December 7, 1803

Mr. J. Randolpb called for the order of the day on the amendment to the Constitution, received from the Senate.

Mr. Huger moved to postpone the order of the day. Heobserved that he had very seldom, since be bad the honor of a seat in the House, originated business. It was contrary to his habits to obtrude himself upon the House ; and he would not undertake the task of originating business but from ■ strong impulse of duty. He was against altering the Constitution ; but as it was probable that «a alteration would be made, he considered it his duty to render it as little prejudical as possible. This be believed would be the case, if the resolution be had laid on the table for dividing the United States into Elwltvai districts, was incorporated into the resolution from the Senate. He found that ibis resolution had been proposed not only by the Legislature of New York, but likewise by the Legislature of South Carolina. It had also been submitted in a former Congress hj a respectable member from a respectable State, (Mr. NiCBOLas.) Mr. H. said that this could not be considered as a party question, as it was prob- ' able the Federal party would lose strength by its adoption ; it was probable the members on that side would oppose the amendment. The principal hope of success was from the aid of those who generally differed from him in political sentiment, Mr. H. concluded by moving a postponement of the order of the day till to-morrow, to enable him in the mean time 10 submit the resolution for Electoral districts.

Mr. G. OBtawoLD agreed with the gentleman from South Carolina, that it was important that both amendments should go to the same committee. He was in favor of the amendment for districts— not, however, because be considered him- »elf bound by the instructions of the Legislature of New York, given long since. On a former occasion, when tbi? subject was before the House, some of his colleagues had thought themaelvei bound by those ins true tiona, and had exprened astonishment at bis resisting them. He was not disposed to question the correctness of their opiiH ions, but for himself he could never consent to be bound by such instructions against the dictates of his own judgment. He was not the representative of a Legislature, but of a aeciioo (^ the people, and did not represent the State, but those com* ined with other sections of the people. He had a right then to express his own opinion. It so happened, however, that this resolution for electoral districts accorded with bis own opinion, and therefore he should advocate Its adoption. According to the reasoning of gentlemen, this resolution should be considered as the first in rank, as it was first named in the resolutions agreed to by the Legislature of New York. Will gentlemen who advocate the last, (embracing the principle of designation.) reject ibe first, or neglect to pay it the same attention with the first 1 He should consider the vote against postponement as a virtual vote against the first resolution. Is il not fair and proper that both these points of amendment should go to the same committee, as they both relate to lae same subject 1 He was in favor of the division of the United Stales into electoral districts, as it carried to the people directly the election of Electors, which is now three degrees removed from the people, whereas by the amendit would be only two degrees. We may be told that the Legislature of New York may, under ' " the Constitution, if she pleases, district the State; may be asked why she does not do this if desirable. This question Mr. G. could not undertake Gentlemen of similar political with the majority of that Legislature answer it. He could only say that, if the Legislature, he should be in favor of it Mr. G. concluded by saying he was not in favor of altering the Constitution at with regard to the election of President, tnii if it were altered, he was in favor of uniting ibeamfndnnent for electoral districts vritb that on the table. Heshould therefore vote for the postponement.

Mr. Elliot did not rise to reply to the arguments of gentlemen, but merely to express bissur prise that those who wished noHmenilment whal< ever, should thus labor to defeat the wishes of the House. He had expected that one amendment to the Constitution would have been sufficient for session. Yet we had sent one to the Senate where It reposed, and in return they had sent na three. If these are not enough, where ai« we to stop? He hoped gentlemen would not add another until these had been acted on.

Mr. RoDKBY only rose to say that he was in favor of dividing the United States into districts, but was decidedly against an amendment to that effect being incorporated with the one on the table, lest hy grasping at too much they might lose all.

Mr. Q. Obiswold did not perceive how the agreeing to the araendiiWTit for electoral districts could embarrass the present amendment, as itwas in the power of the different State Legislatures to agree to a part, if ihey saw fit, and not the whole. Mr. Tbohab observed that, in legislating, he had always been adverse to incorporating different subjects in the same bill or resolution ; because he thought each should stand on its own bottom. He said the resolution sent from the Senate proposes an important amendment to our Constitution, and the one which his colleague, (Mr. O. Oriswold,} and the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. HnoEa) wishes considered, at the same time proposes another Important amendment. Although he was in favor of both, he considered it highly improper to blend them together. He thought each ought to stand or fall on its own merits. My colleague said Mr. T., appears to have a high reverence for the people's opinion, in affecting to support this amendment at this moment ; but why has he suffered this zeal to slumber for these Bve or six weeks, since which this House passed a resolution similar to the one sent from the Senate f Why did he not call this up before? Why has he suffered this thing to sleep all this time, and at this moment urge its being taken up with snob warmth? I am unwilling, Mr. Speaker to impute to gentlemen improper motives for their conduct, hat I must confess this looks too mticfa like an intention to embarrass and procrastinate the i io admit of a doubt.

I am, said -Mr. T., decidedly against considering this proposition at this time. Let us takeup the one sent down from the Senate, and when that has been agreed to, as I trust it will be. and sent out to the States for their consideration, I pledge myself to those gentlemen that I will unite with them in not only considering, but will support the other proposition.

