, or be removed from office by conviction on impeachment. There shall be no appointment of such governor or president in the recess of the Senate.

The governors and presidents of the several states, at the time of the ratification of this Constitution, shall continue in office in the same manner and with the same powers as if they had been appointed pursuant to the first section of this article.

The officers of the militia in the several states may be appointed under the authority of the United States; the legislature whereof may authorize the governors or presidents of states to make such appointments, with such restrictions as they shall think proper.

ART. IX.—Sec. 1. No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States, unless he be now a citizen of one of the states, or hereafter be born a citizen of the United States.

Sec. 2. No person shall be eligible as a senator or representative unless, at the time of his election, he be a citizen and inhabitant of the state in which he is chosen; provided, that he shall not be deemed to be disqualified by a temporary absence from the state.

Sec. 3. No person entitled by this Constitution to elect, or to be elected, President of the United States, or a senator or representative in the legislature thereof, shall be disqualified but by the conviction of some offence for which the law shall have previously ordained the punishment of disqualification. But the legislature may by law provide that persons holding offices under the United States, or either of them, shall not be eligible to a place in the Assembly or Senate, and shall be during their continuance in office suspended from sitting in the Senate.

Sec. 4. No person having an office or place of trust under the United States, shall without permission of the legislature, accept any present, emolument, office, or title from any foreign prince or state.

Sec. 5. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to the rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens in every other state; and full faith and credit shall be given, in each state, to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of another.

Sec. 6. Fugitives from justice from one state, who shall be found in another, shall be delivered up, on the application of the state from which they fled.

Sec. 7. No new state shall be erected within the limits of another, or by the junction of two or more states, without the concurrent consent of the legislatures of the United States, and of the states concerned. The legislature of the United States may admit new states into the Union.

Sec. 8. The United States are hereby declared to be bound to guaranty to each state a republican form of government; and to protect each state as well against domestic violence as foreign invasion.

Sec. 9. All treaties, contracts, and engagements of the United States of America, under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, shall have equal validity under this Constitution.

Sec. 10. No state shall enter into a treaty, alliance, or contract with another, or with a foreign power, without the consent of the United States.

Sec. 11. The members of the legislature of the United States and of each state, and all officers, executive and judicial, of the one and of the other, shall take an oath, or affirmation, to support the Constitution of the United States.

Sec. 12. This Constitution may receive such alterations and amendments as may be proposed by the legislature of the United States, with the concurrence of two thirds of the members of both Houses, and ratified by the legislatures of, or by conventions of deputies chosen by the people in two thirds of the states composing the Union.

ART. X.—This Constitution shall be submitted to the consideration of conventions in the several states, the members whereof shall be chosen by the people of such states, respectively, under the direction of their respective legislatures. Each convention which shall ratify the same, shall appoint the first representatives and senators from such state according to the rule prescribed in the—section of the—article. The representatives so appointed shall continue in office for one year only. Each convention so ratifying shall give notice thereof to the Congress of the United States, transmitting at the same time a list of the representatives and senators chosen. When the Constitution shall have been duly ratified, Congress shall give notice of a day and place for the meeting of the senators and representatives from the several states; and when these, or a majority of them, shall have assembled according to such notice, they shall by joint ballot, by plurality of votes, elect a President of the United States; and the Constitution thus organized shall be carried into effect.

REFERENCES.

*

The proceedings of grand committees, though often rendered particularly important by the freedom and fulness of discussion, make no part of the Journal, except in the reported result.

*

This proposed to require the states to value the land, and return the valuations to Congress.

*

Mr. Hamilton was most strenuous on this point. Mr. Wilson also favored the idea; Mr. Madison also, but restrained, in some measure, by the declared sense of Virginia: Mr. Gorham, and several others, also, but wishing previous experience.

*

Drawn by Colonel Hamilton.

*

The papers just read, from Virginia, complained of her inability, without mentioning an inequality. This was deemed a strange assertion.

*

This remark was imprudent, and injurious to the cause which it was meant to serve. This influence was the very source of jealousy which rendered the states averse to a revenue under collection, as well as appropriation of Congress. All the members of Congress who concurred in any degree, with the states in this jealousy, smiled at the disclosure. Mr. Bland, and still more Mr. Lee, who were of this number, took notice, in private conversation, that Mr. Hamilton had let out the secret.

*

He was apprehensive that a tax on land according to its quantity, not value, as had been recommended by Mr. Morris, was in contemplation.

*

A poll-tax to be qualified by rating blacks somewhat lower than whites; a land-tax, by considering the value of land in each state to be in an inverse proportion of its quantity to the number of people; and apportioning on the aggregate quantity in each state accordingly, leaving the state at liberty to make a distributive apportionment on its several districts on a like or any other equalizing principle.

Mr. Hamilton told Mr. Madison, privately, that M. de Marbois, speaking of the treaty, asked him emphatically whether there were not some articles which required animadversion. Mr. H. did not, at the time, know what was alluded to. He now supposed the allusion to be to some article supposed to be inconsistent with the treaty with France; particularly the article referring to the select articles of the latter, instead of the whole; which article, Mr. Adams informed Congress, had been satisfactory to the Duke de la Vauguyon.

*

He supposed that sum due, by the United States, to citizens of Pennsylvania, for loans.

*

Mr. DYER ludicrously proposed, as a proviso to the scheme of referring the valuation to the states, “that each of the states should cheat equally.”

*

This was an oblique allusion to Mr. Lee, whose enmity to the French was suspected by him c.

*

Virginia—Mr. Jones, Mr. Madison, Mr. Bland, no; Mr. Lee, Mr. Mercer, ay.

*

The result proved that mildness was the soundest policy—the legislature, in consequence, having declared the law under which the goods were seized to be void, as contradictory to the Federal Constitution. Some of the members, in conversation, said that, if Congress had declared the law to be void, the displeasure of the legislature might possibly have produced a different issue.

*

Among other reasons, privately weighing with him, he had observed that many of the most respectable people of America supposed the preservation of the Confederacy essential to secure the blessings of the revolution, and permanent funds for discharging debts essential to the preservation of union. A disappointment to this class would certainly abate their ardor, and, in a critical emergency, might incline them to prefer some political connection with Great Britain, as a necessary cure for our internal instability. Again, without permanent and general funds, he did not conceive that the danger of convulsions from the army could be effectually obviated. Lastly, he did not think that any thing would be so likely to prevent disputes among the states, with the calamities consequent on them. The states were jealous of each other, each supposing itself to be, on the whole, a creditor to the others. The Eastern States, in particular, thought themselves so with regard to the Southern States. (See Mr. Gorham, in the debates of this day.) If general funds were not introduced, it was not likely the balances would ever be discharged, even if they should be liquidated. The consequence would be a rupture of the confederacy. The Eastern States would, at sea, be powerful and rapacious; the Southern, opulent and weak. This would be a temptation; the demands on the Southern States would be an occasion; reprisals would be instituted; foreign and would be called in by, first, the weaker, then the stronger side; and, finally, both be made subservient to the wars and politics of Europe.

*

He had in view the following objects: First, the abatements proposed by Mr. HAMILTON Second, a transfer, into the common mass of expenses, of all the separate expenses incuried by the states in their particular defence. Third, an acquisition to the United States of the vacant territory. The plan, thus extended, would affect the interest of the states as follows, viz.: New Hampshire would approve the establishment of a general revenue, as tending to support the Confederacy, to remove causes of future contention, and to secure her trade against separate taxation from the states through which it is carried on. She would also approve of a share in the vacant territory. Having never been much invaded by the enemy, her interest would be opposed to the abatements and throwing all the separate expenditures into the common mass. The discharge of the public debts from the common treasury would not be required by her interest, the loans of her citizens being under her proportion. See the statement of them.

Massachusetts is deeply interested in the discharge of the public debts. The expedition to Penobscot alone interests her, she supposes, in making a common mass of expenses; her interest is opposed to abatements; the other would not peculiarly affect her.

Rhode Island, as a weak state, is interested in a general revenue, as tending to support the Confederacy, and prevent future contentions; but against it, as tending to deprive her of the advantage, afforded by her situation, of taxing the commerce of the contiguous states. As tending to discharge, with certainty, the public debts, her proportion of loans interest her rather against it. Having been the seat of war for a considerable time, she might not, perhaps, be opposed to abatements on that account. The exertions for her defence having been previously sanctioned, it is presumed in most instances she would be opposed to making a common mass of expenses. In the acquisition of vacant territory, she is deeply and anxiously interested.

Connecticut is interested in a general revenue, as tending to protect her commerce from separate taxation from New York and Rhode Island, and somewhat as providing for loan-office creditors. Her interest is opposed to abatements, and to a common mass of expenses. Since the condemnation of her title to her western claims, she may, perhaps, consider herself as interested in the acquisition of the vacant lands. In other respects, she would not be peculiarly affected.

New York is exceedingly attached to a general revenue, as tending to support the Confederacy, and prevent future contests among the states. Although her citizens are not lenders beyond the proportion of the state, yet individuals of great weight are deeply interested in provision for public debts. In abatements New York is also deeply interested; in making a common mass, also, interested; and since the acceptance of her cession, interested in those of other states.

New Jersey is interested, as a smaller state, in a general revenue, as tending to support the Confederacy, and to prevent future contests, and to guard her commerce against the separate taxation of Pennsylvania and New York. The loans of her citizens are not materially disproportionate. Although this state has been much the theatre of the war, she would not perhaps, be interested in abatements. Having had a previous sanction for particular expenditures, her interest would be opposed to a common mass. In the vacant territory, she is deeply and anxiously interested.

Pennsylvania is deeply interested in a general revenue, the loans of her citizens amounting to more than one third of that branch of the public debt. As far as a general impost on trade would restrain her from taxing the trade of New Jersey, it would be against her interest. She is interested against abatements, and against a common mass, her expenditures having been always previously sanctioned. In the vacant territory she is also interested.

Delaware is interested, by her weakness, in a general revenue, as tending to support the Confederacy and future tranquillity of the states; but, materially, by the credits of her citizens. Her interest is opposed to abatements, and to a common mass. To the vacant territory she is firmly attached.

Maryland having never been the seat of war, and her citizens being creditors below her proportion, her interest lies against a general revenue, otherwise than as she is interested, in common with others, in the support of the Confederacy and tranquillity of the United States; but against abatements, and against a common mass. The vacant lands are a favorite object to her.

Virginia, in common with the Southern States, as likely to enjoy an opulent and defenceless trade, is interested in a general revenue, as tending to secure to her the protection of the Confederacy against the maritime superiority of the Eastern States; but against it, as tending to discharge loan-office debts, and to deprive her of the occasion of taxing North Carolina. She is deeply interested in abatements, and essentially so in a common mass; not only her eccentric expenditures being enormous, but many of her necessary ones having received no previous or subsequent sanction. Her cession of territory would be considered as a sacrifice.

North Carolina is interested in a general revenue, as tending to insure the protection of the Confederacy against the maritime superiority of the Eastern States, and to guard her trade from separate taxation by Virginia and South Carolina. The loans of her citizens are inconsiderable. In abatements, and in a common mass, she is essentially interested. In the article of territory, she would have to make a sacrifice.

South Carolina is interested, as a weak and exposed state, in a general revenue, as tending to secure to her the protection of the Confederacy against enemies of every kind, and as providing for the public creditors, her citizens being not only loan-office creditors beyond her proportion, but having immense unliquidated demands against the United States. As restraining her power over the commerce of North Carolina, a general revenue is opposed to her interests. She is also materially interested in abatements, and in a common mass. In the article of territory, her sacrifice would be inconsiderable.

Georgia, as a feeble and opulent frontier state, is peculiarly interested in a general revenue, as tending to support the Confederacy. She is also interested in it somewhat by the creditors of her citizens. In abatements she is also interested, and in a common mass essentially so. In the article of territory, she would make an important sacrifice.

To make this plan still more complete, for the purpose of removing all present complaints, and all occasions of future contests, it may be proper to include in it a recommendation to the states to rescind the rule of apportioning pecuniary burdens according to the value of the land, and to substitute that of numbers, reckoning two slaves as equal to one freeman.

STATE OF THE LOAN-OFFICE DEBT Specie Dollars.

New Hampshire 336,579 58 7

Massachusetts 2,361,866 66 5

Rhode Island 699,725 37 4

Connecticut 1,270,115 30 0

New York 919,729 57 5

New Jersey 658,883 69 0

Pennsylvania 3,948,904 14 4

Delaware 65,820 13 7

Maryland 410,218 30 0

Virginia 313,741 82 5

North Carolina 113,341 11 1

South Carolina 90,442 10 1

Georgia

This, it is to be observed, is only the list of loan-office debts. The unliquidated debts, and liquidated debts of other denominations due to individuals, will vary inexpressibly the relative quantum of credits of the several states. It is to be further observed, that this only shows the original credits, transfers having been constant; heretofore they have flowed into Pennsylvania Other states may hereafter have an influx.

*

In the draft, as laid before the committee by— —, in the tenth paragraph, the word “reasonable” before the word “expenses” was not inserted: but to the paragraph was added, “provided that this allowance shall not be extended to any expenses which shall be declared, by nine votes in Congress, to be manifestly unreasonable.” In other respects the original draft was unaltered, except that a former resolution of Congress, in the words of the ninth paragraph was incorporated by the secretary before it went to the press.

*

The other exception, as to the cards, and the wire for making them, c., was struck out unanimously, on the motion of Mr. Clark; being considered as no longer necessary, and contrary to the general policy of encouraging necessary manufactures among ourselves.

