rnisdgkJ.TaiMr, 
 
 HadiflOiinik 
 
 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 
 
 STUDIES IN THE HISTORY OF THE FEDERAL 
 CONVENTION OF 1T87. 
 
 BY 
 
 JOHN FRANKLIN JAMESON, 
 
 PUUFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO. 
 
 fFrom the Annual Report of the American Historical Association for 1902, 
 Vol. I, pages 87-167.) 
 
 WARHTNnTON: 
 
 OOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 
 
 1 '.*();;.
 
 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 
 
 STUDIES IN THE HISTORY OF THE FEDKRAL 
 CO.\VE.\TIOx\ OF 1787. 
 
 BY 
 
 JOHN FRANKLIX JAMESON, 
 
 PROFESSOR, I'NIVERSITY OK CHICAGO. 
 
 From the Annual Report of the American Historical Association for 1902, 
 Vol. I, pages 87-167,) 
 
 WASHINGTON: 
 
 GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 
 
 1 ore;.
 
 SRLF 
 URL 
 
 lY.-STUDIES IN THE HISTORY OF THE FEDERAL 
 CONVENTION OF 17X7. 
 
 By JOHN FRANKLIN JAMESON, 
 
 Profrnaor, I'liirn-sil;/ of ('liirtKjn.
 
 STUDIES IN THE HISTORY OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 
 
 1787. 
 
 Bv Prof. .Iniix Fkaxklix Jameson. 
 
 • Of the papers here printed, the lirst was read at the Phila- 
 delphia iiieeting- of the Association. The rest owe their pres- 
 ence here to the merciful in.stitution known as " leave to 
 print,""' Most of them are merely essays in '' the lower criti- 
 cism."" But need one apologize for textual criticism in such 
 a case^ Minute and technical studies respecting transactions 
 intrinsically unimportant may justly })e disapproved. But 
 those persons who agree with Darwin's declaration that the 
 Anglo-Saxon migration across the Atlantic may very likely 
 be the most important event in human liistory will think that 
 the minutiffi of the Philadel})hia Convention are as well de- 
 servino' of elaboration as those of the councils of Sardica and 
 Chalcedon— not to say Nicani and Trent. An age which every 
 \'ear prints some scores of pages of textual criticism of the 
 lives of Merovingian .saints can surely devote a few to the 
 immediate origins of the American Constitution, though it be 
 l)ut to " settle hoti'S business." The following is a list of the 
 papers comprising the series: 
 
 J. Letters from the Federal Convciitioii. 
 71. Lettei'H not heretofore ])riiitt'(l. 
 
 III. List of letters in ])rint. 
 
 IV. The text of the Virginia )>lan. 
 V. The text of the Pinckney plan. 
 
 VI. The text of the New Jersey plan. 
 \'ll. The text of Hamilton's plan. 
 VIIL The AVilsou drafts for the committee of detail. 
 IX. Members who did not sign. 
 X. The action of the States. 
 XL Journals and debates of the State conventions. 
 
 Of the above })apers, tliose nuiiiheretl II and 111 seem to 
 
 89
 
 V)0 AMEliU'AN IIISTOIUCAL ASSOCIATION. 
 
 lu> nooessiirv :i(ljuncts of the first; NO. \'11I prcsonts an ini- 
 jutitiint n(Mvt(>\t: NO. IX is inlciulcd to iium>( :im apparent 
 though siiiall need. Of X and XI, which aiv bibliograph- 
 ical in their ciiaractcr. no nion> is thouglit than that they may 
 possibly help scune weary l)rolhei-. I venture to think No. V 
 the most important. 
 
 1. LKTTKUS FROM TilK FEDERAL CONVENTION. 
 
 There is certainly no lack of information concerning the 
 doings of the great Federal Convention which met in thiscit}^ 
 one hundred and fifteen years ago. The proceedings of each 
 day may l)e followed in the journal of the Convention and in 
 the invakialile record of its debates kept by Madison — not the 
 least of the man}" pul)lic sei vices for which we are indebted 
 to that methodical little man. Yet I think it not hopeless to 
 attempt to derive some further illustrations of its history from 
 the letters written ])v various of the members durincj the con- 
 ti nuance of its sessions. Such as they are, they form a record 
 no less authentic than the official journal, and even more strictl}" 
 contemporaneous than Madison's notes in the form in which 
 the latter ha\o been presented to us. Moreover, their luim- 
 ber is not small. About eighty have been printed, in whole 
 or in part or in summarj^,'^' and through the kindness of their 
 owners 1 have been permitted to have copies of a considerable 
 number which still remain in manuscript. It is true that 
 many, if not most of them, are insignificant for the present 
 l)uri)ose. It is also true that their contents are vastlv less 
 instructive than they would doubtless have been if the Con 
 \('ntion had not, on May 29, adopted as one of its formal rules 
 the injunction "that nothing spoken in the House be printed 
 or otherwise published or communicated without leave. "^ 
 But it should be remembered that a portion, though a small 
 portion, of the transactions of the Convention preceded this 
 decree. In the second place, not every member, though to 
 be sure nearly all, observed the rule with the utmost strict- 
 ness, (iilman of New Hampshire, excusable perhaps as hav- 
 ing arrived very late and but a few days before the date of the 
 
 a A list of the printed letters forms No. Ill of thi.s .series of .studies. In tlie footnotes to 
 this first paper letters are. for the sake of brevity, referred to by their numbers on that list 
 ^ Documentary Hi.story of the Constitution. I, .'vl.
 
 THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787. 91 
 
 letter quoted, writes to his cousin Joseph, with un ustonish- 
 ing' misconception of a veiy stringent rule — 
 
 As sei'recy is not otherwise enjoined than as prudence may dictate to 
 each individual, in a letter to my brother John, of the 28th instant, I 
 gave him (for the satisfaction of two or three who will not make it public) 
 a hint respecting the general principles of the plan of National Government 
 that will probably be handed out — which will not be submitted to the leg- 
 islatures, but after the approljation of Congress to an assL'ml)ly or assem- 
 blies of representatives recommended by the several legislatures, to be 
 expressly chosen by the people to consider and decide thereon." 
 
 (The letter to John Ta3'lor Gilman seems not to he extant.) 
 Other members felt the oblig-ation of the rule to be somewhat re- 
 laxed during- the later portion of the Conventioir.s proceedings, 
 when the great questions had been settled, and comnuinicated to 
 their anxious friends some notion of the stage which had ])een 
 reached in the transactions, and even in a few cases some hints 
 of the contents of the instrument which the}^ were f i-aming. 
 Even the cautious and punctilious Madison, writing on the Oth 
 of September, feels free to describe the Constitution in out- 
 line to his correspondent, because that correspondent is fletfer- 
 son in Paris and the Convention is evidently within a few da\'s 
 of adjournment.'^ Finally, it is worth noting that a certain 
 number of the letters are addressed b}' members remaining in 
 Philadelphia to meni])ers who have gone home, or vice versa, 
 and in these we tind. as we might expect, a greater freedom 
 of utterance,'' A notable example is a most striking lettei" of 
 Washington to Hamilton, written at the crisis of the Con\'('n- 
 tion.'' Put of this later. 
 
 Naturally it is the outwaixl aspects of the Convention which 
 ai'(^ most largely illusti-ated by these letters. Some of them 
 exhibit the slowness of the members in arriving at J^hiladel- 
 phia — the tedious delays in securing a (piorum.' ( )th(n's relate 
 the comings and goings of such as did not remain throughout 
 the entire four months.'" It would in most casivs \)o j)ossiblc 
 by their use to explain the al)sence of those )uembers whose 
 names are not sigricd t(» the insti-unient, vet who ai'e not 
 
 "No. 54. 
 
 '' No. 75. 
 
 '■Letters of members to members are: Nos. C, s, VJ. '.'l, :V2, :w, i;*, iV>, (;:>, CI, (W, 70, 77. 
 
 ''No. 39. 
 
 ''Nos. 1, 4, f>, G, 9-13, 5-1. No. 17 gives a li.st of Jiiembers. 
 
 /Nos. 24, 27, 37, 42, 43, 4«, 49, 50, bH, 5(5, 02, 03, 00, G8.
 
 *J-J AMKKICAN HISTOKK'AI- ASSOCIATION. 
 
 niiiiUHl as amonti- those wlio n>fus(>d thoir signatures/' The 
 most interesting of the U'tters of the al)sent is that in which 
 Hamilton explains to Kufus King that he had written to his 
 rei-aleitrant coHeagues informing them that if either of them 
 would come down he would accompiuiy him to New York. 
 "So nuich." he says, "for the sake of propriety and public 
 opinion." •"In the meantime." he adds, "if any material 
 alteration should happen to he made in the plan now before 
 the Convention. 1 will be ol)liged to you for a comnumication 
 of it. 1 will also be obliged to you to let me know when your 
 conclusion is at hand, for I would choose to be present at that 
 time."'' Later he writes incpiiring into the truth of the rumor, 
 current in New York, that some late changes in the scheme 
 have taken place "which give it a higher tone." ^ Interest- 
 ing also are those letters which show that one of Major Pierce's 
 reasons for absence was the expectation of fighting a duel, in 
 which Hamilton was second to his adversary. '^ 
 
 Some of the earlier letters show the anxieties and difficulties 
 of the members as to quarters.' Some of them went into 
 lodgings, some to taverns. A\' ashington was entertained at 
 the house of Robert Morris, Mason put up at the old Indian 
 Queen, in Fourth street, above Chestnut, where, says he — 
 
 we are very well accommodated, have a good room to ourselves, and are 
 charged only twenty-five Pennsylvania currency per day, including our 
 servants and horses, exclusive of club in liiiuors and extra charges; so that 
 I hoi)e T shall be able to defray my expenses with my public allowance, 
 and more than that I do not wish./ 
 
 As time went on, however, and the proceedings bade fair to 
 be prolonged far beyond the time originally expected, not a 
 few of the members found their public allowance far from 
 sufficient, and letters to the executives of th(^ States asking 
 for remittances to meet unexpected expenses are not infre- 
 quent.!^ They are not themselves dissatisfied that the work is 
 
 "This lias been attempted, by means of these letters luid other sources of information 
 in Ko. IX of this series of papers, pp. 157-160, infra. 
 
 ft No. 63. 
 
 cNo. 69. 
 
 dNos. 48,49,50. 
 
 « Nos. 4, 6, 8. 
 
 /No. 4. That Pierce lodged at this same hostelry appears from his statement in a 
 memorandum printed in the American Historical Review, III, 328. Madison and Charles 
 Pinckney lodged in the same house with each other (Madison's Letters, IV, 203); so 
 probably did Read and Dickinson (No. 8). 
 
 »Nos. 18,22, 23, 41, ."il, .=)3.
 
 THE FEDERAL CONVENTIOlSr OF 1787. 98 
 
 beino- done deliberately." but Madison twice writes Jefferson 
 that the public mind is ^■er^' impatient for the event.* Early 
 in July there is a prediction that the delegates will be 
 detained till the middle of August.'" Before the end of Jul}' 
 the 1st of September is talked of as the time of release. ^' By 
 the middle of August a continuance till the middle of Septem- 
 ber bBgins to be foreseen.* 
 
 Something of the social life of the members transpires in the 
 letters/ though not so much as in Washington's diary. '■' The 
 daih' dinners and tea-drinkings which that much-enduring man 
 tranquilly records wore desperately upon the country-loving 
 and less patient spirit of George Mason. He had been but 
 ten days in Philadelphia when he wrote: 
 
 I begin to grow heartily tired of the etiquette and nonsense so fashion- 
 able in this city. It Avonld take me some months to make myself master 
 of them, and that it should require months to learn what is not worth 
 remembering as many minutes is to me so discouraging a circumstance as 
 determines me to give myself no manner of troul)le about them.'' 
 
 It is not illegitimate to dcrixe a little anuisement from the 
 comparison of two letters of Franklin.' The one (corrobo- 
 rated by Washington's diary) shows that he entertained the 
 members at dinner on the 16th of May, two days after the 
 date on Avhich the Convention should have begim its sessions. 
 The other, in which he is describing to his sister the recent 
 enlargements of his house, tells her that his new dining-room 
 enables him to have a dinner-party of twenty-four. As presi- 
 dent of Pennsylvania, the sagacious doctor nuist dine the 
 dek'gates; but, born not in vain in Yankee land, he placed 
 his invitation early, when not half the delegates had arrived. 
 It was not his fault that they were so slow in assembling. As 
 nearlv as it can l)e calculated, there nuist have Ikmmi just about 
 
 "Xos. 23,61. 
 
 '> Xos. J4, "o. 
 
 ■• No. 35. 
 
 'I Nos. 46, 51. . _ 
 
 f Nos. 58, 59, 62, &. 
 
 /Ncs. 2, 11, 14, 28. 
 
 (/Washington's diary for the period of tlie Convoiilion exists in two forms. The 
 Library of Cong:ress possesses a volume, whieli, acecirdiiif,' to its Calendar of Washington 
 Manuscripts (pp. 65, 66), "is probably the original notebook from which the amplified 
 diary, now in the Department of State, was written at a later period." Its text for the 
 l)eriod in question was printed, with omi.>vsions, in the Pennsylvania Magazine of History, 
 XI, 296-308. From llie diary in its finished form, preserved at the Department of State, 
 e-xtracts have been printed by SparKs (IX, .53,S-.')41) and by Fonl (XI, Mt)-155). 
 
 ft No. n. 
 
 I Nos. 2, 1 1.
 
 \)4 AMERICAN HISTORICAL A'SSOCIATION. 
 
 tAVoiity-foui' incmhors in town on the 16th; two da_ys later 
 thov would li:i\ (■ hcoii. in ;i pvo])oi' sonso. ono too many for 
 him. 
 
 But nuich nioic ini[H)rt!iiit thing-.s than these are to be found 
 in the letters. Beginning with the earliest letters, we catch 
 gHmpses of those private and preparatory consultations of 
 which the official records tell us nothing. ''The Virginia 
 deputies (who are all here)," says Mason, Avriting in the days 
 when a quorum had not yet come together, *' meet and confer 
 together two or three hours every dav, in order to form a 
 proper correspondence of sentiments; and for form's sake, to 
 see what new d(>puties are arrived, and to grow into some 
 acquaintance with each other, we [that is, the Convention] 
 regularly meet every da.y at 3 o'clock. "« The ordinary hours 
 of meeting, by the way, are stated hj one member as being 
 from 10 o'clock till 1.'' Franklin writes to his sister, imme- 
 diateh" after the adjournment of the Convention: 
 
 I attended the business of it live hours in every day from the beginning, 
 which is something more than four months. You may judge from thence 
 tliat my health continues; some tell me I look better, and they suppose 
 the daily exercise of going and returning from the statehouse has done me 
 good. ''■ 
 
 Washington in his diary speaks of "not less than live, for 
 a large part of the time six, and sometimes seven hours, 
 sitting ever}' day." 
 
 l>ut to return to the earliest duxH of the Convention. It 
 Avill be remembered that soon after the Randolph or Vii-ginia 
 plan was presented Charles Pincknc}-, of South Carolina, pre- 
 sented a i)lan, and also that it has wholly disappeared,'^ for 
 that which is printed in the journal under his name is demon- 
 strably something quite different. Now, a letter written in 
 those earlv days before a quorum had been obtained gives an 
 
 nSo. 4.. 
 
 '•Xo. 62. The journal, however, shows these hours as definitely fixed during only the 
 period from August 18 to August 2i. See No. G". After that the hours were from 10 to 3. 
 From May 28 to .Iiuie 2 the hour of meeting was 10 o'elock, from June 4 to August 18 
 11 o'clock, but without specified liour for adjournment. Documentary History, I, 132, 
 l.')4; III, .WJ, t; 13, et passim. 
 
 <-Xo. Hi. Wiitson, Annal.s, ed. IS'Jl, I, 402, .says that the municipal authorities covered 
 the street pavement outside the statehouse with earth to silence the rattling of wheeLs 
 during the time of the Convention. In the DocumeiUary History, I, 280, is printed a 
 communicatiiin from the Library ('cmipany of I'liihidelphia, extending the privilege of 
 drawing books lo the members of tlu- Convention during its continuance. 
 
 <'So it was universally supposed at the time when this p>aper was read; but see i)p. 
 128,132, infra, and the American Historical Review, VIII, 509-511.
 
 THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787. 95 
 
 outline of a plan which the writer of the letter had seen and 
 c-opied, and which, though he doe.s not give the author's name, 
 can be demonstrated to have been Pinckney'.s, which accord- 
 ing'l}^ was in existence as early as Ma}' 20/' 
 
 The events of the first days' proceedings of the Convention 
 are not related in a manner different from that of the journal; 
 but the letters show much of the spirit which the delegates 
 manifested at the beginning of their labors, of the various 
 expectations which they and others formed concerning their 
 work, and of the prevalent notions as to what it should be.'^ 
 If George Mason's estimate was correct, the prevailing opinion 
 at the beg-inning of the sessions was in favor of a total reno- 
 vation of the existing articles and a government at least as 
 strongl}^ centralized as that which was outlined in the Vir- 
 ginia resolutions soon after presented/' But it should be said 
 that his estimate was formed at a time when tlie large States 
 were more fully represented in Philadelphia than the small. 
 The spirit in which the work was begun was ol)\ iously marked 
 by the expectation and the desire of harmony. Many passages 
 declare, forcibly and even eloquently, the writers" sense of the 
 mao-nitude of the occasion and of the critical situation in 
 which the United States stood. ^' Fierce in his notes, published 
 a few vears ago, speaks of himself as having occupied ''a seat 
 in the wisest council in the world." ' Johnson, of Connecticut, 
 a graver man, tells his son that the assembly includes many 
 of the ablest men in America,'^ while liobert Morris Avrites to 
 his sons in Germany that they ought to pray for a successful 
 issue to the Convention's lalwrs. ''as the result is to be a foiiu 
 of government under which you are U) li\'e, and in the admin- 
 istration of which you may probabh' hereafter have a share, 
 provided you ([ualify yourselves by up])lication to 3'our 
 studies,'"'' and one of the North Carolina (hdegates takes satis- 
 faction in believing that they have contributed to the lKi])pi- 
 ness of millions, ''^ 
 
 The situation of the General Government [wrote Wasliington], if it can 
 lie called a governiiiciit. is .■<iiakoii to its foundation an<l liable to he over- 
 turned l)y every hlast. In a word, it is at an end, and unless a remedy is 
 soon applied anarchy and confusion will inevitahly ensue. ' 
 
 " No. C. Sec pp. 119, 120, infra. 
 
 
 
   /No. 29. 
 
 ('Nos. 4, .5, '.), 15, 10, IS. 
 
 
 
 (7 No. 28. 
 
 c-No. 5. 
 
 
 
 /( No. 06. 
 
 dNos. 10, 15, 16, 21, 28, 60, 06. 
 
 
 
 '■ No. 15. 
 
 <-' American Historical Review, 
 
 HI, 
 
 33t. 

 
 *,»() AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 
 
 No niombcr of tho Convoution was less inclined to rhotor- 
 ical oxatii>-onition than Goor<>o IVIason; nono siii-passed him in 
 the gift of a terse and niasculim^ eloiiiience. 
 
 Ainerii-a [he writei^ t<> liis son] ha^^ certainly upon this occayion (ha\vn 
 forth her first characters. There are u|Min this Convention many gentle- 
 men of the most respectable abilities and, so far as I can discover, of the 
 j>nrest intentions. The eyes of the Ignited States are turned upon this 
 assembly and their expectations raised to a very anxious degree. May 
 God grant we may be able to gratify them by establishing a wise and just 
 government. For my own part I never before felt myself in such a situa- 
 tion, and declare I would not, upon pecuniary motives, serve in this Con- 
 vention for a thousand pounds per day. The revolt from Great Britain 
 and the formations of our new governments at that time were nothing com- 
 l^ared to the great business now before us. There was then a certain degree 
 of enthusiasm whicli inspired and supi)orted the mind; but to view 
 through the calm, sedate medium of reason the influence which the 
 establishment now jjroposed may have ujion the happiness or misery of 
 millions yet unborn is an object of such magnitude as al)sorbs, and in a 
 measun' suspends, the (operations of the lunnan luidenstanding." 
 
 It may naturally be supposed that the hopefulness with 
 M'hich tlie Convention Ijegan its work was overclouded by the 
 discordant debates which marked the last days of June and 
 the first days of Jnl^', days in which it long seemed impossible 
 to bring into any agreement the conflicting desires of the large 
 and the small States. Several extant letters show that this 
 was plainly felt to be the great crisis of the Convention, in 
 which the danger of breaking up without result was immi- 
 nent/' Most strikingly is this shoAvn by the letter of Wash- 
 ington to Hamilton already alluded to. 
 
 When I refer you [he says] to the state of the counsels which jire- 
 vailed at the period you left the city [some ten days before] and add that 
 they are now, if jjossible, in a worse train than ever, you will find but lit- 
 tle ground on which the hope of a good establishment can be formed. In 
 a word, I almost despair of seeing a favoral)le issue to the proceedings of 
 our Convention, and do therefore repent liaving had any agency in the 
 business. * * * J am sorry you went away. 1 wish you were back. 
 The crisis is equally important and alarming, and no opposition, under 
 such circumstances, should discourage exertions till the signature is 
 offered. « 
 
 As has already been said, in the later months of the Con- 
 vention one finds in the correspondence occasional disclosures 
 as to the stage ivached in the proceedings. But these add 
 nothing to what is in the joui-md, except the evidences of 
 relief- when, the main outlines of the Constitution havino- 
 
 "No. 111. '' Nos. :!0-:i:i, ;;;i. '-No.;;!),
 
 THE FEDERAL COlSrVENTIOISf OF 1787. \)7 
 
 been completed, it had been handed over to the Committee of 
 Detaih" More interesting- are the letters in which linits re- 
 specting the Constitution its(^lt' are conveyed. 
 
 It is not probable [writes one of tlie North Carolina delegates, August 
 12] that the United States will in future be so ideal as to risk their happi- 
 ness upon the unanimity of the Avhole, and thereby put it in the power of 
 one or J;wo States to defeat the most salutary propositions and prevent the 
 Union from rising out of that contemptible situation to which it is at 
 present reduced/' 
 
 Gihnan's disclosures as to the process of ratitication have 
 alread}^ been mentioned. Madison, after outlining to .Jeffer- 
 son the powers proposed to be conferred on the General Gov- 
 ernment, remarks: 
 
 The extent of them may perhaps surprise you. i hazard an npiuion, 
 nevertheless, that the plan, should it he adopte<l, will luiihci- effectually 
 answer its national object nor prevent the local mischiefs which every- 
 where excite disgust against tlie State governments. < 
 
 As the Convention draws to its close several menduM's, look- 
 ing forward to the action of Congress upon it, express to the 
 authorities of their States an anxiety tliat the latter shall main- 
 tain an ade(piate representation in Congress, in order that that 
 body may act promptly, and get the Constitution befori' the 
 State legislatures at their autumnal sessions.'' One of the last 
 letters is one in which Dickinson, writing to Read, authorizes 
 the latter to sign his name to the Constitution, as he wishes 
 to leave a few days before the close.' I am informed by Mr. 
 Andrew H. Allen, the official custodian of the original docu- 
 ment, that Dickinson's signature to it is undoubtedly wiitteii 
 in Read's hand. Finally comes the brief note in which Maj. 
 ^^'iHiam Jackson, secretary of the Convention, informs Gen- 
 eral Washington that — 
 
 Major .Jackson, after burning all loose scraps of paper which belong ti> 
 the Convention, will this evening wait U])on the (leneral with the journals 
 and other papers which their vote directs to be delivered to his excellency 
 Monday evening./ 
 
 "Nas. 34, 46.56, 58, 65,68. 
 
 b No. 58. 
 
 cNo. 75. 
 
 dNos. 34, 62, 65. 
 
 eNo. 77. 
 
 /No. 78. From a conversation willi .Fiickson in l.si.s, which .lnhn tiuincy .Xdains 
 recor(J.s, Memoirs, IV, 175, it appears tliat .(aekson did preserve extensive 7iiinutes of tlie 
 debates of the Convention. Possibly these are still extant; see Appleton's Cye. Biog., 
 s. v., but also Pa. Mag. Hist., II. 3.53. 
 
 II. Doc. 4(;i. pt 1 7
 
 98 AMKKICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 
 
 Agrouj) ot" li>tt(M-s which in strit-tnoss falls outside the pres- 
 ent suhject, yet which ])res(Mits much the sjune sort of interest, 
 is that of the letters written by nienil)ei-s in the next day or 
 two after the adjoui-nuuMit. General Washington transmits 
 a copy of the Constitution to Lafayette, with a brief note: 
 
 It is till.' ivsult lit four iiioiitlhs' (U'liberatiun [he says]. It is now ac'liil<l 
 of fortune, to be fostered by some and buffeted by others. What will be 
 the general opinion or the rece]ition of it is not for me to decide, nor shal] 
 I say anythintf for or against it. If it l)e good, T suppose it will work its 
 way; if hud. it will recoil on tlie framers." 
 
 Kandol})h sends a co[)V to Beverley Randolph, the lieutenant- 
 governor, who had beeti taking his place as head of the execu- 
 tive of Virginia during his absence; and adds, in a sentence 
 characteristic of his tortuous mind: 
 
 Altho' the names of Col. Mason and myself are not subscribed, it is not 
 therefore to be concluded that we are opposed to its adoption. Our rea- 
 sons for not subscribing will be better explained at large, and on a personal 
 interview, than by letter.'' 
 
 The UKMubers from North Carolina are careful to explain 
 promptly to their governor how completely the interests, and 
 especially the pecuniary interests, of North Carolina have been 
 safeguarded by the gi'eat compromises and by some of the 
 minor provisions of the proposed Constitution.'' The series 
 fitly ends with a letter of Madison to Edmund Pendleton, in 
 which he sums up in a sentence the history of the Convention: 
 
 The double object of lilending a proper stability and energy in the Gov- 
 ernment with the essential characters of tbe republican form, and of trac- 
 ing a proper line of demarcation between tlie national and State authorities, 
 was necessarily fouml to be as difficult as it was desirable, and to admit of 
 an infinite diversity concerning the means among those who were unani- 
 mously agreed concerning the end.'' 
 
 II. I.KTTEKS NOT HERETOFORE PRINTED. 
 
 1. David Brearldj to Jotuithin Dayton {extract). * 
 
 Philadelphia, D"' Jmw 1787. 
 Dkau Sir: * * * We have been in a Conunittee of the 
 Whole for some time, and have under consideration a number 
 
 n No. ^. 
 ''No. 82. 
 fNo. 79. 
 ''No. 8.1. 
 
 "From a copy kin<lly fiirnishcl by .Mr. Simon Gratz, of Philadelphia, who po.ssesses 
 the original uianu.script.
 
 THE FEDERAL CONVENTION" OF 1787. 99 
 
 of very important propositions, none of which, however, have 
 as yet been reported. My colleagues, as well as myself, arc 
 verj' desirous that you should join us immediately." The 
 importance of the business really demands it. 
 
