system. This is what the people expect. All agree in the necessity of a more efficient Govt. and why not make such an one; as they desire. Whereupon Mr. Ellsworth, in a more conciliatory and persuasive, yet hardly less decided way, said:

Under a National Govt. he should participate in the National Security, as remarked by (Mr. King) but that was all. What he wanted was domestic happiness. The Nat'. Govt. could not descend to the local objects on which this depended. It could not embrace objects of a general nature. He turned his eyes therefore for the preservation of his rights to the State Govts. From these alone he could derive the greatest happiness he expects in this life. His happiness depends on their existence, as much as a new-born infant on its mother for nourishment. If this reasoning was not satisfactory, he had nothing to add that could be so.1

Under these circumstances, the convention adjourned on Saturday, June 30th, and after an interval of a day in which to reflect, met on July 2d. The Sunday was indeed a godsend to the small States, for when the Convention adjourned on Monday, July 2d, the vote upon Mr. Ellsworth's motion was had, resulting in a tie, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina voting against, Connecticut, New York (then considered one of the smaller States), New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland voting for, with Georgia divided. Mr. Ellsworth's friendship with Mr. Baldwin had borne its fruit. Whereupon, General Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, a man of large experience and of broad views, although as set upon the rights of his State as any man could be, said that "some compromise seemed to be necessary: the States being exactly divided on the question for an equality of votes in the 2a. branch. He proposed that a Committee consisting of a member from each State should be appointed to devise & report some compromise." 2

66

"3

Doubtless General Pinckney's motion appealed to the good sense of his colleagues open to conviction, for, as Mr. Sherman said, the Convention. was now at a full stop, and nobody he supposed meant that we sha. break up without doing something. A Committee he thought most likely to hit on some expedient.' Dr. Williamson of North Carolina, whose State had voted against equality, added that "If we do not concede on both sides, our business must soon be at an end." He favored the commitment, "supposing that as the Come. wd. be a smaller body, a compromise would be pursued with more coolness." 4 Mr. Gerry of Massachusetts, later to be Vice President with Mr. Madison as President of the United States, likewise was for the commitment, saying, "Something must be done, or we shall disap1 Documentary History, Vol. iii, p. 261.

2 Ibid., p. 264.

8 Ibid.

4 Ibid., p. 268.

point not only America, but the whole world." He suggested a consideration of the state" we should be thrown into by the failure of the Union. We should be without an Umpire to decide controversies and must be at the mercy of events. What too is to become of our treaties - what of our foreign debts, what of our domestic? We must make concessions on both sides. Without these the constitutions of the several States would never have been formed." 1

So the question was debated, decided in the affirmative, and the committee, elected by ballot, consisted of Messrs. Gerry, Ellsworth, Yates, Patterson, Franklin, Bedford, Martin (of Maryland), Mason, Davie, Rutledge, and Baldwin. “That time might be given to the Comittee, and to such as chose to attend to the celebration on the anniversary of Independence, the Convention adjourned till Thursday." 2

On Thursday, July 5th, the committee reported the compromise whose terms had properly been suggested by Dr. Franklin.3 The report was debated from every point of view and amended in certain particulars that need not detain us; and on July 16, 1787, the convention adopted it as amended, including, as Mr. Madison says, "the equality of votes in the 2a. branch," Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, voting for, Pennsylvania, Virginia, South Carolina and Georgia against, Massachusetts divided, New York absent and New Hampshire not as yet represented, both of which States would have voted for the compromise.

of the

States

The irritation of the larger States upon the victory of the smaller was Victory voiced by Mr. Randolph, who, stating that it would be "in vain to come Smaller to any final decision with a bare majority on either side," wished "the Convention might adjourn, that the large States might consider the steps proper to be taken in the present solemn crisis of the business, and that the small

1 Documentary History, Vol. iii, p. 269.

2 Ibid., pp. 269–270.

8 Ibid., p. 270.

"Tuesday, July 3, 1787.

