On June 19 Mr. Madison made the closing argument against the Jersey plan.

MR. MADISON.-Many persons scruple the powers of the convention. If this remark had any weight it is equally applicable to the adoption of either plan. The difference of drawing the powers in the one from the people and in the other from the States does not affect the powers. There are two States in the Union where the members of Congress are chosen by the people. A new government must be made. Our all is depending on it; and, if we have but a clause that the people will adopt, there is then a chance for our preservation. Although all the States have assented to the Confederation, an infraction of any one article by one of the States is a dissolution of the whole. This is the doctrine of the civil law on treaties.

Jersey pointedly refused complying with a requisition of Congress and was guilty of this infraction, although she afterward rescinded her non-complying resolve. What is the object of a confederation? It is twofold: first, to maintain the union; secondly, good government. Will the Jersey plan secure these points? No; it is still in the power of the confederated States to violate treaties. Has not Georgia, in direct violation of the Confederation, made war with the Indians, and concluded treaties? Have not Virginia and Maryland entered into a partial compact? Have not Pennsylvania and Jersey regulated the bounds. of the Delaware? Has not the State of Massachusetts at this time a considerable body of troops in pay? Has not Congress been obliged to pass a conciliatory act in support of a decision of their federal court, between Connecticut and Pennsylvania, instead of having the power of carrying into effect the judgment of their own court? Nor does the Jersey plan provide for a ratification, by the respective States, of the powers intended to be vested. It is also defective in the establishment of the judiciary, granting only an appellate jurisdiction, without providing for a second trial; and, in case the executive of a State should pardon an offender, how will it affect the definite judgment on appeal? It is evident, if we do not radically depart from a federal plan, we shall share the fate of ancient and modern confederacies. The Amphictyonic council, like the American Congress, had the power of judging, in the last resort, in war and peaceto call out forces-send ambassadors. What was its fate or continuance? Philip of Macedon with little difficulty destroyed every appearance of it. The Athenian had nearly the same fate. The Helvetic confederacy is rather a league. In the German

confederacy the parts are too strong for the whole. The Dutch are in a most wretched situation-weak in all its parts, and only supported by surrounding contending powers.

The rights of individuals are infringed by many of the State laws such as issuing paper money and instituting a mode to discharge debts differing from the form of the contract. the Jersey plan any checks to prevent the mischief? Does it in any instance secure internal tranquillity? Right and force, in a system like this, are synonymous terms. When force is employed to support the system, and men obtain military habits, is there no danger they may turn their arms against their employers? Will the Jersey plan prevent foreign influence? Did not Persia and Macedon distract the councils of Greece by acts of corruption? And are not Jersey and Holland at this day subject to the same distractions? Will not the plan be burdensome to the smaller States, if they have an equal representation? But how is military coercion to enforce government? True, a smaller State may be brought to obedience, or crushed; but what if one of the larger States should prove disobedient-are you sure you can, by force, effect a submission? Suppose we cannot agree on any plan; what will be the condition of the smaller States? Will Delaware and Jersey be safe against Pennsylvania, or Rhode Island against Massachusetts? And how will the smaller States be situated in case of partial confederacies? Will they not be obliged to make larger concessions to the greater States? The point of representation is the great point of dif ference, and which the greater States cannot give up; and, although there was an equalization of States, State distinctions would still exist. But this is totally impracticable; and what would be the effect of the Jersey plan if ten or twelve new States were added?

At the conclusion of Mr. Madison's remarks the Convention in committee of the whole reported the Jersey plan as inadmissible.

CHAPTER XII

STRONG OR WEAK GOVERNMENT?

[DEBATE IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION ON BASIS OF REPRESENTATION]

Debate on the Virginia Plan of Representation of States in Congress According to Population: in favor (in the main), James Wilson [Pa.], James Madison [Va.], Charles Pinckney [S. C.], Alexander Hamilton [N. Y.], Hugh Williamson [N. C.], Elbridge Gerry [Mass.], Rufus King [Mass.], Gov. Edmund Randolph [Va.]; opposed (in the main), John Lansing, Jr. [N. Y.], George Mason [Va.], Dr. William Samuel Johnson [Ct.], Judge Oliver Ellsworth [Ct.], Luther Martin [Md.], Gov. Benjamin Franklin [Pa.], George Read [Del.], Abraham Baldwin [Ga.], Gunning S. Bedford, Jr. [Del.], Gouverneur Morris [Pa.], Robert Yates and Lansing, of New York, Leave the Convention-Their Report to Gov. George Clinton-George Washington's Despairing Letter to Hamilton.

