The Debates in
the Federal Convention of 1787
|
|
|
As Recorded by James
Madison |
Return to
Federal Debates Calendar
FRIDAY
JULY 20.
IN CONVENTION
The postponed 1 Ratio of
Electors for appointing the Executive; to wit 1 for each State whose
inhabitants do not exceed 100,000, 2
&c. being taken up.
Mr. MADISON observed that this
would make in time all or nearly all the States equal. Since there
were few that would not in time contain the number of inhabitants
intitling them to 3 Electors: that this ratio ought either to be
made temporary, or so varied as that it would adjust itself to the
growing population of the States.
Mr. GERRY moved that in the
1st. instance the Electors should be allotted to the States
in the following ratio: to N. H. 1. Mas. 3. R. I. 1. Cont. 2. N. Y.
2. N. J. 2. Pa. 3. Del. 1. Md. 2. Va. 3. N. C. 2. S. C. 2. Geo. 1.
On the question to postpone in order to take up this motion of
Mr. Gerry. It passed in the affirmative. Mas. ay. Cont. no. N. J.
no. Pa. ay. Del. no. Md. no. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay.
3
Mr. ELSEWORTH moved that 2
Electors be allotted to N. H. Some rule ought to be pursued; and N.
H. has more than 100,000 inhabitants. He thought it would be proper
also to allot 2. to Georgia
Mr. BROOM & Mr. MARTIN
moved to postpone Mr. Gerry's allotment of Electors, leaving a fit
ratio to be reported by the Committee to be appointed for detailing
the Resolutions.
On this motion. Mas. no. Ct. no. N. J. ay. Pa. no. Del. ay. Md.
ay. Va. no. N. C. no. S. C. no. Geo. no. 4
Mr. HOUSTON 2ded. the motion of
Mr. Elseworth to add another Elector to N. H. & Georgia. On the
Question: Mas. no. Ct. ay. N. J. no. Pa. no. Del. no. Md. no. Va.
no. N. C. no. S. C. ay. Geo. ay. 5
Mr. WILLIAMSON moved as an
amendment to Mr. Gerry's allotment of Electors in the 1st. instance
that in future elections of the Natl. Executive, the number of
Electors to be appointed by the several States shall be regulated by
their respective numbers of Representatives in the 1st. branch
pursuing as nearly as may be the present proportions.
On question on Mr. Gerry's ratio of Electors Mas. ay. Ct. ay. N.
J. no. Pa. ay. Del. no. Md. no. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. no.
6, 7 "to
be removeable on impeachment and conviction for mal practice or
neglect of duty." see Resol: 9. 8
Mr. PINKNEY & Mr.
Govr. MORRIS moved to strike out this part of
the Resolution. Mr. P. observd. he ought not to be impeachable
whilst in office
Mr. DAVIE. If he be not
impeachable whilst in office, he will spare no efforts or means
whatever to get himself re-elected. He considered this as an
essential security for the good behaviour of the Executive.
Mr. WILSON concurred in the
necessity of making the Executive impeachable whilst in office.
Mr. GOVr. MORRIS.
He can do no criminal act without Coadjutors who may be punished. In
case he should be re-elected, that will be 9
sufficient proof of his innocence. Besides who is to impeach? Is the
impeachment to suspend his functions. If it is not the mischief will
go on. If it is the impeachment will be nearly equivalent to a
displacement, and will render the Executive dependent on those who
are to impeach
Col. MASON. No point is of more importance
than that the right of impeachment should be continued. Shall any
man be above Justice? Above all shall that man be above it, who can
commit the most extensive injustice? When great crimes were
committed he was for punishing the principal as well as the
Coadjutors. There had been much debate & difficulty as to the mode
of chusing the Executive. He approved of that which had been adopted
at first, namely of referring the appointment to the Natl.
Legislature. One objection agst. Electors was the danger of their
being corrupted by the Candidates; & this furnished a peculiar
reason in favor of impeachments whilst in office. Shall the man who
has practised corruption & by that means procured his appointment in
the first instance, be suffered to escape punishment, by repeating
his guilt?
