now proposed has not been practically felt, must be attributed, not to any corrective principle in our Constitution, nor to any rigid adherence to the jealous maxims of democracy on the part of the people, but to the motives of action which have governed our chief magistrates. As yet, there has been nothing to excite alarm upon this subject.
The limitation proposed has not yet been wanted, and probably will not be for many years to come; but it is the dictate of prudence to provide for the danger while it is yet remote.
Although this question excites but little feeling at present, it once created more agitation than any other subject that came before them, as will appear by a few extracts from the Journal of that Convention:—
On the 1st of June, 1787, in the Federal Convention, Mr. Randolph introduced a resolution, that the national executive should not be eligible a second time, (p. 191;) and the next day it was agreed to, eight states being for the resolution, one against it, and one divided. (p. 191.) Seven years was the term then in contemplation.
On the 15th of June, Mr. Patterson submitted a proposition, that the United States in Congress be authorized to elect a federal executive for ——— years, to be ineligible a second time. (p. 208.) The term in contemplation then was also seven years.
On the 18th of June, Colonel Hamilton submitted resolutions, that the President and Senate should be elected to serve during good behavior; that is, for life, with powers nearly as extensive as those of the King and House of Lords of Great Britain. (p. 212.)
Colonel Hamilton was one of the greatest men in this country, and, without doubt, believed that his plan was well calculated to promote the happiness and prosperity of the Union. Many of our distinguished citizens thought with him then, who afterwards changed their opinions, on witnessing the success of our present system.
On the 19th of June, the resolutions of Mr. Randolph, as altered and agreed to in the committee of the whole, were submitted, of which the 9th resolution was, "that a national executive be instituted, to consist of a single person, to be chosen by the national legislature, for the term of seven years, to be ineligible a second time." (pp. 75, 214.) July 17th, it was moved to strike out the words "to be ineligible a second time," which passed in the affirmative,—yeas, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Georgia; nays, Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, (p. 215.) On this occasion, Massachusetts, Maryland, and Georgia, changed their votes, which were first in favor of the limitation. Pennsylvania, which was divided before, now voted against the limitation. Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, maintained their ground. New Jersey did not vote on the first question.
It was moved to strike out "seven years," and insert "good behavior;" which passed in the negative—yeas, 4; nays, 6. It would seem that four states, at this time, preferred an executive for life.
A motion was made to reconsider, and passed in the affirmative.
On the 19th July, a motion was made to restore the words "to be ineligible a second time." It passed in the negative. (p. 242.)
July 25th, it was moved that no person should be capable of holding the office of President more than six years in any twelve; which passed in the negative—yeas, 5; nays, 6.
The next day, it was moved to amend the resolution, so as to read, "for the term of seven years, to be ineligible a second time." It passed in the affirmative,—yeas. New Hampshire, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina; nays, Connecticut and Delaware. (p. 243.)
The same day, it was reported to the Convention as one of the resolutions agreed to.
This resolution, together with those offered by Mr. Pinckney, and those offered by Mr. Patterson, were referred to a committee, who, on the 6th of August, reported a draft of a constitution, the 1st section of the 10th article of which was, "The President shall be elected by the legislature. He shall hold his office during seven years, but shall not be elected a second time." (p. 255.)
The friends of this limitation now considered the question at rest; but they were deceived: it was too important in the eyes of the friends to an executive for life to be given up yet.
On the 24th August, a motion was made to postpone the consideration of the two last clauses of the 1st section of article 10, to wit, the term of years and the limitation. It passed in the negative. It was moved to refer them to a committee of a member from each state. It passed in the negative.