I

N the debate which ensued on the adoption of the Virginia plan, the chief speakers were, mainly in the affirmative: James Wilson [Pa.], James Madison [Va.], Charles Pinckney [S. C.], Alexander Hamilton [N. Y.], Hugh Williamson [N. C.], Elbridge Gerry [Mass.], Rufus King [Mass.], and Gov. Edmund Randolph [Va.]; mainly in the negative: John Lansing, Jr. [N. Y.], George Mason [Va.], Dr. William Samuel Johnson [Ct.], Judge Oliver Ellsworth [Ct.], Luther Martin [Md.], Gov. Benjamin Franklin [Pa.], George Read [Del.], Abraham Baldwin [Ga.], Gunning S. Bedford, Jr. [Del.], and Gouverneur Morris [Pa.].

STRONG OR WEAK GOVERNMENT?

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, JUNE 19-JULY 5, 1787

MR. LANSING. I am clearly of opinion that I am not authorized to accede to a system which will annihilate the State governments, and the Virginia plan is declarative of such extinction.

It has been asserted that the public mind is not known. To some points it may be true; but we may collect from the fate of the requisition of the impost what it may be on the principles of a national government. When many of the States were so tenacious of their rights on this point, can we expect that thirteen States will surrender their governments up to a national plan? Rhode Island pointedly refused granting it. Certainly she had a federal right to do so; and I hold it as an undoubted truth, as long as State distinctions remain, let the national government be modified as you please, both branches of your legislature will be impressed with local and State attachments. The Virginia plan proposes a negative on the State laws where, in the opinion of the national legislature, they contravene the national government; and no laws can pass unless approved by them. They will have more than a law in a day to revise; and are they competent to judge of the wants and necessities of remote States?

This national government will, from their power, have great influence in the State governments; and the existence of the latter is only saved in appearance. And has it not been asserted that they expect their extinction? If this be the object, let us say so, and extinguish them at once. But remember, if we devise a system of government which will not meet the approbation of our constituents, we are dissolving the Union; but, if we act within the limits of our power, it will be approved of; and should it, upon experiment, prove defective, the people will intrust a future convention again to amend it. Fond as many are of a general government, do any of you believe that it can pervade the whole continent so effectually as to secure the peace, harmony, and happiness of the whole? The excellence of the British model of government has been much insisted on; but we are endeavoring to complicate it with State governments, on principles which will gradually destroy the one or the other. You are sowing the seeds of rivalship, which must at last end in ruin.

MR. MASON.-The material difference between the two plans has already been clearly pointed out. The objection to that of Virginia arises from the want of power to institute it, and the want of practicability to carry it into effect. Will the first objection apply to a power merely recommendatory? In certain seasons of public danger it is commendable to exceed power. The treaty of peace, under which we now enjoy the blessings of freedom, was made by persons who exceeded their powers. It met the approbation of the public and thus deserved the praises

of those who sent them. The impracticability of the plan is still more groundless. These measures are supported by one who, at his time of life, has little to hope or expect from any government. Let me ask: Will the people intrust their dearest rights and liberties to the determination of one body of men, and those not chosen by them, and who are invested both with the sword and purse? They never will-they never can-to a conclave, transacting their business secret from the eye of the public. Do we not discover by their public journals of the years 1778-9 and 1780 that factions and party spirit had guided many of their acts? The people of America, like all other people, are unsettled in their minds, and their principles fixed to no object, except that a republican government is the best and that the legislature ought to consist of two branches. The constitutions of the respective States, made and approved of by them, evince this principle. Congress, however, from other causes, received a different organization. What! would you use military force to compel the observance of a social compact? It is destructive to the rights of the people. Do you expect the militia will do it? or do you mean a standing army? The first will never, on such an occasion, exert any power; and the latter may turn its arms against the government which employs them. I never will consent to destroy State governments, and will ever be as careful to preserve the one as the other. If we should, in the formation of the latter, have omitted some necessary regulation, I will trust my posterity to amend it. That the one government will be productive of disputes and jealousies against the other, I believe; but it will produce mutual safety. I shall close with observing that, though some have expressed much warmth on this and former occasions, I can excuse it as the result of sudden passion; and hope that, although we may differ in some particular points, if we mean the good of the whole, that our good sense, upon reflection, will prevent us from spreading our discontent farther.

MR. WILSON.-The question before us may admit of the three following considerations:

1. Whether the legislature shall consist of one or two branches.

2. Whether they are to be elected by the State governments or by the people.

3. Whether in proportion to State importance, or States individually.

Confederations are usually of a short date. The Amphictyonic council was instituted in the infancy of the Grecian re