178 liberty and general welfare." — Elliott's Debates, vol. 4, p. 41. Now it must be recollected that the articles of confederation were, in point of fact, and in terms, a compact between the different States as sovereignties. The instrument itself purports to be such, and is described in the preamble as "Articles of confederation and perpetual union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations," &c. As Governor Randolph's proposition was merely to correct and enlarge those articles, if it had been adopted, the nature of the compact would have been the same, and it would have continued to stand on the footing of an agreement among the States as sovereignties. The very point now at issue was therefore brought at once, and directly before the Convention. On the same day the Convention resolved to go into Committee of the whole, on the State of the Union, and the propositions of Governor Randolph were referred to that Committee. On the following day, May 30th, these resolutions were taken up for consideration, and the particular one in question being the first in order, was, on his own motion, postponed; and another, offered likewise by him, was, after debate, adopted as a substitute, in the following words: "Resolved that a National Government ought to be established, consisting of a Supreme Legislative. Judiciary, and Executive." On this question, six States, namely, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virgin- ia, North Carolina and South Carolina voted in the affirmative; Connecticut voted in the negative, and New York was divided. Elliott's Debates, vol. 4, p. 49. Mr. Yates, a member of the Convention from New York, who was opposed to the present Constitution, and afterwards withdrew from the Convention because he thought they were exceeding their powers, kept minutes of the debates while he was there, which are published in the fourth volume of Elliott's Debates, and has thus thrown much light on the questions that were agitated; and may be considered for that purpose, as of the highest authority. In his minutes of the debate on that day, he observes, "this last resolve had its difficulties, the term supreme required explanation. It was asked whether it was intended to annihilate the State Governments? It was answered only so far as the powers intended to be granted to the new government should clash with the States, when the
Page:State Papers on Nullification.djvu/192
