The Journal of the Debates in the Convention which framed the Constitution of USA Volume II Part 18

MONDAY, AUG^{ST} 13. IN CONVENTION

Art. IV. Sect. 2. reconsidered--

M^r Wilson & M^r Randolph moved to strike out "7 years" and insert "4 years," as the requisite term of Citizens.h.i.+p to qualify for the House of Rep^s. M^r Wilson said it was very proper the electors should govern themselves by this consideration; but unnecessary & improper that the Const.i.tution should chain them down to it.

M^r Gerry wished that in future the eligibility might be confined to Natives. Foreign powers will intermeddle in our affairs, and spare no expence to influence them. Persons having foreign attachments will be sent among us & insinuated into our councils, in order to be made instruments for their purposes. Every one knows the vast sums laid out in Europe for secret services. He was not singular in these ideas. A great many of the most influential men in Ma.s.s^{ts} reasoned in the same manner.

M^r Williamson moved to insert 9 years instead of seven. He wished this Country to acquire as fast as possible national habits. Wealthy emigrants do more harm by their luxurious examples, than good, by the money, they bring with them.

Col. Hamilton was in general ag^{st} embarra.s.sing the Gov^t with minute restrictions. There was on one side the possible danger that had been suggested. On the other side, the advantage of encouraging foreigners was obvious & admitted. Persons in Europe of moderate fortunes will be fond of coming here where they will be on a level with the first Citizens. He moved that the section be so altered as to require merely citizens.h.i.+p & inhabitancy. The right of determining the rule of naturalization will then leave a discretion to the Legislature on this subject which will answer every purpose.

M^r Madison seconded the motion. He wished to maintain the character of liberality which had been professed in all the Const.i.tutions & publications of America. He wished to invite foreigners of merit & republican principles among us. America was indebted to emigration for her settlement & Prosperity. That part of America which had encouraged them most had advanced most rapidly in population, agriculture & the arts. There was a possible danger he admitted that men with foreign predilections might obtain appointments but it was by no means probable that it would happen in any dangerous degree. For the same reason that they would be attached to their native Country, our own people w^d prefer natives of this Country to them. Experience proved this to be the case. Instances were rare of a foreigner being elected by the people within any short s.p.a.ce after his coming among us. If bribery was to be practised by foreign powers, it would not be attempted among the electors but among the elected, and among natives having full Confidence of the people not among strangers who would be regarded with a jealous eye.

M^r Wilson cited Pennsylv^a as a proof of the advantage of encouraging emigrations. It was perhaps the youngest (except Georgia) settlem^t on the Atlantic; yet it was at least among the foremost in population & prosperity. He remarked that almost all the Gen^l officers of the Pen^a line of the late army were foreigners. And no complaint had ever been made against their fidelity or merit. Three of her deputies to the Convention (M^r R. Morris, M^r Fitzsimons & himself) were also not natives. He had no objection to Col. Hamilton's motion & would withdraw the one made by himself.

M^r Butler was strenuous ag^{st} admitting foreigners into our public Councils.

Question on Col. Hamilton's Motion

N. H. no. Ma.s.s. no. C^t ay. N. J. no. P^a ay. Del. no. Md. ay.

V^a ay. N. C. no. S. C. no. Geo. no.

Question on M^r Williamson's motion to insert 9 years instead of seven.

N. H. ay. Ma.s.s^{ts} no. C^t no. N. J. no. P^a no. Del. no.

M^d no. V^a no. N. C. no. S. C. ay. Geo. ay.

M^r Wilson renewed the motion for 4 years instead of 7; & on question

N. H. no. Ma.s.s. no. C^t ay. N. J. no. P^a no. Del. no. M^d ay.

V^a ay. N. C. no. S. C. no. Geo. no.

M^r Gov^r Morris moved to add to the end of the section (Art IV. S. 2) a proviso that the limitation of seven years should not affect the rights of any person now a Citizen.

M^r Mercer 2^{ded} the motion. It was necessary he said to prevent a disfranchis.e.m.e.nt of persons who had become Citizens under and on the faith & according to the laws & Const.i.tution from being on a level in all respects with natives.

M^r Rutlidge. It might as well be said that all qualifications are disfranchisem^{ts} and that to require the age of 25 years was a disfranchis.e.m.e.nt. The policy of the precaution was as great with regard to foreigners now Citizens; as to those who are to be naturalized in future.

