Page:Debates in the Several State Conventions, v1.djvu/418

398 would probably be rivals and opposers of the national government.

Mr. MASON observed, that the national legislature, as to one branch, ought to be elected by the people; because the objects of their legislation will not be on states, but on individual persons.

Mr. DICKINSON is for combining the state and national legislatures in the same views and measures; and that this object can only be effected by the national legislature flowing from the state legislatures.

Mr. READ is of opinion that the state governments must, sooner or later, be at an end, and that therefore we must make the present national government as perfect as possible.

Mr. MADISON is of opinion that, when we agreed to the 1st resolve, of having a national government, consisting of a supreme executive, judicial, and legislative power, it was then intended to operate to the exclusion of a federal government; and the more extensive we made the basis, the greater probability of duration, happiness, and good order.

The question for the amendment was negatived by 8 states against 3. New York in the majority.

On the 8th resolve, Mr. WILSON moved, (in consequence of a vote to reconsider the question on the revisional powers vested in the executive,) that there be added these words: "with a convenient number of the national judicial."

Upon debate, carried in the negative—3 states for, and 8 against. New York for the addition. Adjourned to tomorrow morning.

, June 7, 1787.

Met pursuant to adjournment. Mr. RUTLEDGE moved to take into consideration the mode of electing the second branch of the national legislature.

Mr. DICKINSON thereupon moved, "That the second branch of the national legislature be chosen by the legislatures of the individual states." He observed, that this mode will more intimately connect the state governments with the national legislature—it will also draw forth the first characters either as to family or talent, and that it ought to consist of a considerable number.

Mr. WILSON against the motion, because the two