At the close of today’s session, the Constitutional Convention reached a critical milestone, but not before completing consideration of the proposals offered by the Committee on Postponed Parts.
Yesterday, the Convention debated whether a two-thirds vote of the Senate should be required to ratify treaties, and whether peace treaties should require only a majority vote. Rufus King moved that no treaty should be exempt from the two-thirds requirement while James Wilson took the opposite position. He is against the two-thirds requirement for any treaty. “If the majority cannot be trusted,” he protested, “it is proof, as observed by Mr. Gorham, that we are not fit for one society.”
Gouverneur Morris agreed, but for different reasons. “If two thirds of the Senate should be required for peace, the legislature will be unwilling to make war for that reason,” he argued, citing specific tensions regarding the fisheries on the Mississippi. “Besides,” he added, “if a majority of the Senate be for peace, and are not allowed to make it, they will be apt to effect their purpose in the more disagreeable mode, of negativing the supplies for the war.” Wilson picked up on this new argument, adding, with a twist, that “if two-thirds are necessary to make peace, the minority may perpetuate war, against the sense of the majority.”
Hugh Williamson and Elbridge Gerry both argued, as they have before, that dangers lurk in “putting the essential rights of the Union in the hands of so small a number as a majority of the Senate, representing perhaps, not one-fifth of the people.” Williamson did the math. “Eight men may be a majority of a quorum and should not have the power to decide the conditions of peace.” Such a number of Senators renders them susceptible to being “corrupted by foreign influence.”
When the motion was put to a vote, the Convention struck “except for treaties of peace” by a vote of 8 – 3. Treaties of peace, like all other treaties, will require a two-thirds vote of the Senate for ratification.
A series of motions concerning other aspects of the treaty power was put forth and failed. Wilson and Jonathan Dayton attempted to strike the two-thirds requirement for ratification. It failed. John Rutledge and Gerry proposed the two-thirds requirement apply not to a quorum, but to two-thirds of all the Senators. When that failed, Roger Sherman offered a junior version of the same motion, that “no treaty be made without a majority of the whole number of the Senate.” Williamson remarked disapprovingly, “This will be less security than the two-thirds as now required.” But “it will be less embarrassing,” Sherman grumbled.
Attempts to influence the treaty power did not end there. James Madison moved to simply change the quorum of the Senate from a majority to two-thirds of all its members. That, too, failed. Williamson and Gerry tried once more, this time requiring that “no treaty be without previous notice to the members, and a reasonable time for their attending.” Opponents to the Committee’s report requiring two-thirds of the Senate to ratify treaties have run out of options and new ideas. The Committee’s recommendation passed 8 – 3.
The delegates next turned their attention to impeachment. The Committee report provided that the Senate will conduct “the trial of impeachment against the President for treason and bribery.” George Mason asked why the Committee had limited impeachment to only treason and bribery. “Treason as defined in the Constitution will not reach many great and dangerous offenses,” he noted. “Attempts to subvert the Constitution may not be treason as above defined.” He moved to extend the power of impeachment to include “maladministration.” His Virginia colleague, James Madison, thought the term “too vague.” It would “be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate,” he said. Mason withdrew “maladministration” and substituted “other high crimes and misdemeanors.” His motion passed easily, 8 – 3, without further discussion.
Madison then objected to the Senate trying the President in any case. It “would make the President improperly dependent,” he argued, and stated his preference for impeachments to be conducted by the Supreme Court or another specially-appointed court. The problem with that approach, replied Sherman, is that “the Judges are appointed by the President.” In the end, the Convention agreed that the Senate will try impeachments and that the Vice President “and other civil officers of the United States” will also be subject to impeachment.
Approaching the end of the list of propositions submitted by the Committee on Postponed Parts, the Convention addressed and quickly resolved the once highly contentious issue of origination of “money bills.” It agreed that “all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as with other bills. No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law.”
After attending to several additional minor points, the Convention made an historic decision. Sufficiently confident they had devised a workable plan of government built on compromise and a thorough, step-by-step process, the delegates “appointed by ballot” a committee “to revise the style of and arrange the articles that had been agreed to by the House.” The Committee of Style and Arrangement will be composed of William Samuel Johnson (Connecticut), Alexander Hamilton (New York), Gouverneur Morris (Pennsylvania), James Madison (Virginia), and Rufus King (Massachusetts).
Hamilton’s election to the Committee is somewhat surprising due to his irregular attendance and recent statement that he does not generally approve of the plan. Nevertheless, this evening he wrote to a friend to tell the Marquis de la Fayette “something which will bring him the greatest pleasure, that is, there is every reason to believe that if the new Constitution is adopted, his friend General Washington will be the Chief.”