has come about in the various States of the Union. Rooted in the systems
that Englishmen have developed through the centuries, adapted to the new
life and the peculiar conditions of the colonial period, it has spread
with the population throughout the land. The management of local affairs
by the people and their chosen representatives is a sound principle of
government which holds a firm place in every part of our country.

*       *       *       *       *

SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTIONS AND REFERENCES.

1. Which type of local government exists in your State? Can you account
for its origin?

2. Is the system of local government uniform throughout your State? If
so, why is this true? If not, can you account for the lack of
uniformity?




CHAPTER IV.


THE GOVERNMENT OF CITIES.

The General Plan of City Government.--The general framework of city
government is not very different from that of the other governmental
divisions. There are the legislative, executive, and judicial
departments, whose organization and functions are stated in the
_charter_, or fundamental law of the city. The city legislature is the
_council_ or _board of aldermen_. In most cases this body is a single
house, though in some cities there are two houses. The members are
elected from the wards into which the city is divided. The council may
pass ordinances for the government of the city, but it is limited in the
extent of its powers by the terms of the city charter.

City Charters Granted by Legislatures.--The source of the charter
is the State legislature. In most States the constitution provides that
the legislature shall pass _general laws_ prescribing the framework of
all cities, or of the classes into which the cities of a State may be
divided, according to their population. These laws also contain
regulations that are safeguards against the abuses of municipal
government, such as heavy taxation and the accumulation of debts. The
requirement of general laws secures uniformity in the most important
features of city government, and it prevents the practice, which is
otherwise liable to prevail, of constant interference by State
legislatures in the affairs of certain cities. Such _special laws_
should be enacted with great caution, if at all; for when a legislature
regulates the affairs of a particular city, it too often does so at the
request of persons or corporations having advantages to gain at the
expense of the public.[3]

[Footnote 3: In some States where the constitutions require general laws
applying to classes of cities, single cities have been put in classes by
themselves; so the legislature has virtually governed them by special
laws.]

The Mayor.--The chief executive of the city is the mayor. He is the
head of the police department and has more or less authority over the
other administrative departments to be discussed later in this chapter.
In the cases of both mayor and aldermen, the facts concerning their
terms, salaries, and other details vary so greatly in different cities
that no general description is possible.

The city judiciary includes the ordinary State courts and also special
or municipal courts of various degrees.

Other City Officials.--Besides the officers enumerated, every city
has its clerk, treasurer, attorney, and assessors. The auditor, or
comptroller, is an important official who controls city finances.

Administrative Departments.--The greatest difficulties of city
government arise in connection with the numerous administrative
departments; these are quite complex in their operation. In large cities
the number of officials and the variety of their duties render it almost
impossible for the average citizen to become informed concerning these
affairs; consequently, opportunities for fraud and mismanagement occur
frequently.

Why, it may be asked, is such complex machinery necessary in municipal
government? It is because social and industrial conditions (that is, the
circumstances under which men live and work) are quite different from
those that we find in towns and villages; and city government must be
adapted to these conditions.

Conditions Peculiar to City Life.--Let us notice some of the ways
in which this is true. (1) The mere fact that population is dense
increases the possibility that a citizen may interfere with the rights
of his neighbors even in the conduct of ordinary business. (2) There is
greater liability that public health and safety may be endangered, both
in the homes and in the shops and factories of cities, than in less
densely settled communities. (3) The opportunities for evil-doing and
for concealment that exist in cities draw to them a larger proportion of
the vicious classes who need control and suppression. (4) Finally, in
cities it is less easy than in the country for each family to supply
itself with certain conveniences, such as water, light, and
transportation; consequently, the government must regulate to some
extent the supply of these necessities.

These are some of the conditions that are peculiar to city life; and we
find here the reasons why the government in a city must undertake a
large number of functions. At every point the safety of the citizen and
his property must be guarded; and in a great many ways the conveniences
of life must be supplied by the city or under the control of city
officials. Thus we account for the fact that city government is
complex--the principal source of the difficulties and the evils that we
find in connection with administrative departments.

