Skip to comments.Journal of the Federal Convention June 22nd 1787
Posted on 06/22/2011 2:19:34 AM PDT by Jacquerie
Third Resolution. First Branch Salaries. Minimum Age Requirement. Subsequent Office Eligibility.
The clause in Resol. 3. [FN1] "to receive fixed stipends to be paid out of the Nationl. Treasury" [FN2] considered.
Mr. ELSEWORTH, moved to substitute payment by the States out of their own Treasurys: observing that the manners of different States were very different in the Stile of living and in the profits accruing from the exercise of like talents. What would be deemed therefore a reasonable compensation in some States, in others would be very unpopular, and might impede the system of which it made a part.
Mr. WILLIAMSON favored the idea. He reminded the House of the prospect of new States to the Westward. They would be [FN3] poor-would pay little into the common Treasury-and would have a different interest from the old States. He did not think therefore that the latter ought to pay the expences of men who would be employed in thwarting their measures & interests.
Mr. GHORUM, wished not to refer the matter to the State Legislatures who were always paring down salaries in such a manner as to keep out of offices men most capable of executing the functions of them. He thought also it would be wrong to fix the compensations [FN4] by the constitutions, [FN4] because we could not venture to make it as liberal as it ought to be without exciting an enmity agst. the whole plan. Let the Natil. Legisl: provide for their own wages from time to time; as the State Legislatures do. He had not seen this part of their power abused, nor did he apprehend an abuse of it.
Mr. RANDOLPH [FN5] feared we were going too far, in consulting popular prejudices. Whatever respect might be due to them, in lesser matters, or in cases where they formed the permanent character of the people, he thought it neither incumbent on nor honorable for the Convention, to sacrifice right & justice to that consideration. If the States were to pay the members of the Natl. Legislature, a dependence would be created that would vitiate the whole System. The whole nation has an interest in the attendance & services of the members. The Nationl. Treasury therefore is the proper fund for supporting them.
Mr. KING, urged the danger of creating a dependence on the States by leavg. to them the payment of the members of the Natl. Legislature. He supposed it wd. be best to be explicit as to the compensation to be allowed. A reserve on that point, or a reference to the Natl. Legislature of the quantum, would excite greater opposition than any sum that would be actually necessary or proper.
Mr. SHERMAN contended for referring both the quantum and the payment of it to the State Legislatures.
Mr. WILSON was agst. fixing the compensation as circumstances would change and call for a change of the amount. He thought it of great moment that the members of the Natl. Govt. should be left as independent as possible of the State Govts. in all respects.
Mr. MADISON concurred in the necessity of preserving the compensations for the Natl. Govt. independent on the State Govts. but at the same time approved of fixing them by the Constitution, which might be done by taking a standard which wd. not vary with circumstances. He disliked particularly the policy suggested by Mr. Wiliamson of leaving the members from the poor States beyond the Mountains, to the precarious & parsimonious support of their constituents. If the Western States hereafter arising should be admitted into the Union, they ought to be considered as equals & as brethren. If their representatives were to be associated in the Common Councils, it was of common concern that such provisions should be made as would invite the most capable and respectable characters into the service.
Mr. HAMILTON apprehended inconveniency [FN6] from fixing the wages. He was strenuous agst. making the National Council dependent on the Legislative rewards of the States. Those who pay are the masters of those who are paid. Payment by the States would be unequal as the distant States would have to pay for the same term of attendance and more days in travelling to & from the seat of the [FN7] Govt. He expatiated emphatically on the difference between the feelings & views of the people-& the Governments of the States arising from the personal interest & official inducements which must render the latter unfriendly to the Genl. Govt.
Mr. WILSON moved that the Salaries of the 1st. branch "be ascertained by the National Legislature," [FN8] and be paid out of the Natl. Treasury.
Mr. MADISON, thought the members of the Legisl. too much interested to ascertain their own compensation. It wd. be indecent to put their hands into the public purse for the sake of their own pockets.
