and dependants which enable them to appear in force, and to threaten the republic as well as each other. In the next place, the electors all assemble at one place; which would not be the case with us The second argument is, that a majority of the people would never concur. It might be answered, that the concurrence of a majority of the people is not a necessary principle of election, nor required as such in any of the states. But, allowing the objection all its force, it may be obviated by the expedient used in Massachusetts, where the legislature, by a majority of voices, decide, in case a majority of the people do not concur in favor of one of the candidates. This would restrain the choice to a good nomination at least, and prevent in a great degree intrigue and cabal. A particular objection with him. against an absolute election by the legislature was, that the executive, in that case, would be too dependent to stand the mediator between the intrigues and sinister views of the representatives and the general liberties and interests of the people.

Mr. PINCKNEY did not expect this question would again have been brought forward, an election by the people being liable to the most obvious and striking objections. They will be led by a few active and designing men. The most populous states, by combining in favor of the same individual, will be able to carry their points. The national legislature, being most immediately interested in the laws made by themselves, will be most attentive to the choice of a fit man to carry them properly into execution.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS. It is said that, in case of an election by the people, the populous states will combine and elect whom they please. Just the reverse. The people of such states. cannot combine. If there be any combination, it must be among their representatives in the legislature. It is said, the people will be led by a few designing men. This might happen in a small district.. It can never happen throughout the continent. In the election of a governor of New York, it sometimes is the case, in particular spots, that the activity and intrigues of little partisans are successful; but the general voice of the state is never influenced by such artifices. It is said, the multitude will be uninformed. It is true, they would be uninformed of what passed in the legislative conclave, if the election were to be made there; but they will not be uninformed of those great and illustrious characters which have merited their esteem and confidence. If the executive be chosen by the national legislature. he will not be independent of it; and, if not independent, usurpation and tyranny on the part of the legislature will be the consequence This was the case in England in the last century. It has been the case in Holland, where their senates have engrossed all power. It has been the case every where. He was surprised that an election by the people at large should ever have been likened to the Polish election of the first magistrate. An election by the legislature will bear a real likeness to the election by the diet of Poland. The great must be the electors in both cases, and the corruption and cabal,

which are known to characterize the one, would soon find their way into the other. Appointments made by numerous bodies are always worse than those made by single responsible individuals, or by the people at large.

Col. MASON. It is curious to remark the different language held at different times. At one moment we are told that the legislature is entitled to thorough confidence, and to indefinite power. At another, that it will be governed by intrigue and corruption, and cannot be trusted at all. But, not to dwell on this inconsistency, he would observe, that a government which is to last ought at least to be prac ticable. Would this be the case if the proposed election should be left to the people at large? He conceived it would be as unnatural to refer the choice of a proper character for chief magistrate to the people, as it would to refer a trial of colors to a blind man. The extent of the country renders it impossible that the people can have the requisite capacity to judge of the respective pretensions of the candidates.

Mr. WILSON could not see the contrariety stated by (Col. Mason). The legislature might deserve confidence in some respects, and dis trust in others. In acts which were to affect them and their constituents precisely alike, confidence was due; in others, jealousy was warranted. In the appointment to great offices, where the legislature might feel many motives not common to the public, confidence was surely misplaced. This branch of business, it was notorious, was the most corruptly managed of any that had been committed to legislative bodies.

Mr. WILLIAMSON conceived that there was the same difference between an election, in this case, by the people and by the legislature, as between an appointment by lot and by choice. There are at present distinguished characters, who are known perhaps to almost every man. This will not always be the case. The people will be sure to vote for some man in their own state; and the largest state will be sure to succeed. This will not be Virginia, however. Her slaves will have no suffrage. As the salary of the executive will be fixed, and he will not be eligible a second time, there will not be such a dependence on the legislature as has been imagined.

On the question on an election by the people, instead of the legislature, it passed in the negative.

Pennsylvania, ay, 1; Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Mary land, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, no, 9.

Mr. L. MARTIN moved that the executive be chosen by electors appointed by the several legislatures of the individual states.

Mr. BROOME seconds.

On the question, it passed in the negative.

Delaware, Maryland, ay, 2; Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsyl vania, Virginia, North Carolina. South Carolina, Georgia, no, 8.

On the question on the words "to be chosen by the rational legislature," it passed unanimously in the affirmative

postponed, nem. con., on motion

"For the term of seven years,' of Mr. HOUSTON and Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS;"To carry into execution the national laws," agreed to, nem.

con.;

"To appoint to offices in cases not otherwise provided for," agreed to, nem. con. ;

"To be ineligible a second time." Mr. HOUSTON moved to strike out this clause.

Mr. SHERMAN seconds the motion.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS espoused the motion. The ineligibility proposed by the clause, as it stood, tended to destroy the great motive to good behavior, the hope of being rewarded by a reappointment. It was saying to him, "Make hay while the sun shines."

On the question for striking out, as moved by Mr. Houston, it passed in the affirmative.

Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Georgia, ay, 6; Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, no, 4.

The clause, " for the term of seven years," being resumed,

Mr. BROOME was for a shorter term, since the executive magistrate was now to be reëligible. Had he remained ineligible a second time, he should have preferred a longer term.

Dr. M'CLURG* moved to strike out "seven years," and insert "during good behavior." By striking out the words declaring him not reëligible, he was put into a situation that would keep him dependent forever on the legislature; and he conceived the independence of the executive to be equally essential with that of the judiciary department.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS seconded the motion. He expressed great pleasure in hearing it. This was the way to get a good government. His fear that so valuable an ingredient would not be attained had led him to take the part he had done. He was indifferent how the executive should be chosen, provided he held his place by this tenure.

