THE MYSTERY OF THE PINCKNEY DRAUGHT

BY CHARLES C. NOTT

FORMERLY

Chief Justice of the United States Court of Claims

NEW YORK
THE CENTURY CO.
1908
Copyright, 1908, by
The Century Co.
Published, November, 1908.
TO
CEPHAS BRAINERD
OF THE NEW YORK BAR
A sound Lawyer and a long-tried Friend

CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE
I. Statement of the Case [3]
II. The Draught in the State Department [16]
III. Of the Issue of Fraud [23]
IV. Madison as a Witness [29]
V. Madison as an Advocate [40]
VI. The Position Taken by Madison [58]
VII. The Plagiarisms [65]
VIII. The Improbabilities [85]
IX. The Observations [105]
X. The Silence of Madison [143]
XI. The Wilson and Randolph Draughts [158]
XII. The Committee's Use of the Draught [206]
XIII. What Became of the Draught [225]
XIV. What Pinckney Did for the Constitution [243]
XV. Conclusions on the Whole Case [257]
XVI. Of Pinckney Personally [278]
Appendix
Mr. Charles Pinckney's Draught of a Federal Government [295]
Draught of the Committee of Detail [306]
Index [325]

THE MYSTERY OF THE PINCKNEY DRAUGHT

CHAPTER I

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

When I began the studies which have resulted in this book someone asked me what I was doing, and I chanced to answer that I was looking into the mystery of Pinckney's draught of the Constitution. Afterwards I received a letter from Professor J. Franklin Jameson in which he spoke of the uncertainties attending the draught as "mysteries"; and later I found that Jared Sparks, back in 1831, had been engaged in the same study and had used the same term. With two such scholars as Professor Jameson and Mr. Sparks recognizing the knowable but unknown element which we call mystery, I retain the term which I chanced to use.

"A true mystery, instead of ending discussion, calls for more." "What constitutes a mystery is the unknown which is certainly connected with the known. A mystery therefore is unfinished knowledge."[1]

[1] Dr. William Hanna Thomson, Brain and Personality, p. 278.

At the opening of the Convention which framed the Constitution, Charles Pinckney of South Carolina presented a draught of a constitution that was referred to the Committee of the Whole. This draught was not a subject of notice or comment by any speaker or writer of the time. One might infer from the silence of all records and writers that it was the fanciful scheme of an individual which exercised no influence whatever on the Convention and did not contribute a single line or sentence to the Constitution.

On the adjournment of the Convention its records and papers were placed under seal and the obligation of secrecy was set upon its members. When ultimately the seals were broken and the package was opened, more than thirty years afterwards, the draught of Pinckney was not found. John Quincy Adams then Secretary of State applied to Pinckney for a copy; and he on the 30th of December 1818, sent to the Secretary of State the duplicate or copy of the draught now in the Department of State. The document was published and remained unquestioned until in 1830, six years after the death of Pinckney, it came, or was brought, to the attention of Madison; and he at different times wrote to at least four persons concerning it and also prepared a statement which was subsequently published with it in Gilpin's edition of Madison's Journal, and in Elliot's Debates; and then the Pinckney draught slept unnoticed in constitutional publications until a review in the columns of the Nation awakened an interest in Mr. Worthington C. Ford and he in 1895 published the letter which accompanied the draught when it was placed in the State Department. Nevertheless, if the copy in the Department is identical in terms, or substantially identical in terms, with the paper which Pinckney presented to the Convention, then Charles Pinckney contributed more of words and provisions to the Constitution of the United States than any other man. And this draught so prepared by him was so largely adopted in a silent way that the law student who might chance to read it, not knowing of the comment of Madison and its rejection by all commentators, would be tempted to speak of the Constitution of the United States as the constitution of Pinckney.

The reason why the Pinckney draught has received so little attention, and he has received no credit at all for what apparently is an extraordinary piece of constitutional work can be readily explained.

The statement of Madison is written in temperate and guarded terms; and it is manifest that he was careful to speak with courtesy of Pinckney and to furnish an explanation in the nature of a bridge over which the friends of Pinckney, then deceased, might retreat. But what he does say instantly brings the reader's mind to the conclusion that the paper in the State Department is not the paper—that it is not a substantial copy of the paper, which was before the Convention. Story had been appointed by Madison and it was not for Story to accept what Madison rejected; and Story was so great a man, so great a judge and commentator, that it was not for lesser men to reverse him. Madison's comment and Story's silence have united to condemn the draught so effectively that while printed and reprinted it has been as unnoted as if it had never been written. The final, judicial edict of George Bancroft expressed the general judgment when he wrote of the original draught which was actually before the Convention, "No part of it was used, and no copy of it has been preserved."

Moreover Madison is too great an authority to be lightly questioned, the highest authority that exists concerning the proceedings of the Convention; and he asserts and undertakes to demonstrate that the one paper can not be a true copy of the other. He designates provisions which he says originated in the Convention and could not have been predetermined by Pinckney; and still more conclusively, as he thinks, he points to the fact that the paper in the Department contains provisions to which Pinckney was himself opposed, provisions against which he spoke and voted in the Convention. Here Madison builds his bridge. Mr. Pinckney, he suggests, furnished this copy many years after the event (nearly 32 years), after he had become an old man and the record of events had faded in his memory; and probably as the work of the Convention went on he had used a copy of his draught as a memorandum and had interlined in it provisions which the Convention framed; and when he sent the copy to the Secretary of State he had forgotten this, or had gradually come to regard the interlined matter as his own. A writer like Story with the training of a lawyer and a judge on finding the authenticity of the copy impeached in part would be almost certain to exclude it wholly from the consideration of the jury. Historical analysis and research may, nevertheless, render that clear which is obscure and show us where the work of Pinckney begins and ends.

There are some extrinsic facts which hitherto unknown should be noted.

In the first place this letter of Pinckney anticipates one of Madison's criticisms and explains away his strongest point.

"It may be necessary to remark," he says, "that very soon after the Convention met I changed and avowed candidly the change of my opinion on giving the power to Congress to revise the State laws in certain cases, and in giving the exclusive power to the Senate to declare war, thinking it safest to refuse the first altogether and to vest the latter in Congress." Hunt's Madison, III, p. 22.

As to one of these things concerning which Pinckney says he changed his mind after the Convention met, the power of Congress to revise the laws of the States, the assertion is not sustained by Madison's record of the proceedings. He undoubtedly did change his mind but not until after the adjournment of the Convention. There was however another provision in his draught to which his assertion would apply. Concerning it he did change his mind and "avowed candidly the change of his opinion" and did so "very soon after the Convention met." This is the provision which declares that members of the lower house shall be chosen by the people of the several States. Article 3. As early as the 6th of June he proposed that they should be chosen by the legislatures of the several States. Writing 32 years after the event and when the record had faded in his memory, the two things, to use Madison's words, "were not separated by his recollection."

The letter is a contemporaneous declaration, given at the moment when he produced the document and placed it on file in the Department of State, that the copy, like the original, contained provisions which he opposed in the Convention. With this contemporaneous notice to the Secretary of State one of Madison's objections which at first seemed insuperable, if it does not fall to the ground, at least becomes susceptible of explanation; and the retention in the copy of the draught of these apparently inconsistent things, accompanied at the time, as they were, by Pinckney's declaration, not only removes the objection of Madison but tells strongly in favor of the draught being what Pinckney represented it to be.

In the second place Pinckney speaks of having "several rough draughts of the Constitution" ("4 or 5 draughts" he says) and he adds "that they are all substantially the same, differing only in words and the arrangement of the articles." Pinckney had preserved them certainly until the end of the year 1818, and "numerous notes and papers which he had retained relating to the Federal Convention." He also says that "with the aid of the journal of the Convention and the numerous notes and memorandums I have preserved, it would now be in my power to give a view of the almost insuperable difficulties the Convention had to encounter, and of the conflicting opinions of the members; and I believe I should have attempted it had I not always understood Mr. Madison intended it. He alone possessed and retained more numerous and particular notes of their proceedings than myself." These "numerous notes and memorandums, more numerous and particular" than those preserved by any other person, Madison "alone" excepted, and with them the "several rough draughts," which he found with the other papers on his return to Charleston in 1818, existed when Pinckney wrote his letter and placed his copy of the draught in the State Department. They existed both to refresh his memory and to refute him if he was not acting in good faith. He acknowledged Madison to be his superior in "notes and memorandums" and a particular knowledge of the proceedings of the Convention; and Madison was still living, and Pinckney by placing his copy of the draught in the State Department invited Madison and all the world to examine it. That was the time when Madison should have spoken. It is most unfortunate that he waited fourteen years, and until after Pinckney's death and the death of every other member of the Convention, before he spoke.

Like many another young lawyer I came upon Pinckney's draught in Elliot's Debates and was astounded by finding so large a part of the Constitution apparently written by the hand of a man whom I had never heard extolled as a framer of the Constitution; and like many another young lawyer, I accepted the reasons of Madison and the silence of Story as conclusive. But the discovery and publication of Pinckney's letter in 1895 threw new light upon the subject and made it plain that Madison's objections should not be taken as final and that his premises needed corroboration. I therefore prepared the following inquiries in the hope that I could persuade some historical scholar to take up this work of Constitutional investigation.

1. Does the draught in the State Department upon its face appear to be an author's draught—a, "rough draught," as Pinckney called it—with his corrections, erasures, interlineations and alterations or does it appear to be a duplicate or a fair copy of an original or "rough" draught? It is in the handwriting of Pinckney; does it appear to be his original piece of work, or an engrossed copy made by him of another paper?

2. If upon the face of the instrument it appears to be an engrossed copy, though in Pinckney's handwriting, that is a copy of the rough draught with its alterations and corrections engrossed therein, then the historical critic must proceed to try the issue of Pinckney's truthfulness. He tells the Secretary of State at the time when he produces the paper that "it is impossible for me now to say which of the 4 or 5 draughts I have is the one. But enclosed I send you the one I believe was it. I repeat, however, that they are substantially the same, differing only in form and unessentials." If this language be taken literally it means that he is about to place in the archives of the Department of State one of those "original" "4 or 5 draughts" and as he believes the very one of which he prepared an engrossed copy for the use of the Convention. If the language be not taken literally, it at least means that he sends a true copy of one of the original rough draughts. Is there anything in the draught to refute either representation? Does it contain words, phrases, clauses, provisions which certainly did originate in the Convention; which were ground out there, and which could not possibly have been anticipated by Pinckney as he sat in his study early in 1787 making draught after draught for the consideration of the coming Convention?

3. Finally, it will be apparent on reflection that even if all of the foregoing issues should be decided against Pinckney; that is to say, if it should be found that the paper in the State Department is not an original draught—is not one of the four or five draughts to which Pinckney alludes, or that it contains interlineations of which Pinckney could not have been the author, even then after deciding all doubtful points against him a great deal will remain which must have been his; and historical criticism and careful analysis will be able to measure this residuum and give us a fair estimate of its value, so that we can know with tolerable certainty how much of the Constitution was the work of Pinckney.

As I have not been able to persuade any competent scholar to take up this inquiry which seems to me to be an inquiry due to the truthfulness of our Constitutional history and to the memory of a framer of the Constitution whose work was not questioned until after his death, I have felt that the work has become a duty and that the duty has been imposed on me.

CHAPTER II

THE DRAUGHT IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT

The Pinckney draught in the Department of State is written on unruled paper larger than common foolscap, hand made, and with untrimmed edges. The interlineations are few and trivial and clerical, the insertion of an omitted word and the like. There are two exceptions to this. In article 3 the draught says, "The House of Delegates shall consist of ---- to be chosen from the different States in the following proportions: For New Hampshire —— for Massachusetts ——" etc., etc. But the names of the States are not set forth in the body of the instrument as they stand in all editions, being written on the margin and the place where they should have been inserted being noted by a mark.

The second exception is in the last line of article 5. The subject of the paragraph is the veto power; and the clause "all bills sent to the President and not returned by him within —— days shall be Laws, unless the legislature, by their adjournment, prevent their return" was originally written, "unless the legislature by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be the law." The words "its" and "it" are erased with the pen and the words "their" and "they" written over them and the article "a" and a final "s" are stricken out so that the clause as corrected reads as printed.

