§ 198. Delaware the first State to ratify.-On September 14, 1787, the Constitutional Convention adjourned; the States were notified by Congress on September 28th, and on December 7, Delaware headed the list of ratifying States by a unanimous ratification.1 § 199. Convention meets in Pennsylvania; prominent members.-On November 20th, however, the first State convention had convened in Philadelphia, to discuss the fate of the Constitution in Pennsylvania where its ratification was neither prompt nor unanimous. The convention included Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, afterwards Speaker of the first House of Representatives, Timothy Pickering, afterwards Secretary of State, Benjamin Rush, James Wilson, afterwards a Judge of the United States Supreme Court, Thomas McKean, Chief Justice of the State, and many others of great ability.1 After a protracted discussion in which the Constitutional party was led by James Wilson, and their opponents by William Findlay, the Constitution was ratified on December 12th. § 200. Views of minority opposing ratification.—When lina, South Carolina, and Georgia; and for Maryland, Mr. Ross. "Congress having received the report of the Convention, lately assembled in Philadelphia, “Resolved, unanimously, That the said report, with the resolutions and letter accompanying the same, be transmitted to the several legislatures, in order to submit to a convention of delegates, chosen in each state by the people thereof, in conformity to the resolves of the Convention made and provided in that case." Elliot's Debates, vol. I, p. 18. § 198. (1) Delaware, December 7, 1787; (2) Pennsylvania, December 12, 1787; (3) New Jersey, December 18, 1787; (4) Connecticut, January 9, 1788; (5) Massachusetts, February 7, 1788; (6) Georgia, January 2, 1788; (7) Maryland, April 28, 1788; (8) South Carolina, May 23, 1788; (9) New Hampshire, June 21, 1788; (10) Virginia, June 26, 1788; (11) New York, July 26, 1788; (12) North Carolina, November 21, 1789; (13) Rhode Island, May 29, 1790. § 199. 1 Elliot's Debates, vol. II, pp. 415-546; Curtis' Constitutional History of the United States, vol. I, pp. 641-646; Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution, 1787-1788, edited by John Bach McMaster and Frederick D. Stone, published by the Historical Society of Pennsyl 1 The ratifications by the several States appear to have been put into authoritative form for transmission to Congress on the following dates (taken from the formal ratifications as collected in Elliot's De- vania, 1888. bates, vol. I, pp. 319–343): the ratification of the Constitution by the Pennsylvania convention became inevitable, the minority submitted a written statement of their reasons for dissent; they laid great stress upon the vast extent of the treaty-making power, lodged in the Central Government, in which respect they declared that no treaty which should be directly opposed to the existing laws of the United States in Congress assembled, should be valid until such laws should have been repealed, or made conformable to such treaty; neither should any treaties be valid which were in contradiction to the Constitution of the United States, or the constitution of the several States. They gave as the foundation of their objections to the Senate and its powers, various reasons, some of which are quoted in the notes to this section. $201. Subsequent protest of minority to force the adoption of amendments.-The non-participation in treaty-mak§ 200. 1 McMaster and Stone, p. 463. 2 The Senate has, moreover, various and great executive powers, viz. in concurrence with the president-general, they form treaties with foreign nations, that may control and abrogate the constitutions and laws of the several States. Indeed, there is no power, privilege or liberty of the State governments, or of the people, but what may be affected by virtue of this power. | For all treaties, made by them, are to be the supreme law of the land; anything in the constitution or laws of any State, to the contrary notwithstanding.' the positive laws of the land, to make the intervention of the legislature necessary to give them operation. This became necessary, and was afforded by the parliament of Great Britain, in consequence of the late commercial treaty between that kingdom and France. As the Senate judges on impeachments, who is to try the members of the Senate for the abuse of this power! And none of the great appointments to office can be made without the consent of the Senate. "Such various, extensive, and important powers combined in one body of men, are inconsistent with all freedom; the celebrated Mon"And this great power may be tesquieu tells us, that 'when the exercised by the President and ten | legislative and executive powers senators (being two-thirds of four- are united in the same person, or teen, which is a quorum of that in the same body of magistrates, body). What an inducement would there can be no liberty, because this offer to the ministers of for-apprehensions may arise, lest the eign powers to compass by brib- same monarch or senate should enery such concessions as could not act tyrannical laws, to execute them otherwise be obtained. It is the in a tyrannical manner.'" unvaried usage of all free States, Master and Stone, p. 476. whenever treaties interfere with Mc ing, of the House of Representatives, the popular, or national, branch of Congress, was one of the particular grounds taken by the minority in this convention for opposing the ratification of the Constitution. Subsequently another ef fort was made to induce Pennsylvania to take an adverse stand to the Constitution as ratified; on September 3, 1788, nine months after the ratification, a number of Pennsylvanians met at Harrisburg, and, after organizing with Blair McClenahan as Chairman and John A. Hanna as Secretary,. presented an address to the General Assembly of the State urging it to take measures to procure the adoption of certain amendments to the Constitution as ratified, one of which was that "to Article VI, Clause 2, be added the following proviso, viz: Provided, always, That no treaty, which shall hereafter be made, shall be deemed or construed to alter or affect any law of the United States, or of any particular State, until such treaty shall have been laid before and assented to by the House of Representatives in Congress."1 From this it appears that the wide extent of power lodged in the President and two-thirds of the Senate was not only fully appreciated, but was also greatly feared, by the signers of this petition, and that the great publicity given to these proceedings at the time put the people, not only of Pennsyl vania, but also of the other States, thoroughly on notice. § 202. Ratification by New Jersey.