The Question for making ye. Executive ineligible after seven years, 〈was next next taken, and agreed to:〉
Massts. ay. Cont. no. N Y—ay Pa. divd. Del. ay. Maryd. ay. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. no:[**] [Ayes—7; noes—2; divided—1.]
〈Mr. Williamson 2ded. by Mr. Davie moved to add to the last Clause, the words—“and to be removeable on impeachment & conviction of mal-practice or neglect of duty”—which was agreed to.〉[1]
〈Mr. Rutlidge &〉[1] Mr. C. Pinkney moved that the blank for the no. of persons in the Executive be filled with the words “one person”. He supposed the reasons to be so obvious & conclusive in favor of one that no member would oppose the motion.
Mr. Randolph opposed it with great earnestness, declaring that he should not do justice to the Country which sent him if he were silently to suffer the establishment. of a Unity in the Executive department. He felt an opposition to it which he believed he should continue to feel as long as he lived. He urged 1. that the permanent temper of the people was adverse to the very semblance of Monarchy. 2. that a unity was unnecessary a plurality being equally competent to all the objects of the department. 3. that the necessary confidence would never be reposed in a single Magistrate. 4. that the appointments would generally be in favor of some inhabitant near the center of the Community, and consequently the remote parts would not be on an equal footing. 〈He was in favor of three members of the Executive to be drawn from different portions of the Country.〉[2]
Mr. Butler contended strongly for a single magistrate as most likely to answer the purpose of the remote parts. If one man should be appointed he would be responsible to the whole, and would be impartial to its interests. If three or
**↑ 〈In printed Journal Geo: ay.〉[3]
