3rd Article. A negative in all cases proposed to be altered to all cases in which Each Branch has concurrent jurisdiction.
Madison proposed to strike the clause out, which was done. He also proposed to omit the provision, fixing the time when the Legislature should meet.
Morris-in favor of leaving the time of meeting to the Legislature, and observed that if the time be fixed in the Constitution, it would not be observed, as the Legislature wd. not be punctual in assembling.
Gorham-in favor of the Legislature's meeting once a year and of fixing the time. They should meet, if for no other Business, to superintend the Conduct of the Executive.
Mason-in favor of an annual meeting. -The Legislatures are also inquisitorial and should meet frequently to inspect the conduct of the public Officers.
4 Art. § 1. Electors to be the same as those of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
Morris proposed to strike out the Clause, and to leave it to the State Legislatures to establish the Qualification of the Electors and Elected, or to add a clause giving to the Nat. Legislature powers to alter the qualifications.
Ellsworth-If the Legislature can alter the qualifications, they may disqualify three fourths, or a greater portion of the Electors-this would go far to create aristocracy. The clause is safe as it stands-the States have staked their liberties on the Qualifications which we have proposed to confirm.
Dickinson-It is urged that to confine the Right of Suffrage to the Free- Holders is a step towards the creation of an aristocracy. This cannot be true. We are all safe by trusting the owners of the soil; and it will not be unpopular to do so, for the Freeholders are the more numerous Class. Not from freeholders, but from those who are not freeholders, free Govts. have been endangered. Freeholds are by our Laws of inheritance divided among the children of the deceased, and will be parcelled out among all the worthy men of the State; the merchants & mechanicks may become freeholders; and without being so, they are Electors of the State Legislatures, who appoint the Senators of the U. S.
Ellsworth-Why confine the Right of Suffrage to freeholders? The Rule should be that he who pays and is governed, should be an Elector. Virtue & Talents are not confined to the Freeholders, and we ought not to exclude them.
Morris. I disregard sounds and am not alarmed with the word aristocracy, but I dread the thing and will oppose it, and for this reason I think that I shall oppose this Constitution because it will establish an Aristocracy. There cannot be an aristocracy of Freeholders if they all are Electors. But there will be, when a great & rich man can bring his poor Dependents to Vote in ourElections-unless you establish a qualification of Property, we shall have an aristocracy. Limit the Right of suffrage to freeholders, and it will not be unpopular, because nine Tenths of the Inhabitants are freeholders.
Mason. Every one who is of full age and can give evidence of his common Interest in the Community should be an Elector. By this Rule, freeholders alone have not this common Interest. The Father of a family, who has no freehold, has this Interest. When he is dead his children will remain. This is a natural interest or bond which binds men to their country-lands are but an artificial tie. The idea of counting freeholders as the true and only persons to whom the Right of Suffrage shd. be confided is an English Prejudice. In England, a Twig and Turf are the Electors.
Madison. I am in favor of entrusting the Right of Suffrage to Freeholders only. It is a mistake that we are governed by English attachments. The Knights of the Shires are chosen by freeholders, but the members of the Cities and Boroughs are elected by freemen without freeholds, & who have as small property as the Electors of any other country. Where is the crown influence seen, where is corruption in the Elections practiced-not in the Counties, but in the Cities and Boroughts.
Franklin. I am afraid that by depositing the Right of Suffrage in the freeholders exclusively we shall injure the lower Class of freemen. This Class possess hardy Virtues and great Integrity. The revolutionary war is a glorious Testimony in favor of Plebeian Virtue-our military and naval men are sensible of this Truth. I myself know that our Seamen who were Prisoners in England refused all the allurements that were made use of, to draw them from their allegiance to their Country-threatened with ignominious Halters, they still refused. This was not the case with the English Seamen, who, on being made Prisoners entered into the American Service and pointed out where other Prisoners could be made-and this arose from a plain cause. The Americans were all free and equal to any of their fellow citizens-the English Seamen were not so. In antient Times every free man was an Elector, but afterwards England made a Law which required that every Elector should be a freeholder. This Law related to the County Elections-the Consequence was that the Residue of the Inhabitants felt themselves disgraced, and in the next Parliament a law was made, authorizing the Justice of the Peace to fix the Price of Labour and to compel Persons who were not freeholders to labour for those who were, at a stated rate, or to be put in Prison as idle vagabonds. From this Period the common People of England lost a great Portion of attachment to their Country.