North Carolina Ratification Convention Debates (July 25, 1788)

The Convention met according to adjournment.

Mr. Gregory, from the committee of elections, delivered in a report; which being read, was agreed to as follows:

The committee proceeded to have read the return of the Sheriff of Cumberland county, for the town of Fayetteville in said county, wherein John Ingram was returned to represent said town in the Convention.

It is the opinion of this committee, that the said town possesses not the right of representation in this Convention, and that therefore the said John Ingram hath no right to a seat in the same.

It appearing to this committee, that the votes given for Thomas Devane, sen. Esq. and Thomas Devane, were intended and meant for the same person:

Resolved, therefore, That the said Thomas Devane, sen. Esq. is duly elected to represent the county of New-Hanover in this present Convention, and that he take his seat accordingly.

The order of the day, for taking into further consideration the proposed Constitution for the future government for the United States, the Convention agreeable thereto, resolved itself into a committee of the whole House. Mr. Battle in the chair.

First article of the third section read.

Mr. Cabarrus wished to be informed of the reason why the Senators were to be elected for so long a time.

Mr. Iredell—Mr. Chairman, I have waited for some time in hopes that a gentleman better qualified than myself, would explain this part. Every objection to every part of this Constitution ought to be answered as fully as possible.

I believe, Sir, it was the general sense of all America, with the exception only of one state, in forming their own state Constitutions, that the legislative body should be divided into two branches, in order that the people might have a double security. It will often happen that in a single body a bare majority will carry exceptionable and pernicious measures. The violent faction of a party may often form such a majority in a single body, and by that means the particular views or interests of a part of the community may be consulted, and those of the rest neglected or injured. Is there a single gentleman in this Convention, who has been a member of the Legislature, who has not found the minority in the most important questions to be often right? Is there a man here, who has been in either House, who has not at sometimes found the most solid advantages from the co-operation or opposition of the other? If a measure be right, which has been approved of by one branch, the other will probably confirm it: If it be wrong, it is fortunate that there is another branch to oppose or amend it. These principles probably formed one reason for the institution of a Senate in the form of government before us. Another arose from the peculiar nature of that government, as connected with the governments of the particular states.

The general government will have the protection and management of the general interests of the United States. The local and particular interests of the different states are left to their respective Legislatures. All affairs which concern this state only are to be determined by our Representatives coming from all parts of the state: All affairs which concern the union at large, are to be determined by Representatives coming from all parts of the union. Thus then the general government is to be taken care of, and the state governments to be preserved. The former is done by a numerous representation of the people of each state, in proportion to its importance: The latter is effected by giving each state an equal representation in the Senate. The people will be represented in one House: The state Legislatures in the other.

Many are of opinion that the power of the Senate is too great, but I cannot think so, considering the great weight which the House of Representatives will have. Several reasons may be assigned for this. The House of Representatives will be more numerous than the Senate: They will represent the immediate interests of the people: They will originate all money bills, which is one of the greatest securities in any republican government. The respectability of their constituents, who are the free citizens of America, will add great weight to the Representatives. For a power derived from the people is the source of all real honour, and a demonstration of confidence which a man of any feeling would be more ambitious to possess, than any other honour or any emolument whatever. There is therefore always a danger of such a House becoming too powerful, and it is necessary to counteract its influence by giving great weight and authority to the other. I am warranted by well known facts, in my opinion, that the Representatives of the people at large will have more weight, than we should be induced to believe from a slight consideration. The British government furnished a very remarkable instance to my present purpose. In that country, Sir, is a King, who is hereditary; a man, who is not chosen for his abilities, but who, though he may be without principle or abilities, is by birth their Sovereign, and may impart the vices of his character to the government. His influence and power are so great, that the people would bear a great deal before they would attempt to resist his authority. He is one complete branch of the Legislature, may make as many Peers as he pleases, who are immediately members of another branch; he has the disposal of almost all offices in the kingdom, commands the army and navy, is head of the church, and has means of corrupting a large proportion of the Representatives of the people, who form the third branch of the Legislature. The House of Peers, which forms the second branch, is composed of Members who are hereditary, and except as to money bills (which they are not allowed either to originate or alter) hath equal authority with the other House. The Members of the House of Commons, who are considered to represent the people, are elected for seven years, and they are chosen by a small proportion of the people, and I believe I may say, a large majority of them by actual corruption. Under these circumstances, one would suppose their influence, compared to that of the King and Lords, was very inconsiderable. But the fact is, that they have by degrees increased their power to an astonishing degree, and when they think proper to exert it can command almost any thing they please. This great power they enjoy, by having the name of Representatives of the people, and the exclusive right of originating money bills. What authority then will our Representatives not possess, who will really represent the people, and equally have the right of originating money bills?

The manner in which our Senate is to be chosen, gives us an additional security. Our Senators will not be chosen by a King, nor tainted by his influence. They are to be chosen by the different Legislatures in the union. Each is to choose two. It is to be supposed that in the exercise of this power the utmost prudence and circumspection will be observed. We may presume that they will select two of the most respectable men in the state, two men who had given the strongest proofs of attachment to the interests of their country. The Senators are not to hold estates for life in the Legislature, nor to transmit them to their children. Their families, friends and estates, will be pledges for their fidelity to their country. Holding no office under the United States, they will be under no temptation of that kind to forget the interests of their constituents. There is every probability that men elected in this manner, will in general do their duty faithfully. It may be expected therefore, that they will co-operate in every laudable act, but strenuously resist those of a contrary nature. To do this to effect, their station must have some permanency annexed to it.

As the Representatives of the people may probably be more popular, and it may be sometimes necessary for the Senate to prevent factious measures taking place, which may be highly injurious to the real interest of the public, the Senate should not be at the mercy of every popular clamour. Men engaged in arduous affairs, are often obliged to do things which may for the present be disapproved of, for want of full information of the case, which it is not in every man's power immediately to obtain. In the mean time every one is eager to judge, and many to condemn; and thus many an action is for a time unpopular, the true policy and justice of which afterwards very plainly appears. These observations apply even to acts of legislation concerning domestic policy: They apply much more forcibly to the case of foreign negociations, which will form one part of the business of the Senate. I hope we shall not be involved in the labyrinths of foreign politicks. But it is necessary for us to watch the conduct of European powers, that we may be on our defence, and ready in case of an attack. All these things will require a continued attention: And in order to know whether they were transacted rightly or not, it must take up a considerable time.

A certain permanency in office is in my opinion useful for another reason. Nothing is more unfortunate for a nation, than to have its affairs conducted in an irregular manner. Consistency and stability are necessary to render the laws of any society convenient for the people. If they were to be entirely conducted by men liable to be called away soon, we might be deprived in a great measure of their utility: Their measures might be abandoned before they were fully executed, and others of a less beneficial tendency substituted in their stead. The public also would be deprived of that experience which adds so much weight to the greatest abilities.

The business of a Senator will require a great deal of knowledge, and more extensive information than can be acquired in a short time. This can be made evident by facts well known. I doubt not the gentlemen of this House who have been Members of Congress, will acknowledge that they have known several instances of men who were Members of Congress, and were there many months before they knew how to act, for want of information of the real state of the union. The acquisition of full information of this kind, must employ a great deal of time; since a general knowledge of the affairs of all the states, and of the relative situation of foreign nations, would be indispensable. Responsibility also would be lessened by a short duration; for many useful measures require a good deal of time, and continued operations, and no man should be answerable for the ill success of a scheme which was taken out of his hands by others.

