Page:Debates in the Several State Conventions, v5.djvu/382

356 must of necessity be obtained from the people. He considered the difference between a system founded on the legislatures only, and one founded on the people, to be the true difference between a league or treaty, and a constitution. The former, in point of moral obligation, might be as inviolable as the latter. In point of political operation, there were two important distinctions in favor of the latter. First, a law violating a treaty ratified by a preëxisting law might be respected by the judges as a law, though an unwise or perfidious one. A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves would be considered by the judges as null and void. Secondly, the doctrine laid down by the law of nations in the case of treaties is, that a breach of any one article by any of the parties frees the other parties from their engagements. In the case of a union of people under one constitution, the nature of the pact has always been understood to exclude such an interpretation. Comparing the two modes, in point of expediency, he thought all the considerations which recommended this Convention, in preference to Congress, for proposing the reform, were in favor of state conventions, in preference to the legislatures, for examining and adopting it.

On the question on Mr. Ellsworth's motion to refer the plan to the legislatures of the states,—

Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, ay, 3; New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, no, 7.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS moved, that the reference of the plan be made to one general convention, chosen and authorized by the people, to consider, amend, and establish the same. Not seconded.

On the question for agreeing to the nineteenth resolution, touching the mode of ratification as reported from the committee of the whole, viz., to refer the Constitution, after the approbation of Congress, to assemblies chosen by the people,—

New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, ay, 9; Delaware, no, 1.$185$

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS and Mr. KING moved, that the representation in the second branch consist of —— members from each state, who shall vote per capita.

Mr. ELLSWORTH said he had always approved of voting in that mode.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS moved to fill the blank with three. He wished the Senate to be a pretty numerous body. If two members only should be allowed to each state, and a majority be made a quorum, the power would be lodged in fourteen members, which was too small a number for such a trust.

Mr. GORHAM preferred two to three members for the blank. A small number was most convenient for deciding on peace and war, &c., which he expected would be vested in the second branch. The number of states will also increase. Kentucky, Vermont, the Province of Maine, and Franklin, will probably soon be added to the