In at least two particulars the draught is erroneously printed in almost all editions. Pinckney did not write "Art. I," "Art. II," etc. Above the first article of the draught in the middle of the line, is written "Article 1." Over all the other articles, and likewise in the middle of the line, are simply the arabic figures "2," "3," "4," etc., without the word "article." The second particular, in which many printed copies are erroneous, is in article 3. The printer has there run together two parts of distinct sentences. The true reading is that each member of the House of Delegates shall be "a resident in the State he is chosen for," the sentence closing with the word "for." A new sentence then begins: "Until a census of the people shall be taken in the manner hereinafter mentioned, the House of Delegates shall consist of —— to be chosen from the different States in the following proportions," etc. But in some we find that a delegate shall be "a resident of the State he is chosen for until a census of the people shall be taken in the manner hereinafter mentioned," which makes the intended provision senseless.

The first of the foregoing inquiries (p. 12 ante), Does the draught in the State Department upon its face appear to be an author's draught, a rough draught with his corrections, erasures, interlineations and alterations, or does it appear to be an engrossed copy made by him of another paper, has been answered decisively by Mr. Gaillard Hunt in his edition of the Writings of Madison:

"The penmanship of all three papers (the draught and the letter to the Secretary of State and a previous letter to the Secretary December 8, 1818) is contemporaneous, and the letter of December 30 and the draught were written with the same pen and ink. This may possibly admit of a difference of opinion because the draught is in a somewhat larger chirography than the letter, having been, as befitted its importance, written more carefully. But the letter and the draught are written upon the same paper, and this paper was not made when the Convention sat in 1787. There are several sheets of the draught and one of the letter, and all bear the same watermark, 'Russell and Co. 1798.'" Vol. III, p. 16.

The draught, as before shown, contains a few verbal corrections, one or two trivial erasures, two or three obviously necessary interlineations but no alteration. That is to say it contains no alteration of substance—nothing which indicates on the part of the writer an intent to change or add to the substance of what he has written—there is no additional provision interlined, no obscure expression amplified, no omitted thought supplied—the corrections are one and all clerical. The document, therefore upon its face does not appear to be a "rough draught."

When the Secretary of State had written to Pinckney "I now take the liberty of addressing you, to inquire if you have a copy of the Draught proposed by you, and if you can without inconvenience furnish me at an early day, with a copy of it" and Pinckney replied that among his notes and papers he had "found several rough draughts of the Constitution" and that "I send you the one I believe was it," and with the letter sent a document which obviously was not a rough draught, the fair and reasonable interpretation of his language (apart from an intent to defraud) is that he was sending what the Secretary of State had asked for, viz., "a copy" of the "copy of the draught proposed by you" to the Convention; and that what he meant to say was, "I send you 'a fair copy made by myself of the one I believe was it.'"

What a rough draught is may be seen by referring to the literal reprint of the Journal of Madison in the Documentary History of the Constitution by the Department of State. It is something which requires an editor to put the author's changes and amendments in their proper places. A constructive piece of work as long as the Pinckney draught, must have been cut, transposed, changed, added to over and over again. To be intelligible it would require editing, and the Secretary had informed Pinckney that he wanted the "copy" for publication, and that he wanted it "at an early day": and no man would have parted with such an important paper and confided the editing of it to some unknown clerk in an executive department. In a word Pinckney did what any man similarly circumstanced would have done, he kept the original paper in his possession, and sent to the Secretary of State what he had asked for, "a copy of it."

If we turn now to the printed copy of the draught and note the extent of article 6, containing the enumeration of the powers of Congress, and the extent of the second paragraph of article 8, setting forth the powers and duties of the President, and if we remember that all this matter is to be found in the Constitution, it becomes instantly apparent that absorption of all these provisions by interlineation as suggested by Madison was absolutely impossible. In a word the bridge which Madison built breaks down. Therefore we must face the inexorable alternative: either Pinckney gave to the Convention a draught substantially like that in the State Department or he fraudulently fabricated that draught after the Secretary of State had called upon him for a copy.

CHAPTER III

OF THE ISSUE OF FRAUD

On this issue of fraud we must first look at the circumstances as they existed in December, 1818.

Pinckney had been a Senator of the United States, Governor of South Carolina, Minister to Spain and had just been elected to the important Congress which was to grapple with the National questions involved in the Missouri Compromise. He may have been a vain man as Madison thought him—(most men of great ability and prominence are egotistical; it is egotism ordinarily which impels them to the front) but no one has intimated that Pinckney could have been guilty of an act which from moral and historical points of view was little better than a crime. Some one contributed the many provisions which are to be found in the Constitution, and it would have been infamous to filch the honor from the real author. The most felicitous sentence in the Constitution, "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States," if it was Pinckney's, passed through the Committee of Detail, the Committee of Style and the Convention without the change of a single word. It was one of those rare sentences of which everybody approved; and it is not lightly to be assumed that in 1818 Pinckney would steal such a conspicuous sentence from the Constitution and place it at the head of one of his own articles.

Moreover if the draught was a tissue of fraud detection was always possible; and detection would have blasted the life of Pinckney nowhere with greater severity than in his own State. In 1818 sixteen other members of the Convention were still living, and three of them had been members of the Committee of Style, and two of them (Charles Cotesworth Pinckney and Pierce Butler), had been delegates from South Carolina. Letters too from members might disclose the fatal truth. A son of some member might come forward with his father's draught of some of these provisions. Autobiographies, diaries and personal reminiscences of members might exist. Detection was possible, and in the ordinary course of human events, certain. Conversely it is proper here to note the fact that in all these years not a line of writing has been found to thrown a shade of discredit upon the Pinckney draught.

The temptation, too, was relatively small. The Constitution was not then in the estimation of the American people what it is now. No one then had proclaimed it to be "the greatest work ever thrown off by the brain and purpose of man." In 1818 the first work on the Constitution (Rawle's) had not yet been written. Monroe was President, and the country was just emerging from the poverty which followed the war of 1812-15. Pennsylvania and Georgia had defied the federal power and the latter had passed a statute making it a crime punishable with death to enforce the process of the Supreme Court of the United States. State feeling was always stronger in the South than in the North and out of State feeling had grown the doctrine of State rights. The South at that time could cherish no warm regard for the man who had first written "all acts made by the legislature of the United States, pursuant to this Constitution, and all treaties made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land."

It must also be noted that Pinckney was not a volunteer in this matter—that he did not thrust his draught upon the Secretary of State—that he never came before the public claiming to have contributed this or anything to the Constitution. The subject was introduced by Mr. Adams and not by Pinckney; and the draught was produced in response to Mr. Adams' inquiries concerning it. Pinckney showed no great solicitude about it then. His letter is slovenly and careless and manifestly not written for posterity, and it contains no indication of his regarding it as any thing more than a personal explanation. It was due to Mr. Adams to tell him that this draught which he inclosed was not a literal duplicate of the one which he had placed before the Convention; and it was due to himself to say that it contained provisions of which he had subsequently disapproved and which he had opposed in the Convention. Pinckney certainly did not suppose that he was writing history or biography when he wrote that letter.

The letter demonstrates how inadequately Pinckney estimated the greatness of the Constitution and overestimated his own part in the work, and how poorly the Constitution was then esteemed. At the beginning it had been but an experiment and in the opinion of many men an experiment that would fail. Under the moulding hands of Jay and Marshall it had become to Southern statesmen more and more an object of distrust and dislike. It seemed then a growing menace to the rights of the South and the sovereignty of South Carolina. For Pinckney to have asserted publicly that he was the chief author of the instrument and of its most offensive provisions would have inclined his fellow citizens in Charleston to say that instead of boasting of his work he ought to be ashamed of it; that where State rights were involved it was at best ambiguous; and that, if he was the author of the draught, he more than any other man had enabled the judges to interpret the Constitution in favor of Federal supremacy.

Certainly if this issue of fraud had been involved in a criminal case Pinckney would have been able to establish two things—good character, and the absence of a motive to defraud.

CHAPTER IV

MADISON AS A WITNESS

Having now seen what Pinckney said in 1818 and what he did and where he stood, let us turn to the other party in the controversy, Madison, and examine the testimony which he gave and the evidence on which he relied.

His journal (as edited by Gilpin) after setting forth the speech of Randolph on the 29th of May, and the reference of the 15 resolutions of the Virginia delegates, to the Committee of the Whole, contains this record:

"Mr. Charles Pinckney laid before the house a draught of a federal government to be agreed upon between the free and independent states of America."

"Ordered that the same be referred to the Committee of the Whole appointed to consider the state of the American Union."

But Yates's Minutes give us one thing more: "Mr. Pinckney, a member from South Carolina, then added that he had reduced his ideas of a new government to a system, which he then read."

Madison's report of Pinckney's speech on the 25th of June stops with the subject of State governments and the propriety of having but one general system. But Yates gives in a condensed form the conclusion of Pinckney's speech and contains the following sentences:

"I am led to form the second branch (of the legislature) differently from the report. I have considered the subject with great attention and I propose this plan (reads it) and if no better plan is proposed I will then move its adoption."

Once while reflecting upon the extraordinary, the seemingly inexplicable course which Madison pursued in relation to the Pinckney draught—positive and yet evasive; alleging but never testifying—my eye happened to fall on this minute of Yates and it suggested the fact of these repeated omissions of Madison's to state the contents of the Pinckney draught, and I asked myself the question, is it possible that Madison never knew what the draught contained? In an examination of the facts relating to this question I found that the entry in the journal, above quoted, "Mr. Charles Pinckney laid before the house a draught" etc. had been taken word for word from the entry of the Secretary of the Convention in the official Journal. I found also that at four different times in the course of the debates Madison designated the draught by four different terms; as Mr. Pinckney's "plan" as Mr. Pinckney's "resolutions" as Mr. Pinckney's "motion" as Mr. Pinckney's "propositions," not one of which expressed the idea of a formulated Constitution. It is therefore evident that Madison did not hear Pinckney read his draught as Yates did, and did not hear him say as Yates did, "that he had reduced his ideas of a new government to a system." My inference then was and still is, that Madison was temporarily absent from the hall when Pinckney produced and read his draught and that on hearing of it he went to the Secretary's desk and copied the entry in the official journal—an entry which is also silent as to Pinckney having read the draught and which describes it in language entirely different from Yates's and entirely different from Pinckney's, for Pinckney's draught does not profess to be an agreement "between the free and independent States of America," but is avowedly an act of the people of the United States. It therefore appears both positively and negatively that Madison was not present when Pinckney presented his draught; that he could not have heard Pinckney's designation of it as a "system" and could not have heard Pinckney read it to the Convention. He regrets in another place that he did not take a copy of it because of its length and it may be inferred from what may be termed his unfailing ignorance of its contents that he did not read it because of its length.

Madison had a poor opinion of Pinckney, a very poor opinion; and he held fast to it all through his life. During the sitting of the Convention the draught was referred to repeatedly in discussions and motions and references. Madison recorded what was said, and the more important of the motions and references, but his opinion of Pinckney was so poor that he did not put himself to the trouble of stepping to the Secretary's desk and reading the draught, much less of taking a copy of it. In October 1787, after the dissolution of the Convention, he wrote from New York to Washington and Jefferson, the following letters:

James Madison to General Washington.

New York, Octr. 14, 1787.

"I add to it a pamphlet which Mr. Pinckney has submitted to the public, or rather as he professes, to the perusal of his friends, and a printed sheet containing his ideas on a very delicate subject, too delicate in my opinion to have been properly confided to the press. He conceives that his precautions against any further circulation of the piece than he himself authorizes, are so effectual as to justify the step. I wish he may not be disappointed. In communicating a copy to you, I fulfill his wishes only."

(Gaillard Hunt's Writings of Madison, Vol. V., p. 9.)

Madison to Jefferson.

New York, Octr. 24, 1787.

"To these papers I add a speech of Mr. C. P. on the Mississippi business. It is printed under precautions of secrecy, but surely could not have been properly exposed to so much risk of publication."

(Id., p. 39.)

Madison to General Washington.

New York, Oct. 28, 1787.