Mr. MiTCHiLL said he felt it incumbent on him to offer a few remarks on the proposition to amend the Constitution from the Legislature of New Yink. It might team a* if a la^ shara of ^t* itude was due to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Hf oer) for his care of that State, If his remarks were not coupled with a tacit reflection on those who represented it. He would concisely state the history of this proposition. During the first session of the seventh Congress, two propositions of amendment to the Constitution were received fromtheLegislaiureof New York, which the Representatives of that State were requested 10 endeavor to have incorporated into the Constitution. At that time, said Mr. M., I did myself make a motion to bring forward both these prop* ositions, and they were both referred to a Committee of the whole House. They remained ift this state for a considerable time, under the cod* sideration of the House. Towards the close of tbesessiononeof them was adopted by this House, but was lost in the Senate. The other was not acted upon. 1 recollect that I informed the House at that time, that it was not my wish to have the first proposition taken up. The reasons which then induced me to be against taking it up were those which will influence me against voting for taking it up at this time. I do consider that however a Stale Legislature may instruct their Representatives in Congress, they have a right to refuse obedience to their instructions. I [consider ita sound doctrine that.in a Government like ours, the Representative has a right to act according to the best dictates of his judgment. So judging make it a part of the Constitution. My further reflection since that time, and intercourse with my constituents, make me believe that it is inexpedient to bring it forward at this time. Independent of this consideration, I shall be opposed to the taking up this proposition at this time on other grounds. There is certainly a much belter chance of wisely deciding on amendments singly, than by taking them together. Were I a friend of the proposition, I would be for considering it separately.

Mr. Dana said he was in favor of the postponement, in order to make some disposition of the motion of his friend from South Carolina, (Mr. HooBR.) He iboogbt there would be an impropriety in making two distinct amendments on the same subject at the same session. He was not a friend to the proposition, but wished to postpone it to the next session to put it out of the way,

The yeas and nays were then taken, at the instance of Mr. Hdqeb, on his motion of postponement, and were — yeas 34, nays 86, as follows :

Y>A>— Simeon Baldwin, Silas Betton, John Campbell, Martin Chittenden, Clifton C^Rst, MsnuMh Cutler, Samuel W. Duib, John Davenport, John Dennis, Thomas Dwight, Calvin Goddard, Gaylord Ori»- wold, Roger Griswold, Seth Hastings, David Hough, Benjamin Huger, Bunuel Hunt, Joseph Lewis, jun., Thomas Lewis, Henry W. Livingston, Thomas Lowndes, Nahum Mitchell, Thomas Plater, Samuel D. Purviance, John Cotton Smith, William Stedman, James Stephenson, Samuel Taggart, Benjamin TalK madge, Samuel Tenney, Samuel Thatcher, QeeiseTil>' bits, Peleg Wadnronh, and Lemuel WiUisM.

Niis — Willis AlrtOD.jr., Nathaniel Alexander, In&c Anderson, John Archer, David Bard. George Michael Bedinger, Fhanuel Bishop, William Blackledge, John Boyle, Robert Brown, Joseph Bryan, William Butler, George W, Campbell, Levi Cbmj, William Chamberlin, Thomas Claiborne, Joseph Clay, John Clopton, Frederick Conrad, Jacob Crow ninihi eld, Richard Cutts, John Dawson, William Dickson, John B. Earle, Peter Early, James Elliot, John W.Eppes, William Findley, James Gillespie, Peterson Goodwyn, Edwin Gray, Andrew Gregg, Samuel Hammond, John A. Hanna, Josiah Hasbrouck, Daniel Heister, Joseph Heister, William Hoge, James Holland, David Holmes, John G. Jackson, Walter Jones, William Kennedy, Nehemiah Knight, Michael Leib, John B. C. Lucas, Andrew McCord, William McCreery, David Meriwether, Samuel L. Mitchill, Nicholas R. Moore, Thomas Moore, Jeremiah Morrow, Anthony New, Thomas Newton, jr., Gideon Olin, Beriah Palmer. John Patterson, John Randolph ,ji.. Thomas M. Randolph, John Rea of Pennsylvania,

John Rhea of Tennessee, Jacob Richards, C«s Rodney, Erastus Root, Thomas Sammons, Thomas Sandford, Ebenezer Seaver. Tompson J. Skinner, John Smilie, John Smith of New York, Richard Stanford, Joseph Stanton, John Stewart, David Thomas, Philip R. Thompson, Abram Trigg, John Trigg, laaae Van Home, Joseph B. Varnum, Matthew Walton, John Whitehill,Marmaduke Williams, Richard Winn.Joseph Winston, and Thomas Wynns.

The House then weal JDlo a Committee of the Whole— Mr. Vahnom in the Chair.

The amendment from the Senate having been read, as follows :

Rooked, by the Senate and ffoute of Representatives oftkt United States of Amaiea, in Congrea d" tembkd.lvio-ihirdie/botAHotieaconeurnn^, That lieu of the third paragraph of ike first section of the Constitution of the United Stales, the following posed as an amendment to the Constitution of United States, which, when ratified by three-fourths of the Legislatures of the several States, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Com to wit;

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by ballot for President and Vice President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same State with themselves ; tb^ shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and tinet ballots, the person voted for as Vice President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persona voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and cerljly, and transmit, sealed, to the seat of Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Se. nate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates ; and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed ; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest e ber, not exceeding three, on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives choose immediately, by ballot, the President; choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each State having oi vote; ; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member liM w members from tvnMhird* of the States, and majority of all the States shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representati les shall not cbooao a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other Constitutional disability of the Preaiiienl. The person having the greatest number of votes aa Vice President, shall be the Vice Prewdent, if sudt number be a majority of the whole number of ElcctM* appointed, and if no person have a majority, then Jram -' - > highest numbers on the list, the Senate sbKQ the Vice President; a quorum for the purpoao shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of Preudent shall be eligible to that of Vice President of the United States.

