H. OF R.] Amendments to the Constitution. [AUGUST, 1789. same in either mode, will gentlemen hesitate to tended for the benefit of those who are most op approve the most simple and clear? It will un-pressed by them. This maxim does not appear to doubtedly be more agreeable to have it all brought into one instrument, than have to refer to five or six different acts. Mr. SHERMAN.-The gentlemen who oppose the motion say we contend for matter of form; they think it nothing more. Now we say we contend for substance, and therefore cannot agree to amendments in this way. If they are so desirous of having the business completed, they had better. sacrifice what they consider but a matter of indifference to gentlemen, to go more unanimously along with them in altering the Constitution. The question on Mr. SHERMAN's motion was now put and lost. Mr. LIVERMORE wished to know whether it was necessary, in order to carry a motion in committee, that two-thirds should agree. me to be strictly true in fact, therefore I think we Mr. TUCKER.-I presume these propositions are brought forward under the idea of being amendments to the Constitution; but can this be es teemed an amendment of the Constitution? If I understand what is meant by the introductory paragraph, it is the preamble to the Constitution; but a preamble is no part of the Constitution. It is, to say the best, a useless amendment. For my part, I should as soon think of amending the conMr. HARTLEY mentioned, that in Pennsylvania, cluding part, consisting of General Washington's they had a council of censors who were authoriz-letter to the President of Congress, as the preamed to call a convention to amend the Constitution ble; but if the principle is of importance, it may when it was thought necessary, but two-thirds be introduced into a bill of rights. were required for that purpose. He had been a Mr. SMITH read the amendments on this head, member of that body, when they had examined proposed by the conventions of New York, Virthe business in a committee of council; the ma-ginia, and North Carolina, from which it appearjority made a report, which was lost for want of ed that these States had expressed a desire to have two-thirds to carry it through the council. an amendment of this kind. Some desultory conversation took place on this subject, when it was decided by the chairman of the committee that a majority of the committee were sufficient to form a report. An appeal being made from the opinion of the Chair, it was, after some observations, confirmed by the committee. After which the committee rose and reported progress. Adjourned. FRIDAY, August 14. Mr. TUCKER replied that the words "We the people do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America," were a declaration of their action; this being performed, Congress have nothing to do with it. But if it was necessary to retain the principle, it might come in at some other place. Mr. SUMTER thought this was not a proper place to introduce any general principle; perhaps. in going through with the amendments, something might be proposed subversive of what was there declared; wherefore he wished the commit ABIEL FOSTER, from New Hampshire, appear- tee would pass over the preamble until they had ed and took his seat. AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION. The House then again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, on the amendments to the Constitution, Mr. TRUMBULL in the Chair; when, Mr. SMITH wished to transpose the words of the first amendment, as they did not satisfy his mind in the manner they stood. Mr. GERRY said, they were not well expressed; we have it here "government being intended for the benefit of the people;" this holds up an idea that all the Governments of the earth are intended for the benefit of the people. Now, I am so far from being of this opinion, that I do not believe that one out of fifty is intended for any such purpose. I believe the establishment of most Governments is to gratify the ambition of an individual, who, by fraud, force, or accident, had made himself master of the people. If we contemplate the history of nations, ancient or modern, we shall find they originated either in fraud or force, or both. If this is demonstrable, how can we pretend to say that Governments are in gone through all the amendments, and then, if alterations were necessary, they could be accommodated to what had taken place in the body of the Constitution. Mr. LIVERMORE was not concerned about the preamble; he did not care what kind it was agreed to form in the committee; because when it got before the House, it would be undone if one member more than one-third of the whole opposed it. Mr. PAGE thought the preamble no part of the Constitution; but if it was, it stood in no need of amendment; the words "We, the people," had the neatness and simplicity, while its expression was the most forcible of any he had ever seen prefixed to any Constitution. He did not doubt the truth of the proposition brought forward by the committee, but he doubted its necessity in this place. Mr. MADISON.