Fire and Police Departments.--The number and the organization of
administrative departments vary considerably in different cities.
Everywhere we find the police, fire, and health departments. Fire
departments are, as a rule, very efficient; for the citizens will not
allow laxness in the protection of their property. The efficiency of
police departments varies greatly in different cities. When the
selection of police officers is on a political basis, the standards are
apt to be low, and the police may then protect or even assist violators
of the law. Instances have been known where policemen received,
regularly, money payments from law-breakers whom they did not arrest.
The detection of this form of corruption is difficult; nevertheless, if
it continues, the people are evidently not awake to their own best
interests. In other cities, on the other hand, the police force is
maintained upon a high standard. Sometimes civil-service-reform methods
are used in the selection of policemen; the passing of an examination is
necessary for appointment. This, with a fair system of promotions,
should render a police force more like a military organization in its
relation to the enforcement of law.

The Health Department.--The department of public health has duties
that are of vital importance. Sewerage systems, sanitation, and the
water-supply are the chief objects of its inspection. Health officers
also have powers which enable them to detect and prohibit the sale of
impure foods. The milk-supply should receive its particular attention,
for the purity of this product is an important matter. The enforcement
of strict health regulations in the crowded tenement districts of large
cities is very difficult; but the neglect of these matters by city
officials is nothing less than criminal.

The Department of Streets.--This department, which has in charge
the construction of streets and pavements, affects the convenience of
every citizen. Here vast sums of money are expended, sometimes wisely,
and sometimes under the supervision of officials who are lacking in the
technical knowledge required by this kind of work. Opportunity for
dishonest handling of public money may be found in the letting of
contracts and in the purchase of supplies. Street-cleaning has received
comparatively little attention in American cities. In this respect we
are far behind many European cities. This is because the relation of
clean streets to public health, and to civic beauty, is not fully
appreciated by the average citizen of our country.

Public Charities.--The administration of public charities is
everywhere a difficult matter, and, naturally, its difficulty is
greatest in large cities, where we find the greatest number of those who
seek relief. Two problems confront the department of public charities:
(1) How can it distinguish between those who actually need assistance
and those who do not? (2)How can it help those who need assistance
temporarily, without weakening their desire to become self-supporting?
The same problems must be solved by the citizen in connection with his
private charities. In general, it may be said that charitable work is
best managed by private organizations, in charge of trained workers, who
can investigate all cases of application for aid.

The Public Schools.--Public education is another department of
municipal activity.[4] City governments spend great amounts of public
money for this purpose. The work of our educational institutions is
constantly being enlarged; courses in commerce, manual training, and
domestic science are intended to strengthen the practical side of
education. In some cities special schools are maintained for the
defective classes and for truants.

[Footnote 4: This subject is also treated in the chapter on Public
School Systems.]

Libraries, Parks, and Playgrounds.--The educational advantages
furnished by the city are not for the children alone. Public libraries
and museums serve adults as well. Recreation is provided by means of
parks, public playgrounds, and open-air gymnasiums. These will become
more common when their educational influence is more fully understood.

Committees or Boards.--The important questions that arise in
connection with administrative departments are, how shall they be
organized? and how shall the officers who control them be appointed? Two
general methods prevail: (1)In the smaller cities the members of the
council are grouped into _committees_, which have charge of the various
administrative departments. In large cities there are _boards_ or
_commissioners_, distinct from the council, and these may be composed of
salaried officers. In either case the board may employ a superintendent
to take charge of the work under its jurisdiction. The principal
criticism which can be offered against this method of managing
administrative departments is that responsibility cannot be definitely
located. No single member of a board or commission will assume
responsibility for mismanagement; and when responsibility is divided
among several persons, none of them feels it very strongly.

(2)Single Heads of Departments.--As a remedy for this defect,
administrative departments in some cities are placed under the control
of _single officers_. These are given authority to appoint their
subordinates, and they are held strictly accountable for the management
of the department. Responsibility is further concentrated in some cities
by giving the mayor power to appoint these heads of departments.