"The grand committee met. Mr. Gerry was chosen chairman. "The committee proceeded to consider in what manner they should discharge the business with which they were intrusted. By the proceedings in the Convention, they were so equally divided on the important question of representation in the two branches, that the idea of a conciliatory adjustment must have been in contemplation of the house in the appointment of this committee. But still, how to effect this salutary purpose was the question. Many of the members, impressed with the utility of a general government, connected with it the indispensable necessity of a representation from the states according to their numbers and wealth; while others, equally tenacious of the rights of the states, would admit of no other representation but such as was strictly federal, or, in other words, equality of suffrage. This brought on a discussion of the principles on which the house had divided, and a lengthy recapitulation of the arguments advanced in the house in support of these opposite propositions. As I had not openly explained my sentiments on any former occasion on this question, but constantly, in giving my vote, showed my attachment to the national government on federal principles, I took this occasion to explain my motives.

"These remarks gave rise to a motion of Dr. Franklin, which after some modification was agreed to, and made the basis of the following report of the Committee." Yates, Secret Proceedings, p. 205.

Documentary History, Vol. iii, p. 343.

States might also deliberate on the means of conciliation." 1 The smaller States, however, had carried their point, and while they were willing to adjourn they were in no disposition to reconsider. Indeed, Mr. Patterson of New Jersey, as reported by Mr. Madison, "thought with M'. R. that it was high time for the Convention to adjourn that the rule of secrecy ought to be rescinded, and that our Constituents should be consulted. No conciliation could be admissible on the part of the smaller States on any other ground than that of an equality of votes in the 2a. branch. If Mr. Randolph would reduce to form his motion for an adjournment sine die, he would second it with all his heart." Mr. Randolph explained that he did not mean to move adjournment sine die, but until the morrow "in order that some conciliatory experiment might if possible be devised, and that in case the smaller States should continue to hold back, the larger might then take such measures, he would not say what, as might be necessary.' Mr. Patterson, being in an obliging spirit, seconded the adjournment, "till tomorrow, as an opportunity seemed to be wished by the larger States to deliberate further on conciliatory expedients." On the question of adjournment the States divided equally, and the convention adjourned; but before doing so, they tied once on the question, and the frame of mind of the convention as well as of the delegations from the larger States is perhaps to be gathered from the following remarks of Mr. Rutledge, who, according to Mr. Madison, "could see no need of an adjourn'. because he could see no chance of a compromise. The little States were fixt. They had repeatedly & solemnly declared themselves to be so. All that the large States then had to do, was to decide whether they would yield or not. For his part he conceived that altho' we could not do what we thought best, in itself, we ought to do something. Had we not better keep the Govt. up a little longer, hoping that another Convention will supply our omissions, than abandon every thing to hazard. Our Constituents will be very little satisfied with us if we take the latter course." 2

The members from the larger States were apparently in a sorry plight. They could not break up the Convention on the ground that they were unwilling to compromise, they could not admit that they were outgeneraled by the little States, they could not form a Confederation composed of themselves, because they were not contiguous, and even large bricks require mortar to hold together. The situation is thus stated in a passage from Mr. Madison's Notes, interposed between the adjournment after the vote and before the meeting of the 17th:

On the morning following before the hour of the Convention a number of

Great Compromise

the members from the larger States, by common agreement met for the pur- The First pose of consulting on the proper steps to be taken in consequence of the vote in favor of an equal Representation in the 24 branch, and the apparent inflexibility of the smaller States on that point - Several members from the latter States also attended. The time was wasted in vague conversation on the subject, without any specific proposition or agreement. It appeared indeed that the opinions of the members who disliked the equality of votes differed so much as to the importance of that point, and as to the policy of risking a failure of any general act of the Convention by inflexibly opposing it. Several of them supposing that no good Governmt. could or would be built on that foundation, and that as a division of the Convention into two opinions was unavoidable it would be better that the side comprising the principal States, and a majority of the people of America, should propose a scheme of Govt. to the States, than that a scheme should be proposed on the other side, would have concurred in a firm opposition to the smaller States, and in a separate recommendation, if eventually necessary. Others seemed inclined to yield to the smaller States, and to concur in such an Act however imperfect & exceptionable, as might be agreed on by the Convention as a body, tho' decided by a bare majority of States and by a minority of the people of the U. States. It is probable that the result of this consultation satisfied the smaller States that they had nothing to apprehend from a Union of the larger, in any plan whatever aget. the equality of votes in the 2a. branch.1

