AUGUST, 1789.] Amendments to the Constitution. ber of representatives; because their influence in the House would be proportionably abated. These States were incapable of extending their population beyond a certain point, inasmuch as they were confined with respect to territory. If, therefore, they could never have more than one representative, they would hardly consent to double that of others, by which their own importance would be diminished. If such a measure was carried by the large States through this House, it might be successfully opposed in the Senate; he would, therefore, be in favor of increasing the number to two hundred, and making its increase gradual till it arrived at that height. Mr. GERRY.-The presumption is, that if provision is not made for the increase of the House of Representatives, by the present Congress, the increase never will be made. Gentlemen ought to consider the difference between the Government in its infancy and when well established. The people suppose their liberties somewhat endangered; they have expressed their wishes to have them secured, and instructed their representatives to endeavor to obtain for them certain amendments, which they imagine will be adequate to the object they have in view. Besides this, there are two States not in the Union; but which we hope to annex to it by the amendments now under deliberation. These are inducements for us to proceed and adopt this amendment, independent of the propriety of the amendment itself, and such inducements as no future Congress will have, the principle of self-interest and selfimportance will always operate on them to prevent any addition to the number of representatives. Cannot gentlemen contemplate a difference in situation between this and a future Congress on other accounts? We have neither money nor force to administer the Constitution; but this will not be the case hereafter. In the progress of this Government its revenues will increase, and an army will be established; a future Legislature will find other means to influence the people than now exist. This circumstance proves that we ought to leave as little as possible to the discretion of the future Government: but it by no means proves that the present Congress ought not to adopt the amendment moved by my colleague, Mr. SEDGWICK. [H. of R. number of this branch; and that if the people are displeased, they will have it in their power, by force, to compel their acquiescence. I do not see, sir, how the Legislature is strengthened by the increase of an army. I have generally understood that it gave power to the Executive arm, but not to the deliberative head: the example of every nation is against him. Nor can I conceive upon what foundation he rests his reasoning. If there is a natural inclination in the Government to increase the number of administrators, it will be prudent in us to endeavor to counteract its baneful influence. Mr. LIVERMORE now proposed to strike out the words "one hundred," and insert "two hundred." Mr. SEDGWICK Suspended his motion until this question was determined; whereupon it was put and lost, there being twenty-two in favor of, and twenty-seven against it. Mr. SEDGWICK's motion was then put, and carried in the affirmative. Mr. LIVERMORE wished to amend the clause of the report in such a manner as to prevent the power of Congress from deciding the rate of increase. He thought the Constitution had better fix it, and let it be gradual until it arrived at two hundred. After which, if it was the sense of the committee, it might be stationary, and liable to no other variation than that of being apportioned among the members of the Union. Mr. AMES suggested to the consideration of gentlemen, whether it would not be better to arrange the subject in such a way as to let the representation be proportioned to a ratio of one for thirty thousand at the first census, and one for forty thousand at the second, so as to prevent a too rapid increase of the number of members. He did not make a motion of this nature, because he conceived it to be out of order, after the late decision of the committee; but it might be brought forward in the House, and he hoped would accommodate both sides. Mr. GERRY wished that the gentleman last up would pen down the idea he had just thrown out; he thought it very proper for the consideration of the House. The question on the second proposition of the report, as amended, was now put and carried, being twenty-seven for, and twenty-two against it. Ths next proposition in the report was as follows: Mr. AMES.-It has been observed that there will be an indisposition in future Legislatures to Article 1, Section 6. Between the words "Uniincrease the number of representatives. I am by ted States," and "shall in all cases," strike out no means satisfied that this observation is true."they," and insert "but no law varying the comI think there are motives which will influence pensation shall take effect, until an election Legislatures of the best kind to increase the num-of representatives shall have intervened. The ber of its members. There is a constant tendency members." in a republican Government to multiply what it thinks to be the popular branch. If we consider that men are often more attached to their places than they are to their principles, we shall not be surprised to see men of the most refined judgment advocating a measure which will increase their chance of continuing in office. My honorable colleague has intimated that a future Legislature will be against extending the Mr. SEDGWICK thought much inconvenience and but very little good would result from this amendment; it might serve as a tool for designing men; they might reduce the wages very low, much