-If it be a truth, and so self-evident that it cannot be denied-if it be recognised. as is the fact in many of the State Constitutionsand if it be desired by three important States to be added to this-I think they must collectively offer a strong inducement to the mind desirous of promoting harmony to acquiesce with the report; t t at least some strong arguments should be brought forward to show the reason why it is improper. [H. OF R. This motion was negatived without a division. Mr. AMES moved to strike out "thirty thouMy worthy colleague says the original expres- sand," and insert "forty thousand." I am insion is neat and simple; that loading it with more duced to this, said he, because I think my fellowwords may destroy the beauty of the sentence; citizens will be dissatisfied with too numerous a and others say it is unnecessary, as the paragraph representation. The present, I believe, is in prois complete without it. Be it so in their opinion; portion to one for forty thousand, the number I yet still it appears important in the estimation of move to insert. I believe we have hitherto exthree States that this solemn truth should be in-perienced no difficulty on account of the smallserted in the Constitution. For my part, sir, I do ness of our number; if we are embarrassed; I not think the association of ideas anywise unnat-apprehend the embarrassment will arise from our ural; it reads very well in this place; so much so, that I think gentlemen, who admit it should come in somewhere else, will be puzzled to find a better place. Mr. SHERMAN thought they ought not to come in in this place. The people of the United States have given their reasons for doing a certain act. Here we propose to come in and give them a right to do what they did on motives which appeared to them sufficient to warrant their determination; to let them know that they had a right to exercise a natural and inherent privilege, which they have asserted in a solemn ordination and establishment of the Constitution. Now, if this right is indefeasible, and the people have recognised it in practice, the truth is better asserted than it can be by any words whatever. The words "We the people," in the original Constitution, are as copious and expressive as possible; any addition will only drag out the sentence without illuminating it; for these reasons it may be hoped the committee will reject the proposed amendment. The question on the first paragraph of the report was put and carried in the affirmative, twenty-seven to twenty-three. The second paragraph in the report was read as follows: Article 1. Section 2. Paragraph 3. Strike out all between the words "direct" and "and until such," and instead thereof insert "after the first enumeration, there shall be one representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred. After which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress that the number of representatives shall never be less than one hundred, nor more than one hundred and seventy-five; but each State shall always have at least one representative." Mr. VINING. The duty, sir, which I owe to my constituents, and my desire to establish the Constitution on a policy dictated by justice and liberality, which will ever secure domestic tranquillity and promote the general welfare, induces me to come forward with a motion which I rest upon its own merits. Gentlemen who have a magnanimous policy in view, I trust, will give it their support, and concede to what is proper in itself, and likely to procure a greater degree of harmony. I therefore move you, sir, to insert after the words "one hundred and seventy-five" these words: "That where the number of inhabitants of any particular State amounts to fortyfive thousand, they shall be entitled to two representatives." want of knowing the general interest of the nation at large; or for want of local information. If the present number is found sufficient for the purpose of legislation, without any such embarrassment, it ought to be preferred, inasmuch as it is most adequate to its object. But before we proceed in the discussion, let us consider the effect which a representation, founded on one member for thirty thousand citizens, will produce. In the first place, it will give four members for every three now entitled to a seat in this House, which will be an additional burden to the Union, in point of expense, in the same ratio. Add to this another consideration, that probably before the first census is taken, the number of inhabitants will be considerably increased from what it was when the convention which formed this Constitution obtained their information. This will probably increase the expenses of Government to four hundred and fifty thousand dollars annually. Now, those who have attended particularly to economy-who, upon the most careful calculation, find that our revenue is likely to fall infinitely short of our expenses-will consider this saving as a considerable object, and deserving their most serious regard. It may become dissatisfactory to the people as an intolerable burden. Again, it must be abundantly clear to every gentleman, that, in proportion as you increase the number of representatives, the body degenerates; you diminish the individual usefulness; gentlemen will not make equal exertions to despatch business, when they can lean upon others for the arrangement. By enlarging the representation we lessen the chance of selecting men of the greatest wisdom and abilities; because small district elections may be conducted by intrigue, but in large districts nothing but real dignity of character can secure an election. Gentlemen ought to consider how essential it is to the security and welfare of their constituents that this branch of the Government should support its independence and consequence. Another effect of it will be an excitement or fermentation in the representative body. Numerous assemblies are supposed to be less under the guidance of reason than smaller ones; their deliberations are confused; they will fall the prey of party spirit; they will cabal to carry measures which they would be unable to get through by fair and open argument. All these circumstances tend to retard the public business and increase the expense, making Government, in the eyes of some, so odious as to induce them to think it rather a curse than a blessing. H. OF R.] Amendments to the Constitution. It lessens that responsibility which is annexed to the representative of a more numerous body of people; for I believe it will be found true that the representatives of forty thousand citizens will have more at risk than the man who represents a part of them. He has more dignity of character to support, and must use the most unremitting industry in