The Commission Form of City Government.--This form is found in a
number of cities throughout the country. In place of the mayor and
council these cities have a small body of men (generally three or five)
who both make and execute city ordinances. They are elected at large
from the city. Each of the commissioners is in charge of one or more of
the city departments, and all subordinate officers are appointed by
them. The commissioners are expected to devote their entire time to
their duties and they are paid liberal salaries. Thus, it is hoped, city
government will become more business-like and efficient.

In most cities that have the commission form provision is made for the
_initiative, referendum_, and _recall_. The initiative enables a body of
citizens who sign a petition to obtain a certain law by popular vote, if
the commission refuses to pass it. The referendum enables citizens to
vote for or against a law that the commission has passed, and thus to
repeal it if they desire. Under the recall a member of the commission
can be made to stand for re-election, or else to resign, at any time
during his term of office, if a certain number of citizens petition for
this action.

Qualifications of City Officers.--Grave questions are involved in
these matters of organization, but the efficiency of city government
depends in the greatest measure upon the character of the officers who
are placed in power. We need to recognize the importance, in city
affairs as in private business, of securing officials who are qualified
by training and by successful experience to serve the public. Economy
and honesty in municipal government cannot be expected when politics
alone determines appointments to office. The establishment of
civil-service-examination systems in certain cities is a step in the
right direction.

Public Utilities.--Besides the administrative departments already
mentioned, we have in large cities those which control the supply of
water, light, and transportation facilities. The industries furnishing
these necessities may belong to the city, but in most cases they are
owned by individuals and corporations.[5] Even then they should be
subject to strict regulation by the city, for several reasons: (1) These
industries make use of public streets. The right to do this is granted
by the council in a _franchise_. (2) The product that is supplied being
in each case a necessity, it is the duty of the city government to
protect the citizens from any abuse or inconvenience that may arise in
connection with it. (3) In nearly every case the industries in question
are monopolies; i.e., competition between rival plants is not
possible. For this reason the public may suffer either from high rates
or from imperfect service.

[Footnote 5: On this topic see "Government in State and Nation," pp.
33-36.]

The Question of Municipal Ownership.--The opinion is gaining ground
that no amount of municipal control will cure the evils of private
ownership in these industries. Since they are "natural monopolies," it
is argued they should be operated by the city government. This opinion
is seen to have great weight when we consider the corruption and the
lack of attention to the public welfare that accompany the granting of
franchises to corporations. The bribery of aldermen and the granting of
valuable privileges without compensation are frequent occurrences. On
the other hand, the facts that bad officers are sometimes elected in our
cities, and that they ignore public interests, raise a very serious
question whether they should be intrusted with the management of great
industries, such as water and lighting plants and street-car systems.

Reasons for Poor City Government.--Other arguments may be made on
both sides of this question of municipal ownership; but there are
fundamental reasons why the cities of the United States are, on the
whole, poorly governed, which must receive consideration before this
question can be settled. The conditions accounting for the evils of
municipal government may be briefly stated as follows: (1) City
governments are necessarily complex, and, in their administrative
departments especially, a multitude of details must receive attention.
Citizens find it difficult to understand these transactions and even
more difficult to follow them closely. (2) City governments must spend
vast sums of money, and this fact is a standing temptation to dishonest
men both in and out of office. (3) The rapidity with which cities have
grown has increased the difficulty of their problems. (4) Individuals
and corporations have found it necessary to secure franchises from
cities for the operation of important industries; this has opened many
opportunities for corruption in city affairs. (5) The presence of large
numbers of foreigners who are ignorant of governmental affairs has
enabled corrupt politicians to exert great influence upon the voters in
city elections.

The Reform of Municipal Governments.--Having reviewed the principal
causes for the evils of municipal government, let us now consider some
of the conditions that are necessary for bringing about reforms.

(1) National politics should be entirely separated from city affairs. It
may be impossible to prevent the nomination of candidates by the regular
political parties; but within each party local issues, not national,
should determine the selection of candidates. At the polls the voter
should cast his ballot independently of party considerations.

(2) Public interest in municipal affairs and the existence of a strong
civic pride are conditions that are essential to the election of good
officers and to the purity of city government.