lower than it was possible for any gentleman to serve without injury to his private affairs, in order to procure popularity at home, provided a diminution of pay was looked upon as a desirable thing. It might also be done, in order to pre H. OF R.] Amendments to the Constitution. [AUGUST, 1789. vent men of shining and disinterested abilities, Mr. GERRY said it would read better if it was but of indigent circumstances, from rendering that no religious doctrine shall be established by their fellow-citizens those services they are well law. able to perform, and render a seat in this House less eligible than it ought to be. Mr. VINING thought every future Legislature would feel a degree of gratitude to the preceding one, which had performed so disagreeable a task for them. The committee who had made this a part of their report, had been guided by a single reason, but which appeared to them a sufficient one. There was, to say the least of it, a disagreeable sensation occasioned by leaving it in the breast of any man to set a value on his own work; it is true it is unavoidable in the present House, but it might, and ought to be avoided in future; he therefore hoped it would obtain without any difficulty. Mr. SHERMAN thought the amendment altoge ther unnecessary, inasmuch as Congress had no authority whatever delegated to them by the Con stitution to make religious establishments; he would, therefore, move to have it struck out. Mr. CARROLL.-As the rights of conscience are, in their nature, of peculiar delicacy, and will it tle bear the gentlest touch of governmental hand; and as many sects have concurred in opinion that they are not well secured under the present Constitution, he said he was much in favor of adopting the words. He thought it would tend more towards conciliating the minds of the people to the Government than almost any other amendment he had heard proposed. He would not contend Mr. GERRY would be in favor of this clause, if with gentlemen about the phraseology, his object they could find means to secure an adequate rep-was to secure the substance in such a manner as resentation; but he apprehended that it would be to satisfy the wishes of the honest part of the considerably endangered; he should therefore be community. against it. Mr. MADISON thought the representation would be as well secured under this clause as it would be if it was omitted; and as it was desired by a great number of the people of America, he would consent to it, though he was not convinced it was absolutely necessary. Mr. SEDGWICK remarked once more, that the proposition had two aspects which made it disagreeable to him; the one was to render a man popular to his constituents, the other to render the place ineligible to his competitor. He thought there was very little danger of an abuse of the power of laying down their own wages; gentlemen were generally more inclined to make them moderate than excessive. The question being put on the proposition, it was carried in the affirmative, twenty-seven for, and twenty against it. The committee then rose and reported progress, and the House adjourned. SATURDAY, August 15. AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION. Mr. MADISON said, he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience. Whether the words are necessary or not, he did Hot mean to say, but they had been required by some of the State Conventions, who seemed to entertain an opinion that under the clause of the Constitution, which gave power to Congress to make all laws necessary and proper to carry into execution the Constitution, and the laws made under it, enabled them to make laws of such a nature as might infringe the rights of conscience, and establish a national religion; to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended, and he thought it as well expressed as the nature of the language would admit. Mr. HUNTINGTON said that he feared, with the gentleman first up on this subject, that the words might be taken in such latitude as to be extremely hurtful to the cause of religion. He understood the amendment to mean what had been expressed by the gentleman from Virginia; but others might find it convenient to put another construction The House again went into a Committee of the the Eastward were maintained by the contribu upon it. The ministers of their congregations to Whole on the proposed amendments to the Con- tions of those who belonged to their society; the stitution, Mr. BOUDINOT in the Chair. The fourth proposition being under considera-uted in the same manner. These things were rte expense of building meeting-houses was contrib tion, as follows: Article 1. Section 9. Between paragraphs fore a Federal Court on any of these cases, the ulated by by-laws. If an action was brought be two and three insert "no religion shall be estab-person who had neglected to perform his for lished by law, nor shall the equal rights of con-gagements could not be compelled to do it, of Mr. SYLVESTER had some doubts of the propri- worship might be construed into a religious estaba support of ministers or building of places of science be infringed." ety of the mode of expression used in this para-lishment. graph. He apprehended that it was liable to a construction different had been made aded By the charter of Rhode Island, no religion He feared it might be tory of the effects of such a regulation; by the committee. thought to have a altogether. indeed it. He hoped, therefore, the amendment would Mr. VINING suggested the propriety of transpos- be made in such a way as to secure the rights of ing the two members of the sentence. I conscience, and a free exercise of the rights of re AUGUST, 1789.] Amendments to the Constitution. ligion, but