Madison forgot that on the 6th of June South Carolina had voted "no" on the motion, to make "a convenient number of the National judiciary" a council of revision, and that the vote was unanimous; and he forgot that he had written with his own hand only eight days after Pinckney had presented his draught to the Convention:

"Mr. Pinckney had been at first in favor of joining the heads of the principal departments, the Secretary of War, of foreign affairs, etc., in the council of revision. He had however relinquished the idea from a consideration that these could be called on by the Executive Magistrate whenever he pleased to consult them. He was opposed to an introduction of the judges into the business." Hunt's Writings of Madison, III., pp. 89, 111.

According to Madison there was a discrepancy—more than a discrepancy, a flat contradiction between the Observations and the draught in the State Department, the one saying explicitly that in "some of the best instituted legislatures of the States" there was "a council of revision, consisting of their executive and principal officers of government" and that he had "incorporated it as part of the system"; the other containing no such provision but, like the Constitution, giving the executive alone the revisionary control of the laws. A superficial examination of the case would easily bring one to the conclusion that Pinckney in 1818 omitted the council of revision from the draught for the State Department and copied from the Constitution the provision which the Convention framed. But the brief speech of Pinckney written down contemporaneously by Madison himself, singularly vindicates both the Observations and the draught and leaves the latter stronger than it would have been if Madison's friend had not furnished "the discrepancies noted below."

The significance of the term "council of revision" was not known to the friend who arrayed the Observations against the draught and may not have been to Judge Duer. Neither did they know that in the judgment and understanding of the Convention the President with powers and duties defined as they were defined was in legal effect the embodiment of the council of revision. But Madison knew it, or had known it. He too had personally participated in the work by his repeated efforts to engraft a council of revision on the Constitution, and his knowledge he had written down in his own words. Certainly he had no right to attack Pinckney through his unnamed friend. Certainly he had no right to leave Judge Duer to infer that the discrepancies noted below had received his scrutiny and approval. His Journal he knew would be published, he was even then providing for it in his will, and when published it would contradict the discrepancy noted below and sustain the copy of the draught which he was attacking. The obvious explanation is that Madison's failing memory failed to record his own words, "the Convention gave the executive alone, without the judiciary, the revisionary control of the laws," and Pinckney's express declaration as early as the 6th of June that "he had been at first" in favor of a council of revision but for reasons stated had changed his mind.

And let it not be supposed that Madison deliberately intended to deceive or that he was actuated by a malignant wish to deprive Pinckney of any thing which he really believed was actually his due. Madison was then an old man—a very old man—in his 85th year who had lived long and under the strain of great labors and intense excitements and withering anxieties. He was too old and too weary, and too strongly prejudiced to change his mind in a minute or to reverse the judgment of many years by an investigation de novo.

The word "phenomenon" in his letter to Judge Duer reveals his state of mind and well explains his acts. That the boy who had lodged in the same house with him in Philadelphia, the youngest member of the Convention as he believed, who was always talking about his draught, whom he disliked and underrated, that he should appear in 1818 as the chief contributor to, as the principal draughtsman of the Constitution of the United States was indeed to him a phenomenon. It was something which he could not really believe. There is a note of contrition when he writes that "the length of the document laid before the Convention and other circumstances prevented my taking a copy at the time." He really believed that if he had procured and kept a copy of the draught which Pinckney laid before the Convention, it would have blown to pieces this wild pretentious claim which he had laid before the Secretary of State.

And Madison made a great mistake when he represented Pinckney to Judge Duer as an old man in 1818 whose waning recollection could not then separate the real from the fictitious in the draught which he had found among his papers in Charleston. For Madison in 1835, when he wrote to Judge Duer, was twenty-five years older than Pinckney was when he sent the draught to Mr. Adams; and twenty-five years at that end of life is no small difference. Moreover his memory from his youth up had been laden and taxed with great events. It was fifty-two years since he had made this despondent note in his record of the debates in Congress:

It was 48 years since Madison had served as the most laborious member of the Convention. It was 28 years since he had seen the Navy disgraced by the surrender of the Chesapeake after firing only a single gun—a disgrace caused by the shameful negligence and incapacity of administrative officers at Washington while he was a member of Jefferson's Cabinet. It was 21 years since he had seen the Army disgraced by the negligence of his own Secretary of War and the incapacity of a general of his own choosing, and his Capitol burnt and himself and his Cabinet fugitives, and his heroic wife, her friends and the military guard of "a hundred men all gone," resolutely refusing to leave the Executive Mansion until she had taken "the precious portrait" of Washington from its frame to save it from the ignominy of capture by a British Army. The Pinckney draught was but a leaf blown aside in the tumults of his troubled life.

