Page:Debates in the Several State Conventions, v5.djvu/526

500 Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS said, he meant to facilitate the adoption of the plan, by leaving the modes approved by the several state constitutions to be followed.

Mr. MADISON considered it best to require conventions; among other reasons for this, that the powers given to the general government, being taken from the state governments, the legislatures would be more disinclined than conventions composed in part, at least, of other men; and if disinclined, they could devise modes apparently promoting, but really thwarting, the ratification. The difficulty in Maryland was no greater than in other states, where no mode of change was pointed out by the constitution, and all officers were under oath to support it. The people were, in fact, the fountain of all power, and by resorting to them all difficulties were got over They could alter constitutions as they pleased. It was a principle in the bills of rights, that first principles might be resorted to.

Mr. M'HENRY said, that the officers of government in Maryland were under oath to support the mode of alteration prescribed by the constitution.

Mr. GORHAM urged the expediency of "conventions;" also Mr. PINCKNEY, for reasons formerly urged on a discussion of this question.

Mr. L. MARTIN insisted on a reference to the state legislatures. He urged the danger of commotions from a resort to the people and to first principles; in which the government might be on one side, and the people on the other. He was apprehensive of no such consequences, however, in Maryland, whether the legislature or the people should be appealed to. Both of them would be generally against the constitution. He repeated also the peculiarity in the Maryland constitution.

Mr. KING observed, that the constitution of Massachusetts was made unalterable till the year 1790; yet this was no difficulty with him. The state must have contemplated a recurrence to first principles, before they sent deputies to this Convention.

Mr. SHERMAN moved to postpone article 21, and to take up article 22; on which question,—

Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, ay, 5; New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, no, 6.

On Mr. Gouverneur Morris's motion, to strike out "conventions of me," it was negatived.

Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Georgia, ay, 4; New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Delaware, Virginia, South Carolina, no, 6.

On the question for filling the blank, in article 21, with "thirteen," moved by Mr. CARROLL and Mr. L. MARTIN,—

All the states were no, except Maryland.

Mr. SHERMAN and Mr. DAYTON moved to fill the blank with "ten."

Mr. WILSON supported the motion of Mr. Madison, requiring a majority both of the people and of states.