The General Plan of City Government.—The general framework of city government is not very different from that of the other governmental divisions. There are the legislative, executive, and judicial departments, whose organization and functions are stated in thecharter, or fundamental law of the city. The city legislature is thecouncilorboard of aldermen. In most cases this body is a single house, though in some cities there are two houses. The members are elected from the wards into which the city is divided. The council may pass ordinances for the government of the city, but it is limited in the extent of its powers by the terms of the city charter.
City Charters Granted by Legislatures.—The source of the charter is the State legislature. In most States the constitution provides that the legislature shall passgeneral lawsprescribing the framework of all cities, or of the classes into which the cities of a State may be divided, according to their population. These laws also contain regulations that are safeguards against the abuses of municipal government, such as heavy taxation and the accumulation of debts. The requirement of general laws secures uniformity in the most important features of city government, and it prevents the practice, which is otherwise liable to prevail, of constant interference by State legislatures in the affairs of certain cities. Suchspecial lawsshould be enacted with great caution, if at all; for when a legislature regulates the affairs of a particular city, it too often does so at the request of persons or corporations having advantages to gain at the expense of the public.[3]
The Mayor.—The chief executive of the city is the mayor. He is the head of the police department and has more or less authority over the other administrative departments to be discussed later in this chapter. In the cases of both mayor and aldermen, the facts concerning their terms, salaries, and other details vary so greatly in different cities that no general description is possible.
The city judiciary includes the ordinary State courts and also special or municipal courts of various degrees.
Other City Officials.—Besides the officers enumerated, every city has its clerk, treasurer, attorney, and assessors. The auditor, or comptroller, is an important official who controls city finances.
Administrative Departments.—The greatest difficulties of city government arise in connection with the numerous administrative departments; these are quite complex in their operation. In large cities the number of officials and the variety of their duties render it almost impossible for the average citizen to become informed concerning these affairs; consequently, opportunities for fraud and mismanagement occur frequently.
Why, it may be asked, is such complex machinery necessary in municipal government? It is because social and industrial conditions (that is, the circumstances under which men live and work) are quite different from those that we find in towns and villages; and city government must be adapted to these conditions.
Conditions Peculiar to City Life.—Let us notice some of the ways in which this is true. (1) The mere fact that population is dense increases the possibility that a citizen may interfere with the rights of his neighbors even in the conduct of ordinary business. (2) There is greater liability that public health and safety may be endangered, both in the homes and in the shops and factories of cities, than in less densely settled communities. (3) The opportunities for evil-doing and for concealment that exist in cities draw to them a larger proportion of the vicious classes who need control and suppression. (4) Finally, in cities it is less easy than in the country for each family to supply itself with certain conveniences, such as water, light, and transportation; consequently, the government must regulate to some extent the supply of these necessities.
These are some of the conditions that are peculiar to city life; and we find here the reasons why the government in a city must undertake a large number of functions. At every point the safety of the citizen and his property must be guarded; and in a great many ways the conveniences of life must be supplied by the city or under the control of city officials. Thus we account for the fact that city government is complex—the principal source of the difficulties and the evils that we find in connection with administrative departments.
Fire and Police Departments.—The number and the organization of administrative departments vary considerably in different cities. Everywhere we find the police, fire, and health departments. Fire departments are, as a rule, very efficient; for the citizens will not allow laxness in the protection of their property. The efficiency of police departments varies greatly in different cities. When the selection of police officers is on a political basis, the standards are apt to be low, and the police may then protect or even assist violators of the law. Instances have been known where policemen received, regularly, money payments from law-breakers whom they did not arrest. The detection of this form of corruption is difficult; nevertheless, if it continues, the people are evidently not awake to their own best interests. In other cities, on the other hand, the police force is maintained upon a high standard. Sometimes civil-service-reform methods are used in the selection of policemen; the passing of an examination is necessary for appointment. This, with a fair system of promotions, should render a police force more like a military organization in its relation to the enforcement of law.
The Health Department.—The department of public health has duties that are of vital importance. Sewerage systems, sanitation, and the water-supply are the chief objects of its inspection. Health officers also have powers which enable them to detect and prohibit the sale of impure foods. The milk-supply should receive its particular attention, for the purity of this product is an important matter. The enforcement of strict health regulations in the crowded tenement districts of large cities is very difficult; but the neglect of these matters by city officials is nothing less than criminal.