But there remains the documentary evidence which Madison adduced and the specification of plagiarism which he filed; and apart from Madison and apart from Pinckney there remains the ultimate question which every student of the Constitution must desire to have examined, and if possible, answered, "What provisions of the Constitution were contributed by Pinckney"?

CHAPTER VI

THE POSITION TAKEN BY MADISON

The position taken by Madison in private letters to individuals, he had a right to modify, abandon or withdraw; and it would not be treating him fairly to hold him to words hastily written and perhaps inspired by an impulse of the moment. But the "Note of Mr. Madison to the Plan of Charles Pinckney" (Elliot Vol. 5, 578) deliberately prepared by him for future publication, and intended by him to accompany the draught of the State Department in future publications so that it should destroy the supposed verity of the copy, must be taken as the final expression of his judgment.

It is plain that Madison intended that the last two paragraphs of the foregoing, beginning with an asterisk, should take the form of an editorial note, and he so prepared the paper even to the placing of the asterisk at the beginning. As long before this as 1821 he had determined in his own mind that the publication of the Journal should be as he termed it, "a posthumous one" (letter to Thomas Ritchie September 15, 1821), and he carried out the intention by so providing in his will made in 1835. The expected editor was Mrs. Madison; and she, he knew, would scrupulously and intelligently carry into effect his slightest wish. She was not able to perform the editorial task.

When these charges of Madison are analyzed they may be reduced to three. The first and most serious charge is that there are coincidences "in several instances" between the draught and the Constitution—"a similarity in some cases and an identity in others with details, expressions and definitions" which were "the results of critical discussion and modification in the Convention." The second is that there are provisions in the draught inconsistent with Pinckney's known views, with the propositions which he presented and the speeches which he made in the Convention and that these provisions are so inconsistent with his views and speeches that they are "conclusive evidence of error" in the draught. The third, is that Pinckney immediately after the sittings of the Convention printed and published a paper entitled "Observations" which described the contents of the draught which he had presented to the Convention and that the two are utterly irreconcilable.

CHAPTER VII

THE PLAGIARISMS

Notwithstanding Madison's ignorance of the contents of the draught, and the fallacy of the inference which he drew from the fact that Pinckney did not adhere to all the provisions of a tentative scheme, there remains an objection of the gravest character, susceptible of proof or disproof which must rest on facts and not be deduced by inferences. The objection that Pinckney framed a provision at one time and disapproved of it at another is easily superable: the objection that "there is in the paper a similarity in some cases and an identity in others with details, expressions and definitions, the results of critical discussion and modification in the Convention which could not have been anticipated," is insuperable—if it be well founded. That is to say if there are "details, expressions and definitions" in the State Department copy of the draught which were "the results of critical discussion and modification in the Convention which could not have been anticipated," then the presumption must be well nigh irrefutable that these "details, expressions and definitions" in the questionable instrument were taken from the Constitution; and in the absence of extraordinary explanation, we shall be compelled to agree with Madison that the evidence is "irresistible"—unless indeed it should appear that the expressions and definitions which at first sight appear to have been begun and created in the Convention had previously existed in the Articles of Confederation or in a State Constitution, or in the resolutions of the Continental Congress or in some source open to all parties.

To a right understanding of the circumstances and conditions of the subject of investigation, we must bear in mind, when we begin the inquiry whether there are "details, expressions and definitions" in the Pinckney draught which were "the results of critical discussion and modification in the Convention," that the Constitution passed through four germinal stages:

The first began with Randolph's 15 resolutions, on the 29th of May, and ended on the 26th of July with the 23 resolutions of the Convention. The 15 resolutions had been considered and discussed and modified and expanded into the 19 resolutions of the Committee of the Whole, June 13th; and the 19 resolutions had also been considered and discussed and modified and enlarged into the 23 resolutions of the Convention, July 26th. Never in the history of nations did a deliberative public body strive so philosophically, so wisely and well to possess itself of the subjects to be considered—to comprehend its task—to know what it was doing and to do.

