Wilson of Pennsylvania “wished for vigor in the government, but he wished that vigorous authority to flow immediately from the legitimate source of all authority.” (5 _Ell. Deb._ 160.) Later he said, “If we are to establish a _national_ government, that government ought to flow from the people at large. If one branch of it should be chosen by the legislatures, and the other by the people, the two branches will rest on different foundations, and dissensions will naturally arise between them.” (5 _Ell. Deb._ 167.) Dickenson of Delaware “considered it _essential_ that one branch of the legislature should be drawn immediately from the people, and _expedient_ that the other should be chosen by the legislatures of the states.” (5 _Ell. Deb._ 163.) Gerry of Massachusetts, consistent Tory in his mental attitude toward the relation of government to people, insisted that “the commercial and moneyed interest would be more secure in the hands of the state legislatures than of the people at large. The former have more sense of character, and will be restrained by that from injustice.” (5 _Ell. Deb._ 169.) On June 25, Wilson, at some length, opposed the election of senators by the state legislatures. He stated that: “He was opposed to an election by state legislatures. In explaining his reasons, it was necessary to observe the two-fold relation in which the people would stand--first, as citizens of the general government; and, secondly, as citizens of their particular state. The general government was meant for them in the first capacity; the state governments in the second. Both governments were derived from the people; both meant for the people; both therefore ought to be regulated on the same principles.... The general government is not an assemblage of states, but of individuals, for certain political purposes. It is not meant for the states, but for the individuals composing them; the _individuals_, therefore, not the _states_, ought to be represented in it.” (5 _Ell. Deb._ 239.)