Page images
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

ginia (Mr. TAYLOR) has suggested that the proposed amendment would finally destroy the minority. And it was by such destruction, Mr. P. supposed, that " harmony was to be restored to social intercourse." But he would quote an authority which certainly the advocates of the amendment would respect. This authority had declared, "that the minority possess their equal rights, and that the will of the majority, to be rightful, must be reasonable."

Mr. P. believed that one of the most embarassing questions before the General Convention, respected the choice of the chief Executive officer. He had been informed by a member of that convention, the gentleman from Georgia on his left, (Mr. BALDWIN,) that it had been proposed and concluded that the President of the United States should be elected by Congress for seven years, and be ever after ineligible to that office; but that late in their session the present complex mode of electing the President and Vice President was proposed; that the mode was perfectly novel, and therefore occasioned a pause; but when explained and fully considered was universally admired, and viewed as the most pleasing feature in the Constitution.

SENATE.

This practice was perfectly familiar to the members of the General Convention; why then did not they adopt it? Mr. P. would offer a conjecture.

The Governors and Lieutenant Governors were chosen for one year. The inferiority of rank and importance attached to the office of Lieutenant Governor, would naturally induce the people to think a man competent to the duties of that office, although his qualifications should be decidedly inferior to those they would deem requisite in the man they would choose for their Governor; and no material inconvenience would be apprehended from the choice of such a Lieutenant Governor, because he would administer the Government for so short a period-a portion only of one year. But to administer the affairs of a great nation more circumspection was necessary, and a longer continuance in office. The President and Vice President were to be chosen for four years. In case the office of President became vacant, the Vice President would succeed and be charged with all the duties of the President; and this might happen to be for two or three years, or even for four years, if the President should die between the time of his election and the period of his taking upon himself the Government. It was therefore As to the proposed alteration of that mode of an object of the highest importance to place the electing those two great officers, Mr. P. said that, election of Vice President on such ground as, if when it was first offered in the Senate, at the be- possible, would necessarily produce the choice of ginning of their session, not having then exam- one every way qualified for the office of President. ined the question, he was unprepared to give his And this would be the happy result of a correct vote; yet, if its instant decision had been forced adherence to the present Constitutional mode of upon the Senate, as was demanded by a gentle-electing those two great officers. All the difficulty, man from New York (Mr. CLINTON) not now of all the embarrassment which had hitherto been the House, he should have voted against it; be- experienced, had arisen from a palpable departure lieving it safer to adhere to a rule established by from the plain Constitutional rule, from the Electthe deliberate wisdom of the enlightened states- ors acting on the discriminating principle; not inmen who formed the Constitution, than to adopt deed by designating by name, but in their minds, an untried mode offered at a time of party dissen- which of the two persons voted for should be the sion, and for a particular object. He should also, President, and which the Vice President; a desat that time, have been influenced to vote against ignation forbidden by the spirit, if not by the letit by the respect he entertained for the gentlemen ter of the Constitution. If the Electors, laying with whom he usually voted, and who, at a former aside all attempts to give one of the candidates session, had had the subject presented to their con- for President an advantage over the other, vote sideration. But, having since had time to consider for two men, each possessing the qualifications it, he should now vote against the amendment, on requisite for that high office, it will then be a matthe fullest conviction of the mischiefs which would ter of much indifference, as it respects the great flow from it. What these were, and how much interests of the nation, which becomes the Presisuperior, how much safer was the present Con- dent, and which the Vice President. The evil stitutional mode of electing the President and arising from the non-observance, by the Electors Vice President, had been so amply, so clearly, and of this plain rule would, after a few elections, so ably shown by an honorable gentleman from work its own cure. They would see a necessity Connecticut, (Mr.TRACY,) that he (Mr. P.) would of a strict adherence to the spirit of the Constinot attempt to add anything to his observations. tution, convinced that the true interests of the If these should have no weight with the Senate, people lay in such an equal choice. nothing which he could offer would have the smallest influence.