M^r Sherman. The U. States have not invited foreigners nor pledged their faith that they should enjoy equal privileges with native Citizens. The Individual States alone have done this. The former therefore are at liberty to make any discriminations they may judge requisite.

M^r Ghorum. When foreigners are naturalized it w^d seem as if they stand on an equal footing with natives. He doubted then the propriety of giving a retrospective force to the restriction.

M^r Madison animadverted on the peculiarity of the doctrine of M^r Sherman. It was a subtilty by which every national engagement might be evaded. By parity of reason, Whenever our public debts, or foreign treaties become inconvenient nothing more would be necessary to relieve us from them, than to new model the Const.i.tution. It was said that the _U. S._ as such have not pledged their faith to the naturalized foreigners, & therefore are not bound. Be it so, & that the States alone are bound. Who are to form the New Const.i.tution by which the condition of that cla.s.s of citizens is to be made worse than the other cla.s.s? Are not the States y^e Agents? Will they not be the members of it? Did they not appoint this Convention? Are not they to ratify its proceedings?

Will not the new Const.i.tution be their Act? If the new Const.i.tution then violates the faith pledged to any description of people will not the makers of it, will not the States, be the violaters? To justify the doctrine it must be said that the States can get rid of their obligation by revising the Const.i.tution, though they could not do it by repealing the law under which foreigners held their privileges. He considered this a matter of real importance. It would expose us to the reproaches of all those who should be affected by it, reproaches which w^d soon be echoed from the other side of the Atlantic; and would unnecessarily enlist among the Adversaries of the reform a very considerable body of Citizens: We should moreover reduce every State to the dilemma of rejecting it or of violating the faith pledged to a part of its Citizens.

M^r Gov^r Morris considered the case of persons under 25 years, as very different from that of foreigners. No faith could be pleaded by the former in bar of the regulation. No a.s.surance had ever been given that persons under that age should be in all cases on a level with those above it. But with regard to foreigners among us, the faith had been pledged that they should enjoy the privileges of Citizens. If the restriction as to age had been confined to natives, & had left foreigners under 25 years, eligible in this case, the discrimination w^d have been an equal injustice on the other side.

M^r Pinkney remarked that the laws of the States had varied much the terms of naturalization in different parts of America; and contended that the U. S. could not be bound to respect them on such an occasion as the present. It was a sort of recurrence to first principles.

Col. Mason was struck not like (Mr. Madison) with the _peculiarity_, but the _propriety_ of the doctrine of M^r Sherman. The States have formed different qualifications themselves, for enjoying different rights of citizens.h.i.+p. Greater caution w^d be necessary in the outset of the Gov^t than afterwards. All the great objects w^d then be provided for. Every thing would be then set in motion. If persons among us attached to G. B.

should work themselves into our Councils, a turn might be given to our affairs & particularly to our Commercial regulations which might have pernicious consequences. The Great Houses of British Merchants will spare no pains to insinuate the instruments of their views into the Gov^t.

M^r Wilson read the clause in the Const.i.tution of Pen^a giving to foreigners after two years residence all the rights whatsoever of Citizens. Combined it with the article of Confederation making the Citizens of one State Citizens of all, inferred the obligation Pen^a was under to maintain the faith thus pledged to her citizens of foreign birth, and the just complaints which her failure would authorize: He observed likewise that the Princes & States of Europe would avail themselves of such breach of faith to deter their subjects from emigration to the U. S.

M^r Mercer enforced the same idea of a breach of faith.

M^r Baldwin could not enter into the force of the arguments ag^{st} extending the disqualification to foreigners now Citizens. The discrimination of the place of birth, was not more objectionable than that of age which all had concurred in the propriety of.

Question on the proviso of M^r Gov^r Morris in favor of foreigners now Citizens

N. H. no. Ma.s.s. no. C^t ay. N. J. ay. P^a ay. Del. no.

Mary^d ay. V^t ay. N. C. no. S. C. no. Geo. no.

M^r Carrol moved to insert "5 years" instead of "seven" in Sect. 2^d Art: IV

N. H. no. Ma.s.s. no. C^t ay. N. J. no. P^a div^d. Del. no. M^d ay. V^a ay. N. C. no. S. C. no. Geo. no.

The Section (Art IV. Sec. 2.) as formerly amended was then agreed to nem. con.

M^r Wilson moved that (in Art: V. Sect. 3.) 9 years be reduced to seven, which was disag^d to and the 3^d section (Art. V.) confirmed by the following vote.