(3) Before we can have better city governments every citizen must
recognize his _responsibility_, not only on election day, but on every
occasion when he can help in the work of detecting wrong, punishing
corrupt officials, and encouraging better things in all departments of
city life. This means unselfishness in one's attitude toward the public
welfare; it means willingness to sacrifice time and effort in the public
service. The example set by many eminent persons who have devoted
themselves unselfishly to the accomplishment of reforms in our great
cities may well be imitated by every citizen in the smaller affairs of
his city or his ward. And the younger generation of citizens, who are
yet students in the public schools, may exert no little influence toward
the betterment of the city; and they may aid in the formation of that
better public sentiment without which no improvement in our standards of
municipal government is possible.

*       *       *       *       *

SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTIONS.

Outline for the study of your city government.

1. Was the city organized under a general law of the State, or was it
granted a special charter? Does the legislature enact special laws for
the city?

2. The mayor: term, salary. What are his principal powers? Should his
responsibility be increased?

3. The council or board of aldermen: number of members, term of office,
manner of election, compensation?

4. The municipal courts and judges.

5. Administrative departments: make a complete list of these. Are they
controlled by boards or by single officers? How do the officers obtain
their positions? Are they paid salaries? Of what business does each have
charge?

6. How are the water, lighting, and street-car plants managed? Do you
believe in the municipal ownership of any of them? Give reasons for your
opinion.

7. How do police officers receive appointment? If an officer fails to
enforce an ordinance, what course would you take to secure its
enforcement?

8. Are party lines closely adhered to by voters in city elections? Are
independent party organizations formed? Are they successful?

9. What can you learn of reform movements that have taken place in your
city's history? Give the causes for the success or failure of these.

10. What is the cost of your city government per annum? Is it
economically administered? What are the principal items of expense? Has
the city other sources of revenue besides taxation?

11. What are the excellent features of your city's government? What are
its faults? How may the latter be corrected?

12. Mention some ways in which students can assist in bringing about
better conditions in your city.

*       *       *       *       *

REFERENCES.

1. Reinsch, Young Citizen's Reader, 80-83. Hoxie, How the People Rule,
63-83. Dole, Young Citizen, 93-108; 132-139.




PART II.


THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.


CHAPTER V.


EVENTS LEADING TO THE FORMATION OF THE UNION.

Colonial Relations.--Why was union so long delayed? How was it
finally accomplished? These are always questions of great interest to
the student of American government. We note the general indifference
toward union among the colonies before the Revolutionary War. This may
be partially accounted for by the fact that each colony had its own
separate government, and was jealous of all outside interference. Lack
of good roads and methods of travel made extensive communication between
the scattered settlements difficult. Prejudice against strangers, and
especially those of a different religious belief, was common. Bonds of
sympathy, however, between the citizens of different colonies were not
wholly lacking. Their language and customs were mainly English. Their
chief desire was to develop a government according to their own plans.
Common interests were at times created because of the necessity for
providing protection against their Indian, French, and Dutch foes. In
general, we may say, confederation was early brought about through need
for defense, but union has been the result of two centuries and a half
of growth.

Union of the New England Colonies, 1643.--A notable attempt was
made to form a confederation among the colonies in 1643. It is known as
the New England Confederation, and included Massachusetts Bay, New
Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven colonies. Their united energies
were necessary to furnish protection against dangers from the Indians.
The Dutch and French also tended constantly to encroach upon their
rights. The governing body of this confederation was a board of
commissioners. In the annual meetings of the commissioners, two being
sent from each colony, questions of war, relations with the Indians, and
other matters of mutual interest were discussed. But this central
government possessed advisory powers only. The colonies were to provide
for their own local government. The confederation became constantly
weaker, and was finally dissolved in 1684. Seventy years were to elapse
before the call was sent out for a meeting of delegates from all the
colonies at Albany, but the influence of the New England Confederacy was
felt, no doubt, during that period.