 2. Daoid Brearley to Will him Patet'son. ^' 
 
 Philadelphia 21 A luj. 1787. 
 
 Dear Sir: 1 was in hopes after the Committee had reported, 
 that we should have been aljle to have published [? linished] 
 by the first of September, at present I have no prospect of 
 our getting- through l)efore the latter end of that month. 
 Every article is again argued over, with as much earnestness 
 and obstinacy as before it was conmiitted. We have lately 
 made a rule to meet at ten and sit 'til four, which is punctually 
 complied with. Cannot you come down and assist us, — we 
 have many reasons for desiring this; our duty, in the manner 
 we now sit, is quite too hard for three,'" but a much stronger 
 reason is, that we actually stand in need of your al)ilities. 
 
 I am, most respectfully, dear sir, your obedient humble 
 
 servant 
 
 David Brearley. 
 
 3. Extract from tlie Petnisi/l noila Journal.'^ 
 
 We are informed, that many letters have T)een written to 
 the members of the f federal convention from different (juar- 
 ters, respecting the reports idly circidating, that it is intended 
 to establish a monarchical government, to send for the bishop 
 of Osnahurgh, &c., &e. — to which it has been uniformly an- 
 swered, tho' we cannot, affirmatively, tell you what we are 
 doing, we can, negatively, tell you what we are not doing — 
 we never once thought of a king. 
 
 "Dayton took his seat June 21. Brearley, Houston, Paterson, and Livingston were 
 already present at the time wlieii the letter was written. 
 
 '' From a eopy finnid among tlie MSS. of George Baiieroft at the Lcmo.k Library, " Pat- 
 erson MSS.," p. 603. There seems to be no evidenee of Pater.son's presence from .Inly 23 
 to the time of signing the Constitution. Documentary History, III, -105. 
 
 '■I. e., Brearley, Livingston, and Dayton. Documentary History, I, HO, Ml; III, 561, 
 f^lA, .=S9C. 
 
 ''Of ,\ugust 21. 1787. Mentioned in Curtis, Histf)ry of tlie Formation of the Constitu- 
 tion, II, 49.5, and Constitutional History, I, (V2ti. I have ]in>cure<l a copy of it and inserted 
 it here mainly that it may be seen not to be an individual letter, though its phrases are 
 taken from one written two days hefore by Governor Martin, letter No. 65. Upon its sub- 
 ject, see Humphreys to Hamilton, in the hitter's works, cd. Hamilton, I, 442; Hamilton's 
 History of the Republic, III, 331: J. C. Hamilton, Life of A. Hamilton, II, 535.
 
 100 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 
 
 .f. 2^at1i(tii!('l (rorhdin to Cahh Strong."' 
 
 PrirLADELPHIA Ai((j' '20 
 
 My Dear Sh: I ice'' your fiivour from N York uiul was 
 pleased to liiul that you had o-ol on so well, inclosed is a 
 Letter that came to hand for you. We liave now under 
 eonsidiM'ation tln^ IS'"' Article which i> that the United States 
 shall ouarantee, iScc. &c.'' 
 
 I am in hopes we shall be done? in about 20 days. There 
 are several things refei'i'ed which will take some time. 
 
 Keinember me to our friend Sedgwick. 
 
 -7. rfdiKifJiitii Ddijlon to (f( )). Ettas I>(ii/ton {extract).'' 
 
 Philadelphia, Sej>t. .9, 17S7. 
 Dear Sir: * '■"•' "'•■ We have happily so far tinished our 
 business, as to be employed in giving it its last polish and 
 preparing it for the public inspection. This, 1 conclude, ma}' 
 be done in three or four days, at which time the public curi- 
 osity and our desire of returning to our respective homes, will 
 equally b(^. gratitied. 
 
 III. LIST OF LETTERS IN PRINT. 
 
 The following is intended as a list of letters to be found in 
 print, written by members of the Philadelphia convention 
 during its sessions, whether the same are perceived to have 
 any importance to history or not. Letters printed only in 
 extract or in summary are included, and also some letters 
 of importance written just after the adjournment. On the 
 other hand, letters written by meml)ers before they arrived in 
 Philadelphiii, though after the opening of the convention, are 
 not included: 
 
 1. May 15. Madison to Jefferson. LetterH and other Writings, 1,328. 
 
 2. May LS. Franklin to Thomas Jordan. Works, ed. Sparks, X, 304; 
 
 e<L Bigelow, IX, 386. 
 
 3. ;May 18. Franklin to (Jeorge Whatley. Works, ed. Sparks, X, 306; 
 
 ed. Bigelow, IX, 388. 
 
 "The original of this letter is posse.s.sed by the Hi.storical and Natural History Society 
 of South Natick, Mass. A copy was kindly furnished by Gustavus Smith, esq., president 
 of the society. 
 
 '> Consideration of article 18 of the report of tlie coniniittee of detail wa.s not begun, 
 according to the journal, until the session of August :!0 wuh well advanced. Documentary 
 History, I, VVj. 
 
 <^Frorn a copy kindly sent by Mr. Simon (irat/, owner of tlie original.
 
 THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1TS7. lUl 
 
 4. May 20. Masou to George Mason, jr. Miss Eovvlaiid's Mason, II, 100; 
 
 Hart, Contemporaries, III, 20:^; extract in Bancroft, Con- 
 stitution, II, 421. 
 
 5. May 21. Mason to Arthur Lee. Lee's Arthur Lee, 11, 319; Rowland, 
 
 II, 102. 
 
 6. May 21. Read to John Dickinson. Read's George Read, p. 443. 
 
 7. May 24. Randolph to Beverley Randolph. Calendar of Virginia 
 
 State Papers, TV, 289. 
 
 8. May 25. Read to John Dickinson. Brotlierhead, Book of the Signers, 
 
 186] , p. 63. 
 
 9. May 27. Madison to Ednunid Pendleton. Letters, I, 328. 
 
 10. May 27. Madison to James Madison, sr. Letters, I, 329. 
 
 11. May 27. Mason to George Mason, jr. Rowland, TI, 103. 
 
 12. May 27. Randolph to Beverley Randol[)h. Calendar of Virginia 
 
 State Papers, IV, 290. 
 
 13. May 30. Davie to James Iredell. iMcRee, Life of Iredell, II, 161. 
 
 14. May 30. Franklin to Mrs. Jane Mecom. Works, ed. Bigelow, IX, 
 
 392. 
 
 15. May 30. Washington to Jefferson. Sparks, IX, 254; Ford, XI, 156. 
 
 16. June 1. Mason to George Mason, jr. Rowlaixl. II, 128; extract in 
 
 Bancroft, II, 424. 
 
 17. June 6. IMadison to Jefferson. T^^tters, T, 330. 
 
 18. June 6. Randolph to Beverley Randoli)h. Calendar of Virginia State 
 
 Papers, IV, 293. 
 
 19. June 9. Brearlej' to Jonathan Dayton. See j). 9cS, supra. 
 
 20. June 10. Madison to Monroe. Extract in " Wiishington-Madison Pa- 
 
 pers" (McGuire sale catalogue), p. 129. 
 
 21. Jime 11. Gerry to ^Monroe. Extract in Bancroft, II, 428. 
 
 22. June 12. Spaight to Governor Caswell. N. C. Records, XX, 723. 
 
 23. June 14. Four N. C. delegates to Caswell. X. C. Records, XX, 723. 
 
 24. June Ki. Wythe to Edmund Randolph. From Williamsburg. Sum- 
 
 marized in the Calendar of the Emmei (.'ollection, No. 
 9542. 
 
 25. June 19. Davie to Caswell. N. C. Records, XX, 725. 
 
 26. June 19. Davie to James Iredell. .McRee's Iredell, II, 161. 
 
 27. June 21. Randolph to Beverley Randolph. Calendar of Virginia State 
 
 Papers, IV, 298. 
 
 28. June 25. Robert Morris to his sons. Extract in Pennsylvania Maga- 
 
 zituw.f History, IT, 170. 
 
 29. June 27. Johnson to his son. Extract iu Bancroft, H, 430. 
 
 30. June 30. Mason to Beverley Randolph. Rowland, II, 131; Calendar 
 
 of Virginia State Paiiers, IV, 310. 
 
 31. July 1. Washington to David Stuart. Sjjarks, IX, 257; Ford, XI, 
 
 159. 
 
 32. July 3. Hamilton to Washington. From New York. J. C Hamil- 
 
 ton, Life of A. Hamilton, 11,522; AVorks, ed. Hamilton, I, 
 435; ed. Lodge, VIII, 175; Hamilton's Reimblic, HI, 317; 
 Sparks, Letters to Washington, IV, 172; Hunt, Madison, 
 
 III, 351.
 
 102 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 
 
 33. July 3. ypaiirht to TmU'll. :\I(Kee, Iredell, T I, 162. 
 
 34. July 7. Four North Carolina delegates to Caswell. N. C. Records, 
 
 XX, 733. 
 
 35. July S. Williamson to Iredell. McRee, II, 163. 
 
 36. July 9. Washington to Ilt'otor St. John de Crevecoeur. Sparks, IX, 
 
 259. 
 
 37. July 10. Blount to Caswell. N. C. Records, XX, 734. 
 
 38. July 10. Blount to William Constable. N. C. Record.s, XX, 734. 
 
 39. July 10. AVashington to Hamilton. Sparks, IX, 260; Ford, XI, 162; 
 
 J. C. Hamilton, Life of A. Hamilt(m, II, 527; Hamilton's 
 Works, ed. Hamilton, I, 437; Hamilton, Republic, 111,322. 
 
 40. July 12. Blount to Caswell. N. C. Records, XX, 739. 
 
 41. July 12. Randolph to Beverley Randolph. Calendar of Virginia State 
 
 Tapers, IV, 315. 
 
 42. July 16. Wythe to Beverley Randolph. From Williamsburg. Broth- 
 
 erhead, Centennial Book of the Signers, 1876, p. 257. 
 
 43. July 17. Davie to Iredell. AIcRee, II, 165. 
 
 44. July IS. Madison to Jefferson. Letters, I, 333. 
 
 45. July 19. Washington to R. H. Lee. Lee's R. H. Lee, II, 35; Sparks, 
 
 IX, 261; Ford, XI, 163. 
 
 46. July 22. Williamson to Iredell. McRee, II, 167. 
 
 47. July 23. Sherman to Timothy Pickering. Summarized in 6 Mass. Hist. 
 
 , Soc. Coll., VIII, 451. 
 
 48 Hamilton to . Works, ed. Hamilton, I, 437; ed. Lodge, 
 
 VIII, 176. 
 49 Hamilton to William Pierce. Writings, ed. Lodge, VIII, 177. 
 
 50. July 26. Hamilton to Auldjo. Works, ed. Hamilton, I, .439; ed. 
 
 Lodge, VIII, 178. 
 
 51. July 27. Alexander Martin to Caswell. N. C. Records, XX, 753. 
 
 52. July 28. Madison to James Madison, sr. Letters, I, 335. 
 
 53. July 30. Strong to Alexander Ilodgdon, treasurer of Massachusetts. 
 
 Summarized in the Calendar of the Enmiet Collection, No. 
 545. 
 
 54. July 31. Gilman to Joseph Gilman. N. H. State Papers, XXI, 835. 
 
 55. Aug. 5. McClurg to Madison. From Richmond. Summarized in 
 
 Bulletin of the Bureau of Rolls and Library, IV, 487. 
 
 56. Aug. 6. Davie to Iredell. McRee, II, 167. 
 
 57. Aug. 12. Madison to James Madison, sr. Summarized in Bulletin of 
 
 the Bureau of Rolls and Library, IV, 68. 
 
 58. Aug. 12. Spaight to Iredell. McRee, II, 168. 
 
 59. Aug. 13. (ierry to Gen. James Warren. Austin, Life of Gerry, II, 36. 
 
 60. Aug. 15. Wa.shington to Lafayette. Sparks, IX, 262; extract in Ford, 
 
 XI, 162. 
 
 61. Aug. 19. Washington to Knox. Sparks, IX, 264. 
 
 62. Aug. 20. Blount to Caswell. N. C. Records, XX, 764. 
 
 63. Aug. 20. Hamilton to Rufus King. J. C. Hamilton, Life of A. Ham- 
 
 ilton, II, 533; Works, ed. Hamilton, I, 4.39; ed. Lodge, 
 VII, 178; Hamilton, Republic, III, 329; King's King, 
 I, 258.
 
 THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787. 103 
 
 64. Aug. 20. Hamilton to Jeremiah Watlswoith. Works, e«l. Hamilton, 
 
 I, 440; eel. Lodge, VIII, 171*. 
 
 65. Aug. 20. Alexander Martin to Caswell. X. V. Records, XX, 763. 
 
 66. Aug. 20. Williamson to Caswell. N. C. Records, XX, 765. 
 
 67. Aug. 21. Brearley to William Paterson. See p. 99, supra. 
 
 68. Aug. 23. Davie to Caswell. From Halifax, N. C. N. C. Records, 
 
 XX, 766. 
 
 69. Aug. 2S. Hamilton to Rufus King. J. C. Hamilton, Life of A. Ham- 
 
 ilton, }I, SMo; Wcjrks, ed. Hamilton, I, 441; ed. Lodge, 
 VIII, 179; Hamilton, Republic, III, 329; King's King, I, 
 258. 
 
 70. Aug. 29. Gorham to Caleb Strong. See p. 100, supra. 
 
 71. Sept. 2. Randolph to Beverley Randolph. Calendar of Virginia State 
 
 Papers, IV, 338. 
 
 72. Sept. 3. Oilman to John Sullivan. N. H. State Papers, XVIII, 790. 
 
 73. Sept. 3. Pierce to Don Diego de Gardoqui. From New York. New 
 
 Jersey Journal, November 28, 1787; Carey's American 
 Museum, II, 583. 
 
 74. Sept. 4. Madison to James Madison, sr. Letters, I, 336. 
 
 75. Sept. (). Madison to Jefferson. Letters, I, 337. 
 
 76. Sept. 9. Dayton to Gen. Elias Dayton. See p. 100, supra. 
 
 77. Sept. 15. Dickinson to George Read. Read's Read, p. 456. 
 
 78. Sept. 17. ^Faj. William Jackson, secretary of the Convention, to Wash- 
 
 ington. Bancroft, II, 441. 
 
 79. Sept. 18. Blount, Spaight, and Williamson to Caswell. N. C. Records, 
 
 XX, 777. 
 
 80. Sept. 18. Gilman to Jose^jh Gilmaii. Arthur (iilman, Tlu' Gihnan 
 
 Family, p. 109; G. Hunt, Fragments of Revolutionary 
 History, p. 156. 
 
 81. Sept. 18. Gilman to John Sullivan. N. H. State Papers, XXI, 836. 
 
 82. Sept. 18. Randolph to Beverley Randolph. Calendar of Virginia State 
 
 Papers, IV, 343. 
 
 83. Sept. 18. Washington to Lafayette. Sparks, IX, 265. 
 
 84. Sept. 20. Franklin to Mrs. Jane Mecom. Writings, ed. Bigelow, IX, 
 
 406. 
 
 85. Sept. 20. Madison to Edmund Pendleton. Lettei-s, I, 340. 
 
 86. Sept. 28. Pierce to St. George Tucker. American Historical Review, 
 
 III, 313. 
 
 IV. THE TEXT OF THE VIRGINIA PLAN. 
 
 The Virginia or Kaiulolpli })lan lor tlu' aiiicndment of the 
 Articles of Confederation, pre.s(;nted to the Federal Conven- 
 tion on May 20, is commonly held to be a familiar and certain 
 document. Yet there exist four different texts of these reso- 
 lutions, and, what is more remarkable, it can (in the \ lew of 
 the present writer) be proved that no one of the four is the 
 exact text of the orij^inal series which Governor Kandolph laid
 
 104 AMEEIOAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 
 
 hoforo tho (.'oinoiition on May '2\K 1 TsT. As doul)t.s, to say the 
 least, attend also the text of the other plans presented, it may 
 l)e Avell before proeeeding- to attempt a demonstration of this 
 thesis tt) explain why it is not inconceiva])le that, important as 
 these documents ^vere, their exact text may be uncertain. 
 
 Luther Martin in one of the opening passages of his Genu- 
 ine Tnfoi'mation, says of the C^onvention:" 
 
 So extremely solicitous were they that their proceedings should not 
 transpire, tliat the nu'iiil)ers were pr()hil)ited even from taking copies of 
 resohitions on whicli the Convention were dehl)erating, or extracts of any 
 kind from tlie journals, without t'onnally moving for and obtaining permis- 
 sion hy a vote of the Convention for that purpose. 
 
 The rules of the Convention now in print/' bear him out so 
 far as the journals are concerned. ])ut not as to resolutions, 
 which like the Aarious "plans,'' were not regarded as parts of 
 the journal. Yet the injunction '"that nothing spoken in the 
 House ])e printed, or otherwise published, or conmiunicated 
 without leave,'' doubtless required secrecy as to the plans. 
 Pierce says,'' speaking- apparently of the ^'i^g•inia plan: 
 
 "A copy of these propositions was given to each memljer with an injunc- 
 tion to keep everytliing a jirofound secret. One morning, )iy accident, 
 one of the memlx'rs dropped his coi)y of tlie propositions, which, being 
 luckily ])icked up by Cxeneral Miftlin, was presented to treneral Washing- 
 ton, our President, who put it in his pocket. 
 
 He goes on to relate how the General, the next day, just 
 before adjournment, forcibl}- reproved such carelessness, 
 threw the paper on the table — 
 
 and ([uitted the room with a dignity so severe that every person seemed 
 alarmed; for my ]iart I was extremely so, for putting my hand in my 
 jHicket I missed my coi)y of the same paper; but advancing up to the 
 tal)le my fears soon dissipated; I found it to l)e the liandwriting of another 
 person. 
 
 In other words, the copy which each member had of the 
 propositions was, in the ordinary' case, a copy made b}" 
 his own hand. Thos(> who know how few persons can eop}^ 
 
 n Yates, ed. 1821, p. 12; Elliot, I, 345. I quote Elliot, unless the contrary is stated, from 
 that edition of 1S3() and subsequent years which is designated on its title-page as the sec- 
 ond, but is the third — the edition commonly used. See also what Martin says, ibid., 358, 
 of the refusal of the Convention to permit it.s members at the time of the adjournment of 
 .Tuly26, " to take correct copies of the jiropositions to whicli the Convention had then 
 agreed." 
 
 ''Documentary History of the Cjonstitution, I, .>!. 
 
 •■American Historical Keview, III, 821.
 
 THE FEDERAL CONVENTTON OF 1787. 105 
 
 anything accurately will see here a natural source of varia- 
 tions, even in that more formal and deliberate age. More- 
 over, there would alwavs be much chance that a member, 
 following the progress of debate and conclusion with his 
 paper ])efore him. should interline it with some of the addi- 
 tions or amendments which were successively resolved upon, 
 and that these should creep undistinguished into some fair 
 copy which he might subsequenth' make. 
 
 Whatever be the causes, the variations certainly exist. Of 
 the Virginia resolutions there are, as we have said, four texts. 
 As the original text in Randolph's handwriting, if such there 
 were, is nowhere said now to exist, it is natural to take up 
 tirst that which Madison gives." It is printed in the Docu- 
 mentary History of the Constitution'' and in Hunt's Writings 
 of James ]\Iadison.^ Gilpin printed it. witli a small but im- 
 portant variation, in The Madison Papers,'' and it may also l)e 
 found ill the volume strangely called " .loiiriiai |nieaniug 
 Debates] of the Federal Convention, kejjt hy .lames Madison 
 •• * *• edited by E. 11. Scott,""' and in the fifth volume of 
 Elliot.-^' This text, which we may call A. is sufliciently de- 
 scribed ])V saying that the ninth resolution in its scries l)egiiiS 
 with the woixls: 
 
 Rexolrcd, That a national judiciary 1)1- (.'stal)lislu'(l, to consist <if unu or 
 more supreme tribunals and of inferior tril)Uiials to be chosen by the 
 National Lcjjislature, to hol<l tlicir olliccs durinir .^ood behavior, ami to 
 receive, etc. 
 
 Texts of this type can not in this section exactly represent 
 the orioinal resolutions. This may be seen by an (>xamina- 
 tion of the journal of the Connnitteeof the Whole for June -f 
 and June i'>/' It there appears, l)y explicit ([uotation. that the 
 ninth resolution undoublcflly contained originally the words: 
 
 Rt'.s(jln'<l, That a national jmliciary be established, tu be ai-jiointed by the 
 National Legislature, to hold their oftices during good bi-havior, and to 
 receive, etc. 
 
 aThough the speech with which Rdinlnipli accoin.Daiiied ilie iiitiofluotion of his reso- 
 lutions appears in Madison's notesin Kamlolpli's liandwritiiis, the textof the resolutions 
 there ffivcn is in Madison's hand. Hunt, \Vritinf,'s of .lames Muilison, III, 21 n. 
 
 bill, 17-20, 
 
 cm, 17-21. 
 
 dU. 731 -7:«. 
 
 ("Pp. Gl-6'1. iStr. Hunt ijivcs to Madison's notes the same iiiM|t|ir"priiilc and mislead- 
 ing name. 
 
 / Pp. ]2H-l:!(J. There are dilTerences of imneluation; l>n( IIjcn arc' hardly siKUilu ant 
 
 1/ Documeutary Histor.v, I, 21U; Elliot, 1. IC.O, Kd.
 
 UK) AMERICAN IIISTOKICAL ASSOCIATION. 
 
 Of (he iiisi>i'ti()ii of (lu> other word.s quoted above in this 
 clause, or. ratlier. of tlu' insertion of words closely resembling- 
 them, there is deUnite record in tiie form of a vote of the 
 Committee of tiH> Whole, flune 4. "to add these words to the 
 rirst clause of the ninth resolution, namely: 'To consist of 
 one supreme tribunal, and of one or more inferior tribunals."'" 
 J^lainlv these woids can not have been in the original plan. 
 Furthermore', on eJune 12 — 
 
 it was iiit)\i(l and si'ioikIciI (<i alter tlie resolution submitted by Mr. Ran- 
 dolph, so as to read as tollows, namely: "Tliat the jurisdiction of the 
 suprcnu' lril)unal shall lu' to hear and determine in the dernier resort all 
 l)iracifs, felonies, etc." '' 
 
 In other words. noAV that a provision for both supreme and 
 inferior tril»unals — a provision not included in the original 
 document — had been inserted by the committee, it seemed 
 necessar}- also to modify the clause relating to jurisdiction bj' 
 giving to the supreme tribunal the position of an appellate 
 court. Now, text A in this clause gives the reading — 
 
 That tlie jurisdiction of the inferior ti'i))unals shall be to hear and de- 
 termine in the lirst instance, and of the supreme tribunal to hear and 
 determine in the dernier resort, all piracies, etc. 
 
 As ])efore, the proposal recorded in Committee of the Whole 
 shows that these words were not in the original resolutions. 
 It will be noticed that here one supreme court is spoken of, 
 whereas in the earlier clause the readintj of A is "one or 
 more supreme tribunals,'' in itself an improbable reading. 
 
 Probably Article 9 of the Virginia plan originally read: 
 
 Resolved, That a national judiciary be established, to be appointed by 
 the National Legislature, to hold their offices during good behavior; and 
 to receive punctually, at stated times, a fixed compensation for their 
 services, in which no increase or diminution shall be made so as to affect 
 the persons actually in office at the time of such increase or diminution; 
 tluit its jurisdiction shall be to hear and determine all piracies and felonies 
 (in the high seas, all t-qitures from an enemy, and cases in which foreigners 
 or citizens of other States applying to such jurisdiction may be interested; 
 [perhaps, alstj,] or which respect the collection of the national revenue, 
 impeaclnnent of any national officers, and questions which may involve 
 the national peace and harmony. 
 
 "Documentarj- History, I, '210; Elliot, I, KiO, lt!l, :iud Madi.son's notes iii Dofiimontary 
 Hi.stor}-, III, 62. 
 SDocvunentary History, I, 222.
 
 THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787. 107 
 
 The votes in the Committee of the Whole" do not enable 
 one to be sure whether these last lines were or were not in 
 the original draft. 
 
 It was intimated al)ove that Gilpin's text shows a peculiar- 
 ity not found in the books first mentioned. In view of the 
 pains taken with the text of the Documentar}^ History and 
 by Mr. Hunt, it is to be supposed that a phrase which is not 
 in their versions has no place in the manuscript which the}^ 
 and Gilpin alike follow. However, as the insertion is one 
 which plays a part in other texts than A, it may be as well to 
 consider it at this point. It occurs in the text of the sixth of 
 the Virginia resolutions, toward the end of that article. This 
 concluding portion, in Gilpin, declares that the National I^egis- 
 lature ought to be empowered — 
 
 to negative all lawn passed by the several States, contravening in the 
 opinion of the National Legislatnre the articles of Union, 07- any treaty sub- 
 sLstiny under tlw anllioritii of the Union; and to call forth the force of the 
 Union against any member of the Union tailing to fnlfill its dnty nnder the 
 articles thereof. 
 
 The words italicized above are those not found in the Docu- 
 men':.a'v Historv or in Hunt's Writings of James Madison. 
 Tliat they formed no part of the original document may be 
 seen })y inspecting the journal of the Connnittee of the Whole 
 for May 31, where we read:* "The following words were 
 added to this clause on motion of Mr. Franklin, 'or any treaties 
 subsisting under the authority of the Union.' " Yet Kives'' in 
 his summar}^ of the plan adds the words "and treaties" at this 
 point, and so does Madison himself in a letter to ,fohn 'I yler, 
 written about 1833.'^ It may be added that Madison, in his 
 sununary of the resolutions, given in this same letter, inserts 
 the provision for supreme and inferior tribunals, discussed 
 above ;*" and so does Bancroft, in a summary which he places 
 in quotation marks.' 
 
 Text B of the Virginia phm is to be found in the (jtlicial 
 Journal of the Convention, published in 1819 under theauthor- 
 
 a Documentary History, I, 223; III, 117. 
 ''Documentary History, I, 203; Elliot, I, IftS. 
 "Life of .lames Madison, II, 314. 
 
 f'McGuire, Selections from the Correspondence of .James Madison, \>. ;H2; Letters of 
 Madison, IV, 2«3. 
 '- Il)id., 310; ibid., 282. 
 /History of the Formation of the Constitution, If, 12.
 