The Department of Streets.—This department, which has in charge the construction of streets and pavements, affects the convenience of every citizen. Here vast sums of money are expended, sometimes wisely, and sometimes under the supervision of officials who are lacking in the technical knowledge required by this kind of work. Opportunity for dishonest handling of public money may be found in the letting of contracts and in the purchase of supplies. Street-cleaning has received comparatively little attention in American cities. In this respect we are far behind many European cities. This is because the relation of clean streets to public health, and to civic beauty, is not fully appreciated by the average citizen of our country.
Public Charities.—The administration of public charities is everywhere a difficult matter, and, naturally, its difficulty is greatest in large cities, where we find the greatest number of those who seek relief. Two problems confront the department of public charities: (1) How can it distinguish between those who actually need assistance and those who do not? (2)How can it help those who need assistance temporarily, without weakening their desire to become self-supporting? The same problems must be solved by the citizen in connection with his private charities. In general, it may be said that charitable work is best managed by private organizations, in charge of trained workers, who can investigate all cases of application for aid.
The Public Schools.—Public education is another department of municipal activity.[4]City governments spend great amounts of public money for this purpose. The work of our educational institutions is constantly being enlarged; courses in commerce, manual training, and domestic science are intended to strengthen the practical side of education. In some cities special schools are maintained for the defective classes and for truants.
Libraries, Parks, and Playgrounds.—The educational advantages furnished by the city are not for the children alone. Public libraries and museums serve adults as well. Recreation is provided by means of parks, public playgrounds, and open-air gymnasiums. These will become more common when their educational influence is more fully understood.
Committees or Boards.—The important questions that arise in connection with administrative departments are, how shall they be organized? and how shall the officers who control them be appointed? Two general methods prevail: (1)In the smaller cities the members of the council are grouped intocommittees, which have charge of the various administrative departments. In large cities there areboardsorcommissioners, distinct from the council, and these may be composed of salaried officers. In either case the board may employ a superintendent to take charge of the work under its jurisdiction. The principal criticism which can be offered against this method of managing administrative departments is that responsibility cannot be definitely located. No single member of a board or commission will assume responsibility for mismanagement; and when responsibility is divided among several persons, none of them feels it very strongly.
(2)Single Heads of Departments.—As a remedy for this defect, administrative departments in some cities are placed under the control ofsingle officers. These are given authority to appoint their subordinates, and they are held strictly accountable for the management of the department. Responsibility is further concentrated in some cities by giving the mayor power to appoint these heads of departments.
The Commission Form of City Government.—This form is found in a number of cities throughout the country. In place of the mayor and council these cities have a small body of men (generally three or five) who both make and execute city ordinances. They are elected at large from the city. Each of the commissioners is in charge of one or more of the city departments, and all subordinate officers are appointed by them. The commissioners are expected to devote their entire time to their duties and they are paid liberal salaries. Thus, it is hoped, city government will become more business-like and efficient.
In most cities that have the commission form provision is made for theinitiative, referendum, andrecall. The initiative enables a body of citizens who sign a petition to obtain a certain law by popular vote, if the commission refuses to pass it. The referendum enables citizens to vote for or against a law that the commission has passed, and thus to repeal it if they desire. Under the recall a member of the commission can be made to stand for re-election, or else to resign, at any time during his term of office, if a certain number of citizens petition for this action.
Qualifications of City Officers.—Grave questions are involved in these matters of organization, but the efficiency of city government depends in the greatest measure upon the character of the officers who are placed in power. We need to recognize the importance, in city affairs as in private business, of securing officials who are qualified by training and by successful experience to serve the public. Economy and honesty in municipal government cannot be expected when politics alone determines appointments to office. The establishment of civil-service-examination systems in certain cities is a step in the right direction.
Public Utilities.—Besides the administrative departments already mentioned, we have in large cities those which control the supply of water, light, and transportation facilities. The industries furnishing these necessities may belong to the city, but in most cases they are owned by individuals and corporations.[5]Even then they should be subject to strict regulation by the city, for several reasons: (1) These industries make use of public streets. The right to do this is granted by the council in afranchise. (2) The product that is supplied being in each case a necessity, it is the duty of the city government to protect the citizens from any abuse or inconvenience that may arise in connection with it. (3) In nearly every case the industries in question are monopolies; i.e., competition between rival plants is not possible. For this reason the public may suffer either from high rates or from imperfect service.
