Page:The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 Volume 2.djvu/92

 88 liECOP-DS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION Mo'd3 MADISON July use; but could see no inconsistency between them and the 17. Resol: or any regular amendt. of the Constitution. The oath could only require fidelity to the existing Constitution. A constitutional alteration of the Constitution, could never be regarded as a breach of the Constitution, or of any oath to support it. Mr Gerry thought with Mr. Ghorum there could be no shadow of inconsistency in the case. Nor could he see any other harm that could result from the Resolution. On the other side he thought one good effect would be produced by it. Hitherto the officers of Governments had con- sidered them as distinct from, not as parts of the-General System, & had in all cases of interference given a preference to the State Govts. The proposed oaths will cure that error. m The Resoln. (I8). was agreed to hem. con. m Resol: 19. referring the new Constitution to Assemblies to be chosen by the people for the express purpose of ratifying it" was next taken into consideration. Mr. Elseworth moved that it be referred to the Legislatures of the States {or ratification. Mr. Patterson zdecl. the motion. Col. Mason considered a reference of the plan to the authority of the people as one of the most important and essential of the Resolutions. The Legislatures have no power to ratify it. They are the mere creatures of the State Con- stitutions, and cannot be greater than their creators. And he knew of no power in any of the Constitutions, he knew there was no power in some o{ them, that could be competent to this object. Whither then must we resort? To the people with whom all power remains that has not been given up in the Constitutions derived from them. It was of great moment he observed that this doctrine should be cherished as the basis of free Government. Another strong reason was that admit- ting the Legislatures to have a competent authority, it would be wrong to refer the plan to them, because succeeding Legis- latures having equal authority could undo the acts of their predecessors; and the National Govt. would stand in each State on the weak and tottering foundation of an Act of As- sembly. There was a remaining consideration of some weight.

