the first should govern in the choice of the second branch They prevailed for the moment. A guarantee of a republican constitution, and of its existing laws to each state, was unanimously approved. It was declared that a provision ought to be made for the amendment of the constitution; and that the legislative, executive, and judiciary of each state ought to be bound by oath to support the articles of union. After an approval of the fifteenth resolve, that the amendments to the confederation with the approbation of congress should be submitted to an assembly, or assemblies, elected by the people, the Virginia resolutions were reported to the house on the thirteenth of June.

During the discussion of these resolutions, such of the delegates from Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland, as were in favour of a larger retention of power in the states, prepared a series of resolves, which were on the fifteenth of June submitted by Paterson. They were designated "the Jersey plan." This plan contemplated an enlargement of the powers of congress, without any change in the structure of the government-an apportionment of the ratio of contribution to the population--the election by congress of a plural federal executive—a federal judiciary to be appointed by the executive, to hold during good behaviour-a provision rendering the acts of congress and treaties the supreme law, with compulsory authority over the states by the national force.

This scheme being referred to a committee of the whole house, with a view to bring the respective systems into full contrast, it was moved by Rutledge, seconded by Hamilton, that the amended resolutions from Virginia be recommitted. The broad question, whether a national government, or mere articles of confederation were to be recommended, was now presented. The debate was open

ed on the sixteenth of June, by Lansing. He stated, that the national system proposed to draw the representation from the whole body of the people, without regard to the state sovereignties. That the substitute proposed to preserve the state sovereignties. What were the powers under which the convention acted? "Different legislatures had a different object," but the general purpose was to "revise the confederation." "Independent states cannot be supposed to be willing to annihilate the states." "The state of New-York would not have agreed to send members on this ground."

It is "in vain," he said, "to devise systems, however good, which will not be adopted." "If convulsions happen, nothing we can do will give them a direction. The legislatures cannot be expected to make such a sacrifice." "The wisest men in forming a system from theory are apt to be mistaken." "The present national government has no precedent, or experience to support it," and the general opinion was, that certain additional powers ought to be given to congress."

66

He was followed by Patterson, who observed, first, that their plan accorded with their powers; second, that it accords with the "sentiments of the people. If the confederation was radically defective, we ought to return to our states and tell them so. He came not here to sport sentiments of his own, but to speak the sense of his constituents." The "states treat as equal; the present compact gives one vote to each state. By the articles of the confederation, alterations are to be made by congress, and all the legislatures.' All the parties to a contract must assent to its dissolution. The states collectively have advantages, in which the smaller states do not participate; therefore individual rules do not apply."

The "force of government," he observed, "will not depend on the proportion of representation, but on the quan.

tity of power." "A check is not necessary in a general government of communities, but in an individual state the spirit of faction is to be checked." "How have congress. hitherto conducted themselves? The people approve of congress, but think they have not power enough."

On a comparison of the different schemes of government then before the convention, it is seen that Pinckney would have clothed the legislature with the powers vested in congress by the confederation, and also with the regulation of commerce, the raising money by impost, and with the control of the national force. The Virginia plan would have conferred on the government powers supreme in all questions of national interest; a negative on the laws of the states, with an express declaration of a power to exert the common force against a delinquent state.

Pinckney also proposed a single executive, while the Virginia plan, having confided unlimited powers to the legislature, would have vested the execution of those powers in a plural magistracy, ineligible a second time, controlled by a council of revision constituted from the judiciary, which would thus have become a political agent— those powers to be exercised by a resort to force; to obviate which, Madison is seen to have proposed a negative on the laws of the states.

The Jersey plan. was more objectionable. It created a single legislative body, with the command of the purse and the sword; derived its authority from the states; established an equality of suffrage; proposed that a minority should govern; contemplated partial objects of legislation;* gave no negative upon that of the states; created a plural executive, removable on the application of a majority of the executives of the states, without any negative on the national legislature; and a judiciary, to be appoint

• The revenue was to be derived from imposts, stamps, and postage.

ed by the executive, with power to try impeachments of federal officers, but without any other original jurisdiction, and without inferior tribunals.

Such were the forms of government in contemplation for an empire of almost boundless territory, and destined to contain a countless population.

As neither of these forms was adopted, and as the final result was a compromise, it becomes necessary, in order to judge correctly of the extent of Hamilton's influence upon the character of that compromise, to trace the successive opinions of leading members of the convention.

With this view, it will be remarked, while the plan of Madison and Randolph submitted it as an open question, whether "the right of suffrage in the national legislature ought to be proportioned to the quotas of contribution, or to the number of free inhabitants," that Hamilton was the first to urge the latter as the true basis of a republican government.*

Hamilton urged the choice of the first branch by the people-Madison was undecided, if "by the people or by the legislatures," and while Hamilton would have derived the Senate also from the people,† Madison preferred that it should be chosen by the first branch.

The proposition of Virginia gave the choice of the executive department of the government to the national legislature. Hamilton, pursuing the great principle of a popular government, was in favour of an executive to be chosen by the people in districts through the medium of electors.

Madison was the advocate of a plural executive, and

* Journal of Fed. Con., pp. 67-83. "It was moved by Mr. Hamilton, seconded by Mr. Spaight, that the resolution be altered so as to read: Re. solved, that the rights of suffrage in the national legislature ought to be pro portioned to the number of free inhabitants."

+ Journal, 112.

would have associated with it a revisionary council, to be formed of the national judiciary, having a qualified negative. Hamilton, on the other hand, would have imposed on a single executive an undivided responsibility, without a council of revision. He would have given the appointment of the judiciary to the executive, and would have charged it solely with judicial duties. The judiciary of Madison was to be appointed by the second branch, to be connected with the executive, to act politically as its controlling council, and also as the court of impeachments on the national officers.

Passing from the structure to the powers of the government—while Hamilton would have provided that the executive should take care that the laws were faithfully executed, Madison would have authorized the legislature to delegate to it, from time to time, such other powers, not legislative or judiciary in their nature, as it might choose ;* and would have given it a negative on the laws of the

states.

As to the national legislature, he would have empowered it to "negative all laws" of the states "which to them shall appear improper." It has been seen that while he thought that perhaps this negative "might create a mutual dependence between the general and particular authorities,” and thus "that the necessity of operating by force on the collective will of a state might be precluded," he said, “the right of coercion should be expressly declared." This was by far the highest toned form of government submitted to the convention, and as it intermingled injuriously the different departments, and derived them all from the first legislative branch, would have resulted in an odious and intolerable tyranny, in which the executive and senate would have been the creatures and mere instruments