History of the Origin, Formation, and Adoption of the Constitution of the United States, Vol. 2: With Notices of Its Principle FramersCurtis, George Ticknor
History
History of the Origin, Formation, and Adoption of the Constitution of the United States, Vol. 2: With Notices of Its Principle Framers
Curtis, George Ticknor
Constitutional history -- United States
[138] The members who advocated the exemption were G. Morris, Mercer,
Gorham, Madison, and Wilson; those who opposed it were Rutledge,
Sherman, General Pinckney, Mason, and Baldwin. The States voting for
it were Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, 5;
the States voting against it were New Hampshire, Massachusetts,
Delaware, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, 6. The question
elicited a good deal of feeling, and was debated with some warmth.
[139] _Ante_, Chap. VII.
[140] See _ante_, Chap. VIII.
[141] See _post_, as to the compromise on this subject.
[142] September 8.
[143] Elliot, V. 530.
[144] By a majority of one State. Ibid.
[145] That is to say, Congress were authorized to apportion one
representative to thirty thousand inhabitants, but not to exceed that
number. Constitution, Art. I. § 2.
[146] Let the reader consult Mr. Hallam's acute and learned discussion
of this exclusive privilege of the House of Commons, (Const. Hist.,
III. 37-46,) and he will probably be satisfied, that, whatever
theoretical reasons different writers may have assigned for it, its
origin is so obscure, and its precise limits and purposes, deduced
from the precedents, are so uncertain, that it can now be said to rest
on no positive principles. Its basis is custom; which, having no
definite beginning, is now necessarily immemorial. It would not be
quite safe, therefore, to reason upon the well-defined provision of
our Constitution, as if there were a close analogy between the
situation of the two houses of Congress and the two branches of the
British legislature. The English example certainly had an influence,
in suggesting the plan of such a restriction; but care must be taken
not to overlook the peculiar arrangements which made it so highly
expedient, that it may be said to have been a necessity, even if there
had been no British example.
[147] C. Pinckney. Elliot, V. 189. June 13.
[148] On the question for restraining the Senate from originating
money bills, New York, Delaware, Virginia, _ay_, 3; Massachusetts,
Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Georgia, _no_, 7. Ibid.
[149] Elliot, V. 285. _Ante_, Chap. VIII.
[150] August 8. For striking out, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware,
Maryland, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, _ay_, 7; New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, Connecticut, North Carolina, _no_, 4.
[151] Dr. Franklin, Mason, Williamson, and Randolph (Elliot, V.
395-397.) It would be endless to cite the observations of different
members, to show the purposes which they entertained. The reader, who
desires to test the accuracy of my inferences in any of these
descriptions, must study the debates, and compare, as I have done, the
different _phases_ which the subject assumed from time to time.
[152] Moved by Randolph, August 13. Elliot, V. 414.
[153] Ibid. 420.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account