Mr. BROOME highly approved the motion. It obviated all his difficulties.

Mr. SHERMAN considered such a tenure as by no means safe or admissible. As the executive magistrate is now reëligible, he will be on good behavior as far as will be necessary. If he behaves well, he will be continued; if otherwise, displaced, on a succeeding election. Mr. MADISON† If it be essential to the preservation of liberty that the legislative, executive, and judiciary powers be separate, it is

The probable object of this motion was merely to enforce the argument against the religibility of the executive magistrate, by holding out a tenure during good behavior, as the alternative for keeping him independent of the legislature.

The view here taken of the subject was meant to aid in parrying the animadversions likely to fall on the motion of Dr. M'Clurg, for whom J. M. had a particular "egard. The doctor, though possessing talents of the highest order, was modest, and naccustomed to exert them in public debate.

essential to a maintenance of the separation, that they should be independent of each other. The executive could not be independent of the legislature, if dependent on the pleasure of that branch for a reappointment. Why was it determined that the judges should not hold their places by such a tenure? Because they might be tempted to cultivate the legislature by an undue complaisance, and thus render the legislature the virtual expositor, as well as the maker, of the laws. In like manner, a dependence of the executive on the legislature would render it the executor as well as the maker of laws; and then, according to the observation of Montesquieu, tyrannical laws may be made that they may be executed in a tyrannical manner. There was an analogy between the executive and judiciary departments in several respects. The latter executed the laws in certain cases, as the former did in others. The former expounded and applied them for certain purposes, as the latter did for others. The difference between them seemed to consist chiefly in two circumstances; - first, the collective interest and security were much more in the power belonging to the executive, than to the judiciary, department; secondly, in the administration of the former, much greater latitude is left to opinion and discretion than in the administration of the latter. But, if the second consideration proves that it will be more difficult to establish a rule sufficiently precise for trying the executive than the judges, and forms an objection to the same tenure of office, both considerations prove that it might be more dangerous to suffer a union between the executive and legislative powers than between the judiciary and legislative powers. He conceived it to be absolutely necessary to a well-constituted republic, that the two first should be kept distinct and independent of each other. Whether the plan proposed by the motion was a proper one, was another question; as it depended on the practicability of instituting a tribunal for impeachments as certain and as adequate in the one case as in the other. On the other hand, respect for the mover entitled his proposition to a fair hearing and discussion, until a less objectionable expedient should be applied for guarding against a dangerous union of the legislative and executive departments.

Col. MASON. This motion was made some time ago, and negatived by a very large majority. He trusted that it would be again negatived. It would be impossible to define the misbehavior in such a manner as to subject it to a proper trial; and perhaps still more impossible to compel so high an offender, holding his office by such a tenure, to submit to a trial. He considered an executive during good behavior as a softer name only for an executive for life; and that the next would be an easy step to hereditary monarchy. If the motion should finally succeed, he might himself live to see such a revolution. If he did not, it was probable his children or grandchildren would. He trusted there were few men in that House who wished for it. No state, he was sure, had so far revolted from republican princip'es, as to have the least bias in its favor.

Mr. MADISON was not apprehensive of being thought to favor any step towards monarchy. The real object with him was to prevent its introduction. Experience had proved a tendency in our government to throw all power into the legislative vortex. The executives of the states are in general little more than ciphers; the legislatures omnipotent. If no effectual check be devised for restraining the instability and encroachments of the latter, a revolution of some kind or other would be inevitable. The preservation of repub lican government, therefore, required some expedient for the purpose, but required evidently, at the same time, that, in devising it, the genuine principles of that form should be kept in view.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS was as little a friend to monarchy as any gentleman. He concurred in the opinion, that the way to keep out monarchical government was to establish such a republican government as would make the people happy, and prevent a desire of change.

Dr. M'CLURG was not so much afraid of the shadow of monarchy as to be unwilling to approach it; nor so wedded to republican government as not to be sensible of the tyrannies that had been and may be exercised under that form. It was an essential object with him to make the executive independent of the legislature; and the only mode left for effecting it, after the vote destroying his ineligibility a second time, was to appoint him during good behavior.

On the questing for inserting "during good behavior," in place of seven years, [with a reëligibility,]" it passed in the negative.

New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, ay, 4; Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, no, 6.*

On the motion to strike out

negative.

66

seven years," it passed in the

Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Delaware, North Carolina, ay, 4; Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, no, 6.†

It was now unanimously agreed, that the vote which had struck out the words "to be ineligible a second time," should be reconsidered to-morrow.

Adjourned.

WEDNESDAY, July 18.

In Convention. On motion of Mr. L. MARTIN to fix to-mor

*This vote is not to be considered as any certain index of opinion, as a number in the affirmative probably had it chiefly in view to alarm those attached to a dependence of the executive on the legislature, and thereby facilitate some final arrangement of a contrary tendency. The avowed friends of an executive "during good behavior" were not more than three or four, nor is it certain they would have adhered to such

a tenure.

An independence of the three great departments of each other, as far as possible, and the responsibility of all to the will of the community, seemed to be generally admitted as the true basis of a well-constructed government.

There was no debate on this motion. The apparent object of many in the affirmative was to secure the recligibility by shortening the term, and of many in the nega tive to embarrass the plan of referring the appointment and dependence of the ex ecutive to the legislature.