Log In Register

Source & Citation Info

title:“NY Ratification Convention Debates (July 10, 1788) - New York Journal”
date written:1788-7-17

permanent link
to this version:
last updated:Jan. 22, 2013, 8:22 a.m. UTC
retrieved:April 11, 2021, 10:32 a.m. UTC

"NY Ratification Convention Debates (July 10, 1788) - New York Journal." The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution. Vol. 22. Ed. John P. Kaminski. Madison: Wisconsin Historical Society Press, 2008. 2129. Print.
New York Journal, 17 July 1788

NY Ratification Convention Debates (July 10, 1788) - New York Journal (July 17, 1788)

New York Journal, 17 July 1788
Our accounts, or rather history, of the Convention at Poughkeepsie, were continued last Thursday to Friday the 4th, from which to Monday, July 7, they went through the remaining articles of the Constitution. As amendments to the general system had been proposed from time to time, in the course of the session, it now remained to have them arranged and stated, which occupied Tuesday and Wednesday. On Thursday the Convention met, when Mr. Lansing came forward with the amendments arranged in three classes, viz. EXPLANATORY, CONDITIONAL and RECOMMENDATORY. A bill of rights was classed among the explanatory—the conditional were, that there should be no standing army in time of peace without the consent of two-thirds of Congress; that, there shall be no direct taxes, nor excises, on American manufactures:—that the militia shall not be ordered out of the state, except by the previous consent of the executive thereof; nor then for a longer time than six weeks without the consent of the state legislature; —and, that there shall be no interference in the elections, unless when a state shall neglect or refuse to provide for the same.
Mr. Lansing observed, after reading the amendments, that they had been altered both in form and substance, from the last report, particularly that respecting the apportionment of representation; it now stands—that there shall be a representative for every 30,000, till it got to 200; beyond which it may not go. Mr. Lansing proposed, that the Convention should adjourn, and that a committee of both parties should be informally appointed, who should endeavor to make such accommodation, and so to arrange the amendments as to bring the business to a quick and friendly decision; accordingly the Convention adjourned. Mr. Jay, the Mayor of New-York, the Chief Justice, Judge Hobart, Judge Ryerss, Judge Lefferts and Mr. Hatfield, on the part of the federalists; and Judge Yates, Mr. Lansing, Mr. M. Smith, Mr. Tredwell, Mr. Haring, Mr. Jones, and Mr. G. Livingston, on the part of the anti-federalists, were the committee appointed in consequence of Mr. Lansing's motion. When the committee met, Mr. Jay declared that the word conditional should be erased before there could be any discussion on the merits of the amendment[s];—this occasioned about an hour's debate, and the committee was dissolved without effecting any thing.

Resource Metadata





  • Unknown