The Debates in
the Federal Convention of 1787
|
|
|
As Recorded by James
Madison |
Return to
Federal Debates Calendar
TEUSDAY
JUNE 5. IN
COMMITTEE
OF THE
WHOLE
GOVERNOR Livingston from
1 New Jersey, took his seat.
The words, "one or more" were struck out before "inferior
tribunals" as an amendment to the last clause of Resoln. 9th
2 The Clause — "that the National
Judiciary be chose by the National Legislature," being under
consideration.
Mr. WILSON opposed the
appointmt. of Judges by the National Legisl: Experience shewed the
impropriety of such appointmts. by numerous bodies. Intrigue,
partiality, and concealment were the necessary consequences. A
principal reason for unity in the executive was that officers might
be appointed by a single, responsible person.
Mr. RUTLIDGE was by no means
disposed to grant so great a power to any single person. The people
will think we are leaning too much towards Monarchy. He was against
establishing any national tribunal except a single supreme one. The
State tribunals are most proper to decide in all cases in the first
instance.
DOCr. FRANKLIN
observed that two modes of chusing the Judges had been mentioned, to
wit, by the Legislature and by the Executive. He wished such other
modes to be suggested as might occur to other gentlemen; it being a
point of great moment. He would mention one which he had understood
was practiced in Scotland. He then in a brief and entertaining
manner related a Scotch mode, in which the nomination proceeded from
the Lawyers, who always selected the ablest of the profession in
order to get rid of him, and share his practice among themselves. It
was here he said the interest of the electors to make the best
choice, which should always be made the case if possible.
Mr. MADISON disliked the
election of the Judges by the Legislature or any numerous body.
Besides, the danger of intrigue and partiality, many of the members
were not judges of the requisite qualifications. The Legislative
talents which were very different from those of a Judge, commonly
recommended men to the favor of Legislative Assemblies. It was known
too that the accidental circumstances of presence and absence, of
being a member or not a member, had a very undue influence on the
appointment. On the other hand he was not satisfied with referring
the appointment to the Executive. He rather inclined to give it to
the Senatorial branch, as numerous eno' to be confided in — as not
so numerous as to be governed by the motives of the other branch;
and as being sufficiently stable and independent to follow their
deliberate judgments. He hinted this only and moved that the
appointment by the Legislature might be struck out, & a blank
left to be hereafter filled on maturer reflection.
Mr. WILSON seconds it.
On the question for striking out. Massts. ay. Cont. no. N.Y. ay.
N.J. ay. Pena.ay. Del. Ay. Md. ay. N.C. ay. S.C.no. Geo.ay.
3
Mr. WILSON gave notice that he
should at a future day move for a reconsideration of the clause
which respects "inferior tribunals."
Mr. PINKNEY gave notice that
when the clause respecting the appointment of the Judiciary should
again come before the Committee he should move to restore the
"appointment by the national Legislature."
The following clauses of Resol: 9. 4
were agreed to viz "to hold their offices during good behaviour, 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."
The remaining clause of Resolution 9. 5
was posponed.
Resolution 10 6 was agreed
to-viz — that provision ought to be made for the admission of States
lawfully arising within the limits of the U. States, whether from a
voluntary junction of Government & territory, or otherwise, with the
consent of a number of voices in the National Legislature less than
the whole.
The 11. propos: 7 "for
guarantying to States Republican Govt. & territory &c., being
read, Mr. PATTERSON wished the
point of representation could be decided before this clause should
be considered, and moved to postpone it: which was not opposed, and
agreed to: Connecticut & S. Carolina only voting agst. it.
Propos. 12 8 "for
continuing Congs. till a given day and for fulfilling their
engagements," produced no debate.
On the question, Mass. ay. Cont. no. N. Y. ay. N. J.
*9 ay. Pa. ay. Del. no. Md. ay. Va. ay. N. C.
ay. S. C. ay. G. ay.
Propos: 13. 10 "that
provision ought to be made for hereafter amending the system now to
be established, without requiring the assent of the Natl.
Legislature," being taken up,
Mr. PINKNEY doubted the
propriety or necessity of it.
Mr. GERRY favored it. The
novelty & difficulty of the experiment requires periodical revision.
