the affirmative, and five in the negative, two being divided;[1] and the whole proposition, as to representatives, was (as amended) lost by a vote of five states for it, and five against it, one being divided.[2] And as to senators, a motion was made, that they should be paid by their respective states, which was lost, five states voting for it, and six against it; and then the proposition to pay them out of the public treasury was lost by a similar vote.[3] At a subsequent period a proposition was reported, that the compensation of the members of both houses should be made by the state, in which they were chosen;[4] and ultimately the present plan was agreed to by a vote of nine states against two.[5] Such a fluctuation of opinion exhibits in a strong light the embarrassing considerations, which surrounded the subject.[6]
§ 851. The principal reasons in favour of a compensation may be presumed to have been the following. In the first place, the advantage, it secured, of commanding the first talents of the nation in the public councils, by removing a virtual disqualification, that of poverty, from that large class of men, who, though favoured by nature, might not be favoured by fortune. It could hardly be expected, that such men would make the necessary sacrifices in order to gratify their ambition for a public station; and if they did, there w as a corresponding danger, that they might be compelled by their necessities, or tempted by their wants, to yield up their independence, and perhaps their integrity, to the allurements of the corrupt, or the opulent.[7] In thePage:Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1st ed, 1833, vol II).djvu/328
320
CONSTITUTION OF THE U. STATES.
[BOOK III.
