Page:The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 Volume 3.djvu/598

 and of the supreme tribunal to hear and determine in the dernier resort, all piracies & felonies on the high seas, captures from an enemy;” etc. The other texts vary in the reading of the second, third, and fourth clauses, either by omitting them altogether, or by modifying or omitting one or more of them. Mr. Jameson argues that the specification of supreme and inferior tribunals could not have been in the original document because it was voted, on June 4, “to add these words to the first clause of the ninth resolution, namely: ‘To consist of one supreme tribunal, and of one or more inferior tribunals.’&thinsp;” In support of this he cites the authority of both the Journal and Madison’s notes. By referring to the Records of that date, however, it will be seen that Madison’s entry was copied from Journal and this evidence, therefore, rests upon the somewhat doubtful authority of the Journal alone. In the next place, it will be noticed that the wording of June 4 is slightly different from that of the original resolution (as reported by Madison), and so the phrase “to add” might well be used instead of “to accept” or “to agree to”. And finally, the texts that in other respects prove to be the most accurate—Madison’s, Washington’s, McHenry’s—all agree in the wording of this resolution.

The same reasoning applies to the latter part of the resolution respecting the jurisdiction of the inferior and superior tribunals, which Mr. Jameson argues is corrupted in the Madison copy.

In the editor’s judgment, then, the Madison text of the Virginia Plan or Randolph Resolutions as given in the Records (May 29) is an accurate copy of the original.