acceded to by the other friends of the proposition, on the principle of accommoɑs tion, it had a vote of seven states."

THURSDAY, April 19.

The instructions of Virginia against relinquishing the Mississippi were laid before Congress by the delegates of that state, with a motion that they should be referred to the department of foreign affairs, by way of information.

The reference was opposed by Mr. KING and Mr. BENSON, as unnecessary for that purpose, the instructions having been printed in the newspapers.

In answer to this, it was observed, that the memorial accompanying the instructions had never been printed; that if it had, no just objection could be thence drawn against an official communication; that if Congress would submit a measure, as they had done yesterday, to the opinion of their minister, they ought at least to supply him with every fact, in the most authentic manner, which could assist his judgment; and that they had actually referred to the same minister communications. relative to the western views, less interesting and authentic, and which he had made the basis of a report to Congress.

The motion was lost, Massachusetts and New York being against it, and Con necticut divided. Mr. MITCHELL, from the latter state, was displeased at the negatives, as indicating a want of candor and moderation on the subject.59

MONDAY, April 23.

Mr. Jay's report, stating objections against the motion of Mr. Madison for sending Mr. Jefferson to Madrid, was taken into consideration.

Mr. MADISON observed, that Mr. Jay had not taken up the proposition in the point of view in which it had been penned; and explained what that was, to wit, that it was expedient to retract the step taken for ceding the Mississippi, and to do it in a manner as respectful and conciliating as possible to Spain, and which, at the same time, would procrastinate the dilemma stated by Mr. Jay. He said he was not attached to the expedient he had brought forward, and was open to any other that might be less exceptionable.

Mr. GORHAM avowed his opinion that the shutting the Mississippi would be advantageous to the Atlantic States, and wished to see it shut.

Mr. MADISON animadverted on the illiberality of his doctrine, and contrasted it with the principles of the revolution, and the language of American patriots. Nothing was done in the case.

WEDNESDAY, April 25.

Mr. MADISON, observing to Congress that he found a settled disinclination in some of the delegations to concur in any conciliatory expedient for defending the Mississippi against the operation of the vote of seven states, and that it was hence become necessary to attack directly the validity of that measure, to the end that the adversaries to it, and particularly the instructed delegations, might at least discharge their duty in the case, made the following motion:

Whereas it appears by the report of the secretary for the department of foreign affairs, made on the 11th instant, that, in consequence of a vote entered into by seven states on the 29th day of August last, he has proceeded to adjust with Mr. Guardoqui an article for suspending the right of the United States to the common use of the river Mississippi below their southern boundary: And whereas it is considered that the said vote of seven states, having passed in a case in which the assent of nine states is required by the Articles of Confederation, is not valid for the purpose intended by it; and that any further negotiations in pursuance of the same may eventually expose the United States to great embarrassments with Spain, as well as excite great discontents and difficulties among themselves: resolved, therefore, that the secretary for the said department be informed that it is the opinion of Congress that the said vote of seven states ought not to be regarded as authorizing any suspension of the use of the River Mississippi by the United States, and that any expectations thereof, which may have been conceived on the part of Spain, ought to be repressed.

Mr. KING reminded Congress that this motion was barred by the rule, that no question should be revived which had been set aside by the previous question, unless the same states, or an equal number, be present, as were present at the time of such previous question. This rule had been entered into in consequence of a

similar motion made shortly after the vote of seven states had passed. Mr. KING contended, that this rule was a prudent one, and recommended by the practice of all deliberative assemblies, who never suffered questions once agitated and decided, to be repeated at the pleasure of the unsuccessful party.

Mr. MADISON admitted that the rule, if insisted on, was a bar to his motion; but that he had not expected that it would be called up, being so evidently im proper in itself, and the offspring of the intemperance which characterized the epoch of its birth. As it was called up, however, it was become necessary that a preliminary motion for its repeal should be made, and which be accordingly made. His objections against the rule were

First, that it was an attempt in one Congress to bind their successors, which was not only impracticable in itself, but highly unreasonable in the very instance which gave birth to the rule. Twelve states were on the floor at the time; seven were for the previous question, five against it. The casting number, therefore, was but two.. Was it not unreasonable that eleven states, unanimously of a contrary opinion, should be controlled by this small majority when twelve were present; and yet such would be the operation of the rule, if eleven states only should at any time happen to be present, although they should be unanimous in the case.

