JOURNAL
Saturday July 14. 1787.

It was moved and seconded to agree to the following proposition, namely.

That to secure the liberties of the States already confederated, the number of representatives in the first branch from the States which shall hereafter be established, shall never exceed the representatives from such of the thirteen United States as shall accede to this Confederation.

On the question to agree to the proposition

it passed in the negative [Ayes — 4; noes — 5; divided — 1.]

It was moved and seconded to reconsider the two propositions reported from the grand Committee, and agreed by the House to stand part of the report — entered on the Journal of the 6. instant

It was moved and seconded to postpone the second clause of the report from the grand Committee, entered on the Journals of the 6 instant, in order to take up the following. namely

That the second branch of the Legislature shall have Thirty six Members of which number

On the question to postpone, it passed in the negative. [Ayes — 4; noes — 6.] 1

and then the House adjourned till Monday

MADISON
Saturday. July 14. in Convention

Mr. L. Martin called for the question on the whole report, including the parts relating to the origination of money bills, and the equality of votes in the 2d. branch.

Mr. Gerry. wished before the question should be put, that the attention of the House might be turned to the dangers apprehended from Western States. He was for admitting them on liberal terms, but not for putting ourselves into their hands. They will if they acquire power like all men, abuse it. They will oppress commerce, and drain our wealth into the Western Country. To guard agst. these consequences, he thought it necessary to limit the number of new States to be admitted into the Union, in such a manner, that they should never be able to outnumber the Atlantic States. 2 He accordingly moved “that in order to secure the 〈liberties of the〉 States already confederated, the 〈number of〉 Representatives in the 1st. branch 〈of the States which shall hereafter be established〉 shall never exceed in number, the Representatives from such of the States 〈as shall accede to this confederation.〉 3

Mr. King. seconded the motion.

Mr. Sherman, thought there was no probability that the number of future States would exceed that of the Existing States. If the event should ever happen, it was too remote to be taken into consideration at this time. Besides We are providing for our posterity, for our children our grand Children, who would be as likely to be citizens of new Western States, as of the old States. On this consideration alone, we ought to make no such discrimination as was proposed by the motion.

Mr. Gerry. If some of our children should remove, others will stay behind, and he thought it incumbent on us to provide for their interests. There was a rage for emigration from the Eastern States to the Western Country and he did not wish those remaining behind to be at the mercy of the Emigrants. Besides foreigners are resorting to that Country, and it is uncertain what turn things may take there. — On the question for agreeing to the Motion of Mr. Gerry, 〈it passed in the negative.〉

Mas. ay. Cont. ay. N. J. no Pa. divd. Del: ay. Md. ay. Va. no. N. C. no. S. C. no. Geo. no. [Ayes — 4; noes — 5; divided — 1.]

Mr. Rutlidge proposed to reconsider the 〈two propositions touching the originating of〉 money bills 〈in the first〉 the equality of votes in the second branch.

Mr. Sherman was for the question on the whole at once. It was he said a conciliatory plan, it had been considered in all its parts, a great deal of time had been spent on it, and if any part should now be altered, it would be necessary to go over the whole ground again.

Mr. L. Martin urged the question on the whole. He did not like many parts of it. He did not like having two branches, nor the inequality of votes in the 1st. branch. He was willing however to make trial of the plan, rather than do nothing. 4

Mr. Wilson traced the progress of the Report through its several stages, remarking yt when on the question concerning an equality of votes, the House was divided, our Constituents had they voted as their representatives did, would have stood as ⅔ agst. the equality, and ⅓ only in favor of it. This fact would ere long be known, and it will appear that this fundamental point has been carried by ⅓ agst. ⅔. What hopes will our Constituents entertain when they find that the essential principles of justice have been violated in the outset of the Governmt. As to the privilege of originating money bills, it was not considered by any as of much moment, and by many as improper in itself. He hoped both clauses wd. be reconsidered. The equality of votes was a point of such critical importance, that every opportunity ought to be allowed, for discussing and collecting the mind of the Convention on it.

Mr. L. Martin denies that there were ⅔ agst. the equality of votes. The States that please to call themselves large, are the weekest in the Union. Look at Masts. Look at Virga. Are they efficient States? He was for letting a separation take place if they desired it. He had rather there should be two Confederacies, than one founded on any other principle than an equality of votes in the 2d branch at least.

Mr Wilson was not surprised that those who say that a minority does more than the majority should say that that minority is stronger than the majority. He supposed the next assertion will be that they are richer also, though he hardly expected it would be persisted in when the States shall be called on for taxes troops —

Mr. Gerry also animadverted on Mr. L. Martins remarks on the weakness of Masts. He favored the reconsideration with a view not of destroying the equality of votes; but of providing that the States should vote per capita. which he said would prevent the delays inconveniences that had been experienced in Congs. and would give a national aspect Spirit to the management of business. He did not approve of a reconsideration of the clause relating to money bills. It was of great consequence. It was the corner stone of the accomodation. If any member of the Convention had the exclusive privilege of making propositions, would any one say that it would give him no advantage over other members. The Report was not altogether to his mind. But he would agree to it as it stood rather than throw it out altogether.

The reconsideration being tacitly agreed to

Mr. Pinkney moved that instead of an equality of votes the States should be represented in the 2d branch as follows: N. H. by. 2. members. Mas 4. R. I. 1. Cont. 3. N. Y. 3. N. J. 2. Pa. 4. Del 1. Md. 3. Virga. 5. N. C. 3. S. C. 3. Geo. 2. making in the whole 36. 5

Mr. Wilson seconds the motion

Mr. Dayton. The smaller States can never give up their equality. For himself he would in no event yield that security for their rights.

Mr. Sherman urged the equality of votes not so much as a security for the small States; as for the State Govts. which could not be preserved unless they were represented had a negative in the Genl. Government. He had no objection to the members in the 2d b. voting per capita, as had been suggested by (Mr. Gerry)

Mr — 〈Madison〉 concurred in the motion 〈of Mr. Pinkney〉 as a reasonable compromise.

Mr. Gerry said he should like the motion, but could see no hope of success. An accomodation must take place, and it was apparent from what had been seen that it could not do so on the ground of the motion. He was utterly against a partial confederacy, leaving other States to accede or not accede; as had been intimated.