"At the beginning, propositions for consideration and discussion were tentatively placed before the Convention in an abstract form. These propositions were embodied in 15 resolutions, which were immediately referred to the Committee of the Whole. They were taken up one by one, and considered and discussed and amended or rejected or adopted or postponed for later consideration. The abstract of a part of a single day's proceedings will give a clear idea of the way in which the Convention worked:

"Tuesday, June 5. Mr. Randolph's ninth proposition—The national judiciary to be chosen by the national legislature—Disagreed to—To hold office during good behavior and to receive a fixed compensation—Agreed to To have jurisdiction over offenses at sea, captures, cases of foreigners and citizens of different States, of national revenue, impeachment of national officers, and questions of national peace and harmony—Postponed.

"At the end of two weeks of such consideration and discussion, June 13, the Committee of the Whole reported the conclusions which had so far been reached in the form of 19 resolutions. But everything was still abstract and tentative. No line of the Constitution had yet been written; no provision had yet been agreed upon. The 19 resolutions in like manner were taken up, one by one, and in like manner considered and discussed, and amended or rejected or adopted or postponed. Other propositions coming from other sources were also considered; and so the work went on until July 26, when the conclusions of the Convention were referred to the Committee of Detail, and the work of reducing the abstract to the concrete began. The Convention then adjourned to August 6, to enable the committee to 'prepare and report the Constitution.'

"On August 6, the Committee of Detail reported and furnished every member with a printed copy of the proposed Constitution. Again the work of consideration began, and went on as before, section by section, line by line. Vexed questions were referred to committees representing every State,—"grand committees" they were called,—amendments were offered, changes were made, the Committee of Detail incorporated new and additional matters in their draught, until, on September 8, the work of construction stopped. But not even then did the labors of the Convention cease. On that day a committee was appointed, "by ballot, to revise the style of, and arrange, the articles which had been agreed to." This committee was afterward known as the Committee of Style. It reported on the 12th of September, and the work of revision again went on until Saturday, the 15th. On Monday, the 17th, the end was reached, and the members of the Convention signed the Constitution. Well might Franklin exclaim in his farewell words to the Convention: 'It astonishes me, sir, to find the system approaching so near to perfection as it does!' He had been overruled more than once in the Convention; provisions which he had proposed had been rejected; provisions which he had opposed had been retained; but he was a great man and saw that a great work had been accomplished." The Immutability of the Constitution. Encyclopædia Americana.

The second germinal stage began July 26th with the appointment of a committee—the Committee of Detail "for the purpose of reporting a Constitution," and continued until August 6th when "Mr. Rutledge delivered in the report of the Committee of Detail—a printed copy being at the same time furnished to each member."

The Committee had retired from the Convention with instructions couched in the 23 resolutions, and they returned to it with more than half of the Constitution, arranged in the form of articles and sections substantially as we have them in the Constitution. The number of provisions contained in the draught greatly exceeded the number of specific instructions set forth in the resolutions, but the excess was not wholly an excess of authority for it had been resolved:

"That the national legislature ought to possess the legislative rights vested in Congress by the Confederation: and moreover to legislate in all the cases for the general interests of the Union, and also in those to which the States are separately incompetent or in which the harmony of the United States may be interrupted by the exercise of individual legislation."

When the paper which Rutledge held in his hand, as he rose to address the Convention on the 6th of August, was placed on the table before Washington, the moment witnessed the birth of the Constitution. Provisions which it contained were to be stricken out, and some of the great compromises were yet to be forged and inscribed upon the scroll, but the written Constitution was now in being. And yet this is but figurative language. The great state paper which passed from the hand of Rutledge to the hand of Washington was not engrossed on parchment, like a second Magna Charta; it was not attested by signature or date; it was not even in writing; a few pages of printer's paper, plain and unpretentious; a mere copy, one of a number of printed copies, as we gather from the record. But it was to receive the severest scrutiny of some of the great men of the world, of Washington, Franklin, Madison, Ellsworth, Wilson, Rutledge, Hamilton.

The printed document found in the box which holds the few records of the Convention is not unworthy of a great state paper. It is on stately, heavy, hand-made paper, 10 by 15-1/2 inches in size. The printed matter is 5-1/4 inches by 12-1/2. There are seven pages carrying from 27 to 53 lines on each. The workmanship is faultless; the type clear, the impression uniform, the ink unfaded, the punctuation careful, the spacing perfect. There are but two typographical errors, one of which is a misnumbering of the articles. In Pinckney's draught the first article has inscribed over it "Article 1" and the following articles have only their numbers 2, 3, etc. The printer followed the same form, the only difference being that Pinckney, writing the draught with his own hand, used arabic figures, for which the printer substituted Roman numerals. When he reached the seventh article he repeated VI. and when he reached the eighth he entitled it VII. and continued the error through the remaining articles. Notwithstanding this blemish I have never seen so faultless a public document.