The Question of Municipal Ownership.—The opinion is gaining ground that no amount of municipal control will cure the evils of private ownership in these industries. Since they are "natural monopolies," it is argued they should be operated by the city government. This opinion is seen to have great weight when we consider the corruption and the lack of attention to the public welfare that accompany the granting of franchises to corporations. The bribery of aldermen and the granting of valuable privileges without compensation are frequent occurrences. On the other hand, the facts that bad officers are sometimes elected in our cities, and that they ignore public interests, raise a very serious question whether they should be intrusted with the management of great industries, such as water and lighting plants and street-car systems.
Reasons for Poor City Government.—Other arguments may be made on both sides of this question of municipal ownership; but there are fundamental reasons why the cities of the United States are, on the whole, poorly governed, which must receive consideration before this question can be settled. The conditions accounting for the evils of municipal government may be briefly stated as follows: (1) City governments are necessarily complex, and, in their administrative departments especially, a multitude of details must receive attention. Citizens find it difficult to understand these transactions and even more difficult to follow them closely. (2) City governments must spend vast sums of money, and this fact is a standing temptation to dishonest men both in and out of office. (3) The rapidity with which cities have grown has increased the difficulty of their problems. (4) Individuals and corporations have found it necessary to secure franchises from cities for the operation of important industries; this has opened many opportunities for corruption in city affairs. (5) The presence of large numbers of foreigners who are ignorant of governmental affairs has enabled corrupt politicians to exert great influence upon the voters in city elections.
The Reform of Municipal Governments.—Having reviewed the principal causes for the evils of municipal government, let us now consider some of the conditions that are necessary for bringing about reforms.
(1) National politics should be entirely separated from city affairs. It may be impossible to prevent the nomination of candidates by the regular political parties; but within each party local issues, not national, should determine the selection of candidates. At the polls the voter should cast his ballot independently of party considerations.
(2) Public interest in municipal affairs and the existence of a strong civic pride are conditions that are essential to the election of good officers and to the purity of city government.
(3) Before we can have better city governments every citizen must recognize hisresponsibility, not only on election day, but on every occasion when he can help in the work of detecting wrong, punishing corrupt officials, and encouraging better things in all departments of city life. This means unselfishness in one's attitude toward the public welfare; it means willingness to sacrifice time and effort in the public service. The example set by many eminent persons who have devoted themselves unselfishly to the accomplishment of reforms in our great cities may well be imitated by every citizen in the smaller affairs of his city or his ward. And the younger generation of citizens, who are yet students in the public schools, may exert no little influence toward the betterment of the city; and they may aid in the formation of that better public sentiment without which no improvement in our standards of municipal government is possible.
SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTIONS.
Outline for the study of your city government.
1. Was the city organized under a general law of the State, or was it granted a special charter? Does the legislature enact special laws for the city?
2. The mayor: term, salary. What are his principal powers? Should his responsibility be increased?
3. The council or board of aldermen: number of members, term of office, manner of election, compensation?
4. The municipal courts and judges.
5. Administrative departments: make a complete list of these. Are they controlled by boards or by single officers? How do the officers obtain their positions? Are they paid salaries? Of what business does each have charge?
6. How are the water, lighting, and street-car plants managed? Do you believe in the municipal ownership of any of them? Give reasons for your opinion.
7. How do police officers receive appointment? If an officer fails to enforce an ordinance, what course would you take to secure its enforcement?
8. Are party lines closely adhered to by voters in city elections? Are independent party organizations formed? Are they successful?
9. What can you learn of reform movements that have taken place in your city's history? Give the causes for the success or failure of these.
10. What is the cost of your city government per annum? Is it economically administered? What are the principal items of expense? Has the city other sources of revenue besides taxation?
11. What are the excellent features of your city's government? What are its faults? How may the latter be corrected?
12. Mention some ways in which students can assist in bringing about better conditions in your city.
REFERENCES.
