is now to be elected by the people, and for four years. The object of the revisionary power is twofold,—first, to defend the executive rights; secondly, to prevent popular or factious injustice. It was an important principle, in this and in the state constitutions, to check legislative injustice and encroachments. The experience of the states had demonstrated that their checks are insufficient. We must compare the danger from the weakness of two thirds with the danger from the strength of three fourths. He thought, on the whole, the former was the greater. As to the difficulty of repeals, it was probable that, in doubtful cases, the policy would soon take place of limiting the duration of laws, so as to require renewal, instead of repeal.
The reconsideration being agreed to,—
On the question to insert two thirds, in place of three fourths,—
Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, (Mr. M'Henry, no,) North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, ay, 6; Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, (Gen. Washington, Mr. Blair, Mr. Madison, no; Col. Mason, Mr. Randolph, ay,) no, 4; New Hampshire, divided.
Mr. WILLIAMSON observed to the House, that no provision was yet made for juries in civil cases, and suggested the necessity of it.
Mr. GORHAM. It is not possible to discriminate equity cases from those in which juries are proper. The representatives of the people may be safely trusted in this matter.
Mr. GERRY urged the necessity of juries to guard against corrupt judges. He proposed that the committee last appointed should be directed to provide a clause for securing the trial by juries.
Col. MASON perceived the difficulty mentioned by Mr. Gorham. The jury cases cannot be specified. A general principle laid down, on this and some other points, would be sufficient. He wished the plan had been prefaced with a bill of rights, and would second a motion, if made for the purpose. It would give great quiet to the people, and, with the aid of the state declarations, a bill might be prepared in a few hours.
Mr. GERRY concurred in the idea, and moved for a committee to prepare a bill of rights.
Col. MASON seconded the motion.
Mr. SHERMAN was for securing the rights of the people, where requisite. The state declarations of rights are not repealed by this Constitution, and, being in force, are sufficient. There are many cases, where juries are proper, which cannot be discriminated. The legislature may be safely trusted.
Col. MASON. The laws of the United States are to be paramount to state bills of rights.
On the question for a committee to prepare a bill of rights,—
New Hampshire, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, ay, 5; Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, no, 5; Massachusetts, absent.262
The clause relating to exports being reconsidered, at the instance of Col. MASON, who urged that the restrictions on the states would prevent the incidental duties necessary for the inspection and safe
