232

RANK OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.

it was concurred in by conventions of the people, and that concurrence armed it with power and invested it with dignity. Congress was expressly authorized by the sovereign and uncontrollable voice of the people, to propose amendments whenever two-thirds of both Houses might think fit. If this was the fact, the preparing of amendments would be found to originate with a higher authority than the original system. The conventions of the several States had agreed, for the people, that the legislatures should be authorized to decide upon amendments in the manner of a convention. If these acts of the legislatures were not good, because the assemblies were not specifically instructed by their constituents, neither were the acts calling the first or subsequent conventions. Evidently, the House thought, with Gerry, that ratification of the amendments, in any form, made them of equal authority with other parts of the Constitution, and, that being equal, they ought to be incorporated with the instrument in their proper places.1 Sherman's motion, to add the amendments as a body, at the close of the Constitution, having been defeated, the way was clear for considering the propositions in their order.

It was now the fourteenth of August. Gerry objected to the committee's first amendment because it held up the idea that all governments are intended for the benefit of the people. "Now, I am so far from being of this opinion," said he, "I do not believe that one out of fifty is intended for any such purpose. I believe that the establishment of most governments is to gratify the ambition of an individual, who, by fraud, force or accident, has made himself master of the people." He would make the amendment true by inserting that government, "of right” was intended for the benefit of the people, but the change

1 Annals, 744. 1789.

was rejected.1 Tucker, of South Carolina, thought that the first proposition could not be considered an amendment because the Preamble was no part of the Constitution and therefore the amendment was useless. "For my part, I should as soon think of amending the concluding part, consisting of General Washington's letter to the President of Congress, as the Preamble; but if the principle is of importance, it may be introduced into a Bill of Rights."

Smith replied, that New York, Virginia and North Carolina had expressed a desire for an amendment of this kind. The words, "We the People do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America" were a declaration of their action, was Tucker's answer;2 this having been performed, Congress, said he, had nothing to do with the matter. Sumpter agreed with him, that the amendment, if thought necessary, should be inserted elsewhere. Page held that the Preamble was no part of the Constitution. Madison, citing the State constitutions, thought that the occasion was strong for the change, especially as it would promote harmony; those who would place it elsewhere would "be puzzled to find a better place." "The words 'we the People,' in the original Constitution,' said Sherman, "are as copious and expressive as possible; any addition will only drag out the sentence without illuminating it," but the House again disagreed with him and the amendment was carried.3

Vining, who came from the smallest State in the Union, wished the second proposition changed, so that any State, which had a population of forty-five thousand, should be entitled to two representatives; but his motion was lost

1 Annals, 745. 2 Annals, 745. 8 Annals, 747.

without a division. The second amendment had been proposed by Massachusetts,' for the reason, as Ames explained, that it would secure the States from any attempt of Congress to reduce representation below a safe point. He wished the basis forty thousand instead of thirty, both on the ground of expense and the probability of securing abler representatives.2 Madison, who was thinking of the action of the ratifying conventions, and the amendments they had sent up, replied that New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, Virginia and North Carolina, had asked for an amendment of this kind; several of these States even desiring an increase of the membership of the House to at least two hundred. "This does not look," said he, "as if certainty was their sole object. Numerous bodies are undoubtedly liable to some objections, but they have their advantages also; if they are more exposed to passion and fermentation, they are less subject to venality and corruption; and in a government like this, where the House of Representatives is connected with a smaller body, it might be good policy to guard them in a particular manner against such abuse." Madison declared that the change proposed by Ames would lose its efficiency after the second census. Thirty thousand was the most proper number, because it was the one agreed on in the original Constitution, and was required by several States. Sedgwick reminded Madison that "large bodies in this country are likely to be composed, in a great measure, of gentlemen who represent the landed interest,3 generally more temperate in debate than others." "The object of the people was rather to procure certainty

1 See p. 50, ante.

2 Ib.

8 Compare The Federalist, No. XXXV (by Hamilton).

APPORTIONMENT.

235

than increase," answered Ames; "the House of Representatives will furnish a better check upon the Senate, if filled with men of independent principles, integrity and eminent abilities, than if consisting of a numerous body of inferior characters."

If the United States contained three millions of people, Stone reminded Ames, one representative for every thirty thousand would give a hundred members, of whom fiftyone would be a quorum to do business; twenty-six would be a majority-and give law to the United States, together with seven in the Senate.1 This was certainly a sufficiently small number to administer the government. Would any one, upon mature reflection, think it expedient to reduce it by one-fourth? Ames' amendment was rejected by a large majority. Sedgwick then moved to fix the number at two hundred, instead of one hundred and seventy-five, because, otherwise, the body would be "rather too small to represent such extensive concerns." "In the Convention that framed the Constitution," said Sherman, perhaps forgetting for the moment the oath of secrecy he had taken, respecting its proceedings, "there was a majority in favor of forty thousand; and though there were some in favor of thirty thousand, yet that proposition did not obtain until after the Constitution was agreed to, when the President had expressed a wish that thirty thousand should be inserted as more favorable to the public interest,2 during the contest between thirty and forty thousand, there were not more than nine States, as he remembered, who voted in favor of the former. The objects of the federal government were fewer than those of the State governments; they did not require an equal degree of local knowledge. The only case, perhaps, 1 Annals, 752.

2 Elliot, V, 555; Documentary History III, 764.

where local knowledge would be advantageous was in laying direct taxes, but here they were freed from embarrassment, because the arrangements of the several States might serve as a pretty good rule on which to found their measures." 1 Madison quickly expressed the hope that the House "would not be influenced by what had been related to have passed in the Convention;" the matter must be decided on its merits, not on its history. He was not in favor of the number two hundred, in which he differed from Livermore, Tucker and Gerry, and Lawrence, of New York, who believed that the Senators from the small States, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey and Delaware, would never consent to an increase in the membership of the House; for which reason he favored increasing the House gradually till it arrived at two hundred. Ames remarked that "there is a constant tendency in a republican Government to multiply what it thinks to be the popular branch." On the vote, the House sustained Sedgwick's motion, and the amendment was changed so as to fix the maximum membership at two hundred.

This brought the business to the third amendment, on regulating the manner of increasing the compensation of Senators and Representatives. There was little discussion, though Sedgwick remarked that it would afford designing men an opportunity to reduce the compensation so low as to exclude capable, but indigent, men from Congress. Vining interpreted the proposition as highly beneficial, because it would relieve each legislature of performing the disagreeable task of setting a value on its own work; a reason which had moved the committee to retain it in the list. But Sedgwick was not convinced. 2 Annals, 753.