The copy bears this endorsement:

The name of the printer who did his confidential work so well, I regret to say, is not upon the paper.

It has been supposed and said that this copy of the draught was Jackson's, the inefficient Secretary of the Convention, and that he used it to save himself the trouble of writing out the proceedings in the journal by noting amendments on the margin. This like much other imaginary history is erroneous.

When I first saw the draught of the committee, I observed that the notes on the margin were written in two different hands. I also observed that one of these though not familiar was a hand which I had seen before. On calling the attention of Mr. S. B. Crandall of the Bureau of Rolls to it, he instantly recognized this writing as Washington's. A further examination showed that 115 notes and interlineations were written by Washington and 7 by Jackson. This copy of the draught was Washington's own copy!

Whether he placed the copy among the papers of the Convention on September 17, 1787 when the Secretary brought them to him; or whether he transferred his own copy to the Secretary of State in 1796 is unknown and probably unascertainable, but the indorsement makes it certain that the paper came to the Department directly from Washington; and the 115 carefully made emendations in his handwriting are for us the highest evidence in the world of its authenticity.

The notes by Jackson are easily explicable; they are lengthy amendments which Washington could not take down from hearing them read; and he handed his printed copy to the Secretary to have them correctly and fully written out.[1]

If the Committee of Detail—Rutledge of South Carolina, Randolph of Virginia, Gorham of Massachusetts, Ellsworth of Connecticut and Wilson of Pennsylvania—intended to keep their work a profound secret, and the secret to be buried with themselves, they could not have planned better than they did. The work was done in secret; they employed no secretary; their report was not in writing. After the committee was discharged no hint or word seems to have escaped them. No man boasted of his own part or disparaged another's. There is no journal which tells us how they worked. No son or daughter or grandchild has revealed a word that any member subsequently said. In 1813 when Edmund Randolph died, the secret of the members of the Committee of Detail died with him.

The third germinal stage was based on the draught of the Committee of Detail and extended from the 6th of August to the 12th of September. The draught of the Committee constituted the divide in the march of the framers. Behind them was the plain of philosophical disquisition on which there had been many contests, but exclusively as to what might be and might not be. Before them were many hills of difficulty to be surmounted in the practical application of abstract propositions by incorporating them in provisions and conditions to be written into the Constitution. But the work of the Convention and the debates of the members were in connection with the draughted Constitution of the Committee of Detail, or in connection with amendments thereof or additions thereto. There were indeed new provisions framed sometimes by grand committees, sometimes by special committees, sometimes by the Convention itself—provisions concerning which the Convention had not at first sufficiently instructed the Committee of Detail—provisions which the Convention had not then considered and determined even in the form of abstract propositions. The most difficult of the compromises, that between the large and the small States in the choosing of the President, was effected; and the method first proposed by Wilson and rejected by the Convention, June 2nd, that the choice should be made through the agency of electoral colleges was reconsidered and adopted. The power to try officers impeached by the House of Representatives was taken from the Supreme Court and given to the Senate; the power to appoint ambassadors, and judges of the Supreme Court, was taken from the Senate and given to the President; the power to appoint the Treasurer of the United States was taken from the Legislative branch and given to the Executive; and the important treaty-making power which at first was lodged exclusively in the Senate was transferred to the Executive subject to the ratification of the Senate. But all that was considered and agreed upon was attached to the draught of the Committee of Detail.

The fourth stage began on the 12th of September with the revised Constitution reported by the Committee appointed "to revise the style of and arrange the articles" which had been agreed upon, commonly termed the "Committee of Style," but which more correctly might have been termed the Committee of Revision. During that and the next three days the Constitution was modified by a number of amendments chiefly of the nature of corrections. The Committee of Style made no changes other than those of arrangement and language. The correction of the language of the Constitution was masterly and is ascribed by Madison to Gouverneur Morris. On Saturday the 15th of September the labors of the Convention ended. On Monday the 17th, the engrossed Constitution was signed.

