"For the term of seven years," ·postponed, nem. con., on motion of Mr. HOUSTON and Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS;

"To carry into execution the national laws," agreed to, nem.

con. ;

"To appoint to offices in cases not otherwise provided for," — agreed to, nem. con. ;·

"To be ineligible a second time."- Mr. HOUSTON moved to strike out this clause.

Mr. SHERMAN seconds the motion.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS espoused the motion. The ineligibility proposed by the clause, as it stood, tended to destroy the great motive to good behavior, the hope of being rewarded by a reappointment. It was saying to him, "Make hay while the sun

shines."

On the question for striking out, as moved by Mr. Houston, it passed in the affirmative.

Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Georgia, ay, 6; Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, no, 4.

The clause," for the term of seven years," being resumed, Mr. BROOME was for a shorter term, since the executive magistrate was now to be reëligible. Had he remained ineligible a second time, he should have preferred a longer term.

Dr. M'CLURG* moved to strike out "seven years," and insert "during good behavior." By striking out the words declaring him not reëligible, he was put into a situation that would keep him dependent forever on the legislature; and he conceived the independence of the executive to be equally essential with that of the judiciary department.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS seconded the motion. He expressed great pleasure in hearing it. This was the way to get a good government. His fear that so valuable an ingredient would not be attained had led him to take the part he had done. He was indifferent how the executive should be chosen, provided he held his place by this tenure.

Mr. BROOME highly approved the motion. It obviated all his difficulties.

Mr. SHERMAN considered such a tenure as by no means safe or admissible. As the executive magistrate is now reëligible, he will be on good behavior as far as will be necessary. If he behaves well, he will be continued; if otherwise, displaced, on a succeeding election. Mr. MADISON.† If it be essential to the preservation of liberty that the legislative, executive, and judiciary powers be separate, it is

* The probable object of this motion was merely to enforce the argument against the recligibility of the executive magistrate, by holding out a tenure during good behavior, as the alternative for keeping him independent of the legislature.

The view here taken of the subject was meant to aid in parrying the animadversions likely to fall on the motion of Dr. M'Clurg, for whom J. M. had a particular -egard. The doctor, though possessing talents of the highest order, was modest, and unaccustomed to exert them in public debate.

essential to a maintenance of the separation, that they should be independent of each other. The executive could not be independent of the legislature, if dependent on the pleasure of that branch for a reappointment. Why was it determined that the judges should not hold their places by such a tenure? Because they might be tempted to cultivate the legislature by an undue complaisance, and thus render the legislature the virtual expositor, as well as the maker, of the laws. In like manner, a dependence of the executive on the legislature would render it the executor as well as the maker of laws; and then, according to the observation of Montesquieu, tyrannical laws may be made that they may be executed in a tyrannical manner. There was an analogy between the executive and judiciary departments in several respects. The latter executed the laws in certain cases, as the former did in others. The former expounded and applied them for certain purposes, as the latter did for others. The difference between them seemed to consist chiefly in two circumstances; - first, the collective interest and security were much more in the power belonging to the executive, than to the judiciary, department; secondly, in the administration of the former, much greater latitude is left to opinion and discretion than in the administration of the latter. But, if the second consideration proves that it will be more difficult to establish a rule sufficiently precise for trying the executive than the judges, and forms an objection to the same tenure of office, both considerations prove that it might be more dangerous to suffer a union between the executive and legislative powers than between the judiciary and legislative powers. He conceived it to be absolutely necessary to a well-constituted republic, that the two first should be kept distinct and independent of each other. Whether the plan proposed by the motion was a proper one, was another question; as it depended on the practicability of instituting a tribunal for impeachments as certain and as adequate in the one case as in the other. On the other hand, respect for the mover entitled his proposition to a fair hearing and discussion, until a less objectionable expedient should be applied for guarding against a dangerous union of the legislative and executive departments.

Col. MASON. This motion was made some time ago, and negatived by a very large majority. He trusted that it would be again negatived. It would be impossible to define the misbehavior in such a manner as to subject it to a proper trial; and perhaps still more impossible to compel so high an offender, holding his office by such a tenure, to submit to a trial. He considered an executive during good behavior as a softer name only for an executive for life; and that the next would be an easy step to hereditary monarchy. If the motion should finally succeed, he might himself live to see such a revolution. If he did not, it was probable his children or grandchildren would. He trusted there were few men in that House who wished for it. No state, he was sure, had so far revolted from republican principles, as to have the least bias in its favor.

Mr. MADISON was not apprehensive of being thought to favor any step towards monarchy. The real object with him was to prevent its introduction. Experience had proved a tendency in our government to throw all power into the legislative vortex. The executives of the states are in general little more than ciphers; the legislatures omnipotent. If no effectual check be devised for restraining the instability and encroachments of the latter, a revolution of some kind or other would be inevitable. The preservation of republican government, therefore, required some expedient for the purpose, but required evidently, at the same time, that, in devising it, the genuine principles of that form should be kept in view.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS was as little a friend to monarchy as any gentleman. He concurred in the opinion, that the way to keep out monarchical government was to establish such a republican government as would make the people happy, and prevent a desire of change.

Dr. M'CLURG was not so much afraid of the shadow of monarchy as to be unwilling to approach it; nor so wedded to republican government as not to be sensible of the tyrannies that had been and may be exercised under that form. It was an essential object with him to make the executive independent of the legislature; and the only mode left for effecting it, after the vote destroying his ineligibility a second time, was to appoint him during good behavior.

