Already the hope of the Committee of Eleven that its Report would be “generally adopted,” that is, approved or rejected without amendment, has been dashed. From the moment deliberations began yesterday, the delegates have addressed it piece-meal, one section at a time. The only votes were procedural, deciding which parts of the Report to be “postponed in order to take up” something else.
This morning, Gouverneur Morris moved another committee be established for the sole purpose of considering the Report’s recommendation 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” and that “each State not containing that number be allowed one member.” The forty thousand would include “white and other free citizens and inhabitants of every age, sex and condition and three-fifths of all other persons,” an issue decided in early June.
Opposition arose instantly. Nathaniel Gorham believes fixing any number is “inconvenient.” “A part of Virginia is now on the point of separation,” he noted, and “in the province of Maine a convention is at this time deliberating on a separation from Massachusetts.” He actually hopes to see the States smaller by such divisions. Elbridge Gerry thinks differently; the States “ought not to be cut up,” or else they “be reduced to the size of counties!” Gerry supported creation of a committee but believes it should consider both population and wealth in determining representation.
Fixing any number for representation would be a mistake, argued Rufus King. “In the next century and a half, our computed increase of population would carry the number of representatives to an enormous excess.” King also supports including wealth in determining the ratio of representation. Then he brought up something not yet considered. With respect to western territories northwest of the Ohio River, Congress had recently “laid it out into ten States and…that as soon as the number in any one State shall equal that of the smallest of the 13 original States, it may claim admission to the union.” Delaware, he noted, has a population not more than “35,000 souls, and for obvious reasons will not increase much for a considerable time.” Lands have been purchased and settlers are moving into the territory and will soon “become entitled to all the privileges of the compact.”
Gorham, Gerry, and King are all large States men. They also represent the same State – Massachusetts. If even they cannot agree on one point, how can the Convention arrive at a positive result for the nation?
Now the debate turned on new versus old States as well as whether property should be considered in the calculation for representation. This is becoming more, rather than less complicated. When the vote was taken, seven States voted to commit the issue to a committee, three States (New York, New Jersey, and Delaware) voted against and Maryland was divided.
The members appointed by ballot to serve on the committee are Gouverneur Morris, Nathanial Gorham, Edmund Randolph, John Rutledge, and Rufus King. All are from large States, two being from the same State, Massachusetts. Three have spoken out in favor of wealth or property being included in the ratio for representation. Only one, Gorham, has openly opposed it.
The issue of “the 40,000” being diverted to committee consideration, the “clause relating to equality of votes” was placed before the members. Benjamin Franklin said this should not be taken up, the Committee of Eleven “having reported several propositions as mutual conditions of each other.” However, the Convention has already separated out the provision regarding determining the ratio of representatives, defying the Committee’s recommendation. Perhaps, suggested George Mason, we should refer the rest of the Report to the committee just established. Randolph objected and won his point. The committee just established consists “ of members from States opposed to the wishes of the smaller States.”
That settled, the Convention turned to the first clause of the Report “relating to the originating of money bills.” The first to speak was G. Morris, opposing such restrictions on either branch. Recalling the assertion that requiring all money bills to originate in the lower branch is a concession to the small States, Wilson disagreed strenuously. He could “see nothing like a concession here on the part of the smaller States.” In fact, “if both branches were to say yes or no, it was of little consequence which should yes or no first, or which last.”
As he did earlier, George Mason, a member of the Committee of Eleven, explained the Committee’s reasoning. “The consideration which weighed with the Committee was that the 1st branch would be the immediate representatives of the people, the 2nd would not. Should the latter have the power of giving away the people’s money, they might soon forget the source from which they received it. We might soon have an aristocracy.”
G. Morris said he had been waiting “to hear the good effects” of the proposal but as “to the alarm sounded of an aristocracy, his creed was that there never was, nor ever will be a civilized society without an aristocracy.” His endeavor “was to keep it as much as possible from doing mischief.” Placing this limitation on the second branch would “be a dangerous source of disputes between the two houses.” A brief exchange of opinions among the delegates resulted in the motion being defeated 5 – 3 – 3. Pennsylvania, Virginia, and South Carolina voted “no.” New York, Massachusetts, and Georgia were divided.
This evening, George Washington dined at the City Tavern with “some members of the Convention.” How much he shares his sentiments in private conversation is unknown, but we do know he is spending more time with delegates as the gap between the large and small States appears to grow wider each day.