Mr, Elliot moved to amend lb« resolation from the Senate by striking out the fullowlog " And iftbe House ofRepreaentstivea shall notcliooae a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice President shall act as President, ■■ in the caseofthedeath 01 other Constitutional disabili^ of the President."

When, said Mr. E., the final question on the amendment to the Constitution passed some time since this House, which contemplated the simple principle of discrimination, I contented myself with silent vote in favor of it. I should remain silent on this occasion, had I not, bf intervening circumstances, been placed in a peculiar situation. My colleague, a short time a^o, laid on the table a resolution passed by the Legislature of the State which J have the honor to represent, with singu'lar unanimity, by which the Senators of Vermont were instructed, and the Representatives requested to use their utmost exertions lo obtain an amendment to the Constitution ■containing the simple principle of designation. This request was mingled with another, that we should not be tenacious of the form if we could obtain the substance. I felt happy on this occasion not to be under the necessity of discussing the principle bow far a Representative is bound by the instructions of his consitiueotH, as I never possessed a sentiment hostile to the principle of discrimination. I do believe that my constituents, of both of the parties which divide America, are almost unanimous in their approbation of this principle. But I do not believe that the people or Legislature of that State wish to combine with it any other principles. However I may myself be in favor of the great principle of discrimination, 1 do not consider myself under any obligation to vote for it, if combined with other principles, which I think tend, in a tenfold degree, to mltodoce a greater evil than that at present to be apprehended, to wit: to introduce a person to the Presidency, not contemplated by the people or the Electors. I sincerely believe the resolution from the Senate, if adopted, will have this effect. I have likewise objections to the language in which the resolution is couched. In the Constitution, as it now stands, it is prescribed that the House Representatives shall elect a President, in case there be no choice by the Electors. It appears to me inconsistent, almost in ibe same breath, to say you may choose or not choose, as is virtually declared in the preseDl resolution. You may reject all the candidates for the Presidency, and introduce a person intended for a different office. It appears lo me improper to use this imperative language, and ai the same time allow a wide discteiioa; not that 1 believe the framers of the Constitution intended to coerce the physical or moral volition of the members of the House of Representatives; but I believe they inleaded, by the strongest language which could be used, to discoatenance the idea of no election. To this we owe the last election by the House of Representa lives. I will askj what would have been the result, if, instead of this simEle dignified language, this temporising language ad been used? You may prolong your session to the fourth of March, and if there shall not be then a President elected, the President of the Senate shall be President of the United Stales for four years. I believe that the language of the Constitution ought to be imperative; but if ii ought not, siiU it ought not to'say you may choose, in the same sentence that it says you may not choose a President.

With this view of the subject, I cannot satisfy my mind to vote for the amendment of the Senate. 1 believe it is the wish of the people to amend the Constitution, simply so far as regards the designating principle. I believe that they do not desire many amendments to the Constitution. Three or four distinct amendments are embraced in the proposition of the Senate. I am in favor of one amendment only. lam not prepared to vote for any other. If this motion succeed, it may be proper to strike out other parts of the proposition from the Senate. It will then stand as we sent it to the Senate, or an additional provision, if it shall be considered necessary, may be introduced, for an extraordinary election by the people, in case the House should not elect the President, which will be perfectly agreeable to me.

Mr. HuoER.Batd it was unnecessary for him to repeat arguments already so fully urged, to prove the improper nature of the amendment from the Senate. But, though he should ultimately vote against it, yet he considered it his duty to render it as unexceptionable as possible. He should, therefore, vote against the motion made by the gentleman from Vermont. If any amendment of the Constitution were necessary, this was, in his opinion, precisely the one. It had been well observed m another place that man was man, and that this nation must ultimately be prepared lo meet and resist the vices attached to numan nature. If we could always calculate upon having our councils filled with men of virtue, the Constitution ilself would scarcely be necessary. But all constituiions and all laws were predicated on the vices of men. Mr. H. said it had always struck him as a most important circumstance, and as one that might lead to the most fatal consequences, that the election of a President should absolutely depend on the votes of the House of Representatives; and ihai, if these votes should prove equal, there would be no election. The time might come, and would come, when the election of a President would be brought into that House, and when they would make no choice.

Mr. Chittenden declared himself in favor of the amendment of his colleague. If the election of a President should be brought into the House of Representatives, it'Would be known who had been voted for as President, and who as Vice President. It would only then be required to frustrate the election of a President to make the Vice President President. He believed there was no danger to the rights and liberties of the people, by suffering the Constitution to remain as it was.