In his "Note to the Plan," Madison specifies some of the "details, expressions and definitions" which were framed in the Convention, the "results of critical discussions" that "could not have been anticipated" by Pinckney. "Examples" of these "similarities" and "identities" he says, "may be noticed in article VIII, which is remarkable also for the circumstance that whilst it specifies the functions of the President, no provision is contained in the paper for the election of such an officer." These are all the specifications of provisions or of language plagiarised from the Constitution by Pinckney which Madison has filed. Specifying nothing else, we may assume that the plagiarisms contained in article VIII. were the plagiarisms which dwelt in his own mind and upon which he rested his conclusions.

These specific charges of plagiarism may be struck down by a single blow:—

Not one of the provisions contained in Pinckney's article VIII was framed in the Convention, and all were brought before the Convention by the draught of the Committee of Detail. All the provisions of the Constitution which were framed by the Convention were framed subsequently to the 6th of August and belong to the 3d and 4th germinal periods. All the provisions which are contained in the draught of the Committee of Detail were framed before the 6th of August and existed before the constructive work of the Convention began.

When the sequence of events is observed the matter is cleared and the "phenomenon" of Madison becomes a simple link in the chain of events. Pinckney presented his draught to the Convention on its first business day before there had been a single "critical discussion." The Convention immediately referred the draught to the Committee of the Whole, which made it accessible to every member of the Convention. When a committee was appointed to draught a Constitution, the draught of Pinckney was taken from the Committee of the Whole and referred to the Committee of Detail. The committee found in the draught matter which they needed and they used it as the basis of their own draught as any committee would have done. And thus the draught of the Committee of Detail became the vehicle by means of which these provisions and expressions of Pinckney were carried into the Constitution.

If all this were not a matter of record it would be well nigh unbelievable that Madison of all men could have pursued the course he did. The most diligent member of the Convention, the chronicler of its transactions, the sole survivor of its members and, consequently, a witness who should speak with the greatest care; and yet we find him, at one end of the line, ignorant of the contents of Pinckney's draught, and at the other silent as to the contents and existence of the draught of the Committee of Detail. When he wrote of "the coincidence in several instances between that [the State Department draught] and the Constitution as adopted" and cited article VIII as containing remarkable examples of these coincidences, he gave unconsciously a curious illustration of things "confounded in the memory" "after a lapse of more than thirty years"—in his case, after a lapse of more than forty-five years.

With the fall of these specifications falls the general charge of plagiarism. The draught in the State Department ends with the draught of the Committee of Detail; whatever coincidences there be of "details, expressions and definitions" are coincidences in the two draughts and in them alone. The similarities and identities which so impressed Madison were merely similarities and identities between the two draughts. He doubtless selected article VIII as "remarkable" because he recognized in it provisions and expressions which he knew were in the Constitution. But there are others in article VIII which are not in the Constitution and which are inconsistent with it. The retention of these is sufficient to refute the idea that Pinckney changed his draught to make it conform to the work of the Convention. Article VIII provides that the title of the President "shall be his Excellency." There is no such provision in the Constitution. Article VIII makes exceptions to the appointing power; "ambassadors, other ministers and judges of the Supreme Court" are not to be appointed by the President but by the Senate. This was not one of the "results" arrived at in the Convention. In case of the death of the President and the death of the President of the Senate, "the Speaker of the House of Delegates shall exercise the duties of the office." Here all that Pinckney had to do to make his draught conform was to run his pen through the supplementary clause vesting the succession in the Speaker. The President may be removed from office on impeachment by the House of Delegates and "conviction in the Supreme Court." Here all that Pinckney had to do was to erase "Supreme Court" and insert "Senate." Finally it is to be noted that those expressions and provisions in article VIII which caught the eye of Madison and were characterized as "remarkable" were not "results of critical discussion and modification in the Convention that could not have been anticipated," but were provisions and expressions which had been taken by Pinckney from the constitutions of New York and Massachusetts, generally word for word. The article provides that the President "shall from time to time give information to the legislature of the state of the Union," and "recommend to their consideration" the measures he may think necessary; that "he shall take care that the laws be duly executed"; that "he shall commission all officers"; and "shall nominate and with the consent of the Senate" appoint officers; that "he shall have power to grant pardons and reprieves"; and that "he shall be commander in chief of the army and navy"; but each of these provisions was taken from the constitution of New York. The article also provides that at "entering on the duties of his office he shall take an oath faithfully to execute the duties" of President; and that he "shall be removed from his office on impeachment by the House of Delegates"; but these provisions were taken from the constitution of Massachusetts. The article also provides that "in case of his removal by death, resignation or disability, the President of the Senate shall exercise the duties of his office"; but this is taken from the constitution of New York. In a word when we trace these provisions and expressions to their respective sources there is nothing left of the article. Article VIII is indeed remarkable; but it is for reversing the deductions of Madison; for demonstrating with mathematical certainty (so far as it goes), that Pinckney did not make his draught conform to "results" which had been reached in the Convention, and which "could not have been anticipated."

