November 29, 1803

The order of the day being called up on the amendments to the Coustitotion— a considerable time elapsed, when

Mr. Davtok rose and said, that since no other gentleman thought proper to address the Chair, although laboring himself under a very severecold, which rendered speaking painful, ne could not suffer the question to pass without an effort to arrest it in its progress ; and should consider his last breath well expended in endeavoring to prevent the degradation which the Slate he represented would suffer if the amendment were to prevail.

As to the question immediately before the Senate for filling the blank with five, he felt himself indebted to the member from Tennessee for renewing the subject. He was grateful, also, tty ifae member from Maryland (Mr. WmaHT) for declaring he-woald support it, as well as for f(i*- ing the aainrBnce that ne was disposed to consider and spare the interests of the small States aa far as possible, consistently with the great object of discrimination.

Every member who had spoken on this subject seemed to have admitted, by the very course and pointing of their arguments, even though they may have denied' it in words, that this was really a question between great and small States, and disguise it as they would the question would be ao considered out of doors. The privilege given by the Constitution extended to five, out of which the choice of President should be made ; and why should the smaller, for whose benefit and security thai number was given, now wantonly throw it away without an equivalent 1 As to the Vice President, his election had no influence upon the number, because the choice of President in the House of Rep resen tat ires was as free and unqualified as if that subordinate office did not exist. Nay, he said, he would venture to assert that, even if the number five were continued, and the Vice Presidency entirely abolished, there would not be as great a latitude of choice as under the present mode, because those five out of whom the choice must eventually be made, were much more likely hereafter to be nominated by the great States, inasmuch as their electors would no longer be compelled to vote for a man of a different State. The taonorable gentleman from Maryland (Ml. Smith) has said, he was not surprised that those who had seats in the old Congress, should perplex themselves with the distinctions; but he could tell that votes of the States equal, and had known the comparatively little State of Maryland controlling the will of the Ancient Dominion. It was in the Federal Convention that distinction was made and acknowledged ; and he defied that member to do, what had been before requested of the honorable gentleman from Virginia, viz : to open the Constitution, and point out a single article, if he could, that had not evidently been framed upon a presumption of diversity (he had almost said, adversity) of interest between thegreat and small States.

I had been introduced on the occasion, and admonished the Senate to put away all local considerations. That gentleman may now be prepared to do so, since he has obtained all his heart could wish for his immediate constituents; but if there was a single member who had more ably, more perse veringly, and more successfully aod warmly contended for the rights and interests of his particular State, than any or all the other on that floor, he it member. The most distant degree affect the interests of his State. It would be remembered that in the session before last, when a bill came up from the other House for allowing the privilege of franking a few letters to a gentleman who sat there as delegate, aod had travelled about thirteen hundred miles from the banks of the Mississippi to inform us that it was inhabited by other creatures than alligators, the bill was opposed by that very gentleman, upon the ground that the dignity of Georgia would be wounded, and her rights injured by the passage of that bill. It was afterwards committed and recommitted, whilst the unhappy delegate (since put in his grave, poor man! no doubt of a broken heart) was compelled to wait several weeks without writing under privilege and without drawing a shilling of money, until the gentleman from Georgia could find leisure to secure the rights and dignity of his State from being injured by allowing the delegate to frank his billets.

In a more recent and far more important transaction, it might be recollected also, how dexteronsTy, how zealously, and how very successfully he advocated the interest,* of a little corner of the Union known by the name of Georgia. On the list of expenditures there would hereafter be seen between one and two millions accounted for by being paid over to the treasury of the State he represents, as the fair fruits of his zeal and address. He may now be ready, since be has obtained thus the extent of his wishes, to banish all local attachments pending this question. He would give him credit for his assertion, and for two reasons: first, because the gentleman himself had said so ; and next, because he should, on any other principle, be at a loss to account for the vote he was about to give.

Since these instances of State attachment, and of the good fruits of it, were so fresh in the recollection of the Senate, it was to be hoped the gentleman from Georgia would allow members from other States, sometimes, to imitate bis commendable example, by taking a little care of the interests of their constituents — not in the more trivial question of franking letters or of a few dirty acres, but in a question so very serious in its nature as to strike at their sovereignty itself.

