Volume I Part 6 (1/2)

The following Resolution, being the 2^d of those proposed by M^r Randolph was taken up, viz.--”that the rights of suffrage in the National Legislature ought to be proportioned to the quotas of contribution, or to the number of free inhabitants, as the one or the other rule may seem best in different cases.”

M^r Madison[39] observing that the words, ”_or to the number of free inhabitants_,” might occasion debates which would divert the Committee from the general question whether the principle of representation should be changed, moved that they might be struck out.

[39] ”Mr. Madison is a character who has long been in public life; and what is very remarkable every Person seems to acknowledge his greatness. He blends together the profound politician, with the Scholar. In the management of every great question he evidently took the lead in the Convention, and tho' he cannot be called an Orator, he is a most agreeable, eloquent, and convincing Speaker. From a spirit of industry and application which he possesses in a most eminent degree, he always comes forward the best informed Man of any point in debate. The affairs of the United States, he perhaps, has the most correct knowledge of, of any Man in the Union. He has been twice a Member of Congress, and was always thought one of the ablest Members that ever sat in that Council. Mr. Maddison is about 37 years of age, a Gentleman of great modesty,--with a remarkable sweet temper. He is easy and unreserved among his acquaintance, and has a most agreeable style of conversation.”--Pierce's Notes, _Am. Hist. Rev._, iii., 331.

M^r King observed that the quotas of contribution which would alone remain as the measure of representation, would not answer, because waving every other view of the matter, the revenue might hereafter be so collected by the General Gov^t that the sums respectively drawn from the States would not appear, and would besides be continually varying.

M^r Madison admitted the propriety of the observation, and that some better rule ought to be found.

Col. Hamilton moved to alter the resolution so as to read ”that the rights of suffrage in the national Legislature ought to be proportioned to the number of free inhabitiants.” M^r Spaight 2^{ded} the motion.

It was then moved that the Resolution be postponed, which was agreed to.

M^r Randolph and M^r Madison then moved the following resolution--”that the rights of suffrage in the national Legislature ought to be proportioned.”

It was moved and 2^{ded} to amend it by adding ”and not according to the present system”--which was agreed to.

It was then moved & 2^{ded} to alter the resolution so as to read ”that the rights of suffrage in the national Legislature ought not to be according to the present system.”

It was then moved & 2^{ded} to postpone the Resolution moved by M^r Randolph & M^r Madison, which being agreed to:

M^r Madison, moved, in order to get over the difficulties, the following resolution--”that the equality of suffrage established by the articles of Confederation ought not to prevail in the national Legislature, and ”that an equitable ratio of representation ought to be subst.i.tuted.”

This was 2^{ded} by M^r Gov^r Morris, and being generally relished, would have been agreed to; when,

M^r Reed moved that the whole clause relating to the point of Representation be postponed; reminding the Com^e that the deputies from Delaware were restrained by their co[~m]ission from a.s.senting to any change of the rule of suffrage, and in case such a change should be fixed on, it might become their duty to retire from the Convention.

M^r Gov^r Morris observed that the valuable a.s.sistance of those members could not be lost without real concern, and that so early a proof of discord in the Convention as the secession of a State, would add much to the regret; that the change proposed was however so fundamental an article in a national Gov^t, that it could not be dispensed with.

M^r Madison observed that whatever reason might have existed for the equality of suffrage when the Union was a federal one among sovereign States, it must cease when a National Governm^t should be put into the place. In the former case, the acts of Cong^s depended so much for their efficacy on the cooperation of the States, that these had a weight both within & without Congress, nearly in proportion to their extent and importance. In the latter case, as the acts of the Gen^l Gov^t would take effect without the intervention of the State legislatures, a vote from a small State w^d have the same efficacy & importance as a vote from a large one, and there was the same reason for different numbers of representatives from different States, as from Counties of different extents within particular States. He suggested as an expedient for at once taking the sense of the members on this point and saving the Delaware deputies from embarra.s.sment, that the question should be taken in Committee, and the clause on report to the House, be postponed without a question there. This however did not appear to satisfy Mr.

Read.

By several it was observed that no just construction of the Act of Delaware, could require or justify a secession of her deputies, even if the resolution were to be carried thro' the House as well as the Committee. It was finally agreed however that the clause should be postponed: it being understood that in the event the proposed change of representation would certainly be agreed to, no objection or difficulty being started from any other quarter than from Delaware.

The motion of Mr. Read to postpone being agreed to,

The Committee then rose. The Chairman reported progress, and the House having resolved to resume the subject in Committee to-morrow,

Adjourned to 10 O Clock.

THURSDAY MAY 31[40]

[40] ”This day the state of New Jersey was represented, so that there were now ten states in Convention.”--Yates, _Secret Proceedings_, etc., 99. But in the _Journal of the Federal Convention (1819)_, as in Madison's account, New Jersey is entered as present May 25th. On May 30 two votes are recorded by Madison and in the _Journal_ without New Jersey.

It is probable that an error was made in the _Journal_ and that Madison followed it.

William Pierce, from Georgia took his seat.[41]

[41] Rufus King kept a few notes of the proceedings of the convention from May 31st to August 8th. They are meagre, but corroborate Madison's report. See King's _Life and Correspondence of Rufus King_, i., 587.

Pierce also kept a few rough notes of the proceedings which were printed in the _Savannah Georgian_, April 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 28, 1828, and reprinted in _The American Historical Review_, iii., 317 _et seq._ They throw little additional light on the debates, but wherever they do are quoted here, as are King's.