Mr. King said it was always with regret that he differed from his colleagues, but it was his duty to differ from (Mr Gerry) on this occasion. He considered the proposed Government as substantially and formally, a General and National Government over the people of America. There never will be a case in which it will act as a federal Government on the States and not on the individual Citizens. And is it not a clear principle that in a free Govt. those who are to be the objects of a Govt. ought to influence the operations of it? What reason can be assigned why the same rule of representation sd. not prevail in the 2d. branch as in the 1st.? He could conceive none. On the contrary, every view of the subject that presented itself, seemed to require it. Two objections had been raised agst. it, drawn 1. from the terms of the existing compact. 2. from a supposed danger to the smaller States. — As to the first objection he thought it inapplicable. According to the existing confederation, the rule by which the public burdens is to be apportioned is fixed, and must be pursued. In the proposed Govermt. it cannot be fixed, because indirect taxation is to be substituted. The Legislature therefore will have full discretion to impose taxes in such modes proportions as they may judge expedient. As to the 2d. objection, he thought it of as little weight. The Genl. Governt. can never wish to intrude on the State Governts. There could be no temptation. None had been pointed out. In order to prevent the interference of measures which seemed most likely to happen, he would have no objection to throwing all the State debts into the federal debt, making one aggregate debt of about 70,000,000, of dollars, and leaving it to be discharged by the Genl. Govt. — According to the idea of securing the State Govts. there ought to be three distinct legislative branches. The 2d. was admitted to be necessary, and was actually meant, to check the 1st. branch, to give more wisdom, system, stability to the Govt. and ought clearly as it was to operate on the people to be proportioned to them. For the third purpose of securing the States, there ought then to be a 3d. branch, representing the States as such and guarding by equal votes their rights dignities. He would not pretend to be as thoroughly acquainted with his immediate Constituents as his colleagues, but it was his firm belief that Masts. would never be prevailed on to yield to an equality of votes. In N. York (he was sorry to be obliged to say any thing relative to that State in the absence of its representatives, but the occasion required it), in N. York he had seen that the most powerful argument used by the considerate opponents to the grant of the Impost to Congress, was pointed agst. the viccious constitution of Congs. with regard to representation suffrage. He was sure that no Govt. could last that was not founded on just principles. He preferred the doing of nothing, to an allowance of an equal vote to all the States. It would be better he thought to submit to a little more confusion convulsion, than to submit to such an evil. It was difficult to say what the views of different Gentlemen might be. Perhaps there might be some who thought no Governmt. co-extensive with the U. States could be established with a hope of its answering the purpose. Perhaps there might be other fixed opinions incompatible with the object we were pursuing. If there were, he thought it but candid that Gentlemen would speak out that we might understand one another.

Mr. Strong. The Convention had been much divided in opinion. In order to avoid the consequences of it, an accomodation had been proposed. A Committee had been appointed; and though some of the members of it were averse to an equality of votes, a Report has been made in favor of it. It is agreed on all hands that Congress are nearly at an end. If no Accommodation takes place, the Union itself must soon be dissolved. It has been suggested that if 〈we〉 can not come to any general agreement the principal States may form recommend a scheme of Government. But will the small States in that case ever accede it. Is it probable that the large States themselves will under such circumstances embrace and ratify it. He thought the small States had made a considerable concession in the article of money bills, and that 〈they〉 might naturally expect some concessions on the other side. From this view of the matter he was compelled to give his vote for the Report taken all together.

Mr 〈Madison〉 expressed his apprehensions that if the proper foundation of Governmt was destroyed, by substituting an equality in place of a proportional Representation, no 〈proper〉 superstructure would be raised. 6 If the small States really wish for a Government armed with the powers necessary to secure their liberties, and to enforce obedience on the larger members as well as on themselves he could not help thinking them extremely mistaken in their means. He reminded them of the consequences of laying the existing confederation on improper principles. All the principal parties to its compilation, joined immediately in mutilating fettering the Governmt. in such a manner that it has disappointed every hope placed on it. He appealed to the doctrine arguments used by themselves on 〈a former occasion.〉 It had been very properly observed by 〈Mr. Patterson〉 that Representation was an expedient by which the meeting of the people themselves was rendered unnecessary; and that the representatives ought therefore to bear a proportion to the votes which their constituents if convened, would respectively have. Was not this remark as applicable to one branch of the Representation as to the other? But it had been said that the Governt. would 〈in its operation〉 be partly federal, partly national; that altho’ in the latter respect the Representatives of the people ought to be in proportion to the people: yet in the former it ought to be according to the number of States. If there was any 〈solidity〉 7 in this distinction he was ready to abide by it, if there was none it ought to be abandoned. In all cases where the Genl. Governt. is to act on the people, let the people be represented and the votes be proportional. In all cases where the Governt. is to act on the States as such, in like manner as Congs. now act on them, let the States be represented the votes be equal. This was the true ground of compromise if there was any ground at all. But he denied that there was any ground. He called for a single instance in which the Genl. Govt. was not to operate on the people individually. The practicability of making laws, with coercive sanctions, for the States as political bodies, had been exploded on all hands. He observed that the people of the large States would in some way or other secure to themselves a weight proportioned to the importance accruing from their superior numbers. If they could not effect it by a proportional representation in the Govt. they would probably accede to no Govt. which did not in great measure depend for its efficacy on their voluntary cooperation; in which case they would indirectly secure their object. The existing confederacy proved that where the acts of the Genl. Govt. were to be executed by the particular Govts the latter had a weight in proportion to their importance No one would say that either in Congs. or out of Congs. Delaware had equal weight with Pensylva. If the latter was to supply ten times as much money as the former, and no compulsion could be used, it was of ten times more importance, that she should furnish voluntarily the supply. 8 In the Dutch Confederacy the votes of the Provinces were equal. But Holland, which supplies about half the money, governed the whole republic. He enumerated the objections agst an equality of votes in the 2d. branch, notwithstanding the proportional representation in the first. 1. the minority could negative the will of the majority of the people. 2. they could extort measures by making them a condition of their assent to other necessary measures. 3. they could obtrude measures on the majority by virtue of the peculiar powers which would be vested in the Senate. 4. the evil instead of being cured by time, would increase with every new State that should be admitted, as they must all be admitted on the principle of equality. 5. the perpetuity it would give to the 〈preponderance of the〉 Northn. agst. the Southn. Scale was a serious consideration. It seemed now to be pretty well understood that the real difference of interests lay, not between the large small but between the N. Southn. States. The institution of slavery its consequences formed the line of discrimination. There were 5 States on the South, 8 on the Northn. side of this line. Should a proportl. representation take place it was true, the N. side would still outnumber the other: but not in the same degree, at this time; and every day would tend towards an equilibrium.