-New Jersey followed shortly after this, the convention of that State unanimously ratifying the Constitution on December 12, 1787, although the Anti-Federalists of New York and Pennsylvania used every effort to persuade their intermediate neighbors to reject it.1 203. Georgia and Connecticut ratify; conditions in other States.-Georgia was the first of the Southern States to fall into line,' while Connecticut, under the leadership of § 201. of the United States, vol. I, p. 645– 1 Elliot's Debates, vol. II, pp. 542-646; Elliot's Debates, vol. I, p. 320. 546; McMaster and Stone, p. 564. § 202. § 203. 1 Elliot's Debates, vol. I, p. 323; 1 Curtis' Constitutional History Curtis' Constitutional History of the United States, vol. I, p. 646. Oliver Ellsworth, occupied the corresponding position in New England. By January 9, 1788, five States had ratified the Constitution, and all had done so unconditionally; the ratifications by four more were necessary before it could become operative. But, as Mr. Curtis says in his Constitutional History, a new act in the drama was to open with the New Year." Massachusetts, New York and Virginia were, indeed, to ratify the Constitution, but subject to conditions, either in form or in spirit; amendments were to be proposed and insisted upon, and for a long time the fate of the Constitution hung in the balance; from January 9, 1788, when the sessions of the Massachusetts convention commenced until June 25th, when the ratification by the Virginia convention made the plan an assured success, in fact, even until July 26th, when the Constitution was ratified by the New York convention, the all absorbing thought and the single universal topic of the country was the Constitution, and its adoption or rejection. $204. Massachusetts Convention meets; members composing it.—-On January 9, 1788, the special convention called for consideration of the Constitution and composed of 355 delegates met at Boston, Massachusetts.1 It included many remarkable men, some of whom were foremost citizens of the State; there were others, however, who had actually participated in Shay's Rebellion and who were opposed to the adoption of the Constitution or, probably, to the establishment of any strong central government which could, and would, enforce law and order. Among some of the ablest members were Fisher Ames, John Winthrop, James Bowdoin, John Hancock, William Cushing, Francis Dana, Rufus King, and Judge Sumner.2 John Hancock was chosen President, and William Cushing, Vice President, of the convention. On February 2d, 2 Elliot's Debates, vol. II, pp. 185- | tory of the United States, vol. I, p. 202; Curtis' Constitutional History 649; Massachusetts and the Federal of the United States, vol. 1, p. 647. Convention by Samuel Bannister 8 Idem p. 648. Harding, New York and London, § 204. 1896. 183. 2 Elliot's Debates, vol. II, pp. 178 1 Elliot's Debates, vol. II, pp. 1- the Constitution was ratified by a vote of 187 to 168; the narrow majority of 19 was undoubtedly secured by the adoption of a resolution that certain amendments should be recommended to Congress as the wish of the State in regard to the Constitution. Some of these suggestions were incorporated in the amendments which were passed by the first Congress and immediately ratified by the States, and thus became incorporated in the Constitution almost at the outset of the Government. None of the amendments suggested by the Massachusetts convention related to the treaty-making power.1 $ 205. Position of Samuel Adams; Constitution ratified. -During the proceedings of this convention the Constitution was discussed in all of its varied phases and aspects. It was ably supported; it was vigorously condemned. It was well known at the outset that Samuel Adams, "Father of the Revolution," or, as he is also called "The American Cato,"1 was to a certain extent opposed to the Constitution; for a long time many of his followers withheld any expression of their views, while they waited for him to announce the course which he intended to take. Not until the last days of the convention did he finally declare that he would vote for ratification; in doing so he admitted that he had his doubts, and that he could not digest every part of it as readily as some of the other gentlemen had done; he felt, however, that it was the best that could be obtained, and on the whole that ratification would be better than rejection. The following extract from his remarks shows that he fully appreciated the importance of lodging the treaty-making power in the Central Government. "But, sir," he declared, "there are many parts of it I esteem as highly valuable, particularly the article which empowers Congress to regulate commerce, to form treaties, &c. For want of this power in our national head, our friends are grieved, and our enemies insult us. Our ambassador at the Court of London is considered as a mere cipher, instead of the representative of the United § 205. 8 Elliott's Debates, vol. II, p. 181. A list of the suggested amend- 1 Curtis' Constitutional History ments will be found at p. 177 of of the United States, vol. I, p. 651. Elliot's Debates, vol. II. |