Page:Cambridge Modern History Volume 7.djvu/294

 262 Money bills. Heated debate on union. [1787 were useless. If seven States in the Senate wished a bill, they could find someone in the other branch who would set it in motion. And amendments could be handed in privately by the senators to members of the other House. Experience had also shown that such regulations were a source of frequent and obstinate altercation. A like motion, judged on its own merits, had been rejected on a former occasion, for these reasons. He considered that the Convention was reduced to the alternative of departing from justice to conciliate the smaller States and the minority, or of displeasing these by justly gratifying the larger States and the majority. He could not hesitate. It was vain to purchase concord on terms which must bring discord. The Convention ought to adopt a plan which would bear examination; if at first men judged of the system by the Convention, they would at last judge of the Convention by the system. Gouverneur Morris believed that if they recommended a plan which was reasonable, reasonable minds would embrace it everywhere. The ties of interest, kindred, and common habits were too strong to be broken easily. He was sure of New Jersey. The country at any rate must be united ; if persuasion did not unite it, the sword would, and the gallows and the halter would finish the work. He did not like the plan of equality in the Senate ; it would cause constant dispute and appeal to the States, and thus undermine the government. Suppose that the delegates from Massachusetts and those from Rhode Island, in the Senate, should disagree, and that the former were outvoted ; what would be the result ? They would declare that their State would not abide by the decision. State attachments had been the bane of the country ; he would have their ideas enlarged. Who could say whether he, much less his children, another year would live in this State or in that? Comments on the warmth of the debate, with disclaimers and explanations, followed; and then discussion went off upon other parts of the special report, which may be passed over. Two days later (July 7) the question of equality in the Senate, under the special report, was again taken up. Gerry would agree to the report rather than have no accommodation. A government short of a proper national one, if generally acceptable, would be better than a proper government which, if carried out at all, must deal with discontented States. An equal vote in the Senate would, in the opinion of Sherman, be most likely to give to the government the requisite vigour. The small States had more vigour than the large ones ; hence the more influence the large States had, the weaker would be the government. If they voted by States in the Senate, equally, there must always be a majority of States on the side of public measures ; if they did not, there might be a majority of States against them. The government would find it hard to compel a majority, and would be weaker than ever. After further remarks by Wilson against yielding, a vote was taken