1. Reinsch, Young Citizen's Reader, 80-83. Hoxie, How the People Rule, 63-83. Dole, Young Citizen, 93-108; 132-139.
Colonial Relations.—Why was union so long delayed? How was it finally accomplished? These are always questions of great interest to the student of American government. We note the general indifference toward union among the colonies before the Revolutionary War. This may be partially accounted for by the fact that each colony had its own separate government, and was jealous of all outside interference. Lack of good roads and methods of travel made extensive communication between the scattered settlements difficult. Prejudice against strangers, and especially those of a different religious belief, was common. Bonds of sympathy, however, between the citizens of different colonies were not wholly lacking. Their language and customs were mainly English. Their chief desire was to develop a government according to their own plans. Common interests were at times created because of the necessity for providing protection against their Indian, French, and Dutch foes. In general, we may say, confederation was early brought about through need for defense, but union has been the result of two centuries and a half of growth.
Union of the New England Colonies, 1643.—A notable attempt was made to form a confederation among the colonies in 1643. It is known as the New England Confederation, and included Massachusetts Bay, New Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven colonies. Their united energies were necessary to furnish protection against dangers from the Indians. The Dutch and French also tended constantly to encroach upon their rights. The governing body of this confederation was a board of commissioners. In the annual meetings of the commissioners, two being sent from each colony, questions of war, relations with the Indians, and other matters of mutual interest were discussed. But this central government possessed advisory powers only. The colonies were to provide for their own local government. The confederation became constantly weaker, and was finally dissolved in 1684. Seventy years were to elapse before the call was sent out for a meeting of delegates from all the colonies at Albany, but the influence of the New England Confederacy was felt, no doubt, during that period.
The Albany Congress, 1754.—Open hostilities with their enemies became more and more frequent. From the outbreak of King William's War, in 1689, to 1754, the date of the Albany Congress, there were at least a dozen intercolonial conferences called to consider means for the common defense. Plans for union were also prepared. The most interesting is that of William Penn. In it the word "Congress" is used for the first time in connection with American affairs. As the final struggle with France for the possession of America was about to begin, a "Congress" of twenty-five of the leading men from seven different colonies met at Albany. They were called, primarily, for the purpose of making a treaty with the Iroquois Indians. This object secured, the resolution was then unanimously adopted that "A union of all the colonies is at present absolutely necessary for security and defense." Franklin's famous plan providing for a permanent federation of all the colonies was also adopted. When submitted to the colonies, it failed to receive the ratification of a single one. Nor was it acceptable to the English government. Said Franklin, "The assemblies all thought there was too much prerogative, and in England it was thought to have too much of the democratic."
The Stamp Act Congress, 1765.—After the passing of the stamp act by the English government, the Massachusetts house of representatives invited the other colonial assemblies to send delegations to a general congress. Nine colonies responded by sending twenty-eight men to the congress in New York City, October 7, 1765.[6]During the session of two weeks, these delegates drafted petitions to the English government and declared that the rights of the colonists were the same as those of the natural-born subjects of England. It is noteworthy that representatives had again assembled on the motion of the colonists themselves. The growth of common interests was well expressed by Christopher Gadsden of South Carolina, when he said: "There ought to be no New England man, no New Yorker, known on the continent; but all of us Americans."
Committees of Correspondence.—Nine years were to go by before the meeting of another congress, but the colonists were prepared for a united effort at the end of this period. No sooner were the contents of the Townshend acts of 1767 known than Massachusetts issued a circular letter to the other colonies, asking for combined action against all such unconstitutional measures. The other colonial assemblies agreed with Massachusetts. Another movement which made the Revolution possible was begun by Samuel Adams. In November, 1772, he prevailed upon the Boston town meeting to appoint a committee which should carry on a correspondence with committees organized in other towns of that colony. Rights and grievances were the chief subjects for consideration. Other colonies adopted this plan. Led by Virginia, the idea was carried one step further, and in 1773 were formed committees of correspondence between the different colonies. Thus they were prepared for united action in the First and Second Continental Congresses.
The First Continental Congress, 1774.—When the coercive acts of 1774 had been passed, Massachusetts, now in greatest need, called for a congress of all the colonies. Delegates from all, Georgia[7]excepted, assembled at Philadelphia, September 5, 1774. In the Declaration of Rights, and in the adoption of the Articles of Association, they gave full expression to colonial sentiment. They commended the resistance of the people of Massachusetts. They declared that all "America ought to support them in their opposition," if force should be used in carrying out the measures of Parliament.