On this question [FN9] Mas. no. Cont. no. N. Y. divd. N. J. ay. Pa. ay. Del. no. Md. no. Va. no. N. C. no. S. C. no. Geo. divd.. [FN10]
On the question for striking out "Natl. Treasury" as moved by Mr.. Elseworth.
Mr. HAMILTON renewed his opposition to it. He pressed the distinction between [FN11] State Govts. & the people. The former wd. be the rivals of the Genl. Govt. The State legislatures ought not therefore to be the paymasters of the latter.
Mr. ELSEWORTH. If we are jealous of the State Govts. they will be so of us. If on going home I tell them we gave the Gen: Govt. such powers because we cd. not trust you, will they adopt it, and witht. yr. approbation it is a nullity. [FN12]Massts. ay. Cont. ay. N. Y. divd.; N. J. no Pena. no. Del. no. Md. no. Va. no. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo.divd. [FN13] [FN14]
On a question for substituting "adequate compensation" in place of "fixt stipends" it was agreed to nem. con. the friends of the latter being willing that the practicability of fixing the compensation should be considered hereafter in forming the details.
It was then moved by Mr. BUTLER that a question be taken on both points jointly; to wit "adequate compensation to be paid out of the Natl. Treasury." It was objected to as out of order, the parts having been separately decided on. The Presidt. referd. the question of order to the House, and it was determined to be in order. Con. N. J. Del. Md. N. C. S. C.-ay- [FN15] N. Y. Pa. Va. Geo. no- [FN15] Mass: divided. The question on the sentence was then postponed by S. Carolina in right of the State.
Col. MASON moved to insert "twenty-five years of age as a qualification for the members of the 1st. branch." He thought it absurd that a man to day should not be permitted by the law to make a bargain for himself, and tomorrow should be authorized to manage the affairs of a great nation. It was the more extraordinary as every man carried with him in his own experience a scale for measuring the deficiency of young politicians; since he would if interrogated be obliged to declare that his political opinions at the age of 21. were too crude & erroneous to merit an influence on public measures. It had been said that Congs. had proved a good school for our young men. It might be so for any thing he knew but if it were, he chose that they should bear the expence of their own education.
Mr. WILSON was agst. abridging the rights of election in any shape. It was the same thing whether this were done by disqualifying the objects of choice, or the persons chusing. The motion tended to damp the efforts of genius, and of laudable ambition. There was no more reason for incapacitating youth than age, where the requisite qualifications were found. Many instances might be mentioned of signal services rendered in high stations to the public before the age of 25: The present Mr. Pitt and Lord Bolingbroke were striking instances. On the question for inserting "25 years of age" Massts. no. Cont. ay. N. Y. divd. N. J. ay. Pa. no. Del. ay. Md. ay. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. no. [FN16]
Mr. GHORUM moved to strike out the last member of 3 Resol: [FN17] concerning ineligibility of members of the 1st. branch to offices [FN18] during the term of their membership & for one year after. He considered it as [FN19] unnecessary & injurious. It was true abuses had been displayed in G. B. but no one cd. say how far they might have contributed to preserve the due influence of the Govt. nor what might have ensued in case the contrary theory had been tried.
Mr. BUTLER opposed it. This precaution agst. intrigue was necessary. He appealed to the example of G. B. where men got [FN20] into Parlt. that they might get offices for themselves or their friends. This was the source of the corruption that ruined their Govt.
Mr. KING, thought we were refining too much. Such a restriction on the members would discourage merit. It would also give a pretext to the Executive for bad appointments, as he might always plead this as a bar to the choice he wished to have made.
Mr. WILSON was agst. fettering elections, and discouraging merit. He suggested also the fatal consequence in time of war, of rendering perhaps the best Commanders ineligible: appealing [FN21] to our situation during the late war, and indirectly leading to a recollection of the appointment of the Commander in Chief out of Congress.