But Mr. P. would attempt to trace the Constitutional mode of election to its source.

Much had been said about the interests of the large and of the small States, and those of the latter it was conceived would be deeply affected by the proposed alteration of the Constitution; but When these States were British Colonies, they without adding to the numerous observations had Governors and Lieutenant Governors. Both which had been made on that subject, Mr. P. those officers were yet retained in some of the would only remark, what on all sides had been States, and in those States the designating prin- admitted, that the Constitution was the result of ciple had always been observed. The people gave compromise-of mutual sacrifices of State intertheir votes for one candidate by name, to be Gov-ests, of local wishes, and attachments, to the comernor, and to another to be Lieutenant Governor. | mon good. The General Convention, after long

[blocks in formation]

and full deliberation and discussion, had adjusted the balance of power among the States comprising the Union, and there was great danger, by making any alterations in the Constitution, that this balance would be destroyed. It was inexpedient frequently to change the ordinary acts of legislation; it was dangerous to be often changing the fundamental laws of a State, and still more dangerous to change those which, like the Constitution of the United States, form the bond of Union among a great number of confederated States. It was only in case of great and manifest evil arising under a Constitution, that an amendment should be attempted. Such a case did not now exist.

Mr. P. repeated that the subject of the amendment before the Senate had not been well understood by the people. That it had been only on a very superficial view of it, that what was called the public mind and the public will had been expressed; and that it was therefore the duty of gentlemen, uninfluenced by the popular voice, now to act independently, according to the dictates of their own minds; and thus secure the real and permanent interests of the people.

Mr. JACKSON.-The gentleman last up has thought proper to notice what he had said would have been the effect of the meditated usurpation at the last election. He assured that gentleman, that however much he might plume himself on his own virtues, that the people of Georgia would not take their ideas of the course that ought to be pursued, when their liberties were at stake, from any other source than the principles of virtue and freedom. The gentleman had also thought proper to notice what he called an eulogium upon the present Chief Magistrate. His language was too humble and inadequate for that great and good man's eulogium; it was far beyond any form of words which he could employ, to express the veneration which he felt for him; and he believed that, excepting only the departed WASHINGTON, no man ever possessed or merited more of the affection of the people of America than he did.

But, not content with noticing my tribute of truth, which the occasion called for and which the gentleman questions, he has given the Senate what it was to be supposed he intended for poetry; he would not compliment him on his taste for selection, any more than on his liberality. The verses are bad enough, and the application worse; they reminded him of the speech of Moloch, in the second book of Paradise Lost. But taking his verses as they are, he was content to believe the first; the gentleman might, if it could console him, believe in the second. For he did believe that the President's virtues were a hell to him.

DECEMBER, 1803.

of State, at the head of which that gentleman (Mr. PICKERING) was then placed. Under that Administration State rights were degraded and disregarded; we saw the principles of the Revolution brought up as topics for reproach, and we saw that we had no chance but in the resort to first principles. We looked up to the author of the Declaration of Independence, he has not disappointed us. Would to God I were capable of doing justice to his eulogium.

Mr. WHITE proposed an adjournment; he feared the fatigue would create irritation; some warmth had already been displayed.

On the question being called (10 minutes past 7) it was lost.

It

Mr WRIGHT would offer but a few words. had been observed that our Government is the result of a compromise. So are all federal Governments. The reference to the old Confederation and their voting by States amounted to nothing conclusive; the old Congress possessed no Legislative power, they had only an Executive and recommendatory power. The Constitution was produced by the necessity of the case; no impost could be levied by the old Congress, and, to preserve the benefits of the Revolution, Virginia called the Convention. He could not account for the opposition of the gentleman from Delaware, as he would not strike the amendment out if it formed part of the Constitution.

Mr. WHITE. The gentleman misapprehended my expression.

