part of the Constitution respecting the regulation of canals. It must be confessed, however, that very different accounts are given the import of the proposition, and of the motives for rejecting it. Some affirm that it was confined to the opening of canals and obstructions in rivers; others, that it embraced banks; and others, that it extended to the power of incorporating generally. Some, again, allege that it was disagreed to because it was thought improper to vest in Congress a power of erecting corporations. Others, because it was thought unnecessary to specify the power, and inexpedient to furnish an additional topic of objection to the Constitution. In this state of the matter, no inference whatever can be drawn from it.
ⅭⅭⅬⅩⅠ. Abraham Baldwin in the House of Representatives.[1]
It had not been found practicable to ground representation in the Federal Constitution upon any other principle than that of numbers; but extent of territory is unquestionably one of the natural principles on which it rests, and should if possible be regarded.
ⅭⅭⅬⅩⅡ. Elbridge Gerry in the House of Representatives.[2]
Mr. Gerry contended that the Constitution was misconstrued by the gentleman from North Carolina; and in reply to the gentleman from New Jersey, he said he was surprised to hear the remarks which he made, when he recollected his being a member of the Convention—in which, it must be remembered by that gentleman, the larger States consented to placing the small States on a par with them in the Senate, to obviate the difficulty which the smaller States objected against the larger representations from the larger States.
ⅭⅭⅬⅩⅢ. Jonathan Dayton in the House of Representatives.[3]
Mr. Dayton also objected to the motion; he thought fourteen days would be a more proper time; it was the design of the Constitution, though it is not expressed, that the President should not know the characters to whom he is indebted for his election.