This was meant to guard against a construction that they were to take effect when peace should be agreed on by those powers, and the latter be ready to sign, although the former should be restrained until the other parties should be ready for signing.

*

The committee who reported the instruction were Mr. Carroll, Mr. Jones, Mr. Witherspoon, Mr. Sullivan, and Mr. Matthews. Mr. Witherspoon was particularly prominent throughout.

Messrs. Bland, Lee, and Rutledge.

Mr. Rutledge, who framed, in the committee, the first draft of the declaration made in September last, and the instruction about the same time. This was considerably altered, but not in that respect.

*

Alluding, probably, to the intercepted letter from M. de Marbois.

This construction of the instructions was palpably wrong.

*

Another cause mentined was the large balance of specie in favor of the northern powers during the war.

*

This day not noted in the Journal, as in some other instances

*

His dissent was founded on his construction of the treaty, as stated in a paper handed to Mr. Madison at the time. The following is a copy:—

“The words such treaty are relative.

“The antecedents must either be the ‘treaty proposed to be concluded between the crown of Great Britain and the United States’ or ‘the terms of peace to be agreed upon between Great Britain and France.’

“Let us see how it will read if we understand it in the first sense. The articles are ‘to be inserted, and to constitute the treaty of peace proposed to be concluded between the crown of Great Britain and the United States; but which treaty is not to be concluded (until terms of peace shall be agreed upon between Great Britain and France, and) until his Britannic Majesty shall be ready to conclude such treaty accordingly.’

“The words included in the parenthesis may in this case be omitted, and then the sentence will have no meaning.

“But if the words such treaty are construed as relative to the words terms of peace, the meaning will be plain; and if terms of peace have been agreed upon between France and Britain, then the contingency has happened on which the proposed treaty between America and Britain was to take effect.” †

See his change of opinion expressed in the debates of April 16.

*

From 1783, till this period. Mr. Madison was not a member.

*

From this it may be inferred that he does not regard France as favorable to the claims of Spain touching the Mississippi.

*

Drawn by J. Madison, passed the House of Delegates November 9th, the Senate November 23d—and deputies appointed December 4th, 1786.

*

The letters of Wm. Grayson, March 22d, 1786, and of James Monroe, April 28th, 1786, (both then members,) to Mr. Madison, state that a proposition for such a convention had been made.

*

A letter of Mr. Grayson to Mr. Madison, March 22d, 1786, relating the conduct of New Jersey, states this fact.

See the Journal of her legislature.

*

The nomination came with particular grace from Pennsylvania, as Dr. Franklin alone could have been thought of as a competitor. The doctor was himself to have made the nomination of General Washington, but the state of the weather and of his health confined him to his house.

*

Previous to the arrival of a majority of the states, the rule by which they ought to vote in the Convention had been made a subject of conversation among the members present. It was pressed by Gouverneur Morris, and favored by Robert Morris and others from Pennsylvania, that the large states should unite in firmly refusing to the small states an equal vote, as unreasonable, and as enabling the small states to negative every good system of government, which must, in the nature of things, be founded on a violation of that equality. The members from Virginia, conceiving that such an attempt might beget fatal altercations between the large and small states, and that it would be easier to prevail on the latter, in the course of the deliberations, to give up their equality for the sake of an effective government, than, on taking the field of discussion, to disarm themselves of the right, and thereby throw themselves on the mercy of the larger states, discountenanced and stifled the project.

For the letter, see Appendix, No. 1.

*

This abstract of the speech was furnished to James Madison by Mr. Randolph, and is in his hand-writing.

*

See Appendix, No. 2, for notes on Mr. Pinckney’s plan.

*

This question is omitted in the printed Journal, and the votes applied to the succeeding one, instead of the votes as here stated.

*

This hint was probably meant in terrorem to the smaller states of New Jersey and Delaware. Nothing was said in reply to it.

*

It will throw light on this discussion to remark, that an election by the state legislatures involved a surrender of the principle insisted on by the large states, and dreaded by the small ones—namely, that of a proportional representation in the Senate. Such a rule would make the body too numerous, as the smallest state must elect one member at least.

*

It is probable the votes here turned chiefly on the idea that if the salaries were not here provided for, the members would be paid by their respective states.

*

This plan had been concerted among the deputations, or members thereof, from Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and perhaps Mr. Martin, from Maryland, who made with them a common cause, though on different principles. Connecticut and New York were against a departure from the principle of the Confederation, wishing rather to add a few new powers to Congress than to substitute a national government. The states of New Jersey and Delaware were opposed to a national government, because its patrons considered a proportional representation of the states as the basis of it. The eagerness displayed by the members opposed to a national government, from these different motives, began now to produce serious anxiety for the result of the Convention. Mr. Dickinson said to Mr. Madison, “You see the consequence of pushing things too far. Some of the members from the small states wish for two branches in the general legislature, and are friends to a good national government; but we would sooner submit to foreign power than submit to be deprived, in both branches of the legislature, of an equality of suffrage, and thereby be thrown under the domination of the larger states.”

*

This copy of Mr. Patterson’s propositions varies in a few clauses from that in the printed Journal furnished from the papers of Mr. Brearly, a colleague of Mr. Patterson. A confidence is felt, notwithstanding, in its accuracy. That the copy in the Journal is not entirely correct, is shown by the ensuing speech of Mr. Wilson, (June 16,) in which he refers to the mode of removing the executive “by impeachment and conviction” as a feature in the Virginia plan forming one of its contrasts to that of Mr. Patterson, which proposed a removal “on application of a majority of the executives of the states.” In the copy printed in the Journal, the two modes are combined in the same clause; whether through inadvertence, or as a contemplated amendment, does not appear.

*

The speech introducing the plan, as above taken down and written out, was seen by Mr. Hamilton, who approved its correctness, with one or two verbal changes, which were made as he suggested. The explanatory observations which did not immediately follow were to have been furnished by Mr. H., who did not find leisure at the time to write them out, and they were not obtained. Judge Yates, in his notes, appears to have consolidated the explanatory with the introductory observations of Mr. Hamilton (under date of June 19th, a typographical error.) It was in the former, Mr. Madison observed, that Mr. Hamilton, in speaking of popular governments, however modified, made the remark attributed to him by Judge Yates, that they were “ but pork still, with a little change of sauce. ”

*

It appeared that Massachusetts concurred, not because they thought the state treasury ought to be substituted; but because they thought nothing should be said on the subject, in which case it would silently devolve on the national treasury to support the national legislature.

*

The residue of this speech was not furnished, like the above, by Mr. Pinckney.

*

It must be kept in view that the largest states, particularly Pennsylvania and Virginia, always considered the choice of the second branch by the state legislatures as opposed to a proportional representation, to which they were attached as a fundamental principle of just government. The smaller states, who had opposite views, were reinforced by the members from the large states most anxious to secure the importance of the state governments.

*

Quære, whether Connecticut should not be, no, and Delaware, ay. J. M.

*

From this date he was absent till the 13th of August.

*

He had just returned from New York, having left the Convention a few days after it commenced business.

*

This report was founded on a motion in the committee made by Dr. Franklin. It was barely acquiesced in by the members from the states opposed to an equality of votes in the second branch, and was evidently considered by the members on the other side as a gaining of their point. A motion was made by Mr. Sherman, (who acted in the place of Mr. Ellsworth, who was kept away by indisposition,) in the committee, to the following effect, “that each state should have an equal vote in the second branch; provided that no decision therein should prevail unless the majority of states concurring should also comprise a majority of the inhabitants of the United States.” This motion was not much deliberated on, or approved, in the committee. A similar proviso had been proposed, in the debates on the Articles of Confederation, in 1777, to the articles giving certain powers to “nine states.” See Journals of Congress for 1777, page 462.

*

He was at that time president of the state of Pennsylvania.

*

Several votes were given here in the affirmative, or were divided, because another final question was to be taken on the whole report.

*

They were then to have been a rule of taxation only.

Mr. Carroll said, in explanation of the vote of Maryland, that he wished the phraseology to be so altered as to obviate, if possible, the danger which had been expressed of giving umbrage to the Eastern and Middle States.

*

His object probably was to provide for such cases as an enlargement of Delaware by annexing to it the peninsula on the east side of the Chesapeake.

*

See the paper, in the Appendix, communicated by Mr. Randolph to J. Madison, July 10, No. 3.

*

The probable object of this motion was merely to enforce the argument against the reeligibility of the executive magistrate, by holding out a tenure during good behavior, as the alternative for keeping him independent of the legislature.

The view here taken of the subject was meant to aid in parrying the animadversions likely to fall on the motion of Dr. M’Clurg, for whom J. M. had a particular regard. The doctor, though possessing talents of the highest order, was modest, and unaccustomed to exert them in public debate.

*

This vote is not to be considered as any certain index of opinion, as a number in the affirmative probably had it chiefly in view to alarm those attached to a dependence of the executive on the legislature, and thereby facilitate some final arrangement of a contrary tendency. The avowed friends of an executive “during good behavior” were not more than three or four, nor is it certain they would have adhered to such a tenure.

An independence of the three great departments of each other, as far as possible, and the responsibility of all to the will of the community, seemed to be generally admitted as the true basis of a well-constructed government.

There was no debate on this motion. The apparent object of many in the affirmative was to secure the reëligibility by shortening the term, and of many in the negative to embarrass the plan of referring the appointment and dependence of the executive to the legislature.

*

This might possibly be meant as a caricature of the previous motions, in order to defeat the object of them.

*

The object was to lessen the eagerness on one side for, and the opposition on the other to, the share of representation claimed by the Southern States on account of the negroes.

*

See Appendix, No. 4, page viii., for notes.

*

He disapproved, and, till now, voted against the exclusive privilege. He gave up his judgment, he said, because it was not of very material weight with him, and was made an essential point with others, who, if disappointed, might be less cordial in other points of real weight.

*

The executive consisted at that time of about twenty members

*

This vote in the affirmative by Virginia was occasioned by the acquiescence of Mr. Madison, who became satisfied that striking out the words would not disable the government from the use of public notes, as far as they could be safe and proper; and would only cut off the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender, either for public or private debts.

*

Connecticut voted in the negative; but, on the remark, by Mr. King, that “ make ” war might be understood to “conduct” it, which was an executive function, Mr. Ellsworth gave up his objection, and the vote was changed to ay.

*

This had reference to the disorders, particularly, that had occurred in Massachusetts, which had called for the interposition of the federal troops.

*

The proceedings on this motion, involving the two questions on attainders and ex post facto laws, are not so fully stated in the printed Journal.

*

In the printed Journals, Connecticut, Virginia, and Georgia voted in the affirmative.

*

The vote on this section, as stated in the printed Journal, is not unanimous: the statement here is probably the right one.

*

He meant the permission to import slaves. An understanding on the two subjects of navigation and slavery, had taken place between those parts of the Union, which explains the vote on the motion depending, as well as the language of General Pinckney and others.

*

In the printed Journal, New Hampshire and South Carolina entered in the negative.

*

This is an exact copy. The variations in that in the printed Journal are occasioned by its incorporation of subsequent amendments. This remark is applicable to other cases.

*

This motion is not contained in the printed Journal.

*

This explains the compromise alluded to by Mr. Gouverneur Morris. Col. Mason, Mr. Gerry, and other members from large states, set great value on this privilege of originating money bills. Of this the members from the small states, with some from the large states, who wished a high-mounted government, endeavoured to avail themselves, by making that privilege the price of arrangements in the Constitution favorable to the small states, and to the elevation of the government.

*

An ineligibility would have followed (though it would seem from the vote, not in the opinion of all) this prolongation of the term.

*

This clause was not inserted on this day, but on the 7th of September. See page 521.

*

In the printed Journal, this amendment is put into the original motion.

*

In the printed Journal, Mr. Madison is erroneously substituted for Col. Mason.

*

Not so stated in the printed Journal; but conformable to the result afterwards appearing.

*

This was a conciliatory vote, the effect of the compromise formerly alluded to See note, p. 514.

*

This motion and vote are entered on the printed Journal of the ensuing morning.

*

The printed Journal makes the succeeding proviso as to the fourth and fifth sections of the seventh article, moved by Mr. Rutledge, part of the proposition of Mr. Madison.

*

These motions are not entered in the printed Journal.

*

A literal copy of the printed report follows. The copy in the printed Journals contains some immaterial alterations subsequently made in the House. The copy of the Constitution is omitted, as that instrument, as signed, on the 17th September, is inserted at large hereafter.

*

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

See page 372 of the printed Journal.

*

“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.

*

This motion by Dr. Franklin not stated in the printed Journal, as are some other motions.

*

This was the only occasion on which the President entered at all into the discussions of the Convention.

He alluded to Mr. Blount for one.

*

Gen. Pinckney and Mr. Butler disliked the equivocal form of signing, and on that account voted in the negative.

This negative of Maryland was occasioned by the language of the instructions to the deputies of that state, which required them to report to the state the proceedings of the Convention.

*

That “To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises,” ought not to be a separate clause from “to pay the debts,” c., see, in the printed Journal of the Convention, the report of the committee of eleven, September 4th; also copy of the draft of the Constitution as it stood September 12th, printed by the Convention for the use of the members, now in the department of state; also copy of the Constitution, as agreed to and signed, printed in sheets at the close of the Convention. The proviso, “but all duties, imposts, and excises, shall be uniform,” c., by its immediate reference, suggests the same view of the text. 268

*

The circular letter of Gov. Clinton will be found in Elliot’s Debates, vol. 2, page 387. See, also, Washington’s Writings, vol. 9, page 419.