Mr. WRIGHT.-I took the gentleman's words down-they were these: "If the amendment formed part of the Constitution I would not vote for striking it out." He then went very largely into a recapitulation and reply to the various points of discussion, and asked if it was consistent with the principles of the Government that our laws should be like those of the Medes and Persians, their form immutable and error eternal? He asked if gentlemen would not think it a hard case if men were placed in the two first offices of Government who were neither the choice nor agreeable to either party? Yet this would not be more inconsistent or absurd than to have any one man so placed, contrary to the fundamental principle of representative government, the will of the majority. Every gentleman must recollect what a scene was exhibited in the Legislature of Pennsylvania at the late election, which could have its origin in intrigues alone, and which ended at length in a compromise which gave the most populous State in the Union the real value of no more than one vote; the same intrigues existed in New Jersey, where an organized plan existed to place a man in the Executive chair against the wishes of the nation, unchosen and unintended for the Executive chair by either party.

The zeal of Georgia appears to be a matter of surprise to the gentleman. But it is by no means Here we provide a remedy for such evils-we surprising. Why was that State so anxious for a offer you the certain means of frustrating and renchange of Administration? Under the former Ad- dering them hopeless; we offer you a designation. ministration her rights were violated, her Govern- But it is said that this is a party question. Genment treated with studied insult. In discharge of tlemen appear not to look around them, or to his duty as Governor, he could scarcely get an overlook facts staring them in the face. Do we not answer on public business from the Department | see gentlemen of opposite parties in politics on

[blocks in formation]

both sides of this question? Is it from party views the gentleman from South Carolina opposes it?

SENATE.

be supposed that with her twenty-four votes for President she can control all the rest? We hold the true federative counterpoise, the other House has the democratic or popular, for he knew no difference. Nine or ten are destined to be small States, and will always have a majority here? Gentlemen, when they cannot make good their case by argument or fact, endeavor to make it out as well as they can. Hence, we have the declaration about small and large States, and hence so many warnings against touching the Constitution. But who are they who wish to tear up this Constitution? Two propositions have been offered of infinitely more force on the principles of the Condent altogether, the other to limit the election of President. We wish to provide against an evil not foreseen, and to supply the deficiency; the gentlemen wish to tear a part of the Constitution altogether. And who have proposed and advocate these erasures? The opposers of this amendment. So, that when reverence for the Constitution is spoken of, these amendments must be abandoned. Experience, sir, is worth a thousand volumes of experiments. Had it been foreseen at the last election, that such events could have proceeded from the principles of honor and good faith being rigidly observed by the republicans, many would have opposed their uniform vote and cast their vote away rather than lay the country open to intrigue and its consequences.

He was as much a friend to the principles of a majority governing as any man, but here it was a different question which he thought principally concerned-it is to prevent the disgrace and injuries of intrigues; it is to prevent men not intended to be chosen from being edged into power. At the last election what did we see? An attempt made by a party in truth hostile to the man at that time, endeavoring to put him into the Executive chair! And for what purpose? For the purpose of confusion-to distract and divide the country, and to lay the foundation of another fac-stitution-one to abolish the office of Vice Presitious Administration on one already humbled by public indignation. Had they succeeded in corrupting a single man from his duty, would it not have been usurpation of the worst species? What did his colleague say ?-that after this project of wrong had failed, another was meditated; it was even supposed to set up a man who had not a single vote, and that had they attempted to carry it into execution, the people would not bear it. And the gentleman from Connecticut expresses his astonishment that the people would not bear usurpation, while he confesses that his section of the Union would have been quiet spectators of the act! He knew that the people of Maryland felt the danger and were determined to resist it, not with their arms folded but with the energy of freemen; and such was the sensation which the meditated wrong had occasioned, such was the spirit of the people to resist it, that some of the most opulent men in the State found it time to interfere. This amendment then is intended to prevent the recurrence of such alarming dangers. Does it deprive any one or any State of a right? Is it not fit, that if I am called on to vote for President and Vice President that I should have my free choice? Is it then consistent with reason that I should be compelled to vote for one man upon equal terms whom I do not think has equal talents or equal claims to my confidence? Is it fair that I should be reduced to the alternative of choosing a wise man and a fool, in order to give the former a chance? Are not the small States as well secured by this amendment as the large? If this amendment was not intended, why has it not been guarded like those parts which cannot be changed before 1808? In this Senate the small States have their security-their equal representation, and in the provision against any change being made in their representation here without the consent of each.