Mr. SsiMfER said he believed the great States ought to have some rights as well as the smalL He had always considered the Constitution as formed upon principles that gave the small States as extensive rights as were reasonable, and that gave them power enough to make them secure in the enjoyment of those rights. As to the designating principle, he was fond of it. He believed it was a sound principle that a majority should govern. But he could never agree, but from absolute necessity, to make a provision that would offer a strong temptation to an individual to intrigue, and would enable one-fourth of the representation of the people to frustrate an election. He did not think this provision necessary, as he did not believe the period would ever arrive when a majority of that House would not obey a solemn' Constitutional injunction. He was therefore in favor of striking out that part of the amendment which eventually devolved the Presidency on the Vice President, in the case of no election in the House of Representatives. He would rather take the amendment without this provision ; and he did not know whether he would not reject the whole, rather than adopt this provision.

Mr. Holland was in favor of the amendment from the Senate, as better than the one sent from the House. He had always thought the Constitution faulty from the want of this provision, and experience had shown the necessity of it. In the case of a non-election in the House of Representatives, (were it a possible case,) this provision was calculated to remedy it. The only objection now urged, is, that the House of Representatives ma^ act corruptly. Mr. H. would not give into this idea as possible, yet it was very possible that some circumstances might arise which would prevent the House of Representatives from making an election. Some great disaster might occur — for instance, the House might fall, and crush the members to death.

Mr. Shilib.— The Senate have made two alterations in the propositions that went from this House. The only thing for us to consider, is, whether they are of such a nature as to render it better for us to adopt or reject the entire resolution. The Senate appear to have considered the di£Q- oolties and evils lately experienced. and to have provided against their recurrence. To this provision gentlemen now except. This amendment, which it is proposed to strike out, is in favor of the

Anttndmmt to the OonflitaliM, small States. Not vriihMao dins this, I, as » RtpreveutHtiveofalarge StaIe,«lialIaot reject it. We have heard, OD ibia occasion, a great deal about State interests; ; but I have never witnessed an instance in which it has influenced the decision on any question of great importance. And if the time ever does arrive, when local interests shall direct the Councils of our country, we need care little about the Constitution. Be (his as it may, those who think this amendment renders the Constitution better than it now is, will vote for it. We must consider the other branch of the Legislature as participating with us; and in order lo obtain a correspondence of opinion with them, we must conciliate. As I consider this amendment as a grave for the whole business, I shall vote against it.

Mr, Thitcber expressed himself in favor of the motion of the gentleman from Vermont. As to the idea of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, fMr. Smilie,) that we must take this resolution iroRi the Senate, or nothing, I do not know 'whence he draws his inference. I should suppose we ought to make the amendment as perfect as possible. Are we to adopt what we think totally improper, because the Senate approve it? What, in my opinion, principally renders this resolution exceptionable is, that it carries the election of President from the popular to the federative branch of the Legislature. The friends of each candidate will be induced to scatter their *TOtes, and thos, aided by (he influence of the Senate, prevent an election in the House of Repre- ■enlatives. There will not, in such event, exist the same inducements to make an election, flowing from a dread of the evils of anarchy and of an interregnum. Another objection also, in my mind, is powerful. The effect of this proposition will be to send a number of candidates into the House, not the three or five highest on the list, but the three highest numbers, containing an indefinite number of persons. One consequence must follow, either that the election will come into the House, or that the large States will combine together in order to prevent it.

Mr. LowNUEB said he was in favor of the motion of the gentleman from Vermont, for the rea- ■ODS which had been already urged. It appeared to him that, under the propositions received from the Senate, the Vice President would intrigue with the members of the House of Representatives. Having the whole patronage of the Government in his hands, in case of success, he may work upon them, as he believed, that though they were not corrupt now, they might be hereafter. If the object be to preventthe recurrence of a late event, that would oe easily effected by providing that in case of an equal vote in the House of Representatives for President, lot shall decide ; and if the present motion prevailed he would move an amendment to such effect.

Mr. Dana said he would make a motion, the object of which was to abolish the office of Vice President; he therefore moved to strike out the following words :

" And if the House of Representatives shall not

Deceubbb, ISnS* choose a President whenever Ike right of a choice AaU devolve upon them, before the fourth itj of Hardk next following, then the Vice President shall act mt President, ■■ In the case of the death or other Constitutional disability oflhe President

"The person having the greatest number of votes aa Vice President, sbsU be the Vice President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then, from the two highest number on the list, the Senate shd choose the Vice President; a qnomm for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the irtiole number of SeaBton, and a majority of the whole number shall be n^ cessary to a choice.

" But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice Pra^ ident of the United States"

The motion being more comprehensive than that of Mr. Elliot, superseded it.

Mr. Sandford observed, that if the gentleman would have waited a short time his motion would have been decided upon in determining the principle of designation. If there were no Vice Pesridenc, no designation would be necessary.

He said he was against the amendment of iba gentleman from Connecticut, and in favor of the resolution from the Senate.