For these reasons I hope it will appear, that six years are not too long a duration for the Senate. I hope also it will be thought, that so far from being injurious to the liberties and interest of the public, it will form an additional security to both, especially when the next clause is taken up, by which we shall see that one third of the Senate is to go out every second year, and two-thirds must concur in the most important cases; so that if there be only one honest man among the two-thirds that remain, added to the one-third which has recently come in, this will be sufficient to prevent the rights of the people being sacrificed to any unjust ambition of that body.

I was in hopes some other gentleman would have explained this paragraph, because it introduces an entire change in our system, and every change ought to be founded on good reasons, and those reasons made plain to the people. Had my abilities been greater I should have answered the objection better: I have however done it in the best manner in my power, and I hope the reasons I have assigned will be satisfactory to the committee.

Mr. Maclaine—Mr. Chairman, A gentleman yesterday made some objections to the power of the Vice-President, and insisted that he was possessed of legislative powers. That in case of equality of voice in the Senate, he had the deciding vote, and that of course he, and not the Senate, legislated. I confess I was struck with astonishment at such an objection, especially as it came from a gentleman of character. As far as my understanding goes, the Vice-President is to have no acting part in the Senate, but a mere casting vote. In every other instance he is merely to preside in the Senate in order to regulate their deliberations. I think there is no danger to be apprehended from him in particular, as he is to be chosen in the same manner with the President, and therefore may be presumed to possess a great share of the confidence of all the states. He has been called an useless officer: I think him very useful, and I think the objection very trifling. It shews the uniform opposition gentlemen are determined to make. It is very easy to cavil at the finest government that ever existed.

Mr. Davie—Mr. Chairman, I will state to the committee the reasons upon which this officer was introduced. I had the honour to observe to the committee before, the causes of the particular formation of the Senate; that it was owing with other reasons, to the jealousy of the states, and particularly to the extreme jealousy of the lesser states, of the power and influence of the larger members of the confederacy. It was in the Senate that the several political interests of the states were to be preserved, and where all their powers were to be perfectly balanced. The commercial jealousy between the eastern and southern states had a principal share in this business. It might happen in important cases, that the voices would be equally divided. Indecision might be dangerous or inconvenient to the public. It would then be necessary to have some person who should determine the question as impartially as possible. Had the Vice-President been taken from the representation of any of the states, the vote of that state would have been diminished in the first instance, and he would have been under local influence in the second: It is true he must be chosen from some state; but from the nature of his election and office, he represents no one state in particular, but all the states. It is impossible that any officer could be chosen more impartially: He is in consequence of his election, the creature of no particular district or state, but the officer and representative of the union. He must possess the confidence of the states in a very great degree, and consequently be the most proper person to decide in cases of this kind. These I believe are the principles upon which the Convention formed this officer.

Sixth clause of the third section read.

Mr. James Galloway wished gentlemen to offer their objections. That they must have made objections to it, and that they ought to mention them here.

Mr. John Blount said, that the sole power of impeachment had been objected to yesterday, and that it was urged, officers were to be carried from the furthest parts of the states to the seat of government: He wished to know if gentlemen were satisfied.

Mr. Maclaine—Mr. Chairman, I have no inclination to get up a second time, but some gentlemen think this subject ought to be taken notice of. I recollect it was mentioned by one gentleman, that petty officers might be impeached. It appears to me, Sir, to be the most horrid ignorance to suppose, that every officer, however trifling his office, is to be impeached for every petty offence; and that every man who should be injured by such petty officers, could get no redress but by this mode of impeachment, at the seat of government, at the distance of several hundred miles, whither he would be obliged to summon a great number of witnesses. I hope every gentleman in this committee must see plainly, that impeachments cannot extend to inferior officers of the United States. Such a construction cannot be supported without a departure from the usual and well-known practice both in England and America. But this clause empowers the House of Representatives, which is the grand inquest of the union at large, to bring great offenders to justice. It will be a kind of state trial for high crimes and misdemeanors. I remember it was objected yesterday, that the House of Representatives had the sole power of impeachment: The word "sole," was supposed to be so extensive as to include impeachable offences against particular states. Now for my part, I can see no impropriety in the expression. The word relates to the general objects of the union. It can only refer to offences against the United States, nor can it be tortured so as to have any other meaning, without a perversion of the usual meaning of language. The House of Representatives is to have the sole power of impeachment, and the Senate the sole power of trying. And here is a valuable provision, not to be found in other governments. In England, the Lords, who try impeachment, declare solemnly upon honour, whether the persons impeached be guilty or not. But here the Senators are on oath. This is a very happy security. It is further provided, that when the President is tried (for he is also liable to be impeached) the Chief-Justice shall preside in the Senate: Because it might be supposed, that the Vice-President might be connected, together with the President, in the same crime, and would therefore be an improper person to judge him. It would be improper for another reason. On the removal of the President from office, it devolves on the Vice-President. This being the case, if the Vice-President should be Judge, might he not look at the office of President, and endeavour to influence the Senate unjustly against him. This is a most excellent caution. It has been objected by some, that the President is in no danger from a trial by the Senate, because he does nothing without its concurrence. It is true, he is expressly restricted not to make treaties without the concurrence of two-thirds of the Senators present, nor appoint officers without the concurrence of the Senate (not requiring two-thirds). The concurrence of all the Senators however, is not required in either of those cases. They may be all present when he is impeached, and other Senators in the mean time introduced. The Chief-Justice we ought to presume, would not countenance a collusion. One dissenting person might divulge their misbehaviour. Besides he is impeachable for his own misdemeanors, and as to their concurrence with him, it might be effected by misrepresentations of his own, in which case they would be innocent, though he guilty. I think therefore the Senate a very proper body to try him. Notwithstanding the mode pointed out for impeaching and trying, there is not a single officer but may be tried and indicted at common law. For it is provided, that a judgment in cases of impeachment, shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honour, trust or profit under the United States; but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment, according to law. Thus you find that no offender can escape the danger of punishment. Officers however cannot be oppressed by an unjust decision of a bare majority. For it farther provides, that no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the members present. So that those gentlemen who formed this government, have been particularly careful to distribute every part of it as equally as possible. As the government is solely instituted for the United States, so the power of impeachment only extends to officers of the United States. The gentleman who is so much afraid of impeachment by the federal Legislature, is totally mistaken in his principles.

Mr. J. Taylor—Mr. Chairman, My apprehension is, that this clause is connected with the other which gives the sole power of impeachment, and is very dangerous. When I was offering an objection to this part, I observed that it was supposed by some, that no impeachments could be preferred but by the House of Representatives. I concluded that perhaps the collectors of the United States, or gatherers of taxes, might impose on individuals in this country, and that these individuals might think it too great a distance to go to the seat of federal government to get redress, and would therefore be injured with impunity. I observed that there were some gentlemen whose abilities are great, who construe it in a different manner. They ought to be kind enough to carry their construction not to the mere letter, but to the meaning. I observe that when these great men are met in Congress, in consequence of this power, they will have the power of appointing all the officers of the United States. My experience in life shews me, that the friends of the Members of the Legislature will get the offices. These Senators and Members of the House of Representatives, will appoint their friends to all offices. These officers will be great men, and they will have numerous deputies under them. The Receiver-General of the taxes of North-Carolina, must be one of the greatest men in the country. Will he come to me for my taxes? No. He will send his deputy, who will have special instructions to oppress me. How am I to be redressed? I shall be told that I must go to Congress to get him impeached. This being the case, who am I to impeach? A friend of the Representatives of North-Carolina. For unhappily for us, these men will have too much weight for us; they will have friends in the government who will be inclined against us, and thus we may be oppressed with impunity. I was sorry yesterday to hear personal observations drop from a gentleman in this House. If we are not of equal ability with the gentleman, he ought to possess charity towards us, and not lavish such severe reflections upon us in such a declamatory manner. These are considerations I offer to the House. These oppressions may be committed by these officers. I can see no mode of redress. If there be any, let it be pointed out. As to personal aspersions with respect to me, I despise them. Let him convince me by reasoning, but not fall on detraction or declamation.