"Mr. Charles Pinckney's character is, as you observe well marked by the publications which I enclosed. His printing the secret paper at this time could have no motive but the appetite for expected praise; for the subject to which it relates has been dormant a considerable time, and seems likely to remain so."

(Id., p. 43.)

In the memorandum "For Mr. Paulding" written shortly before April 6, 1831, reappears Madison's poor opinion of Pinckney. "It has occurred to me that a copy (of the Observations) may be attainable at the printing office, if still kept up, or in some of the libraries or historical collections in the city. When you can snatch a moment, in your walks with other views, for a call at such places, you will promote an object of some little interest as well as delicacy by ascertaining whether the article in question can be met with."

On the 25th of November, 1831, he wrote to Jared Sparks, "I lodged in the same house with him, and he was fond of conversing on the subject. As you will have less occasion than you expected to speak of the Convention of 1787, may it not be best to say nothing of this delicate topic relating to Mr. Pinckney, on which you cannot use all the lights that exist and that may be added?"

On the 6th of January, 1834, he wrote to Thomas S. Grimke:

"There are a number of other points in the published draught, some conforming most literally to the adopted Constitution, which, it is ascertainable, could not have been the same in the draught laid before the Convention. The conformity, and even identity of the draught in the Journal, with the adopted Constitution, on points and details the results of conflicts and compromises of opinion apparent in the Journal, have excited an embarrassing curiosity often expressed to myself or in my presence. The subject is in several respects a delicate one; and it is my wish that what is now said of it may be understood as yielded to your earnest request, and as entirely confined to yourself. I knew Mr. Pinckney well, and was always on a footing of friendship with him. But this consideration ought not to weigh against justice to others, as well as against truth on a subject like that of the Constitution of the United States."

And on the 5th of June, 1835, he wrote to William A. Duer:

"I have marked this letter 'confidential,' and wish it to be considered for yourself only. In my present condition enfeebled by age and crippled by disease, I may well be excused for wishing not to be in any way brought to public view on subjects involving considerations of a delicate nature."

Madison wrote with characteristic caution and courtesy but there is something very suggestive in the way he uses the word "delicate." Neither Mr. Paulding nor Mr. Sparks nor Mr. Grimke nor Judge Duer could have doubted that there was something wrong in the draught—something so wrong that Madison did not wish to speak of it.

It is manifest that when Madison first read the draught in the State Department, he was surprised. He does not say so, and is very guarded in what he does say; yet it is perfectly plain that the magnitude of this contribution to the Constitution was something absolutely new to him. He better than any other man was supposed to know, the work and workings of the Convention, and lo, here was a document of more importance than any given in his journal, or found among the records of the Convention, and of its contents he had been ignorant until the document was laid before the world by the State Department!

Between 1818 and 1836, the magnitude of this and its importance as an historical document was forced upon Madison's attention from time to time by younger men who took a warmer interest in the Constitution and its history and its framers than their fathers had taken; and it is apparent that he was astounded at the historical importance of the document. Marshall was then drawing near to the end of his majestic judicial reign, and though assailed and thwarted by the cavilings and dissents of lesser men, had placed his imperishable impress upon the Constitution and revealed to his countrymen its greatness and consistency and power of nationality. The growing interest in the great instrument would not be quieted. Madison would fain have kept silent, as he advised his two most trusted correspondents to do. But he could not! He was the greatest of authorities, living or dead, in all that pertained to the making of the Constitution; the last living member of the Convention; the sole chronicler of its secret history. It is as plain now as it was then that he must speak. What could he say?

Madison was not able to say, "I read the Pinckney draught when it was before the Convention, I studied it, I knew the contents well; the paper in the State Department is not a substantial duplicate of that paper." There remained then but this alternative; he must confess that he knew no more about the Pinckney draught than did the men who were interrogating him or he must do precisely what he did do, he must attack it on documentary evidence as an advocate, and must remain silent as a witness. If he had testified as a witness; if he had said of his own knowledge that the paper which Pinckney placed in the State Department was not a copy of the paper which he had laid before the Convention and was not a substantial duplicate worthy of consideration, that would have been the end of the matter. Certainly I should never have felt called upon to make the present investigation. But Madison did not so testify. Under the pressure of steadily increasing interest in the Constitution, inquirer after inquirer came to him to explain how a man whom they did not regard as a wise statesman could have contributed so much to the Constitution, which they had regarded as the composite work of a number of great men. They did not come to him for reasons or advice or references to documentary evidence, but because he was the one survivor of the men who could have testified, the only chronicler of what had happened in the Convention from first to last, and they sought his personal knowledge. They asked him to tell them what he knew concerning the Pinckney draught, the original draught, the one which was before the Convention; and he answered not a word! We must reject Madison as a witness because he rejected himself.

CHAPTER V

MADISON AS AN ADVOCATE

At this day Madison is regarded as one of the chief statesmen in the group of leading framers of the Constitution; but his best appreciated work was his keeping the only record which we have of that august assembly. He, who dealt with the great questions of the hour, may not have been aware how much good work the Pinckney draught was doing in an unnoticed way. Madison spared no effort to make his journal complete, and no little time in doing so. He copied and inserted in it the Virginia resolutions and the New Jersey resolutions; and he also inserted Pinckney's long speech of the 25th of June; and yet he did not procure and apparently did not even read and certainly did not insert in his journal Pinckney's plan or draught. He seems to have felt sadly a certain self-conviction of this, and to have realized the fact that the omission of the Pinckney draught from his record was an irretrievable error. To a man holding the author of the draught in contempt, it must have seemed preposterous in 1831 for the shade of Pinckney to stalk upon the historic stage and say, I formulated the Constitution. It was my hand that sketched its outline, leaving it to the members of the Convention, myself among the number, to change its provisions and modify its terms. My draught was changed and modified, and the conflicting views of the framers were welded together by notable compromises and persuasive arguments, but nevertheless I contributed more of form and substance, more of detail and language to the instrument known as the Constitution of the United States than any other man.

Accordingly, Madison, while he closed his lips as a witness, rallied his failing forces as an advocate and proceeded to give from time to time first to one correspondent and then to another and finally to the people of the United States, in a "Note" to accompany his Journal when published, all the reasons he could marshal from the written record of the case why the draught in the State Department was an impossible verity.

At what time the Pinckney draught was first brought to Madison's attention I have not been able to discover; but on the 5th of May, 1830, Mr. Jared Sparks had been spoken or written to on the subject, for he then replied to Madison, writing from Washington, "Since my return I have conversed with Mr. Adams concerning Charles Pinckney's draught of a constitution. He says it was furnished by Mr. Pinckney." Among Madison's papers there is also a memorandum entitled, for Mr. Paulding in which he says:

"Much curiosity and some comment have been exerted by the marvellous identities in a plan of government proposed by Charles Pinckney in the convention of 1787, as published in the Journals with the text of the constitution, as finally agreed to."

This memorandum is not dated, but is placed chronologically before a letter to Mr. J. K. Paulding dated April, 1831.

On the 21st of June, 1831, he wrote to Jared Sparks: "May I ask you to let me know the result of your correspondence with Charleston on the subject of Mr. Pinckney's draught of a Constitution for the United States as soon as it is ascertained?"

On the 27th of June, he again wrote to Mr. Paulding saying that he has "received the volume of pamphlets containing that of Mr. Charles Pinckney."

On the 25th of November, 1831, he again wrote to Mr. Sparks: "The simple question is whether the draught sent by Mr. Pinckney to Mr. Adams and printed in the Journal of the Convention could be the same with that presented by him to the Convention on the 29th May, 1787, and I regret to say that the evidence that that was not the case is irresistible." He instances the election of members of Congress by the people, and the debate of June 6 as "a sufficient example." "But what decides the point" is a letter "from him to me" dated March 28, 1789—a letter quoted by Gilpin of which I shall hereafter speak.

Madison is guarded in all he says, but it is perfectly plain that while he wished to impress upon Paulding and Sparks the idea that the draught which Pinckney placed in the State Department was not the draught which he presented to the Convention, he at the same time shrank from bringing on a controversy and from irritating the friends of Pinckney and forcing them into an investigation of the matter. It was, he evidently thought, a case of "least said, soonest mended." Madison was a sagacious and an experienced statesman who thoroughly understood his countrymen; Paulding and Sparks were his friends and followers; what he wished to have said passed into Gilpin's edition of the Journal and Elliot's Debates, and gave the unquestioning world what he wished it to know and nothing more. The bridge which he built was safely passed over by the friends of Pinckney and his method of destroying the good name of the draught without needlessly smirching the good name of Pinckney, and without inciting a controversy on the subject has been so successful that for seventy years the draught has remained silently condemned, and no man has even thought that an investigation could possibly reverse the accepted judgment.

But on the 25th of April 1835, William A. Duer of New York wrote to Madison on the same subject and making the same inquiry. Judge Duer was an eminent and brilliant member of the New York bar and was then President of Columbia College and had been a well known judge. For three years the ghost of Pinckney had not been raised to disturb the serenity of Madison's old age. Paulding and Sparks were his friends and were publicists. To them he could say little which would mean much; and for them his wishes and suggestions would be as binding as a law. Judge Duer was not such a personal friend and to him Madison must speak more freely; he was the possessor of a strong inquiring mind, and to him, Madison must so strongly state the case that it would seem unquestionable. He therefore, with characteristic caution lingered until the 5th of June, and then in his reply to Judge Duer made a supreme, if not final effort.

In this letter, he brings up again, the election of members by "the people" and Pinckney's speech against it on the 6th of June. "Other discrepancies," he says, "will be found in a source also within your reach, a pamphlet published by Mr. Pinckney soon after the close of the Convention" (Pinckney's Observations). "A friend who has examined and compared the two documents has pointed out the discrepancies noted below." "One conjecture explaining the phenomenon has been that Mr. Pinckney interwove with the draught sent to Mr. Adams passages as agreed to in the Convention in the progress of the work and which after a lapse of more than thirty years were not separated by his recollection."

The "discrepancies noted below" are for the most part unimportant; and will be examined hereafter; but there is one which should be considered now, for it affects Madison more than it affects Pinckney. The discrepancy referred to is this: In the Observations Pinckney says that, "in the best instituted Legislatures of the States we find not only two branches [of the legislature] but in some 'a council of revision'"; and he adds that he has incorporated this "as a part of the system." The friend says "The pamphlet refers to the following provisions which are not found in the plan furnished to Mr. Adams as forming a part of the plan presented to the Convention: The executive term of service 7 years. 2. A council of revision."

The statesmen who framed the Constitution were sufficiently statesmen to know that what we call the veto power is not really a veto power; and that the President, unlike the Crown, is not a part of the law-making power. The constitution of New York and not the constitution of Great Britain furnished the framers with the needed model. By all of them it was known that the duty imposed and intended to be imposed upon the President was simply a duty of "revision." This has been a subject of judicial inquiry and the history of the veto provision may be stated in the words of the court:

"At an early day, June 6, this question of legislative power was determined by two decisive votes. The Convention adopted the principle of revision, but being mindful, as Rutledge afterwards said, that 'the judges ought never to give their opinion on a law, till it comes before them,' and that they 'of all men are the most unfit to be concerned in the Revisionary Council,' struck out Randolph's 'convenient number of the national judiciary' and left the power of revision in the President alone. At a later day, August 6th, Rutledge 'delivered in the Report of the Committee of Detail,' the committee which embodied the previously ascertained views of the Convention in a draught of the proposed Constitution. This section was couched in the very words of the constitution of New York: Every bill shall be presented to the President 'for his revision'; 'if upon such revision' he approve it, he shall sign it; 'if upon such revision it shall appear to him improper for being passed into a law,' he shall return it. On the 15th of August, with this word revision three times repeated, 'The thirteenth section of article 6, as amended, was then agreed to' by all the States. It is this vote which is expressive of the final intent of the Convention. The verbal form in which the provision stands in the Constitution was the work of the Committee of Style.