N. H. ay. Ma.s.s. ay. C^t no. N. J. ay. P^a no. Del. ay. M^d no.

V^a ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay.

Art. IV. Sec. 5. being reconsidered.

M^r Randolph moved that the clause be altered so as to read--"Bills for raising money for the _purpose of revenue_ or for appropriating the same shall originate in the House of Representatives and shall not be so amended or altered by the Senate as to increase or diminish the sum to be raised, or change the mode of levying it, or the object of its appropriation."--He would not repeat his reasons, but barely remind the members from the smaller States of the compromise by which the larger States were ent.i.tled to this privilege.

Col. Mason. This amendment removes all the objections urged ag^{st} the section as it stood at first. By specifying _purposes of revenue_, it obviated the objection that the section extended to all bills under which money might incidentally arise. By authorizing amendments in the Senate it got rid of the objections that the Senate could not correct errors of any sort, & that it would introduce into the House of Rep^s the practice of tacking foreign matter to money bills. These objections being removed, the arguments in favor of the proposed restraint on the Senate ought to have their full force. 1. the Senate did not represent the _people_, but the _States_ in their political character. It was improper therefore that it should tax the people. The reason was the same ag^{st} their doing it; as it had been ag^{st} Cong^s doing it. Nor was it in any respect necessary in order to cure the evils of our Republican system. He admitted that notwithstanding the superiority of the Republican form over every other, it had its evils. The chief ones, were the danger of the majority oppressing the minority, and the mischievous influence of demagogues. The Gen^l Government of itself will cure them. As the States will not concur at the same time in their unjust & oppressive plans, the General Gov^t will be able to check & defeat them, whether they result from the wickedness of the majority, or from the misguidance of demagogues. Again, the Senate is not like the H.

of Rep^s chosen frequently and obliged to return frequently among the people. They are to be chosen by the Sts for 6 years, will probably settle themselves at the seat of Gov^t will pursue schemes for their own aggrandis.e.m.e.nt--will be able by weary^g out the H. of Rep^s and taking advantage of their impatience at the close of a long Session, to extort measures for that purpose. If they should be paid as he expected would be yet determined & wished to be so, out of the Nat^l Treasury, they will particularly extort an increase of their wages. A bare negative was a very different thing from that of originating bills. The practice in Engl^d was in point. The House of Lords does not represent nor tax the people, because not elected by the people. If the Senate can originate, they will in the recess of the Legislative Sessions, hatch their mischievous projects, for their own purposes, and have their money bills ready cut & dried (to use a common phrase) for the meeting of the H. of Rep^s. He compared the case to Poyning's law--and signified that the House of Rep^s might be rendered by degrees like the Parliament of Paris, the mere depository of the decrees of the Senate. As to the compromise so much had pa.s.sed on that subject that he would say nothing about it. He did not mean by what he had said to oppose the permanency of the Senate. On the contrary he had no repugnance to an increase of it--nor to allowing it a negative, though the Senate was not by its present const.i.tution ent.i.tled to it. But in all events he would contend that the purse-strings should be in the hands of the Representatives of the people.

M^r Wilson was himself directly opposed to the equality of votes granted to the Senate by its present Const.i.tution. At the same time he wished not to multiply the vices of the system. He did not mean to enlarge on a subject which had been so much canva.s.sed, but would remark that as an insuperable objection ag^{st} the proposed restriction of money bills to the H. of Rep^s that it would be a source of perpetual contentions where there was no mediator to decide them. The Presid^t here could not like the Executive Magistrate in England interpose by a prorogation, or dissolution. This restriction had been found pregnant with altercation in every State where the Const.i.tution had established it. The House of Rep^s will insert other things in money bills, and by making them conditions of each other, destroy the deliberate liberty of the Senate.

He stated the case of a Preamble to a money bill sent up by the House of Commons in the reign of Queen Anne, to the H. of Lords, in which the conduct of the displaced Ministry, who were to be impeached before the Lords, was condemned; the Co[~m]ons thus extorting a premature judgm^t without any hearing of the Parties to be tried, and the H. of Lords being thus reduced to the poor & disgraceful expedient of opposing to the authority of a law, a protest on their Journals ag^{st} its being drawn into precedent. If there was anything like Poynings law in the present case, it was in the attempt to vest the exclusive right of originating in the H. of Rep^s and so far he was ag^{st} it. He should be equally so if the right were to be exclusively vested in the Senate.