Mr. Maclaine—Mr. Chairman, If I made use of any asperity to that gentleman yesterday, I confess I am sorry for it. It was because such an observation came from a gentleman of his profession. Had it come from any other gentleman in this Convention who is not of his profession, I should not be surprised. But I was surprised that it should come from a gentleman of the law, who must know the contrary perfectly well. If his memory had failed him, he might have known by consulting his library. His books would have told him, that no petty officer was ever impeachable. When such trivial, ill-founded objections were advanced, by persons who ought to know better, was it not sufficient to irritate those who were determined to decide the question by a regular and candid discussion? Whether or not there will be a Receiver-General in North-Carolina, if we adopt the Constitution, I cannot take upon myself to say. I cannot say how Congress will collect their money. It will depend upon laws hereafter to be made. These laws will extend to other states as well as us. Should there be a Receiver-General in North-Carolina, he certainly will not be authorised to oppress the people. His deputies can have no power that he could not have himself. As all collectors and other officers will be bound to act according to law, and will in all probability be obliged to give security for their conduct, we may expect they will not dare to oppress. The gentleman has thought proper to lay it down as a principle, that these same Receivers-General will give special orders to their deputies to oppress the people. The President is the superior officer, who is to see the laws put in execution. He is amenable for any mal-administration in his office. Were it possible to suppose, that the President should give wrong instructions to his deputies, whereby the citizens would be distressed, they would have redress in the ordinary courts of common law. But says he, parties injured must go to the seat of government of the United States, and get redress there. I do not think it will be necessary to go to the seat of the general government for that purpose. No persons will be obliged to attend there, but on extraordinary occasions; for Congress will form regulations so as to render it unnecessary for the inhabitants to go thither, but on such occasions. My reasons for this conclusion are these, I look upon it as the interest of all the people of America, except those in the vicinity of the seat of government, to make laws as easy as possible for the people, with respect to local attendance. They will not agree to drag their citizens unnecessarily six or seven hundred miles from their homes. This would be equally inconvenient to all except those in the vicinity of the seat of government, and therefore will be prevented. But says the gentleman from Granville, what redress have we when we go to that place? These great officers will be the friends of the Representatives of North-Carolina. It is possible they may or they may not. They have the power to appoint officers for each state from what place they please. It is probable they will appoint them out of the state in which they are to act. I will however admit, for the sake of argument, that those federal officers who will be guilty of misdemeanors in this state, will be near relations of the Representatives and Senators of North-Carolina. What then? Are they to be tried by them only? Will they be the near friends of the Senators and Representatives of the other states? If not, his objection goes for nothing. I do not understand what he says about detraction and declamation. My character is well known. I am no declaimer, but when I see a gentleman ever so respectable, betraying his trust to the public, I will publish it loudly; and I say this is not detraction or declamation.

Governor Johnston—Mr. Chairman, Impeachment is very different in its nature from what the learned gentleman from Granville supposes it to be. If an officer commits an offence against an individual, he is amenable to the courts of law. If he commits crimes against the state, he may be indicted and punished. Impeachment only extends to high crimes and misdemeanors in a public office. It is a mode of trial pointed out for great misdemeanors against the public. But I think neither that gentleman or any other person need be afraid that officers who commit oppressions, will pass with impunity. It is not to be apprehended, that such officers will be tried by their cousins and friends. Such cannot be on the jury at the trial of the cause; it being a principle of law, that no person interested in a cause, or who is a relation of the party, can be a juror in it. This is the light in which it strikes me. Therefore the objection of the gentleman from Granville, must necessarily fall to the ground on that principle.

Mr. Maclaine—Mr. Chairman, I must obviate some objections which have been made. It was said by way of argument, that they could impeach and remove any officer, whether of the United States, or any particular state. This was suggested by the gentleman from New-Hanover. Nothing appears to me more unnatural than such a construction. The Constitution says in one place, that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment. In the clauses under debate it provides, that the Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments, and then subjoins, that judgment in cases of impeachment, shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honour, trust or profit under the United States. And in the fourth section of the second article, it says, that the President, Vice-President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Now, Sir, what can be more clear and obvious than this? The several clauses relate to the same subject, and ought to be considered together. If considered separately and unconnectedly, the meaning is still clear. They relate to the government of the union altogether. Judgment on impeachment only extends to removal from office, and future disqualification to hold offices under the United States. Can those be removed from offices, and disqualified to hold officers under the United States, who actually held no office under the United States? The fourth section of the second article provides expressly for the removal of the President, Vice-President and all civil officers of the United States, on impeachment and conviction. Does not this clearly prove, that none but officers of the United States are impeachable. Had any other been impeachable, why was not provision made for the case of their conviction? Why not point out the punishment in one case as well as in others? I beg leave to observe, that this is a Constitution which is not made with any reference to the government of any particular state, or to officers of particular states, but to the government of the United States at large. We must suppose, that every officer here spoken of, must be an officer of the United States. The words discover the meaning as plainly as possible. The sentence which provides, that "judgment in cases of impeachment, shall not extend further than to removal from office," is joined by a conjunction copulative to the other sentence, "and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honour, trust or profit under the United States," which incontrovertibly proves, that officers of the United States are only referred to. No other grammatical construction can be put upon it. But there is no necessity to refer to grammatical constructions, since the whole plainly refers to the government of the United States at large. The general government cannot intermeddle with the internal affairs of the state governments. They are in no danger from it. It has been urged, that it has a tendency to a consolidation. On the contrary it appears, that the state Legislatures must exist in full force, otherwise the general government cannot exist itself. A consolidated government would never secure the happiness of the people of this country. It would be the interest of the people of the United States, to keep the general and individual governments as separate and distinct as possible.

Mr. Bloodworth—Mr. Chairman, I confess I am obliged to the honourable gentleman for his construction. Were he to go to Congress he might put that construction on the Constitution. But no one can say what construction Congress will put upon it. I do not distrust him, but I distrust them. I wish to leave no dangerous latitude of construction.

The first clause of the fourth section read.

Mr. Spencer—Mr. Chairman, It appears to me that this clause, giving this controul over the time, place and manner of holding elections, to Congress, does away the right of the people to choose the Representatives every second year, and impairs the right of the state Legislatures to choose the Senators. I wish this matter to be explained.

Governor Johnston—Mr. Chairman, I confess that I am a very great admirer of the new Constitution, but I cannot comprehend the reason of this part. The reason urged is, that every government ought to have the power of continuing itself, and that if the general government had not this power, the state Legislatures might neglect to regulate elections, whereby the government might be discontinued. As long as the state Legislatures have it in their power not to choose the Senators, this power in Congress appears to me altogether useless; because they can put an end to the general government by refusing to choose Senators. But I do not consider this such a blemish in the Constitution, as that it ought for that reason, to be rejected. I observe that every state which has adopted the Constitution and recommended amendments, has given directions to remove this objection, and I hope if this state adopts it, she will do the same.