 108 AMKKK'AN HISTOKICAL ASSOCIATION. 
 
 ity of the Secrotjirv ol" Stuto; " in Yates's Secret Proceedings 
 anil Debates,* and in the second edition and the third or usual 
 edition of Elliot's Debates.'' Yates says: *'T have taken a 
 (•o])v of these resolutions, which are hereinito aruiexed." But 
 Lansino-. who transcrilx'd Yates's notes, says, in a passage not 
 coi)ied into Elliot,"' that the se\'eral papers referred to did not 
 accompany then), and we are compelled to infer that the single 
 source of all these versions is the Journal of 181l>. The pecul- 
 iarities of this text are the follownng: In the sixth resolution it 
 contains the words " or an}' treaty subsisting under the author- 
 ity of the Union.'" Thv ninth l)egins with the words "^<^- 
 solrcd^ That a national judiciary be established to 
 
 hold their offices during good l)ehavior, and to receive punctu- 
 al!}^," etc. Yet though in this first clause there is no mention 
 of the distinction between higher and lower Federal courts, 
 the clause relating to jurisdiction, in the same resolution, ])e- 
 gins with the words ''That the jurisdiction of the inferior 
 tribunals siiall be to hoar and determine in the first instance, 
 and of th<> supreme tribunal to hear and determine in the 
 dernier ressort," etc. Finally, there is, in Elliot's third edi- 
 tion,' an additional resolution, with the number 16, reading: 
 "That the House will to-morrow resolve itself into a Commit- 
 tee of the Whohi House, to consider of the state of the Ameri- 
 can Fnion." It is obvious that this last is obtained by "run- 
 ning in" wMth the resolutions a portion of the journal of the 
 Convention's proceedings of May 29./ That the pro\ision 
 respecting treaties, in Ai-ticle »!, has noplace in the document, 
 has already been shown in the case of Gilpin. As to Article 9, 
 the journal of the Connnittee of the Whole, June 5, when this 
 article was receiving its lirst consideration, reads: f' " It was then 
 moved and seconded to strike out the words ' the national leois- 
 lature,' so as to read ' to be appointed by.' " Accordingly the 
 first clause of the article nmst have originally contained the 
 words "to be ap])ointed by the national legislature," and any 
 text which does not contain them can juake no claim to be the 
 true original. To the phrases about the jurisdiction of su- 
 
 '< pp. 67-70. 
 
 ''Pp. 209-212 ot the edition of 1821; pp. 22r,-229 of that of 1839. 
 
 '•Seconfi edition, I, 180-182; "second" (third) edition, I, l^-llfi 
 
 ''Yates, ed. 18J1, p. 207. 
 
 '• Hnt not in the first, nor in Yalos, nor in Ihc .hjurnal of Lsiy. 
 
 / Docnmcntary History, I, .">5. 
 
 (/Ibid., I, 211.
 
 THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787. 109 
 
 prcnic unci inferior tribunals the same arguments apply as 
 have been adduced above in the criticism of text A, ))ut with 
 additional force from the fact that if the distinction had not 
 been made in the lirst clause of the article it is unlikely that 
 we should tind it appearing- in the last. 
 
 Text C is printed only in the Documentary History." Tt is 
 derived from a manuscript which came to the Department of 
 State from Gen. Joseph Bloomtield, executor of David Brear- 
 ley, member of the Convention from New Jersey.^' It can not 
 correctl}^ represent the original for the following- reasons: 
 In Article 4 it provides that the term of the members of the 
 first branch of the national legislature shall l)e three vears, . 
 yet the journal of the Conuuittee of the Whole for June 12 
 shows the conuuittee on that day for the first time inserting 
 the words "three years" into a ])laidv previously existing 
 at this point.'- Article 5 provides that the memlxn's of the 
 second branch shall be "elected by the individual legislatures," 
 which was not agreed to (as a substitute for election by the 
 first branch) until June 7.'' Thirdly, in Article (> the provi- 
 sion respecting treaties, already commented upon, is included. 
 Fourthly, the beginning of Article 7 reads: 
 
 Resolird, That a national executive ))e insstituteil, to consist of a single 
 I)er.son, witli powers to carry into execution the national laws, and to ap- 
 point to offices in cases not otherwise provided for, to heciiosen l)y tlie 
 national legislature for the term of seven years, to receive i>unctuaily, etc. 
 
 But the journal of the Committee of the Whole, June 1,' 
 shows exactly what must have been the reading of the original 
 at this point, namely: ''Jie-s-olved. That a national executi\(> 
 be instituted, to be chosen by the national legislature for the 
 
 term of years, to receive [)unctually," etc.; and it shows 
 
 the staoes bv which this ))ecanie modified into the form pi-e- 
 sented by text C. Fifthly, Article 9 of the latter begins: 
 ''^ Resolved^ That a national judiciary be established, to consist 
 of one supreme tribimal, to hold their offices during," etc.; 
 yet recognizes in its clause respecting jurisdiction the same 
 distinction of supreme and inferior which is made in text 
 B, and in the same words. Final Iv, Article i:^) declares that 
 the assent of the national legislature " ought to be re(iuired" 
 to proposed amendments to the articles of union, whereas the 
 
 '<Docnm.cnlary History, i, ;«y-332. (J Ibid., I, 202, 215. 
 
 ''.(onniiil (of 1.S19), pp. 10, 11. elbid., I, 203. 
 
 '■lJocuiiielit;iry History, I, 2'JO.
 
 110 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 
 
 ((uotutioii of this r(\s()lution in the journal of the Connnittee of 
 tlio Wliolc " supports the reading- " ought not to be required," 
 which is given in the other texts, and nuist obviously be 
 i-orrect in any ease. 
 
 The fart apparently is that text C represents the original, 
 plus most of the nioditications made up to about June 11 or 12. 
 Incorrect as it is, it may not iniprobabh' be the source from 
 which Secretary Adams derived the more correct text (B) 
 which he printed in the official journal in 1819; for, the man- 
 uscript journal not containing these resolutions, it is difficult 
 to see what other text than Brearley's could have been acces- 
 sil)le to him. 
 
 Text 1) is not in print, ))ut is found among the manuscripts 
 of William Paterson. member of the Convention from New 
 Jersev.* In the form in which it now exists, it is not a first 
 rough co])y on separate sheets (the form in which we ma}^ 
 assume that the members' copies of the Virginia resolutions 
 were first taken), but is copied neatl}' into a little book, which 
 also contains Judge Paterson's copies of several other funda- 
 mental documents of the Convention,' This text omits from 
 the fourth resolution the words, "to be incapable of reelection 
 
 for the space of after the expiration of their term of 
 
 service;" but this may be a mere slip, duo to the verbal sim- 
 ilarity of this phrase to that which in the other texts precedes 
 it. Like B and C and Gilpin's version of A, it inserts in the 
 sixth resolution the provision respecting treaties. It fills the 
 blank in the number of years of the Executive's term of office 
 (seventh resolution) with the w^ord " seven." which the Com- 
 mittee of the Whole did not do till June 1."' In the ninth 
 resolution, while the I'eading is otherwise like that of text A, 
 there is a ])lank before the word "inferior,'' so that the phrase 
 
 reads: "Of one or more supreme tri])unals, and of 
 
 inferioi- tril)unals." Although, for reasons alread}- given, 
 these woi'ds can not be considered to have been a part of the 
 original document, it may l)c that the form in which the3^hei-e 
 a])pear r<»presents, more correctly than that presented by Mad- 
 ison, the intentions of the Committee of the Whole on June 
 
 "Documentary Hi.'<tory, I, '219. 
 
 '' Lent to the writer by the kindness of Miss Emily K. Piiteraon, of Perth Amboy. There 
 is a copy among the Bancroft MSS. at the Lenox Library. 
 
 '■ The report of the Committee of the Whole House, Judge Paterson's own resolves, and 
 Colonel Hamilton'.v plan. 
 
 rf Documentary History, I, 205.
 
 THE FEDERAL CONYENTIOlsr OF 1787, 111 
 
 4 and fTune H. The committee then voted, lirst, to add the 
 words "to consist of one supreme tribunal and of one or more 
 inferior tribunals,'- and then to strike out the words " one or 
 more."'^' It may have been intended to leave a blank in the 
 place of the latter. However this may be, arg-uments alread}^ 
 stated suffice to show that text D has no more claim than the 
 others to represent the exact form of the Virg-inia resolutions, 
 laid before the Convention on ]\lay 2i> l)v Pklmund Randolph. 
 The exact form of those resolutions can be recovered only b}' 
 inference, and in one or two particidars remains uncertain. 
 
 V. THE TEXT OF THE PINCKNEY PLAN. 
 
 On May 21 •, inmiediately after the Virginia resolutions had 
 been referred to a Committee of the Whole House, " Mr. 
 Charles Pinckney, one of the deputies of South Carolina, laid 
 before the House for their consideration the draft of a Fed- 
 eral Government" which he had prepared, and it also was 
 referred to that committee. * There is no evidence of any 
 debate upon it beyond the author's remark, that he " con- 
 fessed that it was grounded on the same principle as of the 
 above resolutions,"^ meaning those ottered In' Governor Ran- 
 dolph. Nor does it appear to have been separately considered 
 at any subsequent time. On July 24 the Committee of the 
 Whole was discharged from further consideration of it. and it 
 was referred to the Connnittee of Detail, along with the I'cso- 
 lutions reported from the Committee of the Whole and those 
 offered by Paterson, of New Jersey.^ No mention of it in the 
 Convention by anyone but its author seems to have come 
 down to us. There is something noteworth}' in this silence. 
 It is not impossible that the other members thought their 
 youngest colleague somewhat presimiptuous in offering his 
 lucubration at the very outset and laving it complacently 
 alongside the mature conclusions of the gra\-e and experienced 
 Virginia Delegates.' 
 
 'iDocnnientary History, I, 210. 'ill. 
 
 Mbi<l., J,. "■).-). 
 
 <• Yates, ed. 1821, p. 97; Elliot, I, ;«)1; Dociiiiiciiliiry History, III. 11. 'M. 
 
 f^Doenmentary History, I, 109; 111, 123, 11:5. 
 
 <■ O'Keall, Bench and Bar of South Carolina, II, 140, tell.s us that I'inckney always said in 
 after life tliat lie had never risen toaddres.^ the Convention without feelings of deep dilTi- 
 deneo and solemnity; .so, also, "W.S. E." in Dc Bow's Review, XXXIV, fi4. But the letters 
 printed by tlie present writer in the American Historical Review, IV, 113-129. reveal a 
 character marked by much vanity and self-assertion. Sec, also, Jefferson's Writings, ed 
 Ford, VUl, 289.
 
 112 AMEKICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 
 
 Moii'oNcf. ill ISIS, when the Secretiirv of State, John 
 Quincy Adams, was ])i'eparini>- the journal of tlie (convention 
 For publication, no copy of the Pinckney draft Avas found 
 t'ither anioni;' its oriiiiiiai ])apers or aniono- those which had 
 l)ecn added by (xeneral Bloonitield. In the hope of repairino- 
 the omission. xVdams, after applying' in v:iin to Madison, Avho 
 had no copy," wrote to Pinckney, then still Uvinjj;- in South 
 Carolina, and asked him for a copy of his proposals.'' Pinck- 
 ney replied, in a letter which has been printed,'" saA'ing that 
 lie had amonu- iiis j)ai)ers foui' or Ji\e roug-h drafts of his plan, 
 and could not be absolutely sure which was the one actually 
 presented; but that they ditt'ered in no essentials, onl^- in 
 some words and the arrangement of the articles, and that he 
 sent the one which he belie\ed to be the proper document. 
 Adams printed the document in the Journal,"' with a footnote 
 saying that the paper had been furnished by Pinckney. 
 From that day (iSlit) to this it has figured in many books as 
 the ■' Pinckney plan.'' Tt is printed, in identical text, in 
 Yates,' in Elliot.' in (xilpin.-/ in the Documentary History, '' 
 and even in Justice Miller's Lectures on the Constitution^ 
 and Hunt's Writings of James Madison.' The paper which 
 Pinckney sent to Adams is still in the custody of the Depart- 
 ment of State. Mr. Hunt, who gives a facsimile of a portion 
 of it and of a part of the lettei' in which it was inclosed, 
 declares that the [)lan is written upon paper of the same size 
 as the letter, and with the same ink; that it is undoubtedly 
 contem})oraneous with the letter, and that both are written 
 on p;ip(>r bewaring the water-mark of the year lTi>T/' 
 
 That the so-called "Pinckney plan" is not authentic has 
 
 "See his letter in tlic appendix to J. (". Iliiniiltdii's Ifistory (if the Repnblie, third edi- 
 ticjn, III, iii. 
 
 '>See Memoirs of .loliii Quincy Adams, IV, 305. 
 
 '•Letter of Deeember 30, 1818, printed by Mr. Worthinglcn C. Ford in tlie Nation of 
 May 23, 1895, LX, 397, 39S; and by Mr. Oailhird Hnnt in his Writings of James Madison, 
 III, 22-21. An extract was ])rinted in 1870 by Rives, in Iiis Life and Times of .Tames 
 Madison, II, 354. Mr. Ilnnt is in error in saying. III, 25 n., that the letter is printed in the 
 Documentary History. 
 
 ''I'p. 71-81. 
 
 '■ Kd. 1.S21, p]). 212-221. The source is the .lournal iirintc(i two years before; see the 
 note to p. 207. 
 
 /I, 145-149. 
 
 '.I Pp. 735-746. 
 
 '' I, 309-318. 
 
 '■ Pp. 732 ss. 
 
 J III, 23-36. 
 
 '■ Writings of .lames Madison, III, .wii and 247
 
 THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1181. 113 
 
 been ,so publicl}' and so successful Ij^ demonstrated that a writer 
 who does not like to spend his time in slaying- the slain might 
 be excused if he took this for granted and passed on to cast 
 what new light he could upon the problem of the real Pinck- 
 ney plan. But in reality the two inquiries are closely con- 
 nected; and, moreov^er, the legendary version has such vitality 
 that it'is no harm to cast one more stone upon its funeral cairn 
 as one passes by. In 1859 a South Carolina writer assures us 
 that, in view of the remarkably close ag-reement between 
 Pinckney's proposals and the rinished Constitution, " he has 
 alwavs been considered as entitled to the high and honorable 
 designation of the Father of the Constitution."" This was 
 Ijefore much of the pertinent evidence to the contrary- had 
 been made public. But such was not the case when, in 1894, 
 in the income-tax decision, the Chief Justice of the Supreme 
 Court of the United States quoted the "Pinckney plan" as if 
 it had authority/' It may be that — 
 
 "Error, wounded, writhew in pain, 
 And dies among his worshippers;" 
 
 but, if we are speaking of historical error, he manifestly 
 takes his time about it. 
 
 The supposed plan might instantly be put out of court on 
 the ground that it is '' too good to be true." A novice in his- 
 torical criticism, provided he had read the stor^' of the long 
 and shifting and sometimes bitter disput(^s by which the Con- 
 vention had hammered into shape a Constitution for the United 
 States, would say at once that it was glaringly lm[)ro])able— 
 in fact, impossible — that as the result of this process they 
 should come around to the acceptance, to tlie extent of five- 
 sixths, of a document offered to them at the outset in full 
 detail; or, to put it in another way, that their youngest mem- 
 ber should succeed ])eforehand in framing a constitution so 
 good that they could hardly improve it, yet that "the wisest 
 council in tiie world" should not be able to perceive this fact 
 till they had wrangled over the document (without expressly 
 mentioning it) for more than three months. 
 
 a J. B. O'NeaU, Bench and Bar of South Carolina, II, 139. So, also, '■ W. S. E. of S. C," 
 in his sketch of Pinckney in De Bow's Review, XXXIV, 63. "W.S. K." was William 
 Sinker Klliott, grandson of Pinckney. 
 
 l> Pollock V. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co., 1-57 U. S. Reports, .'XJ'J. 
 
 H. Doc. 401, pt 1 8
 
 114 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 
 
 It now appoars that the document had not been lono- pub- 
 lished l)(>t'()re its autlienticity was private!}' disputed. John 
 Taylor, of Caroline, to l)e sure, who in his New Views of the 
 Constitution (I.S23) uiio-ht be supposed to hnve exhausted sus- 
 picion concerning- the integrity of the Journal, seems to accept 
 the "Pinckney phin " without a nuirnmr." But Rufus King, 
 who ditMl in 1 Si' 7. told Jolui Quincy Adams that it was not 
 g-enuine, and Madison said the same to Jared Sparks when 
 Sparks visited him at Montpelier in April, 1830. As the pas- 
 sage of Adams's diary in which these (piestionings are brought 
 out has apparently not before been used in this connection, 
 and as the}' seem to be the earliest recorded, it may be worth 
 while to quote at length from that "copious storehouse of 
 damnations."'' 
 
 Sparks said he hail been spending a week at Mr. Madison's, who 
 spoke to liiin imu-li of the proceedings and ii^blished Journal of the 
 Convention of 17S7. lie said he knew not what to make of the plan of 
 Constitution in tliat volume purporting to have been jjresented by Charles 
 Pinckney, of South Carolina. He said there was a paper presented by 
 that person to the Convention, but it was nothing like the paper now in 
 the book. It was referred to the committee who drafted tlie plan of the 
 Constitution, and was never afterwards in any manner referred to or 
 noticed. In tlie l)ook it lias the appearance as if it was the original draft 
 of the Constitution itself, and as if that which was finally adopted was 
 Pinckney's plan, with a very few slight alterations. I told Mr. Sparks tliat 
 Kufus King had spoken to me of C. Pinckney's paper precisely in the ^ame 
 manner as he says Mr. ^ladison iiow does; that it was a paper to which 
 no sort of attention was jjaid by the Convention, except that of referring 
 it to the committee, but when I compiled the Journal of the Convention, 
 Charles Pinckney himself sent me the plan now in the book as the paper 
 Avhich he had presented to the Convention, and witli it he wrote me a 
 letter whicli o1)viously held tlie ])retension that the whole plan of Consti- 
 tution was his and that the Convention had done nothing more than to 
 deteriorate his work by altering some of his favorite provisions. Sparks 
 said Mr. Madison added that this plan now in the book contained several 
 tilings which could not possibly have })een in Pinckney's paper, but which 
 rose out of the debates upon the plan of Constitution reported by the com- 
 mittee. He conjectured that ]Mr. Pinckney's memory luad failed him, and 
 that, instead of a co])y of the paper M'hich he did present, he had found a 
 copy of the plan reported by the committeo with interlined amendments, 
 perhaps proposed l)y him, and, at a distance of more than thirty years, 
 iiad imagined it was his own ])laii. 
 
 '• P. 19. 
 
 '' May 1, 1JS;!0. Mi'moirs, VI 1 1, -JJI, 225. See also Sparks's roconl of liis oonvpvsatii m with 
 Madison in H. B. Adams's Jared Sjiarks. I, 'UV.i. and liis corruspondencf with Madison. 
 ibid., 11,225-231.
 
 THE FEDEKAL CONVENTION OF 1787. 115 
 
 In several letters written during the next few years, but not 
 published till 1867, Madison went into the question more 
 explicitly. Writing to Sparks in 1831, he declared the evi- 
 dence against the draft irresistible." For instance, ho pointed 
 out that, whereas in that document the House of Representa- 
 tives is made the choice of the people, it was the known 
 opinion of Pinckney, who lodged in the same house with him 
 at Philadelphia, that they should be chosen liy the State legis- 
 latures; that on June 6 Pinckney, agreeably to previous notice, 
 moved an amendment in that sense; and that in a letter to liim. 
 dated March 28, 1789, Pinckney had asked him if he was not 
 •"abundantly convinced that the theoretic nonsense of an 
 election of the members of Congress by the people, in the 
 hrst instance, is clearh' and practically wrong."''' In two 
 sul)sequent letters — one written in 1831 to T. S. Grimke, the 
 other in 1835 to AV. A. Duer — he d^velt upon the same dis- 
 crepancies, using the Journal rather than his own notes as the 
 touchstone, and requesting the letters to be regarded as con- 
 fidential.^ It is not necessary to detail all the comparisons 
 made. Substantially the same were published in 181(i in an 
 appendix to Madison's notes of the debates, edited by Gilpin. ' 
 
 In this memorandum, moreover, and in two of the letters 
 mentioned above, Madison adduces evidence from another 
 quarter in support of his contention that the draft could not 
 be what it purported to be. This is from a pami)hlet entitled 
 •■Observations on the Plan of Government, submitted to the 
 Federal Convention in Philadelphia on the 28th [.y/rj of May, 
 1787, by the Hon. Charles Pinckney, esq., LL. 0., Delegate 
 from the State of South Carolina, delivered at difiiM-ent times in 
 the course of their discussions."'' It Avas "privately printed" 
 in New York within a month of the rising of the Convention. 
 Madison, on October 11, sends a copy of it to Washington./ 
 
 « Letters of Madison, IV, 201-203; Adams's Sparks, 11, 227. 
 
 6 In January of the same year Pinckney had written to tlie same effect to Rufus King: 
 "Yon know I always preferred the election of representatives hy the Icffislature to that 
 of the people, and I will now venture to pronounce that the mode which you and Madi- 
 son and some others so thoroughly contended for and ultimately carried is the greatest 
 blot in the Constitution." (Life and Correspondence of Rufus King, I, 3n9.) 
 
 c Letters of Madison, IV, 337, 378. See also pp. 172, 181, 183 
 
 rfGilpin, III, app. v-vii; Klliot, V, .578, .579. 
 
 "•No. 143 in Ford's Biljliography of the Constitution. 
 
 /Letters of Madison, I. 312; Sparks, Letters to Washington. IV, 182. Washington's copy 
 of the pamphlet is still in existence. Catalogue of the Washington Collection in the 
 Boston Athenajum, p. -535.
 
 11(> AMEKICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 
 
 Tlu^v oxchiingc sentiinonts upon it. in their grave manner. 
 Washitioton wvitos: ''Mr. C. Pinckney iw innvillino-. 1 por- 
 opivo l)v tho inolcsures contained in your favor of tlic iotli 
 [UthJ, to U)80 any fame that ean be acciuired })y the pul)lica- 
 tion of his sentiments.'"" To which Madison replies: "'Mr. 
 Charles Pinckney's character is. as you observe, well marked 
 by the publications which I inclosed.''* It is not o-enerally 
 known that Pinckne}^ immediately reprinted his "Observa- 
 tions" ill a South Cai'olina newspaper.'' In 1S5T they were 
 reprinted by Frank Moore in Volume I of his American 
 EUxiuence.'' The ori^'inal is xcvy rare.' Madison, in 1831, 
 having l)ut a nuitilated copy, took pains to borrow one from 
 New Yoi-k, and by its means had no difficulty in casting still 
 further discredit on the draft contributed by Pinckney to the 
 Journal.' The pamphlet did not, indeed, give the text of the 
 project to which its title referred. But man}^ references were 
 made to it in the course of the "Observations," which, in fact, 
 had the form of a series of arguments based on its provisions, 
 which were taken up in order, and in some cases cited by 
 number. It was ])lain that they ditiered widely from those 
 of the printed draft. 
 
 In 1810 and in 1859 John C. Hamilton exposed fully the 
 untrustworthy character of the latter. f' In 1870 Rives did 
 the same.'' When Bancroft in 1882 published his Formation 
 of the Constitution he contented himself with saj-ing only of 
 the draft submitted to the Convention by Pinckney that "no 
 part of it was used and no copy of it has been preserved."* 
 In 1894, in a review article in the Nation, the WvOrthlessness 
 of the accepted text was again insisted on. This led to the 
 publication of Pinckne} 's original letter b}^ Mr. AVorthington 
 
 n October 22, 1787. Ford, XI, 175; Sparks, IX, 274. Sparks charat'teristically has "Mr. 
 C. P ." 
 
 h Oftober 28. Gilpin, 11,6.33; Elliot, V, .'SeS; Sparks, Letters to Washington, IV, 186. 
 
 '•A copy of the State Gazette of South (Carolina for November 1, 1787, in the library of 
 the American Antiquarian Society, contains an installment (evidentlythe second) of the 
 pamphlet, and others follow in the two succeedins numbers (Novembers, 8), which are 
 all the society possesses for that month. No doubt the print began October 29 and ran 
 till November 29. 
 
 'I Pp. 362-370. 
 
 e Mr. Ford notes copies at the Astor Library and in the libraries of the Boston Athe- 
 naeum and the Mas.sachusetts and New York Historical Societies. 
 
 /Letters, IV, 182. See his comparisons which accompany the letter l<i Ducr, id., IV, 379. 
 
 (/Life of Hamilton, II, 409; History of the Republic, III, 258-260. 
 
 '' Life and Times of Madison, II, 353-357. 
 
 '■ II, 14.
 
 THE FEDERAL CONVENTIO^ST OF 1787. 117 
 
 Ford, as alreath^ meutionod," and to an article by Mr. Paul L. 
 Ford, in which he used the pamphlet ''Observations" as the 
 basis for an attempt to reconstruct the actual Pinckney plan.'' 
 Just how far this method is valid will be considered later. 
 For the present it is sufficient to have narrated how, by a 
 series^ of criticisms extending from Rufus King's time to 
 ours, the so-called draft has been so utterly discredited that 
 no instructed person will use it as it stands as a basis for con- 
 stitutional or historical reasoning. What relation it bears to 
 the actual plan is a matter for separate investigation. We 
 have seen what Madison's kindly exi)lanation was, as given in 
 conversation with Sparks. In another form, with a difference 
 to which we shall advert later, he also gives his view of the 
 matter in a note printed l)y Gilpin, namely, that at some time, 
 having lost the original, Pinckney had resorted for a copy — 
 
 to the rough draught, in which erasures and interlineations, following 
 what passed in the Convention, might be confounded, in part at least, 
 with the original text, and after a lapse of more than thirty years con- 
 founded also in the memory of the author. '' 
 
 But is it possible to recover the provisions of the actual 
 Pinckney plan? There is one, and so far as now appears 
 only one, secure method of recovering a part of them.'' We 
 njav be fairly certain that an}' provisions which Pinckney is 
 found advocating, against the general opinion or against the 
 clauses of the plan which the Committee of the Whole had 
 adopted as the main l)asis of its discussions, are portions of 
 his own plan, provided we find him advocating them during 
 the next two weeks after its presentation. At later stages 
 his moving an amendment or speaking in its favor is no clear 
 evidence of this, for it is then ])Ossible that the process of 
 del)ate may have suggested to his mind a new device or con- 
 vinced him of the merit of one suggested bv another. Now 
 it so happims that in his suggesting of provisions, as revealed 
 by the recorded debates, there are two well-deiined periods. 
 
 a Nation, LX, 398, May 23, 1895. 
 
 Mbid., LX, 458, June 13. 1895. 
 
 cGilpin, III, app. vi. 
 
 rfA footnote in Hunt'.s Madison, III, 25, suy.s that "correspondence with I'inckney's 
 descendiints reveals the fact that some; of the notes to which he alludes in his letters are 
 extant;" but Mr. Hunt tells me that this is a misprint— "some" for "none." See his 
 I)reface, p. xiv. See also note " on p. 131. The statement in the text now recjuires modi- 
 (ication, in view of my discovery of large parts of I'iuckney s original text. See p. I'-'s, 
 infra.
 
 lis AMERICAN HISTOKICAL ASSOCIATION. 
 
 Tlic one extends to Juno I."!, (lie niain period of consideration 
 in (Committee of the Whole. 'Hien comes, save for one occa- 
 sion, a loiio- hiatus, extending to July 5. during which he 
 shows no advocacy of definite provisions. On Juno 25, to be 
 sure, he makes along- and elaborate speech, a ''great effort," 
 of which he Avas evidently proud, for he gave Madison a copy 
 of it," and used it later in the South Carolina convention;'' 
 but it is not a thing from which definite details of his prefer- 
 ences can be derived. These emerge again after July 5, and 
 from time to time till the end of the Convention; but now the 
 discussions stood on an altered basis in so many respects that, 
 as intimated a])ove, we can not relate his remarks to his plan 
 with the same sense of security. 
 