"This 'revisionary business,' as Madison calls it, came up again and again; appears and reappears in his Journal from the 6th of June to the 16th of August; was considered and reconsidered, discussed and rediscussed. The views of members swung between the extremes of absolute affirmative power in Congress and absolute negative power in the President. The proposition of Hamilton 'to give the Executive an absolute negative on the laws,' identical with the legislative power of the Crown, was rejected by ten States and supported by none. The proposition of Madison to add the judges of the Supreme Court in the 'revision' of bills was likewise rejected. At last the deliberations ended where they had begun. The Convention held fast to the principle of a Council of Revision and left the duties of the council in the President alone. He was to be the Council of Revision. In the words of Madison, the Convention 'gave the Executive alone, without the judiciary, the revisionary control on the laws, unless overruled by two-thirds of each branch.'" The United States v. Weil (29 Court of Claims Reports 523; affirmed in La Abra Co. v. The United States, 175 U.S.R. 423.

Madison forgot that on the 6th of June South Carolina had voted "no" on the motion, to make "a convenient number of the National judiciary" a council of revision, and that the vote was unanimous; and he forgot that he had written with his own hand only eight days after Pinckney had presented his draught to the Convention:

"Mr. Pinckney had been at first in favor of joining the heads of the principal departments, the Secretary of War, of foreign affairs, etc., in the council of revision. He had however relinquished the idea from a consideration that these could be called on by the Executive Magistrate whenever he pleased to consult them. He was opposed to an introduction of the judges into the business." Hunt's Writings of Madison, III., pp. 89, 111.

According to Madison there was a discrepancy—more than a discrepancy, a flat contradiction between the Observations and the draught in the State Department, the one saying explicitly that in "some of the best instituted legislatures of the States" there was "a council of revision, consisting of their executive and principal officers of government" and that he had "incorporated it as part of the system"; the other containing no such provision but, like the Constitution, giving the executive alone the revisionary control of the laws. A superficial examination of the case would easily bring one to the conclusion that Pinckney in 1818 omitted the council of revision from the draught for the State Department and copied from the Constitution the provision which the Convention framed. But the brief speech of Pinckney written down contemporaneously by Madison himself, singularly vindicates both the Observations and the draught and leaves the latter stronger than it would have been if Madison's friend had not furnished "the discrepancies noted below."

The significance of the term "council of revision" was not known to the friend who arrayed the Observations against the draught and may not have been to Judge Duer. Neither did they know that in the judgment and understanding of the Convention the President with powers and duties defined as they were defined was in legal effect the embodiment of the council of revision. But Madison knew it, or had known it. He too had personally participated in the work by his repeated efforts to engraft a council of revision on the Constitution, and his knowledge he had written down in his own words. Certainly he had no right to attack Pinckney through his unnamed friend. Certainly he had no right to leave Judge Duer to infer that the discrepancies noted below had received his scrutiny and approval. His Journal he knew would be published, he was even then providing for it in his will, and when published it would contradict the discrepancy noted below and sustain the copy of the draught which he was attacking. The obvious explanation is that Madison's failing memory failed to record his own words, "the Convention gave the executive alone, without the judiciary, the revisionary control of the laws," and Pinckney's express declaration as early as the 6th of June that "he had been at first" in favor of a council of revision but for reasons stated had changed his mind.

And let it not be supposed that Madison deliberately intended to deceive or that he was actuated by a malignant wish to deprive Pinckney of any thing which he really believed was actually his due. Madison was then an old man—a very old man—in his 85th year who had lived long and under the strain of great labors and intense excitements and withering anxieties. He was too old and too weary, and too strongly prejudiced to change his mind in a minute or to reverse the judgment of many years by an investigation de novo.

The word "phenomenon" in his letter to Judge Duer reveals his state of mind and well explains his acts. That the boy who had lodged in the same house with him in Philadelphia, the youngest member of the Convention as he believed, who was always talking about his draught, whom he disliked and underrated, that he should appear in 1818 as the chief contributor to, as the principal draughtsman of the Constitution of the United States was indeed to him a phenomenon. It was something which he could not really believe. There is a note of contrition when he writes that "the length of the document laid before the Convention and other circumstances prevented my taking a copy at the time." He really believed that if he had procured and kept a copy of the draught which Pinckney laid before the Convention, it would have blown to pieces this wild pretentious claim which he had laid before the Secretary of State.

And Madison made a great mistake when he represented Pinckney to Judge Duer as an old man in 1818 whose waning recollection could not then separate the real from the fictitious in the draught which he had found among his papers in Charleston. For Madison in 1835, when he wrote to Judge Duer, was twenty-five years older than Pinckney was when he sent the draught to Mr. Adams; and twenty-five years at that end of life is no small difference. Moreover his memory from his youth up had been laden and taxed with great events. It was fifty-two years since he had made this despondent note in his record of the debates in Congress:

"Monday, March 17, 1783.

"A letter was received from General Washington, enclosing two anonymous and inflammatory exhortations to the army to assemble, for the purpose of seeking, by other means, that justice which their country showed no disposition to afford them. The steps taken by the general to avert the gathering storm, and his professions of inflexible adherence to his duty to Congress and to his country, excited the most affectionate sentiments towards him. By private letters from the army, and other circumstances, there appeared good ground for suspecting that the civil creditors were intriguing, in order to inflame the army into such desperation as would produce a general provision for the public debts. These papers were committed to Mr. Gilman, Mr. Dyer, Mr. Clark, Mr. Rutledge, and Mr. Mercer. The appointment of these gentlemen was brought about by a few members, who wished to saddle with this embarrassment the men who had opposed the measures necessary for satisfying the army, viz., the half-pay and permanent funds; against one or other of which the individuals in question had voted.

"This alarming intelligence from the army, added to the critical situation to which our affairs in Europe were reduced by the variance of our ministers with our ally, and to the difficulty of establishing the means of fulfilling the engagements and securing the harmony of the United States, and to the confusions apprehended from the approaching resignation of the superintendent of finance, gave peculiar awe and solemnity to the present moment, and oppressed the minds of Congress with an anxiety and distress which had been scarcely felt in any period of the revolution."

It was 48 years since Madison had served as the most laborious member of the Convention. It was 28 years since he had seen the Navy disgraced by the surrender of the Chesapeake after firing only a single gun—a disgrace caused by the shameful negligence and incapacity of administrative officers at Washington while he was a member of Jefferson's Cabinet. It was 21 years since he had seen the Army disgraced by the negligence of his own Secretary of War and the incapacity of a general of his own choosing, and his Capitol burnt and himself and his Cabinet fugitives, and his heroic wife, her friends and the military guard of "a hundred men all gone," resolutely refusing to leave the Executive Mansion until she had taken "the precious portrait" of Washington from its frame to save it from the ignominy of capture by a British Army. The Pinckney draught was but a leaf blown aside in the tumults of his troubled life.

But there remains the documentary evidence which Madison adduced and the specification of plagiarism which he filed; and apart from Madison and apart from Pinckney there remains the ultimate question which every student of the Constitution must desire to have examined, and if possible, answered, "What provisions of the Constitution were contributed by Pinckney"?

CHAPTER VI

THE POSITION TAKEN BY MADISON

The position taken by Madison in private letters to individuals, he had a right to modify, abandon or withdraw; and it would not be treating him fairly to hold him to words hastily written and perhaps inspired by an impulse of the moment. But the "Note of Mr. Madison to the Plan of Charles Pinckney" (Elliot Vol. 5, 578) deliberately prepared by him for future publication, and intended by him to accompany the draught of the State Department in future publications so that it should destroy the supposed verity of the copy, must be taken as the final expression of his judgment.

"Note of Mr. Madison to the Plan of Charles Pinckney, May 29, 1787."

"The length of the Document laid before the Convention, and other circumstances, having prevented the taking of a copy at the time, that which is ["here inserted" stricken out] inserted in the Debates was taken from the paper furnished to the Secretary of State, and contained in the Journal of the Convention, published in 1819 which it being taken for granted was a true copy was not then examined. The coincidence in several instances between that and the Constitution as adopted, having attracted the notice of others was at length suggested to mine. On comparing the paper with the Constitution in its final form, or in some of its Stages; and with the propositions, and speeches of Mr. Pinckney in the Convention, it was apparent that considerable errour had crept into the paper; occasioned ["probably" stricken out] possibly by the loss of the Document laid before the Convention, (neither that nor the Resolutions offered by Mr. Patterson, being among the preserved papers), and by a consequent resort for a copy to the rough draught, in which erasures and interlineations following what passed in the Convention, might be confounded in part at least with the original text, and after a lapse of more than thirty years, confounded also in the memory of the Author.

"There is in the paper a similarity in some cases, and an identity in others, with details, expressions, and definitions, the results of critical discussions and modifications in the Convention, that ["cannot be ascribed to accident or anticipation" omitted] could not have been anticipated.

"Examples may be noticed in Article VIII. of the paper; which is remarkable also for the circumstance, that whilst it specifies the functions of the President, no provision is contained in the paper for the election of such an officer, nor indeed for the appointment of any Executive Magistracy: notwithstanding the evident purpose of the Author to provide an entire plan of a Federal Government.

"Again, in several instances where the paper corresponds with the Constitution, it is at variance with the ideas of Mr. Pinckney, as decidedly expressed in his propositions, and in his arguments, the former in the Journal of the Convention, the latter in the report of its debates: Thus in Art: VIII. of the paper, provision is made for removing the President by impeachment; when it appears that in the Convention, July 20, he was opposed to any impeachability of the Executive Magistrate: In Art: III., it is required that all money-bills shall originate in the first Branch of the Legislature; which he strenuously opposed Aug: 8, and again, Aug: 11. In Art: V., members of each House are made ineligible to, as well as incapable of holding, any office under the Union, etc., as was the case at one Stage of the Constitution; a disqualification highly disapproved and opposed by him Aug: 14.

"A still more conclusive evidence of errour in the paper is seen in Art: III., which provides, as the Constitution does, that the first Branch of the Legislature shall be chosen by the people of the several States; whilst it appears, that on the 6th of June, according to previous notice, too, a few days only, after the Draft was laid before the Convention, its Author opposed that mode of choice, urging & proposing, in place of it, an election by the Legislatures of the several States.

"The remarks here made, tho' not material in themselves, were due to the authenticity and accuracy aimed at, in this Record of the proceedings of a Publick Body, so much an object, sometimes, of curious research, as at all times, of profound interest."

"As an Editorial note to the paper in the hand writing of Mr. M. beginning 'The length, &c.'"

"*Striking discrepancies will be found on a comparison of his plan, as furnished to Mr. Adams, and the view given of that which was laid before the Convention, in a pamphlet published by Francis Childs at New York shortly after the close of the Convention. The title of the pamphlet is 'Observations on the plan of Government submitted to the Federal Convention on the 28th of May, 1787, by Charles Pinckney, &c.'

"But what conclusively proves that the choice of the H. of Reps. by the people could not have been the choice in the lost paper is a letter from Mr. Pinckney to J. M. of March 28, 1789, now on his files, in which he emphatically adheres to a choice by the State Legrs. The following is an extract—'Are you not, to use a full expression, abundantly convinced that the theoretical nonsense of an election of the members of Congress by the people in the first instance, is clearly and practically wrong—that it will in the end be the means of bringing our Councils into contempt and that the Legislatures (of the States) are the only proper judges of who ought to be elected?'"

It is plain that Madison intended that the last two paragraphs of the foregoing, beginning with an asterisk, should take the form of an editorial note, and he so prepared the paper even to the placing of the asterisk at the beginning. As long before this as 1821 he had determined in his own mind that the publication of the Journal should be as he termed it, "a posthumous one" (letter to Thomas Ritchie September 15, 1821), and he carried out the intention by so providing in his will made in 1835. The expected editor was Mrs. Madison; and she, he knew, would scrupulously and intelligently carry into effect his slightest wish. She was not able to perform the editorial task.

When these charges of Madison are analyzed they may be reduced to three. The first and most serious charge is that there are coincidences "in several instances" between the draught and the Constitution—"a similarity in some cases and an identity in others with details, expressions and definitions" which were "the results of critical discussion and modification in the Convention." The second is that there are provisions in the draught inconsistent with Pinckney's known views, with the propositions which he presented and the speeches which he made in the Convention and that these provisions are so inconsistent with his views and speeches that they are "conclusive evidence of error" in the draught. The third, is that Pinckney immediately after the sittings of the Convention printed and published a paper entitled "Observations" which described the contents of the draught which he had presented to the Convention and that the two are utterly irreconcilable.