Mr. Spencer—Mr. Chairman, It is with great reluctance that I rise upon this important occasion. I have considered with some attention the subject before us. I have paid attention to the Constitution itself, and to the writings on both sides. I considered it on one side as well as on the other, in order to know whether it would be best to adopt it or not. I would not wish to insinuate any reflections on those gentlemen who formed it. I look upon it as a great performance. It has a great deal of merit in it, and it is perhaps as much as any set of men could have done. Even if it be true what gentlemen have observed, that the gentlemen who were Delegates to the federal Convention, were not instructed to form a new Constitution, but to amend the Confederation. This will be immaterial, if it be proper to be adopted. It will be of equal benefit to us, if proper to be adopted in the whole, or in such parts as will be necessary, whether they were expressly delegated for that purpose or not. This appears to me to be a reprehensible clause; because it seems to strike at the state Legislatures, and seems to take away that power of elections, which reason dictates they ought to have among themselves. It apparently looks forward to a consolidation of the government of the United States, when the state Legislatures may entirely decay away. This is one of the grounds which have induced me to make objections to the new form of government. It appears to me that the state governments are not sufficiently secured, and that they may be swallowed up by the great mass of powers given to Congress. If that be the case, such power should not be given; for from all the notions which we have concerning our happiness and well-being, the state governments are the basis of our happiness, security and prosperity. A large extent of country ought to be divided into such a number of states, as that the people may conveniently carry on their own government. This will render the government perfectly agreeable to the genius and wishes of the people. If the United States were to consist of ten times as many states, they might all have a degree of harmony. Nothing would be wanting but some cement for their connection. On the contrary, if all the United States were to be swallowed up by the great mass of powers given to Congress, the parts that are more distant in this great empire would be governed with less and less energy. It would not suit the genius of the people to assist in the government. Nothing would support government in such a case as that but military coercion. Armies would be necessary in different parts of the United States. The expence which they would cost, and the burdens which they would make necessary to be laid upon the people, would be ruinous. I know of no way that is likely to produce the happiness of the people, but to preserve, as far as possible, the existence of the several states, so that they shall not be swallowed up. It has been said, that the existence of the state governments is essential to that of the general government, because they choose the Senators. By this clause it is evident, that it is in the power of Congress to make any alterations, except as to the place of choosing Senators. They may alter the time from six to twenty years, or to any time; for they have an unlimited controul over the time of elections. They have also an absolute controul over the election of the Representatives. It deprives the people of the very mode of choosing them. It seems nearly to throw the whole power of election into the hands of Congress. It strikes at the mode, time and place of choosing Representatives. It puts all but the place of electing Senators, into the hands of Congress. This supercedes the necessity of continuing the state Legislatures. This is such an article as I can give no sanction to, because it strikes at the foundation of the government on which depends the happiness of the states, and the general government. It is with reluctance I make the objection. I have the highest veneration for the characters of the framers of this Constitution. I mean to make objections only which are necessary to be made. I would not take up time unnecessarily. As to this matter, it strikes at the foundation of every thing. I may say more when we come to that part which points out the mode of doing without the agency of the state Legislatures.

Mr. Iredell—Mr. Chairman, I am glad to see so much candour and moderation. The liberal sentiments expressed by the honourable gentleman who spoke last, command my respect. No time can be better employed than in endeavouring to remove, by fair and just reasoning, every objection which can be made to this Constitution. I apprehend, that the honourable gentleman is mistaken as to the extent of the operation of this clause. He supposes, that the controul of the general government over elections looks forward to a consolidation of the states; and that the general word, time, may extend to twenty, or any number of years. In my humble opinion, this clause does by no means warrant such a construction. We ought to compare other parts with it. Does not the Constitution say, that Representatives shall be chosen every second year? The right of choosing them, therefore, reverts to the people every second year. No instrument of writing ought to be construed absurdly, when a rational construction can be put upon it. If Congress can prolong the election to any time they please, why is it said, that Representatives shall be chosen every second year? They must be chosen every second year; but whether in the month of March or January, or any other month, may be ascertained at a future time, by regulations of Congress. The word time, refers only to the particular month and day within the two years. I heartily agree with the gentleman, that if any thing in this Constitution tended to the annihilation of the state governments, instead of exciting the admiration of any man, it ought to excite his resentment and execration. No such wicked intention ought to be suffered. But the gentlemen who formed the Constitution had no such object; nor do I think there is the least ground for that jealousy. The very existence of the general government depends on that of the state governments. The state Legislatures are to choose the Senators. Without a Senate there can be no Congress. The state Legislatures are also to direct the manner of choosing the President. Unless, therefore, there are state Legislatures to direct that manner, no President can be chosen. The same observation may be made as to the House of Representatives, since, as they are to be chosen by the electors of the most numerous branch of each state Legislature. If there are no state Legislatures, there are no persons to choose the House of Representatives. Thus it is evident, that the very existence of the general government depends on that of the state Legislatures, and of course, that their continuance cannot be endangered by it.

An occasion may arise when the exercise of this ultimate power in Congress may be necessary: As for instance, if a state should be involved in war, and its Legislature could not assemble, as was the case of South-Carolina, and occasionally of some other sates, during the late war. It might also be useful for this reason—lest a few powerful states should combine, and make regulations concerning elections, which might deprive many of the electors of a fair exercise of their rights, and thus injure the community, and occasion great dissatisfaction: And it seems natural and proper that every government should have in itself the means of its own preservation. A few of the great states might combine to prevent any election of Representatives at all, and thus a majority might be wanting to do business; but it would not be so easy to destroy the government by the non-election of Senators, because one-third only are to go out at a time, and all the states will be equally represented in the Senate. It is not probable this power would be abused; for if it should be, the state Legislatures would immediately resent it; and their authority over the people will always be extremely great. These reasons induce me to think, that the power is both necessary and useful. But I am sensible great jealousy has been entertained concerning it: And as, perhaps, the danger of a combination, in the manner I have mentioned, to destroy or distress the general government, is not very probable, it may be better to incur this risk, than occasion any discontent, by suffering the clause to continue as it now stands. I should, therefore, not object to the recommendation of an amendment similar to that of other states, that this power in Congress should only be exercised when a state Legislature neglected, or was disabled from making the regulations required.

Mr. Spencer—Mr. Chairman, I did not mean to insinuate, that designs were made by the honourable gentlemen who composed the federal Constitution, against our liberties. I only meant to say, that the words in this place were exceeding vague. It may admit of the gentleman's construction; but it may admit of a contrary construction. In a matter of so great moment, words ought not to be so vague and indeterminate. I have said, that the states are the basis on which the government of the United States ought to rest, and which must render us secure. No man wishes more for a federal government than I do. I think it necessary for our happiness: But at the same time, when we form a government which must entail happiness or misery on posterity, nothing is of more consequence than settling it so as to exclude animosity and a contest between the general and individual governments. With respect to the mode here mentioned, they are words of very great extent. This clause provides, that a Congress may at any time alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators. These words are so vague and uncertain, that it must ultimately destroy the whole liberty of the United States. It strikes at the very existence of the states, and supercedes the necessity of having them at all. I would therefore wish to have it amended in such a manner, as that the Congress should not interfere but when the states refused or neglected to regulate elections.