DOCr. FRANKLIN
was for retaining the clause as favorable to the Executive. History
furnishes one example only of a first Magistrate being formally
brought to public Justice. Every body cried out agst. this as
unconstitutional. What was the practice before this in cases where
the chief Magistrate rendered himself obnoxious? Why recourse was
had to assassination in wch. he was not only deprived of his life
but of the opportunity of vindicating his character. It wd.. be the
best way therefore to provide in the Constitution for the regular
punishment of the Executive where his misconduct should deserve it,
and for his honorable acquittal when 10
he should be unjustly accused.
Mr. GOVr. MORRIS
admits corruption & some few other offences to be such as ought to
be impeachable; but thought the cases ought to be enumerated &
defined:
Mr. MADISON thought it
indispensable that some provision should be made for defending the
Community agst. the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief
Magistrate. The limitation of the period of his service, was not a
sufficient security. He might lose his capacity after his
appointment. He might pervert his administration into a scheme of
peculation or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign
powers. The case of the Executive Magistracy was very
distinguishable, from that of the Legislature or of any other public
body, holding offices of limited duration. It could not be presumed
that all or even a majority of the members of an Assembly would
either lose their capacity for discharging, or be bribed to betray,
their trust. Besides the restraints of their personal integrity &
honor, the difficulty of acting in concert for purposes of
corruption was a security to the public. And if one or a few members
only should be seduced, the soundness of the remaining members,
would maintain the integrity and fidelity of the body. In the case
of the Executive Magistracy which was to be administered by a single
man, loss of capacity or corruption was more within the compass of
probable events, and either of them might be fatal to the Republic.
Mr. PINKNEY did not see the
necessity of impeachments. He was sure they ought not to issue from
the Legislature who would in that case hold them as a rod over the
Executive and by that means effectually destroy his independence.
His revisionary power in particular would be rendered altogether
insignificant.
Mr. GERRY urged the necessity
of impeachments. A good magistrate will not fear them. A bad one
ought to be kept in fear of them. He hoped the maxim would never be
adopted here that the chief magistrate could do no wrong.
Mr. KING expressed his
apprehensions that an extreme caution in favor of liberty might
enervate the Government we were forming. He wished the House to
recur to the primitive axiom that the three great departments of
Govts. should be separate & independent: that the Executive &
Judiciary should be so as well as the Legislative: that the
Executive should be so equally with the Judiciary. Would this be the
case, if the Executive should be impeachable? It had been said that
the Judiciary would be impeachable. But it should have been
remembered at the same time that the Judiciary hold their places not
for a limited time, but during good behaviour. It is necessary
therefore that a forum should be established for trying
misbehaviour. Was the Executive to hold his place during good
behaviour? The Executive was to hold his place for a limited term
like the members of the Legislature: Like them particularly the
Senate whose members would continue in appointmt the same term of 6
years he would periodically be tried for his behaviour by his
electors, who would continue or discontinue him in trust according
to the manner in which he had discharged it. Like them therefore, he
ought to be subject to no intermediate trial, by impeachment. He
ought not to be impeachable unless he held his office during good
behaviour, a tenure which would be most agreeable to him; provided
an independent and effectual forum could be devised. But under no
circumstances ought he to be impeachable by the Legislature. This
would be destructive of his independence and of the principles of
the Constitution. He relied on the vigor of the Executive as a great
security for the public liberties.
Mr. RANDOLPH. The propriety of
impeachments was a favorite principle with him. Guilt wherever found
ought to be punished. The Executive will have great opportunitys of
abusing his power; particularly in time of war when the military
force, and in some respects the public money will be in his hands.
Should no regular punishment be provided, it will be irregularly
inflicted by tumults & insurrections. He is aware of the necessity
of proceeding with a cautious hand, and of excluding as much as
possible the influence of the Legislature from the business. He
suggested for consideration an idea which had fallen [from Col
Hamilton] of composing a forum out of the Judges belonging to the
States: and even of requiring some preliminary inquest whether just
grounds 11 of impeachment
existed.
DOCtr. FRANKLIN
mentioned the case of the Prince of Orange during the late war. An
agreement was made between France & Holland; by which their two
fleets were to unite at a certain time & place. The Dutch fleet did
not appear. Every body began to wonder at it. At length it was
suspected that the Statholder was at the bottom of the matter. This
suspicion prevailed more & more. Yet as he could not be impeached
and no regular examination took place, he remained in his office,
and strengthening his own party, as the party opposed to him became
formidable, he gave birth to the most violent animosities &
contentions. Had he been impeachable, a regular & peaceable enquiry
would have taken place and he would if guilty have been duly
punished, if innocent restored to the confidence of the public.
