CHAPTER VIII.

WORK BEFORE THE CONVENTION.

REFERENCES.

I. GENERAL.-Elliot's Debates, Vol. I. (containing Journal of the Convention) and Vol. V. (containing Madison's reports of the debates). Also Papers of James Madison, Vol. III. (Debates in the Federal Convention, etc.)

II. SPECIAL.-Bancroft, Vol. VI., (The Formation of the Constitution, 3), and History of the Constitution; Hildreth, Fiske, Johnston, Cooley, same as last chapter; Von Holst, Chap. I.; Story, Book III., Chap. I.; Frothingham, Chap. XII.; Winsor, Vol. VII., Chap. IV., Pitkin, Chaps. XVIII., XIX.; Hart, Chap. VI.; Schouler, History of the U.S., Chap. I., Sec. 2; MacMaster, same reference as last chapter; Burgess, Political Science, etc., Book III., Chap. II.

For a popular purpose, the best book that deals with the Constitutional era is Fiske's Critical Period of American History.

171. Meeting and Organization.-On the day fixed, May 14, 1787, a number of delegates to the Federal Convention met at the State House in Philadelphia, but a majority of the States was not present until the 25th, when an organization was effected. Washington was unanimously chosen President and William Jackson Secretary.

172. Groups of Questions.-When the Convention came to debate and to vote, it was discovered that the members differed widely in opinion on many subjects. Still, the multitude of issues that arose, first and last, can be divided into three groups: (1) Questions relating to the organic nature of the government, or to the source of its powers and the mode of its operation. (2) Questions relating to the internal construction of the government considered as an organism or machine, its model or framework. (3) Questions relating to the powers of the government, or the functions that it should perform.

T

173. Relations of the Questions.-These groups of questions were at once closely related, and yet quite distinct. The National Government could be based directly on the people rather than on the States, and at the same time consist of a congress of one house and be limited to a narrow field of operations; or a congress of one house, elected by the States, could be clothed with ample powers and act immediately on the people through its agents; or a government of three departments, with a congress of two houses could be organized. At the same time, the "strong" elements tended to affiliate, and so did the "weak" ones. Mr. Dickinson said to Mr. Madison: 'Some of the members from the small States wish for two branches in the general legislature, and are friends to a good National government; but we would sooner submit to a foreign power than submit to being deprived of an equality of suffrage and thereby be thrown under the domination of the larger States.'

991

66

174. Nature of the Government.—In the discussions of the Articles of Confederation in 1776-1777, an issue had arisen involving the large and the small States. ginia, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts, which together had about one-half the population of the Union, were dissatisfied with the rule adopted in 1774, giving the States an equal suffrage in Congress. They strove to secure the adoption of a new rule which should give the States power in proportion to their importance, and proposed population as the basis of representation. This plan the other States defeated. But out of this feeling, which had grown with the growth of State power, sprang the question that most troubled the Convention of 1787. It was simply whether the Federal Government should spring directly from the States as political corporations, or directly from the people of the States. Should representation be equal, or be according to the importance of the States as measured by their population, or some other standard to be agreed upon?

1 Elliot's Debates, Vol. V., p 191, Note.

175. The National Party.-According to the resolution of Congress, the sole purpose of the Convention was to propose such a revision of the Articles of Confederation as should render the Federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union. But as the Virginia and Maryland commissioners at Alexandria had found it impossible for those States alone to regulate the navigation of their common waters; and as the Annapolis Convention had found it impossible for all the States to regulate trade separate and apart from other important matters, so now some delegates believed that no mere revision of the Articles would be adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union, and held that a new constitution based on new principles was necessary. They therefore proposed a National System, comprehending these ideas: A government emanating directly from the people; proportional representation; three branches and a bicameral legislature, and ample powers exercised by National officers. These men were called the National party, the Thorough-revision party, and the Large-state party.

176. The State Party.-Some delegates opposed all these ideas; others opposed the first two, and particularly proportional representation. These all favored what they called "a State System," the central idea of which was an equal suffrage in Congress. Some of them, however, were quite willing that the framework of the government should be altered, if only the States should have equal power in it. This second group was called the State, the Small-state, and the Slight-revision party.

177. The Fundamental Question.-The fundamental question was, the National idea or the State idea. National men said it was un-republican for the 37,000 people of Delaware to have the same weight in the Union as the half million of Virginia. State men replied that the Union was a confederation, that a confederation assumed sovereignty in its members, and that sovereignty implied equal

ity. The first rejoined that they favored a National system; and then the second responded that they would never consent to such a system. Mr. Patterson declared that, with proportional suffrage, the large States would swallow the small ones; Dr. Franklin replied that the large States neither would nor could combine to swallow the small ones, and that with equal suffrage it was as much in the power of the small States to swallow the large ones. The small States did not care so much about the powers of the National Government, or even its framework, as they did about the absorption of those powers by the large States, which they declared a proportional suffrage would make inevitable. Hence, the contention was not so much about powers as about the hands that the powers should fall into. The fact that an equal vote had been the rule since the Union began, gave the State party a decided advantage. With this question two others were affiliated, viz., the representation of property and supplies for the treasury.

178. Representation of Property. Some men thought the government should also be based, in part at least, upon wealth. Property, they said, had rights as well as persons. The British House of Commons rested to a great extent on this basis. Some of those who took this view thought suffrage in Congress should be in proportion to contributions to the National treasury; others, that it should be in proportion to the wealth of the States.

179. Supplies for the Treasury.—It was generally agreed that Congress should have power to levy customsduties. But it was supposed that these would be insufficient; that direct taxes, or requisitions on the States, would be necessary; and so the question arose how these taxes should be apportioned. Should the apportionment be according to the population of the States? or according to property? or be equal? And if according to population, should the rule be the white population, the free population, or the total population? State men were not in favor of an equal tax; while National men naturally asked why

the tax should not be equal as well as the vote. These questions were not new; they had vexed Congress when framing the Articles of Confederation.

180. Framework of the Government.-This issue, as already stated, related to the model, or construction, of the Government considered as a machine. It was proposed that the Government should consist of a legislature alone, and this of but one house. This was merely retaining the old framework. Another proposition was, a government of three independent branches, and a congress of two houses. Besides these principal questions there were many minor ones that fall into the same group, as: How shall the President and Vice-President be chosen? What shall be their duties? and, How shall the Judiciary be organized?

181. Powers of the Government.-At one extreme of the Convention stood a few men who desired as much as possible to centralize powers, and to leave the States a minimum; at the other extreme, a larger number who did not favor giving the Union any considerable increase of powers; between the two extremes stood a third class who were desirous of materially strengthening the Government, but by no means agreeing among themselves concerning details. Two of the questions at issue will be stated.

182. Control of Commerce.-While the evils resulting from State control of commerce were universally felt, and were also the main cause of the Convention's being called, still the delegates were far from being a unit when they came to deal with the subject. New Jersey had proposed when the Articles were framed to give Congress power over foreign trade. The Northern States, which owned most of the shipping and carried on most of the commerce, were now generally anxious to have the control of commerce put into the hands of Congress; the Southern States, which were interested in a few principal agricultural staples, as Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware in tobacco, North Carolina in ship-stores, South Carolina in rice, and Georgia in indigo — shrank from this conclusion.