NOTE. —The following letter from Rhode Island to the Convention was intended to have been delivered by Gen. VARNUM, who had, however, left Philadelphia before its arrival. On his return to Rhode Island, he wrote the letter enclosing it.

*

The signing was omitted through inadvertence, but the letter was from Gen. Varnum.

*

This paragraph was in the letter enclosed by Gen. Varnum, but not in the duplicate alluded to by his letter.

*

Striking discrepancies will be found on a comparison of his plan as furnished to Mr. Adams, and the view given of that which was laid before the Convention, in a pamphlet published by, Francis Childs, at New York, shortly after the close of the Convention. The title of the pamphlet is, “Observations on the plan of government submitted to the Federal Convention on the twenty-eighth of May, 1789, by Charles Pinckney,” c. A copy is preserved among the “Select Tracts,” in the library of the Historical Society of New York. But what conclusively proves that the choice of the House of Representatives by the people could not have been the choice in the lost paper, is a letter from Mr. Pinckney to James Madison, of the 28th of March, 1789, now on his files, in which he emphatically adheres to a choice by the state legislatures. The following is an extract: “Are you not, to use a full expression, abundantly convinced that the theoretical nonsense of an election of the members of Congress by the people, in the first instance, is clearly and practically wrong—that it will in the end be the means of bringing our councils into contempt—and that the legislatures [of the states] are the only proper judges of who ought to be elected?”

NOTE. —The caption, as well as the copy of the following paper, is in the hand-writing of Mr. Madison, and the whole manuscript, and the paper on which it is written, corresponds with the debates in the Convention with which it was preserved. The document was placed in Mr. Madison’s hands for preservation by Col. Hamilton, who regarded it as a permanent evidence of his opinion on the subject. But as he did not express his intention, at the time, that the original should be kept, Mr. Madison returned it, informing him that he had retained a copy. It appears, however, from a communication of the Rev. Dr. Mason to Dr. Eustis, (see letter of Dr. Eustis to J. Madison, 28th April, 1819,) that the original remained among the papers left by Col. Hamilton.

In a letter to Mr. Pickering, dated Sept. 16, 1803, (see Pitkin’s History, Vol. 2, p. 259—60) Col. Hamilton was under the erroneous impression that this paper limited the duration of the presidential term to three years. This instance of the fallibility of Col. Hamilton’s memory, as well as his erroneous distribution of the numbers of the “Federalists,” among the different writers for that work, it has been the lot of Mr. Madison to rectify; and it became incumbent, in the present instance, from the contents of the plan having been seen by others, (previously as well as subsequently to the publication of Col. Hamilton’s letter,) that it, also, should be published.

*

Query,—to provide for distant states.

*

See editorial note at the beginning of this plan.

NOTE 1, PAGE 4.

Washington’s Writings, vol. 8, p. 541.

Public Journals of Congress, 8th November, 1782, vol. 4, p. 103.

NOTE 3, PAGE 8.

See Debates below, p. 14.

NOTE 4, PAGE 9.

Secret Journals of Congress, (Domestic Affairs,) 27th November, 1782, vol. 1, p. 245.

Journal of Assembly of New Jersey, 1782, p. 10. Journal of Council of New Jersey, 1782, p. 7.

The instructions of the legislature of New Jersey, after undergoing much discussion and alteration, were passed on the 1st November, 1782, in the following form:—

“ To the Honorable Elias Boudinot, John Witherspoon, Abraham Clark, Jonathan Elmer, and Silas Condict, Esquires, delegates representing this state in the Congress of the United States.

“ GENTLEMEN, —Application having been made to the legislature for instructions on the important subject of dispute subsisting between the states of New York, New Hampshire, and the people on the New Hampshire Grants, styling themselves the state of Vermont, which is under the consideration of Congress, they are of opinion, (as far as they have documents to direct their inquiry,) that as the competency of Congress was deemed full and complete at the passing of the resolutions of the 7th and 20th of August, 1781, (each of those states having made an absolute reference of the dispute to their final arbitrament,) those acts may be supposed to be founded on strict justice and propriety, nine states having agreed to the measure, and that great regard ought to be had to every determination of Congress, where no new light is thrown upon the subject, or weighty matters occur to justify a reversion of such their decision; and more especially, as it appears that the people on the New Hampshire Grants have, by an act of their legislature, on the 22d of February last, in every instance complied with the preliminaries stated as conditional to such guaranty.

“The legislature, taking up this matter upon general principles, are further of opinion, that Congress, considered as the sovereign guardians of the United States, ought at all times to prefer the general safety of the common cause to the particular separate interest of any individual state, and when circumstances may render such a measure expedient, it ought certainly to be adopted.

“The legislature know of no disposition in Congress to attempt to reduce the said people to allegiance by force; but should that be the case, they will not consent to the sending any military force into the said territory to subdue the inhabitants to the obedience and subjection of the state or states that claim their allegiance.

“They disclaim every idea of imbruing their hands in the blood of their fellow-citizens, or entering into a civil war among themselves, at all times; but more especially at so critical a period as the present, conceiving such a step to be highly impolitic and dangerous.

“You are, therefore, instructed to govern yourselves in the discussion of this business by the aforesaid opinions, as far as they may apply thereto.”

NOTE 5, PAGE 10.

Public Journals of Congress, 3d December, 1782, vol. 4, p. 110.

Secret Journal of Congress, (Foreign Affairs,) 3d December, 1782, vol. 3, p. 255.

Diplomatic Correspondence, (First Series,) 2d December, 1782, vol. 11, p. 282.

Public Journals of Congress, 5th December, 1782, vol. 4, p. 112.

Washington’s Writings, vol. 8, p. 382.

See Debates below, p. 12.

NOTE 6, PAGE 11.

Public Journals of Congress, 4th December, 1782, vol. 4, p. 111.

Minutes of Assembly of Pennsylvania for 1782, pp. 663, 672, 675, 733: the Memorials appear at large in the Minutes.

NOTE 7, PAGE 16.

Public Journals of Congress, 6th December, 1782, vol. 4, p. 114; 12th December, 1782, vol. 4, p. 118; 18th December, 1782, vol. 4, p. 120; 20th December, 1782, vol. 4, p. 123; 31st December, 1782, vol. 4, p. 127; 2d January, 1783, vol. 4, p. 128; 14th January, 1783, vol. 4, p. 142.

Secret Journals of Congress, (Domestic Affairs,) 3d January, 1783, vol. 1, p. 246.

Diplomatic Correspondence, (First Series,) 4th January, 1783, vol. 11, p. 291.

The Providence Gazette, 2d November, 1782; the Boston Gazette, 10th November, 1782.

See Debates below, pp. 20, 80.

NOTE 8, PAGE 19.

Diplomatic Correspondence, (First Series,) 12th October, 1782, vol. 4, p. 25; 18th September, 1782, vol. 8, p. 125; 13th October, 1782, vol. 8, p. 128; vol. 8, pp. 163, 208; 4th January, 1783, vol. 8, p. 215; 10th July, 1783, vol. 7, p. 67; 22d July, 1783, vol. 4, p. 138.

Life of John Jay, vol. 1, pp. 145, 490.

North American Review, vol. 30, No. 66, p. 17; vol. 33, No. 73, p. 475.

See Debates below, p. 77.

NOTE 9, PAGE 26.

Secret Journals of Congress, (Domestic Affairs,) 17th January, 1783, vol. 1, p. 253.

NOTE 10, PAGE 27.

The first of these letters is dated “23d September, 1782;” Diplomatic Correspondence, (First Series,) 23d September, 1782, vol. 6, p. 416; 8th October, 1782, vol. 6, p. 432.

Public Journals of Congress, 23d January, 1783, vol. 4, p. 144.

Secret Journals of Congress, (Foreign Affairs,) 23d January, 1783, vol. 3, p. 289. See Debates below, pp. 27, 38.

NOTE 11, PAGE 29.

Public Journals of Congress, 24th January, 1783, vol. 4, p. 151; 20th February, 1783, vol. 4, p. 165.

Public Journals of Congress, 30th January, 1783, vol. 4, p. 153.

Diplomatic Correspondence, (First Series,) 24th January, 1783, vol. 12, p. 325.

NOTE 12, PAGE 31.

Public Journals of Congress, 25th January, 1783, vol. 4, p. 152.

NOTE 13, PAGE 49.

Public Journals of Congress, 6th February, 1783, vol. 4, p. 157; 12th to 17th February, 1783, vol. 4, p. 160 to 164; 25th February, 1783, vol. 4, p. 166; 10th March, 1783, vol. 4, p. 173. See Debates below, pp. 50, 51.

NOTE 14, PAGE 62.

See Debates below, p. 80.

There is, in the Archives of the Department of State, No. 137, a collection of the letters and reports of Mr. Morris, from 1781 to 1784, in four large folio volumes.

NOTE 15, PAGE 66.

Diplomatic Correspondence, (First Series,) 4th December, 1782, vol. 4, p. 46; vol. 6, p. 464; 12th December, 1782, vol. 8, p. 214; 14th December, 1782, vol. 10, p. 117; 24th December, 1782, vol. 2, p. 484; 30th December, 1782, vol. 11, p. 146.

Franklin’s Works, (Sparks’s edition,) vol. 9, pp. 435, 457.

See Debates below, 26th March, 1783, p. 76.

Life of Gouverneur Morris, vol. 1, pp. 244, 248.

NOTE 16, PAGE 67.

See Diplomatic Correspondence, (First Series,) 17th March, 1783, vol. 12, p. 339.

NOTE 17, PAGE 73.

Public Journals of Congress, 25th January, 1783, vol. 4, p. 152; 25th February, 1783, vol. 4, p. 166; 22d March, 1783, vol. 4, p. 178; 29th April, 1783, vol. 4, p. 206.

Diplomatic Correspondence, (First Series,) 15th October, 1782, vol. 12, p. 279; 17th October, 1782, vol. 12, p. 283; 21st October, 1782, vol. 12, p. 286; 10th January, 1783, vol. 10, p. 20; 15th May, 1783, vol. 12, p. 362.

Secret Journals of Congress, (Domestic Affairs,) 20th February, 1783, vol. 1, p. 254.

Washington’s Writings, 20th October, 1782, vol. 8, p. 353; 14th December, 1782, vol. 8, p. 369; 30th January, 1783, vol. 8, p. 376; 4th March, 1783, vol. 4, p. 388; 12th March, 1783, vol. 8, pp. 392, 393; 18th March, 1783, vol. 8, p. 396; 18th March, 1783, vol. 8, p. 400; 19th March, 1783, vol. 8, p. 403.

Life of General Greene, vol. 2, chap. 19.

Life of Gouverneur Morris, vol. 1, chap. 15, p. 250.

NOTE 18, PAGE 74.

Diplomatic Correspondence, (First Series,) 5th February, 1783, vol. 10, p. 28.

Secret Journal of Congress, (Foreign Affairs,) 24th March, 1783, vol. 3, p. 320.

NOTE 19, PAGE 77.

See Debates above, p. 19.

Secret Journals of Congress, (Foreign Affairs,) 6th to 15th June, 1781, vol. 2, p. 424 to 426; 24th September to 4th October, 1782, vol. 3, p. 218 to 250; 3d January, 1783, vol. 3, p. 269; vol. 3, p. 338.

Diplomatic Correspondence, (First Series,) vol. 4, p. 55 to 58; p. 84; p. 137; p. 163; p. 339; vol. 6, pp. 445, 467; vol. 7, pp. 63, 67; vol. 10, pp. 75, 98, 106, 115, 119, 130, 138; vol. 11, pp. 155, 309.

Franklin’s Works, (Sparks’s edition,) vol. 9, p. 452.

NOTE 20, PAGE 78.

Compare Public Journals of Congress, 20th March, 1783, vol. 4, p. 175, and 18th April, 1783, vol. 4, p. 190.

NOTE 21, PAGE 80.

Public Journals of Congress, 29th March, 1783, vol. 4, p. 181.

See Debates above, p. 62.

NOTE 22, PAGE 80.

See Debates above, p. 16.

In the Archives of the Department of State, No. 64, (being a volume containing the official letters of the governors of Rhode Island addressed to Congress,) this letter and the resolutions of the legislature will be found.

NOTE 23, PAGE 81.

Public Journals of Congress, 24th March, 1783, vol. 4, p. 179.

Diplomatic Correspondence, (First Series,) vol. 11, p. 318.

Almon’s Remembrancer, vol. 15, pp. 365, 366.

NOTE 24, PAGE 81.

See below, p. 117.

Journals of the Legislature of Massachusetts, 13th February, 1783.

Journals of the Legislature of New York, 8th, 10th, and 11th March, 1783.

Journals of the Legislature of New Hampshire, 1st March, 1783.

NOTE 25, PAGE 82.

See Debates below, p. 83.

NOTE 26, PAGE 82.

Washington’s Writings, 30th March, 1783, vol. 8, p. 409.

Life of Greene, vol. 2, p. 391.

NOTE 27, PAGE 83.

See Debates above, pp. 78, 82.

NOTE 28, PAGE 84.

Public Journals of Congress, 11th April, 1783, vol. 4, p. 186.

Diplomatic Correspondence, (First Series,) 10th April, 1783, vol. 11, p. 328; 12th April, 1783, vol. 11, p. 334.

NOTE 29, PAGE 85.

Diplomatic Correspondence, (First Series,) 27th December, 1782, vol. 8, p. 402; 21st April, 1783, vol. 11, p. 335; 1st May, 1783, vol. 8, p. 436.

