The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 5]
Friday, September 14. [1787]

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

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

On this motion,--

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

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

[Note *: * "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.]

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

Mr. RUTLEDGE and Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS moved,-- "that persons impeached be suspended from their offices until they be tried and acquitted." [Page 542]

Mr. MADISON. The President is made too dependent already on the legislature by the power of one branch to try him in consequence of an impeachment by the other. This intermediate suspension will put him in the power of one branch only. They can at any moment, in order to make way for the functions of another who will be more favorable to their views, vote a temporary removal of the existing magistrate.

Mr. KING concurred in the opposition to the amendment.

On the question to agree to it,--

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

Article 1, sect. 4, "except as to the places of choosing senators," was added, nem. con., to the end of the first clause, in order to exempt the seats of government in the states from the power of Congress.

Article 1, sect. 5,--

"Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may, in their judgment, require secrecy."

Col. MASON and Mr. GERRY moved to insert, after the word "parts," the words "of the proceedings of the Senate," so as to require publication of all the proceedings of the House of Representatives.

It was intimated, on the other side, that cases might arise where secrecy might be necessary in both Houses. Measures preparatory to a declaration of war, in which the House of Representatives was to concur, were instanced.

On the question, it passed in the negative.

Pennsylvania, Maryland, North Carolina, ay, 3; New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Virginia, Georgia, no, 7; South Carolina, divided.

Mr. BALDWIN observed, that the clause, article 1, sect. 6, declaring, that no member of Congress,

"during the time for which he was elected, shall be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased, during such time,"

would not extend to offices created by the Constitution, and the salaries of which would be created, not increased, by Congress at their first session. The members of the first Congress, consequently, might evade the disqualification in this instance. He was neither seconded nor opposed, nor did any thing further pass on the subject.

Article 1, sect. 8. The Congress "may by joint ballot appoint a treasurer."

Mr. RUTLEDGE moved to strike out this power, and let the treasurer be appointed in the same manner with other officers.

Mr. GORHAM and Mr. KING said, that the motion, if agreed to, would have a mischievous tendency. The people are accustomed and attached to that mode of appointing treasurers, and the innovation will multiply objections to the system.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS remarked, that if the treasurer [Page 543] be not appointed by the legislature, he will be more narrowly watched, and more readily impeached.

Mr. SHERMAN. As the two Houses appropriate money, it is best for them to appoint the officer who is to keep it; and to appoint him as they make the appropriation, not by joint, but several votes.

Gen. PINCKNEY. The treasurer is appointed by joint ballot in South Carolina. The consequence is, that bad appointments are made, and the legislature will not listen to the faults of their own officer.

On the motion to strike out,--

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

Article 1, sect. 8, the words,

"but all such duties, imposts, and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United States,"

were unanimously annexed to the power of taxation.

On the clause,

"to define and punish piracies and felonies on the high seas, and punish offences against the law of nations,"--

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS moved to strike out "punish" before the words "offences against the law of nations," so as to let these be definable, as well as punishable, by virtue of the preceding member of the sentence.

Mr. WILSON hoped the alteration would by no means be made. To pretend to define the law of nations, which depended on the authority of all the civilized nations of the world, would have a look of arrogance that would make us ridiculous.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS. The word define is proper when applied to offences in this case; the law of nations being often too vague and deficient to be a rule.

On the question to strike out the word "punish," it passed in the affirmative.

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

Dr. FRANKLIN^* moved to add, after the words "post roads," article 1, sect. 8, a power "to provide for cutting canals where deemed necessary."

[Note *: * This motion by Dr. Franklin not stated in the printed Journal, as are some other motions.]

Mr. WILSON seconded the motion.

Mr. SHERMAN objected. The expense, in such cases, will fall on the United States, and the benefit accrue to the places where the canals may be cut.

Mr. WILSON. Instead of being an expense to the United States, they may be made a source of revenue.

Mr. MADISON suggested an enlargement of the motion, into a power,

"to grant charters of incorporation where the interest of the United States might require, and the legislative provisions of individual states may be incompetent."

[Page 544]

His primary Object was, however, to secure an easy communication between the states, which the free intercourse now to be opened seemed to call for. The political obstacles being removed, a removal of the natural ones, as far as possible, ought to follow.

Mr. RANDOLPH seconded the proposition.

Mr. KING thought the power unnecessary.

Mr. WILSON. It is necessary to prevent a state from obstructing the general welfare.

Mr. KING. The states will be prejudiced and divided into parties by it. In Philadelphia and New York, it will be referred to the establishment of a bank, which has been a subject of contention in those cities. In other places, it will be referred to mercantile monopolies.

Mr. WILSON mentioned the importance of facilitating, by canals, the communication with the western settlements. As to banks, he did not think, with Mr. King, that the power, in that point of view, would excite the prejudices and parties apprehended. As to mercantile monopolies, they are already included in the power to regulate trade.