Mr. Bloodworth—Mr. Chairman, I trust that such learned arguments as are offered to reconcile to our minds such dangerous powers will not have the intended weight. The House of Representatives is the only democratical branch. This clause may destroy representation entirely. What does it say? The time, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators. Now, Sir, does not this clause give an unlimited and unbounded power to Congress over the times, places and manner of choosing Representatives? They may make the time of election so long, the place so inconvenient, and the manner so oppressive, that it will entirely destroy representation. I hope gentlemen will exercise their own understanding on this occasion, and not let their judgment be led away by these shining characters, for whom, however, I have the highest respect. This Constitution, if adopted in its present mode, must end in the subversion of our liberties. Suppose it takes place in North-Carolina, can farmers elect then? No, Sir. The elections may be in such a manner that men may be appointed who are not Representatives of the people. This may exist, and it ought to be guarded against. As to the place, suppose Congress should order the elections to be held in the most inconvenient place, in the most inconvenient district; could every person entitled to vote attend at such a place? Suppose they should order it be laid off into so many districts, and order the election to be held within each district; yet may not their power over the manner of election enable them to exclude from voting every description of men they please? The democratic branch is so much endangered, that no arguments can be made use of to satisfy my mind to it. The honourable gentleman has amused us with learned discussions, and told us he will condescend to propose amendments. I hope the Representatives of North-Carolina will never swallow the Constitution till it is amended.

Mr. Goudy—Mr. Chairman, The invasion of the states is urged as a reason for this clause. But why did they not mention that it should be only in cases of invasion? But that was not the reason in my humble opinion. I fear it was a combination against our liberties. I ask, when we give them the purse in one hand, and the sword in another, what power have we left? It will lead to an aristocratical government, and establish tyrranny over us. We are freemen, and we ought to have the privileges of such.

Governor Johnston—Mr. Chairman, I do not impute any impure intentions to the gentlemen who formed this Constitution. I think it unwarrantable in any one to do it. I believe, that were there twenty Conventions appointed, and as many Constitutions formed, we never could get men more able and disinterested than those who formed this, nor a Constitution less exceptionable than that which is now before you. I am not apprehensive that this article will be attended with all the fatal consequences, which the gentleman conceives. I conceive that Congress can have no other power than the states had. The states, with regard to elections, must be governed by the articles of the Constitution; so must Congress. But, I believe, the power, as it now stands, is unnecessary. I should be perfectly satisfied with it in the mode recommended by the worthy Member on my right hand: Although I should be extremely cautious to adopt any Constitution that would endanger the rights and privileges of the people. I have no fear in adopting this Constitution, and then proposing amendments. I feel as much attachment to the rights and privileges of my country as any man in it; and if I thought any thing in this Constitution tended to abridge these rights, I would not agree to it. I cannot conceive that this is the case. I have not the least doubt but it will be adopted by a very great majority of the states: For states who have been as jealous of their liberties as any in the world, have adopted it; and they are some of the most powerful states. We shall have the assent of all the states in getting amendments. Some gentlemen have apprehensions, that Congress will immediately conspire to destroy the liberties of their country. The men, of whom Congress will consist, are to be chosen from among ourselves. They will be in the same situation with us. They are to be bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh. They cannot injure us without injuring themselves. I have no doubt but we shall choose the best men in the community. Should different men be appointed, they are sufficiently responsible. I therefore think, that no danger is to be apprehended.

Mr. M'Dowall—Mr. Chairman, I have the highest esteem for the gentleman who spoke last. He has amused us with the fine characters of those who formed that government. Some were good; but some were very imperious, aristocratical, despotic and monarchical. If parts of it are extremely good, other parts are very bad. The freedom of election is one of the greatest securities we have for our liberty and privileges. It was supposed by the Member from Edenton, that the controul over elections was only given to Congress to be used in case of invasion. I differ from him. That could not have been their intention, otherwise they could have expressed it. But, Sir, it points forward to the time when there will be no state Legislatures—to the consolidation of all the states. The states will be kept up as boards of elections. I think the same men would make a better Constitution; for good government is not the work of a short time. They only had their own wisdom. Were they to go now, they would have the wisdom of the United States. Every gentleman who must reflect on this, must see it. The adoption of several other states is urged. I hope every gentleman stands for himself—will act according to his own judgment—and will pay no respect to the adoption by the other states. It may embarrass us in some political difficulties; but let us attend to the interest of our constituents.

Mr. Iredell answered, that he stated the case of invasion as only one reason out of many, for giving the ultimate controul over elections to Congress.

Mr. Davie—Mr. Chairman, A consolidation of the states, is said by some gentlemen to have been intended. They insinuate that this was the cause of their giving this power over elections. If there were any seeds in this Constitution which might one day produce a consolidation, it would, Sir, with me, be an insuperable objection; I am so perfectly convinced that so extensive a country as this, can never be managed by one consolidated government. The federal Convention were as well convinced as the Members of this House, that the state governments were absolutely necessary to the existence of the federal government: They considered them as the great massy pillars on which this political fabric was to be extended and supported, and were fully persuaded, that when they were removed or should moulder down by time, the general government must tumble into ruins. A very little reflection will shew, that no department of it can exist without the state governments.

Let us begin with the House of Representatives. Who are to vote for the federal Representatives? Those who vote for the state Representatives. If the state government vanishes, the general government must vanish also. This is the foundation on which this government was raised, and without which it cannot possibly exist.