Mr. Wilson would add a few words only. If equality in the 2d. branch was an error that time would correct, he should be less anxious to exclude it being sensible that perfection was unattainable in any plan: but being a fundamental and a perpetual error, it ought by all means to be avoided. A vice in the Representation, like an error in the first concoction, must be followed by disease, convulsions, and finally death itself. The justice of the general principle of proportional representation has not in argument at least been yet contradicted. But it is said that a departure from it so far as to give the States an equal vote in one branch of the Legislature is essentail to their preservation. He had considered this position maturely, but could not see its application. That the States ought to be preserved he admitted. But does it follow that an equality of votes is necessary for the purpose? Is there any reason to suppose that if their preservation should depend more on the large than on the small States, the security of the States agst. the Genl. Government would be diminished? Are the large States less attached to their existence, more likely to commit suicide, than the small? An equal vote then is not necessary as far as he can conceive: and is liable, among other objections to this insuperable one: The great fault of the existing Confederacy is its inactivity. It has never been a complaint agst. Congs. that they governed overmuch. The complaint has been that they have governed too little. To remedy this defect we were sent here. Shall we effect the cure by establishing an equality of votes, as is proposed? no; this very equality carries us directly to Congress: to the system which it is our duty to rectify. The small States cannot indeed act, by virtue of this equality, but they may controul the Govt. as they have done in Congs. This very measure is here prosecuted by a minority of the people of America. Is then the object of the Convention likely to be accomplished in this way? Will not our Constituents say? we sent you to form an efficient Govt and you have given us one more complex indeed, but having all the weakness of the former Governt. He was anxious for uniting all the States under one Governt. He knew there were some respectable men who preferred three confederacies, united by offensive defensive alliances. Many things may be plausibly said, some things may be justly said, in favor of such a project. He could not however concur in it himself; but he thought nothing so pernicious as bad first principles.

Mr. Elseworth asked two questions one of Mr. Wilson, whether he had ever seen a good measure fail in Congs. for want of a majority of States in its favor? He had himself never known such an instance: the other of Mr. 〈Madison〉 whether a negative lodged with a majority of the States even the smallest, could be more dangerous than the qualified negative proposed to be lodged in a single Executive Magistrate, who must be taken from some one State?

Mr. Sherman, signified that his expectation was that the Genl. Legislature would in some cases act on the federal principle, of requiring quotas. But he thought it ought to be empowered to carry their own plans into execution, if the States should fail to supply their respective quotas.

On the question for agreeing to Mr Pinkney’s motion for allowing N. H. 2. Mas. 4. c — 〈it passed in the negative〉

Mas. no. Mr. King ay. Mr. Ghorum absent. Cont. no. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. no. Md. ay. Va. ay. N. C. no. S. C. ay Geo. no. [Ayes — 4; noes — 6.]

Adjourned,

KING
Memorandum
July 15. 87

About twelve days since the convention appointed a Grand Comee. consisting of Gerry, Elsworth, Yates, Patterson, Franklin, Bedford, Martin, Mason, Davie, Rutledge Baldwin to adjust the Representation in the two Brs. of the Legislature of the US — They reported yt. every 40,000 Inhabs. taken agreeably to the Resolution of Cong. of ye. 18 Ap. 1783 shd. send one member to the first Br of the Legislatr. yt. this Br. shd. originate exclusively money Bills, also originate ye. appropriations of money — and that in ye Senate or upper Br. each state shd. have one vote no more — the Representation as to the first Br. was twice recommitted altho not to the same committee, finally it was agreed yt. Taxation of the direct sort Representation shd. be in direct proportion with each other — that the first Br. shd. consist of 65 memb: viz. N H. 3: M. 8: R I. 1: C. 5: NY. 6: N J. 4: P. 8: D. 1: M. 6: V. 10: NC. 5: SC. 5: G. 3: and that the origination of money Bills and the Appropriations of money shd. belong in the first instance to yt. Br. but yt. in the Senate or 2d. Br. each State shd. have an equal Vote — in this situation of the Report it was moved by S. Car. that in the formation of the 2d. Br. instead of an equality of Votes among the States, that N H shd. have 2: M. 4: R I. 1: C. 3. N Y 3. N J. 2. P 4. D 1. M 3. V 5. N C. 3. S C. 3 G 2. Total 36 —

on the question to agree to this apportionment, instead of the equality (Mr. Gorham being absent) Mass. Con. N Jer. Del. N Car Georg. No —

Penn. Mar. Virg. S Car. Ay —

This Question was taken and to my mortification by the Vote of Mass lost on the 14th. July — 9

JOURNAL
Monday July 16. 1787.

The question being taken on the whole of the report from the grand Committee as amended

it passed in the affirmative [Ayes — 5; noes — 4; divided — 1.] and is as follows, namely,

Resolved — That in the original formation of the Legislature of the United States the first Branch thereof shall consist of Sixty five members — of which number

But as the present situation of the States may probably alter in the number of their inhabitants the Legislature of the United States shall be authorized from time to time to apportion the number of representatives: and in case any of the States shall hereafter be divided, or enlarged by addition of territory, or any two or more States united, or any New States created within the limits of the United States the Legislature of the United States shall possess authority to regulate the number of representatives: in any of the foregoing cases upon the principle of their number of inhabitants, according to the provisions hereafter mentioned, namely,

Provided always that representation ought to be proportioned according to direct Taxation; and in order to ascertain the alteration in the direct Taxation, which may be required from time to time by the changes in the relative circumstances of the States — Resolved that a Census be taken within six years from the first Meeting of the Legislature of the United States, and once within the term of every Ten years afterwards of all the inhabitants of the United States in the manner and according to the ratio recommended by Congress in their resolution of April 18. 1783 — and that the Legislature of the United States shall proportion the direct Taxation accordingly.

Resolved That all Bills for raising or appropriating money, and for fixing the salaries of the Officers of the Government of the United States shall originate in the first Branch of the Legislature of the United States, and shall not be altered or amended by the second Branch — and that no money shall be drawn from the Public Treasury but in pursuance of appropriations to be originated by the first Branch.

Resolved That in the second Branch of the Legislature of the United States each State shall have an equal vote.

It was moved and seconded to agree to the first clause of the sixth resolution reported from the Committee of the whole House namely

which passed unanimously in the affirmative

It was moved and seconded to commit the second clause of the Sixth resolution reported from the Committee of the whole House

which passed in the negative [Ayes — 5; noes — 5.]

