Page:The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 Volume 3.djvu/147

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

diversified and remote the blessings they diffuse, we shall be able to trace them all to one great and noble source, the people.


ⅭⅩⅬⅢ. James Wilson in the Pennsylvania Convention.[1]

November 26, 1787.

It was observed in the convention, that the Federal convention had exceeded the powers given to them by the several legislatures; but Mr. Wilson observed, that however foreign the question was to the present business, he would place it in its proper light. The Federal convention did not act at all upon the powers given to them by the States, but they proceeded upon original principles, and having framed a constitution which they thought would promote the happiness of their country, they have submitted it to their consideration, who may either adopt or reject it, as they please.


ⅭⅩⅬⅣ. The Landholder [Oliver Ellsworth], Ⅳ.[2]

By the proposed constitution the new Congress will consist of nearly one hundred men; when our population is equal to Great Britain of three hundred men, and when equal to France of nine hundred. Plenty of Lawgivers! why any gentlemen should wish for more is not conceivable.

…Convention foreseeing this danger, have so worded the article, that if the people should at any future time judge necessary, they may diminish the representation.


ⅭⅩⅬⅤ. James Wilson in the Pennsylvania Convention.[3]

November 28, 1787.

Mr. President, we are repeatedly called upon to give some reason why a bill of rights has not been annexed to the proposed plan… But the truth is, Sir, that this circumstance, which has since occasioned so much clamor and debate, never struck the mind of any member in the late convention till, I believe, within three days of the dissolution of that body, and even then of so little account was the idea that it passed off in a short conversation, without introducing a formal debate or assuming the shape of a motion.…

…Thus, Sir, it appears from the example of other states, as well as from principle, that a bill of rights is neither an essential nor a necessary instrument in framing a system of government,

  1. McMaster and Stone, Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution, p. 235.
  2. P.L. Ford, Essays on Constitution, p. 152, from the Connecticut Courant, of November 26, 1787.
  3. McMaster and Stone, Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution, pp. 252–254.