the executive, who must be taken from some one State? The members, however, refused to recede from the position they had already taken, and Pinckney's motion for proportional representation in the Senate was rejected.1

Having now gone through the plan and fixed its important landmarks, the task of settling minor matters was comparatively easy. But details were likely to bring up all the old differences of opinion and many new ones.

1 Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, South Carolina, aye; Massachusetts (King aye, Gorham absent), Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, North Carolina, Georgia, no. Reasonably on the 16th the first question taken up was on agreeing to the whole report of the committee as amended including an equality of votes in the second branch and the report was approved, though only by a majority of one; Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina (Spaight no), aye; Pennsylvania, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, no. Massachusetts divided. (Gerry and Strong aye, King, Gorham no). See the report as amended in the Journal, Documentary History, I, 94-96, in Elliot, I, 105-106.

CHAPTER VI.

DETAILS OF THE PLAN ELABORATED.

The equal vote of the States in the Senate did not satisfy the national party, who had confidently expected that proportional representation would prevail in both branches. Randolph, believing that his views might yet be adopted by some arrangement that would satisfy the smaller States, suggested an adjournment that the large States might confer in the crisis and the small ones originate some plan of conciliation.1 Patterson, speaking doubtless for some delegates from the small States, quickly agreed that it was high time for the members to adjourn, rescind the rule of secrecy, and consult their constituents. But Randolph had not intended to be taken so literally; he wished an adjournment only for a day, and in this it was found he expressed the wishes of the majority. The adjournment was taken, and a conference of the delegates from the larger States was held, attended by some from the smaller. Their conversation soon disclosed the impolicy of risking a failure of the Convention by opposing the decision already reached, but the best result of the consultation was the conviction of the delegates from the smaller States that they had nothing to apprehend from a Union with the larger in any plan, even with proportional representation in the Senate. It would appear that at this critical moment nothing was more timely than an informal conference of this kind on all matters in dispute. At last it was settled that it would be unsafe to disturb the equal vote in the Senate.2

1 July 16.

2 This chapter is based on the debates in the Convention, July 16-26. See Madison's Notes in the Documentary History, III, 344-443; Elliot, V, 317-375; Journal, Documentary History, I, 96-112; Elliot, I, 207-220; Madison's Works (Gilpin), II, 11101226; Scott's Edition, Madison's Papers, 356-449.

NATIONAL AND STATE POWERS.

445

It was difficult to fix the dividing line between national and State powers, though Sherman thought it could be drawn without difficulty.1 The general legislature should be authorized to make laws binding upon the people of the United States in cases concerning their common interests, but should not interfere with the internal police of the States. Morris opposed this because it would allow the States to emit issues of paper money. Sherman read an enumeration of powers to be granted including taxes on trade but not direct taxation. From this Morris inferred that Sherman intended that the general government should depend on requisitions like the old Congress, an idea, he said, subversive of government. Though Sherman's suggestion was rejected, it indicated the swing of the pendulum, for Bedford and Morris now proposed to empower the general legislature to pass laws in all cases, including those in which the States were incompetent; a proposition which tended to limit the authority of the States just as Sherman's had tended to limit the authority of the Nation. The idea startled Randolph, because it involved the violation of State constitutions and laws, but familiar with such violations by the States and the consequent unhappy experience of the Confederation, the majority agreed with Bedford.2

Morris opposed granting the national legislature the power to negative State laws even when controvening the Constitution or treaties; the grant, he said, was unnecessary, as it would be included in the authority of the general legislature. Martin opposed it as improper, because subjecting the States to an inquisition by the general leg

1 July 17.

2 Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, aye; South Carolina and Georgia, no.

islature. But Madison pronounced it essential both to the efficiency and the security of the government, for the States would pursue their particular interests and tend to destroy the general system unless effectually controlled. The State courts could not be trusted, as Sherman had intimated, to pronounce against laws controvening the authority of the Union, for the judges were appointed by the legislatures and would probably be displaced, as they had been in Rhode Island, if they pronounced a law unconstitutional.1 Morris, however, was not convinced, believing that the very proposal of the negative would antagonize all the States. The national judiciary should set aside a law, and this view was sustained. Without discussion, a proposition of Martin's was then adopted, that the legislative acts of the United States and of treaties under their authority should be the supreme law, by which the judges in the States should be bound.

Though it was agreed that the national executive should be a single person, there was much diversity of opinion as to the manner of choosing him. The State precedents did not favor a popular election, yet the Convention did not like to trust the choice to the assemblies. The distrust of the large States by the small disfavored any mode that was likely to give the larger ones the best chance for the appointment. Morris, after measuring all the difficulties, preferred an election by the freeholders of the country at large. The New England members, familiar with the idea, also favored this, but the delegates from the South, having no experience with this method, generally opposed it.

The principal objections to the plan were the incapacity of the people to select the proper person,-a difficulty inci

1 In Trevett vs. Weeden, 1786; Chandler's Criminal Trials, 269. See also pages 268-9, ante.

THE OLD VS. THE NEW ECONOMY.

447

dent to the limitations set on the elective franchise at this time, and the lack of facilities for knowing the candidates, who might reside at a distance from the voter. The economic transformation which has made the America of our day so unlike the America of the time of this Convention, was not then anticipated. Its members saw no prospect of a large extension of the franchise,1 nor could they see any way by which the voters would be able to become judges of the qualifications of candidates in different States. The few newspapers in existence had a limited circulation about their place of issue. A Virginian, who seldom saw the Gazette of his own State had scarcely heard of the existence of Gazettes in others, and of their contents he was in deplorable ignorance. That restless and free movement among the people which characterizes America to-day was unknown. What knowledge the masses of the people had of public affairs in their own States was obtained chiefly by hearsay, and only vague rumors reached them of the course of events in other Statés. On account of these limitations, the people were peculiarly open to oral appeals. It was the age of local politics. The dependence of the people upon public speakers for a knowledge of public affairs largely explains that personal influence which a few men acquired in the country, and also that anxiety for the success of the new plan of government which the members of the Convention frequently expressed, for they knew that the people would derive their notions of it almost entirely from their favorite leaders, who, if opposed to the new plan, would not hesitate to misrepresent its character and purpose. Thus the economic condition of the country at the time dominated their thought and practically determined the mode of choosing the chief executive.

1 See Chapters in Book II., post, Vol. JII.