ing, of the House of Representatives, the popular, or national, branch of Congress, was one of the particular grounds taken by the minority in this convention for opposing the ratification of the Constitution. Subsequently another ef fort was made to induce Pennsylvania to take an adverse stand to the Constitution as ratified; on September 3, 1788, nine months after the ratification, a number of Pennsylvanians met at Harrisburg, and, after organizing with Blair McClenahan as Chairman and John A. Hanna as Secretary, presented an address to the General Assembly of the State urging it to take measures to procure the adoption of certain amendments to the Constitution as ratified, one of which was that "to Article VI, Clause 2, be added the following proviso, viz: Provided, always, That no treaty, which shall hereafter be made, shall be deemed or construed to alter or affect any law of the United States, or of any particular State, until such treaty shall have been laid before and assented to by the House of Representatives in Congress."1 From this it appears that the wide extent of power lodged in the President and two-thirds of the Senate was not only fully appreciated, but was also greatly feared, by the signers of this petition, and that the great publicity given to these proceedings at the time put the people, not only of Pennsyl vania, but also of the other States, thoroughly on notice.

§ 202. Ratification by New Jersey.-New Jersey followed shortly after this, the convention of that State unanimously ratifying the Constitution on December 12, 1787, although the Anti-Federalists of New York and Pennsylvania used every effort to persuade their intermediate neighbors to reject it.1

1

§ 203. Georgia and Connecticut ratify; conditions in other States.-Georgia was the first of the Southern States to fall into line, while Connecticut, under the leadership of

§ 201.

of the United States, vol. I, p. 645

1 Elliot's Debates, vol. II, pp. 542-646; Elliot's Debates, vol. I, p. 320. 546; McMaster and Stone, p. 564.

§ 202.

§ 203.

1 Elliot's Debates, vol. I, p. 323;

1 Curtis' Constitutional History Curtis' Constitutional History of

the United States, vol. I, p. 646.

Oliver Ellsworth, occupied the corresponding position in New England.

By January 9, 1788, five States had ratified the Constitution, and all had done so unconditionally; the ratifications by four more were necessary before it could become operative. But, as Mr. Curtis says in his Constitutional History,

a new act in the drama was to open with the New Year."3 Massachusetts, New York and Virginia were, indeed, to ratify the Constitution, but subject to conditions, either in form or in spirit; amendments were to be proposed and insisted upon, and for a long time the fate of the Constitution hung in the balance; from January 9, 1788, when the sessions of the Massachusetts convention commenced until June 25th, when the ratification by the Virginia convention made the plan an assured success, in fact, even until July 26th, when the Constitution was ratified by the New York convention, the all absorbing thought and the single universal topic of the country was the Constitution, and its adoption or rejection.

$204. Massachusetts Convention meets; members composing it. On January 9, 1788, the special convention called for consideration of the Constitution and composed of 355 delegates met at Boston, Massachusetts.1

It included many remarkable men, some of whom were foremost citizens of the State; there were others, however, who had actually participated in Shay's Rebellion and who were opposed to the adoption of the Constitution or, probably, to the establishment of any strong central government which could, and would, enforce law and order.

Among some of the ablest members were Fisher Ames, John Winthrop, James Bowdoin, John Hancock, William Cushing, Francis Dana, Rufus King, and Judge Sumner.2

John Hancock was chosen President, and William Cushing, Vice President, of the convention. On February 2d, 2 Elliot's Debates, vol. II, pp. 185-| tory of the United States, vol. I, p. 202; Curtis' Constitutional History 649; Massachusetts and the Federal of the United States, vol. 1, p. 647. Convention by Samuel Bannister 3 Idem p. 648. Harding, New York and London, § 204. 1896.

2 Elliot's Debates, vol. II, pp. 178

1 Elliot's Debates, vol. II, pp. 1183. Curtis' Constitutional His--181.

the Constitution was ratified by a vote of 187 to 168; the narrow majority of 19 was undoubtedly secured by the adoption of a resolution that certain amendments should be recommended to Congress as the wish of the State in regard to the Constitution. Some of these suggestions were incorporated in the amendments which were passed by the first Congress and immediately ratified by the States, and thus became incorporated in the Constitution almost at the outset of the Government. None of the amendments suggested by the Massachusetts convention related to the treaty-making power.'

