Page:Debates in the Several State Conventions, v5.djvu/520

494 can do so. The aim of those in opposition to the article, he perceived, was that the general government should abet the minority, and by that means divide a stale against its own consent.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS. If the forced division of the states is the object of the new system, and is to be pointed against one or two states, he expected the gentlemen from these would pretty quickly leave us.

Adjourned. 

, August 30.

In Convention.—Article 17 being resumed, for a question on it, as amended by Mr. Gouverneur Morris's substitute.

Mr. CARROLL moved to strike out so much of the article as requires the consent of the state to its being divided. He was aware that the object of this prerequisite might be to prevent domestic disturbances; but such was our situation with regard to the crown lands, and the sentiments of Maryland on that subject, that he perceived we should again be at sea, if no guard was provided for the right of the United States to the back lands. He suggested, that it might be proper to provide, that nothing in the Constitution should affect the right of the United States to lands ceded by Great Britain in the treaty of peace; and proposed a commitment to a member from each state. He assured the House, that this was a point of a most serious nature. It was desirable, above all things, that the act of the Convention might be agreed to unanimously. But should this point be disregarded, he believed that all risks would be run by a considerable minority, sooner than give their concurrence.

Mr. L. MARTIN seconded the motion for a commitment.

Mr. RUTLEDGE. Is it to be supposed that the states are to be cut up without their own consent? The case of Vermont will probably be particularly provided for. There could be no room to fear that Virginia or North Carolina would call on the United States to maintain their government over the mountains.

Mr. WILLIAMSON said, that North Carolina was well disposed to give up her western lands; but attempts at compulsion were not the policy of the United States. He was for doing nothing, in the Constitution, in the present case; and for leaving the whole matter in statu quo.

Mr. WILSON was against the commitment. Unanimity was of great importance, but not to be purchased by the majority's yielding to the minority. He should have no objection to leaving the case of the new states as heretofore. He knew nothing that would give greater or juster alarm than the doctrine, that a political society is to be torn asunder without its own consent.

On Mr. Carroll's motion for commitment,—

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

Mr. SHERMAN moved to postpone the substitute for article 17, agreed to yesterday, in order to take up the following amendment:—