Col. MASON was for limiting the power to the single case of canals. He was afraid of monopolies of every sort, which he did not think were by any means already implied by the Constitution, as supposed by Mr. Wilson.

The motion being so modified as to admit a distinct question, specifying and limited to the case of canals,--

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

The other part fell, of course, as including the power rejected.

Mr. MADISON and Mr. PINCKNEY then moved to insert, in the list of powers vested in Congress, a power

"to establish a university, in which no preferences or distinctions should be allowed on account of religion."

Mr. WILSON supported the motion.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS. It is not necessary. The exclusive power at the scat of government will reach the object.

On the question,--

Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, ay, 4; New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Georgia, no, 6; Connecticut, divided, (Dr. Johnson, ay; Mr. Sherman, no.)

Col. MASON, being sensible that an absolute prohibition of standing armies in time of peace might be unsafe, and wishing, at the same time, to insert something pointing out and guarding against the danger of them, moved to preface the clause, (article 1, sect. 8,) "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia," &c., with the words,

"and that the liberties of the people may be better secured against the danger of standing armies in time of peace."

Mr. RANDOLPH seconded the motion.

[Page 545]

Mr. MADISON was in favor of it. It did not restrain Congress from establishing a military force in time of peace, if found necessary; and as armies in time of peace are allowed, on all hands, to be an evil, it is well to discountenance them by the Constitution, as far as will consist with the essential power of the government on that head.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS opposed the motion, as setting a dishonorable mark of distinction on the military class of citizens.

Mr. PINCKNEY and Mr. BEDFORD concurred in the opposition.

On the question,--

Virginia, Georgia, ay, 2; New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, no, 9.

Col. MASON moved to strike out from the clause, (article 1, sect. 9,) "no bill of attainder, nor any ex post facto law, shall be passed," the words "nor any ex post facto law." He thought it not sufficiently clear that the prohibition meant by this phrase was limited to cases of a criminal nature; and no legislature ever did or can altogether avoid them in civil cases.

Mr. GERRY seconded the motion; but with a view to extend the prohibition to "civil cases," which he thought ought to be done.

On the question, all the states were, no.

Mr. PINCKNEY and Mr. GERRY moved to insert a declaration, "that the liberty of the press should be inviolably observed."

Mr. SHERMAN. It is unnecessary. The power of Congress does not extend to the press.

On the question, it passed in the negative.

Massachusetts, Maryland, Virginia, South Carolina, ay, 4; New Hampshire, (In the printed Journal, New Hampshire, ay,) Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, North Carolina, Georgia, no, 7.

Article 1, sect. 9. "No capitation tax shall be laid, unless," &c.

Mr. READ moved to insert after "capitation," the words "or other direct tax." He was afraid that some liberty might otherwise be taken to saddle the states with a readjustment, by this rule, of past requisitions of Congress; and that his amendment, by giving another east to the meaning, would take away the pretext.

Mr. WILLIAMSON seconded the motion, which was agreed to.

On motion of Col. MASON, the words "or enumeration" were inserted after, as explanatory of, "census,"--Connecticut and South Carolina, only, no.

At the end of the clause, "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state," was added the following amendment, conformably to a vote on the 31st of August, (p. 502,) viz.:

"No preference shall be given, by any regulation of commerce or revenue, to the ports of one state over those of another; nor shall vessels bound to or from one state be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties in another."

Col. MASON moved a clause requiring, "that an account of the public expenditures should be annually published."

[Page 546]

Mr. GERRY seconded the motion.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS urged that this would be impossible in many cases.

Mr. KING remarked, that the term expenditures went to every minute shilling. This would he impracticable. Congress might, indeed, make a monthly publication, but it would be in such general statements as would afford no satisfactory information.

Mr. MADISON proposed to strike out "annually" from the motion, and insert "from time to time," which would enjoin the duty of frequent publications, and leave enough to the discretion of the legislature. Require too much, and the difficulty will beget a habit of doing nothing. The Articles of Confederation require half-yearly publications on this subject. A punctual compliance being often impossible, the practice has ceased altogether.

Mr. WILSON seconded and supported the motion. Many operations of finance cannot be properly published at certain times.

Mr. PINCKNEY was in favor of the motion.

Mr. FITZSIMONS. It is absolutely impossible to publish expenditures in the full extent of the term.

Mr. SHERMAN thought "from time to time," the best rule to be given. "Annually" was struck out, and those words inserted, nem. con.

The motion of Col. Mason, so amended, was then agreed to, nem. con., and added after "appropriations by law," as follows:--

"and a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time."

The first clause of article 1, sect. 10, was altered so as to read,--

"No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility."

Mr. GERRY entered into observations inculcating the importance of public faith, and the propriety of the restraint put on the states from impairing the obligation of contracts; alleging that Congress ought to be laid under the like prohibitions. He made a motion to that effect. He was not seconded.