Some attention was due to the remarks of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Maolat,) who went into an ingenious but subtle distinction between civil and political rights, artfully calculated to divert the attention of the Senate from the true distinction upon which this motion and the main question turned, by amusing them with an ingenious disquisition on the rights of men in society, distinguishing them under the heads of political and civil. But without following him through his regular chain of reasoning, he would make shorter work, and reduce all that gentlemen had said to the test of analysis. To those Representatives of small States who should vole with him, his disquisition was intended doubtless as a sort of justification ; and to those of them who, although voting against him, must be compelled to submit, it was kindly meant as a consolation under the new dispensation of State influence. They were told that their rights were of two kinds, viz : political, in relation to their standing as members of a Slate, sod civil in reference I< their rights as mere individuals ; that their politi cal rights might be abolished or abridged, or their State sovereignties invaded and prosiraled, but their civil rights might remain unimpaired ; that they might, to be sure, be less respected as Jeraeymen. Rhode Islanders, or Georgians, but they would not therefore be less respected and regarded as members of the Union, or Americans. Mr. D. said he liked the gentleman's illustration his argument much better than the argument self; and he approved the machinery he bad employed much more than the use he had made of It. With his leave, therefore, he would take the materials be bad furnished for the occasion, am put them into plain and simple allegory.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania had com pared the great and small States confederated, I< rich and poor men associated in one community Let the comparison for argument's sake, be ad milled to be just, and let the analogy be pursued. Suppose these rich men, four in number, and the poor men thirteen, had entered into a com par' which required that achief should be chosen iror among them once in four years, and that, as their votes would be in proportion to their wealth, the four men would have a preponderance over (I other thirteen. Suppose them allowed to vote for themselves exclusively, but with this stipuli tion, that if. on the first ballot, a majority should be found for one, it should devolve upon the whole seventeen to decide upon a chief, with equal voices; would it not in this case'be (be interest of these four to limit the choice to the three highest on the list, and of the thirteen to extend it to five 1 In the first case of three, they would be compelled to elect one of the three rich, however unworthy ; and in the other case, they would be at liberty to choose one of their own number, if they thought him better qualified than any of the other four. They might, it was true, risk Ibe displeasure of the four rich men, but why debar themselves from doing it, if the case should justify their running the risk? This could with propriety besaid to be such a case, or, to drop all figure, a question between the great and small States. The ConatilatioD allowed a choice from the five highest on the list, and why should we debar ourselves of the right of such a choice? It was a privilege which ought to be persisted in, even though the resentment of the great States might be aroused. As expressed in the animated language of the honorable gentleman from Virginia, " their power was great, and he could hear the menace of a former day reverberating through the Senate Chamber;" its effects would perhaps be best ascertained by the vote which was to follow.

Mr. Wright rose only to correct an error into which the gentleman from New Jersey had fallen, eoncerning the number five, which he had spoken in favor of on a former day; he had never admitted nor argued that the number five or three would affect the Constitution or the small States; he had, on the contrary, declared that all he wanted was the discriminating principle; and so that was effected, be cared not whether the choice wu to be made from five or from twenty. As he had not used such arguments, he supposed he muat have been imposed upon, by the misrepresentation of his sentiments in an infamous paper, called the fVatkingion Federalist, in which nothing said on his side of the House was reported truly; (hat paper had falsified his speech, and he took that opportunity to state that, whosoever was the reporter of hU speech in that paper, was guilty of

Mr. D1.YT0H observed that the allusion he had made was to the support which the gentleman cel> tainlygave to the number five; as to what the paper alluded to might say, he had nothing to

Mr. Wright had repeatedly advocated the discriminating principle, and he had been represented as holding opinions which he did not hold, that (he amendment was an attack on the small States; now, as he had never entertained that opinion, and as that infamous paper had so misrepresented him, he must repeal, Inat whoever wrote that charge in that paper, wrote a lie.

Mr. Dayton hoped the gentleman did not mean to connect him in his observations; he could not certainly suspect him as the author of any piece in ihai paper.

Mr. Cocke had also come in for a share of the gentleman's thanks, but there were none due, ai e had acted as one of the majority, and was willing by giving them an opportunity to say all they had to say infavorof the number five. With him, at first, it was a matter. of indifference, so he obtained the discriminating principle. His cons tituenls were unanimous in favor of this principle and he had their instructions to that effect. He preferred the number three for the reasons he had already given; it brought the election closer to (he people ; five would give a greater latitude, and subject it to the Legislature, which he did not wish to see take place. As to those dreadful consequences, and all this depredation of States, he lould not see how those things could happen, What if the larger States Stales were were foolish foolish enough enough to attempt the enalav ement of the smaller States, were the small States so feeble and so few as not to be able to prevent them? As (0 this degradation of small States, he could recollect the time when it was said that if Pennsylvania would give an unanimous vote. New Jersey would give vote to counteract it. He knew nothing that would degrade a State so much as intrigues of such a nature; and, it was to avoid that degradation, he wished for the amendment. He wished the President not to be an intriguer; he wished to have him what he now is, the man of (he people; and, for that purpose, he would vote for three.

