ciple of just Government." It cannot be too strongly insisted that whatever opinions were expressed in debate, and whatever arguments were advanced for or against the election of the members of the upper house by the state legislatures and all sorts of proposals of other methods were made and all sorts of opinions were expressed-they should be interpreted with reference to the one question at issue, that of proportional representation. It might also be noted that from the moment of the adoption of the great compromise the method of electing the members of the upper house was never questioned in the convention.

CHAPTER VIII

AFTER THE COMPROMISE

When the New Jersey plan was presented to the convention and Paterson had argued against the power of the convention to consider such a plan as that of Virginia, Pinckney had incisively remarked: "Give New Jersey an equal vote, and she will dismiss her scruples, and concur in the National system." This proved now to be true. The great compromise gave the small states an equal vote in only one branch of the legislature, but it was enough to reconcile them to the new plan, and they became warmer and warmer advocates of a strong national government. Not so with the large states, their plans were so disarranged by the loss of proportional representation in the upper house, that as soon as the compromise was adopted on July 16, they asked for an adjournment until the next day to give them an opportunity to consider what was best to be done. After a little show of feeling and some suggestions that it would be better to adjourn sine die, the request was agreed to.

On the next morning, Madison reports, before the regular convention hour, a number of the members from the large states met together for

consultation, and some members from the small states were also present. It was evident at once that opinions differed as to the consequences involved in the adoption of the compromise. Some regarded it as fatal to the establishment of a strong government and favored extreme measures, even to the point of recommending a separate plan. Others seemed inclined to yield and to favor a concurrence in whatever act might be agreed upon by the convention as a body. Apparently the latter view prevailed, and Madison adds that the smaller states were probably satisfied “that they had nothing to apprehend from a union of the larger in any plan whatever against the equality of votes in the second branch." The work was accordingly allowed to proceed.

Many rumors were current as to what was being done in the convention, and it is altogether probable that something had leaked out concerning the serious differences of opinion that threatened to disrupt the assembly. If so, it was important to allay all fears. Accordingly a day or two after the compromise was adopted an item appeared in one of the local papers. It was probably inspired and it was copied into several other journals:

"So great is the unanimity, we hear, that prevails in the Convention, upon all great federal subjects, that it

has been proposed to call the room in which they assemble Unanimity Hall."

The next ten days were devoted to a consideration of the remaining resolutions of the Virginia plan. Quite the most important subject of discussion was that of the executive, especially with reference to the method of his election and to his term of office. Upon these questions the convention found itself in the same difficulties that had troubled the committee of the whole. If the executive were to be chosen by the legislature, he must not be eligible for re-election and his one term should therefore be a comparatively long term. But the possibility of re-election was a great incentive and if re-eligible, the executive's term of office should be short and he should not be chosen by the legislature. In this complication the delegates became hopelessly involved, and in the endeavor to extricate themselves every conceivable suggestion was made. Appointment by state executives, direct election by the people, and a system of electors who might be chosen by the people, by the state legislatures, or even from the national legislature by lot, were among the methods proposed.

Wilson noted with considerable satisfaction "that the idea was gaining ground, of an election mediately or immediately by the people." Among those who supported a popular election,

direct or indirect, were Madison, Gouverneur Morris, King, Paterson, and Dickinson. Opposed to them were Randolph, Charles Pinckney, Sherman, Rutledge, Mason, Gerry, and Williamson. On a question for direct popular election taken early in the discussion only Pennsylvania voted "aye." The opinion of the convention on this subject seems to have been voiced in one respect by Mason when he said that “it would be as unnatural to refer the choice of a proper character for chief Magistrate to the people, as it would to refer a trial of colours to a blind man. The extent of the Country renders it impossible that the people can have the requisite capacity to judge of the respective pretensions of the Candidates." The other serious objection was that the people would always vote for a man of their own state, which would give the larger states an advantage over the smaller that would probably be decisive of the election. To obviate the latter objection it was suggested that each man should vote for two or three can didates, only one of whom should be of his own state. Another proposal was that the people of each state should name one man, and from the thirteen names thus selected, the national legislature should choose the executive. Both of these suggestions met with more or less approval, but for the time being they came to naught.