Page:Debates in the Several State Conventions, v5.djvu/408

382 Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, ay, 3; New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, North Carolina, South Carolina, no, 5.

The House then adjourned till to-morrow at eleven o'clock. 

, Aug. 7.

In Convention.—The report of the committee of detail being taken up,—

Mr. PINCKNEY moved that it be referred to a committee of the whole. This was strongly opposed by Mr. GORHAM and several others, as likely to produce unnecessary delay; and was negatived,—Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, only, being in the affirmative.$192$

The preamble of the report was agreed to, ''nem. con.'' So were articles 1 and 2.

Article 3 being considered,—Col. MASON doubted the propriety of giving each branch a negative on the other, "in all cases." There were some cases in which it was, he supposed, not intended to be given, as in the case of balloting for appointments.

Mr. G. MORRIS moved to insert "legislative acts," instead of "all cases." Mr. WILLIAMSON seconds him.

Mr. SHERMAN. This will restrain the operation of the clause too much. It will particularly exclude a mutual negative in the case of ballots, which he hoped would take place.

Mr. GORHAM contended, that elections ought to be made by joint ballot. If separate ballots should be made for the president, and the two branches should be each attached to a favorite, great delay, contention, and confusion, may ensue. These inconveniences have been felt, in Massachusetts, in the election of officers of little importance compared with the executive of the United States. The only objection against a joint ballot is, that it may deprive the Senate of their due weight; but this ought not to prevail over the respect due to the public tranquillity and welfare.

Mr. WILSON was for a joint ballot in several cases at least; particularly in the choice of a president; and was therefore for the amendment. Disputes between the two Houses, during and concerning the vacancy of the executive, might have dangerous consequences.

Col. MASON thought the amendment of Mr. Gouverneur Morris extended too far. Treaties are, in a subsequent part, declared to be laws; they will therefore be subjected to a negative, although they are to be made, as proposed, by the Senate alone. He proposed that the mutual negative should be restrained to "cases requiring the distinct assent" of the two Houses. Mr. GOVERNEUR MORRIS thought this but a repetition of the same thing; the mutual negative and distinct assent being equivalent expressions. Treaties, he thought, were not laws.

Mr. MADISON moved to strike out the words, "each of which shall in all cases have a negative on the other;" the idea being sufficiently expressed in the preceding member of the Article, vesting 