On the questing for inserting" during good behavior," in place of "seven years, [with a reëligibility,]" it passed in the negative.

New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, ay, 4; Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, no, 6.*

On the motion to strike out "seven years," it passed in the negative.

Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Delaware, North Carolina, ay, 4; Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, no, 6.†

It was now unanimously agreed, that the vote which had struck out the words "to be ineligible a second time," should be reconsidered to-morrow.

Adjourned.

WEDNESDAY, July 18.

On motion of Mr. L. MARTIN to fix to-mor

* This vote is not to be considered as any certain index of opinion, as a number in the affirmative probably had it chiefly in view to alarm those attached to a dependence of the executive on the legislature, and thereby facilitate some final arrangement of a contrary tendency. The avowed friends of an executive "during good behavior" were not more than three or four, nor is it certain they would have adhered to such

a tenure.

An independence of the three great departments of each other, as far as possible, and the responsibility of all to the will of the community, seemed to be generally admitted as the true basis of a well-constructed government.

There was no debate on this motion. The apparent object of many in the affirmative was to secure the reeligibility by shortening the term, and of many in the negative to embarrass the plan of referring the appointment and dependence of the executive to the legislature.

row for reconsidering the vote concerning the ineligibility of the executive a second time, it passed in the affirmative.

Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, ay, 8; New Jersey, Georgia, absent.

The residue of the ninth resolution, concerning the executive, was postponed till to-morrow.

The tenth resolution, "That the executive shall have a right to negative legislative acts not afterwards passed by two thirds of each branch," was passed, nem. con.

The eleventh resolution, "That a national judiciary shall be established, to consist of one supreme tribunal," agreed to, nem. con.

On the clause, "the judges of which to be appointed by the second branch of the national legislature,"

Mr. GORHAM would prefer an appointment by the second branch to an appointment by the whole legislature; but he thought even that branch too numerous, and too little personally responsible, to insure a good choice. He suggested that the judges be appointed by the executive, with the advice and consent of the second branch, in the mode prescribed by the constitution of Massachusetts. This mode had been long practised in that country, and was found to answer perfectly well.

Mr. WILSON would still prefer an appointment by the executive; but if that could not be attained, would prefer, in the next place, the mode suggested by Mr. Gorham. He thought it his duty, however, to move, in the first instance," that the judges be appointed by the executive."

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS seconded the motion.

Mr. L. MARTIN was strenuous for an appointment by the second branch. Being taken from all the states, it would be best informed of characters, and most capable of making a fit choice.

Mr. SHERMAN concurred in the observations of Mr. Martin, adding that the judges ought to be diffused, which would be more likely to be attended to by the second branch than by the executive.

Mr. MASON. The mode of appointing the judges may depend in some degree on the mode of trying impeachments of the executive. If the judges were to form a tribunal for that purpose, they surely ought not to be appointed by the executive. There were insuperable objections, besides, against referring the appointment to the executive. He mentioned, as one, that, as the seat of government must be in some one state, and as the executive would remain in office for a considerable time, for four, five, or six years at least, — he would insensibly form local and personal attachments, within the particular state, that would deprive equal merit elsewhere of an equal chance of promotion.

Mr. GORHAM. As the executive will be responsible, in point of character at least, for a judicious and faithful discharge of his trust, he will be careful to look through all the states for proper characters. The senators will be as likely to form their attachments at the seat of

government, where they reside, as the executive. If they cannot get the man of the particular state to which they may respectively belong, they will be indifferent to the rest. Public bodies feel no personal responsibility, and give full play to intrigue and cabal. Rhode Island is a full illustration of the insensibility to character produced by a participation of numbers in dishonorable measures, and of the length to which a public body may carry wickedness and cabal.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS supposed it would be improper for an impeachment of the executive to be tried before the judges. The latter would in such cases be drawn into intrigues with the legislature, and an impartial trial would be frustrated. As they would be much about the seat of government, they might even be previously consulted, and arrangements might be made for a prosecution of the executive. He thought, therefore, that no argument could be drawn from the probability of such a plan of impeachments, against the motion before the House.

Mr. MADISON suggested, that the judges might be appointed by the executive, with the concurrence of one third at least of the second branch. This would unite the advantage of responsibility in the executive, with the security afforded in the second branch against any incautious or corrupt nomination by the executive.

Mr. SHERMAN was clearly for an election by the Senate. It would be composed of men nearly equal to the executive, and would of course have, on the whole, more wisdom. They would bring into their deliberations a more diffusive knowledge of characters. It would be less easy for candidates to intrigue with them than with the executive magistrate. For these reasons, he thought there would be a better security for a proper choice in the Senate than in the executive.

Mr. RANDOLPH. It is true that, when the appointment of the judges was vested in the second branch, an equality of votes had not been given to it. Yet he had rather leave the appointment there than give it to the executive. He thought the advantage of personal responsibility might be gained, in the Senate, by requiring the respective votes of the members to be entered on the Journal. He thought, too, that the hope of receiving appointments would be more diffusive, if they depended on the Senate, the members of which would be diffusively known, than if they depended on a single man, who could not be personally known to a very great extent; and, consequently, that opposition to the system would be so far weakened.

Mr. BEDFORD thought, there were solid reasons against leaving the appointment to the executive. He must trust more to information than the Senate. It would put it in his power to gain over the larger states by gratifying them with a preference of their citizens. The responsibility of the executive, so much talked of, was chimerical. He could not be punished for mistakes.

Mr. GORHAM remarked, that the Senate could have no better information than the executive. They must, like him, trust to