 Throughout the first of these two periods, the fortnight im- 
 mediately following the announcement of his plan, all Pinck- 
 nej^'s motions and remarks go to show that it, "grounded," as 
 he himself declared, "on the same principle as" the Virginia 
 plan,'" provided for a national government with a bicameral 
 legislature, an executive, and a judiciary. He planned for a 
 single executive'' to be elected I)}" the national legislature* for 
 the term of seven years,-' and for a judiciary to be elected b}^ 
 the same body.^' His national legislature was to have a gen- 
 eral power to negative State laws.'' The members of its first 
 or more numerous branch were to be elected bj^ the legisla- 
 tures of the States.' In this l)ranch each State was to be 
 represented by a number of members proportioned to the 
 
 nDocumentary History, III, 199-207; Gilpin, II, 945-954: Elliot, V, 233-238; Hunt, III, 
 267-277. Another version, containing- the same matter differently arranged, is in Docu- 
 mentary History, III, 789-795. Yates, pp. 161-163; Elliot, i, 443-144. 
 
 l> It is printed in the State Gazette, of South Carolina, for May, 1788. Mr. A. S. Salley, 
 of Charleston, and Miss Mary Robinson, of Worcester, have kindly searched th.ii paper 
 for me. It is also printed in Carey's American Museum, IV, 256-263, and in Ellii)t. IV. 
 318-3-23. 
 
 cYates, p. 97; not "principles," as in Elliot, 1, 3'.il. Tlie C(nitext .shows that Yates 
 meant the principle of consolidation. 
 
 (Uiinel, 2. Documentary History, III, 35, 51; Hunt. Ill, .57, 77; Yates, p. 101: Klliot. 
 I, 394. 
 
 e Pierce, in American Historical Keview, III, ;!21. See also Dociuncntarv History, III, 
 :j.55; Hunt, III, 4.51, 4.52 (July 17). 
 
 /.June 1. Documentary History, MI, ;59; Hunt, III, 63. 
 
 !/.nine.5, Vi. Documentary History, III, 64, 117; Hunt, III, 92, 157; Yates, ji. 120; Elliot, 
 I, 409. 
 
 /'.June s. Documentary Hi.story, III, .88; Hunt, III. 121: Yates, p. los; Elliot, I. 400; 
 King, I, 597, 59S. 
 
 'June 6, 7. Documentary History, III, 69; Hunt, III, 99; Yates, p. 105; Elliot, I, 397: 
 King, I, .593. See also the letters of January .-ind March, 1789, to King and Madison, 
 already mentioned.
 
 THE FEDERAL COISr^'ENTION OF 1787. IIV) 
 
 number of its free inhiil)itunt.s plus three-lifths of the slaves." 
 Its members were to be reeligible, and not subject to recall 
 by the legislatures of their States.'^ The members of the sec- 
 ond branch were to be elected either bv the State leo-islatures 
 or b}' the tirst branch, it is not certain which.'' Each State 
 was to have from one to three members in this branch, accord- 
 ing- to its population.'' The States were also to be grouped 
 into four great geographical districts for senatorial elections, 
 seemingly with the object of securing a four-years' rotation.^ 
 Apparently Pinckney had provided for a council of revision, 
 consisting of the executive magistrate and the heads of the 
 principal departments;-^" and apparently he had arranged that 
 if unanimity could not be secured nine States should be au- 
 thorized to unite under the new form of government. ■' 
 
 Here was a very respectable scheme, which might well have 
 received much attention if the Virginia plan, which in general 
 it so much resembled, had not had the right of way. It seems 
 to have escaped notice that this true plan of Pinckney's is par- 
 tiall}^ described, though without mention of his name, in a 
 contemporary letter long in print.'' Writing to Dickinson and 
 urging his attendance, George liead, of Delaware, under date 
 of May 21, says: 
 
 I am in possession of a copied draft of a federal system intended to be 
 proposed, if something nearly similar shall not precede it. Some of its 
 principal features are taken from the New York system of government. 
 
 aJune 11. Documentary History, III, 106, 107; Hunt, III, 143. According to Pierce 
 ubi sup., :?24, lie had on June G declared for a representation ])roportioned to pecuniary 
 contributions. Later, July (j, 12 (Doc. Hist., Ill, 283, 324; Hunt, HI, 308, 415), he declared 
 hi.s personal preference for counting the whole population, free and slave. 
 
 & June 12. Documentary History, III, 114; Hunt, III, 152. 
 
 cMay 31, June 7, 8. Documentary History, III, 31, 86, 94; I, 210; Huiil, III, 52, 119; cf. 
 Read's letter, described infra. 
 
 '(June 7, H. Documentary History, III, 69, 84; Hunt, III, 119, 127. To the same eflEect in 
 Documentary History, III, 203, 204; Hunt, III, 343, 344; Yates, p. 201; Elliot, I, 474. This is 
 later, July 2, but IMuckney is expressly referring to his own plan, as he did also on June 
 2.5, reading from it at the end of his long speech, as appears from the conclusion, .sum- 
 marized by Yates, p. 163 (Elliot, I, 414), but not given by Madison. 
 
 'May 31. Pierce, in American Historical Review, III, 319. In later remarks, July 14, 
 1 'i lie kney suggests for each SUite its number of senators, varying from 1 to 4; probably 
 his four districts, the senators from one of which would have retired each year, would 
 have been (1) New England, (2) New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, (3) Delaware, 
 Maryland, and Virginia, (4) the Carolinas and Georgia. Documentary History, III, 335; 
 Hunt, III, 42M. 
 
 /June 6. Documentary History, III, 7.s: Hunt, HI, 110. 
 
 f/Jimeo. Documentary History, 111, 07; Hunt, III, 96. 
 
 'i W. T. Read's Life and (Jorrcspondcnce of George Read, p. 443. I am informed by Mr. 
 John W. Jordan, .secretary of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, that while the let- 
 ter is among the George Read papers possessed by the society, the copied draft is not.
 
 PJO AMKKICAN IIISTOKICAL ASSOCIATION. 
 
 A house of delegates and senate lor a general legislature, as to the great 
 liusiness of the Union. The first of them to he cliosen by the legislature 
 of each State, in proportion to its numher of wliite inhabitants, and three- 
 fifths of all others, fixing a number for sending each representative. The 
 second, to wit, the senate, to be elected by tlie delegates so returned, 
 either from themselves or the people at large, in four great districts, into 
 which the United States are to be divided for the purpose of forming this 
 senate from,« which, when so formed, is to be divided into four classes 
 for the purjiose of an animal rotation of a fourth of the members. A presi- 
 dent having only executive powers for seven years. 
 
 The resemblance })et\veen thesQ details and those which we 
 have discovered admits of but one explanation. Plainly this 
 is the Pinckney plan, completed before May 21, while the 
 delegates were still assembling;* and the description adds 
 some useful items to our search. 
 
 Perhaps others can be gleaned from some motions made by 
 Pinckney late in July, from his opposition to impeachment 
 of the President and his desire for property qualilications for 
 Federal officials ;'' but here we are treading on less secure 
 ground, and certainly some of his motions of this period are 
 contrary to his proposals of the lirst weeks. '^ Least of all can 
 such a course of inference be pursued with regard to the 
 numerous proposals which Pincknev made in the last month 
 of the Convention.^ 
 
 But what of the pamphlet "Observations?" It has been 
 effectively used as a means of reconsti'ucting Pinckney's 
 original draft,-^and probal)ly most of the results thus obtained 
 are substantial. Yet considerable skepticism is justified. In 
 che first place, if one asks what evidence there is that the 
 
 a This device would have .seemed much like that which then prevailed in the election 
 of senators for the New York legisluturc. 
 
 ') " W. S. E. of S. C," in De How, XXXI V, 03, says: "This draft was made in Charleston 
 before the writer thereof had any opiwrtuiiity of conference witli Ins co-workers, and 
 carried with him to the Convention." 
 
 cjuly 20, 2G. Documentary History, III, 383, 380, 435, 437, 
 
 dViz., the proposal of July 21, that the judges should be chosen l)y the second branch, 
 and that of ,Iuly 2.5, that the executive should lie reeligiblc only si.x years in every 
 twelve. Documentary History, III, 400, 427. 
 
 <; August 18, 20, September 14, 15. Id., bho, 5.50, 505, .507, 745, 747, 755. 
 
 /By Mr. Paul Ford, Nation, LX, 458. But not always correctly. He gives the House 
 of Delegates, instead of the Senate, a four years' term. He places the head of the home 
 department among the President's Cabinet officers, though the speech gives the Presi- 
 dent himself the special care of that dej)artmcnt. lie .says that the President is given 
 no ai»pointing power, whereas he is given power to appoint all officers but the judges 
 and the foreign ministers. He mistakenly derives a fugitive-slave provision from that 
 concerning fugitives from justice. He says that the power to levy imposts is subject to a 
 limitation on the percentage, whereas Pinckney .says: " I thought it improper to fi.K the 
 percentage of the imposts, because," etc. Moore, I, 367.
 
 THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787. 121 
 
 speech was ever delivered in the Convention, oven in portions 
 "at different times in the course of their discussions" (as the 
 title has it), we are obliged to confess that there is none. 
 The present writer does not believe that any portion of this 
 long oration, save one paragraph,'' was ever heard in Inde- 
 pendence Hall. It is simply incredible that it should have 
 been delivered, even in small portions administered from day 
 to day, yet have escaped absolutelv all notice from either 
 Madison, Yates, Pierce, or King. Moreover, in spite of the 
 title-page, it can not have been administered in small portions, 
 but if given at all must have been g'iven at once, and on May 
 29, the very day on which the plan was first i-ead. For in 
 the very closing paragraphs we find such language as this: 
 
 In opening the subject, the hmits of my present ol)servatioiu« would only 
 permit me to touch the outlines [of my plan]. * * * The first o))ject 
 with the Convention must be to determine on principles. Tlie most lead- 
 ing of these are * * * In order to bring a system founded on these 
 principles to the view of the Convention, I have sketched the one whicli 
 has just been read. I now submit it with deference to theirconsideration, 
 and wish, if it does not appear altogether objectionable, that it may be 
 referred to the examination of a committee. * * * j am doubtful 
 whether the Convention will, at first, l)e inclined to i)roceed as far as I have 
 intended; but, etc. 
 
 In other words, this purports to be a speech delivered after 
 the plan had been read and before it had been referred; that is 
 to say, delivered on May 29. No one can l)elieve that a speech 
 of such length and interest was made on that day yet escaped 
 the notice of Madison and Yates.^ Madison's words are \V(>11 
 knoAvn: "I was not absent a single day, nor more than a cas- 
 ual fraction of an hour in an}^ day, so that I could not have 
 lost a single speech unless a verj^ short one."'' 
 
 But though the speech may be as imaginary as those of 
 Herodotus or Thucydides, its statements as to the plan are 
 probably entitled to some credit, especially- as we find them 
 agreeing with a number of the results which we have deri\ cd 
 from the d(^])ates in the Committee of the Whole and from 
 Read's letter. Not many structural details arc added to 
 those. The term of the Senate is to be four years; ))ut that 
 was implied in the plans for rotation. Tlio Kxocutive is to bo 
 
 "The next to the last, which appears in another context, in the delialc of .Inly J. 
 Doenmentary History, III, 2(13; Hunt, HI, :513, 344. 
 '' Pierce hail not yet taken his .seat, un<l King's notes ilo nut cover lliis iliiy. 
 c Hunt, II, 110, -in.
 
 122 AMKRICAN mSTOKICAL ASSOCIATION. 
 
 riM>lii:il)l('. He is provided witii a Cabinet. He is to be com- 
 iimiuler-in-ehief, and to appoint all officers except the judges 
 and tin' ministers to foreio'n countri(^s. " llo is also stated to 
 l)e removable by impeachment, thouo'h IMnckney strongly 
 oppostnl this in the Convention. '' On the other hand, man}^ 
 new details, of considerable interest if we can trust them, are 
 given concerning the powers to be intrusted to Congress. 
 Some of them merely repeat the provisions of the Articles 
 of Confederation. Of the rest, the most important are: an 
 unqualified right to raise troops; the right to levy taxes upon 
 the States in proportion to the white population plus three- 
 fifths of the slaves, to regulate trade, to levy imposts, to insti 
 tute all necessary offices, to erect a Federal court with juris- 
 diction over Federal and international cases, and to appoint 
 courts of admiralty in the States; an exclusive right to coin 
 money and to determine in what species of mone}^ the common 
 treasury should be supplied; an exclusive right to regulate the 
 militia and order its movements; the right to coerce States 
 into furnishing their cjuotasof militia,,to admit new States, to 
 consent to th(^ division and annexation of small States, and to 
 pass a uniform law for naturalization. A two-thirds majorit}" 
 was to be reijuisite for tho7>e acts which under the Confedera- 
 tion had required the assent of nine States in Congress, and 
 for acts regulating trade, levying an impost, or raising a rev- 
 enue. A less number than thirteen States (nine, it is intimated) 
 should suffice to ratify the new Constitution, or subsequently 
 to amend it. '^ 
 
 I>ut next there occur certain miscellaneous provisions that 
 are certainly without authority. They are described as 
 securing — 
 
 the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the trial by jury in all cases, 
 criminal as well as civil, the fi-eedom of the press, and the prevention of 
 religious tests as qualifications to offices of trust or emolument. * * * 
 There is also an authoi-ity to the national legislature, permanently to fix 
 the seat of tlie (ieneral Government, to secure to authors the exclusive 
 right to their performances and discoveries, and to establish a federal 
 university.'^ 
 
 Of these seven provisions, the last three were introduced 
 into the Convention on August 18, in almost identical terms, 
 
 "Moore, T, 3G4. 
 
 fcJuly 20. Documentary History, III, ?m, 38f). 
 
 c Moore, I, 3C6-3(;'J, arts. 0-10, IG; the rest are not oited in the .speech by iminbor. 
 
 '' Moore, I, 369.
 
 THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OK 1787. 128 
 
 hy both Mudisoii tuid Pinckney, jukI Piiickney, we are tokl, in 
 a ijhrase >\ hicli woukl hardlv be used of features of his orip-i- 
 nal plan, *' proposed for consideration several additional pow- 
 ers which had occurred to him.'"'^' Madison, moreover, sub- 
 mitted his suj:»'g'estions "in order to be referred to the Com- 
 mittee of Detail." '' Now, Pinckne3"'s whole plan had been 
 formal]}' referred to that committee on July 24.^ It is incon- 
 ceivable that the methodical ]\Iadison should have reintroduced 
 a portion of it, three or four weeks later, in order that it 
 might be referred to the same committee. It is unlikely tliat 
 Pinckne}' himself would have done so. The same unlikeli- 
 hood nuist ])e urged against the provisions securing habeas 
 corpus and freedom of the press and forbidding religious 
 tests; for on August 20 Pinckne}' "submitted them to the 
 House, in order to be referred to the Committee of Detail."'' 
 Concluding that to a considerable extent, and with more or 
 less conlidence, w^e can reconstruct the actual plan which 
 Pinckney laid before the Convention on May 29, we ma}' now 
 turn, finalh', to the question, If the document which Pinckne}' 
 sent to John Quincy Adams was not his original draft, what 
 was it? The question is really not a very diflicult one. The 
 similarity of the supposed draft to the final Constitution has 
 constant]}' been noticed. Its rescunblance to the report of the 
 Conunittee of Detail is still closer.^ The difi'erences from the 
 latter consist, first, of some omissions or abbreviations of the 
 less important passages, as of the tedious rule for deciding 
 land disputes between two States; secondly, of some additions 
 and alterations, almost all of which are recognizable fragments 
 of the genuine Pinckney plan, or of Pinckney's later sugges- 
 
 " r)ofiiinentary History, III, o5i. Both agiiiii joined in moving' for the fowcr to oslali- 
 lisli n university, on September 11; id., 715. 
 
 ''Ibid., r,;)r>. 
 
 '■Ibid., 423, 4l:i. 
 
 ('DocnmeTitary History, III, .'jOa. Tlie argnment might seem weakened by (lie exist- 
 ence of the amendments which en.sue, p. 500, regarding the cabinet; but tlieso go into 
 much more detail than, probably, was done in the plan. The motion for freedom of the 
 press rea [(pears, as made by Pinckney and Gerry, on Septemlierll; Documentary His- 
 tory, III, 717. Tliat for trial by jury in civil cases is maile by llie same two delegates on 
 Scpteml)er l.i; id., 7.5.5. 
 
 <■ This closeness of resemblance was noted by Sparks ir. a letter of Xovembc- 11, 1831, 
 to Madi.son; IT. B. Adams, .lared Sparks, TI, 529. The text of the report of the Committee 
 of Detail given in the Journal, pp. 215-230, and (from Madi.son) in Documentary History, 
 III, 4IH.58, is apparently more exact than tho.sc which arc given (from Wa.shington's 
 and Hrearley's copies) in the latter work I, 2.S.5-308, 33-5-35R, wlicre. in tlie attcmi)t to 
 represent the original print by large tyi>e and the manuscript additions by small Idlers, 
 some errors seem to have crept in.
 
 124 AMERICAN IIISTOKIOAL ASSOCIATION. 
 
 tioii8. Such arc the peculiar provisions for the election of the 
 Senate (Articles -t and 10 of the so-called ])lan); those in Arti- 
 cle () for a national luiiversity. for the estal)lishnient of a seat 
 of g-overnnicnt and for exclusive jurisdiction of Congress in 
 its inunediat(> area, for the proportioning of direct taxation 
 to the whole population of the State (ho had inserted the 
 three-lifths rule in his plan, but had stated his personal pref- 
 erence for reckoning in the slaves)/' for the prohibition of 
 religious tests, for libei-tv of the press, and for habeas corpus; 
 that in Article 8, for the i'eeligil)ility of the President; and 
 that in Articl(> 1 L, securing to the national Congress a negative 
 on State laws. All the rest does not amount to ten lines, or a 
 thirtieth pai-t of the document. Practicall3% in other words, 
 the so-called l^incknc}" plan consists of the report of the Com- 
 mittee of Detail, as brought in on August 6, minus some of 
 its lesser features, and plus some of those of his real plan. It 
 is not possible to say that Pinckne}^ answered Adams's request 
 ])y sitting down and copying the printed report of the (Com- 
 mittee of Detail, paraphrasing to a small extent here and 
 there, and interweaving as he went along some of the best- 
 remembered features of his own plan. But it is possible to 
 declare that if he had done this the result would haA^e been 
 precisel}' like that which in fact he sent on to Washington. 
 
 Moreover, it is an ascertainable fact'' that in December, 
 1818, when the document was sent, he had still in his posses- 
 sion his printed copy of the report of the Committee of De- 
 tail, as secreth' put in type for the use of the members on 
 August (5, 1787; foi* in the letter to xldams which accompanies 
 the di'aft he savs: 
 
 I can aH.<iire you as a fact tliat for more than four montliH and a half out 
 of five the jxjwer of exehisively making treaties, appointing foreign minis- 
 ters and judges of the Supreme Court was given to the Senate, after numer- 
 ous de})ates and consideration of the subject, botli in Committee of the 
 Wiiole and in the House. This T n<)t oidy aver, but can prove i)y printed 
 dfx'uijieiits in my possession to liave been tlie case.'' 
 
 liy what piintcd document could such a point possibly have 
 been proved in 1S18, but by the printed report of the Com- 
 jnittee of Detail i From the nature of the case there was no 
 
 « Documentary History, III, 324. 
 
 bfienible, That a man may be trusted in casual mid uniiitemled indications in a letter, 
 even th(iuf<li in its main ]>nr])()rt it lie <lec'ej)tive. 
 'Hunt, in, 23.
 
 THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 17S7. 125 
 
 other. It i.s well known that several members carefully pro- 
 serv^ed their copies/' It will perhaps be remembered that 
 though Madison's final explanation, written down in connec- 
 tion with his notes, was that Pinckney's rough draft, marked 
 with subsequent erasures and amendments, may have ))een tlie 
 source of the document he supplied to the Secretary of State, 
 his original conjecture, expressed in conversation to Sparks, 
 is said to have been that Pinckney "had found a copy of the 
 plan reported by the committee, with interlined amendments, 
 perhaps proposed by him, and, at a distance of more than 
 thirty years, had imagined it was his own plan."" If the Com- 
 mittee of Detail is the conunittee meant, we may well accei)t, 
 as our final result, the first half of this earliest conjecture. 
 
 But, it ma}' be askinl, may not another conclusion be drawn 
 from the remarkable similarity observed between the docu- 
 ment called the Pinckne}^ draft and the report of the Commit- 
 tee of Details Is it certain that this is not due to the fact 
 that the framers of the latter, who undoubtedly had Pinck- 
 ney's plan before them, for it had been formally referred to 
 them, based their work upon it, rather than upon the Virginia 
 resolutions^ The process by which one document is proved 
 l)y internal evidence to be copied or derived from another is 
 often a tedious one to expound or to read. In the present 
 case it can be exhibited in an abridged form. We need not 
 enter into a minute consideration of each phrase. Substan- 
 tially the same results, in almost as convincing a form, can ])e 
 shown by following the labors of the Committee of Detail 
 through inspection of the order or succession of articles in 
 certain documents. 
 
 There are five documents which show us practically all that 
 we know of the work of the Connnitt(M> of Detail. The first 
 is the series of 23 resolutions confided to that committee on 
 July 20, the text of which, gathered from the journals by Sec- 
 retary Adams, is to be found in his edition of the Journal and 
 in the first volume of Elliot.'' llie second is that document 
 in the handwriting of Ednumd Randolph (and John Rutledge). 
 mend^ers of that committee, which Mr. W. M. Meigs has 
 
 • r liiiMcrofl, II, 119, 139; Ford, BiMiograpliy, i>. 3, No. 8. 
 
 '■ .louriml, iii>. 207-213; Klliol, I, i'il-i'iS; Meigs, pp. 333-33G. A copy of those rcsoliiti..ti.s, 
 in .Iiimes Wilson's haiKhvritiiiK, evidently P"t in form for the \i.ses of tlio committee, e.\- 
 ists amoiig his papers in the lihriiry of the Uistorieal Soeiety of rcnnsylvnnia.
 
 l'J(i AMKKICAN IITSTOKICAL ASSOCIATION. 
 
 coiulusivoly proved" to ho a document prepared by Kundolph 
 soon after the i-omniittee was appointed, to aid its members in 
 th(> task Ixd'ore them— the task of ehiborating- the !23 resolu- 
 tions and Hllino- in details. This document has been printed 
 in facsimile by iSir. ^Nleiys. The tliird and fourth of the live 
 documents alluded to have not hitherto been printed. Their 
 manuscrii)ts exist amono- those papers of James Wilson, an- 
 other memlier of the Conunittee of Detail, which are possessed 
 1)3' the Historical Society of Pennsylvania.^' The former, upon 
 comi)arison with the Randolph manuscript, appears plainly to 
 represent a later sta^e of the committee's deliberations, and 
 to be the lesult of an endeavor to work out Randolph's sug- 
 o-estions and to o-ive formal shape to his details. It is of so 
 i^reat interest that, by th(^ kind permission of the officers of 
 the societ}', it is print(^d in this series. (No. VIII, post.) 
 The fourth document ditfers but little from the final result of 
 the conmiittee's work. It exhibits that work in a still later 
 stau"e. That sta<>"e is so near the final one that it has not been 
 deemed necessar}^ to print the document in exte/ifio, but a full 
 statement of the diflerences between it and our fifth document 
 is presented herewith (in No. VIII) immediately after the 
 third. The fifth is, of course, the report of the Committee of 
 Detail, a document often printed.' Like the first, it consists 
 of 28 articles, but they are different. Most of them, however, 
 are to be found, more or less fully expressed, in the second, 
 third, and fourth of the series. 
 
 These live documents, as has been said, enable us to trace 
 in outline the history of the committee's Avork from the time 
 of its appointment until, on August 6, it reported to the Con 
 vention. Now, without going" into details respecting the text 
 of the articles contained in them, let us merely consider what 
 provisions, speaking generally, they contained, and in what 
 ordci'. Though it ma}' give an a})horrent appearance to the 
 page, this can most clearly and succinctl}' be done by denot- 
 ing each provision by tlu^ number which it (or its amplified 
 eijuivalent) ])ears in the articles and sections of the fifth and 
 final document, the report of the Committee of Detail. Pur- 
 
 "The Growth of the Constitution, ])]). 317-32-1. 
 
 01 am grwitly indobturl to Mr. Joliii W. .lordiui, lil)r;ii'inii of the socioty, for ffivorinp 
 nie with fojiies of these two dociiinents. 
 
 fDocunieiitiiry Uistory, III, Ml-loiS; .loiinial of 181'j, pp. 215-2:50; also in Doe. Hist., I, 
 285-308, 335-358, and in KUiol, I, 224-230; but see note <', on p. 123, supra.
 
 THE FEDERAL CONVENTION" OF 1787. 127 
 
 suino- this mode of expression, then, we should say thiit the 
 first document, the resohitions referred to the committee, 
 contains the following provisions, in the following order: II, 
 III, IV, 1; lY, 2; VL 9; V, 1; V, 8; V, 2; VI, 9; VI, 12: Vll, 1; 
 VIll, IV, 3; IV, 4; VII, 3; IV. 5; V. 1: X, VI, 13; XI, 1, 
 2, 3; XVII, XVIII. XIX, XX, XXII, V, 1. The second, 
 the Kanclolph document reproduced ])y Mr. Meigs, contains 
 the following: III, IV, 2, 3, 4, 1; VI, 1, 3, 6, 5, 9; IV, 7; 
 
 VI, 8; V, 1, 3, 2 (VI, 3, 6, 5, 9, 8); VII, 1, 4, 5, 0; X, VI, 13; 
 XI, XVII, XVIII, XX. XXII, XIX, XXI, XXIII. The 
 third document, the first of the two Wilson drafts, runs thus 
 if we follow the same system of notation and omit for the 
 present from consideration certain extraneous matter which 
 is found embedded in the manuscript: I, II, III, IV, 1-4; 
 
 VII, 3: IV, 5-7; V, 1, 2; IX, 1; V, 3; VI, 12; VI, 3; V, 4; 
 VI, 4, 1, 2, 6, 8, 5b, 9, 11, 10, 7. 5a (then other matter, of 
 which anon): XVII-XX, XXII, XXI, XXIII, VI, 13; 
 
 -IX, 2: IX, 3. The fourth of our documents would lie repre- 
 sented thus: I-VIII, XII. XIII. IX-XI, XVII, XVIII, 
 XIV-XVI, XIX, XX, XXII. XXI, XXIII. 
 
