his term, his re-eligibility, a great diversity of opinion prevailed. The first plan was that he be chosen by the National Legislature, by joint ballot; then it was proposed that he be elected by the people, or by electors appointed by the State legislatures, or appointed by the people. All these propositions were disagreed to till the principle of a double ballot prevailed. Why not follow State precedents and allow the Senate to choose its presiding officer? Abolish the office of Vice-President. It would become the lure to designing men.

Griswold, of Connecticut, agreed that if the discriminating principle was adopted, the office of Vice-President was unnecessary. Indeed, abolish that office, and the discriminating amendment itself would be needless. But only thirty-four members took this view and it did not prevail. So the attack on this office ceased. Objection was then made to the number three in the Senate amendment. A sharp debate followed on the verbal construction of the clause that the election should be made from the "persons having the highest number, not exceeding three." Though the chairman assured the house that the word, number, was a misprint for numbers, Griswold protested against the ambiguity of the passage. Randolph remarked that whatever way the passage read, no sense could be made of it. Sanford, of Kentucky, suggested its meaning. "It is a task of delicacy," observed Elliot, "to decide whether the gentlemen from Kentucky, Connecticut, or Virginia, is the best grammarian," but he thought that Randolph was at least most ingenious. "No instrument is so perfect," replied Rodney, "that if the parts are taken separately, it may not be rendered nonsense," and he illustrated with the story of the sailor, who, happening to be at church, heard the clergyman

324

THE HOUSE INSISTS ON A VOTE.

recite one of the Psalms, in the old version by Sternberg and Hopkins, that the congregation might sing:

"The Lord will come, and he will not—

Keep silence, but speak out."

Thinking preacher and congregation crazy, the sailor quickly left the house. "So in this case," concluded Rodney, “gentlemen, by a similar species of ingenuity, may make this or any other resolution perfect nonsense.'

The majority of the House was intent, however, on finishing the business. They refused to let the committee rise; they refused to strike out the passage pronounced ambiguous and by a vote of seventy-five to twenty-six, agreed to the Senate resolution without amendment. By a larger majority they refused to adjourn and by a still larger one, refused to entertain any amendment for the abolition of the Vice-Presidency. Goddard then moved to substitute "five" for "three," but it was lost by a vote of eighty-five to thirty-two.2 Griswold, of New York, then proposed to amend by allowing the Senate to choose the Vice-President from three instead of two candidates, but the motion was rejected without a division. Senate amendment was then divided and the first part, containing the provision for designating the electoral vote, passed by a vote of eighty-five to thirty. The other clauses were then agreed to, and Macon, the Speaker, put the question on the whole resolution. Elliot warned the House that it was about "to increase tenfold the probability of introducing a person into the Presidency not calculated for that office, and to increase the avenues by which corruption and ambition may be advanced to supreme power." If, in the future, the people of America should feel under the necessity of lamenting over their

1 Annals, 681, December 7, 1803. 2 Annals, Id., 683.

The

THE HOUSE REFUSES TO ADJOURN.

325

departed liberties, they could date the destruction of the Constitution, the work of so much labor and wisdom, from the passage of this amendment. But Elliot alone had this gloomy vision; the resolution was agreed to and the question stood on engrossing it for a third reading. The Federalist members, for whom Griswold spoke, wished it delayed till the next day. Randolph moved for a final reading immediately. By a majority of twentynine, the House rejected Griswold's motion, and by one of forty-three carried Randolph's.

This was not a strictly party vote, for the Democrats had a majority of sixty-five, in a full house. It was now late in the afternoon, but the House refused to adjourn. Purviance, of North Carolina, concisely stated the objections to the amendment, now finally before the House. It would injure the smaller States by limiting the choice to three, instead of five persons, when the election was made by the House. It made the executive office a matter of bargain and sale. It retained the office of VicePresident, when the original reasons for it had ceased. And, finally, it was an innovation on the Constitution. If it was adopted, not a session would pass without other amendments, until the whole system would be destroyed. Randolph spoke for the resolution. It was not the best possible, but the best that could be had. The Vice-Presidency ought to have been abolished, but to this the Senate had not consented, neither would it consent to the number five instead of three. The original resolution of the House was preferable to this from the Senate, but it could not be passed. Yet this contained the designating principle, which, after all, was the principal thing. The possibility that the Senate would ever elect the President was remote. If the small States believed themselves injured by the amendment, they could refuse to ratify it.

326

RESUMPTION OF THE DEBATE.

One of Randolph's chief objections to the Constitution was "the difficulty of obtaining desirable amendments, which increases with the increasing number of States." Instead of "opening an endless source of venality and intrigue," the amendment would prove a "death-blow" to all corruption.

On the eighth the debate of the concurrent resolution was resumed, and Gregg, of Pennsylvania, reviewed its history. For nearly six years the matter, he said, had been under discussion. The Legislatures of New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee had invited its adoption. The public demanded it, therefore it should be passed. Lowndes and Randolph and some other believers in State Sovereignty again outlined its doctrines. Of national sovereignty little was said, because as yet little was known.

But Campbell, of Tennessee, advanced national ideas seldom uttered and rarely believed in those days. "I am of opinion," said he,1 "that our Government was formed by the people of the United States, in their capacity as such, by their immediate representatives in the General Convention, and not by the several States convened in their State capacities. The words of the Constitution are, "We, the people of the United States," and not "We, the United States, in our State capacity," which, I presume, would have been the language used had the framers of the Constitution intended to have formed a Government for the States united in their State capacities; and though the State interests, as such, are regarded in our Government and their sovereignties represented, whereby it may be considered as partaking in some degree of the federative principle, yet this will not prove our Constitution to be a Confederation of States, in the extent 1 Annals, Id., 718-727; December 8, 1803.

END OF THE DEBATE.

327

contended for in their State capacities; but only shows that the framers of the Constitution intended, by thus regarding the State rights and sovereignties as such, to qualify and limit the operations of the General Government with regard to the several State Governments and their respective interests and rights. The laws that are made by the General Government are binding on the people of the United States at large, and not on the State Governments; for though the State Governments are limited by and bound not to violate the Constitution of the United States, yet they certainly cannot be controlled or in any manner bound by the legislative acts of the General Government. This, I conceive, shows, in a very strong manner, that the Union is not a mere Confederation of States." The joint resolution, he believed, was demanded and would be "joyfully hailed by nine-tenths of the American people."

To Campbell, Thatcher, of Massachusetts, replied, that the Constitution was adopted by States acting in their corporate capacity, and that the resolution could not be adopted "without, in fact, destroying the very basis of the Confederacy."

At last the debate came to an end. States' rights, State sovereignty, the Constitution a compact between the States, the dangers of intrigue and corruption incident to an election, the merits of three over five and of five over three, as the number from whom the House might choose; the use and the uselessness of the office of VicePresident; the public will; the danger of innovations. on the Constitution, all were touched on and the vote was taken. Forty-two stood for the resolution and forty-two against it. The casting vote of Nathaniel Macon, the Speaker, carried the amendment.1 On the following day,

1 Annals, Id., 776.