The Second Continental Congress, 1775.—Before adjourning, the First Continental Congress provided for the meeting of another congress, in May, 1775, unless the causes for colonial grievances should be earlier removed by the English government. But other measures of repression were quickly passed, and before the Second Continental Congress met, the battle of Lexington had been fought and the American forces were blockading Boston. This congress convened in Philadelphia May 10, 1775, and continued in session, with adjournments from time to time, until May 1, 1781. All of the colonies were represented. Like previous congresses, this was, at first, merely an advisory body, but necessity compelled it to act as a real government. It took control of military affairs, provided for a currency, threw open American ports to the ships of all nations, and did whatever else the necessities of the time seemed to demand. Having been appealed to for advice, this congress took a most notable position in recommending that new forms of government should be established in the several States. By the year 1777 ten States had framed new constitutions. It furthered independence by appointing a committee to draft resolutions based on the ideas of independence then everywhere present. The Declaration of Independence was the result.
The Articles of Confederation.—Franklin early saw the need for a more effective government than that of a revolutionary assembly. On July 21, 1775, he presented to Congress a plan for "perpetual union." Nearly a year elapsed before a committee was appointed to prepare some form for confederation to be entered into between the colonies. Another period of a year and five months was to go by before the report of this committee was adopted by the Continental Congress. It was then submitted to the State legislatures for approval. After three years and a half, on March 1, 1781, Maryland, the last State, was induced to ratify the Articles of Confederation. The adoption of these articles is one of the most important events in the history of our nation. While the Articles of Confederation must always be regarded as a weak instrument of government, we must not forget that the Continental Congress was then working out problems in the province of government that were almost wholly new. The solution, faulty as it was, went far to establish the place of the written Constitution as a basis for government.
Said John Fiske: "Almost everything else in our fundamental institutions was brought by our forefathers in a more or less highly developed condition from England; but the development of the written Constitution, with the consequent relation of the courts to the law-making power, has gone on entirely upon American soil."
Said John Fiske: "Almost everything else in our fundamental institutions was brought by our forefathers in a more or less highly developed condition from England; but the development of the written Constitution, with the consequent relation of the courts to the law-making power, has gone on entirely upon American soil."
Practical Working of the Government.—Conditions soon proved the articles unsatisfactory. The States were almost independent of the central government. There was no separate executive power to enforce, and no judiciary to interpret the laws. The nation was deep in debt, and without means for payment. Paper money of the period was worthless, and debtors were rebellious. Disputes between the various States brought them to the verge of civil war. Each State had its own system of duties and imposts, which led to great confusion in commerce. No important resolution could be passed in Congress without the votes of nine States. No amendment was possible, except by the votes of all the States. Congress became constantly weaker as various members resigned to accept positions under State authority. In that most dangerous period of our history, extending from 1783 to 1788, aptly called the "critical period," it became constantly more apparent that government under the Articles of Confederation was a failure. Fortunately, in this hour of gloom, there came forward Washington, Hamilton, Madison, and other leaders, who were prepared, if need be, to make compromises, but who were determined to preserve the elements of the union already secured.
SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTIONS AND REFERENCES.
1. How was the stamp act regarded in the different colonies as shown by the addresses made and resolutions offered? Hart, Contemporaries, II, 395-411; Tyler, Patrick Henry (American Statesmen), Chapters 5 and 6.
2. Do you know of other instances in our history where a stamp act has been passed? How was it regarded? In what ways was it different from that of 1765?
3. What was the origin of the committees of correspondence and how did they aid in unification? Sloane, The French War and the Revolution, 161, 162; Hart, Formation of the Union, 57.
4. Analyze the Declaration of Independence, and select from it the causes for the Revolution.
5. Why was the adoption of the Articles of Confederation so long delayed? Hart, Contemporaries, II, 539-543; Fiske, The Critical Period, 93, 95; Walker, The Making of the Nation, 6; Hart, Formation of the Union, 93-95.
6. Read the Articles of Confederation (Appendix B).
(a) How was the Congress composed? (Art. V.) (b) The number necessary for a quorum? (Art. X.) (c) The powers of Congress? (Art. IX.) (d) Powers of the separate States (Art. VIII.)