Secret Journals of Congress, (Foreign Affairs,) 21st May, 1783, vol. 3, p. 344.

NOTE 30, PAGE 86.

Secret Journals of Congress, (Foreign Affairs,) 15th April, 1783, vol. 3, p. 327.

NOTE 31, PAGE 86.

Public Journals of Congress, 16th April, 1783, vol. 4, p. 188.

NOTE 32, PAGE 87.

The following references will exhibit the principal proceedings of the Congress of the Confederation on the subjects of a general revenue and cessions of public land: Public Journals of Congress, 6th September, 1780, vol. 3, p. 516; 1st February, 1781, vol. 3, p. 571; 3d February, 1781, vol. 3, p. 572; 7th February, 1781, vol. 3, p. 574; 1st March, 1781, vol. 3, p. 582; 15th March, 1781, vol. 3, p. 594; 22d March, 1781, vol. 3, p. 600; 16th July, 1781, vol. 3, p. 646; 4th October, 1781, vol. 3, p. 674; 20th February, 1782, vol. 3, p. 721; 1st July, 1782, vol. 4, p. 43; 16th December, 1782, vol. 4, p. 119; 24th December, 1782, vol. 4, p. 126; 30th January, 1783, vol. 4, p. 154; 6th February, 1783, vol. 4, p. 157; 20th and 21st March, 1783, vol. 4, p. 174; 28th March, 1783, vol. 4, p. 180; 1st April, 1783, vol. 4, p. 182; 17th and 18th April, 1783, vol. 4, p. 190; 24th April, 1783, vol. 4, p. 194; 27th and 30th April, 1784, vol. 4, pp. 389, 392; 20th June, 1783, vol. 4, p. 230; 11th September, 1783, vol. 4, pp. 262, 265; 1st March, 1784, vol. 4, p. 342; 18th and 19th April, 1785, vol. 4, p. 501; 23d May, 1785, vol. 4, p. 525; 3d, 7th, and 15th February, 1786, vol. 4, pp. 614, 618; 3d March, 1786, vol. 4, p. 621; 7th July, 1786, vol. 4, p. 661; 27th July, 1786, vol. 4, p. 669; 29th September, 1786, vol. 4, p. 702; 23d October, 1786, vol. 4, p. 715; 15th July, 1788, vol. 4, p. 834.

Elliot’s Debates, vol. 1, p. 92.

NOTE 33, PAGE 87.

Public Journals of Congress, 23d April, 1783, vol. 4, p. 193.

Washington’s Writings, 18th April, 1783, vol. 8, p. 423.

NOTE 34, PAGE 88.

Secret Journals of Congress, (Foreign Affairs,) 5th May, 1783, vol. 3, p. 342.

NOTE 35, PAGE 88.

This resolution does not appear on the Public Journals of Congress till 7th August, 1783, vol. 4, p. 251.

NOTE 36, PAGE 88.

See Public Journals of Congress, 7th May, 1783, vol. 4, p. 220.

NOTE 37, PAGE 88.

See Debates below, p. 90.

Public Journals of Congress, 8th May, 1783, vol. 4, p. 220.

Washington’s Writings, 6th May, 1783, vol. 8, p. 430; Appendix, No. IX.

Diplomatic Correspondence, (First Series,) 14th April, 1783, vol. 11, p. 335; 27th January, 1780, vol. 7, p. 199; 18th February, 1780, vol. 9, p. 21.

There is in the Archives of the Department of State, No. 50, a volume of correspondence of Oliver Pollock, containing that with the committee on Foreign Affairs, in reference to the policy of Spain.

NOTE 38, PAGE 88.

See Debates below, 30th May, 1783, p. 90.

NOTE 39, PAGE 88.

See Debates below, p. 90.

NOTE 40, PAGE 89.

See Debates below, 30th May, p. 90.

Public Journals of Congress, 9th August, 1783, vol. 4, p. 252.

NOTE 41, PAGE 89.

Secret Journals of Congress, (Foreign Affairs,) 21st and 22d May, 1783, vol. 3, p. 344 to 354.

NOTE 42, PAGE 90.

Public Journals of Congress, 23th May, 1783, vol. 4, p. 224.

Washington’s Writings, 7th June, 1783, vol. 8, p. 438.

NOTE 43, PAGE 90.

Secret Journals of Congress, (Foreign Affairs,) 30th May, 1783, vol. 3, pp. 355, 361.

Public Journals of Congress, 30th May, 1783, vol. 4, p. 224.

NOTE 44, PAGE 90.

Public Journals of Congress, 4th June, 1783, vol. 4, p. 226; 4th July, 1783, vol. 4, p. 235.

Diplomatic Correspondence, (First Series,) 18th July, 1783, vol. 12, p. 380.

NOTE 45, PAGE 91.

These instructions are printed in the Public Journals of Congress, 20th June, 1783, vol. 4, p. 231.

NOTE 46, PAGE 91.

Secret Journals of Congress, (Foreign Affairs,) 12th June, 1783, vol. 3, p. 366.

NOTE 47, PAGE 91.

See Debates below, pp. 92, 93.

NOTE 48, PAGE 91.

Public Journals of Congress, 17th June, 1783, vol. 4, p. 228.

NOTE 49, PAGE 93.

Public Journals of Congress, 20th June, 1785, vol. 4, p. 230.

See Debates above, p. 87, and references there.

NOTE 50, PAGE 94.

See Debates above, p. 92.

Public Journals of Congress, 21st June, 1783, vol. 4, p. 231; 1st July, 1783, vol. 4, p. 232; 28th July, 1783, vol. 4, p. 240; 28th August, 1783, vol. 4, p. 257.

Diplomatic Correspondence, (Second Series,) vol. 1, p. 9 to 46.

Washington’s Writings, 24th June, 1783, vol. 8, p. 454.

There is in the Archives of the Department of State, No. 38, a volume containing the letters and papers on this subject.

NOTE 51, PAGE 96.

Public Journals of Congress, 9th March, 1787, vol. 4, p. 725.

Washington’s Writings, vol. 9, pp. 207, 235, 249.

Bradford’s History of Massachusetts, vol. 2, p. 300; Minot’s History of the Insurrection in Massachusetts.

NOTE 52, PAGE 96.

Public Journals of Congress, 21st February, 1787, vol. 4, p. 723.

NOTE 53, PAGE 97.

See Correspondence below, p. 106.

NOTE 54, PAGE 98.

See Debates below, pp. 100, 102, and Correspondence, p. 107.

NOTE 55, PAGE 99.

Public Journals of Congress, 21st March, 1787, vol. 4, p. 730; 13th April, 1787, vol. 4, p. 735.

NOTE 56, PAGE 101.

Diplomatic Correspondence, (Second Series,) vol. 6, pp. 207 to 228.

NOTE 57, PAGE 102.

Public Journals of Congress, 3d May, 1787, vol. 4, p. 741.

Secret Journals of Congress, (Foreign Affairs,) 3d May, 1787, vol. 4, p. 343.

NOTE 58, PAGE 103.

See Correspondence below, p. 103.

Secret Journals of Congress, (Foreign Affairs,) vol. 4, p. 339.

NOTE 60, PAGE 105.

Public Journals of Congress, 31st August, 1786, vol. 4, p. 689.

NOTE 61, PAGE 106.

Public Journals of Congress, 21st February, 1787, vol. 4, p. 723.

NOTE 62, PAGE 110.

Franklin’s Works, (Sparks’s edition,) vol. 3, p. 22; vol. 7, p. 83.

Life of William Livingston, p. 99, and Appendix.

Pitkin’s History of the United States, vol. 1, pp. 142, 429.

NOTE 63, PAGE 110.

American Archives, (Fourth Series,) vol. 1, p. 893.

Mr. Madison has omitted to notice here the Congress which met at New York in October, 1765.

Massachusetts State Papers, vol. 1, p. 35.

Franklin’s Works, (Sparks’s edition,) vol. 7, p. 298.

Political Writings of John Dickinson, vol. 1, p. 91.

Marshall’s History of the Colonies, chap. 13.

Pitkin’s History of the United States, vol. 1, p. 178.

NOTE 64, PAGE 110.

Franklin’s Works, (Sparks’s edition,) vol. 5, p. 94.

Secret Journals of Congress, (Domestic Affairs, 21st July, 1775, vol. 1, p. 283.

NOTE 65, PAGE 110.

Secret Journals of Congress, (Domestic Affairs,) 12th July, 1776, vol. 1, p. 290.

NOTE 66, PAGE 111.

Secret Journals of Congress, (Domestic Affairs,) vol. 1, pp. 290 to 367.

NOTE 67, PAGE 111.

Secret Journals of Congress, (Domestic Affairs,) vol. 1, p. 448.

Public Journals of Congress, vol. 3, p. 586.

NOTE 68, PAGE 113.

Secret Journals of Congress, 20th August, 1776 to 15th November, 1777, vol. 1, pp. 304 to 349; 17th November, 1777, vol. 1, p. 362; 22d June to 25th June, 1778, vol. 1, pp. 368 to 386; vol. 1, pp. 421 to 446.

Public Journals of Congress, 10th July, 1778, vol. 2, p. 619.

Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution, vol. 1, pp. 214, 228.

NOTE 69, PAGE 114.

For the proceedings of the Legislature of Virginia, 30th November, 1785; 1st December, 1785; 21st January, 1786; see Elliot’s Debates, vol. 1, pp. 113, 116. The last resolution, as there given, varies somewhat from that quoted by Mr. Madison.

Journal of the Senate of Maryland, November, 1784, p. 42.

Journal of the House of Delegates of Maryland, November, 1784, pp. 103, 105, 107, 113, 121, 125; November, 1785, pp. 7, 10, 11, and 20.

Washington’s Writings, 18th January, 1784, vol. 9, p. 11.

Life of John Jay, 16th March, 1786, vol. 1, p. 242.

Marshall’s Life of Washington, vol. 5, p. 90.

Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution, vol. 1, p. 252.

NOTE 70, PAGE 116.

Laws of the United States, (edition of 1815,) vol. 1, p. 55.

Elliot’s Debates, vol. 1, p. 116.

Journal of the Senate of New York, 5th May, 1786, p. 103.

Minutes of the Assembly of Pennsylvania, 21st March, 1786, p. 227.

Journal of the Assembly of New Jersey, 20th March, 1786, p. 72; 9th November, 1786, p. 28; 20th November, 1786, p. 62; 24th November, 1786, p. 36.

NOTE 71, PAGE 117.

Public Journals of Congress, 15th February, 1786, vol. 4, p. 618.

Journal of the Federal Convention, p. 36.

Journals of the Senate of Virginia, 23d November and 4th December, 1786.

Journals of the House of Delegates of Virginia, 9th November and 4th December, 1786.

NOTE 72, PAGE 117.

“A Dissertation on the Political Union and Constitution of the Thirteen United States of North America, Philadelphia, 1783.” This pamphlet was republished in a volume of Political Essays by Pelatiah Webster, Philadelphia, 1791.

NOTE 73, PAGE 118.

See Debates above, p. 81, and references at note 24.

Journal of the Senate of New York, 19th July, 1782, p. 87; 20th July, 1782.

NOTE 74, PAGE 118.

There is a letter of this date to Mr. Madison, though not on the subject here referred to, in the Life of Richard Henry Lee, vol. 2, p. 51. Mr. Lee was elected president of Congress on the 30th November, 1784.

Mr. Webster’s proposal was contained in a pamphlet published in the winter of 1784-5, entitled, “Sketches of American Policy;” Life of Noah Webster, in the National Portrait Gallery, p. 4.

NOTE 75, PAGE 120.

Public Journals of Congress, 15th February, 1786, vol. 4, p. 618; 3d March, 1786, vol. 4, p. 621; 14th August, 1786, vol. 4, p. 682; 22d August, 1786, vol. 4, p. 683; 23d October, 1786, vol. 4, p. 715; 21st February, 1787, vol. 4, p. 723.

American Museum, vol. 1, p. 270; vol. 3, p. 554.

Life of John Jay, vol. 1, p. 255.

Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution, vol. 1, book 2, chap. 4.

North American Review, vol. 25, p. 249.

NOTE 76, PAGE 121.

See Correspondence above, p. 107.

The letter of Mr. Madison to Gen. Washington of 16th April, 1787, will be found in Washington’s Writings, vol. 9, p. 516, Appendix, No. III.

NOTE 77, PAGE 121.

See Debates below, 8th June, 1787, p. 170; 19th June, 1787, p. 208; 17th July, 1787, p. 321; 23d August, 1787, p. 467.

Journal of the Federal Convention, 31st May, 1787, p. 87; 8th June, 1787, p. 107; 19th June, 1787, p. 136; 17th July, 1787, p. 183, 23d August, 1787, p. 281.

North American Review, vol. 25, pp. 264, 265, 266.

NOTE 78, PAGE 121.

See Correspondence above, p. 107; Debates below, p. 126.

NOTE 79, PAGE 124.

Journal of the Federal Convention, p. 33.

Laws of Delaware, 3d February, 1787, vol. 1, p. 892.

NOTE 80, PAGE 134.

See Yates’s Minutes, 30th May, 1787; Elliot, vol. 1, p. 391.

NOTE 81, PAGE 135.

It is stated in Yates’s Minutes, that the state of New Jersey was not represented in the Convention till this day. No vote of that state appears previously on the Journal.

NOTE 82, PAGE 137.