The prospect of such a revision would also give intermediate
stability to the Govt. Nothing had yet happened in the States where
this provision existed to prove its impropriety.
The proposition was postponed for further consideration: the
votes being, Mas: Con. N. Y. Pa. Del. Ma. N. C. — ay Virga. S. C.
Geo: no
Propos. 14. 11 "requiring
oath from the State officers to support National Govt." was
postponed after a short uninteresting conversation: the votes, Con.
N. Jersey. Md. Virga.: S. C. Geo. ay N. Y. Pa. Del. N. C. — no
Massachusetts — divided.
Propos. 15 12 for "recommending
Conventions under appointment of the people to ratify the new
Constitution" &c. being taken up.
Mr. SHARMAN thought such a
popular ratification unnecessary: the articles of Confederation
providing for changes and alterations with the assent of Congs. and
ratification of State Legislatures.
Mr. MADISON thought this
provision essential. The articles of Confedn. themselves were
defective in this respect, resting in many of the States on the
Legislative sanction only. Hence in conflicts between acts of the
States, and of Congs. especially where the former are of posterior
date, and the decision is to be made by State tribunals, an
uncertainty must necessarily prevail, or rather perhaps a certain
decision in favor of the State authority. He suggested also that as
far as the articles of Union were to be considered as a Treaty only
of a particular sort, among the Governments of Independent States,
the doctrine might be set up that a breach of any one article, by
any of the parties, absolved the other parties from the whole
obligation. For these reasons as well as others he thought it
indispensable that the new Constitution should be ratified in the
most unexceptionable form, and by the supreme authority of the
people themselves.
Mr. GERRY observed that in the
Eastern States the Confedn. had been sanctioned by the people
themselves. He seemed afraid of referring the new system to them.
The people in that quarter have at this time the wildest ideas of
Government in the world. They were for abolishing the Senate in
Massts. and giving all the other powers of Govt. to the other branch
of the Legislature.
Mr. KING supposed that the last
article of ye Confedn. rendered the legislature competent to the
ratification. The people of the Southern States where the federal
articles had been ratified by the Legislatures only, had since
impliedly given their sanction to it. He thought notwithstanding
that there might be policy in varying the mode. A Convention being a
single house, the adoption may more easily be carried thro' it, than
thro' the Legislatures where there are several branches. The
Legislatures also being to lose power, will be most likely to raise
objections. The people having already parted with the necessary
powers it is immaterial to them, by which Government they are
possessed, provided they be well employed.
Mr. WILSON took this occasion
to lead the Committee by a train of observations to the idea of not
suffering a disposition in the plurality of States to confederate
anew on better principles, to be defeated by the inconsiderate or
selfish opposition of a few States. He hoped the provision for
ratifying would be put on such a footing as to admit of such a
partial union, with a door open for the accession of the rest.
*13
Mr. PINKNEY hoped that in case
the experiment should not unanimously take place nine States might
be authorized to unite under the same Governt.
The propos. 15. 15 was
postponed nem. cont
Mr. PINKNEY & Mr. RUTLIDGE
moved that tomorrow be assigned to reconsider that clause of Propos.
4: 16 which respects the
election of the first branch of the National Legislature — which
passed in 17 affirmative: Con:
N. Y. Pa. Del: d. Va. — ay — 6 Mas. N. J. N. C. S. C. Geo. no. 5.
Mr. RUTLIDGE havg. obtained a
rule for reconsideration of the clause for establishing inferior
tribunals under the national authority, now moved that that part of
the clause in propos. 9. 18
should be expunged: arguing that the State Tribunals might and ought
to be left in all cases to decide in the first instance the right of
appeal to the supreme national tribunal being sufficient to secure
the national rights & uniformity of Judgmts.: that it was making an
unnecessary encroachment on the jurisdiction of the States and
creating unnecessary obstacles to their adoption of the new system.
Mr. SHERMAN 2ded. the motion.
Mr. MADISON observed that
unless inferior tribunals were dispersed throughout the Republic
with final jurisdiction in many cases, appeals would
be multiplied to a most oppressive degree; that besides, an appeal
would not in many cases be a remedy. What was to be done after
improper Verdicts in State tribunals obtained under the biassed
directions of a dependent Judge, or the local prejudices of an
undirected jury? To remand the cause for a new trial would answer no
purpose. To order a new trial at the Supreme bar would oblige the
parties to bring up their witnesses, tho' ever so distant from the
seat of the Court. An effective Judiciary establishment commensurate
to the legislative authority, was essential. A Government without a
proper Executive & Judiciary would be the mere trunk of a body,
without arms or legs to act or move.
