Page:Cambridge Modern History Volume 7.djvu/302

 270 Argument for a single House. [i787 against the small. Voting by States, in the second branch, had been adopted in committee of the whole ; but still the smaller States were in favour of a single House ; and, if they could secure voting by States in this, they would gain the day completely. They preferred that to any advantage of checks between two Houses, one of which they could not control. The resolution being before the Convention, Lansing moved to sub- stitute for it a provision that the powers of legislation be vested in the United States in Congress, as in the Confederation. His reasons were, the want of power in the Convention to depart from the principle of* the Confederation, and the state of the public mind. Mason replied to both points. The first was of no weight, as the decision was not to be made there but by the people ; as for the second, he was sure the people were attached to legislatures with two branches. Their constitutions were so much in accord in this respect that they seemed almost to have been preconcerted. Pennsylvania and the existing Congress were the only exceptions. Martin however saw no need of two branches ; if there were need, the legislature might be organised in two parts. Sherman also thought that there was no need of dividing the legislature, though he admitted that it was otherwise with the States ; all confederacies had single chambers of legislation. Congress had carried the States through the war perhaps as well as any government could have done. The present complaint was, not that Congress was unwise, but that the powers of Congress were insufficient. To add another branch to Con- gress, to be chosen by the people, would only work embarrassment. The people would take no interest, and in the large districts the business would fall into the hands of designing men. He did not believe, what others professed, that the State legislatures would be unfriendly to the national one. The disparity of the States was the main difficulty, and the reason for the resolution of the committee. If that difficulty, which was one of representation, could not otherwise be got over, he would agree to the resolution, with proportional representation in one branch, provided that each State should have an equal voice in the other. Wilson urged the need of two branches. If no model could be found, this was not strange. The number of confederacies was small, and their duration often short. He had himself been a member of Congress for six years, and had felt its weakness to the full. He appealed to the recollection of others, whether the public interest had not often been obstructed by the smaller States. The success of the Revolution had not been due to Congress ; the war went on in spite of difficulties arising from Congress. The large States had indeed acceded to the plan of Confederation; but that was from necessity, not of choice. Jealousies between the State legislatures and the national legislature would, he believed, exist, and there ought therefore to be a branch of the legis- lature not representing the States.