Mr. Jackson had intended to have given only a naked vote on this question, but the profusion of compliments heaped upon him for merely discharging his duty, demanded some return; he had been sent to that body to watch the interests of his State, and to do, to the best of his judgment, jusbetween it and the United States. He bad conceived Ibe rights of Georgia invaded, and he felt it to be his duly to seek justice according 10 the Constitution. Whatever gentlemen may insinuale about dirty acres, no] Stale of the Union was so much oppressed as Georgia had been ; doi by the large States, from whicn the gentleman apprehends so much, but by the small. Let any gentleman consult the Convention at New York, and they will God that not a single small State came forward to support her protest against a great wrong when a treaty was sanctioned that violated her rights and parcelled out her territory. As well might the Union pretend to give apPhiladelphia to Great Britain, as the county of Talassee to a parcel of tomahawking Indians. Had that gentleman been a Representative no doubt he would have come down upon them in thunder, he would have with a loud voice rent the Hall of Congress with the wrongs of the State, and the ravase and carnage to which it was exposed ; he would have described the children torn from their mothers' arms by the unfeeling savage, and dashed to pieces ; the matron abused and murdered ; and deplored that, to the authors of such cruelties, Ihe territory had been consigned.

Gentlemen either knew not or cared not for these wrongs ; and, after several years supplication, it was only two years ago that half justice was done ; for half what was taken away by usurpation, has not been restored by justice. We had paid other States for defending the Union, but Georgia had not yet been paid, and it remains yet to be liDown, whether the widow, bereaved of her husband in battle, or murdered by treachery, while defending his country, or the orphan who survived her murdered parents, are to be remunerated even for their country and equitable demands. Government by a law seized upon this territory and legislated for it. It was for that territory a Delegate wassent, to whom the gentleman adverted. He opposed the extension of the privilege of franking to any Delegate, because agreeing to it would be to acknowledge the title of injustice.

No State had ever been oppressed by Georgia; year after year they had sent petitions demanding payment for the service of the militia which had protected the frontiers, but they had not been paid to this hour.

Upon the merits of the question of numbers, he had wished to remain silent, hot, as he was up, he would intrude upon the House a few observations. He preferred the number three, for several serious reasons; he wished to prevent the choice from devolving upon the House of Representatives ; he wished it to be out of their power, if it should devolve upon them, to elect any man not evidently intended by the people ; the smaller number would render this more certain ; he did not consider it a matter of any consequence from what Stale a President was chosen ; he believed the small States had never offered a candidate ; the period ' o short, since the existence of the Government to admit of manv States having an opportunity to bring forward a candidate; and various good causes had contributed to make the selealions that had been from large States. While Earties existed there would be a champion chosen y each; if New Jersey has not brought forward one. it cannot be for want of inclination; and where Princeton College exists it would be ungracious to suppose that the requisite talents could not be found there. Georgia had never wished to bring forward a candidate, neither had Tennessee, nor several other States. He believed that wherever a man should be found in the Union distinguished by biaTirlne3,hisgenius, aodhisdevotioa lo republican principles, that he would be taken up, without concern for the Stale in which he has his residence.

This league of the large States, so much harped upon, he could not comprehend ; where was it to be formed, and how 1 Are we certain that Mas'sachusetts and Virginia. Pennsylvania and New York, will, DOlwithatandinglheir distance, several interests, and views, combine to tie the small States, hands and feel 7 No, sir, we 6i»d the large Slates disagreeing and as jealous of each other as the small ; and with more reason, if the argument has any weight at all.