He had thought the number five would equally answer the purpose of election. Arguments had convinced him that three would be still more safe; because it would give the greater certainty of a choice by the people. And was there a man in that House who would dare to say that the people ought not to have the man of their choice? They look for the security of that right, and the principle of designation secures it. Is there any man who as an Elector would prefer the uncertainty of two for the certainty of one. Some affect to say we strike at fundamental principles. But we say we wish to strike at error and give stability to republican representative principles. The Constitution says the President shall be chosen by Electors; he believed there was a militant spirit against democratic republican principles, which would take the power from the people and their Electors, which would fly in the face of the Constitution itself, and tell the people it ought not to be amended; that error should be perpetual, and experience fruitless; this was notoriously avowed. Our greatest blessing and our first pride is that we have the power and the right to amend, and to redress wrongs without the resort to arms which nations are ever exposed to, where abuses are rendered sacred and hereditary. On the subject of this amendment, so far as it concerns designation, he believed the public mind could not be better known; could threefourths of our Legislatures and two-thirds of both Houses of Congress commit treason and treachery on themselves? He was decidedly for the amend

The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. ADAMS) has drawn all his eloquence in force, he has collected all his vengeance, and pours out the vials of his wrath upon Virginia. Why this vehement, this toothless rage against that State, which in evil times had indeed stood firm, the rock of our political salvation: to whom we looked in the hour of adversity for counsel, for succor, for statesmen and leaders of our armies? To her we were indebted for a WASHINGTON, and is it because wement, and for the number three. are indebted to her for other great men that this Mr. WHITE. The gentleman says the old Conjealous rage is vociferated against her? Is it to gress had no Legislative powers. Did they not

[blocks in formation]

raise armies, and emit money, both high Legislative acts?

Mr. WRIGHT.-The gentleman is wholly mistaken; the several States raised armies, and moneys were raised by State contributions-all the power they had was to recommend to the States and make requisitions upon the State grants.

The question on inserting the number three was put (at ten minutes past 8 o'clock, P. M.) and carried-21 yeas, 11 nays.

Mr. DAYTON asked if the question could be taken on the whole of the designating amendment, without deciding upon the remainder of the report ?*

Mr. BUTLER.-You assuredly cannot decide upon the first part without deciding upon the whole of the report, unless you do it by power; and you can do anything, as Judge Blackstone says, by power, but make a man of a woman. Power, however, appears to be the order of the day; though he hoped the Chair will do so much justice to himself as to acknowledge that we have been hitherto in a Committee of the Whole. Some gentlemen had spoken as often as nine or ten times in the debate, and in the House that would have been contrary to order. The object of his wishes was to probe innovation. If we have hitherto been in a Committee of the Whole, as this is only a part of the report, of course it will stand as it is, and we may proceed to the remainder of the report-though, from what he had already seen, he did not expect the indulgence that he thought was due to every member of that House; and it was not impossible that it meant to press into a different course. If so, gentlemen should look to what the people of the United States would say, when they see the doors closed against all dispassionate discussion, and all opportunities open to one side of the House. There was an example of this kind given by a gentleman (Mr. CoCKE,) who, after making a speech of an hour, sits down and roars out, the question! the question! Unless gentlemen mean to practice the same indelicacy as two hours ago.

The PRESIDENT wished to interrupt the gentleman for a moment barely to inform him that the question has never been before a Committee of the Whole.