CHAPTER VII

THE PLAGIARISMS

Notwithstanding Madison's ignorance of the contents of the draught, and the fallacy of the inference which he drew from the fact that Pinckney did not adhere to all the provisions of a tentative scheme, there remains an objection of the gravest character, susceptible of proof or disproof which must rest on facts and not be deduced by inferences. The objection that Pinckney framed a provision at one time and disapproved of it at another is easily superable: the objection that "there is in the paper a similarity in some cases and an identity in others with details, expressions and definitions, the results of critical discussion and modification in the Convention which could not have been anticipated," is insuperable—if it be well founded. That is to say if there are "details, expressions and definitions" in the State Department copy of the draught which were "the results of critical discussion and modification in the Convention which could not have been anticipated," then the presumption must be well nigh irrefutable that these "details, expressions and definitions" in the questionable instrument were taken from the Constitution; and in the absence of extraordinary explanation, we shall be compelled to agree with Madison that the evidence is "irresistible"—unless indeed it should appear that the expressions and definitions which at first sight appear to have been begun and created in the Convention had previously existed in the Articles of Confederation or in a State Constitution, or in the resolutions of the Continental Congress or in some source open to all parties.

To a right understanding of the circumstances and conditions of the subject of investigation, we must bear in mind, when we begin the inquiry whether there are "details, expressions and definitions" in the Pinckney draught which were "the results of critical discussion and modification in the Convention," that the Constitution passed through four germinal stages:

The first began with Randolph's 15 resolutions, on the 29th of May, and ended on the 26th of July with the 23 resolutions of the Convention. The 15 resolutions had been considered and discussed and modified and expanded into the 19 resolutions of the Committee of the Whole, June 13th; and the 19 resolutions had also been considered and discussed and modified and enlarged into the 23 resolutions of the Convention, July 26th. Never in the history of nations did a deliberative public body strive so philosophically, so wisely and well to possess itself of the subjects to be considered—to comprehend its task—to know what it was doing and to do.

"At the beginning, propositions for consideration and discussion were tentatively placed before the Convention in an abstract form. These propositions were embodied in 15 resolutions, which were immediately referred to the Committee of the Whole. They were taken up one by one, and considered and discussed and amended or rejected or adopted or postponed for later consideration. The abstract of a part of a single day's proceedings will give a clear idea of the way in which the Convention worked:

"Tuesday, June 5. Mr. Randolph's ninth proposition—The national judiciary to be chosen by the national legislature—Disagreed to—To hold office during good behavior and to receive a fixed compensation—Agreed to To have jurisdiction over offenses at sea, captures, cases of foreigners and citizens of different States, of national revenue, impeachment of national officers, and questions of national peace and harmony—Postponed.

"At the end of two weeks of such consideration and discussion, June 13, the Committee of the Whole reported the conclusions which had so far been reached in the form of 19 resolutions. But everything was still abstract and tentative. No line of the Constitution had yet been written; no provision had yet been agreed upon. The 19 resolutions in like manner were taken up, one by one, and in like manner considered and discussed, and amended or rejected or adopted or postponed. Other propositions coming from other sources were also considered; and so the work went on until July 26, when the conclusions of the Convention were referred to the Committee of Detail, and the work of reducing the abstract to the concrete began. The Convention then adjourned to August 6, to enable the committee to 'prepare and report the Constitution.'

"On August 6, the Committee of Detail reported and furnished every member with a printed copy of the proposed Constitution. Again the work of consideration began, and went on as before, section by section, line by line. Vexed questions were referred to committees representing every State,—"grand committees" they were called,—amendments were offered, changes were made, the Committee of Detail incorporated new and additional matters in their draught, until, on September 8, the work of construction stopped. But not even then did the labors of the Convention cease. On that day a committee was appointed, "by ballot, to revise the style of, and arrange, the articles which had been agreed to." This committee was afterward known as the Committee of Style. It reported on the 12th of September, and the work of revision again went on until Saturday, the 15th. On Monday, the 17th, the end was reached, and the members of the Convention signed the Constitution. Well might Franklin exclaim in his farewell words to the Convention: 'It astonishes me, sir, to find the system approaching so near to perfection as it does!' He had been overruled more than once in the Convention; provisions which he had proposed had been rejected; provisions which he had opposed had been retained; but he was a great man and saw that a great work had been accomplished." The Immutability of the Constitution. Encyclopædia Americana.

The second germinal stage began July 26th with the appointment of a committee—the Committee of Detail "for the purpose of reporting a Constitution," and continued until August 6th when "Mr. Rutledge delivered in the report of the Committee of Detail—a printed copy being at the same time furnished to each member."

The Committee had retired from the Convention with instructions couched in the 23 resolutions, and they returned to it with more than half of the Constitution, arranged in the form of articles and sections substantially as we have them in the Constitution. The number of provisions contained in the draught greatly exceeded the number of specific instructions set forth in the resolutions, but the excess was not wholly an excess of authority for it had been resolved:

"That the national legislature ought to possess the legislative rights vested in Congress by the Confederation: and moreover to legislate in all the cases for the general interests of the Union, and also in those to which the States are separately incompetent or in which the harmony of the United States may be interrupted by the exercise of individual legislation."

When the paper which Rutledge held in his hand, as he rose to address the Convention on the 6th of August, was placed on the table before Washington, the moment witnessed the birth of the Constitution. Provisions which it contained were to be stricken out, and some of the great compromises were yet to be forged and inscribed upon the scroll, but the written Constitution was now in being. And yet this is but figurative language. The great state paper which passed from the hand of Rutledge to the hand of Washington was not engrossed on parchment, like a second Magna Charta; it was not attested by signature or date; it was not even in writing; a few pages of printer's paper, plain and unpretentious; a mere copy, one of a number of printed copies, as we gather from the record. But it was to receive the severest scrutiny of some of the great men of the world, of Washington, Franklin, Madison, Ellsworth, Wilson, Rutledge, Hamilton.

The printed document found in the box which holds the few records of the Convention is not unworthy of a great state paper. It is on stately, heavy, hand-made paper, 10 by 15-1/2 inches in size. The printed matter is 5-1/4 inches by 12-1/2. There are seven pages carrying from 27 to 53 lines on each. The workmanship is faultless; the type clear, the impression uniform, the ink unfaded, the punctuation careful, the spacing perfect. There are but two typographical errors, one of which is a misnumbering of the articles. In Pinckney's draught the first article has inscribed over it "Article 1" and the following articles have only their numbers 2, 3, etc. The printer followed the same form, the only difference being that Pinckney, writing the draught with his own hand, used arabic figures, for which the printer substituted Roman numerals. When he reached the seventh article he repeated VI. and when he reached the eighth he entitled it VII. and continued the error through the remaining articles. Notwithstanding this blemish I have never seen so faultless a public document.

The copy bears this endorsement:

"Printed Draught of the Constitution, received from the President of the United States, March 19th, 1796 by

"Timothy Pickering
"Sec'y of State"

The name of the printer who did his confidential work so well, I regret to say, is not upon the paper.

It has been supposed and said that this copy of the draught was Jackson's, the inefficient Secretary of the Convention, and that he used it to save himself the trouble of writing out the proceedings in the journal by noting amendments on the margin. This like much other imaginary history is erroneous.

When I first saw the draught of the committee, I observed that the notes on the margin were written in two different hands. I also observed that one of these though not familiar was a hand which I had seen before. On calling the attention of Mr. S. B. Crandall of the Bureau of Rolls to it, he instantly recognized this writing as Washington's. A further examination showed that 115 notes and interlineations were written by Washington and 7 by Jackson. This copy of the draught was Washington's own copy!

Whether he placed the copy among the papers of the Convention on September 17, 1787 when the Secretary brought them to him; or whether he transferred his own copy to the Secretary of State in 1796 is unknown and probably unascertainable, but the indorsement makes it certain that the paper came to the Department directly from Washington; and the 115 carefully made emendations in his handwriting are for us the highest evidence in the world of its authenticity.

The notes by Jackson are easily explicable; they are lengthy amendments which Washington could not take down from hearing them read; and he handed his printed copy to the Secretary to have them correctly and fully written out.[1]

[1] For the benefit of those persons who are so fortunate as to have a copy of the Documentary History of the Constitution (Department of State, 1894) I will add that the marginal notes which are in the writing of Jackson are those of Art. V, Sec. I; Art. VI, Sec. 3; Sec. 13, Art. VII; Sec. 1, Art. XI; Sec. 4, Art. XV; (see Doc. Hist., Constitution Vol. I, p. 285).

If the Committee of Detail—Rutledge of South Carolina, Randolph of Virginia, Gorham of Massachusetts, Ellsworth of Connecticut and Wilson of Pennsylvania—intended to keep their work a profound secret, and the secret to be buried with themselves, they could not have planned better than they did. The work was done in secret; they employed no secretary; their report was not in writing. After the committee was discharged no hint or word seems to have escaped them. No man boasted of his own part or disparaged another's. There is no journal which tells us how they worked. No son or daughter or grandchild has revealed a word that any member subsequently said. In 1813 when Edmund Randolph died, the secret of the members of the Committee of Detail died with him.

The third germinal stage was based on the draught of the Committee of Detail and extended from the 6th of August to the 12th of September. The draught of the Committee constituted the divide in the march of the framers. Behind them was the plain of philosophical disquisition on which there had been many contests, but exclusively as to what might be and might not be. Before them were many hills of difficulty to be surmounted in the practical application of abstract propositions by incorporating them in provisions and conditions to be written into the Constitution. But the work of the Convention and the debates of the members were in connection with the draughted Constitution of the Committee of Detail, or in connection with amendments thereof or additions thereto. There were indeed new provisions framed sometimes by grand committees, sometimes by special committees, sometimes by the Convention itself—provisions concerning which the Convention had not at first sufficiently instructed the Committee of Detail—provisions which the Convention had not then considered and determined even in the form of abstract propositions. The most difficult of the compromises, that between the large and the small States in the choosing of the President, was effected; and the method first proposed by Wilson and rejected by the Convention, June 2nd, that the choice should be made through the agency of electoral colleges was reconsidered and adopted. The power to try officers impeached by the House of Representatives was taken from the Supreme Court and given to the Senate; the power to appoint ambassadors, and judges of the Supreme Court, was taken from the Senate and given to the President; the power to appoint the Treasurer of the United States was taken from the Legislative branch and given to the Executive; and the important treaty-making power which at first was lodged exclusively in the Senate was transferred to the Executive subject to the ratification of the Senate. But all that was considered and agreed upon was attached to the draught of the Committee of Detail.

The fourth stage began on the 12th of September with the revised Constitution reported by the Committee appointed "to revise the style of and arrange the articles" which had been agreed upon, commonly termed the "Committee of Style," but which more correctly might have been termed the Committee of Revision. During that and the next three days the Constitution was modified by a number of amendments chiefly of the nature of corrections. The Committee of Style made no changes other than those of arrangement and language. The correction of the language of the Constitution was masterly and is ascribed by Madison to Gouverneur Morris. On Saturday the 15th of September the labors of the Convention ended. On Monday the 17th, the engrossed Constitution was signed.

In his "Note to the Plan," Madison specifies some of the "details, expressions and definitions" which were framed in the Convention, the "results of critical discussions" that "could not have been anticipated" by Pinckney. "Examples" of these "similarities" and "identities" he says, "may be noticed in article VIII, which is remarkable also for the circumstance that whilst it specifies the functions of the President, no provision is contained in the paper for the election of such an officer." These are all the specifications of provisions or of language plagiarised from the Constitution by Pinckney which Madison has filed. Specifying nothing else, we may assume that the plagiarisms contained in article VIII. were the plagiarisms which dwelt in his own mind and upon which he rested his conclusions.