He preferred the number three in the amendment, as it brought the election two degrees nearer to the people; because a Constitution was not intended for the convenience of the servants, but for the use of the Sovereign — the people. Outof five persons the provision for a choice was before directed to be made; the Constitution as now proposed to be altered would approach to the principle and number of five in a safer and more certain way, for the President would be chosen out of the three highest, and the Vice President out of two others. It was not proper that any man should have a chance of being placed in a situation of so much consequence, contrary to the intention of the people. It is, iherefore,ourdtilf to prevent such an occurrence; and we ought to send cur amendment to the people as free from defects as possible, because their rights are involved therein ; neglect iheir rights, and they will form a Constitution for themselves ; or, in seeking to reform it, they will incur the dangers, either oT a sanguinary revolution, or of the establishment of a Government like that of Great Britain, sustained by corruption and wretchedness of the Mr. TikTLoR would trespass on the House with a few observations. With other gentlemen, he was not so much disposed to dispute about the number five or three, as strenuous to obtain the principle of designation. The argument of those who opposed the amendment, he perceived, had been all along founded on extreme cases, which, even if they were to happen, would not produce the affirmed eflects on the small States. The number three he certainly preferred, because it gave a greater certainty to popular choice; the extreme case of this would be an election by the House of Representatives ; if the number were three, how would this operate in the House 1 Would not the small States have a greater share of influence than the large States, in the proportion of thirteen to four? Another case is, that election should remain in the divisible electoral bodies, as heretofore, or, in the extreme, be elected by an accumulated body in tbe House of Representatives. Would this latter be in favor of the small States Would the election by a Diet be preferable or safer than the choice by Electors in various places so remote as to be out of the scope of each other's influence, and so numerous as not to be accessible by corruption? It is true, that the QuiQl>er number three has a greater tendency to give the choice to the people; it cannot be true that the small States would wish to place it in the House of Representatives, because three would give the people the choice; and, even if they did wish to take the choice out of the hands of the people, it ought to be opposed, because it is contrary to the spirit and intent of the Constitution.

The division of election is one of the sonodest principles of the Constitution ; elections are more free and less liable to passion and corruption in the state of division ; for experience has shown that elections, any more than Executive powers. cannot be so well effected by accumulative bodies. Your Constitution directs elections in States, not assembled in one place. Andwhy? Toprevent the evils to which Diets or Legislative bodies are exposed. Does not three, then, adhere infinitely more to the leading principle of your Constitution, by placing it in the power of lh< election districts, and keeping out of the reach of the numerous or accumulate body the choice 1 Is it not necessary to guard, by every means, against what has proved fatal to so many Republics?

Let the extreme cases, on the other hand, be taken. The number five is adopted. For what end? To carry iheelection lolheHouseofRepreseniatives; will the small States be benefited by five more than three? Will they not, from the number, be more likely to be divided ; and would not a number of the large States then possess all the advantages of number and union? For the gentlemen consider this union of the large States as certain, and they cannot refuse their own arguments, or the consequences of them.

Suppose the elective power of the people annihilated, and transferred solely to the Legislature? Would the small States consent to thisi Would they be so blind 1 Yet, by adapting five, you promote this evil ; by three you prevent it. And yet gentlemen say they look upon this as only a contest of small and large States.

The gentleman from New Jersey had talked something of a threat, alleged to have been thrown out in that House, by him in a former day's debate. He would beg leave to say, that the gentleman had most egregiously misrepresented or misconstrued him. But he could see in it a very shallow stratagem; he thought the gentleman possessed more skill ; had his eeaeralship been as great as his reputation he would not have planted his ambuscade where the enemy must see him from all ■ides, and expose all his force by this state of his advance party. When he heard this clamor about the danger of small States, he was led to ask, what was their number? And, looking round that House, he found that there were thirteen represented, and only four large States! ! Are the Representatives of the small States in this Senate, then, so blind to their danger, that, possessed of a full majority of nine States, they will deny themselves the power of self-government? It is tt principle ofheroism, or something else, which enables minorities to govern ; but it is a principle of reason and virtue, which gives the Government to majorities in a free Government. Are we, then, in making the designating principle, to adhere to the form and desert the substance t How does the Constitution now stand 1 We choose from five the President and Vice President. How, if we adopt three? Then thePresident would be chosen from three, and the Vice President from two making five. Here preserving the substance, and indirectly the form. How, if we adopt the designating principle, and leave the number five? Then, we would choose the President from the five, and the Vice President from two other — making seven ! The more the subject is exam' ined (he more we must be convinced that three should have the preference.