The next department is the Senate. How is it formed? By the states themselves. Do they not choose them? Are they not created by them? And will they not have the interest of the states particularly at heart? The states, Sir, can put a final period to the government, as was observed by a gentleman who thought this power over elections unnecessary. If the state Legislatures think proper, they may refuse to choose Senators, and the government must be destroyed. Is not this government a nerveless mass, a dead carcass, without the Executive power? Let your Representatives be the most vicious demons that ever existed, let them plot against the liberties of America, let them conspire against its happiness—all their machinations will not avail if not put in execution. By whom are their laws and projects to be executed? By the President. How is he created? By Electors appointed by the people under the direction of the Legislatures—by an union of the interest of the people and the state governments. The state governments can put a veto, at any time, on the general government, by ceasing to continue the Executive power. Admitting the Representatives or Senators could make corrupt laws; they can neither execute them themselves, nor appoint the Executive. Now, Sir, I think it must be clear to every candid mind, that no part of this government can be continued after the state governments lose their existence, or even their present forms. It may also be easily proved, that all federal governments possess an inherent weakness which continually tends to their destruction. It is to be lamented that all governments of a federal nature have been short-lived. Such was the fate of the Ach=aean league, the Amphyctionic council, and other ancient confederacies; and this opinion is confirmed by the uniform testimony of all history. There are instances in Europe of confederacies subsisting a considerable time, but their duration must be attributed to circumstances exterior to their government. The Germanic confederacy would not exist a moment, were it not for the fear of the surrounding powers, and the interest of the Emperor. The history of this confederacy is but a series of factions, dissentions, bloodshed and civil war. The confederacies of the Swiss and United Netherlands, would long ago have been destroyed from their imbecility, had it not been for the fear, and even the policy, of the bordering nations. It is impossible to construct such a government in such a manner as to give it any probable longevity. But, Sir, there is an excellent principle in this proposed plan of federal government, which none of these confederacies had, and to the want of which in a great measure their imperfections may be justly attributed. I mean the principle of representation. I hope that by the agency of this principle, if it be not immortal, it will at least be long-lived. I thought it necessary to say this much to detect the futility of that unwarrantable suggestion, that we are to be swallowed up by a great consolidated government. Every part of this federal government is dependent on the continuation of the state Legislatures for its existence. The whole, Sir, can never swallow up its parts. The gentleman from Edenton (Mr. Iredell) has pointed out the reasons of giving this controul over elections to Congress, the principal of which was, to prevent a dissolution of the government by designing states. If all the states were equally possessed of absolute power over their elections, without any controul of Congress, danger might be justly apprehended where one state possesses as much territory as four or five others, and some of them being thinly peopled now, will daily become more numerous and formidable. Without this controul in Congress, those large states might successfully combine to destroy the general government. It was therefore necessary to controul any combination of this kind. Another principal reason was, that it would operate in favour of the people against the ambitious designs of the federal Senate. I will illustrate this by matter of fact. The history of the little state of Rhode-Island is well known. An abandoned faction have seized on the reins of government, and frequently refused to have any representation in Congress. If Congress had the power of making the law of elections operate throughout the United States, no state could withdraw itself from the national councils, without the consent of a majority of the Members of Congress. Had this been the case, that trifling state would not have with-held its representation. What once happened may happen again, and it was necessary to give Congress this power to keep the government in full operation. This being a federal government, and involving the interests of several states; and some acts requiring the assent of more than a majority, they ought to be able to keep their representation full. It would have been a solecism, to have a government without any means of self-preservation. The Confederation is the only instance of a government without such means, and is a nerveless system, as inadequate to every purpose of government as it is to the security of the liberties of the people of America. When the councils of America have this power over elections, they can, in spite of any faction in any particular state, give the people a representation. Uniformity in matters of election is also of the greatest consequence. They ought all to be judged by the same law and the same principles, and not be different in one state from what they are in another. At present the manner of electing is different in different states. Some elect by ballot and others viva voce. It will be more convenient to have the manner uniform in all the states. I shall now answer some observations made by the gentleman from Mecklinburg. He has stated, that this power over elections, gave to Congress power to lengthen the time for which they were elected. Let us read this clause coolly, all prejudice aside, and determine whether this construction be warrantable. The clause runs thus: "The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may, at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the place of choosing Senators." I take it as a fundamental principle, which is beyond the reach of the general or individual governments to alter, that the Representatives shall be chosen every second year, and that the tenure of their offices shall be for two years;—that Senators shall be chosen every sixth year, and that the tenure of their offices shall be for six years. I take it also as a principle, that the electors of the most numerous branch of the state Legislatures, are to elect the federal Representatives. Congress has ultimately no power over elections, but what is primarily given to the state Legislatures. If Congress have the power of prolonging the time, &c. as gentlemen observe, the same powers must be completely vested in the state Legislatures. I call upon every gentleman candidly to declare, whether the state Legislatures have the power of altering the time of elections for Representatives from two to four years, or Senators from six to twelve; and whether they have the power to require any other qualifications than those of the most numerous branch of the state Legislatures, and also whether they have any other power over the manner of elections any more than the mere mode of the act of choosing, or whether they shall be held by Sheriffs as contradistinguished to any other officer, or whether they shall be by votes as contradistinguished from ballots or any other way. If gentlemen will pay attention they will find, that in the latter part of this clause, Congress has no power but what was given to the states in the first part of the same clause. They may alter the manner of holding the election, but cannot alter the tenure of their office. They cannot alter the nature of the elections, for it is established as fundamental principles, that the electors of the most numerous branch of the state Legislature shall elect the federal Representatives, and that the tenure of their office shall be for two years; and likewise, that the Senators shall be elected by the Legislatures, and that the tenure of their office shall be for six years. When gentlemen view the clause accurately, and see that Congress have only the same power which was in the state Legislature, they will not be alarmed. The learned Doctor on my right (Mr. Spencer) has also said, that Congress might lengthen the time of elections. I am willing to appeal to grammatical construction and punctuation. Let me read this as it stands on paper. (Here he reads the clause different ways, expressing the same sense.) Here in the first part of the clause, this power over elections is given to the states, and in the latter part the same power is given to Congress, and extending only to the time of holding, the place of holding, and the manner of holding the elections. Is this not the plain, literal and grammatical construction of the clause? Is it possible to put any other construction on it, without departing from the natural order, and without deviating from the general meaning of the words and every rule of grammatical construction? Twist it, torture it as you may, Sir, it is impossible to fix a different sense upon it. The worthy gentleman from New-Hanover, whose ardour for the liberty of his country I wish never to be damped, has insinuated, that high characters might influence the Members on this occasion. I declare for my own part, I wish every man to be guided by their own conscience and understanding, and by nothing else. Every man has not been bred a politician nor studied the science of government; yet when a subject is explained, if the mind is unwarped by prejudice and not in the leading-strings of other people, gentlemen will do what is right. Were this the case I would risk my salvation on a right decision.

Mr. Caldwell—Mr. Chairman, Those things which can be, may be. We know that in British government, the Members of Parliament were eligible only for three years. They determined they might be chosen for seven years. If Congress can alter the time, manner and place, I think it will enable them to do what the British Parliament once did. They have declared, that the elections of Senators are for six years, and of Representatives for two years. But they have said there was an exception to this general declaration, viz. that Congress can alter them. If the Convention only meant that they should alter them in such a manner as to prevent a discontinuation of the government, why have they not said so? It must appear to every gentleman in this Convention, that they can alter the elections to what time they please: And if the British Parliament did once give themselves the power of sitting four years longer than they had a right to do, Congress, having a standing army, and the command of the militia, may, with the same propriety, make an act to continue the Members for twenty years, or even for their natural lives. This construction appears perfectly rational to me. I shall therefore think that this Convention will never swallow such a government, without securing us against danger.

Mr. Maclaine—Mr. Chairman, The reverend gentleman from Guilford, has made an objection which astonishes me more than anything I have heard. He seems to be acquainted with the history of England, but he ought to consider whether his historical references apply to this country. He tells us of triennial elections being changed to septennial elections. This is a historical fact we well know, and the occasion on which it happened, is equally well known. They talk as loudly of constitutional rights and privileges in England, as we do here, but they have no written constitution. They have a common law, which has been altered from year to year, for a very long period—Magna Charta, and Bill of Rights. These they look upon as their constitution. Yet this is such a constitution as it is universally considered Parliament can change. Blackstone, in his admirable Commentaries, tells us, that the power of the Parliament is transcendent and absolute, and can do and undo everything that is not naturally impossible. The act, therefore, to which the reverend gentleman alludes, was not unconstitutional. Has any man said that the Legislature can deviate from this Constitution? The Legislature is to be guided by the Constitution. They cannot travel beyond its bounds. The reverend gentleman says, that though the Representatives are to be elected for two years, they may pass an act prolonging their appointment for twenty years, or for natural life, without any violation of the Constitution. Is it possible for any common understanding or sense, to put this construction upon it? Such an act, Sir, would be a palpable violation of the Constitution. Were they to attempt it, Sir, the country would rise against them. After such an unwarrantable suggestion as this, any objection may be made to this Constitution. It is necessary to give power to the government. I would ask that gentleman who is so afraid it will destroy our liberties, why he is not as much afraid of our state Legislature? For they have much more power than we are now proposing to give this general government. They have an unlimited controul over the purse and sword—yet no complaints are made. Why is he not afraid that our Legislature will call out the militia to destroy our liberties? Will the militia be called out by the general government to enslave the people—to enslave their friends, their families, themselves? The idea of the militia being made use of as an instrument to destroy our liberties, is almost too absurd to merit a refutation. It cannot be supposed that the Representatives of our general government will be worse men than the Members of our state government. Will we be such fools as to send our greatest rascals to the general government? We must be both fools as well as villains to do so.