Col. MASON was for shutting the door at all events agst. corruption. He enlarged on the venality and abuses in this particular in G. Britain: and alluded to the multiplicity of foreign Embassies by Congs. The disqualification he regarded as a corner stone in the fabric.
Col. HAMILTON. There are inconveniences on both sides. We must take man as we find him, and if we expect him to serve the public must interest his passions in doing so. A reliance on pure patriotism had been the source of many of our errors. He thought the remark of Mr. Ghorum a just one. It was impossible to say what wd be [FN22] effect in G. B. of such a reform as had been urged. It was known that one of the ablest politicians [Mr. Hume,] had pronounced all that influence on the side of the crown, which went under the name of corruption, [FN23] an essential part of the weight which maintained the equilibrium of the Constitution.
On Mr. Ghorum's Motion for striking out "ineligibility," [FN24] Masts. ay. Cont. no. N. Y. divd. N. J. ay. Pa. divd. Del. divd. Mard. no. Va. no. N. C. ay. S. C. no. Geo. ay. [FN25]
FN1 The words "the third Resolution" are substituted in the transcript for "Resol. 3."
FN2 The word 'being" is here inserted in the transcript.
FN3 The word "too" is here inserted in the transcript.
FN4 The transcript uses the words "conpensations" and "constitutions" in the singular
FN5 The words "said he" are here inserted in the transcript.
FN6 The word "inconveniency" is changed to "inconvenience" in the transcript.
FN7 The word "the" is omitted in the transcript.
FN8 The transcript does not italicize the phrase "be ascertained by the National Legislature."
FN9 The transcript here inserts the following: "shall the salaries of the first branch be ascertained by the National Legislature?"
FN10 In the transcript the vote reads: "New Jersey, Pennsylvania, aye-2; Massachusetts, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, no-7; New York, Georgia, divided."
FN11 The word "the" is here inserted in the transcript.
FN12 The words "On the question" are here inserted in the transcript.
FN13 Note. [It appeared that Massts. concurred, not because they thought the State Treasy. ought to be substituted; but because they thought nothing should be said on the subject, in which case it wd. silently devolve on the Natl. Treasury to support the National Legislature.]
FN14 In the transcript the vote reads: 'Massachusetts, [see FN13] Connecticut, North Carolina, South Carolina, aye-4; New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, no-5; New York, Georgia, divided, so it passed in the negative."
FN15 In the transcript the figures "6" and "4" are inserted after "ay" and "no" respectively.
FN16 In the transcript the vote reads: "Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, aye-7; Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Georgia, no-3; New York, divided."
FN17 The words "the third Resolution" are substituted in the transcript for "3 Resol:"
FN18 The letter "s" is stricken out of the word "offices" in the transcript.
FN19 The word "as" is stricken out in the transcript.
FN20 The word "get" is substituted in the transcript for "got."
FN21 The word "appealed" is substituted in the transcript for "appealing."
FN22 The word "the" is here inserted in the transcript.
FN23 The transcript italicizes the word "corruption."
FN24 The transcript here inserts the following: "it was lost by an equal division of the votes."
FN25 In the transcript the vote reads: "Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, Georgia, aye-4; Connecticut, Maryland, Virginia, South Carolina, no- 4; New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, divided."
From the third resolution, "to receive fixed stipends to be paid out of the National Treasury, under consideration.
Judge Oliver Ellsworth (CN) preferred the states pay their representatives. The various states had different standards of compensation.
Hugh Williamson (NC) agreed for the reason that new states would likely be poor and would work against the interests of the existing states. Let them pay their own.
(There was a little known thread of apprehension on the part of many delegates toward new states. As time will tell, some would deny new States equality with the original thirteen. Why should backwoods ruffians be allowed to upset whatever balance of interests the Convention worked out?)
Nathaniel Gorham (MA) thought skinflint state governments would not adequately pay the reps. Keep the amount of compensation out of the Constitution, but let Congress determine the amount and pay salaries.
Governor Edmund Randolph cut to the nub. They should be paid out of the national treasury because the entire nation has an interest in their attendance and service.