Before he sat down he would say a word more there were intimations held out ii the debate, that bloodshed would be the result of the amendment of the Constitution; ; and many other expressions of that nature had been employed, which by no means argued decorum, and could not serve as argument with any member of that House. The malignant passion of jealousy was conjured up, to be the herald of this civil discord, and the most disastrous afflictions were predicted as the consequence. In glancing at these unwarranted and unwarrantable sentiments, he had assumed it as a principle not to be overthrown, ihal free governments must exist upon moral rectitude, or perish ; and that if the United States were capable of being actuated to rage by their pernicious and destructive passions, rectitude and morality would no longer exist among them, and they must be destroyed by each other. What, sir, because there are strong and powerful States, must the weak be tolerated to menace them with injury and bloodshed, without the liberty of warring against the fatal consequences? Are strong men bound to bear the wrongs done them by the weak? Are the rich to fold their arms and bear inference that must be made from what the gentleman has undertaken to call a threat. Wherefore threaten with good? Can evil be the result of good, or good of evil 1 Natural and moral consequences flow from moral actions ; and when there are any who undertake to do evil, it is but strict justice he should suffer. He found some difficulty in bringing himself to notice this charge of a threat, because he had perceived, particularly in the paper published - this city, a common practice of misrepresen lain. In a former day's debate he had alluded to the fatal effects which the British Government had produced on the liberty and prosperity of that country, by the means of the rotten boroughs ; and he bad been misrepresented as depreciating the small States and describing them as the rotten boroughs of America. It must be obvious that • purposed intention to misrepresent could alone save given sentiments of the kind as uttered by him. He bad not alluded to the States io their capacity as States; he had objected to elections hf diets, and the small States having but few repreaeo tali yes, he stated as more exposed to corrupt attempts upon them, than States where the number was larger. !□ an election by the House of Represeata lives this would be the case: some States have but one, others two representatives, attempts would be made upon them, anil though we have had virtue enough to resist temptation, OUT country must be like all others subject to the casual decay of virtue, and at a future day the represen la lives of small States may become as ~ venal as those of the rotten boroughs of England; r the feelings,

Mr. Adamb in a former debate had stated that he had not a wish to avoid or seek for the yeas and nays on any question ; on the present occasion, however, he would, when the question was taken, call for the yeas and navs. But his own vote on the final question would be governed by the decision of the number five, and he wished to have some record of his vote, that he might be hereaiter able to defend himself against any charge of inconsistency. On the principle of the amendment he had formed his opinion, and he was free to confess, that notwithstanding the many able productions which he had seen against it, he thought it calculated to produce more good than evil. He was not however influenced In this opinion by the instructions which had been read in a preceding debate from a former Legislature of Massachusetts to their Senators; he presumed these were not read by way of intimidation. To the instructions of those to whom he owed his seat in that House he would pay every respect that was due, but he did not think that the resO' lulions of a Legislature passed in March 1799 or 1800 ought 10 have ih£ same weight. Since thai time four total and complete changes had taken place, and probably not one third of those who gave those instructions now remained. He held a seat in the Legislature himself three years since, but did not perceive any particular anxiety on the subject, and he did not think that the present Legislature would be extremely offended If he were to give a direct vote against what was lecommenoed four years ago. But as It seemed lo be read to influence him he would state his leaaons for his vote.

Upon the alteration of the number from that agreed upon by the House of Representatives several arguments had been offered ; they were of three descriptions.

1. That no alteration of the Constitution ought to take place unless it should be indispensably necessary, and that in altering ibe Constitution no departure should be made from its spirit.

2. That it ought not to be carried In the House of Represeata I ires.

3. That the alteration proposed would affect the small States.

To the first he would say that although the amendment might be useful, yet it was not necessary.

The gentleman from South Carolina f Mr. Bdtler) had argued on the necessity of adhering to the principles of the Constitution on a former day with great force; and though his arguments were used upon an amendment of another kind proposed by himself they applied in this case as closelv as possible; the same arguments had been used oy other gentlemen, on a suggestion of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Dayton) concerning the abolition of the office of Vice President. It is true that some gentlemen declared that they had no objection to the abolition, but disapproved of the time It was brought forward ; he agreed and voted with the gentleman on that ocBut the ground is now changed and we are told that the principle of designation is not so much the choice as to keep the election out of the House of Representatives, and in a variety of ingenious arguments we are referred back to antiquity to justify the Injurious effect resulting from elections by diets. As a speculation upon the principles of government he admired the gentleman's informaiion and eloquence, but he was not prepared to act upon the principle. We bad been shown the great inconveniences of carrying the elections into the House of Representatives; make it a separate question, and let it be fairly and fully discussed and he would then prepare his mind to vote. But before he could act on it now. he would just observe, that If you do not pursue that course you pursue some other, and It would be necessary to provide a substitute before we abandon that we possess. This consideration he therefore thought ad no concern with the subject before us. On the third point, that it would essentially affect the rights of the small States, he th ought it the true object of discussion; and beitawit wholly as a federative question, and rejected all arguments of the popular kind. From the mode in which it had been argued the question would seem to be a dispute between sixteen small, and one large State. The Constitution however was a combination of federative and popular principles. When you argue upon, or wish to change any of its federative principles, you must use analogies as arguments; popular arguments will not apply lo federative principles, The House of Represen la lives was founded on popular principles; in this House the represeniaiiou is federative, and not popular, It is in its nature aristocratic. The foundation of all popular representation is equality of votes; bul even the ratio of representation is different in different States; the numbers in Massachusetts and Virginia, in Vermont and Delaware, are different in their proportions; but still an equality of representation Is preserved, and the only difference Is in the details. But If you argue upon the principles of the Senate, this equality of popular representation, or by an equal or relatively equal number, will not apply ; you must discuss it upon another species of equality, of sovereignties, and the independence of several Slates federatively connected. Applying principles then to the eiejcSenate. tion of President, if you reduce the number from which the House of Representatives is authorized to choose, do you ool attack the principles of (he federal compact, rather than the rights of the small States 7 - The Executive, it hadWa said, is the man of the people ; true, and he ia also, as was said, though upon different grounds, the man of the Legislature — it was here a combined principle, federative and popular. Virginia had in that House twenty-two popular representatives, in this she has two federative; Delaware has one popular and two federative representatives. And even in the operation of election in the popular branch of Congress, the federative principle is pursued. and the State which has only one popular representative has an equal voice in that instance with the State that has twenty-two popular representatives. It was therefore evident that the attempt to alter the number from five to three, is an attack upon the federative principle, and not upon the small States.