not to patronise those who professed no religion at all. Mr. MADISON thought, if the word "national" was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen. He believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combine together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform. He thought if the word "national" was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent. Mr. LIVERMORE was not satisfied with that amendment; but he did not wish them to dwell long on the subject. He thought it would be better if it were altered, and made to read in this manner, that Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience. Mr. GERRY did not like the term national, proposed by the gentleman from Virginia, and he hoped it would not be adopted by the House. It brought to his mind some observations that had taken place in the conventions at the time they were considering the present Constitution. It had been insisted upon by those who were called anti-federalists, that this form of Government consolidated the Union; the honorable gentleman's motion shows that he considers it in the same light. Those who were called anti-federalists at that time, complained that they had injustice done them by the title, because they were in favor of a Federal Government, and the others were in favor af a national one; the federalists were for ratifying the Constitution as it stood, and the others not until amendments were made. Their names then ought not to have been distinguished by federalists and anti-federalists, but rats and anti-rats. Mr. MADISON withdrew his motion, but observed that the words "no national religion shall be established by law," did not imply that the Government was a national one; the question was then taken on Mr. LIVERMORE's motion, and passed in the affirmative, thirty-one for, and twenty against it. The next clause of the fourth proposition was taken into consideration, and was as follows: "The freedom of speech and of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to apply to the Government for redress of grievances, shall not be infringed." Mr. SEDGWICK submitted to those gentlemen who had contemplated the subject, what effect such an amendment as this would have; he feared it would tend to make them appear trifling in the eyes of their constituents; what, said he, shall we secure the freedom of speech, and think it necessary, at the same time, to allow the right of assembling? If people freely converse together, they must assemble for that purpose; it is a self-evident, unalienable right which the people possess; it is certainly a thing that never would be called in question; it is derogatory to the dignity of the House to descend to such minutia; he therefore moved to strike out "assemble and." Mr. BENSON. The committee who framed this [H. of R. report proceeded on the principle that these rights belonged to the people; they conceived them to be inherent; and all that they meant to provide against was their being infringed by the Government. Mr. SEDGWICK replied, that if the committee were governed by that general principle, they might have gone into a very lengthy enumeration of rights; they might have declared that a man should have a right to wear his hat if he pleased; that he might get up when he pleased, and go to bed when he thought proper; but he would ask the gentleman whether he thought it necessary to enter these trifles in a declaration of rights, in a Government where none of them were intended to be infringed. Mr. TUCKER hoped the words would not be struck out, for he considered them of importance; besides, they were recommended by the States of Virginia and North Carolina, though he noticed that the most material part proposed by those States was omitted, which was a declaration that the people should have a right to instruct their representatives. He would move to have those words inserted as soon as the motion for striking out was decided. Mr. GERRY was also against the words being struck out, because he conceived it to be an essential right; it was inserted in the constitutions of several States; and though it had been abused in the year 1786 in Massachusetts, yet that abuse ought not to operate as an argument against the use of it. The people ought to be secure in the peaceable enjoyment of this privilege, and that can only be done by making a declaration to that effect in the Constitution. Mr. PAGE. The gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. SEDGWICK,) who made this motion, objects to the clause, because the right is of so trivial a nature. He supposes it no more essential than whether a man has a right to wear his hat or not; but let me observe to him that such rights have been opposed, and a man has been obliged to pull off his hat when he appeared before the face of authority; people have also been prevented from assembling together on their lawful occasions, therefore it is well to guard against such stretches of authority, by inserting the privilege in the declaration of rights. If the people could be deprived of the power of assembling under any pretext whatsoever, they might be deprived of every other privilege contained in the clause. Mr. VINING said, if the thing were harmless, and it would tend to gratify the States that had proposed amendments, he should agree to it. Mr. HARTLEY observed, that it had been asserted in the convention of Pennsylvania, by the friends of the Constitution, that all the rights and powers that were not given to the Government, were retained by the States and the people thereof. This was also his own opinion; but as four or five States had required to be secured in those rights by an express declaration in the Constitution, he