 Not a little instruction might be di-rived from this record 
 of the transnnitations which our fundamental document, or 
 its germ, underwent during these eleven days at the hands of 
 the conunittee. But our present concern is only with its 
 bearings on the problem of the Pinckney plan and specifically 
 on the question — the last remaining question, it is submitted — 
 whether the report of the Committee of Detail might not 
 after all have T)een modeled on the Pincknc}' plan i-ather than 
 the latter on the former. We have shown, by a somewhat 
 mechanical device, what was thv actual genesis of the com- 
 mittee's report. Let anyone who is not fatally repelled by 
 the notation examine the results with care, and then consider 
 the fact that the articles of the so-called Pinckney plan, so 
 far as they extend (it has notliing correspondijig to Articles 
 XXII and XXIII). run in exactly the same order as those of 
 the conunittee's report, and that indeed ahnost al)Solutely the 
 same order of clauses is preserved within the individual arti- 
 cles. Then let any person who has ever attended a conunittee 
 meeting, and who r(Mneml)ers the process ])y which an impoi'- 
 taiit document was ground out, ask himself wliat the chance 
 is that a document which was one of several put into the
 
 128 AMKKICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 
 
 hopper oil . I Illy 26 should, after such peruuitiitions as those 
 abo\e e\liihitecl.emcrj>e on August (> as the final result of the 
 oomniittee's deliberations, with almost exactly the provisions 
 with which it entered, and in almost exactly the same order. 
 This, it should be observed, is an argument against the theory 
 of wholesale copying fi-om Pinckney. It does not militate 
 against the supposition that the committee, having Pinckney's 
 plan before them, may have borrowed from it some portions. 
 
 ^^'hen all of this paper ))ut the last four paragraphs had 
 been "written, there came to the writer a manuscript contain- 
 ing large portions of the original text of the long-lost Pinck- 
 ney plan. 
 
 Tlieii felt I like some watcher of the skies 
 When a new planet swims into his ken; 
 
 or, more exactly, like one before whose telescope appears an 
 asteroid wdiich pursues exactly the orbit that "he had predicted. 
 The manuscript alluded to was a copy of James Wilson's rough 
 draft, discussed on the preceding pages, and printed in a later 
 section (VIII). In the midst of it there was a manifest break 
 in text and sense, followed by passages which w ere readily 
 perceived to be excerpts from the Paterson plan. Then came 
 a series of propositions which were not less easily identified 
 as parts of the much-sought Pinckney plan. Then Wilson's 
 rough draft was resumed at a later point than that at which 
 it was interrupted. Investigation showed that in the volume 
 of Wilson papers possessed by the Historical Society of 
 Pennsylvania, from which the copy came, there are four sheets 
 of manuscript pertaining to the work of the Committee of 
 Detail. The fourth in the order of binding contains those res- 
 olutions of the Convention which were turned over to the com- 
 mittee at its appointment as the main basis of its work. The 
 first and third are the first and third sheets of Wilson's rough 
 draft, based on the Kandolph paper presented by Mr. Meigs. 
 Its second sheet is missing. In its place is sandwiched-in a 
 half -sheet containing the excerpts from the New Jersey and 
 Pinckney plans already mentioned. A possible reason for 
 their being found at this point is that, in the main, they relate 
 to what would naturally be the middle portion of Wilson's
 
 THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787. 129 
 
 draft. They relate for the most part to the powers of Coji- 
 j^ress, of the Executive, and of the Judiciar\'. These three mat- 
 ters had received little elaboration in the Virginia plan or in the 
 twenty-three resolutions of July 26, It was natural that Wil- 
 son, in essaying- the task of amplifying this portion of the 
 8cherae,,should draw off such passages as were germane to it 
 from the other two documents which, it will be remembered, 
 had likewise been referred to his committee. At all events, 
 this is what appears to have been done. The half-sheet is 
 written with a liner pen than the sheets which precede and 
 follow (though in Wilson's own hand) and with a diti'erent 
 spacing. It is distinctly an interpolation, and will not be 
 printed with the rest in section No. VIII. It is inserted here. 
 First are given the extracts from the Paterson plan. 
 
 All Appeal for the Correction of all P>rors both in Law and Fact. 
 
 That the United States in Congrens be anthorised — to pass Acts for rais- 
 ing a Revenue — by levying Duties on all Goods and Merchandise of foreijin 
 Growth or ^Manufacture imported into any Part of the United States — by 
 Stamps on Paper Vellum or Parchment — and by a Postage on all Letters 
 and Packages passing ttirough the general Post-Ofhce, to be applied to sucli 
 foederal Purposes as they shall deem proper and expedient — to make Rules 
 and Regulations for the Collection thereof — to pass Acts for the Regulation 
 of Trade and Commerce as well with foreign Nations as with each other." 
 
 That the Executive direct all military Operations. 
 
 That the Judiciary have Authority to hear and determine all Impeach- 
 ments of foederal Officers; and, by Way of Appeal, in all Cases touching 
 the Rights of Andiassadors — in all Cases of Capture from an Enemy — in 
 all Cases of Piracies and Felonies on the high Seas — in all Cases in which 
 Foreigners may be interested in the Construction of any Treaty, or which 
 may arise on any Act for regulating Trade or collecting Revenue. '' 
 
 If any State, or any Body of Men in any State shall oppose or prevent 
 the carrying into Execution the A(;ts or Treaties of the United States; the 
 Executive shall be authorised to enforce and compel Obedience by calling 
 forth the Powers of the United States. 
 
 That the Rule for Naturalization ought to be same in every Stat**. 
 
 These portions of the New Jersey draft require little expla- 
 nation. The first line is a misplaced phrase from the end of 
 tlu! second article. The next paragra])h is derived from that 
 article and contains such important provisions in it as are not 
 found in the twenty-three resohitions of July 26, which is 
 just what we should expect upon the theory al)ove suggested 
 
 "Thf margin adds: " to lay and collect taxes." 
 
 ''The margin adds: "or on the Law of Nations, or general eoniniercial or niiiriiic 
 Laws..' 
 
 II. Doc. 461, pt 1 1»
 
 i;U) AMKIUCAN HISTOllICAL ASSOCIATION. 
 
 as ti) the rrasi)ns for nuikino- these mcmoniiida. Siniihirly, 
 the uQxt soiitoiK'c contains the one provision of Patcrson's 
 fourth proposal whicli is not in the twenty-three resolutions. 
 The next paragraph contains the most essential portions of 
 Faterson's Article 5, in so far as these were not contained in 
 the other or main document which the connuittee had before 
 it; most of them, however, were in Randolph's plan. The 
 provisions for cocMvion and for naturalization are, for similar 
 ri>asons. copied out of the seventh and tenth of Paterson's 
 articles." Then comes in the manuscript a space unusually 
 wide, and then, obviously \n-oceedmg jjer saltuin to the heg'in- 
 ning- of a fresh document, we read a longer group of extracts 
 from the ]*inckney plan.'' (The italics are not in the original, 
 but are used for a purpose which will be explained later.) 
 
 The Legihilature shall consist of two distinct Branches — a Senate and a 
 House of Delc^nites, each of which shall have a Negative on the other, and 
 shall be sliled the U. S. in Congress assembled. 
 
 Each Hon^e shalf appoint its own Speaker and other Officers, and settle its 
 own Bides of Proceedinrj; but neither the Senate nor H. D. shall hare the Power 
 to adjourn far more than Days, vutliout the Consent of both. 
 
 There shall 1)0 a President, in which the Ex. Authority of the U. S. 
 shall be vested. It shall l)e his Duty to inform the Legislature of the Omdi- 
 tion of U. S. so far as may resjaect his Department — to recommend Matters to 
 tlieir Consideration — -to correspond with the Executives of tluf several States — to 
 attend to the Execution of the Laws of the U. S. — to transact Affairs with 
 the Ofticers of Government, civil and military — to expedite all such Meas- 
 ures as may be resolved on l)y the Legislature — to inspect the Departments* 
 of foreign Affairs — War — Treasury — Admiralty — to reside where the Legis- 
 lature shall sit — to roniinission all Officers, and keep the Great Seal of U. S. 
 He shall, hij Vhiiw o/ his Office, he Commander in Chief of the Land Forces of 
 U. S. and Admiral of their Xavij. He shall have Power to r(jnvene the Legisla- 
 ture on e.rtraordivarii Occasions — to prorogue them, provided such Proroga- 
 tion shall not exceed Days in the space of any . He may 
 suspend Officers, civil and military. 
 
 The Legislature of U. S. shall have the exclusive Power — of raising a 
 militanj Land Force — of equiping a. Navy— of rating and causing public 
 Taxes to be levied — of regulating the Trade of the several States as 
 well with foreign Nations as with each other — of levying Duties upon 
 Imports and Exports — of establishing Post-Offices and raising a Revenue 
 from them — of regulating Indian Affairs — of coining Money — fixing the 
 Standard of Weights and Measures — of determining in what Species of 
 Money the public Treasury shall be supplied. 
 
 "As miraljcTc'fl ill the eleven-article texts; see p. 13-1, post. 
 
 ''Immediately upon discovering this document, I communicated it to the American 
 Historical Review, and it was printed in the section devoted to documents, in the num- 
 ber for April, iy03 (VIH. 509-511).
 
 THE FEDERAL CONVENTION <>F 1787. 131 
 
 The foederal judicial (\)urt shall try Officers of the V. S. for all Crinies 
 i^c. in their Offices. 
 
 The Legislature of IT. S. shall have the exclusive Kigiit of instituting in 
 each .State a Court of Admiralty for hearing and determining maritime 
 Causes. 
 
 The Power of impeaching uliall be vested in iJie II. I). The Senators and 
 Judges of the foederal Court, be a Court for trying Impeachments. 
 
 The Legislature of IT. S. shall po.«sess the exclusive Right of establislnng 
 the Ciovernment ami Discipline of the Militia (,*tc. — (did of orderimj the 
 Mint la of anil Slate to ati// Place within U. S. 
 
 Since the preceding- document follows Paterson .so nearly 
 verbatim, we are w^arranted in .supposino- that thi.s, as far as 
 it goes, is an accurate transcript. But what pi'ove.s it to be 
 Pinckne3''s plan:! First, W(> have here a body of material 
 plainl}^ derived from two documents, iind exactly meeting 
 certain needs which we know, from the nature of the twenty- 
 three resolutions of July 2(), the Committee of Detail must 
 have felt; one of the two is the second of th(> pieces which Jiad 
 been referred to them; it is most likcdy that the other is the 
 third. Secondly, the more numerous house is termed •'Mouse 
 of Delegates,'' the name which it bore in Piiickne3'\s plan, 
 according- to Kead's letter and Pinckney's •'Ohservations,'" 
 l)ut in no other of the known projects. Thirdly, out of some 
 fort}- provisions given in the text above, not one is in coiillict 
 with what we otherwis(i know of Pinckney's real i)lan, devel- 
 oped according to the method established on previous pages. 
 It is impo.ssil)lenot to feel that the ne\\ly discovered document 
 and the preceding investigation conliriu each other to a re- 
 ujarkable degree; not to be gratilied by so signal a corrol)ora- 
 tion, and not to regret that the whole plan can not' be fotmd." 
 
 The discover}- of these documents shows tiiat the reference 
 of the New Jersey and Pinckney plans to the Connnittee ol" 
 Detail was not, as has generally been assumed, a mere smoth- 
 ering of them. Thev were used. To what effect they were 
 used may be .seen l)y comparing them w-ith som(> of those Hve 
 papers which, as has been said, exhibit in successive .stages 
 the work of the Conunittee of Detail. Pater.son's propo.sals 
 for a power to levy duties on imports, to regidate commerc(>, 
 to make uniform the rules for naturalization, to give tli(> 
 Executive the power to direct all militaiy ojxM'ation.s, and to 
 
 " '• W. S. E. of S. C," in Do Huw's Rcviow, X.XXIV, iV.i, iuhI ii. s. I, :!7.'), siiys tlial " The 
 original draft, in his [I'inclcney's] own ImiidwritiuK, with notcsund inleilineations, was 
 preserved among his papers," but implies that it i)erishe<l in tlir t;harleston lire of isci.
 
 132 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIOlSr. 
 
 ijivo tlu> Federal courts iui"isdictioii over euses relatini'" to 
 amhiissadors, and liis provisions for tiic return of fuo-jtives 
 from justice, all ai)])eai- in lli(> repoi't of the Conniiittcc of 
 Detail: l)ut none of these are to he found in the twentj'^-three 
 resolutions, though it must he said that the lirst two were in 
 ITSTthe oonnnonplaces of constitutional reform. Pinckney's 
 plan. amoni>- the forty provisions (roughly speakino) which 
 ar(> preserved to u,s in the text above, contains no fewer than 
 nineteen or twenty that are to ])e found in the committee's 
 report, but were not in the twent3^-three resolutions referred 
 to them at the l)eoinning- of their work, nor in the Virginia 
 resolutions, nor in those oti'ered ])y Paterson. They are 
 marked ])y italics in the text above. Taken together, the}^ 
 constitute a noteworth}^ contribution for the youngest dele- 
 gate to have made, and show that the labor he spent in draw- 
 ing up a plan before the Convention l)egan its work was not 
 expended in \ ain. 
 
 In some cases we can trace tiie process bv which these por- 
 tions of Pinckney's scheme found their way into the commit- 
 tee's report. Thirteen of them are to be found in Mr. Meigs's 
 facsimile of the Randolph draft, which stands second among 
 the papers that mark the committee's progress. Of these, 
 four, it is (exceedingly interesting to observe (and also one 
 respecting Indian affairs, which did not take effect), stand 
 minuted in tlie margin or interlined in the text by the hand of 
 John Rutledge, of South Carolina, colleague of Pinckney and 
 representative of their State upon thecommittee.« Another, 
 though it does not appear in the Randolph draft, is found 
 slipping from the margin into the text of Wilson's rough 
 draft, the paper next in order of development.* 
 
 It is perhaps sufficient to remark, in conclusion, that as a 
 maker of the Constitution Charles Pinckney evidently deserves 
 to stand higher than he has stood of late years, and that he 
 would ha\^e a better chance of doing so if in his old age he had 
 not claimed so much.'' 
 
 a I refer to the words " to regulate weights and measures," in the margin of Mr. Meigs's 
 Plate V, the words " and equip fleets," interlined in the text nearly opposite, and in the 
 margin of Plate VI the phrases " to be commander in chief of the land and naval forces 
 of the Union," and " shall propose to the legislature from time to time, by speech or 
 message, such matters as concern the Tnion." 
 
 ''The jjrovision tliat each house shall appoint its presiding otticcr. 
 
 c Beside his •' plan," we owe to his later suggestion the whole or part of Art. I, § «, els. 
 4, 8, 11, 17, § 9, cl. 2, and Art. VI, § 3, cl. 2.
 
 THE FEDERAL CONVENTION" OF 1787. 133 
 
 YI. THE TEXT OF THE NEW .lERSEY PLAN. 
 
 On the loth of June, according to the journal of the Con- 
 vention," " Mr. Faterson submitted several resohitions to the 
 consideration of the House, which he read in his place, and 
 afterwards delivered in at the secretary's table,'*' and whicli 
 have since been famous as the New Jersey or Faterson plan. 
 But of this document, or series of resolutions, four different 
 texts exist, and it can be declared with confidence that none 
 of them precisely represents the original as presented on 
 June 15. 
 
 Tn order to an intelligent investigation of these texts, it is 
 necessary first to recall what has hitherto been known of the 
 genesis of the document. On June 13 the Conunittee of the 
 Whole had practically completed its report, l)ased on the \'ir- 
 ginia plan. On Jiuie 11 — 
 
 IVIr. Patersoii ()l)served to the Convention that it was the vvisli of several 
 tleputations, particuhirly that of New Jersey, tliat further time might he 
 allowed them to contemplate the plan reported from the Committee of the 
 Whole, and to digest one purely federal and contradistinguished from that 
 reported plan.'' 
 
 The next day. June 15, he '" laid ])efore the Convention the 
 plan which he said several of the deputations wished to be 
 su])stituted in place of that proposed by Mr. Randolph." 
 Madison states its origin thus:' 
 
 This plan had heen concerted among the deputations, or memhers 
 thereof, from Conne(!ti(;ut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and perhaps 
 Mr. Martin, from Maryland, who made with them a common cause on 
 different jirincijiles. 
 
 Luther Martin, in his remarks before the Maryland legis- 
 lature, definitely claims a share in its preparation, saying: 
 
 We then thought it nec(>ssary to hring forward the i)ropositions which 
 such of us who had disapproved the plan hefore [suhnntted?] had pre- 
 pared. The memhers who prepared these resolutions were principally of 
 the Connecticut, New York, Jersey, Delaware, and INIaryland delega- 
 tions. The Hon. Mr. Faterson, of the Jerseys, laid tiiem hefore the 
 Convention. Of these propositions 1 am in possession of a copy, which 1 
 shall heg leave to read to you.'' 
 
 '< Documentary History, I, 64, 05. 
 
 ''IfU, III, 12:i. 
 
 <• Id., Ill, T24; (.ilpiii, 1 1, stl'i, 803; EUiot, V, 191; Huiit.Writiiijf.s of Mailiwoii, MI, 105,100. 
 
 f'Gt'iiuiiic Iiifi.riiiiitioii, ill Vate.s' SctTC't Proceedings, ed. l.s.'l, \> n»; Klliot, I, :$49.
 
 KU AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 
 
 Mr. Hiuicroft says that tlu> iiiforniants of the English Gov- 
 onninMit imiiUHl (JoN'tM'iior Li\in_i>"stoii as tho author/' 
 
 Of the Hvo texts which have hccn stated to be in existence 
 it nia}' be i)1'o])(M' to take into consideration first that which is 
 ij-iven by Madison. It is to he i'ouiid in his notes as printed 
 in the Docunientaiy Ilistoi'v/' in Gilpin,'" in the tifth volume 
 of KUiot,"' and in the third \()lunie of Hunt's edition of the 
 \\'j'itini>'s of James Madison.' It consists of nine articles. 
 The tirst declares that the Articles of Confederation should 
 be made adiMjuate; the second gives CongTcss additional 
 sources of re\-enue and the right to regulate commerce; the 
 third proposes a new plan for the assessment and coll(M'tion 
 of requisitions; the fourth providers a plural Executive; the 
 tifth a supreme Federal judiciary; the sixth makes the acts 
 and treaties made by Congress the supreme law of the States; 
 the seventh requires provision for the admission of new 
 States; the eighth for uniform ruh's of naturalization; the 
 ninth relates to the citizen of one State who commits offenses 
 in another. This text we will call A. 
 
 Another, which may })v called 1^, is that which is presented 
 as an appendix to the official journal of the Convention, in 
 the first volume of the Documentary History.;'" is inserted in 
 the text of that record in the Journal of 1819,^ and is taken 
 from the latter into Elliot'' and Yates.' The manuscript from 
 which it is copied is declared, in the Journal of 1819,'' to have 
 been derived from Gen. Joseph Bloomtield, executor of David 
 Brearley^ and the fact that it is one of the Brearley manu- 
 scripts also appears in the pages of the Documentary History. 
 As Brearl(>y was a member of the New Jersey delegation, the 
 paper might seem entitled to considerable authority. Its 
 text, however, differs from that which we have called A in 
 several particulars. To Ijegin with, it has eleven articles in- 
 stead of nine. Those which do not appear in A are the sixth 
 
 "History of the Formiitioji of the Constitution, IT, '10, Tiotc 2. Sec Report on Canadian 
 Archives for 1,S90, p. 101. 
 ''HI, Vlft-VIK- 
 '■IT, 8fi3-8«7. 
 rfPp. 191-193. 
 c Pp. lGG-170. 
 /I, 319-323. 
 f/Pp. ]i;3-127. 
 
 'I First ed., IV, 70-72; "second" (tliird) cd., I, 175-177. 
 (Ed. 1821, pp. 221-224. 
 J Pp. 11, 123.
 
 THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787. 135 
 
 resolution, providing-, as had been provided in the fourteenth 
 article of Randolph's plan and in the eighteenth of the report 
 of the Conuiiittee of the \Miole. and in their exact huipuao-e, 
 "that the legislative, executive, and judiciary powers within 
 the several States ought to be bound by oath to support the 
 Articles of Union;" and the ninth resolution of B, which de- 
 clares ""that provision ought to be made for hearing and de- 
 ciding upon all disputes arising between the United States and 
 an individual State respecting territory." These are not un- 
 important provisions. Furthermore, in the fourth resolution, 
 relating to the Executive, A provides that the}" shall be "re- 
 mova])le b}" Congress on application by a majority of the 
 executives of the several States,'*' whereas B reads "remova- 
 ble on impeachment and conviction for malpractice or neglect 
 of duty b}^ Congress on application l)y a majorit}' of the execu- 
 tives of the several States." This awkward provision wears 
 plainly the aspect of an attempt to join, without fusing, two 
 independent devices for getting rid of an unacceptable Execu- 
 tive. We shall be helped in understanding it if Ave observe a 
 bit of the proceedings in Committee of the Whole on June 2. 
 It was moved by one of the Delaware members. Dickinson, 
 seconded by another, Bedford, })oth presuma))ly concerned 
 afterwards in concocting the Jerse}' plan, to add the words 
 "to be removable 1)y the National Legishiture upon recjuest by 
 a majority of the legislatures of the individual States." This 
 was voted down, Delaware alone voting in the aflirmative. 
 Then the committee proceeded to add the words which appear 
 in the report of the Conmiittee of the Whole: "to be rcmov- 
 al)le on impeachnuMit and conviction of malpractice or neglect 
 of dut3\"" The former of these two devices reappears, 
 slightly modified, in text A of the resolutions prepared by the 
 uKMubers from Delaware and the other small States. P»oth 
 appear in B. 
 
 In reading th(> Journal of 1811) Mr. Madison's attention was 
 arrested by these discrepancies. In a footnote to his ivcord 
 of the del)ates, inserted immediately after his nin(^ -article t(^xt 
 of th(^ New Jersey resolves, he says: 
 
 This copy of Mr. ratiTsoii's i)r<)i)Ositi()ii.s varieH in a few clauses from 
 tliat in the printed journal furnished from the papers of Mr. Hn-arley, a 
 
 " Dooumontary History, I, 206, 207; III, 48-51. Madison hiifl himself suggested impeaeh- 
 nu'iit (III tlu' piccediiiK diiy, Juno 1, in remarks wliich lie does not report, but which are 
 Kiven by I'ierce, American JIist(iricnl Kcview, III, 3-1.
 
 186 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 
 
 wUoajrue of Mr. Paterpon. A conlidence is felt, not\vitb8tan(lin<;, in its 
 a<'curacy. Tliat tlie copy in the journal is nijt (uitirely correct is shown 
 by the ensuing speech of Mr. Wilson (June 16), in which he refers to the 
 mode of removing the Executive by impeachment and conviction as a fea- 
 ture in the Virginia jtlan, forming one of its contrasts to that of Mr. Pater- 
 son which proposed a removal on the application of a majority of the 
 executives of the States. In tlu^ copy printed in the journal the two 
 modes are combined in the .same clause, whether through inadvertence or 
 as a contomi^latcil amendment docs not appear.'^' 
 
 The I'oniarks of Wilson to which ^ladi.soii alhido.s occur in 
 the course of a series of contrasts which Wilson draws ])e- 
 tween the two })Uins, That the point which Madison makes 
 in this footnote is well taken appears not onl}' from hi.s own 
 report of what Wilson said, hut from such other reports as 
 have come down to us/' In his series of parallels, Wilson 
 sa3's that in the Virginia plan the Executive is to be '" remov- 
 able on impeachment and conviction," in the other to be 
 '• removal )le at the instance of a majority of the executives of 
 the States." So far, then, the evidence is in favor of text A. 
 
 But the little manuscript book already spoken of as pre- 
 served among Judge Paterson's papers contains his own ver- 
 sion of his resolutions, and this text agrees in every substantial 
 particular with B.'" It contains the two additional articles, 
 the sixth and the ninth of B's numbering, and it presents the 
 same provisions as are given ])y B with respect to the removal 
 of the Executive. But the maimer in which it presents them 
 is interesting, and may explain the form in which they appear 
 in the Brearley version, B. The resolutions are given on the 
 right-hand pages of the book. Certain phrases accidentally 
 omitted in copying are given with asterisks on the left-hand 
 pages, other asterisks marking the places of their insertion 
 on the right-hand pages. But in this instance of the fourth 
 article, we have, without asterisks, on the right-hand page 
 the words, " and removea])le on Impeachment and Conviction 
 for Mal-Practice, or Neglect of Duty,'' and opposite them on 
 the left-hand page the words " by Congress on Application 
 by a Majority of the Executives of the several States." Thus 
 placed, the two phrases have the appearance of being alter- 
 
 a Documentary History, III, 128; Hunt, III, 170. 
 
 Ubid., Ill, 133; Gilpin, II, 872; Elliot, V, 19.'); Hunt, III, 176; Yates, p. 126, and Elliot, 
 1,411. Paterson's notes in George Bancroft's copies at the Lenox Library, p. 182. 
 
 fPaterson has "subjects" in the seventh resolution, where Brearley has "subjects" 
 stricken out and "citizens" written instead.
 
 THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787. 137 
 
 native propo.sals. upon which the coterie who framed the res- 
 hitions had not come, according to Patersoivs subsequent 
 memory, to a definite conchision. It would have been likely 
 that this should be the case, if the Dehxware members had 
 preferred the one form, while the rest had acquiesced in 
 that which we see in the report of the Connnittee of the 
 Whole? If in Brearley's copy the alternative gloss had crept 
 from the margin into the text w^hich Wilson knew, the form 
 which W(^ find in Article -i of B would be accounted for/' 
 That the representatives of the smaller States were not dis- 
 posed to be rigid about all details -of their plan is evidenced by 
 Dickinson's remark on June 19, wIkmi the discussion of the 
 tw^o plans was ahnost concluded, that he supposed there were 
 o-ood regulations in both, and that the committee might do 
 well, after comparison, to consolidate such parts of them as 
 they might approve.* 
 
 But it would be idle to dispute whether A or H is to ])o pre- 
 ferred, in view of the fact that neither of them can possi})ly 
 be the original text of the resolutions brought in by Paterson 
 on June 15. This can l)e demonstrated from the jouriial of 
 the Committee of the Whole for Juno 18, when, the New 
 Jersey propositions being under discussion, Dickinson moved 
 "to postpone the consideration of the first resolution sub- 
 mitted l)y Mr. Paterson, in order to introcUice the following, 
 namely,'' or (as we may read in words deleted ]»y the secretary 
 but still preserved in the manuscript) — 
 
 to substitute the following resolution in the place of the first resolution 
 subinitted by Mr. Paterson, namely, Retfolved, That the Articles of Confed- 
 eration ought to be revised and amended, so as to render the CJovernnient 
 of the Uiiited States adecjuate to the exigencies, the j^reservation, and the 
 prosperity of the rnion. 
 
