highest confidence, than that delineated in the plan of the convention—nor has the gentleman told us. Perhaps it will be found impracticable to elect him by the immediate suffrages of the people. Difficulties would arise from the extent and population of the states. Instead of this the people choose the electors.—This can be done with ease and convenience, and will render the choice more judicious. As to the eventual voting by states, it has my approbation. The lesser states, and some large states, will be generally pleased by that mode. The deputies from the small states argued, (and their is some force in their reasoning) that when the people voted, the large states evidently had the advantage over the rest, and without varying the mode, the interests of the little states might be neglected or sacrificed. Here is a compromise..—For in the eventual election, the small states will have the advantage.
ⅭⅭⅩⅣ. Debate in the Virginia Convention.[1]
(The 1st and 2d sections, of the 3d article, were read.)
… Mr. George Mason. … The principle itself goes to the destruction of the legislation of the states, whether or not it was intended. As to my own opinion, I most religiously and conscientiously believe, that it was intended, though I am not absolutely certain. But I think it will destroy the state governments, whatever may have been the intention. There are many gentlemen in the United States who think it right, that we should have one great national consolidated government, and that it was better to bring it about slowly and imperceptibly, rather than all at once. This is no reflection on any man, for I mean none. To those who think that one national consolidated government would be best for America, this extensive judicial authority will be agreeable; but I hope there are many in this convention of a different opinion, and who see their political happiness resting on their state governments. I know, from my own knowledge, many worthy gentlemen of the former opinion.—(Here Mr. Madison interrupted Mr. Mason, and demanded an unequivocal explanation. As those insinuations might create a belief, that every member of the late federal convention was of that opinion, he wished him to tell who the gentlemen were to whom he alluded.)—Mr. Mason then replied—I shall never refuse to explain myself. It is notorious that this is a prevailing principle.—It was at least the opinion of many gentlemen in con-
- ↑ Robertson, Debates of the Convention of Virginia, 1788 (2d edit., 1805), pp. 371–372.
