The Debates in the several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol. 1 – Jonathan Elliot
The five volumes furnish a collection of the Debates and Proceedings which took place in the different states, on the adoption of the Federal Constitution, as submitted by the General Convention, on the 17th of September, 1787. In the compilation, care has been taken to search into contemporary publications, in order to make the work as perfect as possible. Still, however, the sentiments they contain may, in some instances, have been inaccurately taken down, and, in others, probably, too faintly sketched, fully to gratify the inquisitive politician; but they nevertheless disclose the opinions of many of the most distinguished revolutionary patriots and statesmen, in relation to the powers intended to be granted to the Congress of the United States under the Constitution, and certainly may form an excellent guide in expounding many doubtful points in that instrument. In forming a History of the Constitution, the materials they furnish must be also considered of the greatest importance. The lights, too, which they throw on the character and the men of those extraordinary times, will always give them a sufficient interest, in the eyes of an intelligent community, to confer a peculiar value on their publication, rescued from the ephemeral prints of that day.
The Debates in the several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol. 1.
Format: eBook.
The Debates in the several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol. 1.
ISBN: 9783849653484
Excerpt from volume 1:
On the 11th of November, 1620, those humble but fearless adventurers, the Plymouth colonists, before their landing, drew up and signed an original compact, in which, after acknowledging themselves subjects of the crown of England, they proceed to declare: “Having undertaken, for the glory of God, and the advancement of the Christian faith, and the honor of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, we do, by these presents, solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God and of one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation, and furtherance of the ends aforesaid. And by virtue hereof do enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and officers, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.” This is the whole of the compact, and it was signed by forty-one persons.
It is, in its very essence, a pure democracy; and, in pursuance of it, the colonists proceeded soon afterwards to organize the colonial government, under the name of the Colony of New Plymouth, to appoint a governor and other officers, and to enact laws. The governor was chosen annually by the freemen, and had at first one assistant to aid him in the discharge of his trust. Four others were soon afterwards added, and finally the number was increased to seven. The supreme legislative power resided in, and was exercised by, the whole body of the male inhabitants — every freeman, who was a member of the church, being admitted to vote in all public affairs. The number of settlements having increased, and being at a considerable distance from each other, a house of representatives was established in 1639, the members of which, as well as all other officers, were annually chosen. They adopted the common law of England as the general basis of their jurisprudence,—varying it however, from time to time, by municipal regulations better adapted to their situation, or conforming more exactly to their stern notions of the absolute authority and universal obligation of the Mosaic institutions.
The Plymouth colonists acted, at first, altogether under the voluntary compact and association already mentioned. But they daily felt embarrassments from the want of some general authority, derived directly or indirectly from the crown, which should recognize their settlement and confirm their legislation. After several ineffectual attempts made for this purpose, they at length succeeded in obtaining, in January, 1629, a patent from the council established at Plymouth, in England, under the charter of King James, of 1620. This patent, besides a grant of the territory, upon the terms and tenure of the original patent of 1620, included an authority to the patentee (William Bradford) and his associates “to incorporate, by some usual or fit name and title, him or themselves, or the people there inhabiting under him or them, and their successors; from time to time to make orders, ordinances, and constitutions, as well for the better government of their affairs here, and the receiving or admitting any into their society, as also for the better government of his or their people, or his or their people at sea, in going thither or returning from thence; and the same to put or cause to be put in execution, by such officers and ministers as he or they shall authorize and depute; provided, that the said laws and orders be not repugnant to the laws of England, or the frame of government by the said president and council [of Plymouth Company] hereafter to be established.”
The charter of 1629 furnished them, however, with the color of delegated sovereignty, of which they did not fail to avail themselves. They assumed under it the exercise of the most plenary executive, legislative, and judicial powers, with but a momentary scruple as to their right to inflict capital punishments. They were not disturbed in the free exercise of these powers, either through the ignorance or the connivance of the crown, until after the restoration of Charles II. Their authority under their charter was then questioned; and several unsuccessful attempts were made to procure a confirmation from the crown. They continued to cling to it, until, in the general shipwreck of charters, in 1684, theirs was overturned. An arbitrary government was then established over them, in common with the other New England colonies, and they were finally incorporated into a province, with Massachusetts, under the charter granted to the latter by William and Mary, in 1691.
After providing for the manner of choosing their governor and legislature, as above stated, their first attention seems to have been directed to the establishment of “free liberties of the free-born people of England.” It was therefore declared, almost in the language of Magna Charta, that justice should be impartially administered unto all, not sold or denied; that no person should suffer “in respect to life, limb, liberty, good name, or estate, but by virtue or equity of some express law of the General Court, or the good and equitable laws of our nation suitable for us, in matters which are of a civil nature, (as by the court here hath been accustomed,) wherein we have no particular law of our own;” and none should suffer without being brought to answer by due course and process of law; that, in criminal and civil cases, there should be a trial by jury at all events upon a final trial on appeal, with the right to challenge for just cause; and, in capital cases, a peremptory right to challenge twenty jurors, as in England; that no party should be cast or condemned, unless upon the testimony of two sufficient witnesses, or other sufficient evidence, or circumstances, unless otherwise specially provided by law; that all persons of the age of twenty-one years, and of sound memory, should have power to make wills and other lawful alienations of their estate, whether they were condemned, or excommunicated, or other; except that, in treason, their personal estate should be forfeited; but their real estate was still to be at their disposal. All processes were directed to be in the king’s name. All trials in respect to land were to be in the county where it lay; and all personal actions, where one of the parties lived; and lands and goods were liable to attachment to answer the judgment rendered in any action. All lands were to descend according to the free tenure of lands of East Greenwich, in the county of Kent; and all entailed lands according to the law of England. All the sons were to inherit equally, except the eldest, who was to have a double share. If there were no sons, all the daughters were to inherit alike. Brothers of the whole blood were to inherit; and if none, then sisters of the whole blood. All conveyances of land were to be by deed only, acknowledged before some magistrate, and recorded in the public records. Among capital offences were enumerated, without any discrimination, idolatry, blasphemy, treasen, murder, witchcraft, bestiality, sodomy, false witness, man-stealing, cursing or smiting father or mother, rape, wilful burning of houses and ships, and piracy; while certain other offences, of a nature quite as immoral and injurious to society, received a far more moderate punishment. Undoubtedly, a reverential regard for the Scriptures placed the crimes of idolatry, blasphemy, and false witness, and cursing and smiting father and mother, among the capital offences. And, as might well be presumed from the religious sentiments of the people, ample protection was given to the church; and the maintenance of a public orthodox ministry, and of public schools, was carefully provided for.
….