 Dickinson's motion was rejected .hiiie !:•. 1 1 was then 
 voted "to postpone the consideration of the first proposition 
 otl'ered l)y Mr. Paterson."'' Obviously, then, Paterson's first 
 resolution and this declai'ation proposed by Dickinson were two 
 different things. Yet in both A and B what is set down as 
 the first of the Paterson resolutions is almost exactly identical 
 with this vote i)roposed by Dickinson— so nearly the same in 
 
 '«I am iiifoniK'd I.y ^fr. AHuii, chief of the bureau of rollH and library, tlmt Broarley's 
 inaiiu.s(Ti|il runs coutiiiuoiisly and williout iiUeriiolation al (his point. 
 ''Yates, p. 140; KUiot, 1, 12.'). 
 ••Doeumeiitary History, I, 221, 22.').
 
 1 8 A M EK 1 1 A I^ III 8T( )lilO A L ASSOCl AT lON. 
 
 phraseoloo-y that no .sensible man. at so important a crisis for 
 the smalltM- States, would have cared to sugg-ost the slight 
 alterations. There is, moreover, a signiiicant passage in 
 Luther Martin's (JiMuiine Infoi-mation/' in which he says: 
 
 .Nay, so far wcrr tlu' Iriciuls of tlie s}>t('in [iueauin<i: the Virginia plan] 
 from pretending that tiiey meant it or considered it as a l%leral .system, 
 that on the qnestion being proposed, " that a nnion of the States, merely 
 Federal, ought to be the sole object of the exercise of the i)owers vested in 
 the convention." it was negatived hy a majority of the members. 
 
 No motion expressed in these words is to be found in the 
 journal of the Conuuittee of the Whole. Careful search seems 
 to shoAv that Avhat he says can have reference to nothing else 
 than the rejection, on June ID, of Faterson's first resolution. 
 As we have seen, the resolution which stands first in the cur- 
 rent texts can not have been the first. The words which Mar- 
 tin ([uotes would be wholly appropriate to an introductory 
 article. None but the first of Paterson's propositions, what- 
 ever the}^ were, was ever brought to a distinct vote and sepa- 
 ratel}' rejected. It is prolia])le, then, that here in these words 
 of ]\Iartin we have the first of the New Jersey resolutions, 
 aUuded to but not quoted in the journal. 
 
 Hut it is now time to invoke the text which we shall call 
 C. It is to be found in tw'O periodicals contemporary with 
 the da3^s of the Con\ ention — the Marjiand Gazette or Balti- 
 more Advertiser,^ of February 15, 1788, and Carey's American 
 Museum.'' It will l)e remembered that Luther Martin, one 
 of those who took part in drawling up the plan, had a copy of 
 it which he read, or at an}" rate offered to read, to the Mary- 
 land assembl}^ when giving them his '"genuine information." 
 Now, the series in the Maryland Gazette is headed with the 
 words: "Resolves proposed to the Convention ])y the Honor- 
 able Mr. Paterson, and mentioned in Mr. Martin's Informa- 
 tion to th,e House of Assembly." It is likely that the printer 
 got his copy from Martin. The text in the American Museum 
 gives no indication of its provenance. 
 
 P>ut whatever the origin of C, its peculiarities are interest- 
 ing. In the first place, it consists of no less than sixteen 
 
 "Yates, p. 42; Elliot, I, 302. 
 
 ''Not to be confounded with the M;iryliui<l Ga/.ette published at the same time at 
 Annapolis. I am indebted to islr. Porter Ilollis of the .Tohns IIoi>kiiis TTniversity for 
 kindly copying for me this text. 
 
 fill, 362,36.3.
 
 THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787. 139 
 
 article.s, and the tir^t of those is that identical resolution the 
 existence of which we have been led to suspect from INlartm's 
 reminiscence, and which almost certainly was the one voted 
 down in committee on June 19. It is expressed in exactly 
 the words quoted l)y Martin." Article 2 is Dickinson's sub- 
 stitute, which we can be sure was not a ]>art of the original. 
 The otlier articles, with a singde exception, correspond to 
 those of B, but with a diHerent order and with some subdi- 
 vision.'^ That exception. Article 14, is almost as interesting 
 as Article 1. It reads: '" Resolved^ That it is necessary to de- 
 tine what offenses committed in any State shall be deemed high 
 treason against the United States.'" Now. not oidy is this 
 interesting on account of its intrinsic importance. l)nt it oc- 
 curs, crossed out. in the corresponding position in the series 
 written down in Judge Paterson's little l)ook. This mav make 
 us doubtful whether it was in fact laid before the Convention, 
 and so again skeptical as to G's being the genuine original 
 text, as submitted on June 15. In the passage on the re- 
 moval of the Executive,'' the reading of C is simply, " remov- 
 able on impeachnuMit and conviction for malpractice, corrupt 
 coiiduct, and negl(»?t of duty." 
 
 The fourth text, which we may call D, uihmI not long detain 
 us. In the appendix to the lirst volume of the Life and Cor- 
 respondence of Rufus King,'' among some notes which he 
 wrote out about 1818-1821, there appears a series of i^oxi^n 
 articles, bri(>Hy summarized, headed, "Quere if Paterson's 
 Project." The next words run: '-The powers of the Conven- 
 tion only authorize the enlargement of the provisions of the 
 Confederation, viz." These words point to both the first 
 article of C and its s(>cond, the lirst of A and P. The seven 
 articles which follow correspond, in the same ordei', to Arti- 
 cles 2-0, 8, and 9 of A. The text is obviously too nuich abbre- 
 viated, too plainly derivative, to have nuicli independent au- 
 thority. Its reading as to the rem<)\ a! of the Executive is: 
 "removable by Congress on application of a majority of the 
 state executives," the reading of A, foi- which Madison con- 
 tended and which Wilson's speech supports. 
 
 "Save "this Convention " where he says " the Convention." 
 
 f'Art. 2=lof B; Art. 3-2 of B: Arts. '1,5=3 of B; Arts. 0,7=4 of B; Art.s.S,<J=7 of ]5, Art. 
 10=5 of B; Art.n=f)Of B, wliich, it will be rememhered. is not in A; Art. 12=9 of B, of 
 which the same is true; Ait.l3=.Sof H: Arls.]5an(l 10 =!Oiin<l II uf B, re.spectively. 
 
 '• .Vt the end of article 0. 
 
 ''l>i.. 000, 001.
 
 14() AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 
 
 Rut if Avi> arc ()t)liii('(l to lesnc in soiiuMlouht llu^ (luestioii 
 of tho exact text of the Now Jersey resolutions, it may be 
 possible foi' us to <!ast some light on their genesis by the use 
 of certain papers preserved by eJudge Paterson/' Those to 
 which allusioTi is niade and which are reallv significant are 
 two ill numb(M'. Each is written in Paterson's handwritiny- 
 on a single sheet of foolscap. One of these, plainly the 
 earlier one, consists of live articles, and ma}^ not improl)ably, 
 for reasons wliicii will appear, he attributed to John Lansing, 
 jr., of New York, who, we may infer from the remarks of 
 Madison and Martin, took pai't with the members from the 
 small States in th(> pi'eparation of the Jersey plan. Its lirst 
 r(\solution is that declaration for a union merely federal 
 which, as we ha\'e seen, stood at the head of the genuine 
 Paterson resolutions and was rejected by the Convention. On 
 that very account, perhaps, it is here crossed out. Its second 
 article is that wdiich Dickinson, on June 18, moved as a sub- 
 stitute for the preceding and which stands as the first reso- 
 lution in A and B and the second in C. Its third article, 
 "that the t'ederal Government of the United States ousrht to 
 consist of a supreme legislative, executive* and judiciary," is 
 practically the vote of the Committee of the Whole on May 
 30,'' at the beginning of its deliberations, but with the 
 important substitution of ''Federal" (that shibl)oleth of the 
 particularists)'" for "national." The fourth article is to the 
 elf ect "that the powers of legislation ought to ])e vested in 
 Congress." This no doubt means vested in a Congress organ- 
 ized like the present Congress of the Confederation, as distin- 
 guished from the bicameral body proposed l)y the Committee 
 of the Whole. This resolution does not appear in the printed 
 texts. But on June IG one of the group who prepared the 
 New Jersey plan, Ellsworth, proposed "that the legislativ^e 
 power of the United States should remain in Congress." 
 "This," says Madison, "was not seconded, though it seemed 
 better calculated for the purpose than the first proposition of 
 Mr. Patei-son, in place of which Mr. E. wished to substitute 
 it."'' Again, on June 20, it was moved by Lansing and sec- 
 
 "For these 1 am indebted to tlu' kindness of Mr. Noah F. Morrison, of Elizabeth. 
 There are copies iimong the Bancroft MSS., at the Lenox Library. 
 
 ''Documentary History, I, 200. 
 
 '• Vates, pp. 42, 43. 
 
 ''Docnraentary History, III, r.Mr. Hunt, III, IT'.t. The motion does not appear in the 
 journals.
 
 THE FEDEKAL CONVENTION OF 1787. 141 
 
 onded l)y Shenntiii, two others of the group, to postpone the 
 consideration of the second resolution of the Committee of 
 the Whole, in order to take up the following" *' Resolved, 
 That the powers of legislation be vested in the United States 
 in Congress."" Accordingly this provision, though it seems 
 to have dropped out from the plan before the final framing, 
 was one to which several of the framers were attached, and 
 had a natural place in a preliminary sketch. 
 
 The fifth and last article of this incomplete sketch deals with 
 additions to the powers of Congress, over and above those 
 which the Articles of Confederation had conferred upon it. 
 It closely resembles the article on this subject which we find 
 in the printed series, and reseni))les it in such a way as to be 
 almost certainly its prototype. This can proba))ly not be made 
 clear without quoting it. It reads: 
 
 RcmlvaJ, That in Addition to the r<)\vers vested in tlie United States 
 in Congress by the present existing Articles of Confederation, they be 
 authorised to pass Acts for levying a Duty or Duties on .all Goods and 
 Merchandize of foreign Growth or Manufacture imported into any Part of 
 the Unite<l States not exceeding per Cent, ad Valorem to l)e api)lied to 
 such federal Purposes as they shall deem proper and expedient, and to 
 make Rules and Regulations for the Collecrtion thereof; and the same from 
 Time to Time to alter and amend in sucli Manner as they shall think 
 proper, Prorldi'il, That all Punishments, l-'ines, Forfeitures and Penalties 
 to be incurred for contravening such Rules and Regulations shall be 
 adjudged and decided upon by the Judiciaries of the State in which any 
 Offence contrary to the true Intent and [Meaning of such l^iles and Regu- 
 lations shall be connnitted or perpetrated; subject nevertheless to an 
 Appeal for the Correction of any Errors in rendering .Judgment, to the 
 Judiciary of the United States. 
 
 That the United States in Congress be also authorized to pass Acts for 
 the Regulation of Trade as well with foreign Nations as with each other, 
 and for laying such Prohibitions and such Imposts and Duties upon 
 Imports as may be necessary for the Purpose; Prorldid, That the Legis- 
 latures of the several States shall not be restrained from laying iMubai-goes 
 in Times of Scarcity; and provided further that such Imposts and Duties 
 so far forth as tlie same shall exceed per Centum ad Valorem on the 
 
 Imports shall accrue to the Use of the States in which the same may l»e 
 collected. 
 
 If all this be comi)ared with Article 2 of A or B, it will bt' 
 plaiidy .seen that it is the original of the latter, or represents 
 an early stage in its elaboration. In the margin stand the 
 words *' Imposts, Excise, Stamps, rost-Oflice, Poll Tax," evi- 
 
 aDocumfiiliiry nistory, I, 67, f>8.
 
 142 AMEIUtVAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 
 
 donth luiiiutcd iis .siiuu'cstioiis of rurtlun- sources of federal 
 n>vemie to In- considored; and the liiial draft, though, as might 
 1)0 expected, it avoids the excise and the poll tax, inserts after 
 tlu^ mention oF I'lnenue by duties on imports thc^ words "by 
 stamps on i)aper, vellum oi' parchment, and b}' a postage on 
 all letters or packages passing tiirough the general post-oltice." 
 Attention may Ik' called. to the close relation between these 
 proposals and the revenue proposals of 1781 and 1783 and the 
 project of 1781 for the reguhition of commerce. In short, we 
 have in this document a Vorschrlft for the New Jersey plan, 
 drawn up by ;i man or men who were willing to go ])ut little 
 beyond those rejected and insufficient schemes. 
 
 Eitiier no more was written of this paper or Paterson copied 
 no more. The other paper extends farther and seems to mark 
 a later stage in the process. Its hrst article is that which we 
 ultimately find as the first of A and B. Its second insists 
 that the amendments resolved on by the Convention should 
 be submitted to Congress and to each State, after the fashion 
 prescribed in Article 13 of the Confederation. Articles 3 and 
 1 are the same as those of the shorter paper. The numbers 
 5, 6, and 7 are left with blanks in the text. This is done to 
 save copying; for in the margin, against 5, w^ read, "See 
 Mr. Lansing;'' against 0, "See Gov. Randolph's 7th Prop'nf' 
 against 7, "Same, 9th.'' Now, since in the finished document, 
 at least according to texts A and B, we find at this point a 
 resolution relating to the additional powers to 1)e conferred 
 on Congress, then (after that on requisitions) one on the execu- 
 tive which closely resembles Randolph's seventh resolution, 
 then one on the judiciary, which closely follows his ninth, it 
 is not illegitimate to infer that the fifth article of the shorter 
 paper, whose text we have quoted and on which the article on 
 the powers of Congress in the final document was plainl}^ 
 modeled, is here alluded to as the Avork of John Lansing, of 
 New York. The eighth and ninth articles, assertions of the 
 equalit}' of the States in sovereignty and independence and of 
 their consequent right to equal representation in the supreme 
 legislature, need not detain us. The part which such asser- 
 tions played in the transactions of the Convention is well 
 known. The two papers under discussion have their main 
 interest as preparatory sketches for the conq)leted New Jersey 
 plan, the general nature of which is after all ascertainable, and
 
 THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787. 143 
 
 us helping to explain its development. It was doulitless a 
 joint product. " It may be remembered, by the way, that 
 Ellsworth. Patei'son. and Luther Martin were fellow-students 
 at Princeton and companions in founding the C'liosophic 
 Societ3\ 
 
 V]]. THE Tf:XT OF HAMILTON'S I'LAN. 
 
 In any discussion of Hamilton's foi-mai suogestions for the 
 proposed Constitution of the Ignited States, it is iini)ortant to 
 keep in mind the distinction between the brief outline which 
 he read in connection with his important speech of rlune 18 
 and the longer and more elaborate plan which, near the end of 
 the sessions of the Convention, ''was placed in Mr. ^ladison's 
 hands for preservation b}- Colonel Hamilton, who regarded it 
 as a permanent evidence of his opinion on tlu^ subject."'' 
 
 Of this longer document ^ladison returned th(> original, from 
 which it was printed in Hamilton's Works,' and kept a copy, 
 fromAvhich it was printed ])y Gilpin"' and by P^lliot,' andmorc 
 recently in the Documentary History ' and in Hunt's Writings 
 of James Madison.^/ The text of all these is the sam(\ and not 
 at the present day a matter of controversy. One detail, how- 
 ever, was a hundred years ago a matter of vivid dispute, and 
 may deserve a passing notice. It having been alleged "in a 
 Jacobin meeting at Salem"'' that Hamilton had proposed that 
 the president and senate should l>e chosen for life, Timothy 
 Pickering Avrote to him reijuesting information on the point. 
 Hamilton replied in a letter of SeptemT)er 16, 1808. admitting 
 that he had i)roposed a tenure during good l)eha\i()r for presi- 
 dent, senate, and judges, but declaring that his linal oi)iiiion 
 in the Convention had been reversed, so far as the (\\ecutive 
 was concerned. 
 
 a See, also, p. 150, injrn ; luid, for tlu- use mntV- of llu' New .Icrscy rcsohitioiis in Ihu 
 Committee of Detail, p. 129, supra. 
 
 '> Gilpin, III, xvi. Mr. Loflge seems really to suppose the loiter (loiuiiieiil lo liave 
 been laid before tb.e Convention at the same lime with the shorter, wlien he says ; Works 
 of Hamilton, I, 351 n.): " Many of the clauses of the exisliiit; Couslitulion would seem to 
 have been taken exactly from Hamilton's draft." 
 
 <• J. C. Hamilton's edition, II, 395-409. The original is now iu the Aslor Library. 
 
 f'lll, xvi-xxviii. 
 
 c V. 584-590. 
 
 /Ill, 771-7MS. 
 
 f/ III, 197-209. Madison had at some time furuislied Jeirerson with a eopy of this finper. 
 Seehisk>tterof.Tulyl7, ISIO (Letters, II, 481), written under the appr.-hensi..n (bat be 
 
 had lost his own copy. 
 h Pickering to Hamilton, April 5, 1S03, r, Ma.ss. Hist. Soc. Coll., \'II 1. 179.
 
 144 AMKUIOAN" IirSTOKirAL ASSOCIATION. 
 
 In tlic I'laii tif a constitntioii, wliicli I drew up while the Convention 
 was pittiii.i::, ami wliich 1 (•oiimmnicatcil in Mr. Madison about the close of 
 it, perliaps a <lay m- two after, tlie oHice of president has no greater dura- 
 tion than for three years." 
 
 Miidison ill ono of his letters, in which he is discussino- the 
 disputed minibei-s of the •' FiMleiiilist,'' iuiiniadverts upon this 
 as a sig'nal instance of the fallibility of llainilton's nieinorv;'' 
 foi' the tenur(» is durino- uood behavior both in the Madison 
 copy and in that found aniono" lIaniilton\s papers/' 
 
 But it is tlie l)i-i(>tVr sketch read on June 18 which more 
 conciMMis us. It ol)viously has more in common with th(^ pro- 
 jects laid before the Convention in its early days by Randolph, 
 Pinckney. and Paterson than has the finished docmiient which 
 Hamilton dicw up when all discussion was ended. And ji^t 
 it stands on a somewhat di tie rent basis from these. It was 
 never formally proposed to the Convention, and of course 
 never referred to a connnittee; in a sense, it was but a por- 
 tion of a speech. Its author, at the time when he read it, 
 stated, according to Madison's report, that — 
 
 he did not mean to offer the i)aper he had sketched as a proposition to the 
 coniniittee. It was meant only to give a more correct view of his ideas, and 
 to suggest the amendments which he should probably propose to the i)lan 
 of Mr. R. in the projjer stages of its future discussion.'^ 
 
 To the same purport Madison sajs, in a letter to John 
 Quincy Adams: 
 
 Colonel Hamilton did not projxise in the Convention any plan of Con- 
 stitution. He had sketched an outline which he read as part of a speech, 
 observing that he did not mean it, etc.'' 
 
 But though laid l^efore the Convention so informall}^, Ham- 
 ilton's paper was regarded by his colleagues with so much 
 interest that we have eight diflerent texts of it from copies 
 kept by at least six ditierent members of the Convention. 
 
 " Xiles'sRcKister, III,14S: Pickcring'.sReview, pp. 172-173 (120-121 of .seconded.); Pitkin, 
 If, 259-260; Works, ed. Hamilton, VI, 550; J. C. Hamilton, Life of Alexander Hamilton, 
 II, 548; id., History of the Ropnblic, III, 344, 345. At p. 343 of the latter is a similar state- 
 ment made by Hamilton in print during- his lifetime. 
 
 ''To James K. Paulding, Aiiril, 1S31. Letters, IV. 177. So also in Gilpin, III, xvi. 
 
 <• J. C. Hamilton's note, Repnhlie, III, 345, is singularly inept; he says, regardless of 
 what he had printed in Hamilton's Works, II, 401, sec. 9, "the term of three years is in 
 the second plan." 
 
 ''Documentary History, III, 149; Gilpin, II, S,S9, 890; Hunt, III, 194. 
 
 <- Letter to. T. l^. Adams, Noveml)er 2, 1818. ,1. C. Ilamilton'.s History of the Republic, 
 IH, a]>p. iii; Hunt, III, 209. .1. C. Hamiltcin labors (ibid., ?,0\ n.) to show that Madison 
 contradicted himself on this point, but on the whole without success.
 
 THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787. 145 
 
 Presumably all these were written in the uien)l)er.s' own hand- 
 writing, according" to the practice described on a i)revious 
 page, at the ])cginning of our study of the Virginia resolu- 
 tions. In most cases we know that this was the fact. These 
 texts manifest considerable differences in certain articles. 
 
 First of all (A) we have Hamilton's own text, in eleven 
 articles, as printed in his works." The manuscript from 
 which it was printed was found among his papers. Next (B) 
 we have Madison's. Madison says that his report of the 
 speech, in comiection with which this plan was read, was re- 
 vised by Hamilton, but his phrase does not necessarily imply 
 that this was true of his text of the plan.''' The latter is 
 printed in Giljjin,' in Elliot,'' in the third volume of the Docu- 
 mentary History,' and in Hunt's Madison.' Thirdly, there is 
 Brearley's copy (C), which (xeneral Bloomtield handed over 
 to Secretary Adams, with the other papers mentioned on pre- 
 vious pages as derived from him, in May, iSlS.'/ This is 
 printed in the Journal of ISl'.l,^' in Elliot,' and in the first 
 volume of the Documentary History.' Fourthly, there is 
 Paterson's copy (D), in his handwriting, which is contained in 
 the small manuscript l)ook already mentioned in these pages, 
 and temporarily lent to the present writer. Fifthly, Read's 
 Life of George Read presents a text in nhic articles (E), 
 "from a copy in Mr. Read's handwriting."^ It will be re- 
 membered that George Read, perhaps alone among the mem- 
 bers of the Convention, expressed full approval of Hamilton's 
 suggestions.' The eleven articles are reduced to nine by the 
 omission of the second and the consolidation of the fourth and 
 tifth into one. Yates's minutes contain a sunnnaiy of the 
 plan, which, though very brief, is of interest and has an inde- 
 
 «Ed. Hiunillon, II, 393-395; ed. LodKi', I, 331-333. 
 
 ''Hutit, n, ni, III, 1S2; Gilpin. H, .S'J'-*; Trist's nu'iiinniiidiini in liuriilaH's JcllVrsoii, 
 III, r,'Jl. 
 f II, 890-sy2. 
 '( V, 205. 
 '•111,119-1.51. 
 /Ill, 191-197. 
 
 (/ Letter of Adams, in IlainlllonV Kc|iul)lii-, III. a|.|.. p. ii: .Imnnal, \>. VM. 
 I' I'p. 130-132. 
 
 '■ I. 179-lSO. , 
 
 J I. 321-:i2tl. 
 
 /.I'p. 1.'):!, 1.51. 
 
 ( Documentary History, 111, 212, 213, 217, 2HI. 
 
 II. Doc. 461, pt 1 10
 
 14() AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 
 
 pcMulent Olio-ill." Of the seventh and eighth texts, we may 
 postpone our consideration for a few pages. 
 
 Ainoiip- these six texts there are consideral>le variations, 
 thoug-h l^iterson's (D) is precisely like Brearley's (C). If 
 there were no reasons to the contrary in any case the pre- 
 sumption would he in favor of assigning a superioi' au- 
 thority to the copy found in Hamilton's own handwriting. 
 Hut documents are often retouched, and we have seen how 
 insecure such reasoning WH)uld be in the case of Pinckney or 
 even of Paterson. Let us, then, study the variations. They 
 occur in the text of the fourth, seventh, eighth, and ninth of 
 Hamilton's eleven proposals. 
 
 In the fourth article, which relates to the executive, the 
 variations nvc in that part which prescribes the (mdirect) 
 mode of his election. Text A provides for "his election to 
 ho made l)y electors chosen b}" electors chosen by the people 
 in the election districts aforesaid," meaning the single-member 
 districts arranged for the choice of senators. That is to say, 
 it provides not that his election shall be secondary, l)utthatit 
 shall be, if the phrase is permissible, a tertiary election. An 
 alternative is provided, which appears in no other of the 
 texts, namely, "or by electors chosen for that purpose by 
 the respective legislatures" — an election still tertiary. The 
 Bloomtield and Paterson texts (C, D), though the}^ do not give 
 the second meml)er of this alternative, agree exactly with the 
 phraseology of the first. In Madison's text the process be- 
 comes simply that of secondary election — " the election to be 
 made }>y electors chosen by the people in the election districts 
 aforesaid." Read's text (E) agrees with this. That of Yates 
 seems to support it. He writes, " Let electors be appointed 
 in each of the States to elect the Executive;"'^ but this brief 
 phrase does not necessarily rule out the wording of A nor ab- 
 solute! v sustain that of B. Arguments from one or another 
 of these texts derived from expressions used in the subse- 
 quent debates seem to be lacking. The longer and more in- 
 tricate form in which A provides for the presidential election 
 is sustained by the more elaborate plan which Hamilton 
 
 "Secret Debates, ed. 1821, pp. 136, 137; Elliot, I, 423, with a difference, to be noted 
 below. 
 
 ''Elliol, 1, 423, chiingcs the last word U> "legislature," which the context sliow.s to be 
 erroneous. It .should be remembered that the i)lan printed in the appendix to Yates is 
 sinifily copied frf)in that in the .Tofirnal of LSI*), and has no independent authority.
 
 THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787. 147 
 
 showed to Madison in September, for thi.s provided for a ter- 
 tiary" riither than a secondary election," and it is eas}^ in copy- 
 ing to omit one of two similar phrases when the repetition is 
 not perfectly well known to be intentional. On the other 
 hand, it is not easy to imagine that the alternative method 
 which is sug-g-ested in A was realh" in the document read on 
 June 18, yet escaped all notice on the part of all live, or at 
 an}^ rate four, of those whose versions have come down to us. 
 
 In the seventh article, relating to the judiciary, the numl)er 
 of judges in the Supreme Court is left blank in B, C, D, and 
 E, whereas in A the blank is tilled with th(> word twelve. 
 Much the most probable conclusion is that the document origi- 
 nally read had a blank at this point, which Hamilton subse- 
 quently filled in witli the munber. In his longer phui he 
 provides for a court of from six to twelve judges. 
 
 The eighth article of A r(^ads: 
 
 The Legislature of the I'nited Staten to have power to institute courts in 
 each State for the (leterinination of all causes of caiitnre and of all matters 
 relating to their revenue, or in wliicli the cilizens of foreign nations arc 
 concerned. 
 
 In B, in C, in D, and in K (art. <>). we tind a less specific 
 definition of their jurisdiction: "for the determination of all 
 matters of general concern." It would be natural, accoi-ding 
 to the usual rules respecting copying, to suppose that tlic more 
 specific phrase was the original, the more general derivati\e; 
 but this presumption is nuich w^eakened when we tind four 
 independent texts agreeing exactly in their phrasing of this 
 provision. 
 
 Finally, in the ninth article, the various texts differ markedh^ 
 in respect to the composition of the court for trying impeach- 
 ments. Text A provides that they shall be tried by a court 
 consisting "of the judges of the Federal Supreme Court, chief 
 or senior judge of the superior coiu't of law of each State." 
 The others make no mention of the judges of the Federal 
 Supreme Court. Once they wer(> introduced, it is easy to see 
 why the ])lank in Article T slioidd l)e filled with the word 
 twelve, lest in impeachments of Federal oilicers they !»<' (juite 
 outnuml)ered l»y the thirteen chief justices of the States, or so 
 many of them as could attend. P.utii, C, D, and K, while 
 thev confine th(> trit)un:il to the State judges, have minor 
 
 • I I)(iciiiiii'nliiry llislory. Ill, 77r)-77K.
 