Governor Johnston—Mr. Chairman, I shall offer some observations on what the gentleman said. A parallel has been drawn between the British Parliament and Congress. The power of Congress are all circumscribed, defined, and clearly laid down. So far they may go, but no farther. But, Sir, what are the powers of the British Parliament? They have no written Constitution in Britain. They have certain fundamental principles and legislative acts, securing the liberty of the people: But these may be altered by their Representatives, without violating their Constitution, in such manner as they may think proper. Their Legislature existed long before the science of government was well understood. From very early periods you find their Parliament in full force. What is their Magna Charta? It is only an act of Parliament. Their Parliament can at any time, alter the whole, or any part of it. In short, it is no more binding on the people than any other act which has passed. The power of the Parliament is, therefore, unbounded. But, Sir, can Congress alter the Constitution? They have no such power. They are bound to act by the Constitution. They dare not recede from it. At the moment that the time for which they are elected expires, they may be removed. If they make bad laws, they will be removed, for they will be no longer worthy of confidence. The British Parliament can do every thing they please. Their Bill of Rights is only an act of Parliament, which may be at any time altered or modified, without a violation of the Constitution. The people of Great-Britain have no Constitution to controul their Legislature.—The King, Lords and Commons can do what they please.

Mr. Caldwell observed, that whatever nominal powers the British Parliament might possess, yet they had infringed the liberty of the people in the most flagrant manner, by giving themselves power to continue four years in Parliament longer than they had been elected for—That though they were only chosen for three years by their constituents, yet they passed an act, that Representatives should, for the future, be chosen for seven years—That this Constitution would have a dangerous tendency—That this clause would enable them to prolong their continuance in office as long as they pleased—And that if a Constitution was not agreeable to the people, its operation could not be happy.

Governor Johnston replied, that the act to which allusion was made by the gentleman, was not unconstitutional: But that if Congress were to pass an act, prolonging the terms of elections of Senators or Representatives, it would be clearly unconstitutional.

Mr. Maclaine observed, that the act of Parliament referred to was passed on urgent necessity, when George I. ascended the throne, to prevent the Papists from getting into Parliament; for parties ran so high at that time, that Papists enough might have got in to destroy the act of settlement, which excluded the Roman Catholics from the succession to the throne.

Mr. Spencer—The gentleman from Halifax said, that the reason of this clause was, that some states might be refractory. I profess, that, in my opinion, the circumstances of Rhode-Island do not appear to apply. I cannot conceive the particular cause why Rhode-Island should not send Representatives to Congress. If they were united in one government, is it presumed that they would wave the right of representation? I have not the least reason to doubt they would make use of the privilege. With respect to the construction that the worthy Member put upon the clause, were that construction established, I would be satisfied; but it is susceptible of a different explanation. They may alter the mode of election so as to deprive the people of the right of choosing. I wish to have it expressed in a more explicit manner.

Mr. Davie—Mr. Chairman, The gentleman has certainly misconceived the matter, when he says, "that the circumstances of Rhode-Island do not apply." It is a fact well known, of which perhaps he may not be possessed, that the state of Rhode-Island has not been regularly represented for several years, owing to the character and particular views of the prevailing party. By the influence of this faction, who are in possession of the state government, the people have been frequently deprived of the benefit of a representation in the union, and Congress often embarassed by their absence. The same evil may again result from the same cause; and Congress ought therefore to possess constitutional power to give the people an opportunity of electing Representatives, if the states neglect or refuse to do it. The gentleman from Anson has said, "that this clause is susceptible of an explanation different from the construction I put upon it." I have a high respect for his opinion; but that alone, on this important occasion, is not satisfactory: We must have some reasons from him to support and sanction this opinion. He is a professional man, and has held an office many years—the nature and duties of which would enable him to put a different construction on this clause, if it is capable of it.

This clause, Sir, has been the occasion of much groundless alarm, and has been the favourite theme of declamation out of doors. I now call upon the gentlemen of the opposition to shew that it contains the mischiefs with which they have alarmed and agitated the public mind, and I defy them to support the construction they have put upon it by one single plausible reason. The gentleman from New-Hanover has said in objection to this clause, "That Congress may appoint the most inconvenient place in the most inconvenient district, and make the manner of election so oppressive, as entirely to destroy representation." If this is considered as possible, he should also reflect that the state Legislatures may do the same thing. But his can never happen, Sir, until the whole mass of the people become corrupt, when all parchment securities will be off little service. Does that gentleman, or any other gentleman who has the smallest acquaintance with human nature or the spirit of America, suppose that the people will passively relinquish privileges, or suffer the usurpation of powers unwarranted by the Constitution? Does not the right of electing Representatives revert to the people every second year? There is nothing in this clause that can impede or destroy this reversion; and although the particular time of year, the particular place in a county or a district, or the particular mode in which elections are to be held, as whether by vote or ballot, be left to Congress to direct; yet this can never deprive the people of the right or privilege of election. He has also added, that the "democratical branch was in danger from this clause;" and with some other gentlemen took it for granted, that an aristocracy must arise out of the general government. This, I take it, from the very nature of the thing, can never happen. Aristocracies grow out of the combination of a few powerful families, where the country or people upon which they are to operate are immediately under their influence; whereas the interest and influence of this government are too weak, and too much diffused ever to bring about such an event. The confidence of the people, acquired by a wise and virtuous conduct, is the only influence the members of the federal government can ever have. When aristocracies are formed, they will arise within the individual states; it is therefore absolutely necessary that Congress should have a constitutional power to give the people at large a representation in the government, in order to break and controul such dangerous combinations. Let gentlemen shew when and how this aristocracy they talk of, is to arise out of this Constitution. Are the first members to perpetuate themselves? Is the Constitution to be attacked by such absurd assertions as these, and charged with defects with which it has no possible connection?

Mr. Bloodworth—Mr. Chairman, The gentleman has mistaken me. When we examine the gentleman's arguments, they have no weight. He tells us, that it is not probable "that an aristocracy can arise." I did not say that it would. Various arguments are brought forward in support of this article. They are vague and trifling. There is nothing that can be offered to my mind, which will reconcile me to it, while this evil exists—while Congress have this controul over elections. It was easy for them to mention, that this controul should be only exerted when the state would neglect or refuse, or be unable in case of invasion, to regulate elections—If so, why did they not mention it expressly?

It appears to me, that some of their general observations imply a contradiction. Do they not tell us, that there is no danger of a consolidation? That Congress can exist no longer than the states—the massy pillars on which it is said to be raised? Do they not also tell us, that the state governments are to secure us against Congress? At another time they tell us, that it was necessary to secure our liberty by giving them power to prevent the state governments from oppressing us. We know that there is a corruption in human nature. Without circumspection and carefulness we shall throw away our liberties. Why is this general expression used on this great occasion? Why not use expressions that were clear and unequivocal? If I trust my property with a man I take security, shall I then barter away my rights?