Mr. Dana.— NotWLlbsIanding the admonition of the gentleman from Kentucky, I shall assign my reasons in favor of the motion which I have submitted. The more I have reflected on the sol^ ject the more I am convinced that we ought not to a^ee lo the amendment on the plain principle of discrimination. If the resolution is to pass in any form, it is my wish that it should pass with this modification. It has been referred to as • reason for altering the Constitution, that it is a fact, that the will of the people will be in favor of one of the candidates for the Presidency, and that it will not become the House of Represegu< tive to choose from the two equal in votes, according to their discretion. The object of lbs amendment is to guard against this evil. Gentlemen will well recollect the indignant eloquence that was so copiously lavished at the last Presidential election upon those who voted for one of the candidates. This competition cannot exist, if the office of Vice President does not exist. But it is said that one public benefit will result from the continuance of the office of Vice President after the adoption of (he discriminating principle, that is, that the Vice President will be the eventual successor of the President. But on this view of the subject, the adoption of the discriminating principle produces a great change in tbe present provision of the Constitution. The Vice President is to exercise, in case of bis succession to the Presidency, the duties of that office, until the expiration of four years, from the election of the President ; not until a new election is held, but for the remaining term. This amendment makes the Vice President a secondary character. The reasons, therefore, for continuing the office of Vice President are not so great under this amendment, as under the Constitution, as it at present stands; ; for it will be extremely easy to make provision for the temporary filling the office of Fr(Bid»^ in case of vacancy. In PeooE^lmnia, and in several other States, this provision is made by the designation of a particular existing officer. GeatIemcD may be convinced there is no necessity for this office, if the discriminating principle prevails, by a recurrencetoibe Jaurnalsof iheGraDdConventiaD. From them it will appear, that there was originally no idea of a Vice President ; but ibal it was explicitly agreed that the Senate should choose their own President. The necessity of a Vice President did not suggest itself until the idea of a double ballot was introduced. In one point the members of the Convention were agreed, to wit: that the Supreme Executive should consist of one person ; but as to the manner of appointing him, the term of his office, and whether he should be eligible in future, there existed great diversity of opinion. The first plan was that he should be chosen by the National Legislature, by the joint ballot of both Houses: it was then proposed that he should be chosen the people, but ibis was disagreed to, as well as a proposition that he should be chosen by the Electors appointed by the State Legislatures; a proposition that he should be chosen by Electors appointed by the people, was likewise disagreed to. All these different propositions were disagreed to, until the principle of double ballot prevailed.

Unless some great good result from the office of Vice President, no argument for its continuance can be deduced from the necessity of having an eventual successor; that case can easily be frovided for, when the Senate choose their own resident, and, as in many of the States, the President of the Senate may eventually preside. equal, but by introducing into the chair of the Presidency of the Senate a representative of a Stale, you give to that State the advantage of having the man who presides over the deliberations of the Senate ; and, in addition to this, when the voles are equal, he holds the balance, and one State, having ilins three votes, in particular cases, destroys the equality contemplated by the Constitution. To this amendment there is another objection ; the Vice President under it being but a secondary character, that office will become a lure to ambitious men, who, by flattering the States, and by the exertion oil undue influence, will enable particular parties to make a bargain as to the possession of the Executive power, which, so far from being a benefit, will be a great evil. Perceiving no good that will result from the continuance oi tbe office, but great evil, io case the discriminating principle prevail, 1 am in favor of abolishing the office, though I am at the same time in favor of the Constitution remaininKasitis.

Mr. Elliot. — As the motion I submitted is superseded by that of the gentleman from Connecticut, I will assign a few reasons for the vote which I shall give. I originally contemplated the same motion, but with different views and sentiments from those expressed by that gentleman. I have no desire to abolish Uie office of Vice Presi- 8th CoH.— 28 do I think the arguments urged by ihfl possess any force. I have a different believe the principle of discrimination is the only amendment of the Constitution which the public sentiment calls for, and I wish to make no amendment in which we are not anticipated by the public sentiment. I shall, therefore, vote for the motion of the gentleman, but under different sentiments, and with a different object.

Mr. R. Griswold. — The gentleman from Kentucky will, on examination, find the amendment of my colleague not inconsistent with the spirit of the resolution. The object of that resolution is, that every Elector shall give a vote for President. If the office of Vice President shall be abolished, every Elector will give one vote, and that vote will be for President. It may be said, it is true, that the discriminating principle will be done away ; but it may be answered tiiaf it is no longer necessary. I am clearly of opinion, if we adopt the discriminating principle it will be useless, worse than useless. If that principle isadopted, of what use can the Vice President be? For what purpose do we want him 1 To receive 85,000 a year? This maybe beneficial to him, but it cannot be useful to his country. The office may confer honor on him. but the honor of an individual can be of no public utility. Will he be wanted to preside In the Senate? That will not be necessary, for the Senate sit half their time without the Vice President, and have not understood that the business is not as well done without as with him. For what purpose, then, will you have this officer? As heir apparent to the Crown ? If this is your object, select him from the best and greatest of your citizens, and do not adopt the principle that the Electors shall vote for one man for President and for another as Vice President.

What will be the effect of this principle 1 The office of Vice President will be carried to market to purchase the votes of particular States. A. large State, having numerous Electors, and claiming a right to designate the President, but not having votes enough itself for that purpose, will carry the officeof Vice President to another State. and will say, give Us the President and we will give you the Vice President. U it be your desire to consider the Vice President as heir apparent to the Presidency, elect him not in this manner, for he must be the mere child of corruption 1 With these views, I am justified in saying the continuance of the office will be worse than useless, inasmuch as it will only tend to introduce a system of corruption. It will also give a particular State great weight in the Senate, by giving it three votes, and the presidency over that body. Why do this? Under the old Confederation all the States were equal. Why unnecessarily impair that great principle 7 Why give to the Slate from which the Vice President is selected this power, together with influence of another kind? For these reasons, I am of opinion that when gentlemen determine to discriminate, ibey ought to go the full length of the principle. If they agree to amend the resolution, it may be so altered u to make every part of the Constitution correspond. Oenllemeo will observe ihallam discussing their principle, and that though 1 ihlnk the Constitution far better as it is, yet if the discriminating principle is to prevail, I think that the ameodnneai proposed by my colleague will render the resolution far less except I onable.