[To adjourn Ayes — 5; noes — 5.

To adjourn Ayes — 7; noes — 2; divided — 1.] 1 And then the House adjourned till to-morrow at 11 o’Clock A. M.

MADISON
Monday, July 16. In Convention

On the question for agreeing to the whole 〈Report as amended 〉 2 including the equality of votes in the 2d. branch. 〈it passed in the Affirmative〉

Mas. divided Mr. Gerry, Mr. Strong. ay. Mr. King Mr. Ghorum no. Cont. ay. N. J. ay. Pena. no. Del. ay. Md. ay. Va. no. N. C. ay. Mr. Spaight no S. C. no. Geo. no. [Ayes — 5; noes — 4; divided — 1.] 〈(Here enter the whole in the words entered in the Journal July 16)〉

〈The whole, thus passed is in the words following 3 viz

The 6th. Resol: in the Report from the Come. of the whole House, which had been postponed in order to consider the 7 8th. Resol’ns; was now resumed. see the Resoln:

〈The 1s. member〉 “That the Natl. Legislature ought to 〈possess〉 5 the Legislative Rights vested in Congs. by the Confederation.” 〈was〉 Agreed to nem. Con.

〈The next〉 “And moreover to legislate in all cases to which the separate States are incompetent; or in which the harmony of the U. S. may be interrupted by the exercise of individual legislation,” 〈being〉 read for a question

Mr. Butler calls for some explanation of the extent of this power; particularly of the word incompetent. The vagueness of the terms rendered it impossible for any precise judgment to be formed.

Mr. Ghorum. The vagueness of the terms constitutes the propriety of them. We are now establishing general principles, to be extended hereafter into details which will be precise explicit.

Mr. Rutlidge, urged the objection started by Mr. Butler and moved that the clause should be committed to the end that a specification of the powers comprised in the general terms, might be reported.

On the question for a commitment, 〈the States were equally divided〉

Mas. no. Cont. ay. N. J. no. Pa. no. Del. no. Md. ay. Va. ay. N. C. no. S. C. ay. Geo. ay: So it was lost. [Ayes — 5; noes — 5.]

Mr. Randolph. The vote of this morning (involving an equality of suffrage in 2d. branch) had embarrassed the business extremely. All the powers given in the Report from the Come. of the whole, were founded on the supposition that a Proportional representation was to prevail in both branches of the Legislature — When he came here this morning his purpose was to have offered some propositions that might if possible have united a great majority of votes, and particularly might provide agst. the danger suspected on the part of the smaller States, by enumerating the cases in which it might lie, and allowing an equality of votes in such cases. * But finding from the preceding vote that they persist in demanding an equal vote in all cases, that they have succeeded in obtaining it, and that N. York if present would probably be on the same side, he could not but think we were unprepared to discuss this subject further. It will probably be in vain to come to any final decision with a bare majority on either side For these reasons he wished the Convention might adjourn, that the large States might consider the steps proper to be taken in the present solemn crisis of the business, and that the small States might also deliberate on the means of conciliation.

Mr. Patterson, thought with Mr. R. that it was high time for the Convention to adjourn that the rule of secrecy ought to be rescinded, and that our Constituents should be consulted. No conciliation could be admissible on the part of the smaller States on any other ground than that of an equality of votes in the 2d. branch. If Mr Randolph would reduce to form his motion for an adjournment sine die, he would second it with all his heart.

Genl. Pinkney wished to know of Mr R. whether he meant an adjournment sine die, or only an adjournment for the day. If the former was meant, it differed much from his idea He could not think of going to S. Carolina, and returning again to this place. Besides it was chimerical to suppose that the States if consulted would ever accord separately, and beforehand.

Mr. Randolph, had never entertained an idea of an adjournment sine die; was sorry that his meaning had been so readily strangely misinterpreted. He had in view merely an adjournment till tomorrow in order that some conciliatory experiment might if possible be devised, and that in case the smaller States should continue to hold back, the larger might then take such measures, he would not say what, as might be necessary.

Mr. Patterson seconded the adjournment till tomorrow, as an opportunity seemed to be wished by the larger States to deliberate further on conciliatory expedients.

On the question for adjourning till tomorrow, 〈the States were equally divided.〉

Mas. no. Cont. no. N. J. ay. Pa. ay. Del. no. Md. ay. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. no. Geo. no. So it was lost. [Ayes — 5; noes — 5.]

Mr. Broome thought it his duty to declare his opinion agst. an adjournment sine die, as had been urged by Mr. Patterson. Such a measure he thought would be fatal. Something must be done by the Convention tho’ it should be by a bare majority.

Mr. Gerry observed that Masts. was opposed to an adjournment, because they saw no new ground of compromise. But as it seemed to be the opinion of so many States that a trial shd be made, the State would now concur in the adjournmt.

Mr. Rutlidge could see no need of an adjournt. because he could see no chance of a compromise. The little States were fixt. They had repeatedly solemnly declared themselves to be so. All that the large States then had to do, was to decide whether they would yield or not. For his part he conceived that altho’ we could not do what we thought best, in itself, we ought to do something. Had we not better keep the Govt. up a little longer, hoping that another Convention will supply our omissions, than abandon every thing to hazard. Our Constituents will be very little satisfied with us if we take the latter course.

Mr. Randolph Mr. King renewed the motion to adjourn till tomorrow.

On the question Mas. ay. Cont. no. N. J. ay. Pa. ay. Del. no. Md. ay. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. divd. [Ayes — 7; noes — 2; divided — 1.]

Adjourned 7

On the morning following before the hour of the Convention a number of the members from the larger States, by common agreement met for the purpose of consulting on the proper steps to be taken in consequence of the vote in favor of an equal Representation in the 2d. branch, and the apparent inflexibility of the smaller States on that point — Several members from the latter States also attended. The time was wasted in vague conversation on the subject, without any specific proposition or agreement. It appeared indeed that the opinions of the members who disliked the equality of votes differed so much as to the importance of that point, and as to the policy of risking 〈a failure of〉 a〈ny〉 general act of the Convention by inflexibly opposing it. Several of them supposing that no good Governnt could or would be built on that foundation, and that as a division of the Convention into two opinions was unavoidable it would be better that the side comprising the principal States, and a majority of the people of America, should propose a scheme of Govt. to the States, than that a scheme should be proposed on the other side, would have concurred in a firm opposition to the smaller States, and in a separate recommendation, if eventually necessary. Others seemed inclined to yield to the smaller States, and to concur in such an Act however imperfect exceptionable, as might be agreed on by the Convention as a body, tho’ decided by a bare majority of States and by a minority of the people of the U. States. It is probable that the result of this consultation satisfied the smaller States that they had nothing to apprehend from a Union of the larger, in any plan whatever agst. the equality of votes in the 2d. branch. 8

JOURNAL
Tuesday July 17. 1787.

