The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1911-09-07
How Constitution
 of United States
 Was First Framed

of the Secret Convention
 - Were Afraid of the People.
 J. G. Phelps Stokes of Stamford, settlement worker and sociologist, IS no admirer Of the United States con- stitution. MT. Stokes has been study ing the constitutional convention which adopted our nations constitu- tion, and he throws many interesting sfde-lights on the way in which 1t was framed to shut out the people. MT. Stokes writes of it as follows:
 The late Justice IS. F. Miller, of the U s. Supreme Court, in his Lectures on the Constitution of the United States" declared, "t has been com mon to designate our form of govern ment as a democracy, but in the true sense in which that term is properly used $ it is about as far from it is any other of which we are aware"
 No wonder, for the common people were allowed no part whatever in framing it. At the time the Consti- tuition was adopted, the right to vote was narrowly restricted by property
 
 stitution was never submitted to the people at large for ratification Or re- jection. Only Taxpayers, Christians and owners of property" were allowed to vote in this day. The franchise belonged to the rich and well-to-do, not to the poor.''
 "Of the mass of unski11ed laborers," says the historian, Prof McMaster, ''the men who dug ditches, carried loads, or in harvest time helped the farmer gathering in his hay and grain, it is safe to say that very few, if any, in the course of their lives, cast vote, for they were thought we'll paid if given food, lodging and $60 a year."
 "It is immaterial to them how they are possessed,'' said Rufus King, a delegate to the Constitutional conven- tion, from Massachusetts, provided they be we'll employed.''
 The Constitutional convention met in secret session only and behind locked doors. None but the 55 "dele- gates" and one or two trusted clerks were allowed admission. !. Concerning the occasion, the historian John Ffske writes Just what was said and done in this secret conclave was not re- vealed until fifty years had passed and the aged James Madison, the last survivor of those that sat there had been gathered to his fathers
 Immediately after the opening of the convention, Rufus King urged that the names of members voting for or against the various measures to be proposed should be rigidly excluded from the minutes. It was 'unneces- dence of the votes.' His advice was unanimously adopted. It was then voted "that nothing spoken in the House be printed or otherwise pub lished or communicated without leave.''
 So distrustful of one another even, were the Fathers of Our Country" that when, on the third day of the convention, Charles Pinckney. of South Carolina, moved '"That committee be appointed to supervise the min- utes," Gouverneur Morris, of Pennsyl- vania, objected, saying that com mittee might. have an interest or bias in moulding the entry according to their opinion and wishes. The mo- tion to appoint the committee was thereupon defeated.
 Absolute distrust of the common people, and determination to keep power out of their hands character ized the proceedings of the convention from it's beginning to its close. Roger Sherman, of Connecticut, voiced the practically unanimous sentiment of the convention when he declared on the fourth day of it's session, 'the people should have as little to do as may be, about the government"
 Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts distinguished founder of that basic device of crooked politics thats bears ported sherman, saying, '~The evils we experience flow from an excess of democracy He added that he did not like elections by the people"
 The question arising as to whether the new government should be ''fed- crab or national, Gouverneur Morris explained the difference, saying that "a federal government rested on mu- tual good faith, whereas a national government was compulsive." There upon it was immediately voted, al- most unanimously, that the new gov ernment should be national and supreme"
 Alexander Hamilton advised. ''Let one executive be appointed who dares to execute his powers" Concerning the election of the executive. Col. Mason, of Virginia, declared, 'It would be as unnatural to refer the choice of a proper character for the chief magistrate to the people, as to refer a trial of colors to a blind man."
 None was willing that control of the government should be left to majority of the common people, voting at the polls for representatives and execu- tives of their choice. James Madison and others urged caution, however, lest the people ''be lost sight of alto 1 gether and the necessary sympathy between them and their rulers and officers be too little felt!''
 Elbridge Gerry expressed willingness l that ''the people, should nominate a l certain number (referring, evidently, l to candidates for the lower House of | Congress) tout of which the State | Legislatures. should be bound to ] choose.' He added, however, that these Legislatures did not always pos- sess their Qhe people's) confidence" Later Gerry modified this suggestion, going so far as to admit that "the people should appoint one branch of the government in order to inspire them with the necessary confidence"
 Pierce. Butler, of South Carolina, declared election by the people to be 'impracticable." Hamilton said, "the mass of the people seldom judge or determine right 4
 Hamilton advocated a permanent Senate, chosen for life by the State Nothing but a per- body,'' he said, ''can check he imprudence of a democracy" "A1l he added, divide themselves into the few and the many The few are the rich and the we'll