XI.

Sept. 14.

that the functions of the general government should CHAP. extend to the prevention of "trespasses of the states on the rights of each other." "The rights of individu- 1787. als," he said in the convention, "are infringed by many of the state laws, such as issuing paper money, and instituting a mode to discharge debts differing from the form of the contract."" It has already been told how the delegates from Connecticut had agreed among themselves "that the legislatures of the individual states ought not to possess a right to make any laws for the discharge of contracts in any manner different from the agreement of the parties."" Stringent clauses in the constitution already prohibited paper money. For the rest, King, as we have seen, proposed a clause forbidding the states to interfere in private contracts; but the motion had been condemned as reaching too far; and instead of it, at the instance of Rutledge, the convention denied to the states the power "to pass bills of attainder or ex post facto laws."" In this manner it was supposed that laws for closing the courts, or authorizing the debtor to pay his debts by more convenient instalments than he had covenanted for, were effectually prohibited. But Dickinson, as we have seen, after consulting Blackstone, mentioned to the house that the term ex post facto related to criminal cases only; and that restraint of the states from retrospective laws in civil cases would require some further provision. Before an explanatory provision had been

5

CHAP. made, the section came into the hands of the commitXI. tee on revision and style. That committee had no 1787. authority to bring forward any new proposition,

Sept. 14.

15

but only to make corrections of style. Gouverneur Morris retained the clause forbidding ex post facto laws; and, resolute not "to countenance the issue of paper money and the consequent violation of contracts," he of himself added the words: "No state shall pass laws altering or impairing the obligation of contracts." The convention reduced the explanatory words to the shorter form: "No state shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts." In this manner an end was designed to be made to barren land laws, laws for the instalment of debts, and laws closing the courts against suitors. Sherman and Ellsworth, in their official letter recommending the constitution to Connecticut, explained the intent of the convention by saying: "The restraint on the legislatures of the several states respecting emitting bills of credit, making anything but money a tender in payment of debts, or impairing the obligation of contracts by ex post facto laws, was thought necessary as a security to commerce, in which the interest of foreigners as well as of the citizens of different states may be affected."*

From fresh information it appeared to Sherman that North Carolina was entitled to another representative; and Langdon moved to allow one more member to that state, and likewise one more to Rhode

ΧΙ.

Island." "If Rhode Island is to be allowed two CHAP. members," said King, "I can never sign the constitution."

1787. Sept.

Charles Pinckney urged separately the just claim 15. of North Carolina; on which Bedford put in a like claim for Rhode Island and for Delaware; and the original proposition was hopelessly defeated."

Randolph and Madison disliked leaving the pardon for treason to the president alone; but the convention would not suffer the legislature or the senate to share that power.*

The committee of revision had described a fugitive slave as "a person legally held to service or labor in one state." The language seemed to imply that slavery was a "legal" condition; the last word of the convention relating to the subject defined the fugitive slave to be "a person held to service or labor in one state under the laws thereof," making it clear that, in the meaning of the constitution, slavery was local and not federal.*

The convention gave the last touches to the modes of amending the constitution. In August the committee of detail had reported that, "on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the states in the union, the legislature of the United States shall call a convention for that purpose."" On the thirtieth day of August, Gouverneur Morris had suggested that congress "should be at liberty to call a convention whenever it pleased.""

"An easier mode of in- 10.

XI.

Sept.

CHAP. troducing amendments," said Hamilton, reviving the question, "is desirable. The state legislatures will 1787. not apply for alterations but with a view to increase 10. their own powers. The national legislature will be the first to perceive the necessity of amendments; and on the concurrence of each branch ought to be empowered to call a convention, reserving the final decision to the people." Madison supported Hamilton.

Here Sherman suggested an alternative: the legislature may propose amendments directly to the several states, not to be binding until consented to by them all." "To be binding when consented to by two thirds of the several states," interposed Wilson. To facilitate amendments, the convention authorized two thirds of congress to introduce amendments to the constitution; but, to prevent hasty changes, required for their ratification the assent of three fourths of the legislatures or conventions of the states.

Madison, summing up the ideas that had found favor, moved that the legislature of the United States, upon a vote of two thirds of both houses, or upon the application of two thirds of the legislatures of the states, shall propose amendments to the constitution which shall be valid when they shall have been ratified by three fourths at least of the several states in their legislatures or conventions, as one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the legislature of the United States.

This motion was accepted, but not till it had been agreed that the clauses in the constitution forming

Gilpin, 1534; Elliot, 531. • Gilpin, 1535; Elliot, 531.

• Gilpin, 1535; Elliot, 531.

special covenants with the South on slavery should CHAP. not be liable to change. Five days later the fears of the small states were quieted by a proviso that no 1787. state without its own consent should ever be deprived of its equality in the senate.'

XI.

Sept. 15.

Finally, on maturest reflection, the proposition of the committee of detail, obliging congress to call a convention on application of two thirds of the states, was restored. Amendments to the constitution might proceed from the people as represented in the legislatures of the states; or from the people as represented in congress; or from the people as present in a convention; in every case to be valid only with the assent of three fourths of the states.

Mason, in sullen discontent at the grant of power to a bare majority of congress to pass navigation acts, and dreading that "a few rich merchants in Philadelphia, New York, and Boston" might by that means monopolize the staples of the southern states and reduce their value perhaps fifty per cent, moved "that no law in the nature of a navigation act be passed before the year eighteen hundred and eight, without the consent of two thirds of each branch of the legislature;" but he was supported only by Maryland, Virginia, and Georgia.

Next, Randolph, whose weight as governor of Virginia might turn the scale in that state, declared his intention to withhold his signature from the constitution that he might retain freedom as to his ultimate action; and, agreeing exactly with Richard Henry