Mr. Spencer—Mr. Chairman, This clause may operate in such a manner as will abridge the liberty of the people. It is well known that men in power are apt to abuse it, and extend it if possible. From the ambiguity of this expression, they may put such construction on it as may suit them. I would not have it in such a manner as to endanger the rights of the people. But it has been said, that this power is necessary to preserve their existence. There is not the least doubt but the people will keep them from loosing their existence, if they shall behave in such a manner as will merit it.

Mr. Maclaine—Mr. Chairman, I thought it very extraordinary, that the gentleman who was last on the floor, should say that Congress could do what they please with respect to elections, and be warranted by this clause. The gentleman from Halifax [Mr. Davie] has put that construction upon it which reason and common sense will put upon it. Lawyers will often differ on a point of law, but people will seldom differ about so very plain a thing as this. The clause enables Congress to alter such regulations as the states shall have made with respect to elections. What would he infer from this? What is it to alter? It is to alter the time, place and manner established by the Legislatures, if they do not answer the purpose. Congress ought to have power to perpetuate the government, and not the states, who might be otherwise inclined. I will ask the gentleman, and I wish he may give me a satisfactory answer, if the whole is not in the power of the people, as well when the elections are regulated by Congress, as when by the states? Are not both the agents of the people amenable to them? Is there any thing in this Constitution which gives them the power to perpetuate the sitting Members? Is there any such strange absurdity? If the Legislature of this state has the power to fix the time, place and manner of holding elections, why not place the same confidence in the general government? The members of the general government, and those of the state Legislature, are both chosen by the people. They are both from among the people, and are in the same situation. Those who served in the state Legislature are eligible, and may be sent to Congress. If the elections be regulated in the best manner in the state government, can it be supposed that the same man will lose all his virtue, his character and principles, when he goes into the general government, in order to deprive us of our liberty?

The gentleman from New Hanover seems to think it possible, Congress will so far forget themselves, as to point out such improper seasons of the year, and such inconvenient places for elections, as to defeat the privilege of the democratic branch altogether. He speaks of inconsistency in the arguments of the gentlemen, I wish he would be consistent himself. If I do not mistake the politicks of that gentleman, it is his opinion that Congress had sufficient power under the Confederation. He has said without contradiction, that we should be better without the union than with it: That it would be better for us to be by ourselves than be in the union. His antipathy to a general government, and to the union, is evidently inconsistent with his predilection for a federal democratic branch. We should have no democratic part of government at all, under such a government as he would recommend. There is no such part in the old Confederation. The body of the people had no agency in that system. The Members of the present general government are selected by the sate Legislatures, and have the power of the purse and other powers, and are not amenable to the people at large. Although the gentleman may deny my assertions, yet this argument of his, is inconsistent with his other assertions and doctrines. It is impossible for any man in his senses to think that we can exist by ourselves, separated from our sister states. Whatever gentlemen may pretend to say on this point, it must be a matter of serious alarm to every reflecting mind, to be disunited form the other states.

Mr. Bloodworth begged leave to wipe of[f] the aspersion of the gentleman. That he could not account for any expression which he might drop among a laughing, jocose people, but that it was well known he was for giving power to Congress to regulate the trade of the United States: That he had said, that Congress had exercised power not given them by the Confederation; and that he was accurate in the assertion: that he was a freeman and was under the controul of no man.

Mr. Maclaine replied, that he meant no aspersions: That he only meant to point out a fact: That he had committed mistakes himself in argument, and that he supposed the gentleman not more infallible than other people.

Mr. J. Taylor wished to know why the states had controul over the place of electing Senators, but not over that of choosing the Representatives.

Mr. Spaight answered, that the reason of that reservation was, to prevent Congress from altering the places for holding the legislative Assemblies in the different states.

Mr. James Galloway—Mr. Chairman, In the beginning I found great candour in the advocates of this government, but it is not so towards the last. I hope the gentleman from Halifax will not take it amiss, if I mention how he brought the motion forward. They began with dangers. As to Rhode-Island being governed by a faction, what has that to do with the question before us? I ask what has the state governments left for them, if the general government is to be possessed of such extensive powers, without controul or limitation, without any responsibility to the states? He asks, how is it possible for the members to perpetuate themselves? I think I can shew how they can do it. For instance, were they to take the government as it now stands organized. We send five Members to the House of Representatives in the general government. They will go no doubt from or near the sea-ports. In other states also, those near the sea will have more interest, and will go forward to Congress; and they can, without violating the Constitution, make a law continuing themselves, as they have controul over the place, time and manner of elections. This may happen, and where the great principles of liberty are endangered, no general, indeterminate, vague expression ought to be suffered. Shall we pass over this article as it is now? They will be able to perpetuate themselves as well as if it had expressly said so.

Mr. Steele—Mr. Chairman, The gentleman has said, that the five Representatives which this state will be entitled to send to the general government, will go from the sea-shore. What reason has he to say they will go from the sea-shore? The time, place and manner of holding the elections are to be prescribed by the Legislatures. Our Legislature is to regulate the first election at any event.—They will regulate it as they think proper. They may, and most probably will, lay the state off into districts. Who are to vote for them? Every man who has a right to vote for a Representative to our Legislature, will ever have a right to vote for a Representative to the general government. Does it not expressly provide, that the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for the most numerous branch of the state Legislature? Can they, without a most manifest violation of the Constitution, alter the qualifications of the electors? The power over the manner of elections, does not include that of saying who shall vote. The Constitution expressly says, that the qualifications which entitle a man to vote for a state Representative, will enable him to vote for a federal Representative. It is, then, clearly and indubitably fixed and determined who shall be the electors; and the power over the manner only enables them to determine how these electors shall elect—whether by ballot or by vote, or by any other way. Is it not a maxim of universal jurisprudence, of reason and common sense, that an instrument or deed of writing shall be so construed as to give validity to all parts of it, if it can be done without involving any absurdity? By construing it in the plain obvious way I have mentioned, all parts will be valid. By the way gentlemen suggest, the most palpable contradiction and absurdity will follow. To say that they shall go from the sea-shore, and be able to perpetuate themselves, is a most extravagant idea. Will the Members of Congress deviate from their duty without any prospect of advantage to themselves? What interest can they have to make the place of elections inconvenient? The judicial power of that government is so well constructed as to be a check. There was no check in the old Confederation. Their power was in principle and theory transcendent. If the Congress make laws inconsistent with the Constitution, independent Judges will not uphold them, nor will the people obey them. An universal resistance will ensue. In some countries the arbitrary disposition of rulers may enable them to overturn the liberties of the people; but in a country like this, where every man is his own master, and where almost every man is a freeholder, and has right of election, the violations of a Constitution will not be passively permitted. Can it be supposed, that in such a country the rights of suffrage will be tamely surrendered? Is it to be supposed, that 30,000 free persons will send the most abandoned wretch in the district to legislate for them in the general Legislature? I should rather think they would choose men of the most respectable characters.

Mr. President now resumed the chair, and Mr. Battle reported, that the committee had, according to order, again had the said proposed Constitution under their consideration, but not having time to go through the same, had directed him to move the Convention for leave to sit again.

Resolved, That this Convention will again to-morrow resolve itself into a committee of the whole Convention, on the said proposed plan of government.

The Convention then adjourned to ten o'clock to-morrow morning.