A desultory conversation on the point of order

*This question has reference to the following amendment proposed by Mr. Butler, for limiting the period for which a President should be elected, and which was not acted upon :

"Resolved, That the following amendment be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution, to wit:

"That no person who has been twice successively elected President of the United States, shall be eligible as President, until four years shall have elapsed; but any citizen who has been President of the United States, may, after such intervention, be eligible to the office of President, for four years, and no longer."

DECEMBER, 1803.

here took place, in which Messrs. NICHOLAS, BUTLER. TRACY, S. SMITH, DAYTON, TAYLOR, FRANKLIN, HILLHOUSE, and ADAMS, spoke a few moments each. In which it was contended that the first amendment could not be decided on without first deciding on the second amendment, which was reported by the same committee.

On the other side it was maintained that the amendment for designation was a separate proposition, and might be voted upon, whether the other was voted upon or not; that the other amendment might be called up at any time without interfering with the principle or the passage of that now before the House.

The PRESIDENT decided that the question now was on agreeing to the resolution as amended. Upon which the yeas and nays were demanded, and were as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Anderson, Bailey, Baldwin, Bradley, Breckenridge, Brown, Cocke, Condit, Ellery, Franklin, Jackson, Logan, Maclay, Nicholas, Potter, I. Smith, S. Smith J. Smith, Stone, Taylor, Worthington, Wright-22.

NAYS-Messrs. Adams, Butler, Dayton, Hillhouse, Olcott, Pickering, Plumer, Tracy, Wells, White-10. Mr. ADAMS thought it proper for him at this stage to notice some observations directed to him. It had been presumed that he had expressed some solicitude about the election of a federal Vice President; he had expressed nothing which could countenance a solicitude about the election of a federal or anti-federal Vice President; but he had indeed noticed that the amendment appeared to him as intended directly to affect the next election; though at the same time as far as related to himself he turned out of the consideration every idea of its effect on any single case; he looked to it as it would affect a century to come-he never meant to take the diameter of the earth for the measure of a barleycorn.

The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. WRIGHT) had charged him with pouring out the vials of his wrath on Virginia; he was not conscious of uttering any degree of wrath against Virginia, and could not be persuaded that he had uttered what he certainly never felt; so far from wrath, he had ever entertained for that State the highest respect, as producing the greatest men of our Revolution. It was true, indeed, that when he heard a gentleman from that State holding forth felt some irritation; and when he compared it what he had then considered as a menace, he had with the mould and process of the measure before us, that was increased; and had he not been quent explanations, he should have entertained a convinced that no menace was intended, by subseserious alarm. His impressions were generally on the subject, that no regard had been paid to the permanent operation of the measure, but that all argument had been drawn from the last, and all consequences are calculated for the next election. From the open avowal of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. S. SMITH) to the labored, ingenious, and eloquent arguments of the gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. TAYLOR,) all had this: tendency and that view only.

[blocks in formation]

To the designating principle itself he had no objection, and believed it calculated to be productive of good. But when he heard gentlemen talk of the jealousy of States, he had little expected to find a mixture of argument drawn from English corruptions and degeneracy, applied to our home institutions. When jealousy of Executive power was spoken of, so much like the unmeaning noise out of doors, he had expected that after adding fifteen millions to the public debt at a blow; when eighty thousand men were proposed to be placed at the will of the Executive; when by four short lines the whole of the arbitrary power of the Spanish King over his subjects in Louisiana was transferred to the Executive, with all the consequent patronage, he did not expect to hear armies, debts, and patronage, introduced in the debate. When declamation of this kind is given, the best return that can be expected is declamation of the same species.

SENATE.

