Page:Debates in the Several State Conventions, v5.djvu/411

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
1787.]
FEDERAL CONVENTION.
385

South Carolina, Georgia, ay, 2; New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, no, 8.

Mr. REED moved to insert, after the word, "Senate," the words, "subject to the negative to be hereafter provided." His object was to give an absolute negative to the executive. He considered this as so essential to the Constitution, to the preservation of liberty, and to the public welfare, that his duty compelled him to make the motion.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS seconded him; and, on the question,—

Delaware, ay, 1; New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, no, 9.

Mr. RUTLEDGE. Although it is agreed on all hands that an annual meeting of the legislature should be made necessary, yet that point seems not to be free from doubt, as the clause stands. On this suggestion, "once at least in every year," were inserted, nem. con.

Article 3, with the foregoing alterations, was agreed to, nem. con., and is as follows: "The legislative power shall be vested in a Congress, to consist of two separate and distinct bodies of men, a House of Representatives and a Senate. The legislature shall meet at least once in every year; and such meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless a different day shall be appointed by law."192

Article 4, sect. 1, was taken up.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS moved to strike out the last member of the section, beginning with the words, "qualifications of electors," in order that some other provision might be substituted which would restrain the right of suffrage to freeholders.

Mr. FITZSIMONS seconded the motion.

Mr. WILLIAMSON was opposed to it.

Mr. WILSON. This part of the report was well considered by the committee, and he did not think it could be changed for the better. It was difficult to form any uniform rule of qualifications for all the states. Unnecessary innovations, he thought, too, should be avoided. It would be very hard and disagreeable for the same persons, at the same time, to vote for representatives in the state legislature, and to be excluded from a vote for those in the national legislature.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS. Such a hardship would be neither great nor novel. The people are accustomed to it, and not dissatisfied with it, in several of the states. In some, the qualifications are different for the choice of the governor and of the representatives; in others, for different houses of the legislature. Another objection against the clause, as it stands, is, that it makes the qualifications of the national legislature depend on the will of the states, which he thought not proper.

Mr. ELLSWORTH thought the qualifications of the electors stood on the most proper footing. The right of suffrage was a tender point, and strongly guarded by most of the state constitutions. The people will not readily subscribe to the national Constitution, if it should sub-
vol. v.4933