Page images
PDF
EPUB

Judices." "The great difficulty is to conquer former opinions. The motion can as well be decided here as in committee." Gerry urged accommodation as absolutely necessary, hoping that the defects might be amended by a future convention. The motion was carried by nine states, Jersey and Delaware dissenting, and a committee of a member from each state was chosen by ballot, composed chiefly of the advocates of the Jersey plan.

On the fifth of July a compromise was reported. It proposed to give to each state one representative for every forty thousand inhabitants, computing three-fifths of the slaves as one white, and to a state containing a less number, one representative, to compose the first branch; vesting in that branch the exclusive origin and control of money bills;-that in the second branch, each state should have one vote.

The advocates of a strong government opposed the proposition. Wilson insisted upon a division of the question. Madison declared that the originating money bills was no concession on the part of the smaller states, as seven states combining in the second branch, could control the first; it being small in number and well connected, will ever prevail. No provision is made as to the regulation of trade, imposts, treaties. We are driven to an unhappy dilemma Two-thirds of the inhabitants of the union are to please the remaining third by sacrificing their essential rights.

In behalf of this compromise it was asserted, that the power over money bills was an equivalent for the equal representation in the senate. That it properly belonged to the democratic branch. The senate being farther removed from the people, would be less attentive to economy. It was analogous to the parliamentary usage of England.* The members most strenuous for retaining power in the

Gerry's State of Facts.

states wished to postpone the consideration of the first proposition in order to enter upon the second, which was not acceded to; and the question, whether numbers or relative contribution should determine the proportion of suffrage, was referred to a special committee. It was then proposed to consider the constitution of the second branch. This was postponed by the vote of six states-Massachusetts and New-York divided.

Having given a vote in favour of conferring on the first branch the originating money bills, and thus fulfilling that part of the proposed compromise, it was moved that in the second branch the states should have an equal vote, which was approved. On the ninth of July the special committee reported an apportionment of the members of the first branch among the states, and that the legislature be authorized to augment the number from time to time, and in case a state be divided, or two or more united, or a new state be created within the limits of the United States, it be empowered to regulate the number of representatives upon the principles of their wealth and number of inhabitants. The provisional clause was approved, the equal vote in the second branch temporarily sanctioned, and the ratio was established on a conjectural basis. An objection being taken to the small number of representatives, this subject was referred to the grand committee from each state.* The following day King reported a new scale of representation, increased from fifty-six to sixty-five members.

At this important moment, when a large concession had been made to the advocates of an equal power in the states, and a basis had been formed upon which a compound

* Madison states a proposition, proceeding from himself, as a proper ground of compromise; that in the first branch the states should be represented according to the number of free inhabitants, and in the second, which had for one of its primary objects the guardianship of property, according to the whole number, including slaves-in effect, a southern predominance.

VOL. III.-21

government, in part national, and in part federal, was to be established, Yates and Lansing retired finally from the convention.* On the last day on which they appeared, Washington replied to Hamilton.

WASHINGTON TO HAMILTON.

Philadelphia, 10th July, 1787.

"DEAR SIR.

I thank you for for your communication of the third. When I refer you to the state of the counsels which prevailed at the period you left this city, and add that they are now, if possible, in a worse train than ever, you will find but little ground on which the hope of a good establishment can be formed. In a word, I almost despair of seeing a favourable issue to the proceedings of the convention, and do therefore repent having had any agency in the busi

ness.

The men who oppose a strong and energetic government, are, in my opinion, narrow-minded politicians, or are under the influence of local views.

The apprehension expressed by them, that the people will not accede to the form proposed, is the ostensible, not the real cause of opposition; but admitting that the present sentiment is as they prognosticate, the question ought nevertheless to be, is it or is it not the best form? If the former, recommend it, and it will assuredly obtain maugre opposition.

I am sorry you went away—I wish you were back. The crisis is equally important and alarming, and no opposition, under such circumstances, should discourage exertions, till the structure is fixed. I will not, at this time, trouble you with more than my best wishes and sincere regards."

* July 10.

An interesting statement exists in respect to Washington's opinions, in conformity with this letter. Hamilton related confidentially, that having given his views in his elaborate speech, he was "endeavoring afterwards, in constant conversation with the members, to work them up to a system of competent energy and stability. General Washington and Madison entirely concurred in his views, regarding the plan which he submitted to the Convention, as not exceeding in stability and strength what the exigencies of the country required. THEY WERE COMPLETELY UP TO THE SCHEME. No one of the three supposed it could possibly carry. It was thought, however, advisable to sketch a plan of sufficient stability, and in defending it, to bring forward those sound principles which would endure the test of enlightened investigation and of time. The minds of the members of the Convention were, in consequence, raised to a point, which otherwise they would not have reached." He added, that "his opinion relative to a President during good behavior underwent a change from reflection on the more serious. struggle likely to be produced by the choice of so permanent an officer."*

Thomas Y. Howe was his military secretary in 1799 and 1800, when this conversation took place. Letter of Howe to the author, March 31, 1840. Detroit.

CHAPTER XLVIII.

THE withdrawal from the Convention of the two delegates from New York, at such a juncture, leaves no room for a doubt, that their object was to arrest totally its proceedings.

That they acted in accordance with Clinton, was proved by his deportment at this time. Unreserved declarations were made by him, that no good was to be expected from the appointment or deliberations of this body. That the most probable result was, that the country would be thrown into confusion by the measure. That it was by no means a necessary one, as the confederation had not undergone a sufficient trial, and probably, on a more full experiment, would be found to answer all the purposes of the union.

"Clinton," Hamilton remarked, “was not a man governed in ordinary cases by sudden impulse; though of an irritable temper, when not under the immediate influence. of irritation, he was circumspect and guarded, and seldom acted or spoke without premeditation or design."

Such declarations from such a source, could only have been intended to excite prejudices against whatever plan should be proposed by the convention. Feeling that Clinton's conduct might, and fearing that it would, induce the mischief he so confidently and openly predicted, Hamilton resolved to exhibit it before the public in all its deformity. He immediately published a pointed animadversion, charging these declarations upon him, and avowing a readiness to substantiate them.

« PreviousContinue »