"But what conclusively proves that the choice of the H. of Reps. _by the people_ could not have been the choice in the lost paper is a letter from Mr. Pinckney to J. M. of _March 28, 1789_, now on his files, in which he emphatically adheres to a choice by the _State Legrs._ The following is an extract--'Are you not, to use a full expression, abundantly convinced that the theoretical nonsense of an election of the members of Congress by the people in the first instance, is clearly and practically wrong--that it will in the end be the means of bringing our Councils into contempt and that the Legislatures (of the States) are the only proper judges of who ought to be elected?'" It is plain that Madison intended that the last two paragraphs of the foregoing, beginning with an asterisk, should take the form of an editorial note, and he so prepared the paper even to the placing of the asterisk at the beginning. As long before this as 1821 he had determined in his own mind that the publication of the Journal should be as he termed it, "a posthumous one" (letter to Thomas Ritchie September 15, 1821), and he carried out the intention by so providing in his will made in 1835. The expected editor was Mrs. Madison; and she, he knew, would scrupulously and intelligently carry into effect his slightest wish. She was not able to perform the editorial task. When these charges of Madison are analyzed they may be reduced to three. The first and most serious charge is that there are coincidences "in several instances" between the draught and the Constitution--"a similarity in some cases and an identity in others with details, expressions and definitions" which were "the results of critical discussion and modification in the Convention." The second is that there are provisions in the draught inconsistent with Pinckney's known views, with the propositions which he presented and the speeches which he made in the Convention and that these provisions are so inconsistent with his views and speeches that they are "conclusive evidence of error" in the draught. The third, is that Pinckney immediately after the sittings of the Convention printed and published a paper entitled "Observations" which described the contents of the draught which he had presented to the Convention and that the two are utterly irreconcilable. CHAPTER VII THE PLAGIARISMS