Page:The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 Volume 3.djvu/618

 on Impeachment and Conviction for Mal-Practice, or Neglect of Duty,” and opposite them on the left-hand page “by Congress on Application by a Majority of the executives of the several States.” In this instance there are no asterisks, and the two phrases probably represent alternative proposals upon which no conclusion was reached. In copying, some of the members doubtless ran the two phrases together. It is probable that most of the other variations could be accounted for in a similar way.

In his Genuine Information, Luther Martin states that a question was proposed and negatived “that a union of the States, merely federal, ought to be the sole object of the exercise of the powers vested in the convention.” Mr. Jameson identifies this with the action of the Convention on June 19 in rejecting the first of the resolutions presented by Paterson. He therefore concludes that we have in this the correct reading of the first article of the New Jersey Plan.

Martin also stated in his Genuine Information that he had a copy of the New Jersey Plan, which he asked leave to read. Shortly afterward (February 15, 1788) there appeared in the Maryland Gazette and Baltimore Advertiser a copy of the “Resolves proposed to the Convention by the Honorable Mr. Paterson, and mentioned in Mr. Martin’s Information to the House of Assembly.” It is altogether probable that the printer obtained the document from Martin. This copy consists of sixteen articles. The first is identical with the resolution Martin stated was negatived in the Convention and which Mr. Jameson thinks was the first article of the New Jersey Plan. It is the same as the first resolution partially crossed out in Paterson’s first preliminary draft. The others correspond to those of the Paterson and Brearley copies, except that they differ in order and subdivisions and there is an extra article (“Resolved, that it is necessary to define what offences, committed in any State, shall be deemed high treason against the United States.”), which was included but crossed out in Paterson’s little book.

Assuming that this is Martin’s copy, it would seem to have been compiled like those made by others of the group which formulated the New Jersey Plan, embodying various suggested articles and phrases which appealed to him personally.

Instead of regarding Martin’s statement to be conclusive as to the identity of the first resolution of the New Jersey Plan, it would seem to be more likely that Martin had noted or remembered simply