7. Defects of the Confederation. Hart, Contemporaries, II, 591-603.
8. What was the attitude toward union during the period 1783-1788? Were there notable bonds of union even at this time? What other influences have increased this sentiment? Fiske, Critical Period, 55-63; Walker, The Making of the Nation, 7, 8.
9. President Roosevelt said, in an address delivered April 9, 1902, at Charleston, S.C., "When four years ago this nation was compelled to face a foreign foe, the completeness of the reunion became instantly and strikingly evident." What is his meaning? How does the statement illustrate the point emphasized in this chapter, that a common danger produces union?
10. Describe the character of the money used in 1783 and succeeding years. What was its influence? Fiske, Critical Period, 162-186.
Events Leading to the Constitutional Convention.—Among the many difficulties that arose during the period of the confederation were constant disputes between Virginia and Maryland over the navigation of the Potomac River and Chesapeake Bay. Finally, in March, 1785, commissioners from these States met at Alexandria to consider these difficulties. The outcome of the meeting was that Virginia proposed a convention and called for delegates from all of the States to meet to consider how commerce should be controlled. Delegates from five States only were present at Annapolis on the day appointed, September 11, 1786. Nothing permanent could be accomplished with so few States represented. Before adjourning, however, they agreed to a resolution, framed by Alexander Hamilton, which proposed the calling of a convention at Philadelphia to amend the Articles of Confederation.
The Federal Convention, 1787; Delegates.—All of the States, Rhode Island excepted, were finally represented in this, one of the most notable conventions in the history of the world. Among the fifty-five delegates assembled were many who had already been conspicuous in public affairs. They were the choice men of the States from which they came. Twenty-nine of the number were university men. Washington and Franklin were present, and Washington was unanimously chosen president of the convention. Neither of these men took an active part in the debates; but their presence gave inspiration to the other members, and they had untold influence at critical times. Among the ablest members were Alexander Hamilton of New York; James Madison of Virginia; Oliver Ellsworth and William S. Johnson of Connecticut; James Wilson and Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania; Rufus King of Massachusetts; and Charles C. Pinckney of South Carolina.
Our Knowledge of the Convention.—The Convention lasted from May 25 to September 17, 1787. The sessions were secret. Fortunately we are not dependent on the secretary's report alone for our knowledge of the meetings.[8]Mr. Madison seemed to understand the full meaning of the convention from the first, and decided to give an accurate account of the proceedings. He wrote: "Nor was I unaware of the value of such a contribution to the fund of materials for the history of a Constitution on which should be staked the happiness of a people great even in its infancy, and possibly the cause of liberty throughout the world." His notes were purchased by the government from Mrs. Madison, in 1837, for the sum of thirty thousand dollars. They were published as "Madison's Journal of the Constitutional Convention."
Our Knowledge of the Convention.—The Convention lasted from May 25 to September 17, 1787. The sessions were secret. Fortunately we are not dependent on the secretary's report alone for our knowledge of the meetings.[8]Mr. Madison seemed to understand the full meaning of the convention from the first, and decided to give an accurate account of the proceedings. He wrote: "Nor was I unaware of the value of such a contribution to the fund of materials for the history of a Constitution on which should be staked the happiness of a people great even in its infancy, and possibly the cause of liberty throughout the world." His notes were purchased by the government from Mrs. Madison, in 1837, for the sum of thirty thousand dollars. They were published as "Madison's Journal of the Constitutional Convention."
Plans for a Government; Virginia Plan.—The magnitude of the labors of this convention can be understood only when we read the report of the discussions as given by Madison. It was at once determined that no time should be lost in patching up the articles, but that a new Constitution should be formed. Two sets of resolutions were early submitted, each setting forth a plan of government. The Virginia plan was largely the work of Mr. Madison. It provided for the establishment of a national government with supreme legislative, executive, and judicial powers. The legislative power was to be vested in a Congress of two separate houses. The executive was to be chosen by both houses of Congress and the judiciary by the Senate. Representation in both houses of Congress was to be based on population or the contributions to the support of the government. This scheme was fiercely attacked by the delegates from the small States, for it would clearly give control into the hands of the more powerful States.