The question was then taken on Mr. DmA'a motion, which passed in the negative — yeas 34. Mr. Elliot's motion recurring —

Mr. Elliot said he could not suffer the question to be taken without noiicing one argument urged by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, who conveyed the idea that, as the resolution had passed the Senate, we must either lake it as it is, or lose it altogether. From what premises this conclusion was drawn he was not able to discover, as he had observed before; after laboring for weeks on the resolution which embraced the discriminating principle, and we bad agreed to it, the Senate have not acted on that, but have sent us another, to which he was decidedly opposed. He could not but believe that a spirit of accommodation would actuate the Senate if we struck ideas to the opinions of the Senate, nor adopt the doctrine advanced by gentlemen of an imperious necessity To this doctrine he would always oppose the dictates of duty and conscience. For he did believe, if they adopted the resolution from the Senate, they would render the Constitution pregnant with greater evils than it was at I present. Mr. GoDDARD was happy to see the notice taken by the gentleman from Vermont of the remarks of the gentleman from Pennsylvania. If these remarks were just, we might as well be done with business at once. Are our minds to be trammeled with the decisionsof the Senate? With great deference to that body, he would not suffer his mind Id be bound down to their will. We have passed a resolution with a discriminating principle, they have sent us another resolution with other principles. Suppose they had said, if there were no election in the House of Representatives, the Senate should choose the President, would the gentleman from Pennsylvania vote for it? There was another effect of the resolution of the Senate; it would be giving to the large States both Ihe power and the premium to combine in the election of the President. By the discriminating principle, you vest the large States with the power of making the President, and through the medium of ihe Vice President you give them the means of effecting that object.

The question was taken on Mr. Elliot's motion, which passed in the negative — yeas 33, nays 81.

Mr. Cbambeblih moved to amend the resolution by striking out, in the second clause, the words "persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three," for the purpose of inserting the words " five highest."

Mr. Dana called for a division of the question.

Mr. Samdford could not help again advising the gentleman from Connecticut. The object oi the motion seemed to be to defeat the whole business by sending it back to the Senate. He trusted the question would be taken on the main resolution, on which every member, he believed, had made up his mind.

Mr. Chambehlin did not know by what spirit of divination the gentlemen penetrated into his motives. He had expressed no motive but to render the Constitution as perfect as possible, having previously expressed a wish not to change the Constitution as it at present stood.

Mr. GoDDARO. — The gentleman from Kentucky is opposed to the motion of the gentleman from Vermont. This subject has been considered before. The numbers three and five were then before us, and gentlemen with great deliberation settled five SB the best. So the resolution went from ui. and it comes back again with the number three'. The gentleman says he is for three, and intimates that It is the object of the motion of m)[ friend to defeat the whole business by sending it back to the Senate! As the amendment stood, Mr. Q. did not understand it, "the highest number, not exceeding three," could not certainly mean onlf persons having three votes.

The Chairman said the word "number" was a misprint; in the manuscript it stood numbers.

Mr. GooDARO said if a classification of persons were intended, the principle was tb; same.

Mr. Elliot was equally at a loss, with others, to discover the motives ascribed to his colleague in making this motion. Some gentlemen sa/his motive is to defeat the whole resolution. How defeat it 1 By making it conform to the resolution sent by this House to the Senate. How long is it since some gentlemen, now in favor of a precipitate decision, in protracted debates threatened, if the number five were not introduced, that they should vote against the whole resolution 1 It wet astonishing that what they themselves were so lately friendly to, should now be calculated 10 defeat the whole object!

Mr. E. said he was prepared to lose the discriminating principle forever, rather than incorporate with it the principle sent down by the Mr. Smilie said he was sorry to see the gentleman warm without occasion. He was one of those originally in favor of the number five, but had uniformly declared that that circumstance should not prevent him from agreeing to any number, provided the principle of discrimination were adopted. But gentlemen think it strange, said Mr. S., that I should utter an opinion (hit the effect of sending this resolution back to the Senate, will be to defeat it. Such was my opinion when I uttered it, and I think so still. lalsosaid that I did not like the amendment from the Senate so well as our own ; but, liking it better than the present [provisions of the Constitution, I was in favor of its adoption. When two bodies have to agree, there must be a mutual spirit of concession, or business can never be transacted. This concession takes place every day. I repeat, then, what I said before, that those who believe this the best amendment we cm get, ought to vote for it. Mr. R. Ghiswolv.— The first question is on striking out the words " p«T$oiis having the highest number, not exceeding three." If gentlemen will critically attend to these words, they will perceive that, in order la make sense of ibe resolution, or 10 accomplish their object, they must strike them out. I know perfectly well that it is disagreeable to enter into verbal criticisms in public bodies, and that they ought not to he made on ordinary occasions ; but, when we are amending the Consiiiuiion, it is proper to make ii as plain as possible, and to convey our ideas in apt words, which shall not admit a construction different from that which we intend. I ask gentlemen to tell me the meaning of these words : -' and ' if no person have such majority, then from the ' persons having the highest numbers, not exceed- ' log three, on the list of those voted for as Presi- ' dent, the HouseofRepreseDiativesahetl choose," &.C. To what does "three" refer? Either to I read, that the elections shall be confined to persons having three votes, and consequently persons not having precisely three votes, cannot be elected. This is not the intention of gentlemen, lo exclude those having the greatest number of votes, and to confine the choice to those who have only three votes, and yet the word " numbers" must refer to (he last antecedent. I do not know how it came about that the Senate introduced this absurdity into their resolution ; but I do hope that the members of this House will look to it, and see whether lhe<r are not doing a different thing from what they intended. Surely it is not the object of gentlemen to send an amendment to the people, either different from what they intended, or so obscure as not to be intelligible.