In answer to the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. DiTTOtJ,) the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Smith) had said he was not surprised to hear him who was a member of the old Confederation talk of the jealousy of States, and expressed much exultation that those State jealousies had been long laid asleep ; that he had been ten years in the Government and had heard nothing of them; hoped never to hear of them again, He was equally happy that they had been so long laid asleep; but why was it that they had not complained 1 For very different reasons from those which had been inferred. It was because the excellent provisions of the Constitution had guarded against all cause of complaint. The States had no reason to murmur, and they had not been stirred up; but is it to be therefore inferred that if you now give them cause, that they will be equally silent, and that it may not tend to civil discord ? He knew of nothing more likely lo stir them up than an attempt to reform your federative institutions upon popular princip^s.

The gentleman from Virginia, as he understood him the other day, had intimated that the smaller States ought to be cautious how they excited the indignation of the large States ; on this account he had complained that the gentleman from New Jersey had misrepresented him. From the illustration of his statements now given he was persuaded that no threat was intended on that occasion ; but as that impression was made, it surely was incumbent on those who felt it to notice it. Was it unnatural for a gentleman coming from a comparatively small State to feel indignant under such a circumstance 1 The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Taylor) is so ingenious, that, like all ingenious men, his sentiments are not at once accessible to plain minds, and to this cause misapprehension ought to be attributed.

Another gentleman from Virginia (Mr. NicaoLAs) had said that the amendment had originated with .the small States; that the small States having a majority in this House and a majority of the Legislatures, may defeat it if they choose; and these are with him decisive as to safety. But Ammdm^ii to the Constititlion.

States, and that having had no opportunity to examine it, the arguments do not apply. It is bjr this principle his own vote should be regulated if three were adopted, he should vote against the amendment.

But the gentleman (Mr. Taylor) had taken another novel ground — that the smaller number was the most favorable to the small States. This, however, he supported by a mode of argument to which he had himself objected. He had argueil that if it was proposed to vest the election of Prwident in the House of Repreaenta lives exclusively, it would not be agreed to by the small Stales, because it was contrary to their interests. But this was an extreme case, and the gentleman well knew that, so far from its being consistent with sound loi;ic,lo argue from extreme cases, they are not admitted into argument at all.

Mr. S. Smith when he made the motion for the principles of the Constitution; which, if he understood it right, intended that the election of the Executive should be in the people, or as nearly as was possible, consistent with public order and security to the right of suffrage. The provision admitting the choice by the House of Represeotalives, was itself intended only for an extreme case, where great inconvenience might result from sending a defective election back to the people, as is customary; in Massachusetts, where, if the majority is deficient, a new election is required. Our object in the amendment is or should be to make the election more certain by the people. This was to be done most effectually by leaving it to them to designate the persons whom they preferred for each office. As under the present form there was an extreme case, so there might be when the changeof number should take place; for, although even with the number three, there was a possibility of the choice devolving on the House of Representatives, yet the adoption of the designating principle and the number three, would render the case less probable. It never was the intention of the framers of the Constitution that the election should go to the House of Representatives but in the extreme case ; nor was it ever contemplated that about one fifth of the people should choose a President for the rest, which e^^ tainly would be the case if what some gentlemen contended for were to take place. When gentlemen contend for such a power as would transfer the choice from the people, and place it in the hands of a minority so small, how happens it that gentlemen will not bear to hear of the efforts which such arguments or such measures would produce on the large States 7 It was not the interest of the small States to combine against the large. Suppose it were possible that the four large States should combine — and a combination of the small States alone could produce such an effect— nine States in the Union have but thiriytwo votes out of one hundred and forty-two, yet nine States, with one vote each, make a majority of BCTeDteen, though in relation to popoIsiioD ihey contain only about oae-Srih of ine whole ; ■DO by such B proceeding the one-fifth might choose B President and Vice President in defiance of the other four-fifths. What would be the sequence of such an election At a subsequent) election the large States would hi eonihiD«, and by the use of their votes they would frustrate every object which the small States might use their efforts to accomplish. .