Rufus King (MA) thought dependence on the states for salary would be dangerous. Set the amount in the Constitution.
Roger Sherman (CN) wished to leave the matter to the states.
James Wilson (PA) thought it important to pay them out of the national treasury so as to keep them as independent as possible.
James Madison (VA) still preferred payment set by the Constitution and out of the national treasury. He disagreed with Mr. Williamson. The reps from new, maybe poor states should be received as brethren.
Alexander Hamilton (NY): Those who pay are the masters of those who are paid.
James Madison (VA) once again aimed to head off corruption. He considered it indecent for the reps to determine their compensation.
Alexander Hamilton (NY) reiterated his opposition to state payment.
Judge Oliver Ellsworth (CN) perhaps had enough of Mr. Hamilton. He informed him that if his attitude were carried home to CN, the people would reject the Constitution.
The motion to remove National Treasury from the third resolution failed 4-5.
Adequate compensation v. fixed stipends was agreed to without opposition.
George Washington (VA) referred a point of order to the entire convention. I include this only because it was the first we heard from General Washington during the debates.
George Mason (VA) motioned 25 years as the minimum age of service.
James Wilson (PA) opposed a minimum age. Why dampen young, qualified spirits? He used Mr. Pitt and Lord Bolingbroke as examples.
Twenty five years minimum age passed 7-3.
Nathaniel Gorham (MA) wished to allow members of the House to serve as officers of the United States during and immediately after their elective terms.
Pierce Butler (SC) said such intrigue ruined the British government. Men apparently moved from elective to well paid appointed offices in side deals out of the public eye.
(This was another of example of our Framers acknowledgment of mans natural tendency toward corruption and their efforts to minimize it.)
Rufus King (MA) thought such restrictions would discourage merit.
James Wilson (PA) also wished to remove restrictions. George Washington (VA) was a delegate to Congress in 1775 when appointed Commander in Chief. He would presumably have been ineligible under the Constitution.
George Mason (VA) strongly stated the need to fight such corruption and provided British examples. He also alluded to the multiplicity of foreign Embassies by Congress. Im not positive what he means, but it certainly suggests treasonous activity in foreign affairs.
Alexander Hamilton (NY) so much as said such corruption was necessary.
The motion to allow elected representatives to simultaneously serve as appointed officers failed in a 4-4-3 tie.
Constitutional Convention Ping!
Of course he did. And of course guess who else did?:
Mr. HAMILTON ... He was strenuous agst. making the National Council dependent on the Legislative rewards of the States. Those who pay are the masters of those who are paid. "
Madison and Hamilton were united on this central idea: that a national government should be created with supremacy over the states. And Hamilton is quite right: He who pays the piper calls the tune. That is why he and Madison predictably argued for the nationals to pay themselves from their own treasury.
For good or ill, they clearly did not trust the league of states, and wanted a single, unified republic. The states would remain as subordinate agencies, and the nationals would possess supreme power, including a negative on all state constitutions and laws.
This house was to be a check on state power. It was designed to be a rival to the states (who would have their own house, to lend a confederate air to the centralizing project.)
Shall we read later who pays the Senators and where Messers Madison and Hamilton came down on that question? Anyone want to hazard a guess?
Yes, it was. Good afternoon to you.
Popular election to the first house passed 9-1. Madison was hardly alone.
Hamilton was hugely influential on the entire project. He didn’t need to influence the debates at convention. His influence was felt throughout the document.
The house paying itself from the national treasury passed 5-4.
So his virtual presence permeated the Constitution. LOL.
No, his ideas did. His relationship with Washington was decisive.
Washington had far less to say than even Hamilton. Try again.
lol. You’re idiocy is funny.
you’re = your
That’s a keeper. LOL. Thanks.
No problem. I started out to say “you’re an idiot” but changed in midstream. Either way works. You are an idiot.
I was going to say you can do better than that, but obviously, you can’t.
Sometimes the simple truth is good enough.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.