Page:Debates in the Several State Conventions, v5.djvu/377

1787.] both to the people and to the states. The mode under consideration will give satisfaction to neither. He could not conceive that the executive could be as well informed of characters throughout the Union as the Senate. It appeared to him, also, a strong objection, that two thirds of the Senate were required, to reject a nomination of the executive. The Senate would be constituted in the same manner as Congress, and the appointments of Congress have been generally good.

Mr. MADISON observed, that he was not anxious that two thirds should be necessary to disagree to a nomination. He had given this form to his motion, chiefly to vary it the more clearly from one which had just been rejected. He was content to obviate the objection last made, and accordingly so varied the motion as to let a majority reject.

Col. MASON found it his duty to differ from his colleagues in their opinions and reasonings on this subject. Notwithstanding the form of the proposition, by which the appointment seemed to be divided between the executive and Senate, the appointment was substantially vested in the former alone. The false complaisance which usually prevails in such cases will prevent a disagreement to the first nominations. He considered the appointment by the executive as a dangerous prerogative. It might even give him an influence over the judiciary department itself. He did not think the difference of interest between the Northern and Southern States could be properly brought into this argument. It would operate, and require some precautions in the case of regulating navigation, commerce, and imposts; but he could not see that it had any connection with the judiciary department.

On the question, the motion being now "that the executive should nominate, and such nominations should become appointments unless disagreed to by the Senate,"—

Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, ay, 3; Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, no, 6.$184$

On the question for agreeing to the clause as it stands, by which the judges are to be appointed by the second branch,—

Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina South Carolina, Georgia, ay, 6; Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, no, 3.

So it passed in the affirmative.

Adjourned. 

, July 23.

In Convention.—Mr. John Langdon and Mr. Nicholas Gillman, from New Hampshire, took their seats.

The seventeenth resolution, that provision ought to be made for future amendments of the articles of the Union, was agreed to, ''nem. con.''

The eighteenth resolution, requiring the legislative, executive, and judiciary of the states to be bound by oath to support the Articles of Union, was taken into consideration.

