Skip to comments.Journal of the Federal Convention July 3rd 1787
Posted on 07/03/2011 3:10:43 AM PDT by Jacquerie
Committee Meets. One per 40,000 in First Branch. Equality of State Suffrage in Second Branch.
The grand committee met. Mr. Gerry was chosen chairman.
The committee proceeded to consider in what manner they should discharge the business with which they were entrusted. By the proceedings in the convention they were so equally divided on the important question of representation in the two branches, the idea of a concilatory adjustment must have been in contemplation of the house in the appointment of this committee. But still how to effect this salutary purpose was the question. Many of the members, impressed with the utility of a general government, connected with it the indispensible necessity of a representation from the states according to their numbers and wealth; while others, equally tenacious of the rights of the states, would admit of no other representation but such as was strictly federal, or in other words, equality of suffrage. This brought on a discussion of the principles on which the house had divided, and a lengthy recapitulation of the arguments advanced in the house in support of these opposite propositions. As I had not openly explained my sentiments on any former occasion on this question, but constantly in giving my vote, showed my attachment to the national government on federal principles, I took this occasion to explain my motives (See a copy of my speech hereunto annexed.)*
[* ]It is matter of regret that this document cannot be found: the principles it contained are perhaps embodied in the letter from Mr. Yates and Mr. Lansing to Gov. George Clinton, on their retiring from the convention. These remarks gave rise to a motion of Dr. Franklin, which after some modification was agreed to, and made the basis of the following report of the committee.
The committee to whom was referred the eighth resolution, reported from the committee of the whole house, and so much of the seventh as had not been decided on, submit the following report:
That the subsequent propositions be recommended to the convention, on condition that both shall be generally adopted.
That in the first branch of the legislature, each of the states now in the union, be allowed one member for every 40,000 inhabitants, of the description reported in the seventh resolution of the committee of the whole house That each state, not containing that number, shall be allowed one member.
That all bills for raising or apportioning money, and for fixing salaries of the officers of government of the United States, shall originate in the first branch of the legislature, and shall not be altered or amended by the second branch; and that no money shall be drawn from the public treasury, but in pursuance of appropriations to be originated in the first branch.
That in the second branch of the legislature, each state shall have an equal vote.
The members were Elbridge Gerry (MA), Judge Oliver Ellsworth (CN), Robert Yates (NY), William Patterson (NJ), Dr. Dr. Benjamin Franklin (PA), Gunning Bedford (DE), Luther Martin (MD), George Mason (VA), William Davy, John Rutlidge (SC), Abraham Baldwin (GA).
The committee recommended proportional representation, one per 40,000 in the House. Money bills could only originate in the House and not be modified by the Senate. Every state would have equal representation in the Senate.
(Large states saw their majority eroding, as evidenced with the 5-5-1 vote on 2 July. As a concession, in committee anyway, they obtained total House compositional control of money bills which the Senate could not modify, only accept or reject. Was this not a fortuitous compromise the day before the eleventh anniversary? Notice the connection between money bills and equality of Senatorial Suffrage. Money bills were controlled by the House, where Large States were expected to dominate, but could only pass with concurrence of the Senate, where Small States were in the majority.)
Constitutional Convention Ping!
Would you add me to your ping list please? Thanks.
Thanks for your work Jacquerie~
It’s Independence Day tomorrow; many have forgotten what that means. Remind them.
Certainly. Welcome Aboard!
How about that Harvard study regarding Independence Day celebrations? Attendees were universally prodded toward Conservatism and OMG, love of country.
IIRC, Bachmann took hits recently for a long past comment that some Congressional democrats hate their country as founded. The Harvard study backed up her claim, as if we didn't know.
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.