Secondly, the operation of the vote in another respect was still more reprehensible. In the former case the eleven states, or even seven, could extricate themselves by a repeal of the rule. In case a number less than seven should wish to justify themselves by any particular motion, they might be precluded by such a rule. Six states, instructed by their constituents to make a particular proposition, or to enter a particular protest, might be thus fettered by a stratagem of seven states. In the case actually depending, three states were instructed, and two, if not three, more ready to vote with them.

Thirdly, the practice of other assemblies did not reach this case, and if it did the reason of it would be inapplicable. The restriction in other assemblies related to the same assembly, and even to the same session. Here the restriction is perpetual. In legislative assemblies, no great inconvenience would happen from a suspension of a law for a limited time. In executive councils, which are involved in the constitution of Congress, and particularly in military operations and negotiations, the vicissitude of events would often govern, and a measure improper on one day might become necessary the next.

Mr. CLARK and Mr. VARNUM contended that the rules of the Congress for the last year were not in force during the present, and supposed that a repeal was unnecessary.

In the course of this discussion, the question as to the validity of the vote of seven states, and the merits of the proposition of Mr. MADISON, barred by the rule, incidentally came into view. The advocates of the latter did not maintain the validity, or rather studiously avoided giving an opinion on it. They urged only the impropriety of any exposition by Congress of their own powers, and of the validity of their own acts. They were answered, that the exposition must be somewhere, and more properly with Congress than with one of their ministerial officers; that it was absurd to say that Congress, with information on their table that a treaty with a foreign nation was going on without a constitutional sanction, should forbear, out of such scruple, to assert it, and prevent the dilemma which would ensue, of either recognizing an unconstitutional proceeding, or of quarrelling with the King of Spain; that Congress had frequently asserted and expounded their own powers, and must frequently be obliged to do so. What was the late address to the states, on the subject of the treaty of peace, but an exposition and vindication of their constitutional powers? That, in the vote itself, the entry, "so it was resolved in the affirmative," asserted it to be valid and constitutional; the vote of seven states. when nine were required, being otherwise to be entered, like a vote of six states, in the negative.

It appearing to be the inflexible predetermination of the advocates for the Spanish treaty to hold fast every advantage they had got, the debate was shortened, and an adjournment took place without any question.

Note. Mr. King, in conversation repeatedly, though not in public debate, maintained that the entry," so it was resolved in the affirmative," decided nothing as to the validity of the vote of seven states for yielding the Mississippi and that it

amounted to no more than a simple affirmation, or summary repetition, of the fact that the said seven states voted in the manner stated!!!

THURSDAY, April 26.

The question on the motion to repeal the rule was called for after some little conversation. Mr. CLARK moved that it might be postponed, which was agreed to. Nothing further was done in this business till Wednesday, May 2d, when Mr. Madison left New York for the convention to be held in Philadelphia.

It was considered, on the whole, that the project for shutting the Mississippi was at an end a point deemed of great importance in reference to the approaching convention for introducing a change in the federal government, and to the objection to an increase of its powers, foreseen from the jealousy which had been excited by that project.60

LETTERS

PRIOR TO THE CONVENTION OF 1787

TO EDMUND RANDOLPH.

NEW YORK, February 25, 1787. DEAR SIR,- The secretary's despatch will have communicated to you the resolution of Congress giving their sanction to the proposed meeting in May next. At the date of my last, a great division of opinion prevailed on the subject, it being supposed by some of the states that the interposition of Congress was necessary to give regularity to the proceeding, and by others that a neutrality on their part was a necessary antidote for the jealousy entertained of their wishes to enlarge the powers within their own administration. The circumstance which conduced much to decide the point, was an instruction from New York to its delegates, to move in Congress for some recommendation of a convention. The style of the instruction makes it probable that it was the wish of this state to have a new convention instituted, rather than the one on foot recognized. Massachusetts seemed also skittish on this point. Connecticut opposed the interposition of Congress altogether. The act of Congress is so expressed as to cover the proceedings of the states, which have already provided for the convention, without any pointed recognition of them.