These specific charges of plagiarism may be struck down by a single blow:—

Not one of the provisions contained in Pinckney's article VIII was framed in the Convention, and all were brought before the Convention by the draught of the Committee of Detail. All the provisions of the Constitution which were framed by the Convention were framed subsequently to the 6th of August and belong to the 3d and 4th germinal periods. All the provisions which are contained in the draught of the Committee of Detail were framed before the 6th of August and existed before the constructive work of the Convention began.

When the sequence of events is observed the matter is cleared and the "phenomenon" of Madison becomes a simple link in the chain of events. Pinckney presented his draught to the Convention on its first business day before there had been a single "critical discussion." The Convention immediately referred the draught to the Committee of the Whole, which made it accessible to every member of the Convention. When a committee was appointed to draught a Constitution, the draught of Pinckney was taken from the Committee of the Whole and referred to the Committee of Detail. The committee found in the draught matter which they needed and they used it as the basis of their own draught as any committee would have done. And thus the draught of the Committee of Detail became the vehicle by means of which these provisions and expressions of Pinckney were carried into the Constitution.

If all this were not a matter of record it would be well nigh unbelievable that Madison of all men could have pursued the course he did. The most diligent member of the Convention, the chronicler of its transactions, the sole survivor of its members and, consequently, a witness who should speak with the greatest care; and yet we find him, at one end of the line, ignorant of the contents of Pinckney's draught, and at the other silent as to the contents and existence of the draught of the Committee of Detail. When he wrote of "the coincidence in several instances between that [the State Department draught] and the Constitution as adopted" and cited article VIII as containing remarkable examples of these coincidences, he gave unconsciously a curious illustration of things "confounded in the memory" "after a lapse of more than thirty years"—in his case, after a lapse of more than forty-five years.

With the fall of these specifications falls the general charge of plagiarism. The draught in the State Department ends with the draught of the Committee of Detail; whatever coincidences there be of "details, expressions and definitions" are coincidences in the two draughts and in them alone. The similarities and identities which so impressed Madison were merely similarities and identities between the two draughts. He doubtless selected article VIII as "remarkable" because he recognized in it provisions and expressions which he knew were in the Constitution. But there are others in article VIII which are not in the Constitution and which are inconsistent with it. The retention of these is sufficient to refute the idea that Pinckney changed his draught to make it conform to the work of the Convention. Article VIII provides that the title of the President "shall be his Excellency." There is no such provision in the Constitution. Article VIII makes exceptions to the appointing power; "ambassadors, other ministers and judges of the Supreme Court" are not to be appointed by the President but by the Senate. This was not one of the "results" arrived at in the Convention. In case of the death of the President and the death of the President of the Senate, "the Speaker of the House of Delegates shall exercise the duties of the office." Here all that Pinckney had to do to make his draught conform was to run his pen through the supplementary clause vesting the succession in the Speaker. The President may be removed from office on impeachment by the House of Delegates and "conviction in the Supreme Court." Here all that Pinckney had to do was to erase "Supreme Court" and insert "Senate." Finally it is to be noted that those expressions and provisions in article VIII which caught the eye of Madison and were characterized as "remarkable" were not "results of critical discussion and modification in the Convention that could not have been anticipated," but were provisions and expressions which had been taken by Pinckney from the constitutions of New York and Massachusetts, generally word for word. The article provides that the President "shall from time to time give information to the legislature of the state of the Union," and "recommend to their consideration" the measures he may think necessary; that "he shall take care that the laws be duly executed"; that "he shall commission all officers"; and "shall nominate and with the consent of the Senate" appoint officers; that "he shall have power to grant pardons and reprieves"; and that "he shall be commander in chief of the army and navy"; but each of these provisions was taken from the constitution of New York. The article also provides that at "entering on the duties of his office he shall take an oath faithfully to execute the duties" of President; and that he "shall be removed from his office on impeachment by the House of Delegates"; but these provisions were taken from the constitution of Massachusetts. The article also provides that "in case of his removal by death, resignation or disability, the President of the Senate shall exercise the duties of his office"; but this is taken from the constitution of New York. In a word when we trace these provisions and expressions to their respective sources there is nothing left of the article. Article VIII is indeed remarkable; but it is for reversing the deductions of Madison; for demonstrating with mathematical certainty (so far as it goes), that Pinckney did not make his draught conform to "results" which had been reached in the Convention, and which "could not have been anticipated."

CHAPTER VIII.

THE IMPROBABILITIES

The most incisive reason given by Madison against the authenticity of the draught in the Department of State, the reason which he most reiterated, if not the one upon which he most relied, was that the draught was presented to the Convention on the 29th May and a week later, June 6th, Pinckney moved "that the first branch of the national legislature be elected by the State legislatures and not by the people." This objection is not only plausible but it rests on two incontrovertible facts each of which is a matter of record—that the draught was presented to the Convention on the 29th of May; that his inconsistent motion was made on the 6th of June. But the conclusiveness of these facts disappears when the circumstances and changed conditions of the case appear.

In the first place Pinckney had forestalled the point made by Madison by declaring in his letter to the Secretary of State that there were provisions in the draught which on further reflection he had opposed in the Convention. This declaration, it must be remembered, was made before the publication of Madison's Journal, before it was known that it would be published, before Pinckney knew or could have known what the Journal would show. In other words it was he himself who first revealed his own inconsistency in having presented a plan for one thing in May and in having contended for another thing in June. The explanation is not an afterthought or a defence, but an avowal made in due time.

In the second place the draught was presented on the 29th of May, but it was not written then. It must have been written weeks before this in Pinckney's study in Charleston. When he wrote it he had before him, as every American of that day had, the Constitution of Great Britain, the constitution under which he had grown up, the merits and virtues and wisdom and excellencies of which he had read and re-read in Blackstone. It was a matter of course for him, when dealing with the legislative power, to have his Congress consist of two houses. As to this there would not be a doubt or a thought. The next thing would be to have the members of the first house, like the members of the House of Commons, elected by the people. So far he had no reason to pause and reflect. But when he came to the second house, he had no nobility at hand of which it might be composed. Here his invention began, and he avowedly so contrived his Senate that it should in fact though not in form, represent not nobility but wealth. It is probable that when he was draughting his constitution, it never entered his head that the lower house of the American parliament could be chosen by any other means than the means by which the House of Commons was chosen and the lower house of every American State.

In the third place between the 29th of May and the 6th of June the subject had come before the Convention and had been discussed and South Carolina had taken a position against it.

Gerry of Massachusetts said that "the evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy"; and that "he did not like the election by the people." Butler, of South Carolina, "thought an election by the people an impracticable mode." Rutledge, the strongest man in the State, seconded the motion to have the first branch elected by the State legislatures. Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, the most esteemed citizen of the State and Pinckney's kinsman, brought South Carolina before the Convention as an illustration and even went so far as to say "an election of either branch by the people, scattered as they are in many States, particularly in South Carolina, is totally impracticable."

Pinckney was the youngest member of the delegation—much the youngest. He was not yet 30; and, with the exception of Dayton and Mercer was the youngest member of the Convention. It would have been natural for him as a Southerner "to go with his State"—and as a young man to defer to his seniors. And after hearing the debate on the 31st of May and the reasons of his fellow delegates from South Carolina, it was proper for him to change his mind and advocate election by the State legislatures as a better mode. It would have been a matter of wonder if he had not!

But there is a letter of George Read which should be considered, for it suggests the question whether this change of Pinckney did not take place before the 29th of May; that is to say before he presented his draught to the Convention.

On the 20th of May 1787 Mr. Read wrote from Philadelphia to John Dickinson:

"I am in possession of a copied draught of a federal system intended to be proposed if something nearly similar shall not precede it. Some of its principal features are taken from the New York system of government. A house of delegates and senate for a general legislature, as to the great business of the Union. The first of them to be chosen by the legislature of each State, in proportion to its number of white inhabitants, and three-fifths of all others, fixing a number for sending each representative. The second, to-wit the senate, to be elected by the delegates so returned, either from themselves or the people at large, in four great districts, into which the United States are to be divided for the purpose of forming this senate from which, when so formed, is to be divided into four classes for the purpose of an annual rotation of a fourth of the members. A president having only executive powers for seven years." (Read's Life of George Read of Delaware p. 443.)

This letter is very far from being conclusive. In the first place it does not appear that Mr. Read had seen the original of this "copied draught" or that Pinckney had given him the copy or had told him what his plan was or that any person who had seen the original draught had told him what it contained. In the second place the existence of an unauthenticated copy on the 20th of May does not conclusively prove that a different version of the same draught was not presented to the Convention on the 29th of May. Still this letter undoubtedly refers to Pinckney's draught and compels a more searching examination of the question raised than would otherwise be necessary.

In a paper which will be called, briefly, "the Observations" written by Pinckney before he left Charleston he sets forth at length a description of his plan of government. In the opening paragraph of this paper he says that he will "give each article" of his draught "that either materially varies" from the present government "or is new." He then goes on to say that "the first important alteration is that of the principle of representation." "Representation is a sign of the reality. Upon this principle, however abused, the Parliament of Great Britain is formed, and it has been universally adopted by the States in the formation of their legislatures." This is all which Pinckney, writing before the Convention began its work, had to say concerning the lower house of Congress. His Senate was new and concerning it he had much more to say, and he described it. But of the lower house, the popular body, he had nothing to say save that there would be such a house, and that it would rest upon the principle of representation "universally adopted by the States in the formation of their legislatures." The Virginia resolutions undoubtedly expressed the opinion of substantially all Americans when they said, "Resolved that the members of the first branch of the national legislature ought to be elected by the people of the several States." Assuredly if the draught which Pinckney was then describing had contained the extraordinary and novel proposition that the popular branch of the national legislature, the body which should represent the people, was not to be chosen by the people he would have had something "new" to lay before the Convention—something which did not exist in the government of any English speaking people in the world—something which "materially varied" from the belief and usage and history and traditions of the people who were to ordain this Constitution. Knowing Pinckney as we do—his general views, his adherence to the general principles of the British constitution, his attentive study of State constitutions, his outspokenness, his belief in his own devices, we know that if his draught had then contained so radical a departure from all existing constitutions as that which he subsequently proposed in the Convention, and if he had worked himself into a belief at the time when he wrote the Observations that the election of their representatives by the people was "theoretical nonsense", he could not have refrained from saying so. What is said in the Observations harmonized with the constitutions of every State in the Confederation and with the Virginia resolutions and with the views of every member of the Convention excepting the five great land owners from South Carolina.

The Observations, therefore (written before the Convention and published afterwards), sustain the draught in the State Department.

The words "the people" appear directly and necessarily in article 3 of the draught: "The Members of the House of Delegates shall be chosen every —— year by the people of the several States; and the qualifications of the electors shall be the same as those of the electors in the several States for their Legislatures." They reappear casually and needlessly in article 5: "Each State shall prescribe the time and manner of holding elections by the people for the House of Delegates." The draught therefore in these provisions is consistent with itself.

In the draught of the Committee of Detail the words of Pinckney's article 3 again appear with some amplification, but in the same order with the same context and with the same intent. Such agreements come not by chance.

And if such agreements come not by chance, could Pinckney while he was copying the committee's draught for his own article 3 have written these two troublesome words "the people" without taking heed of their significance, without realizing what he was doing, without remembering that his own draught had said "the legislatures of the several States." He could not! For there is another provision in the draught in the State Department which was not taken from the committee's draught—which did not exist in the committee's draught—which must have been deliberately framed by Pinckney—the provision before quoted from article 5, "Each State shall prescribe the time and manner of holding elections by the people for the House of Delegates." That is to say if Pinckney unintentionally abstracted his article 3 from the committee's draught in 1818, he, nevertheless, must have fabricated designedly his article 5 at the same time; for there is nothing in the committee's draught to suggest it.

Then the question immediately arises, What motive could Pinckney have had for falsifying his draught and making this change from the election of delegates by State legislatures to their election by the people of the several States. The answer of the superficial of course will be, "So that the world should believe that he had always been in favor of the election of representatives by the people." No other reason can well be assigned; yet there could not have been such a motive. Pinckney knew that his draught was to be soon published and that with it would be published the official Journal of the Convention and that the publication would disclose to the world this record:

"Wednesday, June 6, 1787
"Mr. Gorham in the Chair.