their service to preserve it unsullied; he will be more sensible of the importance of his charge, and more indefatigable in his duty. It is said that these amendments are introduced with a view to conciliate the affections of the people to the Government. I am persuaded the people are not anxious to have a large representation of one for every thirty thousand; they are satisfied with the representation they now enjoy. The great object which the convention of Massachusetts had in view, by proposing this amendment, was to obtain a security that Congress should never reduce the representation below what they conceived to be a point of security. Their object was not augmentation, it was certainty alone they wished for. At the next census, the number of representatives will be seventy or eighty, and in twenty years it will be equal to the desires of any gentleman. We shall have to guard against its growth in less than half a century. The number of proper characters to serve in the Legislature of any country is small; and of those many are inclined to pursue other objects. If the representation is greatly enlarged, men of inferior abilities will undoubtedly creep. in; for although America has as great a proportion of men of sense and judgment as any nation on earth, yet she may not have sufficient to fill a legislative body unduly enlarged. Now, if it has been questioned whether this country can remain united under a Government administered by men of the most consummate abilities, the sons of wisdom, and the friends of virtue, how much more doubtful will it be if the administration is thrown into different hands; and different hands must inevitably be employed, if the representation is too large. Mr. MADISON.-I cannot concur in sentiment with the gentleman last up, that one representative for forty thousand inhabitants will conciliate the minds of those to the Government who are desirous of amendments; because they have rather wished for an increase, than confined themselves to a limitation. I believe, by this motion, we shall avoid no inconvenience that can be considered of much consequence, for one member for either thirty thousand or forty thousand inhabitants, will, in a few years, give the number beyond which it is proposed Congress shall not go. Now, if good policy requires that we accommodate the Constitution to the wishes of that part of the community who are anxious for amendments, we shall agree to something like what is proposed in the report, for the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, Virginia, and North Carolina, have desired an alteration on this head; some have required an increase as far [AUGUST, 1789. as two hundred at least. This does not look as if certainty was their sole object. I do not consider, it necessary, on this occasion to go into a lengthy discussion of the advantages of a less or greater representation. I agree that after going beyond a certain point, the number may become inconvenient; that is proposed to be guarded against; but it is necessary to go to a certain number, in order to secure the great objects of representation. Numerous bodies are undoubtedly liable to some objections, but they have their advantages also; if they are more exposed to passion and fermentation, they are less subject to like this, where the House of Representatives is venality and corruption; and in a Government connected with a smaller body, it might be good policy to guard them in a particular manner against such abuse. But for what shall we sacrifice the wishes of the people? Not for a momentary advantage. Yet the amendments proposed by the gentleman from Massachusetts will lose its efficacy after the second little or no difference; and as it regards the present census. I think, with respect to futurity, it makes time, thirty thousand is the most proper, because it is the number agreed upon in the original Constitution, and what is required by several States. Mr. SEDGWICK observed, that the amendment proposed by the convention of Massachusetts was carried there, after a full discussion; since then, the whole of the amendments proposed by the convention had been recommended by the Legislature of that State to the attention of their delegates in Congress. From these two circumstances he was led to believe, that his and his colleague's constituents were generally in favor of the amendment as stated in the report. from enlarging the number of representatives beHe did not expect any advantage would arise yond a certain point; but he thought one hundred and seventy-five rather too few. Mr. GERRY.-My colleague (Mr. AMES) has said, that we experience no inconvenience for want of either general or local knowledge. Sir, encountered in carrying through the collection bill I may dispute the fact, from the difficulties we and on some other occasions, where we seemed much at a loss to know what are the dispositions of our constituents. But adinitting this to be the fact, is information the only principle upon which we are to stand? Will that gentlemen pretend to say we have as much security in a few representatives as in many? Certainly he will not. Not that I would insist upon a burdensome representation, but upon an adequate one. He supposes the expenses of the Government will be increased in a very great proportion; but if he calculates with accuracy, he will find the difference of the pay of the additional members not to exceed a fourth. The civil list was stated to cost three hundred thousand dollars, but the House of Representatives does not cost more than a ninth of that sum; consequently, the additional members, at the ratio of four for three, could not amount to more than a thirtieth part, which would fall far short of what he seemed to apprehend. Is this such an object AUGUST, 1789.] Amendments to the Constitution. as to induce the people to risk every security which they ought to have in a more numerous representation? One