Page:Debates in the Several State Conventions, v5.djvu/470

444 Mr. SHERMAN seconds the motion.

Mr. DICKINSON. We are come now to a most important matter—that of the sword. His opinion was, that the states never would, nor ought to, give up all authority over the militia. He proposed to restrain the general power to one fourth part at a time, which, by rotation, would discipline the whole militia.

Mr. BUTLER urged the necessity of submitting the whole militia to the general authority, which had the care of the general defence.

Mr. MASON had suggested the idea of a select militia. He was led to think that would be, in fact, as much as the general government could advantageously be charged with. He was afraid of creating insuperable objections to the plan. He withdrew his original motion, and moved a power—

"to make laws for regulating and disciplining the militia, not exceeding one tenth part in any one year, and reserving the appointment of officers to the states."

Gen. PINCKNEY renewed Mr. Mason's original motion. For a part to be under the general and a part under the state governments, would be an incurable evil. He saw no room for such distrust of the general government.

Mr. LANGDON seconds Gen. Pinckney's renewal. Ho saw no more reason to be afraid of the general government than of the state governments. He was more apprehensive of the confusion of the different authorities on this subject, than of either.

Mr. MADISON thought the regulation of the militia naturally appertaining to the authority charged with the public defence. It did not seem, in its nature, to be divisible between two distinct authorities. If the states would trust the general government with a power over the public treasure, they would, from the same consideration of necessity, grant it the direction of the public force. Those who had a full view of the public situation would, from a sense of the danger, guard against it. The states would not be separately impressed with the general situation, nor have the due confidence in the concurrent exertions of each other.

Mr. ELLSWORTH considered the idea of a select militia as impracticable; and if it were not, it would be followed by a ruinous declension of the great body of the militia. The states would never submit to the same militia laws. Three or four shillings, as a penalty, will enforce obedience better in New England, than forty lashes in some other places.

Mr. PINCKNEY thought the power such a one as could not be abused, and that the states would see the necessity of surrendering it. He had, however, but a scanty faith in militia. There must be also a real military force. This alone can effectually answer the purpose. The United States had been making an experiment without it, and we see the consequence in their rapid approaches toward anarchy.