Page:Debates in the Several State Conventions, v5.djvu/209

1787.] Mr. RANDOLPH considered it necessary to prevent that competition between the national Constitution and laws, and those of the particular states, which had already been felt. The officers of the states are already under oath to the states. To preserve a due impartiality, they ought to be equally bound to the national government. The national authority needs every support we can give it. The executive and judiciary of the states, notwithstanding their nominal independence on the state legislatures, are in fact so dependent on them, that, unless they be brought under some tie to the national system, they will always lean too much to the state systems, whenever a contest arises between the two.

Mr. GERRY did not like the clause. He thought there was as much reason for requiring an oath of fidelity to the states from national officers, as vice versa.

Mr. LUTHER MARTIN moved to strike out the words requiring such an oath from the state officers, viz., "within the several states," observing, that if the new oath should be contrary to that already taken by them, it would be improper; if coincident, the oaths already taken will be sufficient.

On the question for striking out, as proposed by Mr. L. Martin,—

Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, ay, 4; Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, no, 7.

Question on the whole resolution, as proposed by Mr. Randolph,—

Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, ay, 6; Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, no, 5.$103$

The committee rose, and the House adjourned. 

, June 12.

In Committee of the Whole.—The question was taken on the fifteenth resolution, to wit, referring the new system to the people of the United States for ratification. It passed in the affirmative.

Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, ay, 6; Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, no, 3; Delaware, Maryland, divided. (Pennsylvania omitted in the printed Journal. The vote is there entered as of June 11.)$104$

Mr. SHERMAN and Mr. ELLSWORTH moved to fill the blank left in the fourth resolution, for the periods of electing the members of the first branch, with the words, "every year;" Mr. Sherman observing, that he did it in order to bring on some question. Mr. RUTLEDGE proposed "every two years."

Mr. JENIFER proposed "every three years;" observing, that the too great frequency of elections rendered the people indifferent to them, and made the best men unwilling to engage in so precarious a service.

Mr. MADISON seconded the motion for three years. Instability is one of the great vices of our republics to be remedied. Three years will be necessary, in a government so extensive, for members to form any knowledge of the various interests of the states to which 