Other Prominent Delegates. Among other prominent delegates present were George Mason and Edmund Randolph of Virginia; John Dickinson of Delaware; James Wilson, Robert and Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, to the last of whom the Constitution mainly owes the admirable clearness and simplicity of its language, which has made the work of interpretation so much easier and surer; Roger Sherman of Connecticut, who had been a member of nearly every Congress; Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts; Rufus King of New York, the author of the prohibition on the states to pass laws impairing the obligation of contracts'; Paterson of New Jersey (afterward governor, 1791-1793); and the two Pinckneys and John Rutledge of South Carolina. These were the most distinguished members of the assembly, but all were men of ability and experience. Of the fifty-five present, eighteen were at the same time members of Congress, and there were only twelve who had not at some time sat in that body. Work of the Convention. The convention organized for work May 27, and from this date its work proceeded without interruption for four months, daily sessions being held until the seventeenth of September, when the engrossed copy was signed and the convention finally adjourned. The work throughout was carried on behind closed doors

wisely, since, had the questions under discussion been known, the pressure of public opinion upon the delegates would probably have made agreement impossible. It was not until long afterwards, when the very full notes of the debates of the convention, kept by Madison, were printed, that the difficulties it had surmounted became known.

Difficulty of the Task. In some respects the task before the framers of the Constitution was peculiarly difficult. 1 See Article I, § 10, ¶ 1, page lx.

"The establishment of a constitution in a time of profound peace, by the voluntary consent of a whole people, is a prodigy, to the completion of which I look forward with trembling anxiety," wrote Hamilton; and many of his contemporaries shared his feeling. In the first place, there had been no overwhelming public sentiment in favor of the calling of the convention, nor was there any profound belief that it would accomplish anything. Then, too, within the convention itself there was a strong feeling that it had no power beyond that of revising the Articles of Confederation; and not a little argument was needed to induce the assembly to undertake the framing of a new constitution. That question once decided, the convention found itself face to face with a peculiar condition of affairs. Its task was not the comparatively simple one of devising a scheme of government for a single unitary state, in which the central government should be the source of power for all minor political divisions; nor had it, on the other hand, to deal with a simple confederation, in which the component states were still sovereign and independent, with full power at any time to withdraw from the union.

The course of events during the Revolution had undoubtedly established a nation with a life of its own; yet it had left the integrity of the states untouched. The states were still free political agents, however strongly public necessity might urge them to form a national union. "We were neither the same nation nor different nations," said Gerry. In short, the task before the convention was that of framing a constitution for the first great federal state in history. Just how this was to be done no one saw clearly at the opening of the convention. Among the members of the assembly the most diverse opinions were held as to what should be the character of the new government. Not a

few contended for the maintenance of the existing form of government with only such revision of the Articles of Confederation as experience had shown to be absolutely necessary; that is, they advocated, if not the extreme state-rights doctrine, at least as great a degree of state sovereignty as was at all compatible with orderly government. A few, notably Hamilton, advocated the establishment of a strongly centralized national government, in which the states should be shorn of all their sovereign power. The majority, however, hoped for the establishment of a moderately strong central government, with enough curtailment of state prerogatives to render the general government thoroughly efficient.

Plans Submitted. The real work of the convention began on the twenty-ninth of May, when Edmund Randolph of Virginia submitted a plan of government, principally the work of Madison, consisting of fifteen propositions, most of which were finally embodied in the Constitution. This plan is known as the Virginia Plan. On the same day Charles Pinckney of South Carolina presented another plan, very similar in its provisions to that of the Virginia delegation, but more detailed. This received little attention. The interest of the convention centered in the Virginia Plan and its principal opponent the New Jersey Plan, introduced by Paterson of New Jersey and expressing the wishes of the smaller states. The Virginia Plan provided for a government to consist of the three departments, legislative, executive, and judicial, — the legislature to consist of two houses, the lower elected by the people, the upper by the lower from candidates nominated by the state legislatures. In both houses representation was to be based on free population. Congress was also to choose the executive and the judiciary. This plan

unquestionably gave the control of affairs into the hands. of the larger states, and it met with fierce opposition on the part of the smaller ones. They therefore agreed upon the series of resolutions introduced by Paterson. This plan proposed to continue the existing government, but to give Congress power to regulate commerce, to raise revenue, to establish a federal judiciary, and to enforce its enactments. While these plans were under discussion, Hamilton made a speech to the convention, in the course of which he read a plan outlining a strongly centralized national government in which the states had little power. This has been called Hamilton's Plan; but he knew, as he himself said, that it was very remote from the ideas of the people, and he probably intended only to outline more carefully his own views and the amendments he intended to offer at the proper time, rather than to submit a formal plan for the consideration of the convention.

The First Great Compromise. As the discussion of the two principal plans proceeded, it became evident that only a most liberal spirit of compromise could enable the convention to effect anything. Differences of opinion among the delegates were so wide as to be all but irreconcilable. More than once the convention seemed on the verge of dissolution, but each time some compromise was effected and the work proceeded. The first great crisis came in the course of the discussion as to whether there should be a national or a federal government, and whether there should be equal representation of the states in Congress or whether representation should be apportioned on the basis of population. Naturally the smaller states contended fiercely for equal representation. Finally one of the Connecticut delegates suggested a compromise, based on the system in use in the legislature of his

own state, according to which there was to be equal representation of the states in the Senate but representation apportioned on the basis of population in the House of Representatives. To this the larger states agreed after some discussion, and thus the first great compromise of the Constitution was effected.

The Second Great Compromise. This question as to the manner of representation in the two Houses having been settled, another arose as to the apportionment of representatives in the lower House. The population in the Southern states contained a large proportion of slaves possessed of no political rights. Ought they to be counted in determining the number of representatives from those states; and if counted for that purpose, ought they not to be counted also in apportioning direct taxes? Finally a compromise was effected upon this question also, the three-fifths compromise, as it is sometimes called, according to

which five slaves were to be counted as equal to three white men, and direct taxes were to be apportioned in the same manner as representatives.

The Third Great Compromise also was made necessary by the existence of slavery and the slave trade. The real question at issue was whether or not the general government should be given control over commerce. The ill effects of allowing each state commercial independence had become evident under the Articles of Confederation, and the states engaged in general commerce desired its regulation by the general government. On the other hand, the states engaged in the slave trade, knowing the sentiment entertained against it at the North, feared that heavy losses might be entailed upon them by some prohibitory legislative act of the general government. A compromise was finally reached by which it was agreed that