The Albany Congress, 1754.--Open hostilities with their enemies
became more and more frequent. From the outbreak of King William's War,
in 1689, to 1754, the date of the Albany Congress, there were at least a
dozen intercolonial conferences called to consider means for the common
defense. Plans for union were also prepared. The most interesting is
that of William Penn. In it the word "Congress" is used for the first
time in connection with American affairs. As the final struggle with
France for the possession of America was about to begin, a "Congress" of
twenty-five of the leading men from seven different colonies met at
Albany. They were called, primarily, for the purpose of making a treaty
with the Iroquois Indians. This object secured, the resolution was then
unanimously adopted that "A union of all the colonies is at present
absolutely necessary for security and defense." Franklin's famous plan
providing for a permanent federation of all the colonies was also
adopted. When submitted to the colonies, it failed to receive the
ratification of a single one. Nor was it acceptable to the English
government. Said Franklin, "The assemblies all thought there was too
much prerogative, and in England it was thought to have too much of the
democratic."

The Stamp Act Congress, 1765.--After the passing of the stamp act
by the English government, the Massachusetts house of representatives
invited the other colonial assemblies to send delegations to a general
congress. Nine colonies responded by sending twenty-eight men to the
congress in New York City, October 7, 1765.[6] During the session of two
weeks, these delegates drafted petitions to the English government and
declared that the rights of the colonists were the same as those of the
natural-born subjects of England. It is noteworthy that representatives
had again assembled on the motion of the colonists themselves. The
growth of common interests was well expressed by Christopher Gadsden of
South Carolina, when he said: "There ought to be no New England man, no
New Yorker, known on the continent; but all of us Americans."

[Footnote 6: Virginia, New Hampshire, Georgia, and North Carolina
sympathized with the movement, but did not send delegates.]

Committees of Correspondence.--Nine years were to go by before the
meeting of another congress, but the colonists were prepared for a
united effort at the end of this period. No sooner were the contents of
the Townshend acts of 1767 known than Massachusetts issued a circular
letter to the other colonies, asking for combined action against all
such unconstitutional measures. The other colonial assemblies agreed
with Massachusetts. Another movement which made the Revolution possible
was begun by Samuel Adams. In November, 1772, he prevailed upon the
Boston town meeting to appoint a committee which should carry on a
correspondence with committees organized in other towns of that colony.
Rights and grievances were the chief subjects for consideration. Other
colonies adopted this plan. Led by Virginia, the idea was carried one
step further, and in 1773 were formed committees of correspondence
between the different colonies. Thus they were prepared for united
action in the First and Second Continental Congresses.

The First Continental Congress, 1774.--When the coercive acts of
1774 had been passed, Massachusetts, now in greatest need, called for a
congress of all the colonies. Delegates from all, Georgia[7] excepted,
assembled at Philadelphia, September 5, 1774. In the Declaration of
Rights, and in the adoption of the Articles of Association, they gave
full expression to colonial sentiment. They commended the resistance of
the people of Massachusetts. They declared that all "America ought to
support them in their opposition," if force should be used in carrying
out the measures of Parliament.

[Footnote 7: Georgia was in sympathy with this movement.]

The Second Continental Congress, 1775.--Before adjourning, the
First Continental Congress provided for the meeting of another congress,
in May, 1775, unless the causes for colonial grievances should be
earlier removed by the English government. But other measures of
repression were quickly passed, and before the Second Continental
Congress met, the battle of Lexington had been fought and the American
forces were blockading Boston. This congress convened in Philadelphia
May 10, 1775, and continued in session, with adjournments from time to
time, until May 1, 1781. All of the colonies were represented. Like
previous congresses, this was, at first, merely an advisory body, but
necessity compelled it to act as a real government. It took control of
military affairs, provided for a currency, threw open American ports to
the ships of all nations, and did whatever else the necessities of the
time seemed to demand. Having been appealed to for advice, this congress
took a most notable position in recommending that new forms of
government should be established in the several States. By the year 1777
ten States had framed new constitutions. It furthered independence by
appointing a committee to draft resolutions based on the ideas of
independence then everywhere present. The Declaration of Independence
was the result.