"It was moved by Mr. Pinckney, seconded by Mr. Rutledge to strike the word 'people' out of the 4th resolution submitted by Mr. Randolph, and to insert in its place the word

'Legislatures' so as to read 'resolved that the Members of the first branch of the national legislature ought to be elected by the Legislatures of the several States'

"and on the question to strike out "it passed in the negative.""

If Pinckney's article 3 had really provided that members of the first house should be chosen by the legislatures of the several States, certainly his article 5 would not have provided that "each State shall prescribe the time and manner of holding elections by the people." Article 3 laid down the basic principle that representatives were to be chosen by the people, and article 5 provided for the time and manner when and whereby the people should elect their representatives; and article 4 provided that Senators should be chosen, not by the people or the legislatures of the several States, but by the House of Delegates. In all these provisions we again see that the draught in the State Department is consistent with itself.

It is possible that the person who gave the "copied draught" to Mr. Read was Pinckney himself; and it is probable that by the 20th of May he had changed his mind concerning the election of delegates by the people and had determined to make his draught conform to the views of his fellow delegates from South Carolina. We know, as will hereafter appear, that he contemplated making many amendments to his draught before presenting it to the Convention; and that he hastily and prematurely presented it on the 29th of May so that it should go with the Virginia resolutions to the Committee of the Whole. The change we are considering may not have been made in the written instrument which he laid upon the Secretary's desk, though he made the change in his own mind. But be that as it may, it is as certain as existing knowledge goes that no man saw the original draught with the words "by the people" twice stricken out and the words "by the legislatures of the several States" twice written in; and until this change in the original draught is shown by positive testimony, unequivocal in terms and above suspicion in character, the circumstantial evidence that the draught went to the Convention with the words "the people" in the 3d and 5th articles is overwhelming.

There are some other things specified in the Note not of great importance, but which serve to show how eagerly Madison clutched at anything that would operate as a makeweight against Pinckney and his draught.

Article VIII "is remarkable also for the circumstance that whilst it specifies the functions of the President, no provision is contained in the paper for the election of such an officer." This is not a complete statement of the case. The article declares that "the executive power" shall be vested in a President and that "he shall be elected for —— years." The provisions relating to the President were on their face incomplete. There are virtually two blanks left in the provision, the one relating to the length of the President's term of office, the other to the manner in which he should be chosen. The 12th resolution filled these blanks for a time by saying "seven years" for the one and by "the National legislature" for the other. Here were "results" arrived at in the Convention. That Pinckney did not fill these blanks in the Department copy—blanks so obvious and so easily filled—goes a great way to show that he did not in any place complete his draught by writing into it "results" arrived at in the Convention. It is a strained, artificial conclusion which calls an omission "remarkable" when the instrument is avowedly nothing but an incomplete, tentative draught prepared for the future consideration of its author as well as other persons.

Madison notes "variances" between the draught in the Department and the propositions and arguments of Pinckney in the Convention. "Thus in article VIII" he says, Pinckney provides for the impeachment of the President but on the 20th of July he was opposed to "any impeachability of the Executive." "He was sure they ought not to issue from the legislature who would in that case hold them as a rod over the Executive." But the draught says much more than Madison repeats. "He shall be removed from his office on impeachment by the House of Delegates and conviction in the Supreme Court." Pinckney did not oppose that in the Convention. Madison on his own record clearly had no right to say that Pinckney "was opposed to any impeachability of the Executive." He did not oppose such an impeachability as his draught provided for viz., by the Supreme Court, and his reasons quoted by Madison do not apply to the impeachability provided in his draught.

"In article III it is required that all money-bills shall originate in the first branch of the legislature; which he strenuously opposed on the 8th of August and again on the 11th." Here Madison overlooked the significance of these dates. They are subsequent to the report of the Committee of Detail by which report Pinckney's plan for the organization of the Senate had been rejected. Pinckney alluded to this on the 11th when he said, "The rule of representation in the first branch was the true condition to that in the second branch." Neither does it appear in Madison's Journal that he "strenuously opposed." On the 11th he "was sorry to oppose reopening the question," but "he considered it a mere waste of time." On the 8th his opposition had been couched in three lines, "If the Senate can be trusted with the many great powers proposed, it surely can be trusted with that of originating money-bills." Pinckney's real position in regard to this was clearly stated by himself and thus recorded by Madison on Wednesday, June 13th; "Mr. Pinckney thinks the question premature. If the Senate should be formed on the same proportional representation, as it stands at present, they should have equal power. Otherwise a different principle should be introduced." How did the Senate "stand at present," on June 13th. This is shown by the resolutions of the Committee of the Whole of the same day. "That the right of suffrage in the second branch of the national legislature ought to be according to the rule established for the first branch." Resolution 8. The Senate therefore was "at present," a very different representative body than the Senate of Pinckney's draught; and to say on these changed conditions and on the record of what he did say that he "strenuously opposed" the very thing which he had adopted in his draught is a wild use of terms.

"In article V, members of each house are made ineligible to as well as incapable of holding any office" a provision, Madison continues, which "was highly disapproved of by him on the 14th of August."

What was this disapproval? Article V provides that the members of each house shall not be eligible to office during the time for which they have been respectively elected, "nor the members of the Senate for one year after." This idea that a member of Congress should not hold, during his legislative term of office, an executive office which he had helped to create or the emoluments of which he had helped to increase, undoubtedly existed in many minds. But under the scheme embodied in the Pinckney draught there was a peculiar reason why the ineligibility of Senators should continue after their legislative terms of office had expired. That reason was because (Art. VIII), the Senate was to be an appointing power. It was to "have sole and exclusive power to" "appoint ambassadors, and other ministers to foreign nations, and judges of the Supreme Court." Under this scheme it was obvious that a Senator should not be allowed to step out of office at the expiration of his term on one day and be appointed by his late colleagues to an important office on the next day. It is, therefore, not a surprising thing to find this provision in the draught and to find it applied only to the Senate.

On the 14th of August Pinckney had so far modified his own views that he was then in favor of making the members of each House incapable of holding executive salaried offices while they continued members, with a provision that "the acceptance of such office shall vacate their seats respectively." This having failed in Convention, he on the same day urged a general postponement of the subject "until it should be seen what powers should be vested in the Senate" "when," he said, "it would be more easy to judge of the expediency of allowing officers of State to be chosen out of that body." This postponement was agreed to nem. con. It is manifest that the idea of the Senate being an appointing power was still uppermost in his mind. He gave good reasons for not making ineligibility absolute; but he consistently adhered to the idea that the same person should not be both a Legislator and an officer of State.

On the 14th of August Pinckney proposed to make members ineligible to hold any office by which they would receive a salary. This was merely a restriction on the original proposition of the draught, a limiting of its application to salaried offices but leaving members eligible and capable of filling honorary positions. To say that his original proposition was thereby "highly disapproved" by him is certainly an abuse of the term "highly disapproved." The objection of Madison when tested by his own record, the Journal, comes down to this: that three months or more after Pinckney wrote the draught, he thought it better to limit the Constitutional prohibition to "salaried offices." This restriction was a trivial and a sensible modification. To infer from it that Pinckney then "highly disapproved" his own original proposition merely marks the nervous excitement which seems to have impelled Madison to exaggerate every little deviation of Pinckney from the strict letter of his draught into conclusive evidence that this draught never existed.

This brings us to the extrinsic evidence on which Madison relied, the testimony of Pinckney against himself.

CHAPTER IX.

THE OBSERVATIONS

The Observations of Pinckney, in Madison's estimation, fully sustained his arguments and justified his attacks on the verity of the draught in the State Department. The publication so entitled is a small pamphlet of 27 pages. It has the following title page:

Observations
on the
PLAN OF GOVERNMENT
Submitted to the
FEDERAL CONVENTION
in Philadelphia on the 28th of May, 1787
By Mr. Charles Pinckney
Delegate from the State of South Carolina
DELIVERED AT DIFFERENT TIMES
IN THE COURSE OF THEIR DISCUSSIONS.
New York. Printed
by Francis Childs

Two copies of this are in the library of the New York Historical Society, and it is reprinted in Moore's American Eloquence. It bears no date, but we learn from Madison's letter to Washington (before quoted) that it must have been published before the 14th of October, 1787; that is to say immediately after the dissolution of the Convention on the 17th of September.

Madison unquestionably relied upon this pamphlet as containing the highest evidence against the verity of the draught in the State Department. The anxiety which he showed to obtain it, and the care with which he brought it to the attention of those who were or who in the future might be interested in the matter make it plain that he regarded the Observations as a conservatory of admissions which Pinckney would not deny if he were living, and which his friends could not controvert now that Pinckney was dead.

The first record we have of Madison's reliance on this pamphlet is a memorandum found among his papers which bears no date but which must have been written prior to April 6th, 1831.

"FOR MR. PAULDING"

"Much curiosity and some comment have been exerted by the marvellous identities in a plan of Government proposed by Charles Pinckney in the Convention of 1787 as published in the Journals with the text of the Constitution, as finally agreed to. I find among my pamphlets a copy of a small one entitled Observations on the Plan of Government submitted to the Federal Convention, in Philadelphia, on the 28th of May, by Mr. C. Pinckney, a Delegate from S. Carolina, delivered at different times in the Convention.

"The copy is so defaced and mutilated that it is impossible to make out enough of the plan, as referred to in the Observations, for a due comparison of it with that printed in the Journal. The pamphlet was printed in N. York by Francis Childs. The year is defaced. It must have been not very long after the close of the Convention, and with the sanction, at least, of Mr. Pinckney himself. It has occurred to me that a copy may be attainable at the printing office, if still kept up, or in some of the libraries or historical collections in the city. When you can snatch a moment, in your walks with other views, for a call at such places, you will promote an object of some little interest as well as delicacy, by ascertaining whether the article in question can be met with. I have among my manuscript papers lights on the subject. The pamphlet of Mr. P. could not fail to add to them.

"April, 1831."

At some time subsequent to the 6th of April he wrote to Mr. Paulding, saying that in a previous letter "I requested you to make an inquiry concerning a small pamphlet of Charles Pinckney printed at the close of the Federal Convention of 1787;" and on the 6th of June he again wrote to Mr. Paulding,

"June 6th, 1831.

"Dear Sir.—Since my letter answering yours of April 6th, in which I requested you to make an inquiry concerning a small pamphlet of Charles Pinckney printed at the close of the Federal Convention of 1787, it has occurred to me that the pamphlet might not have been put in circulation, but only presented to his friends, etc. In that way I may have become possessed of the copy to which I referred as in a damaged state. On this supposition the only chance of success must be among the books, etc., of individuals on the list of Mr. Pinckney's political associates and friends. Of those who belonged to N. York, I recollect no one so likely to have received a copy as Rufus King. If that was the case, it may remain with his representative, and I would suggest an informal resort to that quarter, with a hope that you will pardon this further tax on your kindness."

On the 27th of June he wrote to Mr. Paulding for the third time regarding the Observations:

"June 27th, 1831.

"Dear Sir:—With your favor of the 20th instant I received the volume of pamphlets containing that of Mr. Charles Pinckney, for which I am indebted to your obliging researches. The volume shall be duly returned, and in the mean time duly taken care of. I have not sufficiently examined the pamphlet in question, but I have no doubt that it throws light on the subject to which it has relation."

On the 25th of November he wrote at length to Jared Sparks setting forth all his objections to the draught and added: "Further discrepancies might be found in the observations of Mr. Pinckney, printed in a pamphlet by Francis Childs, in New York, shortly after the close of the Convention. I have a copy too mutilated for use, but it may probably be preserved in some of your historical repositories."

On the 5th of June 1835 he wrote to Judge Duer: "Other discrepancies will be found in a source also within your reach, in a pamphlet published by Mr. Pinckney soon after the close of the Convention, in which he refers to parts of his plan which are at variance with the document in the printed Journal. A friend who has examined and compared the two documents has pointed out the discrepancies noted below."

Then follows the list of discrepancies "pointed out" by "a friend"; and in this letter he refers Judge Duer to the library of the Historical Society of New York as the place where a copy of the Observations can be found.

The following paragraphs from the Observations contain all that bears upon the contents of the draught, and all upon which Madison relied.