I am inclined to think the idea of the Senate was to confine the election to three classes of persons. 1 am of opinion that they have not used the apt and proper w:)rds to convey this meaning. I ask gentlemen to read over the resolution, l will venture to say three-fourths of the people who shall read it, will think it is intended to confine the election to three persons; and yet, I understand, it is the intention of the Senate only to confine it to three classes. This may, perhaps, be the true construction of the words, but, in amending the Constitution.we ought to render it as clear and explicit as possible ; so clear and explicit that every man who runs may read. I therefore trust that gentlemen will take up this resolution, and render it so clear as to avoid all doubt,

Mr. Dennis said, whatever might be the precise grammatical construction of the words proposed to be stricken out, he believed that nineteentweniieihs of the people would pi that c struclion upon them that made persot and numbers synonyi immaterial lo him whether the existing obscurity were removed by striking out these words, or introducing additional expressions. He thought it could not be denied that the words admitted of different constructioiu, n<l that they ought not to leave a principle so important to a variety of interpretations; but ought, on the contrary, to use language the most those who did not understand these words as they did, and agree 10 remove their obscurity. For this reason, he was infavor of the motion to strike Mr. J. Randolph said, that this was not the first time that the House had been sent back to their accidence and ferula, to Lilly and Ruddiman, to solve the doubts of gentlemen from Conneciicut. Since such was the case, he recommended a recurrence to a well known rule, in all cases of difficulty as to concord, to ask the question, who or what? He concurred with the gentlemen in the position, that, in all cases of construction, where the sense would warrant it, the relative was to be referred to the last antecedent. The choice is to be made out of " the persons having the highest numbers, not exceeding three." Three what? numbers — what number? highest numbers. Will the gentleman undertake to maintain that not exceeding the three highest numbers is the same as not exceeding three in number? That three numbers and the number three are one and the same? But, whether the numeral three agree with persons, or numbers, the sense contended for cannot be made out. If it refer to persons, then the choice is to be madeout of those persons, not exceeding three, having the highest numbers on the list. If to numbers, which was the evident construction, then the choice was to be made from those persons having the highest numbers, not exceeding three.

Mr. R. Obiswold said, this expression was not so clear, in his opinion, as the gentleman from Virginia thought it. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. SANDroan) says, the word "numbers" refers to persons, while the gentleman from Virginia says, they refer to the three highest numbers. which may refer to forty persons, if they should be equal. When doctors disagree, what is lo be done? 1 think the different construction of gentlemen, as well in favor of as against the lesolalioo, shows the necessity of ctoihmg it in language that will remove all doubt. If this were an amendment of a law, the obscurity of the language would not be so material, as it would be in the power of the Legislature at any time to alter it ; but, being part of the Constitution, it will be out of their reach,

Mr. Sahopobd could not see the difference between his construction and that of the gentleman from Virginia, The gentleman from Vermont had charged him with voting .for thenumberfire. and being now in favor of three. Mr. S. said, he did not vote for the number five, and he would ask that gentleman if he would not allow him to show the same spirit of accommodation that actuated himself in voting for three instead of five? The same spirit would induce him to vote for the resolution of the Senate, since they had not acquiesced in our proposition,

Mr. HuoEK, after impressing the propriety of removing the *DbscunlV of the language contained in the resolution, moved that the Committee should rise.

Motion lost-— — ayes 32.

Mr. Elliot. — It is a task of delicacy to decide whether the gentleman from Kentucky, Connecticut, or Virginia, is the best grammarian. I believe, however, that the paFm of grammatical learning and verbal criiicism will be found to be justly due to the gentleman from Virginia. On this occasion he Has been extremely ingenious; but, in undertaking to prove that there is no obscurity in the language of the amendment, I conceive that he has failed in his object. The very iosenious mode in which he has managed the subject has convinced me there is obscurity in it. He:iaysit is immaterial 10 which of iheanlecedenis the words not exceeding three refer. I do believe, though perhaps less conversant with Lilly, or Ruddimao, or Webster, than the gentleman, that it refers to persons and not to numbers. He has asked the difference between the three highest and the persons having the highest numbers, not exceeding three? If the expression should bethe three bigtiesl numbers, and it should happen thai two persons have thirty-five each, and four persons sixteen each, it will, 1 apprehend, be extremely difficult 10 determine which are the three highest persons. I believe, also, that, according to this construction, the gentleman who think five involves too great a discretion, will consider the extending the number to thirty will be still more exceptionable; but, we are told, notwithstanding all the obscurity and other defectiveness of this resolution, we must pass i[,a9 ilcameftomlhe Senate, lest by sending it back it may be defeated. But, I will prophecy, though, like Cassandra, my prophecy may not be believed until it is verified by time, that this resolution, though passed by us, will not be adopted by the State Legislatures. This, time will determine. For these reasons, 1 am in favor of erasing these words, that others may be introduced less susceptible of grammatical criticism.

