Page:Debates in the Several State Conventions, v5.djvu/256

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

Adjourned.$133$ 

, June 23.

In Convention.—The third resolution being resumed,—

On the question, yesterday postponed by South Carolina, for agreeing to the whole sentence, "for allowing an adequate compensation, to be paid out of the treasury of the United States,"

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

So the question was lost, and the sentence not inserted.$134$

Gen. PINCKNEY moves to strike out the ineligibility of members of the first branch to offices established "by a particular state." He argued from the inconvenience to which such a restriction would expose both the members of the first branch, and the states wishing for their services; and from the smallness of the object to be attained by the restriction. It would seem, from the ideas of some, that we are erecting a kingdom to be divided against itself: he disapproved such a fetter on the legislature.

Mr. SHERMAN seconds the motion. It would seem that we are erecting a kingdom at war with itself. The legislature ought not to be fettered in such a case.$135$

On the question,—

Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, ay, 8; Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Delaware, no, 3.

Mr. MADISON renewed his motion, yesterday made and waived, to render the members of the first branch "ineligible during their term of service, and for one year after, to such offices only, as should be established, or the emolument augmented, by the legislature of the United States during the time of their being members." He supposed that the unnecessary creation of offices, and increase of salaries, were the evils most experienced, and that if the door was shut against them, it might properly be left open for the appointment of members to other offices, as an encouragement to the legislative service.

Mr. ALEXANDER MARTIN seconded the motion.

Mr. BUTLER. The amendment does not go far enough, and would be easily evaded.$136$

Mr. RUTLEDGE was for preserving the legislature as pure as possible, by shutting the door against appointments of its own members to office, which was one source of its corruption.

Mr. MASON. The motion of my colleague is but a partial remedy for the evil. He appealed to him as a witness of the shameful partiality of the legislature of Virginia to its own members. He enlarged on the abuses and corruption in the British Parliament connected with the appointment of its members. He could not suppose that a sufficient number of citizens could not be found who would be ready, without the inducement of eligibility to offices, to 