See Debates below, 2d June, 1787, p. 149; 21st June, 1787, p. 223; 7th August, 1787, p. 388; 8th August, 1787, p. 388.

Jefferson’s Works, vol. 2, p. 273.

NOTE 83, PAGE 139.

See Debates below, 2d June, 1787, p. 148; 7th June, 1787, p. 169.

NOTE 84, PAGE 141.

See Debates below, 4th June, 1787, p. 150; 13th June, 1787, p. 190; 15th June, 1787, p. 192; 16th June, 1787, p. 197, 24th August, 1787, p. 471.

Jefferson’s Works, vol. 4, pp. 160, 161.

The Federalist, No. 70.

Debates in the Convention of North Carolina, 26th July, 1788, Elliot, vol. 4, p. 104.

NOTE 85, PAGE 143.

See Debates below, 13th June, 1787, p. 190; 19th July, 1787, p. 339; 24th July, 1787, p. 358; 26th July, 1787, p. 369; 6th August, 1787, p. 380; 4th September, 1787, p. 507; 6th September, 1787, p. 518.

The Federalist, No. 71.

Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution, vol. 3, p. 291.

NOTE 86, PAGE 144.

See Debates below, 13th June, 1787, p. 190, 19th July, 1787, p. 338; 24th July, 1787, p. 358; 6th August, 1787, p. 380; 24th August, 1787, p. 471; 4th September, 1787, p. 507; 6th September, 1787, p. 516.

Debates in the Convention of Virginia, 18th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, pp. 488, 496.

Debates in the Convention of North Carolina, 26th July, 1788, Elliot, vol. 4, p. 105.

Debates in the Convention of Pennsylvania, 11th December, 1787, Elliot, vol. 2, p. 511.

NOTE 87, PAGE 147.

See Debates below, 13th June, 1787, p. 190; 6th August, 1787, p. 380.

The Federalist, No. 73.

NOTE 88, PAGE 149.

See Debates below, 13th June, 1787, p. 190; 18th July, 1787, p. 331; 26th July, 1787, p. 376; 6th August, 1787, p. 380; 4th September, 1787, p. 507; 8th September, 1787, p. 528.

The Federalist, No. 65.

Debates in the Convention of North Carolina, 24th July, 1788, Elliot, vol. 4, p. 32; 25th July, 1788, Elliot, vol. 4, p. 43; 28th July, 1788, Elliot, vol. 4, p. 113.

NOTE 89, PAGE 151.

See Debates above, p. 141, and references at note 84.

NOTE 90, PAGE 154.

See Debates below, 6th June, 1787, p. 164; 13th June, 1787, p. 190, 21st July, 1787, p. 344; 6th August, 1787, p. 378, 15th August, 1787, p. 428.

The Federalist, No. 51; No. 73.

Debates in the Convention of Pennsylvania, 1st December, 1787, Elliot, vol. 2, p. 447; 4th December, 1787, Elliot, vol. 4, p. 429.

NOTE 91, PAGE 155.

See Debates above, p. 128, where the original resolution is given, as already containing a clause nearly the same as this amendment. The resolution of Mr. Randolph, as printed in the Journal of the Federal Convention, p. 63, does not contain the clause given by Mr. Madison.

NOTE 92, PAGE 156.

See Debates below, 13th June, 1787, pp. 188, 190; 18th July, 1787, p. 327; 21st July, 1787, p. 349; 26th July, 1787, p. 376; fth August, 1787, p. 379; 4th September, 1787, p. 507; 7th September, 1787, p. 523.

NOTE 93, PAGE 158.

See Debates below, 12th June, 1787, p. 183; 13th June, 1787, p. 190; 23d July, 1787, p. 352; 26th July, 1787, p. 376; 6th August, 1787, p. 381; 31st August, 1787, p. 499; 10th September, 1787, p. 533; 16th September, 1787, p. 552.

The Federalist, No. 43.

NOTE 94, PAGE 160.

See Debates below, 18th July, 1787, p. 331.

The Federalist, No. 81.

NOTE 95, PAGE 164.

See Debates above, p. 137, and references at note 82.

NOTE 96, PAGE 166.

See Debates above, p. 154, and references at note 90.

NOTE 97, PAGE 170.

See Debates above, p. 138, and references at note 83.

NOTE 98, PAGE 174.

See Introduction above, p. 121, and references at note 77.

NOTE 99, PAGE 175.

See Debates above, p. 144, and references at note 86.

North Carolina voted in the negative. Journal of the Federal Convention, 9th June, 1787, p. 110.

NOTE 100, PAGE 181.

See Debates above, p. 137, and references at note 82.

NOTE 101, PAGE 182.

See Debates above, p. 138, and references at note 83.

NOTE 102, PAGE 182.

See Debates below, 13th June, 1787, p. 190; 26th July, 1787, p. 376; 6th August, 1787, p. 381; 30th August, 1787, p. 498; 10th September, 1787, p. 530; 15th September, 1787, p. 551.

Debates in the Convention of Massachusetts, 30th January, 1788, Elliot, vol. 2, p. 115; 1st February, 1788, Elliot, vol. 2, p. 138; 5th February, 1788, Elliot, vol. 2, p. 155.

Debates in the Convention of Virginia, 4th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, p. 25; 5th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, p. 48; 6th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, pp. 88, 94; 10th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, p. 194; 25th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, pp. 630, 636, 647, 650.

Debates in the Convention of North Carolina, 29th July, 1788, Elliot, vol. 4, p. 176.

NOTE 103, PAGE 183.

See Debates below, 23d July, 1787, p. 352; 26th July, 1787, p. 376; 6th August, 1787, p. 381; 30th August, 1787, p. 498.

Debates in the Convention of Connecticut, 9th January, 1788, Elliot, vol. 2, p. 202.

Debates in the Convention of New York, 7th July, 1788, Elliot, vol. 2, p. 409.

Debates in the Convention of North Carolina, 30th July, 1788, Elliot, vol. 4, p. 196.

Debates in Congress, 6th of May, 1789, Elliot, vol. 4, p. 342.

NOTE 104, PAGE 183.

See Debates above, p. 158, and references at note 93.

Journal of the Federal Convention, p. 114.

NOTE 105, PAGE 184.

See Debates below, 13th June, 1787, p. 189; 21st June, 1787, p. 224; 26th July, 1787, p. 375; 6th August, 1787, p. 377.

Debates in the Convention of Massachusetts, 14th January, 1788, Elliot, vol. 2, p. 4; 15th January, 1788, Elliot, vol. 2, pp. 5 to 21.

Debates in the Convention of New York, 21st June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 2, p. 241.

Debates in the Convention of Pennsylvania, 4th December, 1787, Elliot, vol. 2, p. 464; 11th December, 1787, Elliot, vol. 2, p. 532.

Debates in the Convention of Virginia, 4th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, p. 14.

Debates in the Convention of North Carolina, 24th July, 1788, Elliot, vol. 4; p. 26.

The Federalist, No. 52; No. 53.

NOTE 106, PAGE 185.

See Debates below, 22d June, 1787, p. 226; 23d June, 1787, p. 230; 26th June, 1787, p. 245; 26th July, 1787, pp. 374, 375; 6th August, 1787, pp. 377, 378; 8th August, 1787, p. 388; 10th August, 1787, p. 402; 13th August, 1787, p. 411; 14th August, 1787, p. 420; 1st September, 1787, p. 503; 3d September, 1787, p. 504.

Debates in the Convention of Massachusetts, 17th January, 1788, Elliot, vol. 2, p. 35; 21st January, 1788, Elliot, vol. 2, p. 52.

Debates in the Convention of Virginia, 14th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, p. 367; 27th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, p. 661.

Letter of Edmund Randolph, Elliot, vol. 1, p. 491.

Address of Luther Martin to the Legislature of Maryland, 27th January, 1788, Elliot, vol. 1, p. 365.

The Federalist, No. 52; No. 55; No. 56.

NOTE 107, PAGE 187.

See Debates below, 13th June, 1787, p. 190; 18th June, 1787, p. 205; 25th June, 1787, p. 241; 26th June, 1787, p. 241; 26th July, 1787, p. 375; 6th August, 1787, p. 377; 9th August, 1787, p. 397.

Debates in the Convention of Massachusetts, 19th January, 1788, Elliot, vol. 2, p. 44.

Debates in the Convention of New York, 24th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 2, p. 287; 25th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 2, p. 309.

Debates in the Convention of North Carolina, 25th July, 1788, Elliot, vol. 4, p. 37.

North American Review, vol. 25, pp. 263, 265, 266.

NOTE 108, PAGE 188.

See Debates below, 13th June, 1787, p. 190; 15th June, 1787, p. 192; 18th June, 1787, p. 205; 18th July, 1787, p. 331; 26th July, 1787, p. 376; 6th August, 1787, p. 379; 27th August, 1787, p. 481; 28th August, 1787, p. 483.

Debates in the Convention of Massachusetts, 30th January, 1788, Elliot, vol. 2, p. 111.

Debates in the Convention of Virginia, 18th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, p. 517; 20th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, p. 531; 21st June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, p. 563; 23d June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, p. 577.

Debates in the Convention of North Carolina, 28th July, 1788, Elliot, vol. 4, p. 136; 29th July, 1788, Elliot, vol. 4, p. 153.

Debates in the Convention of Pennsylvania, 7th December, 1787, Elliot, vol. 2, p. 486; 11th December, 1787, Elliot, vol. 2, p. 515.

Address of Luther Martin to the Legislature of Maryland, 27th January, 1788, Elliot, vol. 1, p. 370.

Objections of George Mason to the Federal Constitution, Elliot, vol. 1, p. 495.

Report of James Madison to the Legislature of Virginia, 7th January, 1800, Elliot, vol. 4, pp. 548, 563.

The Federalist, Nos. 80 to 83.

Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution, vol. 3, pp. 499 to 651.

NOTE 109, PAGE 189.

In the Journal of the Federal Convention, p. 121, the vote of Pennsylvania is given in the negative.

The remarks of Mr. Butler, on this motion, as reported in Yates’s Minutes, are somewhat different, Elliot, vol. 1, p. 409.

See Debates below, 5th July, 1787, p. 273; 6th July, 1787, p. 282; 16th July, 1787, p. 316; 26th July, 1787, p. 375; 6th of August, 1787, p. 377; 8th August, 1787, p. 394; 9th August, 1787, pp. 395, 396; 11th August, 1787, p. 410; 13th August, 1787, p. 414; 14th August, 1787, p. 422; 15th August, 1787, p. 428; 5th September, 1787, pp. 510, 511; 8th September, 1787, p. 529.

Debates in the Convention of Virginia, 14th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, p. 375.

Objections of George Mason, one of the Delegates from Virginin, Elliot, vol. 1, p. 494.

Address of Luther Martin to the Legislature of Maryland, 27th January, 1788, Elliot, vol. 1, 336.

NOTE 110, PAGE 190.

These resolutions will be found in the Journal of the Federal Convention, 19th June, 1787, p. 134. There are verbal differences in the first, fourth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, thirteenth, fifteenth, and nineteenth resolutions.

NOTE 111, PAGE 193.

Journal of Federal Convention, 15th June, 1787, p. 123.

In the copy here given, the two following resolutions, stated in the Journal to have been offered by Mr. Patterson with the rest, are entirely omitted.

“ Resolved, That the legislative, executive, and judiciary powers, within the several states, ought to be bound by oath to support the Articles of Union.

“ Resolved, That provision ought to be made for hearing and deciding upon all disputes arising between the United States and as individual state, respecting territory.”

NOTE 112, PAGE 197.

Stated in Yates’s Minutes to Gen. Charles C. Pinckney, Elliot, vol. 1, p. 415.

NOTE 113, PAGE 198.

These speeches of Mr. Lansing, Mr. Patterson, Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Randolph, are very fully reported in Yates’s Minutes of this day’s debate. See Elliot, vol. 1, pp. 410 to 417.

See also Mr. Martin’s statement in regard to the debate on Mr. Patterson’s resolutions in his Address to the Legislature of Maryland, 27th January, 1788, Elliot, vol. 1, p. 349.

NOTE 114, PAGE 205.

See Appendix, No. V., p. 584, for “Copy of a paper communicated to James Madison by Col. Hamilton, about the close of the Convention in Philadelphia, 1787, which, he said, delineated the Constitution which he would have wished to be proposed by the Convention.”

Yates’s Minutes, 18th June, 1787, Elliot, vol. 1, p. 417.

Debates in the Convention of New York, 20th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 2, p. 230; 21st June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 2, pp. 251, 262; 24th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 2, p. 300; 25th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 2, p. 315; 27th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 2, p. 347; 28th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 2, pp. 356, 360.

NOTE 115, PAGE 210.

Thomas M’Kean represented the state of Delaware in the Congress of the Confederation from 1774 to 1783, and was chief justice of Pennsylvania from 1777 to 1799.

On the 2d February, 1782, Thomas M’Kean and Samuel Wharton, citizens of Pennsylvania, and Philemon Dickinson, a citizen of New Jersey, were elected delegates to Congress for the state of Delaware.

NOTE 116, PAGE 211.

The report of this speech by Mr. Yates will be found in Elliot, vol. 1, p. 423.

Debates in the Convention of Virginia, 7th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, p. 129.

NOTE 117, PAGE 211.

A few remarks of Mr. Dickinson on this motion, which are omitted by Mr. Madison, are given in Yates’s Minutes, Elliot, vol. 1, p. 425.

NOTE 118, PAGE 213.

Yates’s Minutes, Elliot, vol. 1, p. 425.