Mr. Baldwin inquired, whether the expression " that the election of President, in the House of Representatives," should be confined to the persons having the highest number, not exceeding three," did not imply that the House might, if they chose, confine the election to two; and whether on such election, there must not be a preii ous question decided, whether the word "three" related to persons or numbers? How was this to be determined ? The choice of a President is to be by Stales. How is this question to be settled ; by the whole of the members? if so, what will be the consequence 1 The four States of Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Massachusetts, having a majority of all the members on the floor, ibeircombi nation may limit the number to two persons, and thus exclude the candidate who might otherwise have been voted for by the thirteen other States. Considering the effect of this construe lion, and of the different constructions put upon the language of the resolution, by «ihei gentkiaeD, ud that the language of the

would pause, and, before they gave the its final passage, make it as freefrom

;y would detain the Committee but He said he might be permitted 10 remark that, accustomed to consider subjects on principle, and to act himself under the best impressions of his judgment, he was willing to give credit to others, and to believe that they also acted on the same motives. He agreed with his friend from Virginia as to the construction proper to be put upon the amendment. By attending to every part of it. according to the rules of syntax, it appeared to him that no doubt could exist, on the most mature reflection, as to its proper construction. "The person having the greatest num- ' ber of votes for President, shall be the President, if ' such number be a majority of the whole number ' of Electors appointed; and if no person have such ' majority, then, from the persons having the high- ' est numbers, not exceeding three, on the list of ' those voted for as President, the House of Rep- ' reseniatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, ' the President." The Committee will observe, ibal, in the previous part of the paragraph, lb« term, number of votes, is used, and that reference must be had to it in construing the meaning of those words through every subsequent part of it. He believed that, by a simple reading of the paragraph, it would appear that three does refer In numbers. To give a just construction to any sentence, we must use every part of it, and not e elude a single word if we cs ' "' Taking this as a sound rule, id giving effect to the term, Ai^Aesf, highest, arzumeni t of gentlemen is answered. They pretend to say. V, when they find the expression, the highest numl Sera not exceeding three, that the highest on the list i are to be excluded, and the choice to be confined to ) persons having only three votes. The House is to take the highesl numbers — the ihre highest, whether more or less. As the Constitution now stands, it says, if no person have a majority, the House shall choose by States from the five highest. A case might occur where six of the candidates would have equal votes. What would be ibe consequence? The Constitution confines the choice to the five highest; there would, in that case, be returned to the House six candidates equal and highest- To remedy this defect, the amendment is so framed that, instead of tying down the House to a choice from five persons, it authorizes it from the three highest numbers. Gentlemen object to this by saying that it allows a wide scope, and permits the House to choose a person, having, perhaps. but one vote. And is not this the case at present? Suppose the two highest have all the voles but three, and that three other persons have but one vote each, ibe case will be precisely the sameMr. R. confessed that it was so long since he had left school, that he was not able to repeat the rule of grammar to which he bad referred, but it did appear to him, when reference was had to a substaaiiye qualified by an adjectire, it was ptopei to take both logetber. No inslrument was so perfect bailh{it,iribe pariswere taken separately, it mighi not be rendered DDDsease. He had learned, somewhere, that a cler^ymaa, reciting in a place of worihip the old version Tif ihe Psalms by Sternhold and Hopkins, had said —

"The Lord will come, and he will not — Keep silence, but speak out" — A sailor, who happened to be listening, thinking the man crazy, and all who heard him, immedi- ately left the house. So, in this case, the gentle man, by a similar species of ingenuity, may make this or any other resolution, perfect nonsense,

Mr. Dana said it was not his purpose to enter into a grammatical disquisition. To understand correctly the meaning of particular words, it was not necessary to refer to the authority of grammarians. When they understood the principles of grammar they did not want those authorities. He rose merely to observe that on the first reading of the resolution, many gentlemen entertained different ideas from those expressed by the geatlemen from Delaware and Virginia, some ^uUemen considering the term, highest, as referring to persons, and others to numbers; as had been observed, the punctuation would decide it one way or the other — the construction might depend on commas. On a question in which the passions are so apt to be engaged as in the election of a Chief Magistrate, the language ought to be plain. He did hope, therefore, that where all agreed in principle, all would agree to clothe it in language that would free it from obscurity.

Mr. Elliot moved that the Committee should This motion was lost— ayes 36, noes 66.

The question was then taken on striking out, and lost— ayes 29.

Mr. Thatcher said that in the first paragraph of the resolution, the following expression was used; "when ratified by three-fourths of the Legislatures of the several States." It appeared to him that this expression required the ratification by three-fourths of each Legislature, and not, as expressed in the Constitution, of the Legislatures of three-fourths of the States. To make the phraseology conform Id the Constitution, he moved to substitute, in the room of the former words, the following: "when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the States.”

The motion was lost without a. division.

The question being then stated on the resolution generally —

Mr. EuLioT said, as the Committee were not disposed to hear him, and as he felt quite exhausted, he should not, on cool reflection, trouble them with the full remarks he intended to make, but should, when the amendment came into the House, uk for a division of the question, and offer a few remarks in support of the opinions beheld.