Notwithstanding what had been said eoneei ing the jealousy of States, he could see nothing io It but the leaven of the old Congress, thrown in to work up feelings that had been long still. It was the forlorn hope, the last stratagem of party ; and he was the more disposed to think so, when he saw gentlemen from the large States coming forward as the champions of thesmall — Ibis might tob&sure,be magnanimity; but irhisdisoernment did not deceive him, it was a stratagem to divide the friends of the amendment. Why was not the same jealousy entertained of the power of thirteen out of seventeen combining and giving absolute law to the other four? Why have gentlemen Ciid no regard to the experience which they have ad from the last election, when less than one third of the members harassed the public mind, kept the Union in agitation, and Congress engrosses to the exclusion of nearly all other business for two weeks? Suppose that the House had been asaccessible to corruption as the dietsof other nations hare been, and that three men, having io their power the votes of three States, had been seized upon, and the election made contrary to the wishes of the people. What would be the effect— on the minds of the people — on the adraioiuration of the Government — and on the attachment which the people feel for the Constitution itself? Heneed not attempt todescribetheeffeets. But it is our duty to prevent the return of <och dangers, by keeping theelection out of that House. And the most effectual mode is to fix the selection from the number three.

The gentleman from New Jersey had affected to coo Elder a comparison of the effects of combinations of States, as a threat against the small States. He had listened as he always did to the ingenious arguments of the gentleman from Vi arguments with particular occasion, because they carried to his mind that conviction which truth always carries couched in the language of sincerity. To him, the gentleman's observations on that day conveyed thesame ideas and convictions which his explanations conveyed this day in a more copious way, but to him it appeared impossible; and if he had not heard the gentleman from New Jersey, (he confessed with astonishment,) he could not have believed it practicable to give any coloring of menace to his arguments. The gentleman from New Jersey hu censured the gentleman from Georgia for his attention to the State which he represented ; but what bearing had the gentleman's discharge of hiidniy to his State on the prcMDt question 1 The gentleman from Qeo^[ift had not taken op the present question on the narrow ground of a selfish, jealous, and illiberal policy, but upon great national principles. It was the practice of that gentleman to net ; it was his practice to discharge his duty with fidelity to his Slate and to his country at large, and such conduct reflected honor on him.

The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Adams) says we had forgot the main object ; that we changed our ground; and that having first claimed the designating principle, we abandoned it in order to keep the election of President out of the House of Representatives. The gentleman had misconceived the subject entirely ; il he would only consider the subject again, he would find that nothing had been abandoned, nor anything new assumed ; he would find that the principles correspond so exactly as to support and enforce each other. It is to place the election in the hands of the people we wish to designate ; it is for the same purpose we wish to keep the election out of the House of Re preseoia lives ; it is to prevent intrigues we wish to designate; it is to prevent intrigues we wish to keep the choice out of the House of Representatives; it is to conform the election, out of three instead of five, to the spirit of the Constitution, that we wish to adopt that number, and the wish to keep it out of the House of Representatives is already sanctioned by the Constitution. Where, then, is this contradiction— this abandonment of one principle and adoption of another? When he referred to one part of the gentleman's speech and compared it with another, he felt some concern when ne considered the gentleman as the champion of the small States.

Mr. AoAMs said he did not professs to be the champion of the small States.