The Articles of Confederation.--Franklin early saw the need for a
more effective government than that of a revolutionary assembly. On July
21, 1775, he presented to Congress a plan for "perpetual union." Nearly
a year elapsed before a committee was appointed to prepare some form for
confederation to be entered into between the colonies. Another period of
a year and five months was to go by before the report of this committee
was adopted by the Continental Congress. It was then submitted to the
State legislatures for approval. After three years and a half, on March
1, 1781, Maryland, the last State, was induced to ratify the Articles of
Confederation. The adoption of these articles is one of the most
important events in the history of our nation. While the Articles of
Confederation must always be regarded as a weak instrument of
government, we must not forget that the Continental Congress was then
working out problems in the province of government that were almost
wholly new. The solution, faulty as it was, went far to establish the
place of the written Constitution as a basis for government.


Said John Fiske: "Almost everything else in our fundamental
institutions was brought by our forefathers in a more or less
highly developed condition from England; but the development of the
written Constitution, with the consequent relation of the courts to
the law-making power, has gone on entirely upon American soil."


Practical Working of the Government.--Conditions soon proved the
articles unsatisfactory. The States were almost independent of the
central government. There was no separate executive power to enforce,
and no judiciary to interpret the laws. The nation was deep in debt, and
without means for payment. Paper money of the period was worthless, and
debtors were rebellious. Disputes between the various States brought
them to the verge of civil war. Each State had its own system of duties
and imposts, which led to great confusion in commerce. No important
resolution could be passed in Congress without the votes of nine States.
No amendment was possible, except by the votes of all the States.
Congress became constantly weaker as various members resigned to accept
positions under State authority. In that most dangerous period of our
history, extending from 1783 to 1788, aptly called the "critical
period," it became constantly more apparent that government under the
Articles of Confederation was a failure. Fortunately, in this hour of
gloom, there came forward Washington, Hamilton, Madison, and other
leaders, who were prepared, if need be, to make compromises, but who
were determined to preserve the elements of the union already secured.

*       *       *       *       *

SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTIONS AND REFERENCES.

1. How was the stamp act regarded in the different colonies as shown by
the addresses made and resolutions offered? Hart, Contemporaries, II,
395-411; Tyler, Patrick Henry (American Statesmen), Chapters 5 and 6.

2. Do you know of other instances in our history where a stamp act has
been passed? How was it regarded? In what ways was it different from
that of 1765?

3. What was the origin of the committees of correspondence and how did
they aid in unification? Sloane, The French War and the Revolution, 161,
162; Hart, Formation of the Union, 57.

4. Analyze the Declaration of Independence, and select from it the
causes for the Revolution.

5. Why was the adoption of the Articles of Confederation so long
delayed? Hart, Contemporaries, II, 539-543; Fiske, The Critical Period,
93, 95; Walker, The Making of the Nation, 6; Hart, Formation of the
Union, 93-95.

6. Read the Articles of Confederation (Appendix B).

(_a_) How was the Congress composed? (Art. V.) (_b_) The number
necessary for a quorum? (Art. X.) (_c_) The powers of Congress? (Art.
IX.) (_d_) Powers of the separate States (Art. VIII.)

7. Defects of the Confederation. Hart, Contemporaries, II, 591-603.

8. What was the attitude toward union during the period 1783-1788? Were
there notable bonds of union even at this time? What other influences
have increased this sentiment? Fiske, Critical Period, 55-63; Walker,
The Making of the Nation, 7, 8.

9. President Roosevelt said, in an address delivered April 9, 1902, at
Charleston, S.C., "When four years ago this nation was compelled to face
a foreign foe, the completeness of the reunion became instantly and
strikingly evident." What is his meaning? How does the statement
illustrate the point emphasized in this chapter, that a common danger
produces union?

10. Describe the character of the money used in 1783 and succeeding
years. What was its influence? Fiske, Critical Period, 162-186.




CHAPTER VI.


THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.