Our situation is becoming every day more and more critical. No money comes into the federal treasury; no respect is paid to the federal authority; and people of reflection unanimously agree that the existing Confederacy is tottering to its foundation. Many individuals of weight, particularly in the eastern district, are suspected of leaning toward monarchy. Other individuals predict a partition of the states into two or more confederacies. It is pretty certain that, if some radical amendment of the single one cannot be devised and introduced, one or other of these revolutions—the latter no doubt will take place. I hope you are bending your thoughts seriously to the great work of guarding against both.61

TO EDMUND RANDOLPH.

[EXTRACT.]

NEW YORK, March 11, 1787.

DEAR SIR, - The appointments for the convention are still going on. Georgia has appointed her delegates to Congress, her representatives in that body also. Tho gentlemen from that state here at present are Colonel Few, and Major Pierce, formerly aid to General Greene. I am told just now, that South Carolina has appointed the two Rutledges and Major Butler. Colonel Hamilton, with a Mr. Yates and a Mr. Lansing, are appointed by New York. The two latter are supposed to lean too much towards state considerations to be good members of an assembly which will only be useful in proportion to its superiority to partial views and interests. Massachusetts has also appointed. Messrs. Gorham, Dana, King, Gerry, and Strong, compose her deputation. The resolution under which they are appointed restrains them from acceding to any departure from the principle of the fifth Article of Confedera tion. It is conjectured that this fetter, which originated with their senate, will be knocked off. Its being introduced at all denotes a very different spirit, in that quarter, from what some had been led to expect. Connecticut, it is now generally believed. will come into the measure.

TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.

[EXTRACT.]

NEW YORK, March 19, 1787.

DEAR SIR, I have already made known to you the light in which the subjec [the sacrifice of the Mississippi] was taken up by Virginia. Mr. Henry's disgust exceeds all measure, and I am not singular in ascribing his refusal to attend the convention to the policy of keeping himself free to combat or espouse the result of it according to the result of the Mississippi business, among other circumstances. North Carolina also has given pointed instructions to her delegates; so has New Jersey. A proposition for the like purpose was a few days ago made in the legislature of Pennsylvania, but went off without a decision on its merits. Her delegates in Congress are equally divided on the subject. The tendency of this project to foment distrust among the Atlantic States, at a crisis when harmony and confidence ought to have been studiously cherished, has not been more verified than its pre dicted effect on the ultramontane settlements.

TO EDMUND RANDOLPH.

[EXTRACT.]

NEW YORK, April 8, 1787.

DEAR SIR,-I am glad to find that you are turning your thoughts towards the business of May next. My despair of your finding the necessary leisure, as signified in one of your letters, with the probability that some leading propositions at least would be expected from Virginia, had engaged me in a closer attention to the subject than I should otherwise have given. I will just hint the ideas that have occurred, leaving explanations for our interview.

I think, with you, that it will be well to retain as much as possible of the old Confederation, though I doubt whether it may not be best to work the valuable articles into the new system, instead of engrafting the latter on the former. I am also perfectly of your opinion, that, in framing a system, no material sacrifices ought to be made to local or temporary prejudices. An explanatory address must of necessity accompany the result of the convention on the main object. I am not sure that it will be practicable to present the several parts of the reform in so detached a manner to the states, as that a partial adoption will be binding. Particular states may view different articles as conditions of each other, and would only ratify them as such. Others might ratify them as independent propositions. The consequence would be that the ratifications of both would go for nothing. I have not, however, examined this point thoroughly. In truth, my ideas of a reform strike so deeply at the old Confederation, and lead to such a systematic change, that they scarcely admit of the expedient.

I hold it for a fundamental point, that an individual independence of the states is utterly irreconcilable with the idea of an aggregate sovereignty. I think, at the same time, that a consolidation of the states into one simple republic is not less unattainable than it would be inexpedient. Let it be tried, then, whether any middle ground can be taken, which will at once support a due supremacy of the national authority, and leave in force the local authorities so far as they can be subordinately useful.

The first step to be taken is, I think, a change in the principle of representation. According to the present form of the Union, an equality of suffrage, if not just towards the larger members of it, is at least safe to them, as the liberty they exercise of rejecting or executing the acts of Congress is uncontrollable by the nominal sovereignty of Congress. Under a system which would operate without the intervention of the states, the case would be materially altered. A vote from Delaware would have the same effect as one from Massachusetts or Virginia.

Let the national government be armed with a positive and complete authority in all cases where uniform measures are necessary, as in trade, &c. &c. Let it also retain the powers which it now possesses.