It was moved and seconded to postpone the considn of the second clause of the Sixth resolution reported from the Committee of the whole House in order to take up the following

which passed in the negative [Ayes — 2; noes — 8.] 1

It was moved and seconded to alter the second clause of the 6th esolution so as to read as follows, namely

“and moreover to legislate in all cases for the general interests of the Union, and also in those to which the States are separately incompetent, or in which the harmony of the United States may be interrupted by the exercise of individual legislation

which passed in the affirmative [Ayes — 6; noes — 4.] 2

[To agree to the second clause of the 6. resolution as amended. Ayes — 8; noes — 2.] 3

On the question to agree to the following clause of the sixth resolution reported from the Committee of the whole House, namely,

it passed in the negative [Ayes — 3; noes — 7.]

It was moved and seconded to agree to the following resolution namely.

Resolved that the legislative acts of the United States made by virtue and in pursuance of the articles of Union and all Treaties made and ratified under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the respective States as far as those acts or Treaties shall relate to the said States, or their Citizens and Inhabitants — and that the Judiciaries of the several States shall be bound thereby in their decisions, any thing in the respective laws of the individual States to the contrary notwithstanding

which passed unanimously in the affirmative

On the question to agree to the first clause of the 9th resolution reported from the Committee of the whole House namely “That a national Executive be instituted to consist of a Single Person”

it passed unanimously in the affirmative [Ayes — 10; noes — 0.]

It was moved and seconded to strike the words

“national legislature” out of the second clause of the 9th resolution, reported from the Committee of the whole House and to insert the words

“the Citizens of the United States”

which passed in the negative [Ayes — 1; noes — 9.]

It was moved and seconded to alter the second clause of the 9th resolution reported from the Committee of the whole House so as to read

“To be chosen by Electors to be appointed by the several Legislatures of the individual States”

which passed in the negative [Ayes — 2; noes — 8.]

It was moved and seconded to agree to the following clause namely

“to be chosen by the national Legislature

which passed unan: in the affirmative. [Ayes — 10; noes — 0.]

It was moved and seconded to postpone the consideration of the following clause

for the term of seven years”

which was unanimously agreed to

On the question to agree to the following clause namely

“with power to carry into effect the national laws”

it passed unanimously in ye affirmative

On the question to agree to the following clause namely

“to appoint to offices in cases not otherwise provided for”

it passed unanimously in the affirmative

It was moved and seconded to strike out the following words namely

“to be ineligible a second time”

which passed in the affirmative [Ayes — 6; noes — 4.]

It was moved and seconded to strike out the words “seven years” and to insert the words “good behaviour.”

which passed in the negative. [Ayes — 4; noes — 6.]

It was moved and seconded to strike out the words

“seven years”

which passed in the negative [Ayes — 4; noes — 6.] 4

And then the House adjourned till to-morrow at 11 o’Clock A. M.

MADISON
Tuesday July 17. in Convention

Mr. Governr. Morris moved to reconsider the whole Resolution agreed to yesterday concerning the constitution of the 2 branches of the Legislature. His object was to bring the House to a consideration in the abstract of the powers necessary to be vested in the general Government. It had been said, Let us know how the Govt. is to be modelled, and then we can determine what powers can be properly given to it. He thought the most eligible course was, first to determine on the necessary powers, and then so to modify the Governt. as that it might be justly properly enabled to administer them. He feared if we proceded to a consideration of the powers, whilst the vote of yesterday including an equality of the States in the 2d. branch, remained in force, a reference to it, either mental or expressed, would mix itself with the merits of every question concerning the powers. — this motion was not seconded. (It was probably approved by several members, who either despaired of success, or were apprehensive that the attempt would inflame the jealousies of the smaller States.)

The 6th. Resoln. in the Report of the Come. of the whole relating to the powers, which had been postponed in order to consider the 7 8th. relating to the Constitution of the, Natl. Legislature, was now resumed —

Mr. Sherman observed that it would be difficult to draw the line between the powers of the Genl. Legislatures, and those to be left with the States; that he did not like the definition contained in the Resolution, and proposed in place of the words “of individual legislation” line 4 inclusive, to insert “to make laws binding on the people of the 〈United〉 States in all cases 〈which may concern the common interests of the Union〉; but not to interfere with 〈the Government of the individual States in any matters of internal police which respect the Govt. of such States only, and wherein the General〉 welfare of the U. States is not concerned.” 5

Mr. Wilson 2ded. the amendment as better expressing the general principle.

Mr Govr Morris opposed it. The internal police, as it would be called understood by the States ought to be infringed in many cases, as in the case of paper money other tricks by which Citizens of other States may be affected.

Mr. Sherman, in explanation of his ideas read an enumeration of powers, including the power of levying taxes on trade, but not the power of direct taxation.

Mr. Govr. Morris remarked the omission, and inferred that for the deficencies of taxes on consumption, it must have been the meaning of Mr. Sherman, that the Genl. Govt. should recur to quotas requisitions, which are subversive of the idea of Govt.

Mr. Sherman acknowledged that his enumeration did not include direct taxation. Some provision he supposed must be made for supplying the deficiency of other taxation, but he had not formed any. 6

On Question on Mr. Sherman’s motion, 7 〈it passed in the negative〉

Mas. no. Cont. ay. N. J. no. Pa. no. Del. no. Md. ay. Va. no. N. C. no. S. C. no. Geo. no. [Ayes — 2; noes — 8.]

Mr. Bedford moved that the 〈2d. member of Resolution 6.〉 be so altered as to read “〈and moreover〉 to legislate in all cases for the general interests of the Union, and also in those to which the States are separately incompetent,” 〈or in which the harmony of the U. States may be interrupted by the exercise of individual Legislation”.〉 8

Mr. Govr. Morris 2ds. 〈the motion.〉

Mr. Randolph. This is a formidable idea indeed. It involves the power of violating all the laws and constitutions of the States, and of intermeddling with their police. The last member of the sentence is 〈also〉 superfluous, being included in the first.

