him that their business was at an end; for, as the powers of the house in general were to revise the present Confederation, and to alter or amend it, as the case might require, to determine its insufficiency, or incapability of amendment or improvement, must end in the dissolution of the powers.
This remark had its weight; and, in consequence of it, the 1st and 2d resolves were dropped, and the question agitated on the 3d.
This last resolve had also its difficulties: the term supreme required explanation. It was asked whether it was intended to annihilate state governments. It was answered, only so far as the powers intended to be granted to the new government should clash with the states, when the latter were to yield.
For the resolution: Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina.
Against it: Connecticut. New York divided: Jersey and other states unrepresented.
The next question was on the following resolve: In substance, that the mode of the present representation was unjust—the suffrage ought to be in proportion to number or property.
To this Delaware objected, in consequence of the restrictions in their credentials, and moved to have the consideration thereof postponed, to which the house agreed. Adjourned to to-morrow.
Thursday, May 31, 1787.
Met pursuant to adjournment. This day the state of Jersey was represented, so that there were now ten states in Convention.
The house went again into committee of the whole, Mr. Gorham in the chair.
The 3d resolve, to wit, "That the national legislature ought to consist of two branches," was taken into consideration, and without any debate agreed to.
[N. B. As a previous resolution had already been agreed to, to have a supreme legislature, I could not see any objection to its being in two branches.]
The 4th resolve, "That the members of the first branch of the national legislature ought to be elected by the people of the several states," was opposed; and, strange to tell, by Massachusetts and Connecticut, who supposed they ought