Congress have no influence on the votes of the
States? Will the Legislatures not say two-thirds
of both Houses of Congress passed it, and they
would not deem it necessary if it was not good?
But here we have Legislatures prompting us to
this measure, and it goes back to them again for
their decision; that this is a measure, a measure
in a hoop, it comes and goes whence it came.
The gentleman complains of attacks made on
Virginia, it was never meant to reproach Virginia.
But the gentleman tells us we must make an ex-
clusion bill, and he tells you of the consequences
if you do not, in order to induce you to pass it.
He admired the gentlemanly manner, the openness
and good nature, and he was certain that he never
meant to kill us outright, but he will exclude us.
We know very well what was intended by the
bill for the exclusion of Popish recusants, and that
with regard to the objects of the measure we stand
precisely in their place. This was the very con-
dition of the gentleman; he supposed a minority
had no rights, beside that of being trampled upon,
and he is for bringing in a bill of exclusion. He
says he does not quote words; he caught ideas, not
words. He has given a key for his ideas, they
go to the extirpation of the sect of Federalists, as
the exclusion bill went to the total exclusion of
the sect of Popish recusants.

Mr. S. SMITH had not intended at any hour to have taken a further part in this debate; but when he found gentlemen resorting to stratagem when sound argument failed them, and words and sentiments are tortured from their intention, he could not remain silent. It requires very little ingenuity to lop off a part of a sentence, even in scripture, and to make the remainder blasphemy; though the whole sentence as written were the If gentlemen wish to shake the Constitution to most solemn truth. The gentleman from New pieces, if majorities must decide everything, why Jersey (Mr. DAYTON) thinks it consistent, per- not go at once to a simple democracy? There haps,, to construe words which never had that were many who did not think the Constitution meaning as a threat. He would beg leave to no- sufficiently democratical. The gentleman thinks tice a mistake of the gentleman from Massachu- so perhaps, for he tells us that a Constitution may be setts, (Mr. ADAMS.) who had charged him with preserved while the liberties of the people are dean open avowal that the sole object of the amend-stroyed; he wishes you to go to the spirit which ment was to preclude the election of a Vice Pres- is democracy, and against which we guard. But ident. He had said that it would certainly have he would not consent to go to that spirit for his that effect; and that the effect would be proper remedy. and conformable to the spirit and intention of the Constitution; and he approved of it for that reason; for, under the existing mode the people, who wished to secure a proper person, or that person in whom they have the greatest portion of confidence, would be obliged to throw their votes away, and make no choice of the second officers, or leave the choice to chance. But how could the gentleman say himself, or think him guilty of the absurdity of supposing, that this amendment originated and was conducted solely with a view to the next election, and that only; or that all arguments were drawn from the last election? If he recollected correctly, the subject of this amend ment was brought forward several years ago, by the representative of a small Eastern State, Mr. ABIEL FOSTER of New Hampshire. At that period those persons were of the predominant party. But they tell us it was not then carried. And why not? Most probably because they could not find members convinced of its necessity. It was proposed before the last election, and that event has convinced every one who before doubted. After all, if the Legislatures do not think proper to adopt it, it cannot pass.

Mr. TRACY.-We are told this is a proposition for the Legislatures; but will its passage through

Mr. BRECKENRIDGE.-The gentleman last up had insisted on two or three arguments before repeated, that he thought proper to notice him. He insinuates that we are destroying principles. But the gentleman has lost sight of the amendment altogether, where no principle is in the smallest degree violated. He has indirectly questioned the democratic principles of the Constitution; but in the course of three weeks' discussions, for the first time he had heard anything even glancing at a denial of the people's right to choose the Executive though the medium of Electors. What is this clamor about large and small States? It has nothing to do whatever with the question. The true and only point is, what will be the best mode of effectuating the choice? We hold that the amendment is that best mode. If any principle is more sacred and all-important for free government it is, that elections should be as direct as possible; in proportion as you remove from direct election you approach danger. And if it were practicable to act without any agents in the choice, that would be preferable even to the choice by Electors. But if you wish to elect A, and you are so placed as that B is elected contrary to your wishes, can you say that this is a reasonable and just process? Has it not always been insisted that

« PreviousContinue »