Mr. Bedford. It is not more extensive or formidable than the clause as it stands: no State being separately competent to legislate for the general interest of the Union.

On question for agreeing to Mr. Bedford’s motion. 〈it passed in the affirmative.〉

Mas. ay. Cont. no. N. J. ay. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. ay. Va. no. N. C. ay. S. C. no. Geo. no. [Ayes — 6; noes — 4.]

On the sentence as amended, 〈it passed in the affirmative.〉

Mas. ay. Cont. ay. N. J. ay. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. ay. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. no. Geo. no. [Ayes — 8; noes — 2.]

〈The next. —〉 “To negative all laws passed by the several States 〈contravening in the opinion of the Nat: Legislature the articles of Union, or any treaties subsisting under the authority of ye Union”〉 9

Mr. Govr. Morris opposed this power as likely to be terrible to the States, and not necessary, if sufficient Legislative authority should be given to the Genl. Government.

Mr. Sherman thought it unnecessary, as the Courts of the States would not consider as valid any law contravening the Authority of the Union, and which the legislature would wish to be negatived.

Mr. L. Martin considered the power as improper inadmissable. Shall all the laws of the States be sent up to the Genl. Legislature before they shall be permitted to operate?

Mr. 〈Madison,〉 considered the negative on the laws of the States as essential to the efficacy security of the Genl. Govt. The necessity of a general Govt. proceeds from the propensity of the States to pursue their particular interests in opposition to the general interest. This propensity will continue to disturb the system, unless effectually controuled. Nothing short of a negative, on their laws will controul it. They can pass laws which will accomplish their injurious objects before they can be repealed by the Genl Legislre. or be set aside by the National Tribunals. Confidence can 〈not〉 be put in the State Tribunals as guardians of the National authority and interests. In all the States these are more or less dependt. on the Legislatures. In Georgia 10 they are appointed annually by the Legislature. In R. Island the Judges who refused to execute an unconstitutional law were displaced, and others substituted, by the Legislature who would be willing instruments of the wicked arbitrary plans of their masters. A power of negativing the improper laws of the States is at once the most mild certain means of preserving the harmony of the system. Its utility is sufficiently displayed in the British System. Nothing could maintain the harmony subordination of the various parts of the empire, but the prerogative by which the Crown, stifles in the birth every Act of every part tending to discord or encroachment. It is true the prerogative is sometines misapplied thro’ ignorance or a partiality to one particular part of ye. empire: but we have not the same reason to fear such misapplications in our System. As to the sending all laws up to the Natl. Legisl: that might be rendered unnecessary by some emanation of the power into the States, so far at least, as to give a temporary effect to laws of immediate necessity.

Mr. Govr. Morris was more more opposed to the negative. The proposal of it would disgust all the States. A law that ought to be negatived will be set aside in the Judiciary department. and if that security should fail; may be repealed by a National. law.

Mr. Sherman. Such a power involves a wrong principle, to wit, that a law of a State contrary to the articles of the Union, would if not negatived, be valid operative.

Mr. Pinkney urged the necessity of the Negative.

On the question for agreeing to the power of negativing laws of States c.” 〈it passed in the negative.〉

Mas. ay. Ct. no. N. J. no. Pa. no. Del. no. Md. no. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. no. Geo. no. [Ayes — 3; noes — 7.] 11

〈Mr. Luther Martin moved the following resolution “that the Legislative acts of the U. S. made by virtue in pursuance of the articles of Union, and all treaties made ratified under the authority of the U. S. shall be the supreme law of the respective States, as far as those acts or treaties shall relate to the said States, or their Citizens and inhabitants — that the Judiciaries of the several States shall be bound thereby in their decisions, any thing in the respective laws of the individual States to the contrary notwithstanding” which was agreed to nem: con:.〉 12

9th. Resol: “that Natl. Executive consist of a single person.” Agd. to nem. con.

Mr. Governr. Morris was pointedly agst. his being so chosen. He will be the mere creature of the Legisl: if appointed impeachable by that body. He ought to be elected by the people at large, by the freeholders of the Country. That difficulties attend this mode, he admits. But they have been found superable in N. Y. . in Cont. and would he believed be found so, in the case of an Executive for the U. States. If the people should elect, they will never fail to prefer some man of distinguished character, or services; some man, if he might so speak, of continental reputation. If the Legislature elect, it will be the work of intrigue, of cabal, and of faction: it will be like the election of a pope by a conclave of cardinals; real merit will rarely be the title to the appointment. 〈He moved to strike out “National Legislature” insert “citizens of U. S”〉

Mr. Sherman thought that the sense of the Nation would be better expressed by the Legislature, than by the people at large. The latter will never be sufficiently informed of characters, and besides will never give a majority of votes to any one man. They will generally vote for some man in their own State, and the largest State will have the best chance for the appointment. If the choice be made by the Legislre. A majority of voices may be made necessary to constitute an election.

Mr. Wilson. two arguments have been urged agst. an election of the Executive Magistrate by the people. 1 the example of Poland where an Election of the supreme Magistrate is attended with the most dangerous commotions. The cases he observed were totally dissimilar. The Polish nobles have resources dependents which enable them to appear in force, and to threaten the Republic as well as each other. In the next place the electors all assemble in one place: which would not be the case with us. The 2d. argt. is that a majority of the people would never concur. It might be answered that the concurrence of a majority of people is not a necessary principle of election, nor required as such in any of the States. But allowing the objection all its force, it may be obviated by the expedient used in Masts. where the Legislature by majority of voices, decide in case a majority of people do not concur in favor of one of the candidates. This would restrain the choice to a good nomination at least, and prevent in a great degree intrigue cabal. A particular objection with him agst. an absolute election by the Legislre. was that the Exec: in that case would be too dependent to stand the mediator between the intrigues sinister views of the Representatives and the general liberties interests of the people.

Mr. Pinkney did not expect this question would again have been brought forward; An Election by the people being liable to the most obvious striking objections. They will be led by a few active designing men. The most populous States by combining in favor of the same individual will be able to carry their points. The Natl. Legislature being most immediately interested in the laws made by themselves, will be most attentive to the choice of a fit man to carry them properly into execution.

