Page:Debates in the Several State Conventions, v5.djvu/416

390 government, and such a regulation would correspond little with the idea that we were one people.

Mr. WILSON enforced the same consideration.

Mr. MADISON suggested the case of new states in the west, which could have, perhaps, no representation on that plan.

Mr. MERCER. Such a regulation would present a greater alienship than existed under the old federal system. It would interweave local prejudices and state distinctions in the very Constitution which is meant to cure them. He mentioned instances of violent disputes raised in Maryland concerning the term "residence."

Mr. ELLSWORTH thought seven years of residence was by far loo long a term; but that some fixed term of previous residence would be proper. He thought one year would be sufficient, but seemed to have no objection to three years.

Mr. DICKINSON proposed that it should read "inhabitant actually resident for ——— years." This would render the meaning less indeterminate.

Mr. WILSON. If a short term should be inserted in the blank, so strict an expression might be construed to exclude the members of the legislature, who could not be said to be actual residents in their states, whilst at the seat of the general government.

Mr. MERCER. It would certainly exclude men, who had once been inhabitants, and returning from residence elsewhere to resettle in their original state, although a want of the necessary knowledge could not in such cases be presumed.

Mr. MASON thought seven years too long, but would never agree to part with the principle. It is a valuable principle. He thought it a defect in the plan, that the representatives would be too few to bring with them all the local knowledge necessary. If residence be not required, rich men of neighboring states may employ with success the means of corruption in some particular district, and thereby get into the public councils after having failed in their own states. This is the practice in the boroughs of England.

On the question for postponing, in order to consider Mr. Dickinson's motion,—

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

On the question for inserting "inhabitant," in place of "resident,"—agreed to, ''nem. con.''

Mr. ELLSWORTH and Col. MASON moved to insert "one year" for previous inhabitancy.

Mr. WILLIAMSON liked the report as it stood. He thought "resident" a good enough term. He was against requiring any period of previous residence. New residents, if elected, will be most zealous to conform to the will of their constituents, as their conduct will be watched with a more jealous eye.

Mr. BUTLER and Mr. RUTLEDGE moved "three years," instead of "one year," for previous inhabitancy.