CHAPTER VIII.

THE IMPROBABILITIES

The most incisive reason given by Madison against the authenticity of the draught in the Department of State, the reason which he most reiterated, if not the one upon which he most relied, was that the draught was presented to the Convention on the 29th May and a week later, June 6th, Pinckney moved "that the first branch of the national legislature be elected by the State legislatures and not by the people." This objection is not only plausible but it rests on two incontrovertible facts each of which is a matter of record—that the draught was presented to the Convention on the 29th of May; that his inconsistent motion was made on the 6th of June. But the conclusiveness of these facts disappears when the circumstances and changed conditions of the case appear.

In the first place Pinckney had forestalled the point made by Madison by declaring in his letter to the Secretary of State that there were provisions in the draught which on further reflection he had opposed in the Convention. This declaration, it must be remembered, was made before the publication of Madison's Journal, before it was known that it would be published, before Pinckney knew or could have known what the Journal would show. In other words it was he himself who first revealed his own inconsistency in having presented a plan for one thing in May and in having contended for another thing in June. The explanation is not an afterthought or a defence, but an avowal made in due time.

In the second place the draught was presented on the 29th of May, but it was not written then. It must have been written weeks before this in Pinckney's study in Charleston. When he wrote it he had before him, as every American of that day had, the Constitution of Great Britain, the constitution under which he had grown up, the merits and virtues and wisdom and excellencies of which he had read and re-read in Blackstone. It was a matter of course for him, when dealing with the legislative power, to have his Congress consist of two houses. As to this there would not be a doubt or a thought. The next thing would be to have the members of the first house, like the members of the House of Commons, elected by the people. So far he had no reason to pause and reflect. But when he came to the second house, he had no nobility at hand of which it might be composed. Here his invention began, and he avowedly so contrived his Senate that it should in fact though not in form, represent not nobility but wealth. It is probable that when he was draughting his constitution, it never entered his head that the lower house of the American parliament could be chosen by any other means than the means by which the House of Commons was chosen and the lower house of every American State.

In the third place between the 29th of May and the 6th of June the subject had come before the Convention and had been discussed and South Carolina had taken a position against it.

Gerry of Massachusetts said that "the evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy"; and that "he did not like the election by the people." Butler, of South Carolina, "thought an election by the people an impracticable mode." Rutledge, the strongest man in the State, seconded the motion to have the first branch elected by the State legislatures. Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, the most esteemed citizen of the State and Pinckney's kinsman, brought South Carolina before the Convention as an illustration and even went so far as to say "an election of either branch by the people, scattered as they are in many States, particularly in South Carolina, is totally impracticable."

Pinckney was the youngest member of the delegation—much the youngest. He was not yet 30; and, with the exception of Dayton and Mercer was the youngest member of the Convention. It would have been natural for him as a Southerner "to go with his State"—and as a young man to defer to his seniors. And after hearing the debate on the 31st of May and the reasons of his fellow delegates from South Carolina, it was proper for him to change his mind and advocate election by the State legislatures as a better mode. It would have been a matter of wonder if he had not!

But there is a letter of George Read which should be considered, for it suggests the question whether this change of Pinckney did not take place before the 29th of May; that is to say before he presented his draught to the Convention.

On the 20th of May 1787 Mr. Read wrote from Philadelphia to John Dickinson:

"I am in possession of a copied draught of a federal system intended to be proposed if something nearly similar shall not precede it. Some of its principal features are taken from the New York system of government. A house of delegates and senate for a general legislature, as to the great business of the Union. The first of them to be chosen by the legislature of each State, in proportion to its number of white inhabitants, and three-fifths of all others, fixing a number for sending each representative. The second, to-wit the senate, to be elected by the delegates so returned, either from themselves or the people at large, in four great districts, into which the United States are to be divided for the purpose of forming this senate from which, when so formed, is to be divided into four classes for the purpose of an annual rotation of a fourth of the members. A president having only executive powers for seven years." (Read's Life of George Read of Delaware p. 443.)