§ 205. Position of Samuel Adams; Constitution ratified. -During the proceedings of this convention the Constitution was discussed in all of its varied phases and aspects. It was ably supported; it was vigorously condemned. It was well known at the outset that Samuel Adams, "Father of the Revolution," or, as he is also called "The American Cato,"1 was to a certain extent opposed to the Constitution; for a long time many of his followers withheld any expression of their views, while they waited for him to announce the course which he intended to take. Not until the last days of the convention did he finally declare that he would vote for ratification; in doing so he admitted that he had his doubts, and that he could not digest every part of it as readily as some of the other gentlemen had done; he felt, however, that it was the best that could be obtained, and on the whole that ratification would be better than rejection. The following extract from his remarks shows that he fully appreciated the importance of lodging the treaty-making power in the Central Government. "But, sir," he declared, “there are many parts of it I esteem as highly valuable, particularly the article which empowers Congress to regulate commerce, to form treaties, &c. For want of this power in our national head, our friends are grieved, and our enemies insult us. Our ambassador at the Court of London is considered as a mere cipher, instead of the representative of the United

§ 205.

8 Elliott's Debates, vol. II, p. 181. A list of the suggested amend- 1 Curtis' Constitutional History ments will be found at p. 177 of of the United States, vol. I, p. 651. Elliot's Debates, vol. II.

States. Therefore, it appears to me, that a power to remedy this evil should be given to Congress, and the remedy applied as soon as possible." "

Mr. Adams's scruples were no doubt removed by the adoption of the resolution suggesting the proposed amendments; he is recorded in the yeas and nays as having voted for the ratification; undoubtedly the great weight of his influence largely aided in the ratification of the Constitution by the State of Massachusetts.

$206. Ratification by Maryland; Luther Martin's protest.-On April 28, 1778, Maryland ratified the Constitution; this however, was not done without a struggle, nor until after Luther Martin had thrown his powerful influence in opposition to it, and had presented to the Legislature a lengthy address embodying his reasons for refusing to sign the Constitution and for urging his own State to withhold its ratification. Some of the grounds of his views are quoted in the note to this section.1

124.

§ 206.

2 Elliot's Debates, vol. II, p. 123-|ings, we adopted principles which would be right and proper, only on the supposition that there were no 1 "It was urged, that the govern- state governments at all, but that ment we were forming was not in all the inhabitants of this extensive reality a federal but a national continent were in their individual government, not founded on the capacity, without government, and principles of the preservation, but in a state of nature-That accordthe abolition or consolidation of ingly the system proposes the legall state governments-That we ap- islature to consist of two branches, peared totally to have forgotten the the one to be drawn from the people business for which we were sent, at large, immediately in their inand the situation of the country for dividual capacity; the other to be which we were preparing our sys- chosen in a more select manner, as a tem-That we had not been sent to check upon the first-It is in its form a government over the inhabi- very introduction declared to be a tants of America, considered as in-compact between the people of the dividuals, that as individuals they United States as individuals; and it were all subject to their respective state governments, which governments would still remain, tho' the federal government should be dissolved That the system of government we were entrusted to prepare, was a government over these thirteen states; but that in our proceed-ing one national government for

is to be ratified by the people at large in their capacity as individ uals; all which it was said, would be quite right and proper, if there were no state governments, if all the people of this continent were in a state of nature, and we were form

$207. The Constitution in South Carolina; Mr. Pinckney's views. A majority of the States had now ratified the Constitution, but under the terms of the instrument the ratifications of two more were required; six were still to be heard from.

A fierce battle was fought in the South Carolina Legislature over the question of calling a constitutional convention,' with the result of calling one for the 12th of May, on which day it met at Charleston.2 Governor Thomas Pinckney was elected President. Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Rawlins Lowndes and David Ramsay took prominent parts in the discussion.

One of the subjects of debate in the legislature was the treaty-making power; Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, who had been a delegate to the Federal Convention, explained the reasons for vesting the treaty-making power in the Executive and Senate. During his remarks he said that the subject had appeared to be of such magnitude that a committee of one member from each State had been appointed to consider and report upon it; some of the members of that committee were in favor of vesting the treaty-making power in the legislature, but the elements of secrecy and despatch, which are so frequently necessary in negotiations, evinced the impropriety of that course; the same reason showed the impropriety in placing it solely in the House of Representatives. A few of the members were desirous that the President, alone, might possess it. At last, however, it was agreed to give the President the power of proposing treaties as he was ostensibly the head of the nation, and of vesting in the Senate, where each State had an equal voice, the power of agreeing or disagreeing with the terms proposed. "On the whole," he said, "a large majority of the Convention thought

them as individuals, and is nearly the Federal Convention, pp. 38-39; the same as was done in most of Curtis' Constitutional History of the states, when they formed their United States, vol. I, p. 656–657. governments over the people who § 207. compose them." (The italics are so in the original as published by Yates.) Elliot's Debates, vol. I, p. 344; see pp. 359-360; vol. II, pp. 547-556; Yates' Secret Journal of

1 Elliot's Debates, vol. IV, pp. 253-342; Curtis' Constitutional History, vol. I, p. 658.

2 Elliot's Debates, vol. IV, p. 316. 8 Idem p. 264.