The New Jersey Plan.—The New Jersey plan, presented by Mr. Patterson of that State, was agreed upon by the members from Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland. This Small-State plan, so called, provided for a continuance of the government under the Articles of Confederation. They were to be revised in such a manner as to give Congress the power to regulate commerce, to raise revenue, and to coerce the States. The Small-State party insisted that the Virginia plan, if adopted, would destroy the sovereignty of the States. They would rather, they said, submit to a foreign power than be deprived of equality of suffrage in both branches of the legislature. Madison, Wilson, King, and other leaders of the Large-State party declared that the basis for the new government was to be the people and not the States; that it would be unfair to give Delaware as many representatives as Virginia or Pennsylvania. After many days of fruitless debate, a compromise, sometimes called the "First Great Compromise," was presented and finally adopted. This provided that the House of Representatives should be composed of members elected on the basis of population. In the Senate, large and small States were to be equally represented.
The Slavery Problem; Second Compromise.—How was the number of the representatives to be found? Were slaves to be counted a part of the population? A heated debate arose over these questions. The delegates from South Carolina maintained that slaves were a part of the population and as such should be counted. The answer was made that slaves were not represented in the legislatures of that and other States; that slaves were regarded in those States merely as so much property, and as such ought never to be represented. Finally, when it seemed that the work of the convention must fail, a compromise, known as "the three-fifths compromise," was accepted. This provided that all free people should be counted and three-fifths of the slaves.
The Third Compromise.—Slave-trade and commerce were the causes for a third compromise. South Carolina and Georgia desired to have the importation of slaves continued. Some of the other Southern States and the Northern States generally were opposed. The New England members were anxious that the National government should have complete control of foreign commerce. This was resisted by some of the Southern delegates, who feared that the importation of slaves might thereby be prohibited. Finally, a compromise was agreed upon which gave Congress power over foreign and interstate commerce, but forbade any act which might prohibit the importation of slaves before 1808. It was also agreed that a tax of ten dollars each might be laid on all slaves imported. While the entire Constitution may be said to be made up of compromises, the agreement upon these three rendered the further work of the convention possible.
Signing the Constitution.—Gouverneur Morris was selected to give the document its final form. The clear, simple English used is due largely to him. After thirty-nine members, representing twelve different States, had signed the Constitution, the convention adjourned. While the last signatures were being written, Franklin said to those standing near him, as he called attention to a sun blazoned on the back of the President's chair: "I have, often and often, in the course of the session, and the vicissitudes of my hopes and fears as to its issue, looked at that behind the President, without being able to tell whether it was rising or setting; but now, at length, I have the happiness to know that it is a rising and not a setting sun."
Difficulties of Ratification.—The convention submitted the Constitution to Congress. Here, for eight days, it was attacked by its opponents. Finally, Congress passed it on to the State legislatures. It was sent by them to State conventions elected by the people. This ratification was provided for by Article VII of the Constitution, as follows:The ratification of the conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same.
The period included between September 28, 1787, when Congress transmitted the Constitution to the State legislatures, and June 21, 1788, when New Hampshire, the last of the necessary nine States, ratified, was one of the most critical in our history. Political parties, in a truly National sense, were formed for the first time. Among the leaders who defended ably the views of those who opposed the ratification of the Constitution were Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, Elbridge Gerry, and George Clinton. It was urged that there was no bill of rights,[9]that the President would become a despot, and that equality of representation in the Senate was an injustice to the larger States. "Letters from the Federal Farmer," prepared for the press of the country by Richard Henry Lee, set forth clearly the views of the Anti-Constitutional party.
"The Federalist."—No influence was more noteworthy in bringing about ratification than a series of political essays afterward collected under the name of "The Federalist." It is considered to-day the best commentary on the Constitution ever written. Alexander Hamilton originated the plan, and wrote 51 of the 85 numbers. James Madison wrote 29, and John Jay 5.
The Influence of Washington.—Washington was again a giant in his support of the Constitution. In a letter to Patrick Henry he early sounded an effective note of warning against anarchy, expressing the very fear that finally led many in the conventions to vote for the Constitution. He wrote: "I wish the Constitution which is offered had been more perfect; but it is the best that could be obtained at this time, and a door is open for amendments hereafter. The political concerns of this country are suspended by a thread. The convention has been looked up to by the reflecting part of the community with a solicitude which is hardly to be conceived, and if nothing had been agreed upon by that body, anarchy would soon have ensued, the seeds being deeply sown in every soil."