 148 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIOK. 
 
 variiitions in their doHnition of thciii, !>, in the Documentary 
 History, reads, "to consist of the chief oi- judoe of the supe- 
 rior court of law of each State;"" in (lilpin and in Hunt, "of 
 the chief or judo-e;" K, ''chief or - judges;" C and 
 
 D, like A, "'chief or senior judi>(\'" It is not difficult to im- 
 ao-ine that, if the writer did not feel perfectly acquainted with 
 the judicial systems of all the States, and therefore could not 
 in adyance of discussion decide what phrase should be used to 
 coyer the case of States which did not precisely haye a chief 
 judge, he mio-ht at tirst write " chief or judge," and 
 
 afterward till in the blank with the word " senior." In Ham- 
 ilton's longer plan, the court for the trial of impeachments 
 in the case of the higher officials is composed of the Supreme 
 Court of the United States, (which, it will be remembered, was 
 to consist of from six to twelye judges), plus the chief or senior 
 judge of each State, an}^ twelye to constitute a court. 
 
 The seyenth and eighth texts haye been postponed. It is 
 no wise certain that they haye an independent origin. In the 
 tirst yolume of "Porcupine's Works," published by William 
 Cobbett in May, ISOl, he tells us that "the plan of a Consti- 
 tution, which ]\Ir. Hamilton * * * proposed to the Con- 
 yention, has since been published by his enemies, with a view 
 of destroying his popularity and influence." " He then I'eprints 
 a text of it, which difi'ers only in two small particulars from 
 ^Madison's (B) — the blank in the seventh article is simpl}^ 
 closed u}), which is doubtless a mere typographical error; and 
 in the description of the impeachment court the reading is 
 "Chief justice, or judge of the superior court of law," etc. 1 
 have not been able to discover Cobbett's source. It would have 
 some interest, as the earliest printed text of Hamilton's plan, 
 or of any of the plans submitted to the Conv^ention, except 
 Paterson's. Cobbett's, however, was printed during Hamil- 
 ton's lifetime; and so was our eighth text, which is found in a 
 pamphlet entitled "Propositions of Colonel Hamilton of New 
 York, in the Convention for esta])lishing a Constitutional 
 Government for the United States," printed at Pittslield, 
 Mass., by Phinehas Allen, in 1S02.''' This differs in no respect 
 from Porcupine's, save that in the phrase last cited the read- 
 
 « p. 89. 
 
 ''There is a copy in the library of tlie New York Historieal Society. I am greatly 
 indebted to Mr. Robert II. Kelby, librarian of that society, for kindly furni.shing mo a 
 transcript.
 
 THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787. 140 
 
 ing is -'Chief jiulge or judj^re." It is impossible at present to 
 say whether either of these, agreeing- so closely with ^Vladi- 
 son's text, has any other source than his manusci-ipt. 
 
 Whatever the prol)abilities in any of these individual cases 
 of variation, it is perhaps sufficiently shown that in respect to 
 Hamilton's suggested plan we have hardly more warrant than 
 in the* case of the Virginia or New Jersey resolutions or 
 Pinckney's plan for declaring with confidence that any one of 
 the variant texts represents exactly the original document 
 which was brought before the Convention. 
 
 In the late Paul Ford's Bibliography of the Constitution of 
 the United States" mention is l)rietiy made, against llaniil 
 ton's name, of a plan of government printed in the Massachu- 
 setts Centinel for .lune 23, 17ST. The attribution is erron- 
 eous.* The piece in question bears no signature^ or other 
 indication of authorship. It is entitled simply "'Scetch of a 
 Federal Government.'" It is formed upon i)rinciples ditfering 
 widely in several respects from those which Hamilton is 
 known at that tmie to have entertained,'' It provides for a 
 legislative assemblv consisting of live members from each 
 State, chosen annually, and having the power to levy excise 
 duties as well as duties on imports and exports; if the amount 
 thus raised were insufficient, resort should ])e had to retpii- 
 sitions. There was to l)e an executive council of one member 
 from each State, chosen triennially, which should have a veto, 
 superable by a two-thirds vote, upon the acts of this assembly. 
 Appointments were to })e made upon a triple nomination on 
 the part of the executive council by a connnittee of one ukmu- 
 ber of the assembly from each Stat(\ A council of revision, 
 consisting of the Secretarv of Foi'cign Atiairs. the Secretarv of 
 War, the conunissioners of the Trciisurv. and lirst judge of 
 the admiralty, with appeal to a two-thirds vote* of the assem- 
 bly, was to exercise in the national intei-est a control over the 
 legislation of tlie States. The States were to have no ])ower 
 to emit money of any kind. 
 
 All this is interesting, but not highly important; not as 
 important, certainly, as (to cite a document of somewhat the 
 
 a V. 48. 
 
 ''I wrote to Mr. Ford iiboiit tliis sonu? yciirs h^'o. He was imnlile to say witli cortiiinty 
 from what source he had derived his attritjiition of tlie plan to Ifainilton. 
 (•For a copy of the sketch I am indebted to my father, Jolin .Jameson, esq., of Boston.
 
 150 AMERICAN HI8T()K1CAL ASSOCIATION. 
 
 siiino class) tlio Ixxly of sugo-estions found unionii;' the papers 
 of lloi>"er Sherman, and ijriiitcHl l)v Jeremiah Evarts in his 
 sketch of Sherman in Sanderson's Lives of the Signers." It 
 is, by the way, not at all impossible that this last document, 
 to which Mr. Bancroft attaches so high an importance/' may 
 have been a portion of the Connecticut delegates' contribution 
 to those consultations of the members of the small States, out 
 of which, as we have already seen, the New Jersey resolutions 
 originated. There is nothing in its provisions inconsistent 
 with this theory; and the suggestion is fortified by the pres- 
 ence of blanks in the declaration, "That the eighth article of 
 the confederation ought to be amended agreeably to the 
 
 recommendation of Congress of the day of ." For 
 
 a document prepared at leisure by Sherman it w^ould have 
 been easy to hunt down the date, April 18, 1783, and insert it. 
 For a paper prepared upon a sudden exigenc}^ and when he 
 was remote from his own books, it might have been necessary 
 to leave the date blank. The original of the paper seems to 
 ])e no longfer extant. 
 
 rt 
 
 VIII. THE WILSON DRAFTS FOR TilF COMMITTEP] OF DETAIL. 
 
 The original manuscripts of the two papers which follow 
 are found among the papers of James Wilson possessed })y 
 the Historical Society of Pennsylvania. They are wholly in 
 his handwriting. For some consideration of their character, 
 and of their relations to the Report of the Committee of D(>tail, 
 see pages 126-18(», supra. For copies of them the writer 
 is indebted to Mr. John W. Jordan, librarian of the societ}'. 
 The first, which in the original has received its present shape 
 through many interlineations and other alterations, is here 
 printed for the first time, and at full length, so far as pre- 
 served. The portion now extant consists of two sheets, evi- 
 denth' the first and third of three. The second, which must 
 have contained statements as to the powers of Congress, the 
 organization and powers of the executive and judiciary, is 
 missing. In the text which follows, under A, the origin of 
 each clause is indicated by references, in square brackets, to 
 the clause from which it was derived, directly or with modi- 
 
 a II, 42-44. h Formation of the Constitution, II, 37.
 
 THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF ITST. 151 
 
 ticutions. These references point, when it is possibh% to the 
 corresponding- passages in the twenty-three resohitions of the 
 con^•ention referred to the connnittee, to the Paterson pUm (text 
 in eleven articles), and to the Pinckney plan as presented on 
 pag-es 130, 131, supra — the three documents directly referred 
 to the connnittee. In the case of provisions not found in anv 
 of the»e three, reference is made ())y the word ''Randolph" 
 and the number of plate and clause in Mr. Meio's's facsimile 
 text) to the draft in Randolph's handwritino- which show^s the 
 earlier processes of the committee's work: or to other sources 
 when this gives no aid. 
 
 Of the second of Wilson's drafts (B), it has l)een thought 
 sufficient to print a statement of its divergences (which are 
 few) from the text of the final report. 
 
 A. 
 
 We the People of the States of New HanipHhire, l\^asslchu.'•et^^, Khode 
 Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, 
 Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Caroiina, 8onth-Car- 
 olina: and Georgia do ordain declare and esta))lish the following Constitu- 
 tion for tiie Govei'nnient of ourselves and of our Posterity. [Original.] 
 
 1. 
 
 The Stile oi tliis Government «hall he tlu- " ('niled Tcopk' and States of 
 America." [Articles of Confederation, I.] 
 
 2. 
 
 The Government shall consist of .«ui)renie legislative, executive and judi- 
 cial Powers. [Resolutions, I.] 
 
 8. 
 
 The legislative Power shall be vested in a Congress to consist of two sep- 
 arate and distinct Podies of Men, a House of Representatives, and a Sen- 
 ate, each of which shall in all Cases have a Negative on the other. [Res- 
 olutions, II, and Pinckney.] 
 
 The Members of the House of Representatives shall be chosen every 
 second year by the People of the several States comprehendeil within this 
 Union. Tlie Qualifications of the Electors shall be prcscrihed hy the J.eg- 
 islatrres of the several States; l>ut their Provisions concerning them may 
 at any Time l)e altered and superseded by the Legislature of the United 
 States. [Resolutions, III; Randolph, III, 11.] 
 
 F.very Member of thi^ Ilou.se of Representatives shall be oi the Age of 
 twenty five Years at least; shall have been a Citizen in tlie rnite<l Slates
 
 152 A.MKKU'AN HISTOKICAL ASt^Ut'lATH)N, 
 
 for at least tliree Years l)el'(n-e his Kloctioii, and sliall be, at the Time of his 
 Election, a Resident of the Stat(\ in which lie shall be eliosen. [Kesohi- 
 tions, HI; Kandolph, 11, .">.] 
 
 The House of Representatives sliall, at its first Formation and until the 
 Number of Citizens and Inhabitants shall l)e taken in the Manner herein- 
 after described, consist of (15 Mend)ers, of whom three shall be chosen in 
 New-Hampsiiire, eij^lit in Massachussets, <kc. [Resolutions, YIIL] 
 
 As the Projxirtions of Nund)eis in tlie different States will alter from 
 Time to Time; as some of the States may be iiereafter divided; as others 
 mav be enlarged by Addition of Territory, or two or more States may be 
 united; and as new States will be erected within the Limits of the United 
 States; the Legislature shall, in each of those Cases, possess Authority to 
 regulate the Number of Representatives by the Number of Inhabitants, 
 according to the Provisions herein after made. [Resolutions, YIII.] 
 
 Direct Taxation shall always be in Proportion to Representation in the 
 House of Representatives. [Resolutions, YIIL] 
 
 The Proportions of direct Taxation shall be regulated by the whole 
 Nund)er of white and other Free Citizens and Inhabitants of every &c. 
 which Number shall, within six Y^ears after the first Meeting of the Legis- 
 lature, and within the Term of every ten Years afterwards, be taken in 
 suc'h Manner as the said Legislature shall <li7-ect. [Resolutions, IX.] 
 
 From the first INIeeting of the Legislature until the Number of Citizens 
 and Inhabitants shall l)e taken as aforesaid, direct Taxation shall be in 
 Proportion to the Number of Representatives chosen in each State. [Res- 
 olutions, YIIL] 
 
 All Bills for raising or appropriating Money and for fixing the Salaries 
 of the Officers of Government shall originate in the House of Representa- 
 tives, and shall not be altered or amended by the Senate. No Money 
 shall be drawn from the public Treasury but in Pursuance of Api)ropria- 
 tions that shall originate in the House of Representatives. [Resolu- 
 tions, X.] 
 
 The House of Representatives shall be the grand Inquest of the Nation; 
 and alt Impeachments shall be made by them. [Pinekney.] 
 
 Yacancies in the Hou.se of Representatives shall be supplied by Writs of 
 Election from the Execaitive Authority of the State in the Representation 
 from which they shall happen. [Randolph, III, 17.] 
 
 The House of Representatives shall chuse its own Speaker, and other 
 Officers. [Pinekney.] 
 
 The Senate of the United States shall be clio.sen by the Legislatm-es of 
 the several States; Each Legislature shall chuse two Members. Each 
 Member shall have one Vote. [Resolutions, lY, XI, XXII. ] 
 
 The Members of the Senate shall be chosen for six Years; provided that 
 immediately after the first Election, they shall be divided by Lot into 
 three Clas.ses as nearly as may be, and numbered one, two and three. 
 The Seats of the Members of the first Class sball be vacated at the Expi- 
 ration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the 
 fourth Year, of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Y^ear, and 
 so on continually, that a third Part of the Members of the Senate may be 
 chosen every second Year. [Resolutions, lY.]
 
 THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 17S7. 158 
 
 The Senate of the United States shall liave Power to make Treaties, to 
 send Ambassadors, and to appoint the .Tudccs of the Supreme national 
 Court. [Randolph, VI, 3.] 
 
 Every Member of the Senate shall be of the Age of thirtj^ Years at 
 least, shall have been a Citizen in the United States for at least four Years 
 before his Election, and shall be, at the Time of his Election, a Resident 
 of the State for which he shall be chosen. [Resolutions, JV^; Randolph, 
 III, 3.} 
 
 Each House of the Legislature shall possess the Right of originating 
 Bills, except in the Cases before mentioned. [Resolutions, V.] 
 
 In each House a Majority of the INIembers shall constitute a Quorum to 
 do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn fioin Day to Day. 
 [Randolph, III, 12; IV, 5.] 
 
 The Senate shall chuse its own President and other Ofhcers. [Pinckney. ] 
 
 Each House of the Legislature shall be the Judge of the Elections, 
 Returns, and Qualifications of its own Members. [Original.] 
 
 The Times and Places and the Planner of holding the Elections of the 
 Members of each House shall be prescri])ed l)y the Legislatures of each 
 State; but their Provisions concerning them may, at any Time, be altered 
 and superseded by the Legislature of the United States. [Randolph, 
 II, 8; III, 2.] 
 
 The Legislature of the United States shall have Authoiity to establish 
 such qualifications of the Members of each House with regard to Property 
 as to the said Legislature shall seem proper and exi)edient. [Resolu- 
 tions, XXIII. ] 
 
 Each House sliall have Authority to determine the Rules of its Proceed- 
 ings [Pinckney], and to punish its own Members for disorderly Behavii)iir. 
 [Randolph, III, 13; IV, 7.] 
 
 Each House may expel a MenilKT, Imt not a second Time for the same 
 Offence. [Randolph, III, 13; IV, 7.] 
 
 Neither House shall adjourn for more than three Days without the Con- 
 sent of the other; nor with such Consent, to any other Place than that at 
 which the two Houses are sitting. But this Regulation shall be applied 
 to tlie Senate only in its legislative Capacity. [Pinckney.] 
 
 The Members of each House shall, in all Ca.ses, except Treason, Felony* 
 and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attend- 
 ance at Congress, and in going to and returning from it. [Handolpli, 1 11, 
 14; IV, 8.] 
 
 The Memlters of each House shall lie ineligilile to and incapable of 
 holding any Office under the Authority of the Cnited States .luring tlie 
 Time for which they shall be respectively elected: And the Members of 
 tlie Senate shall Ije ineligible to and incapable of holding any such (illice 
 for one Year afterwards. [Resolution.^, Ill, IV.] 
 
 The enacting Stile of the Laws of the United States shall be "belt 
 enacted and it is hereby enacted by the House of Representatives, and by 
 the Senate of the United State.s in Congress assembled. [Original.] 
 
 The Members of each IIou.se shall receive a Compensation for their ser- 
 vices, to l)e ascertained an<l paid by the State in whicii they shall be 
 chosen. [Resolutions, HI, IV.]
 
 154 AMEKICAN lliS'i\)KiCAL ASSOCIATION. 
 
 Tlu' ^ou^^e of Representatives and tlie Senate, when it shall be aetintjin 
 a leunslative Capaeity, shall keej) a Journal of its Proceedings, and sliall 
 from Time to Time pn))lish them: And the Yeas and Nays of the Mem- 
 bers of eat-ii House on any Question shall at the Desire of any Member, 
 be entered on the Journal. [Ori<rinal.] 
 
 Freedom of speech." The 
 
 [The first -sheet ends at this point; the second, as above 
 explained, is niissinsf; the third ])oo-ins in the midst of a pro- 
 vision respectino- tiie uchuission of new States.] 
 
 n)itted on the same Terms with the original States: [Resolutions, XVII, 
 or Paterson, 8.] But the Legislature may make Conditions with the 
 new States concerning the put)lic Debt which shall l)e then subsisting. 
 [Randolpli, YII, 5 b.] 
 
 The United States shall guaranty to each State a Republican Form of 
 Government; and shall protect each State against foreign Invasions, and, 
 on the Application of its Legislature, against domestic Violence. [Reso- 
 lutions. XVIII; Randolph, VIII, 2:4.] 
 
 Tiiis Constitution ought to be amended whenever such Amendment 
 shall ))ecome necessary [Resolutions, XIX]; and on the Aiiplication of 
 the Legislatures of tw^o thirds of the States in the I'nion, the Legislature 
 of the United States shall call a Convention for that Purpose. [Ran- 
 dolph, VIII, 5.] 
 
 The Members of tlie Legislature, and the executive and judicial Officers 
 of the United States and of the several States shall be bound by Oath to 
 support this Constitution. [Resolutions, XX; Paterson, 6.] 
 
 RrsoJvrd, That the Constitution i)roposed by this Convention to the 
 People of the United States for their Approbation be laid before the United 
 States in Congress asseird:)led for their Agreement and Recommendation, 
 and be afterwards submitted to a Convention chosen in each State mider 
 the Recommendation of its Legislature, in order to receive the Ratifica- 
 tion of each Convention. [Resolutions, XXL] 
 
 Rrmlred, That the Ratification of the Conventions of States shall 
 
 l)e sufficient for organizing this Constitution: That each assenting Con- 
 ' vention shall notify its Assent and Ratification to the United States in 
 Congress assembled: Tliat the United States in Congress assembled, after 
 receiving the Assent and Ratification of the Conventions of States 
 
 shall appoint and publish a Day, as early as may be, and appoint a Place 
 for commeiu-ing Proceedings under this Constitution: That after such 
 Publication or (in Case it shall not be made) after the Expiration of 
 Days from the Time when the Ratification of the Convention of the 
 State shall have been notified to Congress the Legislatures of the several 
 States shall elect Members of the Senate, and direct the Election of Mem- 
 bers of the House of Representative's, and shall provide for theii- Support: 
 That the ^Members of the Legislature shall meet at the Time and Place 
 assigned by Congress or (if Congress shall have assigned no Time and 
 Place) at such Time and Place as shall have been agreed on by the Majorit}' 
 
 '.A inui'Kiiiiil inciiKiraiKlnm.
 
 THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787. 155 
 
 of the Members elected for each House, and shall as soon as may be after 
 their Meeting chuse the President of the United States, and proceed to 
 execute this Constitution. [Randolph, VIII, Addenda.] 
 
 Every Bill, which shall have passed the House of Representatives and 
 the Senate, shall before it become a Law be presented to the Governour of' 
 the United States for his Revision; If, upon such Revision, he approve of 
 it, he shall signify liis Approbation Ijy signing it; But, if, upon such revi- 
 sion, it» shall appear to him improper for being passed into a Law, he shall 
 return it, together with his Objection against it in Writing, to that House 
 in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the 01)jection at large on 
 their Journal, and proceed to reconsider the Bill. But if after such Recon- 
 sideration, two thirds of that House shall, notwithstanding the Objections 
 of the Governour, agree to pass it; it shall together with his Objections, 
 be sent to the other House, by which it shall likewise 1)e considered; and, 
 if approved by two thirds of the other House also, it shall be a Law. But 
 in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas 
 and Xays, and the Names of the Persons voting for or against the Bill shall 
 be enlisted in the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill sliall 
 not be returned by the Governour within Days after it shall ha\e 
 
 been presented to him, it shall be a Law, unless the Legislatm-e, l)y their 
 Adjournment, prevent its Return; in which Case it shall be returned on 
 the first Day of the next ^Meeting of the Legislature. [^Massachusett^on- 
 stitntion of 1780, Cli. I, Sect. I, Art. II.]" 
 
 In all Disputes and Conti-oversies now sul)sisting, or that may hereafter 
 subsist between two or more States, the Senate shall possess the following 
 Powers. Whenever the Legislature, or the Executive Authority, or the' 
 lawful Agent of any State in Controversy with another shall by Memorial 
 to the Senate, state the ^lattt'r in Question, and apjily for a Hearing, 
 Notice of such Memorial and Api)lication shall be given by Order of the 
 Senate to the Legislature or the Ivxet'utive Authority of the other State in 
 Controversy. The Senate shall also assign a Day for the Appearance of 
 the Parties by their Agents before that House. The Agents shall be 
 directed to appoint l)y joint Consent Commissioners or Judges to consti- 
 tute a Court for hearing and determining tl;e ^Matter in (^lestion. But if 
 the Agents cannot agree, the Senate shall name three Persons out of each - 
 of the several States, and from the List of such Persons each Party shall 
 alternately strike out one until the Number shall be reduced to thirteen; 
 and from that Nund)er not less than seven, nor more than nine Names, as 
 the Senate shall direct, shall, in their Presence, be drawn out by Lot; and 
 the Persons, whose names shall be so drawn, or any live of them, shall be 
 Conunissioners or Judges to hear and iinally determine tlie Controversy; 
 provided a major Part of the Judges, who shall hear the Cause, agree in 
 the Determination. If either Party shall neglect to attend at the Day 
 assigned, without shewing suliicient Reasons for not attending, or, being 
 present, shall refuse to strike, the Senate shall proceed to nominate three 
 Persons out of each State, and the Secretary or Clerk of the Senate shall 
 strike in Behalf of the Party absent or refusing. If any of tiie Parties shall 
 
 "A Massachusetts iiimi, (Jorlmm, wiis a iiionibur of llio Coiiiinittrc of Detail.
 
 ir)(> AISIKKH'AN II1ST<)HI(^\L ASSOCIATION. 
 
 i-ffusr to suluiiil tu the Aul liorit y < if siicli Coiirl, or sliall not appear to 
 prosiH'uto or (IclViid tlicir Claim (irCausc; the Court sliall nevertheless 
 proceed to pronounct' .lud^meiit. The .Indgnient shall be final and con- 
 clusive. Tlie Proceed i litis shall l>e tiansniitted to the President of the 
 "Senat*', and shall he lodtred anion<i the jniblic Records for the security of 
 the Parties coiu'i'rned. Every Conniiissioner shall before he sit in Jndg- 
 jnent, take an Oath, to be administered by one of the Judges of the 
 Supreme or Superior Court of tlu' State, where the Cause shall be tried, 
 "well and truly to hear and determine the Matter in Question, accord- 
 ing to the best of his Judgment, without Favour, Affection or Hope of 
 Reward." [Articles of Confederation, IX.]" 
 
 All ( 'onti'oversies concerning lands^claimed under different Grants of two 
 or more States, whose Jurisdictions, as they respect such Lands, shall have 
 been decided or adjusted subsequent to such Grants, shall, on Apj>lication 
 to the Senate, be finally determined, as near as may be, in the same Man- 
 ner as is before prescribed for deciding Controversies between different 
 States, [.\rticles of Confederation, IX.] 
 
 B. 
 
 The later and more finished of Wilson's two drafts differ.s 
 so little from the report of the Committee of Detail that the 
 easiest way to give a notion of its contents is to state seriatuii 
 the alterations which one would have to make in the latter 
 document'' in order to reproduce, with almost verbal exact- 
 ness, the text of the former. rhey are but eleven in number: 
 
 1. Article III of the report of the Committee of Detail, 
 omit: " The Leofislature shall meet on the first Mondav in 
 December every year."" 
 
 2. Article \W transpose section 7 and the last half of 
 section 0. 
 
 3. Article V, section l.omit: "Vacancies. may be supplied 
 by the Executive until the next meeting- of the Legislature." 
 
 4. Article VII, section 1, after the twelfth clause, add: 
 "and of Treason against tiie U, S. or any of them; Not to 
 work Corruption of Blood or Forfeit, except during the Life 
 of the Ptirty; to regulate the nisci])line of the Militia of the 
 several States;*' 
 
 5. Article VII, section 2, omit (except in so far as it is rep- 
 resented by the clauses just mentioned). 
 
 6. Article VII, section 8, omit: " except Indians not paying 
 taxes." 
 
 a For a suggestion as to the origin of this provi.sion, see my Essays in the Constitutional 
 History of the United States, pp. 44, 4.'). 
 6 As given in the Documentary History, III, 444-458.
 
 THE B'EDERAL (ONVENTKIN OE 17S7. 157 
 
 7. After that section add: "'From the first Meeting of the 
 Legislature until the Number of Citizens and Inhabitants 
 shall be taken as aforesaid, direct Taxation shall be in Pro- 
 portion to the Number of Representatives chosen in each 
 State."" 
 
 8. Article X. section 2, ad tin., the reading is: "'until 
 another President of the United States be chosen, or until the 
 President impeached or disabled be acquitted or his Disability 
 be removed;" and in the preceding clause impeachment is 
 mentioned. 
 
 9. After Article X, add: ''AH Commissions. Patents and 
 Writs shall be in the Name of ' the United States of America.'" 
 
 10. Article XI, section 1, omit: "when necessary."' 
 
 11. Article XIII, omit: *"or mak<> anything but specie a 
 tender in payment of del)ts."" The other clauses of Articles 
 XII and XIII are present in the Wilson draft, but arranged in 
 a dili'crent order and placed as one article (No. 1(») immedi- 
 ately after that which prescribes the suprenjacy of the federal 
 law, corresponding to Article VIII of the committee's report. 
 
 IX. MEMBERS WHO DID NOT SIGN. 
 
 Seventy-three delegates were elected to the Convention. « 
 Of these, 18 did not attend. Of the 55 who attended, the 
 signatures of only '6[) appear at the end of the document. 
 Among the 16 whose names arc not found there, Elbridge 
 Gerry, Luther Martin,'^ (Jeorge Mason, and Kdnnuul Ran- 
 dolph, it is familiar, refused to sign. The object of the pres- 
 ent in([uiry is to explain the absence of the other ill names. 
 This may not be entirely useless if it is still possible to say, 
 as is said in one of the most elaborate accounts of the work of 
 the Convention, that they all declined to affix their signatures.'' 
 In reality, all 12 were absent when th(>, instrument w^as signed; 
 and there is evidence that 7 a[)prov('d of it, and no evidence 
 that any but 3 of the 12 opposed it. 
 
