The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1905-01-01

We have said that our Federal Constitu-
ton as il left the hands If the Philadelphia
Convention was the outcome Of three far
reaching compromises. BY the first Of
these was ALA yed the antagonism Of the
small and large States. which showed itself
early and for some time threatened TO fr,is-
| trate tho purpose for which the convention
had been called The Virginia plan
/ presented by Edmund Randolph. proposed
that the representatives In the first branch
OF the National Legislature should be chosen
directly by the people and that those in
the second branch should be chosen by the
first branch from candidates nominated
by the State Legislatures. To further the
national idea. all representatives in the
National Legislature were To vote as in
dividuals and not by States. The number
of Representatives WA TO he proportional
TO the quotas Of contribution or TO the num-
Der Of free inhabitants.T az the convention
might be termed. These proposals excited
amazement and dismay among the dele
gates from the small States, who were in
tent upon an equality of votes in the Ma
tonal Legislature. Their views were EN-
bodied in the so-called New Jersey plan.
submitted by William Patterson OF New
Jersey. IL had been prepared by delegates
from Connecticut New York. New Jersey
and Delaware, and il il probable that Luther
Martin of Maryland cooperated in the work.
This scheme. unlike the one presented
by Randolph, provided for a loose con-
federation instead OF a strong rational
government II proposed a plural Execu-
tive and a Legislature consisting Of a single
House. in which each State would have an
equal voice as il had under the Articles
Of Confederation
After thorough and vigorous debate
the New Jersey plan was rejected by vote
of seven States to three. II by no means
followed that the Virginia plan would be
definitely adopted. for sooner than ac-
quiesce in It some Of the delegates Of the
smaller States would have left the Con-
vention. Meanwhile, Roger Sherman OF
Connecticut had worked out a compromise
which met with the cordial approval Of his
colleague, Oliver Ellsworth. He proposed
that there should be proportional repre-
-entation in the first branch OF the Federal
Legislature and that in the second each
State should have one vote. This proposal.
once lost by tie vote. because the larger
States were unwilling 10 accept Il. was
30 four. Massachusetts being evenly divided.
Thus closed one OF the most memorable
contests in American institutional history.
After the acceptance cf the Connecticut
Compromise the delegates from the small
states were in n more TRANQUIL frame of
mind and "a mora conUliatory spirit per-
vaded the convention. Thereafter, addi-
tional powers were readily granted 10 the
national Legislature 10y those who hereto
fore had dreaded the domination OF the
central government Even Patterson OF
New Jersey became a -Federalist Of Fed
craists- Eventually the Connecticut Com
promise was acclaimed a. "a masterstroke
Of diplomacy the credit for It's introduce
ton belongs. as we have seen, To Roger
sherman and Oliver Ellsworth
II had been asserted repeatedly during
the debate on the Connecticut Compromise
that there was It more logical antagonism
between the North and the South than eX-
isted between the large and the small States
This was unquestionably true The differ
ences between the large and the small States
were largely fictitious. whereas there was a
real diversity Of interests in the case OF the
Northern and the Southern States. Tho
interests Of the two sections were opposite
in character The South vas agricultural; +
New England. on the other hand, WIS
mainly commercial and industrial Then.
again. slavery existed in the South. while it
was practically extinct in the North. These
two great differences, founded upon slavery
and commerce. constituted the basis OF q
sectional antagonism which more than once |
came within hairs breadth OF wrecking |
the convention. The deep seated diversity /
Of interests first revealed itself when il was
decided that there should be proportional /
in the first branch of the /
national Legislature The question i'm !
rnediatelv arose as to whether the repre- |
sentation was 10 be proportoned TO wealth |
or to numbers Rutledge and Butler Of /
South Carolina expressed Themselves in /
favor Of making wealth the basis. but Will !
son Of PENNSYLVANIA moved that repre-
sentation in the first branch should be in .
proportion to the whole number Of white I
and other free citizens and inhabitants Of |
every age, sex and conditions including |
those bound TO seryitude for term Of 2
wears. and three-ffths Of all other persons |
not conprehended in the foregoing descrip- /
ton. except Indians not paying taxes. in
each State When the motion was orig
lnnlly submitted 10 inc convention ~ WIS .
carried by vote Of nine States 10 two
only one audible protest being registered
a gainst it in Madison's notes
The tardineas Of the opposition which
presently was TO become vehement is
applicable by the fact that the -three-ffths-
8 iran cement was an old story 20 many Of
the members Of the convention. They had
met with il before in the Congress OF the
when a method Of apportion-
ng the quotas Of revenue among the States
TO population was discussed.
The question had then been mooted. Should
he slaves he counted? Various oompro-
misses we're suggested, but the since famous
-atio of Ave TO three, which was advocated
" Madison, had been adopted. The New
Jersey plan, moreover, which had been
submitted 10 the convention, provided
hat three-fifths Of the slaves should be in
,luded in counting the population for the
purpose Of levying acquisitions. Whether
he abolitionists we're caught mapping we
10 not know, but il is certain that In June
he three ffths rule was quickly adopted
When the matter came up again for dis
'1issiou, however in July, it looked as II
he opponents Of slavery were disposed
md would be able TO exclude the negroes
fem, apur1a~ug f1r, F,,r r,trrra,aaa