Mr. Govr. Morris. It is said that in case of an election by the people the populous States will combine elect whom they please. Just the reverse. The people of such States cannot combine. If their be any combination it must be among their representatives in the Legislature. It is said the people will be led by a few designing men. This might happen in a small district. It can never happen throughout the continent. In the election of a Govr. of N. York, it sometimes is the case in particular spots, that the activity intrigues of little partizans are successful, but the general voice of the State is never influenced by such artifices. It is said the multitude will be uninformed. It is true they would be uninformed of what passed in the Legislative Conclave, if the election were to be made there; but they will not be uninformed of those great illustrious characters which have merited their esteem confidence. If the Executive be chosen by the Natl. Legislature, he will not be independent on it; and if not independent, usurpation tyranny on the part of the Legislature will be the consequence. This was the case in England in the last Century. It has been the case in Holland, where their Senates have engrossed all power. It has been the case every where. He was surprised that an election by the people at large should ever have been likened to the polish election of the first Magistrate. An election by the Legislature will bear a real likeness to the election by the Diet of Poland. The great must be the electors in both cases, and the corruption cabal wch are known to characterize the one would soon find their way into the other. Appointments made by numerous bodies, are always worse than those made by single responsible individuals, or by the people at large.

Col. Mason. It is curious to remark the different language held at different times. At one moment we are told that the Legislature is entitled to thorough confidence, and to indefinite power. At another, that it will be governed by intrigue corruption, and cannot be trusted at all. But not to dwell on this inconsistency he would observe that a Government which is to last ought at least to be practicable. Would this be the case if the proposed election should be left to the people at large. He conceived it would be as unnatural to refer the choice of a proper character for chief Magistrate to the people, as it would, to refer a trial of colours to a blind man. The extent of the Country renders it impossible that the people can have the requisite capacity to judge of the respective pretensions of the Candidates. —

Mr Wilson. could not see the contrariety stated (by Col. Mason) The Legislre. might deserve confidence in some respects, and distrust in others. In acts which were to affect them yr. Constituents precisely alike confidence was due. In others jealousy was warranted. The appointment to great offices, when the Legislre might feel many motives, not common to the public confidence was surely misplaced. This branch of business it was notorious, was most corruptly managed of any that had been committed to legislative bodies.

Mr. Williamson, conceived that there was the same difference between an election in this case, by the people and by the legislature, as between an appt. by lot, and by choice. There are at present distinguished characters, who are known perhaps to almost every man. This will not always be the case. The people will be sure to vote for some man in their own State, and the largest State will be sure to succede. This will not be Virga. however. Her slaves will have no suffrage. As the Salary of the Executive will be fixed, and he will not be eligible a 2d. time, there will not be such a dependence on the Legislature as has been imagined.

Question on an election by the people instead of the Legislature; 〈which passed in the negative.〉

Mas. no. Cont. no. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. no. Md. no. Va. no. N. C. no. S. C. no. Geo. no. [Ayes — 1; noes — 9.]

Mr. L. Martin moved that the Executive be chosen by Electors appointed by the 〈several〉 Legislature〈s of the individual States.〉 13

Mr. Broome 2ds. On the Question, 〈it passed in the negative.〉

Mas. no. Cont. no. N. J. no. Pa. no. Del. ay. Md. ay. Va. no. N. C. no. S. C. no. Geo. no. [Ayes — 2; noes — 8.]

On the question on the words “to be chosen by the Nationl. Legislature” 〈it passed unanimously in the affirmative.〉 14

“For the term of seven years” — postponed nem. con. on motion of Mr. Houston Gov. Morris.

“to carry into execution the nationl. laws” — agreed to nem. con.

“to appoint to offices in cases not otherwise provided for”. — agreed to nem. con.

“to be ineligible a second time” — Mr. Houston moved to strike out this clause.

Mr. Sherman 2ds. the motion.

Mr. Govr. Morris espoused the motion. The ineligibility proposed by the clause as it stood tended to destroy the great motive to good behavior, the hope of being rewarded by a re-appointment. It was saying to him, make hay while the sun shines.

On the question for striking out as moved by Mr. Houston, 〈it passed in the affirmative.〉

Mas. ay. Cont. ay. N. J. ay. Pa. ay. Del. no. Md. ay. Va. no. N. C. no. S. C. no. Geo. ay. [Ayes — 6; noes — 4.]

“For the term of 7 years” resumed

Mr. Broom was for a shorter term since the Executive Magistrate was now to be re-eligible. Had he remained ineligible a 2d. time, he should have preferred a longer term.

Docr. McClurg moved * to strike out 7 years, and insert “during good behavior”. By striking out the words declaring him not re-eligible, he was put into a situation that would keep him dependent for ever on the Legislature; and he conceived the independence of the Executive to be equally essential with that of the Judiciary department.

Mr. Govr. Morris 2ded. the motion. He expressed great pleasure in hearing it. This was the way to get a good Government. His fear that so valuable an ingredient would not be attained had led him to take the part he had done. He was indifferent how the Executive should be chosen, provided he held his place by this tenure.

Mr. Broome highly approved the motion. It obviated all his difficulties.

Mr. Sherman considered such a tenure as by no means safe or admissible. As the Executive Magistrate is now re-eligible, he will be on good behavior as far as will be necessary. If he behaves well he will be continued; if otherwise, displaced on a succeeding election.

Mr. Madison. * If it be essential to the preservation of liberty that the Legisl: Execut: Judiciary powers be separate, it is essential to a maintenance of the separation, that they should be independent of each other. The Executive could not be independent of the Legislure, if dependent on the pleasure of that branch for a re-appointment. Why was it determined that the Judges should not hold their places by such a tenure? Because they might be tempted to cultivate the Legislature, by an undue complaisance, and thus render the Legislature the virtual expositor, as well the maker of the laws. In like manner a dependence of the Executive on the Legislature, would render it the Executor as well as the maker of laws; then according to the observation of Montesquieu, tyrannical laws may be made that they may be executed in a tyrannical manner. There was an analogy between the Executive Judiciary departments in several respects. The latter executed the laws in certain cases as the former did in others. The former expounded applied them for certain purposes, as the latter did for others. The difference between them seemed to consist chiefly in two circumstances — 1. The collective interest security were much more in the power belonging to the Executive than to the Judiciary department. 2. in the administration of the former much greater latitude is left to opinion and discretion than in the administration of the latter. But if the 2d. consideration proves that it will be more difficult to establish a rule sufficiently precise for trying the Execut: than the Judges, forms an objection to the same tenure of office, both considerations prove that it might be more dangerous to suffer a Union between the Executive Legisl: powers, than between the Judiciary Legislative powers. He conceived it to be absolutely necessary to a well constituted Republic that the two first shd. be kept distinct independent of each other. Whether the plan proposed by the motion was a proper one was another question, as it depended on the practicability of instituting a tribunal for impeachmts. as certain as adequate in the one case as in the other. On the other hand, respect for the mover entitled his proposition to a fair hearing discussion, until a less objectionable expedient should be applied for guarding agst. a dangerous union of the Legislative Executive departments.

