Page:Debates in the Several State Conventions, v5.djvu/246

220 did accede, as had been stated, to the Confederation in its present form; but it was the effect of necessity, not of choice. There are other instances of their yielding, from the same motive, to the unreasonable measures of the small states. The situation of things is now a little altered. He insisted that a jealousy would exist between the state legislatures and the general legislature, observing, that the members of the former would have views and feelings very distinct, in this respect, from their constituents. A private citizen of a state is indifferent whether power be exercised by the general or state legislatures, provided it be exercised most for his happiness. His representative has an interest in its being exercised by the body to which he belongs. He will therefore view the national legislature with the eye of a jealous rival. He observed that the addresses of Congress to the people at large had always been better received, and produced greater effect, than those made to the legislatures.$124$

On the question for postponing, in order to take up Mr. Lansing's proposition, "to vest the powers of legislation in Congress,"—

Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, ay, 4; Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, no, 6. Maryland, divided.

On motion of the deputies from Delaware, the question on the second resolution in the report from the Committee of the Whole was postponed till to-morrow.

Adjourned. 

, June 21.

In Convention.—Mr. Jonathan Dayton, from New Jersey, took his seat.

The second resolution in the report from the Committee of the Whole being under consideration,—

Dr. JOHNSON. On a comparison of the two plans which had been proposed from Virginia and New Jersey, it appeared that the peculiarity which characterized the latter was its being calculated to preserve the individuality of the states. The plan from Virginia did not profess to destroy this individuality altogether, but was charged with such a tendency. One gentleman alone, (Col. Hamilton,) in his animadversions on the plan of New Jersey, boldly and decisively contended for an abolition of the state governments. Mr. Wilson and the gentleman from Virginia, who also were adversaries of the plan of New Jersey, held a different language. They wished to leave the states in possession of a considerable, though a subordinate, jurisdiction. They had not yet, however, shown how this could consist with, or be secured against, the general sovereignty and jurisdiction which they proposed to give to the national government. If this could be shown, in such a manner as to satisfy the patrons of the New Jersey propositions that the individuality of the states would not be endangered, many of their objections would, no doubt, be removed. If this could not be shown, their objections would have their full force. He wished it, therefore, to be well considered 