course was uncertain, but she could no longer be counted on for the full purposes of the large-state leaders.1 What was to be done? General Pinckney moved the appointment of a grand committee of a member from each state, and the proposition met with favor. "We are now at a full stop," said Sherman, "and nobody. . . meant that we should break up without doing something." Wilson and Madison strongly protested that their Congressional experience had taught them the uselessness of grand committees. Perhaps they already saw the battle going against them; certainly fears of defeat were well founded. One would fain know the political manoeuvring that preceded the election of the committee. The moment that it was chosen, the large-state party was beaten in its effort to have proportional representation in both houses; for not one of the really strong men of the nationalists was chosen. From Massachusetts came not clear-minded King, but Gerry; from Pennsylvania, not vigorous Wilson, but accommodating Franklin; from Virginia, not the broad-minded Madison, but Mason, who was now lukewarm and was to change into an avowed enemy of the Constitution he had helped to frame. On the other hand, the committee contained Ellsworth, Yates, Paterson, the irrepressible Bedford of Delaware, the obstinate Martin of Maryland, 1 Literary Diary of Ezra Stiles, III., 291; Elliot, Debates, I., 193. Madison, Writings (Hunt's ed.), III., 344, 349, 350. Baldwin of Georgia, by whose vote Georgia had for the moment been lost from the ranks of the largestate party, and Davie of North Carolina, who had already given signs of indecision.1 The eleventh member was Rutledge of South Carolina. The work of the committee could end in nothing but a report surrendering proportional representation in the second branch. On July 5 it recommended the resolution of proportional representation for the first branch of the legislature, and that all bills for fixing salaries, or for raising or appropriating money, should originate in that branch, but that in the second branch each state should have an equal vote.2 1 Madison, Writings (Hunt's ed.), III., 334. CHAPTER XV THE LAW OF THE LAND (1787) THE compromise report of the grand committee of on representation did not immediately allay excitement and ill-feeling.. The large-state men strongly objected, and some of the small-state men were not altogether satisfied.' Lansing and Yates now left the convention, giving up hope that its labors would be satisfactory to them, as it had taken upon itself to do more than revise the Confederation, and had gone ahead to establish a consolidated government. They thought that they had no right to take part in a proceeding that would result in depriving "the state government of its most essential rights of sovereignty." Hamilton had for some time been absent, and he did not return till the middle of August; and even then, in the absence of the majority of the delegates, was unable to cast the vote of the state. "2 Portions of the compromise were long discussed, and a peaceful settlement seemed for a time as 1 King, Life and Corresp. of King, I., 614. Ibid. distant as ever. Gouverneur Morris, who had returned a few days before, after a long absence from the convention, attacked the report and pleaded with the members to avoid narrowness and to accept broad and patriotic views. "He came here," he said, "as a Representative of America; he flattered himself he came here in some degree as a Representative of the whole human race; for the whole human race will be affected by the proceedings of this Convention. He wished gentlemen to extend their views beyond the present moment of time; beyond the narrow limits of place from which they derive their political origin. If he were to believe some things which he had heard, he should suppose that we were assembled to truck and bargain for our particular States." These were noble words, and did honor to the man that spoke them. He saw with clear vision that the failure of the convention meant discredit to America, meant a distracted, perhaps a warring nation. "This country must be united," he exclaimed. "If persuasion does not unite it, the sword will. . . . and State importance have been the bane of this Country. We can not annihilate; but we may perhaps take out the teeth of the serpents."1 sounder truth was spoken in the course of the convention's work. .. State attachments, No The small-state men that were prating of sovereignty might well listen; the sovereignty of assumption, 'Madison, Writings (Hunt's ed.), III., 357-359. VOL. X-17 the sovereignty of legal fiction, could not hold out against the force of fact, and the controlling fact was that the country must be united. And yet these eloquent words had little effect. Bedford half apologized for his previous threats, but found some consolation for his own warmth in Morris's reference to the sword: "To hear such language without emotion, would be to renounce the feelings of a man and the duty of a Citizen.”1 Though the stalwart members of the national party still fought lustily for a union based on truth and not on fiction, there was a growing desire to reach agreement. Gerry, of Massachusetts, whose whole orbit it is difficult to trace, could now see no hope of proportional representation in both branches and was getting ready to yield. King protested strongly against his colleague's defection. The proposed government, he said, was to be "substantially and formally, a General and National Government over the people of America"; there would never be a case in which it would "act as a federal Government on the States and not on the individual Citizens." 2 The rule of representation in both branches, therefore, should be the same. But Strong, of Massachusetts, was also wavering: "If no Accommodation takes place, the Union itself must soon be dissolved." The small-state men, on the other hand, were as determined as ever. On July 16, after the 13 1 Madison, Writings (Hunt's ed.), III., 360. |