LETTER.

We have now the Honor to submit to the Consideration of the United States in Congress assembled that Constitution which has appeared to us the most advisable.

The Friends of our Country have long seen and desired that the Power of making War Peace and Treaties, that of levying Money & regulating Commerce and the correspondent executive and judicial Authorities should be fully and effectually vested in the general Government of the Union. But the Impropriety of delegating such extensive Trust to one Body of Men is evident. Hence results the Necessity of a different organization.

It is obviously impracticable in the fœderal Government of these States to secure all Rights of independent Sovereignty to each and yet provide for the Interest and Safety of all. Individuals entering into Society must give up a Share of Liberty to preserve the Rest. The Magnitude of the Sacrifice must depend as well on Situation and Circumstances as on the Object to be obtained. It is at all times difficult to draw with Precision the Line between those Rights which must be surrendered and those which may be reserved. And on the present Occasion this Difficulty was increased by a Difference among the several States as to their Situation Extent Habits and particular Interests.

In all our Deliberations on this Subject we kept steadily in

The draft of the letter accompanied the draft of the Constitution, but was not printed with it. The Journal says (Sept. 12): "The draft of a letter to Congress being at the same time reported, was read once throughout; and afterwards agreed to by paragraphs." (Const. MSS. and Journal, p. 367.) The draft is in the handwriting of Gouverneur Morris and was undoubtedly prepared by him. It was turned over to Washington by Jackson with the other papers of the convention. The draft of the Constitution must have been among those papers he destroyed. Probably it too was written by Morris. The letter having been accepted September 12, was printed with the final Constitution September 17. It does not appear to have caused debate.

our View that which appears to us the greatest Interest of every true American The Consolidation of our Union in which is involved our Prosperity Felicity Safety perhaps our national Existence. This important Consideration seriously and deeply impressed on our Minds led each State in the Convention to be less rigid in Points of inferior Magnitude than might have been otherwise expected. And thus the Constitution which we now present is the Result of a Spirit of Amity and of that mutual Deference & Concession which the Peculiarity of our political Situation rendered indispensable.

That it will meet the full and entire approbation of every State is not perhaps to be expected. But each will doubtless consider that had her Interests been alone consulted the Consequences might have been particularly disagreable or injurious to others. That it is liable to as few Exceptions as could reasonably have been expected we hope and believe That it may promote the lasting Welfare of that Country so dear to us all and secure her Freedom and Happiness is our most ardent Wish

M: Williamson moved to reconsider the clause requiring three fourths of each House to overrule the negative of the President, in order to strike out and insert 2/3. He had he remarked himself proposed 3/4 instead of 2/3, but he had since been convinced that the latter proportion was the best. The former puts too much in the power of the President.

M Sherman was of the same opinion; adding that the States would not like to see so small a minority and the President, prevailing over the general voice. In making laws regard should be had to the sense of the people, who are to be bound by them, and it was more probable that a single man should mistake or betray this sense than the Legislature.

M: Gov Morris. Considering the difference between the two proportions numerically, it amounts in one House to two members only; and in the others to not more than five; according to the numbers of which the Legislature is at first to be composed. It is the interest moreover of the distant States to prefer3/ as they will be oftenest absent and need the interposing check of the President. The excess rather than the deficiency, of laws was to be dreaded. The example of N. York shews that 2/3 is not sufficient to answer the purpose.

3

M. Hamilton added his testimony to the fact that 2/, in N. York had been ineffectual either where a popular object, or a legislative faction operated; of which he mentioned some instances.

M. Gerry. It is necessary to consider the danger on the other side also. 2/3 will be a considerable, perhaps a proper security. 3/4 puts too much in the power of a few men. The primary object of the revisionary check in the President is not to protect the general interest, but to defend his own department. If 3/4 be required, a few Senators having hopes from the nomination of the President to offices, will combine with him and impede proper laws. Making the vice-President Speaker increases the danger.

M Williamson was less afraid of too few than of too many laws. He was most of all afraid that the repeal of bad laws might be rendered too difficult by requiring / to overcome the dissent of the President. Col: Mason had always considered this as one of the most exceptionable parts of the System. As to

the numerical argument of M. Gov. Morris, little arithmetic was necessary to understand that was more than 2/3, whatever the numbers of the Legislature might be. The example of New York depended on the real merits of the laws. The Gentlemen citing it, had no doubt given their own opinions. But perhaps there were others of opposite opinions who could equally paint the abuses on the other side. His leading view was to guard against too great an impediment to the repeal of laws.

M: Gov Morris dwelt on the danger to the public interest from the instability of laws, as the most to be guarded against. On the other side there could be little danger. If one man in office will not consent where he ought, every fourth year another can be substituted. This term was not too long for fair experiments. Many good laws are not tried long enough to prove their merit. This is often the case with new laws opposed to old habits. The Inspection laws of Virginia & Maryland to which all are now so much attached were unpopular at first.

M Pinkney was warmly in opposition to / as putting a dangerous power in the hands of a few Senators headed by the President.

M Madison. When 3/4 was agreed to, the President was to be elected by the legislature and for seven years. He is now to be elected by the people and for four years. The object of the revisionary power is two fold. 1. to defend the Executive rights 2. to prevent popular or factious injustice. It was

an important principle in this & in the State Constitutions to check legislative injustice and encroachments. The Experience of the States had demonstrated that their checks are insufficient. We must compare the danger from the weakness of 2/3 with the danger from the strength of 3/4. He thought on the whole the former was the greater. As to the difficulty of repeals it was probable that in doubtful cases the policy would soon take place of limiting the duration of laws so as to require renewal instead of repeal.

The reconsideration being agreed to. On the question to insert 2/3 in place of 3/4.

N. H. divd Mas. no. Cay. N. J. ay. Pa no. Del. no. Md ay. M. McHenry no. Va no. Gen! Washington M Blair, M. Madison no. Col. Mason, M. Randolph ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay.

M: Williamson, observed to the House that no provision was yet made for juries in Civil cases and suggested the necessity of it.

M. Gorham. It is not possible to discriminate equity cases from those in which juries are proper. The Representatives of the people may be safely trusted in this matter.

M. Gerry urged the necessity of Juries to guard agst corrupt Judges. He proposed that the Committee last appointed should be directed to provide a clause for securing the trial by Juries.

Col: Mason perceived the difficulty mentioned by M Gorham. The jury cases cannot be specified. A general principle laid down on this and some other