Debates in the Convention of Massachusetts, 21st January, 1788, Elliot, vol. 2, p. 54.

NOTE 119, PAGE 214.

See Debates in the Convention of New York, 23d June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 2, p. 273; 24th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 2, p. 303.

The Federalist, No. 17, p. 87.

NOTE 120, PAGE 216.

Letter from Mr. Yates and Mr. Lansing to the governor of New York, containing their reasons for not subscribing the Federal Constitution, Elliot, vol. 1, p. 480.

NOTE 121, PAGE 217.

Yates’s Minutes, 20th June, 1787, Elliot, vol. 1, p. 427.

Debates in the Convention of Virginia, 11th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, p. 269.

NOTE 122, PAGE 218.

Yates’s Minutes, 20th June, 1787, Elliot, vol. 1, p. 429.

Address of Luther Martin to the Legislature of Maryland, 27th January, 1787, Elliot, vol. 1, p. 349.

NOTE 123, PAGE 219.

Yates’s Minutes, 20th June, 1787, Elliot, vol. 1, p. 429.

NOTE 124, PAGE 220.

Yates’s Minutes, 20th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 1, p. 430.

Debates in the Convention of Pennsylvania, 26th November, 1787, Elliot, vol. 2, p. 422; 1st December, 1787, Elliot, vol. 2, pp. 445, 446, 447.

NOTE 125, PAGE 221.

Debates in the Convention of Pennsylvania, 28th October, 1787, Elliot, vol. 2, pp. 438, 439, 450.

NOTE 126, PAGE 223.

See Debates below, p. 250.

Debates in the Convention of Virginia, 7th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, p. 131.

The Federalist, Nos. 45, 46.

Judge Baldwin’s Views of the Constitution, pp. 6, 20.

NOTE 127, PAGE 224.

See Debates above, p. 137, and references at note 82.

NOTE 128, PAGE 226.

See Debates above, p. 184, and references at note 105.

NOTE 129, PAGE 228.

The remarks of Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Ellsworth are given rather more fully in Yates’s Minutes; and there are some observations of Mr. Wilson on this motion, which are not noticed by Mr. Madison. Elliot, vol. 1, p. 435.

NOTE 130, PAGE 228.

Moved by Mr. Mason, Yates’s Minutes, 22d June, 1787, Elliot, vol. 1, p. 436.

NOTE 131, PAGE 228.

See Debates above, p. 186, and references at note 106.

NOTE 132, PAGE 229.

See Debates above, p. 186, and references at note 106.

NOTE 133, PAGE 230.

The debate on this motion is more fully reported in Yates’s Minutes, 22d June, 1787, Elliot, vol. 1, p. 436.

See Debates above, at p. 186, and references at note 106.

See also Debates below, pp. 230 to 233.

NOTE 134, PAGE 230.

See Debates above, p. 186, and references at note 106.

NOTE 135, PAGE 230.

Mr. Mason’s remarks on this motion are omitted. See Yates’s Minutes, 23d June, 1787, Elliot, vol. 1, p. 440.

NOTE 136, PAGE 230.

These remarks, and those of Mr. Mason, are reported more fully in Yates’s Minutes, Elliot, vol. 1, pp. 439, 440.

NOTE 137, PAGE 233.

See Debates above, p. 186, and references at note 106.

NOTE 138, PAGE 238.

The residue is reported in Yates’s Minutes, 25th June, 1787, Elliot, vol. 1, p. 444.

NOTE 139, PAGE 240.

See Debates above, p. 139, and references at note 83.

NOTE 140, PAGE 241.

Mr. Madison’s remarks on this motion are omited. See Yates’s Minutes, 25th June, 1787, Elliot, vol. 1, p. 447.

NOTE 141, PAGE 242.

These remarks of Gen. Pinckney are reported more fully, and somewhat differently, in Yates’s Minutes, 26th June, 1787, Elliot, vol. 1, p. 448.

NOTE 142, PAGE 243.

See the report of this debate in Yates’s Minutes, Elliot, vol. 1, pp. 448, 454.

NOTE 143, PAGE 245.

See Debates above, p. 187, and references at note 107.

NOTE 144, PAGE 247.

See Debates above, 12th June, 1787, p. 187; 13th June, 1787, p. 190; 26th July, 1787, p. 375.

See also references at note 106.

NOTE 145, PAGE 247.

In the Journal of the Federal Convention this vote is thus given: Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, ay, 6; Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, South Carolina, Georgia, no, 5.

NOTE 146, PAGE 248.

See Debates above, 12th June, 1787, p. 187; 13th June, 1787, p. 190; 26th July, 1787, p. 375.

See references at note 106, p. 186.

The propositions of Dr. Franklin, given below, in the debates of the 30th June, 1787, p. 266, are stated in his works to have been offered on this day, the 26th June.

Franklin’s Works, (Sparks’s edition,) vol. 5, p. 142.

NOTE 147, PAGE 249.

This speech of Mr. Martin is reported more fully in Yates’s Minutes, 27th and 28th June, 1787, Elliot, vol. 1, pp. 453 to 457.

NOTE 148, PAGE 253.

See Debates above, p. 223, and references at note 126.

NOTE 149, PAGE 253.

An explanatory remark of Mr. Martin, in reply will be found in Yates’s Minutes, Elliot, vol. 1, p. 459.

NOTE 150, PAGE 253.

Some remarks of Mr. Madison in reply to Mr. Sherman, not here given, will be found in Yates’s Minutes, Elliot, vol. 1, p. 459.

NOTE 151, PAGE 255.

Franklin’s Works, (Sparks’s edition,) vol. 5, p. 153.

Note by Dr. Franklin: “The Convention, except three or four persons, thought prayers unnecessary.”

NOTE 152, PAGE 258.

See Debates above, p. 223, and references at note 126.

Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution, vol. 2, p. 175.

NOTE 153, PAGE 259.

This speech is very fully reported in Yates’s Minutes, Elliot, vol. 1, p. 461.

NOTE 154, PAGE 261.

The remarks of Mr. Madison, at some length, on this resolution, and here omitted, will be found in Yates’s Minutes, Elliot, vol. 1, p. 465.

NOTE 155, PAGE 261.

The law of New Hampshire, appointing delegates, passed on the 27th June; Messrs. Langdon, Pickering, Gillman, and West, were chosen: on the 23d July, Messrs. Langdon and Gillman took their seats; Messrs. Pickering and West never attended.

Journal of the Federal Convention, pp. 17, 196.

NOTE 156, PAGE 264.

These speeches of Mr. Wilson and Mr. Ellsworth are very fully reported in Yates’s Minutes, Elliot vol. 1, pp. 466, 469.

NOTE 157, PAGE 268.

The propositions of Dr. Franklin, offered in the course of this debate, are given in his works, with remarks different from those here reported; they are also stated to have been offered on the 26th June. Franklin’s Works, (Sparks’s edition,) vol. 5, p. 142.

This speech of Mr. Bedford is reported somewhat more fully in Yates’s Minutes, Elliot, vol. 1, p. 471.

NOTE 158, PAGE 273.

See the remarks of Mr. Morris and Mr. Randolph in Yates’s Minutes, Elliot, vol. 1, pp. 475 to 476.

NOTE 159, PAGE 273.

A report of the proceedings in this Grand Committee on the 3d July, 1787, will be found in Yates’s Minutes, Elliot, vol. 1, p. 477.

NOTE 160, PAGE 281.

The two following statements, which have evidently reference to the apportionment of representation according to numbers and taxation, were among the papers transmitted by Gen. B. Bloomfield, executor of David Brearley, to the Department of State. Journal of the Federal Convention, p. 159.

States No. Whites. No. Blacks.

New Hampshire, 82,000 102,000

Massachusetts Bay, 352,000

Rhode Island, 58,000

Connecticut, 202,000

New York 238,000

New Jersey, 138,000 145,000

Pennsylvania, 341,000

Delaware, 37,000

Maryland, 174,000 80,000

Virginia, 300,000 300,000

North Carolina, 181,000

South Carolina, 93,000

Georgia, 27,000

The following quotas of taxation are extracted from the printed Journals of the old Congress, September 27th, 1785.

States. Quota of Tax. Delegates.

Virginia, 512,974 16

Massachusetts Bay, 448,854 14

Pennsylvania, 410,378 12¾

Maryland, 283,034 8¾

Connecticut, 264,182 8

New York, 256,486 8

North Carolina, 218,012 6¾

South Carolina, 192,366 6

New Jersey, 166,716 5

New Hampshire, 105,416 3¼

Rhode Island, 64,636 2

Delaware, 44,886 1¼

Georgia, 32,060 1

3,000,000 90

NOTE 161, PAGE 284.

See Debates above, p. 189, and references at note 109.

NOTE 162, PAGE 287.

See Debates above, 11th June, 1787, p. 182; 19th June, 1787, p. 211, 25th June, 1787, p. 238; 28th June, 1787, p. 253; 29th June, 1787, p. 257; 5th July, 1787, p. 274.

See Debates below, 14th July, 1787, p. 311; 16th July, 1787, p. 317; 9th August, 1787, p. 397.

Address of Luther Martin to the Legislature of Maryland, 27th January, 1787, Elliot, vol. 1, p. 348.

NOTE 163, PAGE 291.

New York, no; in the Journal of the Federal Convention, 10th July, 1787, p. 166.

NOTE 164, PAGE 292.

New York, no; in the Journal of the Federal Convention, 10th July, 1787, p. 166.

NOTE 165, PAGE 293.

See Debates below, 16th July, 1787, p. 316; 20th July, 1787, p. 339; 26th July, 1787, p. 375; 6th August, 1787, p. 377; 20th August, 1787, p. 451; 21st August, 1787, p. 452.

Debates in the Convention of Massachusetts, 17th January, 1788; Elliot, vol. 2, p. 36.

Address of Luther Martin to the Legislature of Maryland, 27th January, 1788, Elliot, vol. 1, p. 357.

Debates in the Convention of New York, 23d June, 1788; Elliot, vol. 2, p. 274.

The Federalist, No. 55, p. 312.

NOTE 166, PAGE 293.

This resolution is somewhat different, as given in the Journal of the Federal Convention, 10th July, 1787, p. 167.

NOTE 167, PAGE 295.

This resolution is somewhat different, as given in the Journal of the Federal Convention, 11th July, 1787, p. 168.

NOTE 168, PAGE 306.

See Debates above, 11th June, 1787, p. 181; 13th June, 1787, p. 190, 5th July, 1787, p. 273, 9th July, 1787, p. 288; 10th July, 1787, p. 293; 11th July, 1787, p. 295.

See Debates below, 13th July, 1787, p. 307; 16th July, 1787, p. 316; 20th July, 1787, p. 375; 6th August, 1787, p. 379; 8th August, 1787, p. 391; 21st August, 1787, p. 453; 17th September, 1787, p. 555.

Debates in the Convention of Massachusetts, 17th January, 1788, Elliot, vol. 2, p. 32; 18th January, 1788, Elliot, vol. 2, p. 40.

Debates in the Convention of New York, 20th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 2, pp. 226, 236; 21st June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 2, pp. 242, 252; 23d June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 2, p. 270.

Debates in the Convention of Virginia, 4th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, pp. 11, 30; 6th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, p. 99; 7th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, pp. 110, 124; 11th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, p. 247; 12th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, p. 320.

Public Journals of Congress, 17th February, 1783, vol. 4, p. 162; 18th April, 1783, vol. 4, p. 190; 27th September, 1785, vol. 4, p. 587; 5th April, 1792, vol. 1, p. 563.

Address of Luther Martin to the Legislature of Maryland, 27th January, 1787, Elliot, vol. 1, pp. 348, 363.

Objections of George Mason to the Federal Constitution, Elliot, vol. 1, p. 494.

Letter of Messrs. Yates and Lansing to the Legislature of New York, Elliot, vol. 1, p. 481.

The Federalist, No. 36; No. 54; No. 55; and No. 58.

Address of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania to their Constituents, American Museum, vol. 2, pp. 547, 551.

Letter of Richard Henry Lee, 16th October, 1787, Elliot, vol. 1, p. 503.

Debates in Congress, 14th August, 1789, Gales and Seaton, (First Series,) vol. 1, p. 749; 21st August, 1789, vol. 1, p. 802.

Jefferson’s Works, vol. 4, p. 466.

Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution, vol. 2, p. 147.

NOTE 169, PAGE 310.

There are some verbal variations between the resolution, as given here, and that in the Journal of the Convention, p. 177.

NOTE 170, PAGE 317.

See Debates above, pp. 287, 306, and references at notes 162 and 168.

NOTE 171, PAGE 317.

See Debates above, 29th May, 1787, p. 127; 31st May, 1789, p. 139; 13th June, 1787, p. 190.

See Debates below, 17th July, 1787, p. 319; 6th August, 1787, p. 378.

NOTE 172, PAGE 320.

See Debates above, p. 174, and references at note 98.

NOTE 173, PAGE 322.

See Debates above, p. 174, and references at note 98.

See Debates below, 23d August, 1787, p. 416.

NOTE 174, PAGE 325.

See Debates above, p. 140, and references at note 86.

See Debates below, 24th July, 1787, p. 358; 24th August, 1787, p. 473.

NOTE 175, PAGE 327.

See Debates above, p. 143, and references at note 85.

NOTE 176, PAGE 328.

See Debates above, p. 155, and references at note 90.

NOTE 177, PAGE 330.

See Debates above, p. 156, and references at note 92.

NOTE 178, PAGE 333.