observation which I understood fell from him, was, that multiplying the number of representatives diminished the dignity and importance of the individuals who compose the House. Now I wish to know, whether he means that we should establish our own importance at the risk of the liberties of America; if so, it has been of little avail that we successfully opposed the lordly importance of a British Parliament. We shall now, I presume, be advised to keep the representation where it is. in order to secure our dignity; but I hope it will be ineffectual, and that gentlemen will be inclined to give up some part of their consequence to secure the rights of their constituents. My honorable colleague has said, that large bodies are subject to fermentations; true, sir, but so are small ones also, when they are composed of aspiring and ambitious individuals. Large bodies in this country are likely to be composed, in a great measure, of gentlemen who represent the landed interest of the country; these are generally more temperate in debate than others, consequently, by increasing the representation we shall have less of this fermentation than on the present establishment. As to the other objections, they are not of sufficient weight to induce the House to refuse adopting an amendment recommended by so large a body of our constituents. Mr. LIVERMORE was against the alteration, because he was certain his constituents were opposed to it. He never heard a single person but supposed that one member was little enough to represent the interest of thirty thousand inhabitants; many had thought the proposition ought to be one for twenty or twenty-five thousand. It would be useless to propose amendments which there was no probability of getting ratified, and he feared this would be the fate of the one under consideration, if the honorable gentleman's alteration took place. [H. OF R. The House of Representatives will furnish a better check upon the Senate, if filled with men of independent principles, integrity, and eminent abilities, than if consisting of a numerous body of inferior characters; in this opinion, said he, my colleague cannot but agree with me. Now if you diminish the consequence of the whole you diminish the consequence of each individual; it was in this view that he contended for the importance of the amendment. He said it could not be the wish of Massachusetts to have the representation numerous, because they were convinced of its impropriety in their own Legislature, which might justly be supposed to require a greater number, as the objects of their deliberation extended to minute and focal regulations. But that kind of information was not so much required in Congress, whose power embraced national objects alone. He contended, that all the local information necessary in this House, was to be found as fully among the ten members from Massachusetts, as if there had been one from every town in the State. It is not necessary to increase the representation, in order to guard against corruption, because no one will presume to think that a body composed like this, and increased in a ratio of four to three, will be much less exposed to sale than we are. Nor is a greater number necessary to secure the rights and liberties of the people, for the representative of a great body of people is likely to be more watchful of its interests than the representative of a lesser body. Mr. JACKSON.-I have always been afraid of letting this subject come before the House, for I was apprehensive that something would be offered striking at the very foundation of the Constitution, by lessening it in the good opinion of the people. I conceive that the proposition for increasing the ratio of representation will have this tendency; but I am not opposed to the motion. only on the principle of expediency, but because I think it grounded on wrong principle. The honorable gentleman's arguments were as much in favor of intrusting the business of legislation to one, two, or three men, as to a body of sixty or a hundred, they would despatch business with greater facility and be an immense saving to the public; but will the people of America be gratified with giving the power of managing their concerns into the hands of one man? Can this take place upon the democratic principle of the Constitution, I mean the doctrine of representation? Can one man, however consummate his abilities, however unimpeachable his integrity, and however superior his wisdom, be supposed capable of understanding, combining, and manageing interests so diversified as those of the people of America? It has been complained of, that the representation is too small at one for thirty thousand; we ought not therefore attempt to reduce it. Mr. AMES begged to know the reasons upon which amendments were founded. He hoped it was not purely to gratify an indigested opinion; but in every part where they retouched the edifice it was with an intention of improving the structure; they certainly could not think of making alterations for the worse. Now that his motion would be an improvement was clearly demonstrable from the advantage in favor of deliberating by a less numerous body, and various other reasons already mentioned; but to those, the honorable gentleman from Virginia (Mr. MADISON) replied, by saying we ought to pay attention to the amendments recommended by the States. If this position is true, we have nothing more to do than read over their amendments, and propose them without exercising our judgment upon them. But he would undertake to say, that the object of the prople was rather to procure certainty than in- In a Republic, the laws should be founded upon crease; if so, it was the duty of Congress rather the sense of the community; if every man's opinto carry the spirit of the amendment into opera-ion could be obtained, it would be the better; it is tion than the letter of it. only in aristocracies, where the few are supposed 1st CON.