The Influence of Washington.—Washington was again a giant in his support of the Constitution. In a letter to Patrick Henry he early sounded an effective note of warning against anarchy, expressing the very fear that finally led many in the conventions to vote for the Constitution. He wrote: "I wish the Constitution which is offered had been more perfect; but it is the best that could be obtained at this time, and a door is open for amendments hereafter. The political concerns of this country are suspended by a thread. The convention has been looked up to by the reflecting part of the community with a solicitude which is hardly to be conceived, and if nothing had been agreed upon by that body, anarchy would soon have ensued, the seeds being deeply sown in every soil."
Ratification Secured.—Delaware, the first State, ratified December 6, 1787, without a dissenting vote. Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, and Connecticut followed quickly. Much depended on the action of the Massachusetts convention. After prolonged debate, the delegates were finally influenced by the statement that amendments might be made, and they ratified the Constitution by a vote of 187 to 168. The ninth State was secured in the ratification by New Hampshire, June 21, 1788. It was not until November 21, 1789, however, that North Carolina voted to accept the Constitution. Rhode Island held out until May 29, 1790.
The New Government Put into Operation.—When the ratification of the ninth State had been secured, Congress appointed a special committee to frame an act for putting the Constitution into operation. It was enacted that the first Wednesday in January should be the day for appointing electors; that the electors should cast their votes for President on the first Wednesday in February, and that on the first Wednesday of March the new government should go into operation. It was not until April 1 that a quorum was secured in the House of Representatives, and in the Senate not until April 6. The electoral votes were counted in the presence of the two houses on April 6.[10]The inauguration of President Washington did not take place, however, until April 30.
Origin of the Constitution.—Before making a study of this epoch-making document, let us inquire briefly as to its origin. An analysis of the Constitution shows that there are some provisions which are new and that English precedent had an influence. The main features, however, were derived from the constitutions of the States with whose practical workings the delegates were familiar. The following well-known statement is an excellent summary: "Nearly every provision of the Federal Constitution that has worked well is one borrowed from or suggested by some State constitution; nearly every provision that has worked badly is one which the convention, for want of a precedent, was obliged to devise for itself."
Authority and Objects of the Constitution.—It was evidently the intention of the framers of the Constitution to found a government deriving its authority from the people rather than from the States. The purposes for which this was done are set forth in the following enacting clause, commonly called the preamble:—
"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
This clause was attacked vigorously by the opponents of the Constitution, and especially in the Virginia and the North Carolina conventions. Said Patrick Henry: "And here I would make this inquiry of those worthy characters who composed a part of the late Federal Convention.... I have the highest veneration for those gentlemen; but, sir, give me leave to demand what right had they to say, 'We, the people'?... Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people, instead of, We, the States? If the States be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great, consolidated, national government of the people of all the States." It was argued, on the other hand, by Randolph, Madison, and others, that the government, under the Articles of Confederation, was a failure, and that the only safe course to pursue was to have a government emanating from the people instead of from the States, if the union of the States and the preservation of the liberties of the people were to be preserved.
SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTIONS AND READINGS.
1. For an account of the members of the convention, see Hart, Contemporaries, III, 205-211.
2. For the contributions of the individuals and the classes of delegates, see Walker, The Making of the Nation, 23-27; Fiske, Critical Period, 224-229.
3. Discuss the peculiar conditions in Massachusetts. Give the arguments presented. Walker, 56-57; Fiske, Critical Period, 316-331.
4. How was the Constitution regarded in Virginia? Walker, 58, 60; Fiske, Critical Period, 334-338.
5. What was the attitude of the New York Convention toward the Constitution? Fiske, Critical Period, 340-345.
6. What objections were made against the Constitution in North Carolina? Hart, Contemporaries, III, 251-254.
7. What would have been the status of North Carolina and Rhode Island if they had not ratified? Walker, 73, 74; Hart, Formation of the Union, 132, 133.
8. Show the influence of the State constitutions on the Federal Constitution. James and Sanford, Government in State and Nation, 117.
9. For other questions on the material in this chapter, see Fiske, Civil Government, 211, 212; James and Sanford, Government in State and Nation, 135, 136, 137.