With regard to the purse strings, it was to be observed that the purse was to have two strings, one of which was in the hands of the H. of Rep^s the other in those of the Senate. Both houses must concur in untying, and of what importance could it be which untied first, which last. He could not conceive it to be any objection to the Senate's preparing the bills, that they would have leisure for that purpose and would be in the habits of business. War, Commerce, & Revenue were the great objects of the Gen^l Government. All of them are connected with money. The restriction in favor of the H. of Represent^s would exclude the Senate from originating any important bills whatever--

M^r Gerry considered this as a part of the plan that would be much scrutinized. Taxation & representation are strongly a.s.sociated in the minds of the people, and they will not agree that any but their immediate representatives shall meddle with their purses. In short the acceptance of the plan will inevitably fail, if the Senate be not restrained from originating money bills.

M^r Govern^r Morris. All the arguments suppose the right to originate & to tax, to be exclusively vested in the Senate.--The effects commented on may be produced by a Negative only in the Senate. They can tire out the other House, and extort their concurrence in favorite measures, as well by withholding their negative, as by adhering to a bill introduced by themselves.

M^r Madison thought If the subst.i.tute offered by M^r Randolph for the original section is to be adopted it would be proper to allow the Senate at least so to amend as to _diminish_ the sums to be raised. Why should they be restrained from checking the extravagance of the other House?

One of the greatest evils incident to Republican Gov^t was the spirit of contention & faction. The proposed subst.i.tute, which in some respects lessened the objections ag^{st} the section, had a contrary effect with respect to this particular. It laid a foundation for new difficulties and disputes between the two houses. The word _revenue_ was ambiguous.

In many acts, particularly in the regulation of trade, the object would be twofold. The raising of revenue would be one of them. How could it be determined which was the primary or predominant one; or whether it was necessary that revenue sh^d be the sole object, in exclusion even of other incidental effects. When the Contest was first opened with G. B.

their power to regulate trade was admitted. Their power to raise revenue rejected. An accurate investigation of the subject afterwards proved that no line could be drawn between the two cases. The words _amend or alter_ form an equal source of doubt & altercation. When an obnoxious paragraph shall be sent down from the Senate to the House of Rep^s, it will be called an origination under the name of an amendment. The Senate may actually couch extraneous matter under that name. In these cases, the question will turn on the _degree_ of connection between the matter & object of the bill and the alteration or amendment offered to it. Can there be a more fruitful source of dispute, or a kind of dispute more difficult to be settled? His apprehensions on this point were not conjectural. Disputes had actually flowed from this source in Virg^a where the Senate can originate no bill. The words, "so as to _increase or diminish_ the sum to be raised," were liable to the same objections.

In levying indirect taxes, which it seemed to be understood were to form the princ.i.p.al revenue of the new Gov^t the sum to be raised, would be increased or diminished by a variety of collateral circ.u.mstances influencing the consumption, in general, the consumption of foreign or of domestic articles--of this or that particular species of articles and even by the mode of collection which may be closely connected with the productiveness of a tax.--The friends of the section had argued its necessity from the permanency of the Senate. He could not see how this argum^t applied. The Senate was not more permanent now than in the form it bore in the original propositions of M^r Randolph and at the time when no objection whatever was hinted ag^{st} its originating money bills. Or if in consequence of a loss of the present question, a proportional vote in the Senate should be reinstated as has been urged as the indemnification the permanency of the Senate will remain the same.--If the right to originate be vested exclusively in the House of Rep^s either the Senate must yield ag^{st} its judgment to that House, in which case the Utility of the check will be lost--or the Senate will be inflexible & the H. of Rep^s must adapt its money bill to the views of the Senate, in which case, the exclusive right will be of no avail.--As to the Compromise of which so much had been said, he would make a single observation. There were 5 States which had opposed the equality of votes in the Senate, viz, Ma.s.s^{ts}. Penn^a Virg^a N.

Carolina & South Carol^a. As a compensation for the sacrifice extorted from them on this head, the exclusive origination of money bills in the other House had been tendered. Of the five States a majority viz. Penn^a Virg^a & S. Carol^a have uniformly voted ag^{st} the proposed compensation, on its own merits, as rendering the plan of Gov^t still more objectionable. Ma.s.s^{ts} has been divided. N. Carolina alone has set a value on the compensation, and voted on that principle. What obligation then can the small States be under to concur ag^{st} their judgments in reinstating the section?

M^r d.i.c.kenson. Experience must be our only guide. Reason may mislead us.