Events Leading to the Constitutional Convention.--Among the many
difficulties that arose during the period of the confederation were
constant disputes between Virginia and Maryland over the navigation of
the Potomac River and Chesapeake Bay. Finally, in March, 1785,
commissioners from these States met at Alexandria to consider these
difficulties. The outcome of the meeting was that Virginia proposed a
convention and called for delegates from all of the States to meet to
consider how commerce should be controlled. Delegates from five States
only were present at Annapolis on the day appointed, September 11, 1786.
Nothing permanent could be accomplished with so few States represented.
Before adjourning, however, they agreed to a resolution, framed by
Alexander Hamilton, which proposed the calling of a convention at
Philadelphia to amend the Articles of Confederation.

The Federal Convention, 1787; Delegates.--All of the States, Rhode
Island excepted, were finally represented in this, one of the most
notable conventions in the history of the world. Among the fifty-five
delegates assembled were many who had already been conspicuous in public
affairs. They were the choice men of the States from which they came.
Twenty-nine of the number were university men. Washington and Franklin
were present, and Washington was unanimously chosen president of the
convention. Neither of these men took an active part in the debates; but
their presence gave inspiration to the other members, and they had
untold influence at critical times. Among the ablest members were
Alexander Hamilton of New York; James Madison of Virginia; Oliver
Ellsworth and William S. Johnson of Connecticut; James Wilson and
Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania; Rufus King of Massachusetts; and
Charles C. Pinckney of South Carolina.


Our Knowledge of the Convention.--The Convention lasted from
May 25 to September 17, 1787. The sessions were secret. Fortunately
we are not dependent on the secretary's report alone for our
knowledge of the meetings.[8] Mr. Madison seemed to understand the
full meaning of the convention from the first, and decided to give
an accurate account of the proceedings. He wrote: "Nor was I
unaware of the value of such a contribution to the fund of
materials for the history of a Constitution on which should be
staked the happiness of a people great even in its infancy, and
possibly the cause of liberty throughout the world." His notes were
purchased by the government from Mrs. Madison, in 1837, for the sum
of thirty thousand dollars. They were published as "Madison's
Journal of the Constitutional Convention."


[Footnote 8: It was published in 1819 as a part of Volume I of "Elliot's
Debates."]

Plans for a Government; Virginia Plan.--The magnitude of the labors
of this convention can be understood only when we read the report of the
discussions as given by Madison. It was at once determined that no time
should be lost in patching up the articles, but that a new Constitution
should be formed. Two sets of resolutions were early submitted, each
setting forth a plan of government. The Virginia plan was largely the
work of Mr. Madison. It provided for the establishment of a national
government with supreme legislative, executive, and judicial powers. The
legislative power was to be vested in a Congress of two separate houses.
The executive was to be chosen by both houses of Congress and the
judiciary by the Senate. Representation in both houses of Congress was
to be based on population or the contributions to the support of the
government. This scheme was fiercely attacked by the delegates from the
small States, for it would clearly give control into the hands of the
more powerful States.

The New Jersey Plan.--The New Jersey plan, presented by Mr.
Patterson of that State, was agreed upon by the members from
Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland. This
Small-State plan, so called, provided for a continuance of the
government under the Articles of Confederation. They were to be revised
in such a manner as to give Congress the power to regulate commerce, to
raise revenue, and to coerce the States. The Small-State party insisted
that the Virginia plan, if adopted, would destroy the sovereignty of the
States. They would rather, they said, submit to a foreign power than be
deprived of equality of suffrage in both branches of the legislature.
Madison, Wilson, King, and other leaders of the Large-State party
declared that the basis for the new government was to be the people and
not the States; that it would be unfair to give Delaware as many
representatives as Virginia or Pennsylvania. After many days of
fruitless debate, a compromise, sometimes called the "First Great
Compromise," was presented and finally adopted. This provided that the
House of Representatives should be composed of members elected on the
basis of population. In the Senate, large and small States were to be
equally represented.

The Slavery Problem; Second Compromise.--How was the number of the
representatives to be found? Were slaves to be counted a part of the
population? A heated debate arose over these questions. The delegates
from South Carolina maintained that slaves were a part of the population
and as such should be counted. The answer was made that slaves were not
represented in the legislatures of that and other States; that slaves
were regarded in those States merely as so much property, and as such