Col. Mason. This motion was made some time ago, negatived by a very large majority. He trusted that it wd. be again negatived. It wd. be impossible to define the misbehaviour in such a manner as to subject it to a proper trial; and perhaps still more impossible to compel so high an offender holding his office by such a tenure to submit to a trial. He considered an Executive during good behavior as a softer name only for an Executive for life. And that the next would be an easy step to hereditary Monarchy. If the motion should finally succeed, he might himself live to see such a Revolution. If he did not it was probable his children or grandchildren would. He trusted there were few men in that House who wished for it. No state he was sure had so far revolted from Republican principles as to have the least bias in its favor.

Mr. Madison, was not apprehensive of being thought to favor any step towards monarchy. The real object with him was to prevent its introduction. Experience had proved a tendency in our governments to throw all power into the Legislative vortex. The Executives of the States are in general little more than Cyphers; the legislatures omnipotent. If no effectual check be devised for restraining the instability encroachments of the latter, a revolution of some kind or other would be inevitable. The preservation of Republican Govt. therefore required some expedient for the purpose, but required evidently at the same time that in devising it, the genuine principles of that form should be kept in view.

Mr. Govr. Morris was as little a friend to monarchy as any gentleman. He concurred in the opinion that the way to keep out monarchial Govt. was to establish such a Repub. Govt. as wd. make the people happy and prevent a desire of change.

Docr. McClurg was not so much afraid of the shadow of monarchy as to be unwilling to approach it; nor so wedded to Republican Govt. as not to be sensible of the tyrannies that had been may be exercised under that form. It was an essential object with him to make the Executive independent of the Legislature; and the only mode left for effecting it, after the vote destroying his ineligibility a second time, was to appoint him during good behavior.

On the question for inserting “during good behavior” in place of 7 years (〈with a〉 re-eligibility) 〈it passed in the negative.〉 16

Mas. no. Ct. no. N. J. ay. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. no. Va. ay. N. C. no. S. C. no. Geo. no. * [Ayes — 4; noes — 6.]

On the motion “to strike out seven years” 〈it passed in the negative.〉

Mas. ay. Ct. no. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. no. Va. no. N. C. ay. S. C. no. Geo. no. †

〈It was now unanimously agreed that the vote which had struck out the words “to be ineligible a second time” should be reconsidered tomorrow.〉 17

Adjd. 18

JOURNAL
Wednesday July 18. 1787.

[To reconsider the clause which makes the Executive reeligible Ayes — 8; noes — 0.

To reconsider immediately Ayes — 6; noes — 2.

To reconsider the clause to-morrow Ayes — 8; noes —0.] 1

It was moved and seconded to postpone the consideration of the following clause in the 9th resolution reported from the Committee of the whole House namely

for the term of seven years”

which passed unanimously in ye affirmative

It was moved and seconded to postpone the consideration of the remaining clause of the 9th and the 10th resolution in order to take up the 11th resolution.

which passed in the affirmative [Ayes — 4; noes — 3; divided — 1.]

On the question to agree to the following clause of the 11th resolution namely

“That a national Judiciary be established”

it passed unanimously in the affirmative

On the question to agree to the following clause of the 11th resolution namely

“To consist of One supreme Tribunal

it passed unanimously in the affirmative

It was moved and seconded to strike out the words

“second branch of the national Legislature” and to insert the words “national executive” in the 11. resolution

which passed in the negative. [Ayes — 2; noes — 6.]

It was moved and seconded to alter the 3rd cause of the 11th resolution so as to read as follows, namely,

The Judges of which shall be nominated and appointed by the Executive by and with the advice and consent of the second Branch of the Legislature of the United States — and every such nomination shall be made at least days prior to such appointment

which passed in the negative [Ayes — 4; noes — 4.]

It was moved and seconded to alter the 3rd clause of the 11th resolution so as to read as follows namely

That the Judges shall be nominated by the Executive and such nomination shall become an appointment if not disagreed to within days by two thirds of the second branch of the Legislature.

It was moved and seconded to postpone the consideration of the last amendment

which was unanimously agreed to

On the question to agree to the following clause of the 11th resolution namely “to hold their Offices during good behaviour”

it passed unanimously in the affirmative

On the question to agree to the following clause of the eleventh resolution namely

it passed unanimously in the affirmative

It was moved and seconded to strike the words

“Encrease or” out of the eleventh resolution

which passed in the affirmative [Ayes — 6; noes — 2.]

On the question to agree to the clause as amended namely “to receive, punctually, at stated times, a fixed compensation for their services in which no diminution shall be made so as to affect the Persons actually in Office at the time of such diminution”

it passed unanimously in the affirmative

On the question to agree to the 12th resolution namely

it passed unanimously in the affirmative [Ayes — 9; noes — 0.]

It was moved and seconded to strike the words

“impeachments of national Officers” out of the 13th resolution

which passed unanimously in the affirmative

It was moved and seconded to alter the 13th resolution so as to read as follows namely

That the jurisdiction of the national Judiciary shall extend to cases arising under laws passed by the general Legislature, and to such other questions as involve the National peace and harmony

which passed unanimously in the affirmative

On the question to agree to the 14 resolution namely

Resolved That provision ought to be made for the admission of States lawfully arising within the limits of the United States, whether from a voluntary junction of government and territory, or otherwise with the consent of a number of voices in the national Legislature less than the whole.

it passed unanimously in the affirmative

On the question to agree to the first clause of the 15th resolution reported from the Committee of the whole House

it passed in the negative [Ayes — 2; noes — 7.]

On the question to agree to the last clause of the 15th resolution

it passed unanimously in the negative

It was moved and seconded to alter the sixteenth resolution so as to read as follows namely

That a republican form of Government shall be guaranteed to each State — and that each State shall be protected against foreign and domestic violence

which passed in the affirmative

[To agree to the 16th resolution as amended Ayes — 9; noes — 0.] 2

And then the House adjourned till to-morrow at 11 o’Clock A. M.