See Debates below, 26th July, 1787, p. 376; 6th August, 1787, p. 381; 30th August, 1787, p. 497; 16th September, 1787, p. 551.

Debates in the Convention of Virginia, 7th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, p. 129.

The Federalist, No. 21; No. 43.

NOTE 179, PAGE 338.

There are some verbal variations between the resolution, as given here, and that in the Journal of the Convention, p. 190.

NOTE 180, PAGE 339.

See Debates above, p. 143, and references at note 85.

NOTE 181, PAGE 340.

See Debates above, 13th June, 1787, p. 190; p. 149, and references at note 88.

NOTE 182, PAGE 349.

See Debates above, p. 155, and references at note 90; p. 166, and note 96.

NOTE 183, PAGE 349.

See Debates above, p. 156, and references at note 92.

NOTE 184, PAGE 351.

See Debates, 1st June, 1787, p. 142; 13th June, 1787, p. 190; 17th July, 1787, p. 324; 18th July, 1787, p. 328, 21st July, 1787, p. 349; 29th July, 1787, p. 376; 6th August, 1787, pp. 379, 380; 4th September, 1787, p. 507; 7th September, 1787, p. 524.

The Federalist, No. 76; No. 77.

NOTE 185, PAGE 356.

See Debates above, p. 158, and references at note 93.

NOTE 186, PAGE 357.

Maryland, no; in the Journal of the Federal Convention, 23d July, 1787, p. 198.

NOTE 187, PAGE 357.

See Debates below, 6th August, 1787, p. 379; 21st August, 1787, p. 453; 22d August, 1787, p. 457; 24th August, 1787, p. 470; 25th August, 1787, p. 477; 28th August, 1787, p. 486; 31st August, 1787, p. 502; 14th September, 1787, p. 546.

Debates in the Convention of Pennsylvania, 3d December, 1787, Elliot, vol. 2, p. 451.

Debates in the Convention of New Hampshire, Elliot, vol. 2, p. 203.

Debates in the Convention of Massachusetts, 18th January, 1788, Elliot, vol. 2, p. 40; 25th January, 1788, Elliot, vol. 2, p. 106.

Debates in the Convention of Virginia, 15th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, p. 452; 17th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, p. 481.

Debates in the Convention of North Carolina, 26th July, 1788, Elliot, vol. 4, p. 100.

Debates in the Convention of South Carolina, 16th January, 1788, Elliot, vol. 4, pp. 271, 276, 286, 295.

Amendments to the Constitution proposed by the states. Supplement to the Journal of the Federal Convention, p. 462.

Debates in Congress, 13th May, 1789, Gales and Seaton, (First Series,) vol. 1, p. 352.

Objections of George Mason to the Federal Constitution, Elliot, vol. 1, p. 496.

The Federalist, No. 7, p. 36; No. 26; No. 42, No. 44, p. 252.

NOTE 188, PAGE 370.

Journal of the Federal Convention, 26th July, 1787, p. 204. There are some slight verbal differences.

NOTE 189, PAGE 374.

See Debates below, p. 376.

NOTE 190, PAGE 376.

Journal of the Federal Convention, 26th July, 1787, p. 207. The dates when each resolution was finally passed are there given.

NOTE 191, PAGE 381.

Journal of the Federal Convention, 6th August, 1787, p. 215. There are a few verbal differences. The original draught, from which each is taken, was printed, and is among the papers relating to the Convention, which were deposited by Gen. Washington in the Department of State, on the 19th March, 1796.

NOTE 192, PAGE 382.

The proceedings on this motion are more fully stated in the Journal of the Federal Convention, 7th August, 1787, p. 230.

NOTE 193, PAGE 385.

The Federalist, No. 52.

NOTE 194, PAGE 389.

See Debates above, 31st May, 1787, p. 135; 21st June, 1787, p. 223.

Debates in the Convention of Virginia, 4th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, p. 7.

The Federalist, No. 52.

NOTE 195, PAGE 391.

See Debates above, p. 186, and references at note 106.

NOTE 196, PAGE 394.

See Debates above, p. 306, and references at note 168.

NOTE 197, PAGE 395.

See Debates above, p. 189, and references at note 109.

NOTE 198, PAGE 401.

See Debates above, 12th June, 1787, p. 187; 25th June, 1787, p. 241.

See Debates below, 13th August, 1787, p. 414.

The Federalist, No. 62.

NOTE 199, PAGE 402.

See Debates above, 6th August, 1787, p. 377.

Debates in the Convention of Massachusetts, 16th January, 1788, Elliot, vol. 2, p. 21; 17th January 1787, Elliot, vol. 2, p. 29; 21st January, 1787, Elliot, vol. 2, p. 48.

Debates in the Convention of Virginia, 4th June 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, p. 9; 5th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, p. 60; 9th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, p. 175; 14th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, p. 366.

Debates in the Convention of North Carolina, 25th July, 1788, Elliot, vol. 4, p. 50.

Amendments to the Constitution proposed by the states; supplement to the Journal of the Federal Convention, pp. 402, 411, 418, 425, 433, 447, 454.

Letter of Elbridge Gerry to the Legislature of Massachusetts, 18th October, 1787, Elliot, vol. 1, p. 492.

Address of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania, American Museum, vol. 2, p. 545.

NOTE 200, PAGE 404.

See Debates above, pp. 186, 388, 401, and references at notes 106, 194, 198.

NOTE 201, PAGE 406.

Debates in the Convention of Massachusetts, 16th January, 1788, Elliot, vol. 2, p. 22.

The Federalist, No. 22, No. 58.

NOTE 202, PAGE 407.

American State Papers, (Gales and Seaton’s edition,) Miscellaneous, 22d March, 1796, vol. 1, p. 144; 31st December, 1807, vol. 1, p. 701.

NOTE 203, PAGE 409.

Journal of the Federal Convention, 13th September, 1787, p. 373.

NOTE 204, PAGE 410.

Debates in the Convention of Virginia, 14th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, p. 366.

NOTE 205, PAGE 414.

See Debates above, pp. 186, 401, and references to notes 106, 198.

NOTE 206, PAGE 420.

See Debates above, p. 189, and references at note 109.

NOTE 207, PAGE 425.

See Debates above, p. 186, and references at note 106.

NOTE 208, PAGE 427.

See Debates above, p. 186, and references at note 106.

NOTE 209, PAGE 429.

See Debates above, pp. 154, 166, and references at notes 90, 96.

NOTE 210, PAGE 431.

See Debates above, p. 154, and references at note 90.

NOTE 211, PAGE 434.

See Debates above, p. 357, and references at note 187.

NOTE 212, PAGE 435.

See Debates above, 6th August, 1787, p. 378.

Debates in the Convention of North Carolina, 26th July, 1788, Elliot, vol. 4, p. 90.

Amendments to the Constitution proposed by the states, supplement to the Journal of the Federal Convention, p. 461.

The Federalist, No. 41, p. 231.

NOTE 213, PAGE 436.

See Debates above, 6th August, 1787, p. 378.

See Debates below, 14th September, 1787, p. 542.

NOTE 214, PAGE 438.

See Debates above, p. 334, and references at note 178.

Also Debates above, 6th August, 1787, pp. 378, 381; Debates below, 23d August, 1787, p. 467; 30th August, 1787, p. 497.

Debates in the Convention of Pennsylvania, 11th December, 1787, Elliot, vol. 2, p. 521.

Debates in the Convention of Virginia, 5th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, p. 52; 6th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, p. 90; 7th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, p. 112; 12th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, p. 388; 14th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, p. 410.

Address of Luther Martin to the Legislature of Maryland, 27th January, 1788, Elliot, vol. 1, p. 370.

Amendments to the Constitution proposed by the states; supplement to the Journal of the Federal Convention, p. 446.

The Federalist, No. 29; No. 43.

NOTE 215, PAGE 439.

See Debates above, 18th June, 1787, p. 205; 6th August, 1787, p. 379.

See Debates below, 5th September, 1787, p. 510.

Amendments to the Constitution proposed by the states; supplement to the Journal of the Federal Convention, pp. 434, 461.

Public Journals of Congress, 1st March, 1781, vol. 3, p. 588.

The Federalist, No. 23; No. 41.

Report on the Virginia Resolutions, Elliot, vol. 4, p. 557.

NOTE 216, PAGE 441.

See Debates below, 21st August, 1787, p. 449; 22d August, 1787, pp. 462, 463, 23d August, 1787, p. 469; 25th August, 1787, p. 475.

The Federalist, No. 43; No. 84.

NOTE 217, PAGE 442.

See Debates above, 29th May, 1787, p. 128; 6th June, 1787, p. 164.

See Debates below, 20th August, 1787, p. 446; 22d August, 1787, p. 462; 4th September, 1787, p. 507; 7th September, 1787, p. 525.

Debates in the Convention of Pennsylvania, 4th December, 1787, Elliot, vol. 2, p. 512.

Debates in the Convention of North Carolina, 28th July, 1788, Elliot, vol. 4, p. 108.

Objections of George Mason to the Constitution, Elliot, vol. 1, p. 495.

The Federalist, No. 70; No. 74.

Jefferson’s Works, vol. 4, p. 143.

NOTE 218, PAGE 443.

See Debates above, 6th August, 1787, p. 379.

See Debates below, 5th September, 1787, p. 510; 14th September, 1787, p. 545.

Debates in the Convention of Pennsylvania, 11th December, 1787, Elliot, vol. 2, pp. 520, 536.

Debates in the Convention of Maryland, 29th April, 1788, Elliot, vol. 2, p. 551.

Debates in the Convention of Virginia, 6th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, p. 91; 14th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, p. 378; 16th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, p. 410; 24th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, pp. 587, 599.

Debates in the Convention of North Carolina, 26th July, 1788, Elliot, vol. 4, p. 94.

Amendments to the Constitution proposed by the states; supplement to the Journal of the Federal Convention, pp. 414, 421, 423, 427, 434, 443, 445, 456.

The Federalist, Nos. 24 to 29; No. 41.

NOTE 219, PAGE 445.

See Debates above, 6th August, 1787, p. 379.

See Debates below, 21st August, 1787, p. 451; 23d August, 1787, p. 464, 14th September, 1787, p. 545.

Debates in the Convention of Virginia, 5th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, p. 51; 6th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, p. 90; 14th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, pp. 378, 388; 16th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, pp. 410, 439; 24th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, p. 601.

Amendments to the Constitution proposed by the states; supplement to the Journal of the Federal Convention, pp. 423, 427, 445.

Address of Luther Martin to the Legislature of Maryland, 27th January, 1788, Elliot, vol. 1, p. 370.

The Federalist, No. 29.

Message of the President, 6th November, 1812; American State Papers, (Gales and Seaton’s edition,) Military Affairs, vol. 1, p. 319.

NOTE 220, PAGE 448.

The proceedings are given more minutely in the Journal of the Federal Convention 20th August, 1787, p. 268.

NOTE 221, PAGE 451.

See Debates above, 6th August, 1787, p. 379.

Objections of George Mason to the Constitution, Elliot, vol. 1, p. 495.

Address of Luther Martin to the Legislature of Maryland, 27th January, 1788, Elliot, vol. 1, p. 382.

NOTE 222, PAGE 453.

New Hampshire, ay; not stated in the Journal of the Federal Convention, 21st August, 1787, p. 275.

NOTE 223, PAGE 457.

See Debates above, p. 357, and references at note 187.

NOTE 224, PAGE 461.

See Debates above, p. 357, and references at note 187.

See Debates above, 6th August, 1787, p. 379.

See Debates below, 24th August, 1787, p. 470; 25th August, 1787, p. 478; 29th August, 1787, p. 488.

Debates in the Convention of South Carolina, 17th January, 1788, Elliot, vol. 4, p. 299.

Objections of George Mason to the Constitution, Elliot, vol. 1, p. 494.

NOTE 225, PAGE 463.

Debates in the Convention of Virginia, 17th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, p. 461.

Amendments to the Constitution proposed by the states; supplement to the Journal of the Federal Convention, p. 430.

Objections of George Mason to the Constitution, Elliot, vol. 1, p. 495.

The Federalist, No. 44; No. 84.

NOTE 226, PAGE 463.

See Debates above, p. 442, and references at note 216.

NOTE 227, PAGE 464.

See Debates above, p. 442, and references at note 216.

NOTE 228, PAGE 467.

See Debates above, p. 445, and references at note 219.

NOTE 229, PAGE 469.

See Debates above, pp. 174, 416, and references at note 98.

NOTE 230, PAGE 470.

See Debates above, 6th August, 1787, p. 379.

See Debates below, 4th September, 1787, p. 507; 7th September, 1787, p. 524; 8th September, 1787, p. 526.

Debates in the Convention of Virginia, 18th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, p. 498.

Debates in the Convention of North Carolina, 28th July, 1788, Elliot, vol. 4, p. 346.

Amendments to the Constitution proposed by the states; supplement to the Journal of the Federal Convention, p. 445.

The Federalist, No. 64; No. 69; No. 75.

Speeches of Mr. Madison in the House of Representatives, 10th March and 6th April, 1796. Debates on the British treaty, vol. 1, pp. 69, 375.

Speech of Mr. Baldwin in the House of Representatives, 14th March, 1796. Debates on the British treaty, vol. 1, p. 118.

NOTE 231, PAGE 471.

See Debates above, 6th August, 1787, p. 379.

See Debates below, 27th August, 1787, p. 482.

Journal of the Federal Convention, 27th August, 1787, p. 298.

Debates in the Convention of Pennsylvania, 7th December, 1787, Elliot, vol. 2, p. 490.

