Page images
PDF
EPUB

INTRODUCTION TO THE ANALYSIS.

WHEN the members of the Constitutional Convention assembled in Philadelphia, to enter upon the discharge of the duties which had been assigned to them, they had very vague, undefined, and incongruous views of the work upon which they were entering. Some of them supposed that their powers and duties. were limited to devising such amendments to the existing articles of confederation, as would enable Congress to provide a revenue by a tariff of duties on imports, for the purpose of raising a fund for the payment of the public debt, and to secure uniformity in the commercial regulations of the several States. This idea was sustained by the general course of the proceedings, both in Congress and in the State legislatures, which had immediately led to the assembling of a general convention. The delegates to the Annapolis convention, which was the immediate precursor to that at Philadelphia, were limited in their commissions to those objects; and the instructions given by the State legislatures to most of the members of the constitutional convention, seemed to contemplate little more than a revision and amendment of the existing Articles of Confederation.

Others of the members, particularly those from Virginia and South Carolina, were prepared to enter at once upon the construc

tion of the organic law for a supreme general government, without regard, either in form or substance, to the existing articles of confederation. Mr. Madison, in a letter addressed to his colleague, Mr. Randolph, dated some time prior to the meeting, and prior to the election of delegates in several of the States, had suggested this view of the purpose and duty of the Convention.

On the opening of the session, Mr. Randolph submitted a series of resolutions, embodying his views (which were substantially those suggested to him by Mr. Madison), of the character of government he proposed to have established.

Mr. Charles Pinckney, of South Carolina, at the same time, submitted his plan, embodying a similar purpose, but in a more detailed form. Both of these are inserted in another part of this volume.

These two propositions were immediately referred to the committee of the whole, and became the basis of an earnest and protracted debate. In order to bring the question of the powers and purposes of the convention to a direct issue, Mr. Randolph, on the suggestion of Mr. Gouverneur Morris, modified his first resolution so as to declare, that a national government ought to be established, with supreme executive, legislative, and judiciary departments. Mr. Patterson, from New Jersey, in behalf of the delegates from that State, and of a majority of those from New York and some others, submitted a counter proposition, providing for such an amendment of the existing Articles of Confederation as would tend to obviate the difficulties which had been the principal subjects of complaint. After a protracted discussion of these several propositions, that of Mr. Randolph prevailed by a decisive majority. After the passage of the resolution, its phraseology was changed by substituting the words "United States" in place of the word "National." This may, perhaps, be regarded as a concession to

some extent, on the part of the advocates of a strictly national government, to those who favored the maintenance of the confed

eracy.

This question being settled, the Convention proceeded to the formation of the new CONSTITUTION. It having been agreed that the legislature should consist of two branches, the next important question upon which the members were divided, was in regard to the manner in which the respective States were to be represented in the legislative bodies.

The States of Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, contended that the several States should be represented in both houses of Congress, in proportion to the population and wealth of each State. New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Delaware insisted that the equality which the States had enjoyed in the confederation, as sovereign political communities, should be maintained in all of the branches of the new general government. The tenacity with which the two parties adhered to their respective positions on this question, seriously threatened the disruption of the Convention.

The smaller States, together with New York, finally yielded to a proportional representation in the popular branch of Congress, but firmly adhered to their resolution to maintain their equality in the Senate, and intimated the alternative of secession, if this should be refused. The opposite party indicated its determination to accept the alternative. At this crisis, a committee of one from each State, was raised to make a further effort to effect a compromise. In this committee, the two parties were equally represented; but Dr. Franklin, the member of the committee for Pennsylvania, finding the other party resolved to adhere to their position at all hazards, yielded the point of equal State representation in the Senate, on condition that all bills for raising or

appropriating money should originate in the other house. This compromise was sustained by the Convention, but by a vote less than a majority of the States represented, there being, on the final vote, but five States in the affirmative, namely Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina; and four in the negative - Pennsylvania, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia; New York absent, Massachusetts divided.

The basis of representation in the House of Representatives, presented the next subject of serious controversy. The northern delegates generally contended that the free population should constitute the sole basis while those from the South insisted that the entire population should be taken into the account. A ground of compromise for this difficulty, was found in the mode of counting the population when it was to be made the basis of taxation instead of the measure of power, and when the interests of the parties were in a reversed position.

These fundamental questions having been adjusted, the Convention proceeded to the arrangement of the details of the Constitution without serious difficulty.

The usual mode of proceeding was, to consider the several propositions, as they were submitted, first in committee of the whole and then in Convention, and if approved, they were referred to a committee of detail, who embodied them in proper form and reported them back to the Convention. They were then reconsidered by the Convention and further modified, when deemed expedient, and finally referred to a committee of style and arrangement. This last committee did not report until the closing days of the session, and their report, although it varies, in some respects, from what seems to have been the action of the Convention, was adopted without being questioned. This may account for some of the paragraphs, and particularly the pream

ble, appearing in a somewhat different form in the Constitution from that which the journal gives them.

It is well known that the proceedings of the Convention were secret, and that, for what has transpired beyond the contents of the official journal, we are mainly indebted to Mr. Madison and Judge Lansing of New York, who kept daily notes of the proceedings and debates of the Convention, from which this part of the work is principally compiled.

It is the main purpose of this Analysis, to give such a history of the several clauses of the Constitution, as will make the objects and intentions of its framers clear and intelligible. This, it has occurred to me, could be most conveniently accomplished, by giving, in connection with each clause, its origin and the modifications it underwent or which were proposed to be given to it, and a brief statement of the debate upon it, during its progress in the Convention, until it assumed the form in which it appears in the Constitution. To this is added the judicial construction, if any, that it has received. The convenience of this arrangement will be obvious. The framers of the Constitution were certainly the most competent to explain its intended import. If the original form of a proposition was changed, the change itself or the reason assigned for it, would indicate the object aimed at. If the clause had been contained in the Articles of Confederation, its retention in the Constitution was an evidence that it had already received a satisfactory, practical construction.

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »