Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1884-05-10
OUR CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY.
No. g..

The committee OF detail reported on the 9th
of August. Their draft was discussed and
amended until the sth of September, when Il
committee of revision, consisting of five men,
bers, was appointed 'to revise the style of,
and arrange the articles agreed to by the
house, This committee reported on the 10Th
of September. On the 18th, the convention
finally adjourned.
Sixty-iive delegates. had been appointed to
the convention: New Hampshire, 4; Massa
chusetts, 5; Connecticut, B.; New York, 3;
New Jersey, 7 Pennsylvania, s; Delaware, 8;
Maryland, 8; Virginia, 8; North Carolina, i;
South Carolina, 4; and Georgia q. OF these
| ten never attended. Fifty-five was there
fore the number in actual attendance. The
ten who declined or failed to be present were
two from New Hampshire, one from Massa-
chusetts, two from New Jersey, one, Patrick
Henry, from Virginia, two fiom North Caro-
lima, and two from Georgia. OF the fifty five
| who were members of the convention, six
| teen failed or refused to sign the constitution
! when 1t was completed. These were Elbridge
i Gerry AMI Caleb Strong, from Massachusetts,,
only two signing from that state; Oliver ELS
worth, from Connecticut; Robert Yates aud
John Lansing, from New York, Alex. Hamil-
ton alone signing from that state; VIM. C.
Houston, from New Jersey; Jno. F. Mercer
and Luther Martin, from Maryland; Edmund
Randolph, George Mason. Geo. Wythe and
JAS. McClurg, from Virginia, only three sign
! ing from that state; Alex Martin and VIM.
r. Davie, from North Carolina; and VIM.
Pierce and VIM. Houston, from Georgia, only
two signing from that state. Only thirty mine
Of the delegates signed it. Pennsylvania
Delaware and South Carolina were the only
states whose entire delegations approved and
gave their signatures. Ellsworth and Davie
though not signers, advocated its adoption in
| their state conventions.
We are ignorant of the reasons which in
fuenced all who declined to give their ap.
proval to the constitution. 1t is however
known that, with but few exceptions, it was
regarded by them as departing too far from
their ideas of confederation; giving toe
much weight to the general government and
too little to the states. Happily we have the
reports of two of the representative member
of the convention, giving their reasons for re
fIsing their signatures; one of them, Luther
Martin, an ultra federal from Maryland, the
other, Gov. Randolph, an ultra national fron
Virginia.
LUTHER MARTINS OBJECTIONS TO THE con
sTITUTIoN.
These are found in '"rhe Genuine Informi
tion." which is his report of the convention
to the legislature of Maryland. He says tina
there were three parties in the convention
Monarchists, nationals, federals. The frs
two combined, he says, against the last TIL
rederals were for the equality OF the states
with Il government founded upon the Article
of Confederation. The nationals favore
great and underlined powers in the Legislature
and executive. The great point of dispute
and difference was the equality of the state
in the national government.
He objected to the preamble, where h
says it is declared to be Il compact betwee
the people of the United States rs individ
uals." Whereas, sin Il federal government
the parties to the compact are not the peopl
rs individuals. but the states rs states" II
objected to dividing the legislature into tw
houses; as unnecessary in Il congress repre-
senting sovereign states and acting ''in til
same manner AS treaties and alliances ii
formed He chiefly Objs cted THAT in Il fee
eral government over states equally FREE
sovereign and independent, every state ousi
to have an equal share in making the fedcr.
laws or regulations, in deciding upon then
and in carrying them into execution; neitlit
OF which WAS the case in this system, but II
reverse; the states not having All equal Vol,
in the legislature. nor in the appointment
the executive the judges and the other Officer
of government. In the whole system there WI
but one federal feature-tlle appointment
the senators by the states in their soverels
capacity. :: This feature WAS on
federal in appearance" This last opinion
urges, because they are not elected annual
nor paid by their states, nor subject to rec,
by their states.
AS further Objecting 10 the constitution,
the score of the inequality Of the states und
it, he says:-"Viewing it rs Il national, not
federal government, as calculated and I
signed not to protect and preserve but
abolish and annihilate the state government
it was opposed for the following reason
This continent is much too extensive for O
national government The geni
and habits OF the people OF America are q
posed to such government. L