Second

So much for the first compromise, which made the proposed Constitu- The tion probable. Next, for the second compromise, which made it a fact. Compromise And it is interesting to note that the second, like the first, deals with the question of suffrage, although it is confined to the first branch, involving questions of interest to the States as such. The compromise involved one member of Congress for every forty thousand inhabitants of the State, divided into districts popularly called Congressional Districts. The southern States, in which slavery prevailed, insisted that the slaves should be counted among the inhabitants, Mr. Butler and General Pinckney of South Carolina going so far as to insist that they should be "included in the rule of Representation equally with the whites," 2 whereas, after much misgiving, the delegations of the other States were willing to allow five negroes to be counted as three for the purpose of votes in such States where slavery existed, on the ground that such a proportion had been approved by eleven of the States in the Congress of 1783.3 Again, the southern States insisted upon the right to continue the slave trade, at least for a period of twenty years, which was very galling to the members of the States where slavery did not exist and distasteful to some of the members of the slave States. It happened, 1 Documentary History, Vol. iii, pp. 347-8.

2 Ibid., p. 308.

Session of July 11th.

3 Ibid., p. 323. Session of July 12th.

4 Mr. Madison expressed the following opinion:

Twenty years will produce all the mischief that can be apprehended from the liberty to import slaves. So long a term will be more dishonorable to the National character than to say nothing about it in the Constitution. Ibid., p. 616.

During the same session (that of August 25th) Mr. Madison stated that he "thought it

and this is the ground for the second compromise, that the southern States, producing products for exportation, were anxious to prevent regulations of commerce which would enable the Congress to do so by a mere majority, wishing a two-thirds vote in such cases for their protection. The eastern States, under the lead of Massachusetts, were unwilling to consent to this, as they were commercial States and changes in the regulations proving desirable would be very difficult if a two-thirds vote were required.

The opposition of the States to a tax upon their exports was met by a provision that no tax or duty should be laid on articles exported from any State, but the commercial States were unwilling to be bound hand and foot, as they thought they would be, by a two-thirds vote on the part of the legislature to regulate commerce, Mr. Gorham of Massachusetts saying on this very question that "He desired it to be remembered that the Eastern States had no motive to Union but a commercial one. They were able to protect themselves. They were not afraid of external danger and did not need the aid of the South". States." 1

Section 6, Article VII, of the draft of the Constitution as reported on August 6th, provided that, "No navigation act shall be passed without the assent of two thirds of the members present in each House." 2 At the session of August 22d this clause was, together with that relating to the importation of slaves, referred to a committee composed of a member from every State, which recommended two days later that the importation of slaves, euphemistically called "such persons as the several States now existing shall think proper to admit," be not prohibited prior to the year 1800, but that a tax upon mere migration or importation might be laid, and that Section 6, requiring a twothirds vote for a navigation act, be omitted. On August 29th the report of this committee on the question of navigation came up for discussion. When the report was presented, Mr. Pinckney of South Carolina moved to insert the two-thirds requirement, which had been omitted by the committee, and in support of this motion remarked, as reported by Mr. Madison, that there were five distinct commercial interests: "1. the fisheries & W. India trade, which belonged to the N. England States. 2. the interest of N. York lay in a free trade. 3. Wheat & flour the Staples of the two middle States, (N. J. & Penn.)-4. Tob", the staple of Mary". & Virginia & partly of N. Carolina. 5. Rice & Indigo, the staples of S. Carolina & Georgia. These different interests would be a source of oppressive regulations if no check to a bare majority should be provided. States pursue their interests with less scruple than individuals. The power of regulating commerce was a wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men." Documentary History, Vol. iii, p. 618.

1 Ibid., p. 591. Session of August 22d.

2 Ibid., p. 450.

8 Ibid., p. 606.