Mr. WILSON opposed the motion
on like grounds. he said the admiralty jurisdiction ought to be
given wholly to the national Government, as it related to cases not
within the jurisdiction of particular states, & to a scene in which
controversies with foreigners would be most likely to happen.
Mr. SHERMAN was in favor of the motion. He
dwelt chiefly on the supposed expensiveness of having a new set of
Courts, when the existing State Courts would answer the same
purpose. Mr. DICKINSON contended strongly
that if there was to be a National Legislature, there ought to be a
national Judiciary, and that the former ought to have authority to
institute the latter. On the question for Mr. Rutlidge's motion to
strike out "inferior tribunals" 19
Massts. divided. Cont. ay. N. Y. divd. N. J. ay. Pa. no. Del. no.
Md. no. Va. no. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay.
20
Mr. WILSON & Mr. MADISON
then moved, in pursuance of the idea expressed above by Mr.
Dickinson, to add to Resol: 9. 21
the words following "that the National Legislature be empowered to
institute inferior tribunals." They observed that there was a
distinction between establishing such tribunals absolutely, and
giving a discretion to the Legislature to establish or not establish
them. They repeated the necessity of some such provision.
Mr. BUTLER. The people will not
bear such innovations. The States will revolt at such encroachments.
Supposing such an establishment to be useful, we must not venture on
it. We must follow the example of Solon who gave the Athenians not
the best Govt. he could devise; but the best they wd. receive.
Mr. KING remarked as to the
comparative expence that the establishment of inferior tribunals wd.
cost infinitely less than the appeals that would be prevented by
them.
On this question as moved by Mr. W. & Mr. M. Mass. ay. Ct. no. N.
Y. divd. N. J. *22 ay. Pa. ay.
Del. ay. Md. ay. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. no. Geo. ay.
The Committee then rose & the House adjourned to 11 OC tomw.
23
1. The word "of" is substituted
in the transcript for "from."
2. The phrase "the ninth
Resolution" is used in the transcript in place of "Resoln. 9th."
3. In the transcript the vote
reads: "Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware,
Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, no, Georgia, aye
— 9; Connecticut, South Carolina, — 2."
4. The transcript uses the phrase
"the ninth Resolution" in place of "Resol: 9," and italicizes the
resolution.
5. The transcript here uses the
phrase "the ninth Resolution."
6. The phrase "The tenth
Resolution" is here used in the transcript.
7. In place of the words "The 11.
propos:" the transcript reads: "The eleventh Resolution."
8. The transcript changes
"Propos. 12" to "The twelfth Resolution."
*9. New Jersey omitted in the
printed Journal.
10. The transcript changes
"Propos: 13" to read as follows: "The thirteenth Resolution, to the
effect."
11. The transcript changes
"Propos. 14" to "The fourteenth Resolution."
12. The transcript changes
"Propos. 15" to "The fifteenth Resolution."
*13. The note in brackets to be
transferred to bottom margin. 14
[This hint was probably meant in terrorem to the smaller States of
N. Jersey & Delaware. Nothing was said in reply to it.]
14. Madison's direction is
omitted in the transcript.
15. The transcript changes "The
propos. 15" to "the fifteenth Resolution."
16. The transcript changes
"Propos. 4" to "the fourth Resolution."
17. The word "the" is here
inserted in the transcript.
18. The transcript changes
"propos. 9" to "the ninth Resolution."
19. The phrase "it passed in the
affirmative" is here inserted in the transcript.
20. In the transcript the vote
reads: "Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Georgia, aye — 5; Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland,
Virginia, no — 4; Massachusetts, divided." New York which was
"divided" was erroneously placed among the "ayes" in copying,
although the number was correctly given as "5."
21. The transcript changes "Resol:
9" to "the ninth Resolution."
*22. In the printed Journal N.
Jersey — no.
23. The transcript omits the
phrase "to 11 OC tomw."