was disposed to gratify them; he thought every thing that was not incompatible with the general good, ought to be granted, if it would H. OF R.] Amendments to the Constitution. tend to obtain the confidence of the people in the Government; and, upon the whole, he thought these words were as necessary to be inserted in the declaration of rights as most in the clause. Mr. GERRY said, that his colleague contended for nothing, if he supposed that the people had a right to consult for the common good, because they could not consult unless they met for the purpose. Mr. SEDGWICK replied, that if they were understood or implied in the word consult, they were utterly unnecessary, and upon that ground he moved to have them struck out. The question was now put upon Mr. SEDGWICK's motion, and lost by a considerable majority. Mr. TUCKER then moved to insert these words: "to instruct their representatives." Mr. HARTLEY wished the motion had not been made, for gentlemen acquainted with the circumstances of this country, and the history of the country from which we separated, differed exceedingly on this point. The members of the House of Representatives, said he, are chosen for two years, the members of the Senate for six. According to the principles laid down in the Constitution, it is presumable that the persons elected know the interests and the circumstances of their constituents, and being checked in their determinations by a division of the Legislative power into two branches, there is little danger of error. At least it ought to be supposed that they have the confidence of the people during the period for which they are elected; and if, by misconduct, they forfeit it, their constituents have the power of leaving them out at the expiration of that time-thus they are answerable for the part they have taken in measures that may be contrary to the general wish. Representation is the principle of our Government; the people ought to have confidence in the honor and integrity of those they send forward to transact their business; their right to instruct them is a problematical subject. We have seen it attended with bad consequences, both in England and America. When the passions of the people are excited, instructions have been resorted to and obtained to answer party purposes; and although the public opinion is generally respectable, yet at such moments it has been known to be often wrong; and happy is that Government composed of men of firmness and wisdom to discover and resist popular error, [August, 1789. when they will generally contain the prejudices and acrimony of the party, rather than the dietates of honest reason and sound policy. In England, this question has been considerably agitated. The representatives of some towns in Parliament have acknowledged and submitted to the binding force of instructions, while the majority has thrown off the shackles with disdain. I would not have this precedent influence our de cision; but let the doctrine be tried upon its own merits, and stand or fall as it shall be found to deserve. It appears to my mind that the principle of representation is distinct from any agency which may require written instructions. The great end of meeting is to consult for the common good; but can the common good be discerned without the object is reflected and shown in every light? A local or partial view does not necessarily ena ble any man to comprehend it clearly; this can only result from an inspection into the aggregate. Instructions viewed in this light will be found to embarrass the best and wisest men. And were all the members to take their seats in order to obey instructions, and those instructions were as various as it is probable they would be, what pos sibility would there exist of so accommodating each to the other as to produce any act whatever? Perhaps a majority of the whole might not be instructed to agree to any one point, and is it thus the people of the United States propose to form & more perfect union, provide for the common defence, and promote the general welfare? Sir, I have known within my own time so many inconveniences and real evils arise from adopting the popular opinions on the moment, that although I respect them as much as any man, I hope this Government will particularly guard against them, at least that they will not bind themselves by a Constitutional act, and by oath, to submit to their influence; if they do, the great object which this Government has been estab lished to attain will inevitably elude our grasp on the uncertain and veering winds of popular commotion. Mr. PAGE. The gentleman from Pennsylvania tells you that in England this principle is doubted; how far this is consonant with the nature of the Government I will not pretend to say; but I am not astonished to find that the administrators of a monarchical Government are unassailable by the weak voice of the people; but under a democra cy, whose great end is to form a code of laws If, in a small community, where the interests, congenial with the public sentiment, the popular habits, and manners, are neither so numerous nor opinion ought to be collected and attended to. Our diversified, instructions bind not, what shall we say present object is, I presume, to secure to our co of instructions to this body? Can it be supposed stituents and to posterity these inestimable rights that the inhabitants of a single district in a State Our Government is derived from the people, of com are better informed with respect to the general sequence the people have a right to consult for the interests of the Union, than a select body assem-common good; but to what end will this be done, bled from every part? part will be more desirous of