Mr. Smith.— When the gentleman first rose he said he was the representative of a large, and he did call for the champions of the small States to ne forth, in their defence ; upon the failure of answer to this challenge he had boldly entered the lists himself in their defence, and carried his hivalry so far as to marshal the contending paries, contrary to all former order, into sixteen small and one large State) What was the intention of this mode of distinction; to what end waeitdirecld 7 Was it not to excite envy and jealousy, the voTst of all passions which affect man 7 Was it joaai stent with professions of regard for the public good to encourage this rivalry of States — the commercial against the agricultural— the East against the South— the small against the large 1 There was something in this besides liberality. Hesays he is not the champion of the small States, yet he tells you how they could be stirred up and what would be the consequence if they were roused ; he tells you of the distinction between federative and popular principles ; and has employed all his ingenuity to induce the belief that we wish to undo the federative principle, to sacrifice it to the popular principle, which is, he has told you, the thing above all others which would stir up the small States and no doubt arm this classification of atxieeo against the one State. But the people were not to be stirred up hy such arsiimeni; they would koow the value of national union and unanimity to their prosperity and liberty too well to be led away by anything we may say or do on this floor.

While be was up he would offer aDobserratioD or two on what had fallen from the gentleman from South Carolina. He had said that theobject of the amendment was to prevent the election of a Federal Vice President. Undoubtedly such would be the effect of the amendment. The real effect of the amendment was two-fold— to guard against the dangers of intrigue and corruption, and to place the choice in the power of the people. Could that gentleman who was a member of the Convention object to render one of its fairest and best principles more safe and secure 1 Was it an objectionable principle to secure to the majority of the people the right of choosing their chief officers 1 This was intended by keeping the election out of the other House, and by limiting the number to three to leave as little room for corruption as possible, should it ever devolve by any accident on that House to make the choice. For if ever the right should again devolve on that House, he not only saw reason to apprehend corruption among ourselves but dread it from foreign nations. Had our people been as corrupt as European nations generally are, there was a facility for it at our late election ; but the members were incorruptible and we were saved. It is to guard against the danger we look for this amendment. That gentleman being a member of the Convention who formed the Constitution deems it sacrilege to touch that instrument, yet in an early state of discussion he had found that sacred as it was to him there was a part which he wished to change, and had brought forward an amendment for the purpose. The merits of that gentleman's amendment he was not now called upon to discuss, but with the lights which be at present. possessed, it was probable he might give it his approbation; and it surely could not ne deemed so extraordinary if other gentlemen should wish to amend certain parts, when one of the framers of the Constitution had thought it susceptible of amendment.

Mr. PicKBRiNa had not intended to have spoken on this question so far as it concerned the numbers ; but as he should probably vote differently from his colleague, he conceived it proper to give his motives for his vote. His wishes for the entire preservation of the Constitution were so Btrong, that he regretted any change was contemplated to be made in it, and he wished if an alteration was made to keep as near as possible to the spirit of the Constitution as it now is, and ' it appeared to him that the number three conformed more to that spirit than the number jSee. He believed it to be the intention of the Constitution, that the people should elect. As to what gentlemen said concerning the will of the people, he paid but little regard to it. The will of the people! he did not know how the will of the people could be known— how gentlemen came by it; it would not be asserted that it was to be found in the newspapers, or in private society; in truth he believed ii never had been fairly expressed OQ the subject. We have seen amendment brought forward from New York, but was that an expressi.onof the public opinion 1 if it was, it was a very remarkable one, for it contained an absurdityvisible 10 every one. He wished to avoid inoo* vations on the Constitution, and to preserve the combined operation of federative and popular principles upon which it rested unimpaired.

Mr. WoBTBiNQToH hoped the number three would be adopted in preference to five. Nevertheless be approved so much of the principle of designation in the election of the President and Vice President, that rather than lose it he would vote for it with either number.

The yeas and nays being called for on filling up the blank with the largest number according to order; the votes were — yeas 12, nays 19, as follows ;

Yiii — Maura. Adams, Bailey, Butler, Condit, Dayton, Hillhouse, Olcott, Plumer, Tracy, Wells, White, and Wright.

Niis — Meurs. Baldwin, Bradley, Breckenridge, Brown, Cocke, Ellery, Franklin, Jackson, Logan Mao Uy, Nicholas, Pickering, Potter, Israel Smith, John Smith, Samuel Smith, Stone, Taylor, and Worthington. The question on the number three being inserted was then put, and the yeas and nays being demanded one fifth of the members present; they were, yeas SI, nays 10, as follows:

Yiis — Meecn. Bailey, Baldwin, Bradley, Breckenridge, Brown, Cocke, EUery, Franklin, Jackson, Logan, Maclay, Nicholas, Pickering, Potter, Israel Smith, John Smith, Samuel Smith, Stone, Taylor, Worthington, and Wright.

Nits — Messrs. Adams, Ad^nu, Butler, Condit, Dayton, Hillhouse, Olcott, Plumer, Tracy Wells, and White. The House then adjourned.