The Journal of the Debates in the Convention which Framed the Constitution of the United States, May-September 1787. Volume 1Madison, James
History
The Journal of the Debates in the Convention which Framed the Constitution of the United States, May-September 1787. Volume 1
Madison, James
Constitutional law -- United States; Constitutions -- United States; United States. Constitution
observations, without grounding any motion on them.
[123] He had just returned from N. Y. hav^g left y^e Convention
a few days after it commenced business.--Madison's Note.
M^r Randolph favored the commitment though he did not expect much
benefit from the expedient. He animadverted on the warm & rash language
of M^r Bedford on Saturday; reminded the small States that if the large
States should combine some danger of which he did not deny there would
be a check in the revisionary power of the Executive, and intimated that
in order to render this still more effectual, he would agree that in the
choice of an Executive each State should have an equal vote. He was
persuaded that two such opposite bodies as M^r Morris had planned, could
never long co-exist. Dissentions would arise, as has been seen even
between the Senate and H. of Delegates in Maryland, appeals would be
made to the people; and in a little time commotions would be the
result--He was far from thinking the large States could subsist of
themselves any more than the small; an avulsion would involve the whole
in ruin, and he was determined to pursue such a scheme of Government as
would secure us ag^{st} such a calamity.
M^r Strong was for the co[~m]itment; and hoped the mode of constituting
both branches would be referred. If they should be established on
different principles, contentions would prevail, and there would never
be a concurrence in necessary measures.
Doc^r Williamson. If we do not concede on both sides, our business must
soon be at an end. He approved of the co[~m]itment, supposing that as
the Com^e w^d be a smaller body, a compromise would be pursued with more
coolness.
M^r Wilson objected to the Committee, because it would decide according
to that very rule of voting which was opposed on one side. Experience in
Cong^s had also proved the inutility of Committees consisting of members
from each State.
M^r Lansing w^d not oppose the commitment, though expecting little
advantage from it.
M^r Madison opposed the Co[~m]itment. He had rarely seen any other
effect than delay from _such_ Committees in Cong^s. Any scheme of
compromise that could be proposed in the Committee might as easily be
proposed in the House; and the report of the Committee where it
contained merely the _opinion_ of the Com^e would neither shorten the
discussion, nor influence the decision of the House.
M^r Gerry was for the commitm^t. Something must be done, or we shall
disappoint not only America, but the whole world. He suggested a
consideration of the State we should be thrown into by the failure of
the Union. We should be without an Umpire to decide controversies and
must be at the mercy of events. What too is to become of our
treaties--what of our foreign debts, what of our domestic? We must make
concessions on both sides. Without these the Constitutions of the
several States would never have been formed.
On the question "for co[~m]iting," generally:
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