Mr. KING remarked that the case
of the Statholder was not applicable. He held his place for life,
and was not periodically elected. In the former case impeachments
are proper to secure good behaviour. In the latter they are
unnecessary; the periodical responsibility to the electors being an
equivalent security.
Mr. WILSON observed that if the
idea were to be pursued, the Senators who are to hold their places
during the same term with the Executive, ought to be subject to
impeachment & removal.
Mr. PINKNEY apprehended that
some gentlemen reasoned on a supposition that the Executive was to
have powers which would not be committed to him: He presumed that
his powers would be so circumscribed as to render impeachments
unnecessary.
Mr. GOVr. MORRIS's
opinion had been changed by the arguments used in the discussion. He
was now sensible of the necessity of impeachments, if the Executive
was to continue for any 12 time
in office. Our Executive was not like a Magistrate having a life
interest, much less like one having an hereditary interest in his
office. He may be bribed by a greater interest to betray his trust;
and no one would say that we ought to expose ourselves to the danger
of seeing the first Magistrate in forign pay, without being able to
guard agst. it by displacing him. One would think the King of
England well secured agst. bribery. He has as it were a fee simple
in the whole Kingdom. Yet Charles II was bribed by Louis XIV. The
Executive ought therefore to be impeachable for treachery;
Corrupting his electors, and incapacity were other causes of
impeachment. For the latter he should be punished not as a man, but
as an officer, and punished only by degradation from his office.
This Magistrate is not the King but the prime-Minister. The people
are the King. When we make him amenable to Justice however we should
take care to provide some mode that will not make him dependent on
the Legislature.
It was moved & 2ded. to postpone the question of impeachments
which was negatived. Mas. & S. Carolina only being ay. On ye.
Question, Shall the Executive be removeable on impeachments &c.?
Mas. no. Ct. ay. N. J. ay. Pa. ay. Del ay. Md. ay. Va. ay. N. C. ay.
S. C. no. Geo. ay. 13
" 14 Executive to receive
fixed compensation." Agreed to nem. con. "to be paid out of the
National Treasury" agreed to, N. Jersey only in the negative.
Mr. GERRY &
15 GOVr. MORRIS
moved "that the Electors of the Executive shall not be members of
the Natl. Legislature, nor officers of the U. States, nor shall the
Electors themselves be eligible to the supreme magistracy." Agreed
to nem. con.
DOCr. Mc.CLURG
asked whether it would not be necessary, before a Committee for
detailing the Constitution should be appointed, to determine on the
means by which the Executive is to carry the laws into effect, and
to resist combinations agst. them. Is he to have a military force
for the purpose, or to have the command of the Militia, the only
existing force that can be applied to that use? As the Resolutions
now stand the Committee will have no determinate directions on this
great point.
Mr. WILSON thought that some
additional directions to the Committee wd.. be necessary.
Mr. KING. The Committee are to
provide for the end. Their discretionary power to provide for the
means is involved according to an established axiom.
Adjourned
1. The word "proposed" is
substituted in the transcript for "postponed."
2. In the figure "100,000" the
"1" is crossed out and a figure "2" is written above it in the
transcript
3. In the transcript the vote
reads: "Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Georgia, aye — 6; Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware,
Maryland, no — 4."
4. In the transcript the vote
reads: "New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, aye — 3; Massachusetts,
Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Georgia, no — 7."
5. In the transcript the vote
reads: "Connecticut, South Carolina, Georgia, aye — 3;
Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland,
Virginia, North Carolina, no — 7."
6. In the transcript the vote
reads: "Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North
Carolina, South Carolina, aye — 6; New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland,
Georgia, no — 4."
7. The words "On the clause" are
here inserted in the transcript.
8. The words "the ninth
Resolution" are substituted in the transcript for "Resol: 9."
9. The word "a" is here inserted
in the transcript.
10. The word "where" is
substituted in the transcript for "when."
11. The transcript uses the word
"grounds" in the singular.
12. The words "length of" are
here inserted in the transcript.
13. In the transcript the vote
reads: "Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland,
Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, aye — 8; Massachusetts, South
Carolina, No — 2."
14. The word "The" is here
inserted in the transcript.
15. The word "Mr." is here
inserted in the transcript.