-24 H. OF R.J Amendments to the Constitution. to understand the general interests of the community better than the many. I hope I shall never live to see that doctrine established in this country. Mr. STONE Supposed the United States to contain three millions of people; these, at one representative for every thirty thousand, would give a hundred members, of which fifty-one were a quorum to do business; twenty-six men would be a majority, and give law to the United States, together with seven in the Senate. If this was not a number sufficiently small to administer the Government, he did not know what was. He was satisfied that gentlemen, upon mature reflection, would deem it inexpedient to reduce that number one-fourth. Mr. SENEY said, it had been observed by the gentleman from Massachusetts, that it would tend to diminish the expense; but he considered this object as very inconsiderable when compared with that of having a fair and full representation of the people of the United States. Mr. AMES's motion was now put, and lost by a large majority. Mr. SEDGWICK.-When he reflected on the country, and the increase of population which was likely to take place, he was led to believe that one hundred and seventy-five members would be a body rather too small to represent such extensive concerns; for this reason he would move to strike out a hundred and seventy-five and insert two hundred. [AUGUST, 1789. propriety; though as several States had proposed the number of two hundred, he thought some substantial reason should be offered to induce the House to reject it. Mr. LIVERMORE said, he did not like the amend ment as it was reported; he approved of the ratio being one for thirty thousand, but he wished the number of representatives might be increased in proportion as the population of the country increased, until the number of representatives amounted to two hundred. Mr. TUCKER said, the honorable gentleman who spoke last had anticipated what he was going w remark. It appeared to him that the committee had looked but a very little way forward when they agreed to fix the representation at one hundred members, on a ratio of one to every thirty thousand upon the first enumeration. He appre hended the United States would be found to comprehend nearly three millions of people, conse quently they would give a hundred members. Now, by the amendment, it will be in the power of Congress to prevent any addition to that number; if it should be a prevalent opinion among the members of this House that a small body was better calculated to perform the public business than a larger one, they will never suffer their members to increase to a hundred and seventyfive, the number to which the amendment extended. population. Mr. GERRY expressed himself in favor of extending the number to two hundred, and wished Mr. SHERMAN said, if they were now forming that the amendment might be so modified as to a Constitution, he should be in favor of one rep-insure an increase in proportion to the increase of resentative for forty thousand, rather than thirty thousand. The proportion by which the several States are now represented in this House was founded on the former calculation. In the convention that framed the Constitution, there was a majority in favor of forty thousand, and though there were some in favor of thirty thousand, yet that proposition did not obtain until after the Constitution was agreed to, when the President had expressed a wish that thirty thousand should be inserted, as more favorable to the public interest; during the contest between thirty and forty thousand, he believed there were not more than nine States who voted in favor of the former. The objects of the Federal Government were fewer than those of the State Government; they did not require an equal degree of local knowledge; the only case, perhaps, where local knowledge would be advantageous, was in laying direct taxes; but here they were freed from an embarrassment, because the arrangements of the several States might serve as a pretty good rule on which to found their measures. So far was he from thinking a hundred and seventy-five insufficient, that he was about to move for a reduction, because he always considered that a sinall body deliberated to better purpose than a greater one. Mr. MADISON hoped gentlemen would not be influenced by what had been related to have passed in the convention; he expected the committee would determine upon their own sense of Mr. SHERMAN was against any increase. He thought if a future House should be convinced of the impropriety of increasing this number to above one hundred, they ought to have it at their discretion to prevent it; and if that was likely to be the case, it was an argument why the present House should not decide. He did not consider that all that had been said with respect to the advantages of a large representation was founded upon experience; it had been intimated, that a large body was more incorruptible than a smaller one; this doctrine was not authenticated by any proof; he could invalidate it by an example noterious to every gentleman in this House; he alluded to the British House of Commons, which although it consisted of upwards of five hundred members, the Minister always contrived to procure votes enough to answer his purpose. Mr. LAWRENCE said, that it was a matter of opinion upon which gentlemen held different sentiments, whether a greater or less number than a certain point was best for a deliberate body. But he apprehended that whatever number was now fixed would be continued by a future Congress, if it were left to their discretion. He formed this opinion from the influence of the Senate, in which the small States were represented in an equal proportion with the larger ones. He supposed that the Senators from New Hampshire. Rhode Island, Connecticut, Jersey, and Delaware. would ever oppose an augmentation of the num |