MR. ELSWORTH wished the senate to have “_wisdom_ and _firmness_, as a protection against the hasty and inconsiderate proceedings of the _first branch_;” and yet he wished an election by the legislatures. This speech was in opposition to MR. WILSON'S motion for the people to elect by districts. If he had wished the wisdom and firmness as a protection from the “wild and inconsiderate democracy of the state legislatures,” as the modern doctrines contend, would he have preferred that body as electors? MR. MASON said, on the same proposition, “It is equally necessary to preserve the state governments, as they ought to have the _means of self defence_. On the motion of MR. WILSON _the only means they ought to have would be destroyed_.” On the debate as to _equality_ of votes in the senate, a similar contest arose, with a similar result. In that debate JUDGE ELSWORTH remarks, “If the larger states seek security, they have it fully in the first branch of the general government. Small states must possess the power of _self-defence or be ruined_. Will any one say there is _no diversity of interests in the states_? And if there is, should not those interests be _guarded_ and _secured_? But if there is none, then the large states have nothing to _apprehend_ from an equality of rights.” This is all utterly inconsistent with the idea of the “senator for one being the senator for all,” so far as to set the interests and wishes of his own state at defiance. The states-rights-men, and the small states obtained this protection and security after an arduous and manly struggle—are they to lose it by construction and recreancy of representatives? It may be to the interest, perhaps, of the large states for a time, to establish this doctrine, but it would speedily swallow all in the federal Maelstrom. If, for instance, Pennsylvania should ever wish a national bank, it might be agreeable to turn the voices of New Jersey, Delaware and Rhode Island in opposition to the deliberate will of those states, by persuading their senators that they were senators for the union and not of those little states, and that the interest of Pennsylvania ought to be considered before that of their diminutive states. But it would be very unpleasant for her own senators to tell Pennsylvania, in spite of instructions, we voted money for a steamboat canal from the Ohio to Baltimore, because it would benefit all the western country, and we are senators for all.