 «Thc list which Secretary Adams published in the Journal of 1819, pp. 13-15, contains 
 but 05 names. Mr. Paul Ford printed what is presumed to be a complete list (7:! uiinies: 
 he says 74) in the Collector for Sei)tember and October, 1888. Tliis was reprinted as a 
 separate pamphlet, Brooklyn. 1.HS8; also in Draper's Essay on the Autographic Collections 
 of the Si;,'n(Ts, pp. 111-117; in Wisonsin Historical Society Collections, X: in Carson's 
 History of the Celebration of tlie Hundredth Anniversary of the Constitution, I, l;i5ss.; 
 and in my Dictionary of United Stat<'s History, p. 1<'>:!. 
 
 '-Martin says that he left I'hihidelphia on Septeinhcr I. Lfllci- (o Ihi' Maryland . lour- 
 iial in Ford, Ks.says on the Constitution. i..:;il. " I.andhoNlcr" ( Kllswcrth) says the sanu'. 
 
 ibid., p. 18G. 
 
 «Thorpc, Constitutional Hi>tory nl tlic Cniti-d Slates, I. .'I'.tl.
 
 158 AAIKKK AN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 
 
 'Vhv li' iiuMiihers under consideration are C'aleb Strono-, of 
 Massachusetts; 01i\-ei' Kllsworth. of Connecticut; Robert 
 Yates and John Lansino-, of New York: William C. Houston, 
 of New Jersey; John Francis INIercer, of Maryland; George 
 Wvtlic and James McClurg, of Virg-inia; Alexander Martin 
 and William K. Davie, of North Carolina; and William Pierce 
 and \\'illiam Iloustoun, of Georgia. We will take them up 
 in the presumed order of their departure from the Convention. 
 
 Of Chancellor Wythe, Madison records in his notes under 
 date of flune 4 that he had already gone home." His letter 
 of June 1 ti, writt(Mi from Williamsburg to Governor Randolph, 
 shows that the cause of his retirement was the dano-erous ill- 
 ness of his wif(\''' A letter of July 16 to Beverley Randolph, 
 the acting governor, shows that this cause, "the only one 
 which could have moved me to retire from the Convention,"' 
 continued urgent, and he explained that both these letters were 
 intended to express his resignation.'' Mrs. Wythe's illness 
 proved fatal.'' His course in the Virginia convention plainly 
 evinces his ap})roval of the C'onstitution. 
 
 ]Maj()r Pierce left the Convention about Jul}' 1. In Madi- 
 son's notes and those of Yates we find him speaking on June 
 2!>.'' From July 4 to August 1, and from August 27 to Octo- 
 ber 1, he was in attendance upon Congress at New York./ 
 Two letters of Hamilton show the latter adjusting a difficulty 
 and preventing a duel between Pierce and a Mr. Auldjo, and 
 another, New York, July 26, ITsT, says: "He informs me that 
 he is shortly to set out on a jaunt up the North River. " 'J Apart 
 from Congressional duty the reasons for his absence do not 
 appear. It was not for lack of appreciation of the honor of 
 a seat in the Convention. His letter to St. George Tucker, 
 written 8eptend)er 28, says: 
 
 You will i)r<)bal>ly be .surprised at not finding my name affixed to it, and 
 will no doubt l)e desirous of having a i-eason for it. Know, then, sir, that 
 I was absent in Xew York on a piece of business so necessary that it 
 
 « Documentary History, III, 54; Hunt, III, 81. 
 
 li Calendar of the Emmet Collection, No. 9.542. See also Randolpli to Beverley Randolph, 
 .lune 21, in Va. Cal. St. P., IV, 29S. 
 
 cBrotherhead, Centennial Book of the Signers, ]>. 257. 
 
 -'Madi.son, Letter.-^, I, 339. 
 
 '■ Documentary History, III. 211; Hunt, 111, 320; Vates, p. 187: Elliot, I, 404. 
 
 /Journals of Congress, IV, 7.50-7G5, 773-7S3; memoranda iu a manuscript volume of his 
 which I have seen. A letter of his to (fardocjui, dated New York, September 3, 1787, is in 
 the New Jersey .lourual for November 28, 1787, and in Carey's American Museum, II, 583. 
 
 f/ Works, ed. Hamilton. I. 437. 439: ed. Lods^'c. VIII, 17(;, 177, 178.
 
 THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787. 159 
 
 became' unavoidaljle. I approve of its principles, and would have signed 
 it with all my heart had I been present.* 
 
 Lansing and Yates left the Convention on or soon after Juh" 
 WJ' P^lliot sa^^s July 5. ■' But a comparison of the journal of 
 the Convention with the sheets of yeas and nays shows New 
 York castino- a vote through Julv 10.'' and there is other 
 though not conclusive evidence that Yates was present on 
 July 9.' The attitude of these two toward the Constitution is 
 well known. 
 
 William C. Houston, of New Jersey, is not known to hav(> 
 been present after July 17, if then. He spoke then, if the 
 indexer of the third volume of the Documentary History is 
 rio'ht in attributing certain remarks made that day to him 
 rather than to William Houstoun, of Georgia; as to this no 
 evidence is known to the present writer.' He is not stated to 
 have spoken on any other occasion. Pierce, in his descrip- 
 tions of the members, omits his name.^/ Mr. Thorpe, perhaps 
 on local New Jersey evidence, says that he withdrew on account 
 of ilhiess.'' 
 
 Doctor McClurg was present on Jidy 20.' Hut on August 
 5 he writes to Madison from Richmond.'' In a later unprintod 
 letter to Madison, written on October 81, he discusses the 
 Constitution.'^" Kives, probably on the l)asis of this letter, 
 says that McClurg favored it.' 
 
 William Houstoun, of Georgia, was present till -Inly '24."* 
 
 Davie does not appear in the proceedings after duly 26.'* 
 On Aueust 6 he writes to Iredell that he shall U'av(> on Mon- 
 day, which would mean August 13," and on August 28 he 
 writes to Governor Caswell from Halifax, N. C., saying that 
 
 a Georgia Gazette, March 20, 1788; American Historical Review, 111, SI 1. 
 
 () Bancroft, II, 75; Martin, in Elliot, I, 358. 
 
 '■I, 479. 
 
 ''Documentary History, I, 86, 250. 
 
 '■Appointment of Yates on a committee. l>')cuineiHiuy History, I, St. 299. 
 
 /Documentary History, III, 358; Hunt, III, -155. Madi.son spells tlie two imines tlie 
 
 same. 
 
 (/American Historiiial Review, III, 327. 
 
 /i Constitutional History of tlie United States, I, .591. 
 
 'Documentary History, III, 389. 
 
 7 Bulletin of the Bureau of Rolls and l.ihniry. I: 1.H7. 
 
 /vlbid. 
 
 / Lift! of .Itunes Madison, II, 2.53. 
 
 Ill Documentary History, III, 111. Internal evidence shows nearly all the remarks 
 which Madison credits to " Mr. Houston" to have been maiie by a (ieorRia member. 
 
 " Documentary History. Ill, i:!l. 
 
 oMcRec, II, 1G8.
 
 1()() AMKHICAN HlsroHlCAL ASbOCIATlON. ' . 
 
 ho hiul left rhil:uloli)hi:i on tlu> loth." In the North Carolina 
 convention ho showed his approval of the Constitution. 
 
 Strong- was present on August 15.'' That he loft Phihidol- 
 phia before Au.i>ust :i^ is apparent from the letter of Gorham 
 printed above — No. -i in Section II. Senator Lodge states 
 that ho was called homo t)y illness in his family.^' In Parsons's 
 notes wo lincl him saying in the Massachusetts convention that 
 "through sickness he was ol)ligo(I to return home, but had he 
 been there he should have signed" the Constitution.'' He 
 v^oted for its ratification. 
 
 Mercer was present from August to August 17/ In the 
 Maryland convention ho voted against ratification of the 
 Constitution. 
 
 (tovornor Martin, of North Carolina, was in Philadelphia 
 as late as August 20, but expected to leave on Soptoml)or 1, 
 having to attend the superior court in Salisbury in that 
 month.' He favored ratitication. 
 
 Judge Ellsworth was present in the Convention on August 
 23.^ Jeremiah Evarts, in his sketch of the life of Roger 
 Sherman, in Sanderson's Lives of the Signers, explains that, 
 Sherman and Ellsworth both being judges of the superior 
 court of Connecticut, Sherman had to be absent from the 
 Convention at its beginning, Ellsworth at its end.'' Ellsworth 
 visited President Stiles at New" Haven on August 27, on his 
 way home.* That he approved of the Constitution is evident 
 from the letter which ho and Sherman wrote to the governor 
 from New London on September 26 J and from his speeches 
 in the Connecticut convention. 
 
 That Dickinson, though his name appears upon the docu- 
 ment, was absent on the last day, has been shown in a preced- 
 ing portion of these studies (p. 97). 
 
 •' North Caroliiifi State Records, XX, 766. Pitkin says, II, 262, that he has been assured 
 that Davie, Strong, and Ellsworth would have signed if they could have stayed to 
 the end. 
 
 l> Documentary History, III, 535. 
 
 oMass. Hist. Soc. Proc., I. 290. 
 
 '' Debates of the Massachusetts Convention, ed. l.s.56, p. 316. 
 
 ''Documentary History, I, 112; III, 444, 555. Mr. Ford (Draper, p. 116) says that Mercer 
 left on September 4. 
 
 /North Carolina Records, XX, 763. 
 
 f/ Documentary History, III, G02. 
 
 ''Signers, II, 44. 
 
 'Literary Diary of President Stiles, III, 271». 
 
 JCarey's American Museum, II, 431, 135; Kllioi, r, 191, 492.
 
 THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 17S7. HM 
 
 X. THE ACTION OF THE STATES. 
 
 The following- paragraphs show, foi- each State, the dates of 
 the sessions of its legislature which intervened ])etween Sep- 
 tember IT, 1787, when the Philadelphia Convention adjourned, 
 and the date of the ratilication of the Constitution by that 
 State; also the official or formal materials—journals and de- 
 bates—for a knowledge of the proceedings of those sessions. 
 
 JVew Hampshire. — Four sessions. The "•Proceedings of the 
 Honorable Senate" and the "Legislative Journals of the House 
 of Representatives of the State of New Hampshire" were 
 contemporaneously printed at Portsmouth. They ha\e been 
 reprinted in Volume XXI of the New Hampshiic State Papers. 
 The resolution for calling a convention was passed on Decem- 
 ber 14, 1787. 
 
 September 12-29, 1787. New Hampshire State rai)ers, XXI, 89-106 
 
 (S.); 109-143 (H. R.). 
 December 5-15, 1787. New Hampshire Stati^ Papers, XXI, 145-l.i4 
 
 (S.); 155-169 (H. R.). 
 January 23 to February 13, 1788. New Hainpsliire State Papers, 
 
 Xxf, 171-194 (S.); 195-232 (H. R.). 
 June 4-18, 1788. New Hampshire State Papers. XXI, 261-286 
 
 (S.); 287-331 (H. R.). 
 
 MassacJiusetts. — One session, the second of the existing leg- 
 islature, October 17 to November 24:, 1787. Its journals exist 
 only in manuscript, in the office of the secretary of the Com- 
 monwealth. The legislative proceedings of the General Coui't 
 relati\e to the new Constitution are, however, printed in the 
 nel)ates and Proceedings of the Convention of 1788, ed. 185(). 
 The joint resolution for holding the convention was passed on 
 October 25, 1787, and is printed in the Documentar}^ History, 
 II, 91-92. 
 
 Rhode Island. — Fifteen sessions, beginning respectively on 
 October 29, 1787; February 25, March ?>i. May 7, June 9, 
 October 27, December 29, 1788; March 9, .May •'.. June 8, 
 September 15, October 12, October 28, 1789; January 11 and 
 May 5, 1790. Their "Schedules," or "Acts and Resolves," 
 resembling a journal in character, were printed contempora- 
 neously. Extracts from them, cnihracing what is most im- 
 portant to the present purpose, ai'(^ ])rinted in (he colonial 
 records of Rhode Mnnd. X. 202-37'.'. The resolve for hold- 
 ing a convention was passed on January 1 T. 17'.»(>. 
 H. Doc. 401, pt 1 U
 
 1()2 AMKKU'AX lllSTOKU^VL ASSOCIATION. 
 
 Oon)U'cfici/t.—0\n^ session, October 11 to Novcnilxn- 1, 1787, 
 of whicli tluMc :irr no printod journals. The resolve for hold- 
 ing- the convention was passed on October 16. 
 
 yor Voi'l-. — One session, January 1" to March 22, 17SS. 
 The Journal of the Senate and the Journal of the Assembly 
 of the State of New York were contemporaneously printed, 
 but have not been reprinted. The resolution for holding a 
 convention was passed on Fe))ruarv 1, 1788. 
 
 New Jersey. ^Ona session, October 23 to November 7, 1787. 
 The Journal of the Council, Twelfth Session, First Sitting, and 
 the Votes of the Twelfth Assembly, First Sitting, were contem- 
 poi-aneouslv printed at Trenton. The convention was called 
 l)y virtue of a resolution of October 2I>, 1787,^' and an act of 
 November 1, l)oth of which will be found printed in the Doc- 
 umentary History of the Constitution, II, 61, 62. 
 
 Pennsylvania. — Two sessions. Third session of the eleventh 
 assembly, Septem})er 1-20, 1787; first session of the twelfth 
 assemlily , October 22 to November 29, 1787. Their journals — 
 c. "•., Minutes of the First Session of the Twelfth General 
 Assembly of the ConuuonAvealth of Pennsylvania — were 
 printed contemporaneously in Philadelphia. For debates, 
 see Proceedings and Debates of the General Assembly of 
 Pennsylvania, taken in shorthand by Thomas Lloyd, Phila- 
 delphia, 1787; Carey's American Museum, II, 362-366; and 
 McMaster and Stone, Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitu- 
 tion. i)p. 27-72. The resolution for calling a convention was 
 passed. l»y Avell-known means, on September 29, 1787. An 
 act for the members' compensation Avas passed on Novem- 
 ber K). 
 
 Delaware. — One session, which legally began on October 
 20, 1787 (but there was no quorum till October 25), and which 
 ended November 10. The Minutes of the Council of the Dela- 
 ware State from 1776 to 1792 were printed at Wilmington in 
 1888, as No. 6 of the Papers of the Historical Society of Dela- 
 ware. The Votes and Proceedings of the House of Assembly 
 of the Dehnvare State were (1787) printed at Wilmington. 
 The resolution for calling a conv(Mition was passed Novem- 
 ber 10. 
 
 "But there was no <iiioruni in the Assembly till .lannary >i, nor in the Senate till Janu- 
 ary 11. 
 
 '' Bancroft, Constitution, II, iVJ, says '• on the 2lith ; " hut Ihe above rtate is given in the 
 Doe. Hist., uhi sup., in the Minutes of the Convention and in the New Jersey Journal.
 
 THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 17ST. 163 
 
 2f<iryla)ul. — One session, November 5" to December 17, 
 1787. The journals of the senate and house of delegates were 
 printed in 1787. Of the debates, we have the speech of Luther 
 ]Martin, first printed, from the notes of '"a customer," in the 
 Maryland Gazette and Baltimore Advertiser, December 28, 
 
 1787, to February 8, 1788; then in the State Gazette of South 
 Carolina, and probal)ly in other newspapers; then as a pamph- 
 let. The Genuine Information delivered to the Leg-islature of 
 the State of Maryland, relative to the Proceeding's of the Gen- 
 eral Convention latelv held at Philadelphia, by Luther Martin, 
 Philadelphia, 1788 (Ford, 11!)); reprinted in Yates, Secret 
 Proceedings, Albany, 1821, Washington, 18o(i, and the other 
 editions; and in Elliot's Debates, first ed.. Vol. IV; third ed., 
 Vol. 1. The vote foi- calling a convention passed the house 
 on November 27, the senate on December 1. 
 
 Virginia. — One session, October 15, 1787, to January 8, 
 
 1788. The journals of the senate and house of delegates were 
 printed contemporaneouslv, and also in 1828, at Richmond. 
 The debate of October 25 is reported in Miss Rowland's George 
 Mason, II, 190-191, from the Pennsylvania Packet of Novem- 
 ber 10. A resolution for calling a convention was passed by 
 the house on October 25, 1TS7, amended by the senate, and 
 hnall\- passed on October 31. An act respecting the conven- 
 tion was passed on December 12. Ilening, XII, 162. 
 
 Ncyrth Carolina. — Three sessions. The journals of the sen- 
 ate and house of commons are to be found either in Vol. XX 
 of the State Records of North Carolina or in contemporary^ 
 print. 
 
 Noveml)er 19-Deceml)er 22, 17S7. Journals (8., H. C.)in N. C. 
 
 Rec, XX. 
 November 3-December v), 1788. Journals (S.) N. C. Kec, XX; 
 
 (H. C.) Edenton, 1788. 
 November 2-22, 1789. Journals (S., H. C), Edenton, 1789. 
 
 The first convention was called by virtue of a resolution of 
 December (>, 1787; the second, by one of November 17, 1788. 
 
 South Carolina. — One session, Jaiuiary 8 to February 29, 
 1788. The journals remain in manuscript in the office of the 
 secretary of state at Coliunl)ia. Of the debates, we have: 
 Debates which arose in the House of Representatives of South 
 Carolina on tlio Constitution frauuMl foi- the I'nited States ))y 
 
 <i There was no quorum in the house till November 14, nor in the senate till Novem- 
 ber 22.
 
 164 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 
 
 :i Coii\'(Mi(i()ii of n(>l('o-!ites asscinl)led !it Pliiliidolphiii; Charles- 
 ton, I'olkH'ttHl by li. nasw(>ll and pul)lished at the City (lazetto, 
 Printino- ()(Hc(>. No. 47 Bay. ITSS (Ford 15ti). This pamphlet 
 was roprintrd with additions in \s:ii (Ford 153), and in the 
 third ("second") edition of KUiot's Dc})ates, IV, 253-317. 
 The resolution for callinu' the convention was passed on Janu- 
 ary r,), 1788; the ordinance giving- the members the usual 
 privileges, etc., on Fel)ruary 29. 
 
 Georgia. — One session, July 3 to October 31, 1787. Another 
 l)egan on January 1, 1788, the day before ratification. The 
 journals are in manuscript in the ofHce of the secretary of state. 
 The resolution for calling the convention was passed on Octo- 
 ber 20, 1787, and is printed in Documentarj- History, II, 83. 
 
 XI. JOURNALS AND DEBATES OF THE STATE CONVENTIONS. 
 
 The formal or official journal has not in all cases been 
 })rinted, ])ut the volumes of debates usually contain, as inci- 
 dental to their main purpose, nuich of the material appropri- 
 ate to a journal. In the case of the rarer publications 1 have 
 referred by number to Mr. Ford's Bibliography, where fuller 
 titles, and sometimes notes, may be found. 
 
 NEW HAMPSHIRE. 
 
 ./.»//,•//.//.— Historical Magazine, XIII, 257-263. 
 
 New Hampshire State Papers, X, 1-22. 
 Debate?.— (Fragments.) Elliot, Debates, third ed., II, 203-204. 
 
 Thomas C. Amory, The iSIilitary Services and Publicr Life of 
 
 Maj. Gen. John Sullivan, pp. 230-231. 
 Joseph B. Walker, History of the New Hampshire Convention, 
 pp. 112-116. 
 
 MASS.\CHUSETTS. 
 
 Jourudl. — In Debates, ed. 1856. 
 
 Debates. —Debates, Resolutions, and other Proceedings of the Convention 
 of the Commonwealth (jf ^Massachusetts, Boston, 1788. (Ford, 
 122.) 
 
 American :Museum, III, 343-362. 
 
 Debates, Resolutions, and other Proceedings, Boston, 1808. 
 (Ford, 123.) 
 
 Elliot, Debates, first ed., I, 25-184. 
 
 Elliot, Debates, third ed., II, 1-202. 
 
 Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Common- 
 wealth of Massachusetts, Boston, 1856. (Contains the mate- 
 rial which was in the editions of 1788 and 1808, and also tlie 
 official journal and the notes of Theophilus Parsons.) 
 
 Notes of Jeremy P.elknap, in .Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc, III, 296-304.
 
 THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787. 165 
 
 KllODE If>L.VN'J). 
 
 Jouni(tl.~\y. K. .Staple^^, Rhode Island in tlic Continental Congress, pp. 
 640-674. (Contains also some notes of the debates; see ex- 
 planation on p. 644. ) 
 
 CONNECTICUT. 
 
 Debates. — ( Fragments. ) American ]\lnseani , 111, ;!:;4-.S43 ( Ellsworth ) ; IV, 
 167-170. 
 Elliot, Debates, third ed., II, 185-202. 
 
 G. H. Hollister, History of Connecticut, II, 456-460 (Ellsworth). 
 Frank Moore, American Eloquence, I, 404-409 (Ellsworth) 
 
 NKW YOKK. 
 
 Journal. — Journal of the Convention of the State of New York, Pough- 
 
 keepsie, 1788. (Ford, 130.) 
 Debater. — The Debates and Proceedings of the Convention of the State of 
 New York, New Y^ork, 1788. (Ford, 129.) 
 American Museum, IV, 172-173 (G. Livingston). 
 Elliot, Debates, first ed., I, 185-358; III, l*-8* (the last a speech 
 
 by Tredwell, never delivered). 
 Elliot, Debates, third ed., II, 205-413. 
 
 Hammond, History of Political Parties, I, 26-28 (G. Livingston). 
 Hamilton, Works, ed., J. C. Hamilton, II, 426-46.". (Hamilton). 
 Moore, American Eloquence, I, 187-204 (Hamilton). 
 Johnston, American Orations, I, 39-52 (Hamilton). 
 
 NEW .lERSEV. 
 
 /ournai.— Minutes of the Convention of the State of New Jersey, Trenton, 
 1788. (Ford, 127; reprinted at Trenton in 1888 by C. L. 
 Traver. ) 
 
 PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 JournaZ.— Minutes of the Convention of the Comnnjiiwcalth of Pennsyl- 
 vania, Philadelphia, 1787. (Ford, 141.) 
 Debates.— The Substance of a Speech delivered by James Wilson, esq., 
 Philadelphia, 1787. (Ford, 168.) 
 Debates of the Convention of the State of Pennsylvania, 
 * * * taken accurately in shorthand by Thomas Lloyd, 
 Philadelphia, 1788 (McKcan, Wilson). (Ford, 140.) 
 Elliot, Del)ates, first ed.. Ill, 221-322. 
 Klliot, Debates, third cd., II, 415-542. 
 Moore, American P31oquence, I, 74-82 (Wilson). 
 McMaster and Stone, I'cnnsylvunia and the Federal Constitu- 
 tion, pp. 211-431 and (Wilson's notes) 765-785. 
 
 DELAWARE. 
 
 [Neither journal nor debates has, I believe, ever been published.]
 
 !(>(> AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 
 
 MARYLAND. 
 JouriKtI. — DociuneiitHry llistmy of tlie Constitutiou, II, 97-122. 
 
 VlUCilNlA. 
 
 ./f)/n-»'//.— Journal of th(> (\)nvontion of Virtrinia, Kiohniond, 1827. (Ford, 
 
 !.■)!» ). 
 Debates. — Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia, 
 Petersburg, 1788, 1789, three volumes. (Ford, 157.) The 
 notes for the.so volumes were taken in shorthand by David 
 Robertson, of Petersburg. A note on the last page of this 
 original edition, III, 228, tells us that "The Gentleman who 
 took the foregoing Debates in 8hort-Hand, having had but 
 an ineligible seat in the Gallery, a situation remote from the 
 speakers, where he was fre(iuently interrupted by the noise 
 made l>y tho.se who were constantly going out and coming in, 
 is conscious that he nuist have lost some of the most beauti- 
 ful periods anil best observations of the different speakers; 
 and is afraid that in some instances he may have misappre- 
 hended their meaning. * * * He further begs leave to 
 add, that his having taken the Debates of the Convention of 
 North Carolina, and the pressure of his other avocations dis- 
 uliled him from furnishing the Printers with so fair a copy 
 as he would otherwise have done. He was only able to 
 give him a rough transcription from the Short-Hand origi- 
 nal," and could not read the proofs. Rives, II, 586, says that 
 Madison's speeches were not revised by him and that he 
 presumes none of the others were revised by their authors, 
 unless Monroe's first speech. 
 
 Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia, 
 Richmond, 1805. For this second edition Robertson corrected 
 his text and compared it in part with the original shorthand 
 notes. 
 
 Elliot, Debates, first ed.. Vol. II; third ed.. Vol. III. (From 
 the above. ) When Elliot was preparing his first edition he 
 offered Madison the chance to' revise his speeches as given by 
 Robertson; but Madison did not think it fair to the others 
 when forty years had elapsed. See his letter of November, 
 1827. Letters, III, 598. 
 
 Moore, American Eloquence, I, 13-39 (Henry), 127-144 (Madi- 
 son), 165-173 (Randolph), II, 10-20 (Marshall). 
 
 Johnston, American Orations, I, 53-71 (Madison). 
 
 ' NORTH CAROLINA. 
 
 JiiuvmiU. — (First convention.) Journal of the Convention of North Caro- 
 lina, Hillsborough, 1788. 
 (Second convention.) Journal of the Convention of the State 
 of North Carolina, Edenton [1789]. (Ford, 135; reprinted in 
 the State Chronicle of Raleigh, November 15, 1889.)
 
 THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787. 167 
 
 Lkhutes. — (First convention. ) Proceedings and Debates of the Convention 
 of North Carolina, Edenton, 1789. (Ford, 137.) "A Mr. 
 RolMnson [Rol>ertson] attended the convention as stenogra- 
 pher. The FederaHsts were desirous that the debates should 
 be published. * * * At their instance Iredell and Davie 
 assumed the responsibility and care of the publication. Neat 
 copies were made in Edenton by Mr. Lorimer (an English- 
 man) from the notes of the reporter; and as far as practicable 
 the speeches were submitted to their authors for correction. 
 This enterprise involved Iredell and Davie in some pecuniary 
 loss. * * * Thedebates were printed at Edenton by I lodge 
 and Wills, and made their appearance about the last of June, 
 1789. One thousand copies were published." McRee, Life 
 of Iredell, II, 28.5. 
 
 Elliot, Debates, first ed.. Ill, 17-220. 
 
 Elliot, Debates, third ed., IV, 1-252. 
 
 (Second convention.) Fragments in newspapers, according to 
 Mr. Ford. 
 
 SOUTH CAROLINA. 
 
 Debutes. —State Gazette, of South Carolina, May, 1788. (Pinckney's speech 
 
 at the opening, May 14.) 
 American Museum, IV, 170-172 (two speeches), 256-26;; 
 
 (Charles Pinckney's speech of May 14). 
 Debates which arose in the House of Representatives [as above, 
 
 pp. 163,164]. Together with such notices of the Conventinn 
 
 as could be procured. C'harleston, A. E. Miller, 18."!1. 
 Elliot, Debates, tliinl ed., IV., 318-.341. 
 
 GEOlUilA. 
 
 [Nothing of either journal or debates is known to liave been printed, 
 unless in some contemporary newspaper outside the State; the Ceorgia 
 newspapers seem to have nothing of the sort.]