Adjourned.

Now let us examine quotations from some of the people whom took part in the above debate, shall we? We'll start with Mr. Madison, since he is after all "the Father of the Constitution". For instance, less than a month prior to the above he had stated the following:

"Mr. MADISON thought the regulation of the militia naturally appertaining to the authority charged with the public defence...."

- August 18. (1787), The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Vol. 5]

Prior to that, he had stated this:

"Let it be remembered finally, that it has ever been the pride and boast of America, that the rights for which she contended, were the rights of human nature. By the blessing of the author of these rights, on the means exerted for their defence, they have prevailed against all opposition, and form at this time the basis of thirteen independent states. No instance has heretofore occurred, nor can any instance be expected hereafter to occur, in which the unadulterated forms of Republican government can pretend to so fair an opportunity of justifying themselves by their fruits. In this view the citizens of the United States are responsible for the greatest trust ever confided to a political society. If justice, good faith, honor, gratitude and all the other virtues qualities which ennoble the character of a nation, and fulfil the ends of government, be the fruits of our establishments, the cause of liberty will acquire a dignity and lustre which it has never yet enjoyed; and an example will be set which cannot fail to but have the most favourable influence on the rights of mankind. If on the other side, our governments should be unfortunately blotted with the reverse of these cardinal and essential qualities virtues, the great cause which we have engaged to vindicate will be dishonored and betrayed; the last and fairest experiment in favour of the rights of human nature will be turned against them, and their patrons and friends exposed to be insulted and silenced by the sycophants votaries of tyranny and usurpation."

- James Madison, Journals of the Continental Congress, Address to the States, by the United States Congress Assembled. April 26, 1783.

Then much later he had penned this:

“[Tyranny cannot be safe] without a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace.”

- James Madison, autobiography 

Next, let's have a look at some words of wisdom from Mr. Franklin:

"...All property, indeed, except the savage's temporary cabin, his bow, his match coat, and other little acquisitions absolutely necessary for his subsistence, seems to me the creature of public convention. Hence the public has the right of regulating descents and all other conveyances of property, and even of limiting the quantity and uses of it. All the property that is necessary to a man for the conservation of the individual and the propagation of the species is his natural right, which none can justly deprive him of; but all property superfluous to such purposes is the property of the public, who by their laws have created it, and who may, therefore, by other laws, dispose of it whenever the welfare of the public shall demand such disposition. He that does not like civil society on these terms, let him retire and live among savages. He can have no right to the benefits of society who will not pay his club towards the support of it...."

- Benjamin Franklin, Dec. 25, 1783 letter to Robert(?) Morris. [The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States, Volume 6.]

Then there's the following from Mr. Mason:

"Mason--The Executive negatives both Brs of the Legislatr and each Br. has a negative on the other--and the Genl. Gov. have a neg. on the State Legislature--these regulations are necessary on the principles of self Defence--it is an instinctive principle in nature, and in a proper degree every being professes this power. If the State Legislatures are deprived of the Election of the 2d. or 1st Br. of the natil. Legislature the States are destitute of this principle of self protection--I wish them to continue & I shall not agree to deprive them of the power of a constitutional self Protection..."

- The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, [Farrand's Records, Volume 1] YATES. June 25th, 1787.

Then we have this from Mr. Wilson:

"The defence of one’s self, justly called the primary law of nature, is not, nor can it be abrogated by any regulation of municipal law. This principle of defence is not confined merely to the person; it extends to the liberty and the property of a man: it is not confined merely to his own person; it extends to the persons of all those, to whom he bears a peculiar relation -- of his wife, of his parent, of his child, of his master, of his servant: nay, it extends to the person of every one, who is in danger; perhaps, to the liberty of every one, whose liberty is unjustly and forcibly attacked. It becomes humanity as well as justice."

- James Wilson, 'Of the Natural Rights of Individuals', 1790-1792 (Signed the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, Congressman, Delegate to the Constitutional Convention and Supreme Court Justice). 

Then finally, there is the following from Mr. Gerry:

"...Self defence is a primary law of nature, which no subsequent law of society can abolish; this primæval principle, the immediate gift of the Creator, obliges every one to remonstrate against the strides of ambition, and a wanton lust of domination, and to resist the first approaches of tyranny, which at this day threaten to sweep away the rights for which the brave sons of America have fought with an heroism scarcely paralleled even in ancient republicks...."

- Elbridge Gerry, Observations On the new Constitution, and on the Federal and State Conventions. By a Columbian Patriot. Sic transit gloria Americana. [Boston: 1788.]

It certainly does appear that our more recent and current representatives, (or sycophants, as Mr. Madison called them), have lost sight of ORIGINAL INTENT, doesn't it?

**********

HOME