Debates in the Convention of Virginia, 20th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, p. 532.

Amendments to the Constitution proposed by the states; supplement to the Journal of the Federal Convention, pp. 424, 430, 438, 446, 459, 481.

The Federalist, No. 39; No. 80.

NOTE 232, PAGE 474.

See Debates above, p. 144, and references at note 86.

NOTE 233, PAGE 476.

See Debates above, p. 442, and references at note 216.

NOTE 234, PAGE 478.

See Debates above, p. 357, and references at note 187.

NOTE 235, PAGE 479.

See Debates above, p. 475, where the resolution is stated to have been negatived without a count. In the Journal of the Federal Convention, p. 290, it is also stated in that manner.

NOTE 236, PAGE 480.

The resolution is not given in the Journal of the Federal Convention.

NOTE 237, PAGE 482.

See Debates above, 5th June, 1787, p. 156; 18th July, 1787, p. 330.

Debates in the Convention of Pennsylvania, 10th December, 1787, Elliot, vol. 2, p. 488; 11th December, 1787, Elliot, vol. 2, pp. 513, 531, 539.

The Federalist, No. 79.

NOTE 238, PAGE 483.

The amendments proposed to this section are more minutely given in the Journal of the Federal Convention, 27th August, 1787, p. 298.

See Debates above, p. 188, and references at note 108.

NOTE 239, PAGE 485.

See Debates above, 6th August, 1787, p. 381.

Debates in the Convention of Virginia, 6th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, p. 75; 17th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, p. 471.

Debates in the Convention of North Carolina, 29th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 4, p. 182.

Address of Luther Martin to the Legislature of Maryland, 27th January, 1788, Elliot, vol. 1, p. 376.

Letter of Mr. Madison to Mr. Ingersoll, 22d February, 1831, Elliot, vol. 4, p. 608.

The Federalist, No. 44.

NOTE 240, PAGE 485.

See Debates below, 14th September, 1787, p. 546.

See references above, at note 239.

NOTE 241, PAGE 488.

See Debates above, 6th August, 1787, p. 381.

Journal of Congress, 1st March, 1781, vol. 3, p. 587.

NOTE 242, PAGE 488.

See Debates below, 1st September, 1787, p. 503; 3d September, 1787, p. 504.

The Federalist, No. 42.

NOTE 243, PAGE 492.

See Debates above, 28th August, 1787, p. 487; 13th September, 1787, p. 550.

Debates in the Convention of North Carolina, 29th July, 1788, Elliot, vol. 4, p. 176.

Debates in the Convention of South Carolina, 17th January, 1788, Elliot, vol. 4, p. 286.

NOTE 244, PAGE 493.

The Journal of the Federal Convention, 29th August, 1787, p. 307, says,—

“On the question being taken, it passed in the affirmative: New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, ay, 9; Maryland, Virginia, no, 2.”

See Debates below, p. 471, and references at note 245.

NOTE 245, PAGE 497.

South Carolina, and Georgia, no, in the Journal of the Federal Convention, 30th August, 1787, p. 311.

See Debates above, 6th August, 1787, p. 381.

See Debates below, 16th September, 1787, p. 550.

Debates in the Convention of Virginia, 23d June, 1787, Elliot, vol. 3, p. 585.

The Federalist, No. 43.

Hamilton’s Works, vol. 1, pp. 135, 147, 151.

NOTE 246, PAGE 498.

See Debates above, p. 439, and references at note 214.

NOTE 247, PAGE 501.

See Debates above, p. 158, and references at note 93.

NOTE 248, PAGE 503.

See Debates above, 8th June, 1787, p. 173; 6th August, 1787, pp. 378, 379, 381; 21st August, 1787, p. 453; 25th August, 1787, p. 479; 28th August, 1787, pp. 483, 485.

See references at note 187.

See Debates below, 14th September, 1787, p. 546; 15th September, p. 549.

Debates in the Convention of Virginia, 17th June, 1787, Elliot, vol. 3, p. 481.

Address of Luther Martin to the Legislature of Maryland, 27th January, 1787, Elliot, vol. 1, p. 375.

Objections of George Mason to the Constitution, Elliot, vol. 1, p. 495.

The Federalist, No. 44.

NOTE 249, PAGE 503.

After article 7, sect. 1, clause 3, of the Constitution, as reported on the 6th August, 1787, above, p. 378.

See Debates above, 29th August, 1787, p. 487.

See Debates below, 3d September, 1787, p. 504.

Amendments to the Constitution proposed by the states; supplement to the Journal of the Federal Convention, p. 436.

The Federalist, No. 42.

NOTE 250, PAGE 504.

See Debates above, p. 488, and references at note 242.

NOTE 251, PAGE 506.

See Debates above, p. 186, and references at note 106.

NOTE 252, PAGE 510.

See Debates above, p. 144, and references at note 86.

NOTE 253, PAGE 512.

See Debates above, 18th August, 1787, p. 440.

Debates in the Convention of Virginia, 6th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, p. 89; 9th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, p. 158; 16th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, p. 430.

Amendments to the Constitution proposed by the states; supplement to the Journal of the Federal Convention, pp. 423, 434, 446.

The Federalist, No. 43.

NOTE 254, PAGE 520.

In the Journal of the Federal Convention, 6th September, 1787, p. 332, the yeas and nays, not given by Mr. Madison on several of these motions, are inserted; but the various amendments are less distinctly stated in the Journal.

NOTE 255, PAGE 521.

See Debates above, p. 144, and references at note 86.

NOTE 256, PAGE 524.

See Debates above, p. 351, and references at note 184.

NOTE 257, PAGE 527.

Journal of the Federal Convention, 8th September, 1787, p. 343.

NOTE 258, PAGE 528.

See Debates above, p. 470, and references at note 230.

NOTE 259, PAGE 532.

See Debates above, p. 183, and references at note 102.

NOTE 260, PAGE 534.

See Debates above, p. 158, and references at note 93.

NOTE 261, PAGE 535.

See “A letter of Edmund Randolph, Esq., on the Federal Constitution, addressed to the speaker of the House of Delegates of Virginia, Richmond, 10th October, 1787,” in Elliot, vol. 1, p. 482.

NOTE 262, PAGE 538.

Debates in the Convention of Massachusetts, 30th January, 1788, Elliot, vol. 2, p. 109.

Debates in the Convention of New York, 7th July, 1788, Elliot, vol. 2, p. 409.

Debates in the Convention of Pennsylvania, 28th October, 1787, Elliot, vol. 2, p. 434; 4th December, 1787, Elliot, vol. 2, p. 453; 11th December, 1787, Elliot, vol. 2, p. 515.

Debates in the Convention of Virginia, 9th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, p. 190; 12th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, p. 316; 16th June, 1787, Elliot, vol. 3, p. 443; 20th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, pp. 544, 560; 21st June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, p. 573.

Debates in the Convention of North Carolina, 28th July, 1788, Elliot, vol. 4, pp. 143, 148; 29th July, 1788, Elliot, vol. 4, pp. 153, 160, 164, 175.

Address of Luther Martin to the Legislature of Maryland, 27th January, 1788, Elliot, vol. 1, p. 380.

Letter of Elbridge Gerry to the Legislature of Massachusetts, Elliot, vol. 1, p. 492.

Objections of George Mason to the Constitution, Elliot, vol. 1, p. 494.

Amendments to the Constitution proposed by the states; supplement to the Journal of the Federal Convention, pp. 402, 403, 413, 417, 426, 439, 453, 466.

Address of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania, 12th December, 1787; American Museum, vol. 2, p. 540.

The Federalist, No. 3; No. 84.

Debates in Congress, (Gales and Seaton’s First Series,) 8th June, 1789, vol. 1, p. 448.

NOTE 263, PAGE 539.

The letter to Congress, transmitting the Constitution, was read by paragraphs, and agreed to. Debates above, p. 536. Journal of the Federal Convention, p. 367.

NOTE 264, PAGE 540.

See Debates above, 28th August, 1787, p. 485.

See Debates below, 15th September, 1787, p. 548.

Debates in the Convention of Virginia, 17th June, 1788, Elliot, vol. 3, p. 481.

The Federalist, No. 44.

NOTE 265, PAGE 541.

Referring to the articles so numbered in the draft of the Constitution reported on 6th August, 1787. See Debates above, p. 381.

NOTE 266, PAGE 541.

The proceedings on these resolutions are not given by Mr. Madison, nor in the Journal of the Federal Convention. In the Journal of Congress, 28th September, 1787, vol. 4, p. 781, they are stated to have been presented to that body, as having passed in the Convention on the 17th September, immediately after the signing of the Constitution.

NOTE 267, PAGE 553.

See Correspondence below, p. 570.

The letters of Mr. Randolph, Mr. Mason, and Mr. Gerry, stating their reasons for not signing the Constitution, will be found in Elliot, vol. 1, pp. 482, 492, 494.

NOTE 268, PAGE 560.

See Debates above, 6th August, 1787, p. 378; 4th September, 1787, p. 506.

Journal of the Federal Convention, pp. 220, 323, 356, 494.

The Federalist, No. 41, p. 232.

Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution, vol. 2, p. 371.

NOTE 269, PAGE 565.

The following members, however, had attended during the Convention:—

Massachusetts. Maryland.

Caleb Strong. John Francis Mercer.

Connecticut. Luther Martin.

Oliver Ellsworth. Virginia.

New York. George Wythe.

Robert Yates. James M’Clurg.

John Lansing. North Carolina.

New Jersey. Alexander Martin.

William C. Houston. William R. Davie.

Georgia.

William Pierce.

William Houston.

NOTE 270, PAGE 569.

Diplomatic Correspondence, (Second Series,) vol. 3, p. 303; vol. 5, p. 347; vol. 7, p. 188.

Jefferson’s Works, vol. 2, pp. 238, 245, 255, 304, 381.

NOTE 271, PAGE 570.

Washington’s Writings, 7th December, 1787, vol. 9, p. 285.

Life of Richard Henry Lee, vol. 2, p. 78.

Public Journals of Congress, vol. 4, Appendix, p. 47.

American Museum, vol. 2, No. 6, pp. 536, 556, 558.

Oswald’s Independent Gazetteer, 24th November, 1787.

Pennsylvania Packet, 7th December, 1787.

NOTE 272, PAGE 571.

The letter of Governor Randolph will be found in Elliot’s Debates on the Constitution, vol. 1, p. 518.

American Museum, vol. 3, p. 62.

Washington’s Writings, 8th January, 1788, vol. 9, p. 296.

Public Journals of Congress, vol. 4, Appendix, p. 47.

Life of Richard Henry Lee, vol. 2, p. 130.

NOTE 273, PAGE 572.

Life of Elbridge Gerry, vol. 2, p. 70.

Elliot’s Debates on the Constitution, vol. 2, pp. 3, 43, 48.

NOTE 274, PAGE 573.

Washington’s Writings, vol. 9, pp. 310, 329, 333.

NOTE 275, PAGE 573.

Washington’s Writings, vol. 9, p. 334.

NOTE 276, PAGE 573.

Jefferson’s Works, vol. 2, p. 319.

NOTE 277, PAGE 576.

Washington’s Writings, vol. 9, p. 447.

Life of Patrick Henry, p. 299.

Life of Richard Henry Lee, vol. 1, p. 241.

T
TO THOMAS JEFFERSON. [EXTRACT.]

TO EDMUND RANDOLPH. [EXTRACT.]

DEBATES IN THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787.

INTRODUCTION.

DEBATES IN THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787, HELD AT PHILADELPHIA.

LETTERS WRITTEN AFTER THE ADJOURNMENT OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION.

TO GENERAL WASHINGTON.

TO EDMUND RANDOLPH.

TO THOMAS JEFFERSON. [EXTRACT.]

TO GENERAL WASHINGTON. [EXTRACT.]

TO EDMUND RANDOLPH.

TO EDMUND RANDOLPH.

TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.

TO GENERAL WASHINGTON.

TO EDMUND RANDOLPH.

TO EDMUND RANDOLPH.

TO GENERAL WASHINGTON.

TO EDMUND RANDOLPH.

TO EDMUND RANDOLPH. [EXTRACT.]

TO EDMUND RANDOLPH.

TO EDMUND RANDOLPH.

TO EDMUND RANDOLPH. [EXTRACT.]

TO EDMUND RANDOLPH. [EXTRACT.]

TO EDMUND RANDOLPH.

TO EDMUND RANDOLPH.

APPENDIX TO THE DEBATES IN THE FEDERAL CONVENTION.

No. 1.

Letter from James M. Varnum, of Rhode Island, to the President of the Convention, enclosing the subjoined Communication, from certain Citizens of Rhode Island, to the Federal Convention.

Letter from certain Citizens of Rhode Island to the Federal Convention, enclosed in the preceding.

No. 2.

Note of Mr. Madison to the Plan of Charles Pinckney, May 29, 1787.

No. 3.

Project communicated by Mr. E. Randolph, July 10, as an accommodating Proposition to small States.

No. 4.

Note to Speech of Mr. Madison of August 7, 1787, on the Right of Popular Suffrage.

Second Note to Speech of Mr. Madison of August 7, 1787.

Third Note on the same Subject, during the Virginia Convention for amending the Constitution of the State, 1829—30.

No. 5.

Copy of a Paper communicated to James Madison by Col. Hamilton, about the close of the Convention in Philadelphia, 1787, which, he said, delineated the Constitution which he would have wished to be proposed by the Convention. He had stated the principles of it in the course of the deliberations.

REFERENCES.