promoting the good presentatives? Instruction and representation in Can it be supposed that a if they have not the power of instructing their re of the whole than the whole will of the part? I a Republic appear to me to be inseparably apprehend, sir, that Congress will be the best nected; but were I the subject of a monarch, I judges of proper measures, and that instructions should doubt whether the public good did not de will never be resorted to but for party purposes, pend more upon the prince's will than the will of AUGUST, 1789.] Amendments to the Constitution. [H. OF R. the people. I should dread a popular assembly consult for the common good can go no further The honorable gentleman has said, that when once the people have chosen a representative, they must rely on his integrity and judgment during the period for which he is elected. I think, sir, to doubt the authority of the people to instruct their representatives, will give them just cause to be alarmed for their fate. I look upon it as a dangerous doctrine, subversive of the great end for which the United States have confederated. Every friend of mankind, every well-wisher of his country, will be desirous of obtaining the sense of the people on every occasion of magnitude; but how can this be so well expressed as in instructions to their representatives? I hope, therefore, that gentlemen will not oppose the insertion of it in this part of the report. Mr. JACKSON was in favor of the right of the people to assemble and consult for the common good; it had been used in this country as one of the best checks on the British Legislature in their unjustifiable attempts to tax the colonies without their consent. America had no representatives in the British Parliament, therefore they could instruct none, yet they exercised the power of consultation to a good effect. He begged gentlemen to consider the dangerous tendency of establishing such a doctrine; it would necessarily drive the House into a number of factions. There might be different instructions from every State, and the representation from each State would be a faction to support its own measures. If we establish this as a right, we shall be bound by those instructions; now, I am willing to leave both the people and representatives to their own discretion on this subject. Let the people consult and give their opinion; let the representative judge of it; and if it is just, let him govern himself by it as a good member ought to do; but if it is otherwise, let him have it in his power to reject their advice. Mr. CLYMER. I hope the amendment will not be adopted; but if our constituents choose to instruct us, that they may be left at liberty to do so. Do gentlemen foresee the extent of these words? If they have a Constitutional right to instruct us, it infers that we are bound by those instructions; What may be the consequence of binding a and as we ought not to decide. Constitutional man to vote in all cases according to the will of questions by implication, I presume we shall be others? He is to decide upon a Constitutional called upon to go further, and expressly declare point, and on this question his conscience is bound the members of the Legislature bound by the in- by the obligation of a solemn oath; you now instruction of their constituents. This is a most volve him in a serious dilemma. If he votes dangerous principle, utterly destructive of all according to his conscience, he decides against his ideas of an independent and deliberative body, instructions; but in deciding against his instrucwhich are essential requisites in the Legislatures tions, he commits a breach of the Constitution, of free Governments; they prevent men of abili- by infringing the prerogative of the people, secured ties and experience from rendering those services to them by this declaration. In short, it will give to the community that are in their power, destroy-rise to such a variety of absurdities and inconing the object contemplated by establishing an efficient General Government, and rendering Čongress a mere passive machine. sistencies, as no prudent Legislature would wish to involve themselves in. Mr. GERRY.-By the checks provided in the Mr. SHERMAN.-It appears to me, that the words Constitution, we have good grounds to believe are calculated to mislead the people, by convey- that the very framers of it conceived that the ing an idea that they have a right to control the Government would be liable to mal-administradebates of the Legislature. This cannot be ad- tion, and I presume that the gentlemen of this mitted to be just, because it would destroy the House do not mean to arrogate to themselves object of their meeting. I think, when the peo- more perfection than human nature has as yet ple have chosen a representative, it is his duty to been found to be capable of; if they do not, they meet others from the different parts of the Union, will admit an additional check against abuses and consult, and agree with them to such acts as which this, like every other Government, is subare for the general benefit of the whole commu-ject to. Instruction from the people will furnish nity. If they were to be guided by instructions, there would be no use in deliberation; all that a man would have to do, would be to produce his instructions, and lay them on the table, and let them speak for him. From hence I think it may be fairly inferred, that the right of the people to this in a considerable degree. It has been said that the amendment proposed by the honorable gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. TUCKER) determines this point, "that the people can bind their representatives to follow their instructions." I do not conceive that this |