This letter is very far from being conclusive. In the first place it does not appear that Mr. Read had seen the original of this "copied draught" or that Pinckney had given him the copy or had told him what his plan was or that any person who had seen the original draught had told him what it contained. In the second place the existence of an unauthenticated copy on the 20th of May does not conclusively prove that a different version of the same draught was not presented to the Convention on the 29th of May. Still this letter undoubtedly refers to Pinckney's draught and compels a more searching examination of the question raised than would otherwise be necessary.

In a paper which will be called, briefly, "the Observations" written by Pinckney before he left Charleston he sets forth at length a description of his plan of government. In the opening paragraph of this paper he says that he will "give each article" of his draught "that either materially varies" from the present government "or is new." He then goes on to say that "the first important alteration is that of the principle of representation." "Representation is a sign of the reality. Upon this principle, however abused, the Parliament of Great Britain is formed, and it has been universally adopted by the States in the formation of their legislatures." This is all which Pinckney, writing before the Convention began its work, had to say concerning the lower house of Congress. His Senate was new and concerning it he had much more to say, and he described it. But of the lower house, the popular body, he had nothing to say save that there would be such a house, and that it would rest upon the principle of representation "universally adopted by the States in the formation of their legislatures." The Virginia resolutions undoubtedly expressed the opinion of substantially all Americans when they said, "Resolved that the members of the first branch of the national legislature ought to be elected by the people of the several States." Assuredly if the draught which Pinckney was then describing had contained the extraordinary and novel proposition that the popular branch of the national legislature, the body which should represent the people, was not to be chosen by the people he would have had something "new" to lay before the Convention—something which did not exist in the government of any English speaking people in the world—something which "materially varied" from the belief and usage and history and traditions of the people who were to ordain this Constitution. Knowing Pinckney as we do—his general views, his adherence to the general principles of the British constitution, his attentive study of State constitutions, his outspokenness, his belief in his own devices, we know that if his draught had then contained so radical a departure from all existing constitutions as that which he subsequently proposed in the Convention, and if he had worked himself into a belief at the time when he wrote the Observations that the election of their representatives by the people was "theoretical nonsense", he could not have refrained from saying so. What is said in the Observations harmonized with the constitutions of every State in the Confederation and with the Virginia resolutions and with the views of every member of the Convention excepting the five great land owners from South Carolina.

The Observations, therefore (written before the Convention and published afterwards), sustain the draught in the State Department.

The words "the people" appear directly and necessarily in article 3 of the draught: "The Members of the House of Delegates shall be chosen every —— year by the people of the several States; and the qualifications of the electors shall be the same as those of the electors in the several States for their Legislatures." They reappear casually and needlessly in article 5: "Each State shall prescribe the time and manner of holding elections by the people for the House of Delegates." The draught therefore in these provisions is consistent with itself.

In the draught of the Committee of Detail the words of Pinckney's article 3 again appear with some amplification, but in the same order with the same context and with the same intent. Such agreements come not by chance.

And if such agreements come not by chance, could Pinckney while he was copying the committee's draught for his own article 3 have written these two troublesome words "the people" without taking heed of their significance, without realizing what he was doing, without remembering that his own draught had said "the legislatures of the several States." He could not! For there is another provision in the draught in the State Department which was not taken from the committee's draught—which did not exist in the committee's draught—which must have been deliberately framed by Pinckney—the provision before quoted from article 5, "Each State shall prescribe the time and manner of holding elections by the people for the House of Delegates." That is to say if Pinckney unintentionally abstracted his article 3 from the committee's draught in 1818, he, nevertheless, must have fabricated designedly his article 5 at the same time; for there is nothing in the committee's draught to suggest it.

Then the question immediately arises, What motive could Pinckney have had for falsifying his draught and making this change from the election of delegates by State legislatures to their election by the people of the several States. The answer of the superficial of course will be, "So that the world should believe that he had always been in favor of the election of representatives by the people." No other reason can well be assigned; yet there could not have been such a motive. Pinckney knew that his draught was to be soon published and that with it would be published the official Journal of the Convention and that the publication would disclose to the world this record: