Page:Debates in the Several State Conventions, v5.djvu/378

352 Mr. WILLIAMSON suggests, that a reciprocal oath should be required from the national officers, to support the governments of the states.

Mr. GERRY moved to insert, as an amendment, that the oath of the officers of the national government, also, should extend to the support of the national government, which was agreed to, ''nem. con.''

Mr. WILSON said, he was never fond of oaths, considering them as a left-handed security only. A good government did not need them, and a bad one could not or ought not to be supported. He was afraid they might too much trammel the members of the existing government, in case future alterations should be necessary, and prove an obstacle to the seventeenth resolution, just agreed to.

Mr. GORHAM did not know that oaths would be of much use, but could see no inconsistency between them and the seventeenth resolution, or any regular amendment of the Constitution. The oath could only require fidelity to the existing Constitution. A constitutional alteration of the Constitution could never be regarded as a breach of the Constitution, or of any oath to support it.

Mr. GERRY thought, with Mr. Gorham, there could be no shadow of inconsistency in the case. Nor could he see any other harm that could result from the resolution. On the other side, he thought one good effect would be produced by it. Hitherto the officers of the two governments had considered them as distinct from, and not as parts of, the general system, and had, in all cases of interference, given a preference to the state governments. The proposed oath will cure that error.

The resolution (the eighteenth) was agreed to, ''nem. con.''

The nineteenth resolution, referring the new Constitution to assemblies to be chosen by the people, for the express purpose of ratifying it, was next taken into consideration.

Mr. ELLSWORTH moved that it be referred to the legislatures of the states for ratification. Mr. PATTERSON seconded the motion.

Col. MASON considered a reference of the plan to the authority of the people as one of the most important and essential of the resolutions. The legislatures have no power to ratify it. They are the mere creatures of the state constitutions, and cannot be greater than their creators. And he knew of no power in any of the constitutions—he knew there was no power in some of them—that could be competent to this object. Whither, then, must we resort? To the people, with whom all power remains that has not been given up in the constitutions derived from them. It was of great moment, he observed, that this doctrine should be cherished, as the basis of free government. Another strong reason was, that, admitting the legislatures to have a competent authority, it would be wrong to refer the plan to them, because succeeding legislatures, having equal authority could undo the acts of their predecessors; and the national government would stand, in each state, on the weak and tottering foundation