"There is no one, I believe, who doubts there is something particularly alarming in the present conjuncture. There is hardly a man in or out of office, who holds any other language. Our Government is despised—our laws are robbed of their respected terrors—their inaction is a subject of ridicule—and their exertion, of abhorrence and opposition—rank and office have lost their reverence and effect—our foreign politics are as much deranged, as our domestic economy—our friends are slackened in their affection, and our citizens loosened from their obedience. We know neither how to yield nor how to enforce—hardly any thing abroad or at home is sound and entire—disconnection and confusion in offices, in States and in parties, prevail throughout every part of the Union. These are facts universally admitted and lamented."

"Be assured that however unfashionable for the moment your sentiments may be, yet, if your system is accommodated to the situation of the Union, and founded in wise and liberal principles, it will in time be consented to. An energetic government is our true policy, and it will at last be discovered and prevail."

"Presuming that the question will be taken up de novo, I do not conceive it necessary to go into minute detail of the defects of the present confederation, but request permission to submit, with deference to the House, the draught of a government which I have formed for the Union. The defects of the present will appear in the course of the examination. I shall give each article that either materially varies or is new. I well know the science of government is at once a delicate and difficult one, and none more so than that of republics. I confess my situation or experience have not been such as to enable me to form the clearest and justest opinions. The sentiments I shall offer are the result of not so much reflection as I could have wished. The plan will admit of important amendments. I do not mean at once to offer it for the consideration of the House, but have taken the liberty of mentioning it, because it was my duty to do so.

"The first important alteration is that of the principle of representation and the distribution of the different powers of government. In the federal councils, each State ought to have a weight in proportion to its importance; and no State is justly entitled to greater. A representation is a sign of the reality. Upon this principle, however abused, the Parliament of Great Britain is formed, and it had been universally adopted by the States in the formation of their legislatures."

"In the Parliament of Great Britain as well as in most and the best instituted legislatures of the States, we find not only two branches, but in some a council of revision, consisting of their executive and principal officers of government. This I consider as an improvement in legislation, and have therefore incorporated it as a part of the system.

"The Senate, I propose to have elected by the House of Delegates, upon proportionable principles, in the manner I have stated, which though rotative, will give a sufficient degree of stability and independence. The districts, into which the Union is to be divided; will be so apportioned as to give to each its due weight, and the Senate, calculated in this, as it ought to be in every government, to represent the wealth of the nation.

"The executive should be appointed septennially, but his eligibility ought not to be limited: He is not a branch of the legislature farther, than as a part of the council of revision; and the suffering him to continue eligible will not only be the means of ensuring his good behavior, but serve to render the office more respectable.

"The 4th article, respecting the extending the rights of the citizens of each State throughout the United States; the delivery of fugitives from justice upon demand, and the giving full faith and credit to the records and proceedings of each, is formed exactly upon the principles of the 4th article of the present confederation, except with this difference, that the demand of the Executive of a State for any fugitive criminal offender shall be complied with. It is now confined to treason, felony, or other high misdemeanor; but as there is no good reason for confining it to those crimes, no distinction ought to exist, and a State should always be at liberty to demand a fugitive from its justice, let his crime be what it may.

"The 5th article, declaring that individual States shall not exercise certain powers, is also founded on the same principle as the 6th of the confederation.

"The next is an important alteration of the Federal system, and is intended to give the United States in Congress, not only a revision of the legislative acts of each State, but a negative upon all such as shall appear to them improper.

"I apprehend the true intention of the States in uniting is, to have a firm, national government, capable of effectually executing its acts, and dispensing its benefits and protection. In it alone can be vested those powers and prerogatives which more particularly distinguish a sovereign State. The members which compose the superintending government are to be considered merely as parts of a great whole, and only suffered to retain the powers necessary to the administration of their State systems. The idea which has been so long and falsely entertained of each being a sovereign State, must be given up; for it is absurd to suppose there can be more than one sovereignty within a government. The States should retain nothing more than that mere local legislation, which, as districts of a general government, they can exercise more to the benefit of their particular inhabitants, than if it was vested in a Supreme Council; but in every foreign concern as well as in those internal regulations, which respecting the whole ought to be uniform and national, the States must not be suffered to interfere. No act of the Federal Government in pursuance of its constitutional powers ought by any means to be within the control of the State Legislatures; if it is, experience warrants me in asserting they will assuredly interfere and defeat its operation.

"The next article proposes to invest a number of exclusive rights, delegated by the present confederation, with this alteration: that it is intended to give the unqualified power of raising troops, either in time of peace or war, in any manner the Union may direct. It does not confine them to raise troops by quotas on particular States, or to give them the right of appointing regimental officers, but enables Congress to raise troops as they shall think proper, and to appoint all the officers. It also contains a provision for empowering Congress to levy taxes upon the States, agreeable to the rule now in use, an enumeration of the white inhabitants, and three-fifths of other descriptions.

"The 7th article invests the United States with the complete power of regulating the trade of the Union, and levying such imposts and duties upon the same, for the use of the United States, as shall in the opinion of Congress, be necessary and expedient.

"The 8th article only varies so far from the present, as in the article of the Post Office, to give the Federal Government a power not only to exact as much postage as will bear the expense of the office, but also for the purpose of raising a revenue. Congress had this in contemplation some time since, and there can be no objection, as it is presumed, in the course of a few years the Post Office will be capable of yielding a considerable sum to the public treasury.

"The 9th article, respecting the appointment of Federal courts for deciding territorial controversies between different States, is the same with that in the confederation; but this may with propriety be left to the supreme judiciary.

"The 10th article gives Congress a right to institute all such offices as are necessary for managing the concerns of the Union; of erecting a federal judicial court for the purposes therein specified; and of appointing courts of Admiralty for the trial of maritime causes in the States respectively.

"The exclusive right of coining money—regulating its alloy, and determining in what species of money the common treasury shall be supplied—is essential to assuring the federal funds.

"In all those important questions, where the present confederation has made the assent of nine States necessary, I have made the assent of two-thirds of both Houses, when assembled in Congress, and added to the number the regulation of trade, and acts for levying an impost and raising a revenue.

"The exclusive right of establishing regulations for the government of the militia of the United States, ought certainly to be vested in the federal council.

"The article empowering the United States to admit new States into the confederacy is become indispensable, from the separation of certain districts from the original States—and the increasing population and consequence of the western territory. I have also added an article authorizing the United States, upon the petition from the majority of the citizens of any State or convention authorized for that purpose, and of the legislature of the State to which they wish to be annexed, or of the States among which they are willing to be divided, to consent to such junction or division, on the term mentioned in the article.

"The Federal Government should also possess the exclusive right of declaring on what terms the privileges of citizenship and naturalization should be extended to foreigners.

"The 16th article proposes to declare that if it should hereafter appear necessary to the United States to recommend the grant of any additional powers, that the assent of a given number of the States shall be sufficient to invest them and bind the Union as fully as if they had been confirmed by the legislatures of all the States. The principles of this, and the article which provides for the future alteration of the Constitution by its being first agreed to in Congress, and ratified by a certain proportion of the legislatures, are precisely the same.

"There is also in the articles a provision respecting the attendance of the members of both Houses; it is proposed that they shall be the judges of their own rules and proceedings, nominate their own officers, and be obliged, after accepting their appointments, to attend the stated meetings of the legislature; the penalties under which their attendance is required, are such as to insure it, as we are to suppose no man would willingly expose himself to the ignominy of a disqualification.

"The next article provides for the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus—the trial by jury in all cases, criminal as well as civil—the freedom of the press and the prevention of religious tests as qualifications to offices of trust or emolument.

"There is also an authority to the national legislature, permanently to fix the seat of the general government, to secure to authors the exclusive right to their performances and discoveries, and to establish a Federal University.

"There are other articles, but of subordinate consideration. In opening the subject, the limits of my present observations would only permit me to touch the outlines; in these I have endeavored to unite and apply, as far as the nature of our Union would permit, the excellencies of such of the States' Constitutions as have been most approved.

"I ought again to apologize for presuming to intrude my sentiments upon a subject of such difficulty and importance. It is one that I have for a considerable time attended to. I am doubtful whether the convention will, at first be inclined to proceed as far as I have intended; but this I think may be safely asserted, that upon a clear and comprehensive view of the relative situation of the Union, and its members, we shall be convinced of the policy of concentring in the federal head, a complete supremacy in the affairs of government; leaving only to the States such powers as may be necessary for the management of their internal concerns."

The first comment to be made on this speech of Pinckney's is that it was never made, and that no speech whatever was made by him when he presented his draught to the Convention.

Upon this question of fact there are two witnesses, Madison and Yates. The evidence which they have left to us is negative and positive, the one showing inferentially, what could not have occurred in the Convention on the 29th of May 1787 and the other stating positively what did occur; the one absolutely silent as to any speech by Pinckney; the other telling us that "Mr. Pinckney a member from South Carolina then added that he had reduced his ideas of a new government to a system which he then read."

Madison has written for us an account of the manner in which he took his notes and wrote out his Journal—a most interesting account, showing us the method he pursued, the efforts which he made, and reminding us how much we owe him for his fidelity to his self-imposed task.

"The curiosity I had felt during my researches into the history of the most distinguished confederacies, particularly those of antiquity, and the deficiency I found in the means of satisfying it, more especially in what related to the process, the principles, the reasons, and the anticipations, which prevailed in the formation of them, determined me to preserve, as far as I could, an exact account of what might pass in the Convention whilst executing its trust; with the magnitude of which I was duly impressed, as I was by the gratification promised to future curiosity by an authentic exhibition of the objects, the opinions, and the reasonings from which the new system of government was to receive its peculiar structure and organization. Nor was I unaware of the value of such a contribution to the fund of materials to the history of a Constitution on which would be staked the happiness of a people great even in its infancy, and possibly the cause of liberty throughout the world.

"In pursuance of the task I had assumed, I chose a seat in front of the presiding member, with the other members on my right and left hands. In this favorable position, for hearing all that passed, I noted in terms legible, and in abbreviations and marks intelligible to myself, what was read from the chair or spoken by the members; and losing not a moment unnecessarily between the adjournment and reassembling of the Convention, I was enabled to write out my daily notes during the session, or within a few finishing days after its close, in the extent and form preserved, in my own hand, on my files.

"In the labor and correctness of this, I was not a little aided by practice, and by a familiarity with the style and the train of observation and reasoning which characterized the principal speakers. It happened, also, that I was not absent a single day, nor more than a casual fraction of an hour in any day, so that I could not have lost a single speech, unless a very short one."

Yates was at the time of writing his Minutes 49 years of age. During the Revolution he had written political essays highly esteemed over the signature of the Rough Hewer. He had been for eleven years a judge of the Supreme Court of New York—a judge of the old school before the days of stenographers and printed arguments and was well trained in taking notes of what counsel said.

The Minutes of Yates are manifestly the work of a man accustomed to take down the ideas rather than the words of public speakers. His reports of the debates are briefer than Madison's showing much less of the reporter and much more of the lawyer or judge accustomed to analyze and to note the scope and sense of an argument. His report of the chief speech of Pinckney, that of June 25th, when compared with the full speech written out by Pinckney for Madison is a remarkably clear and accurate and full abstract. It is also valuable as giving us an abstract of the conclusion of the speech which Pinckney neglected to furnish. Madison says in his letter to Judge Duer, "Mr. Yates's notes as you observe are very inaccurate; they are also in some respects grossly erroneous." There are indeed mistakes resulting from his non-acquaintance with the delegates; and especially in his confusing the names of the two Pinckneys, the first name of each being the same as the first name of the other and both being delegates from the same State. But be that as it may, Yates correctly characterized the speech of Randolph as "long and elaborate," and Pinckney's draught as a "system" of a "new government"; and he certainly knew enough to distinguish between the delivery of a long speech and the reading of a formal document.

The fact therefor must be regarded as established as firmly as any fact recorded in the annals of the Convention that on the day when Pinckney presented his draught to the Convention he did not deliver and could not have delivered a speech making 27 pages of printed matter.

There is another fact to be considered in connection with the foregoing. Between the opening statements of the Observations and the title to the pamphlet there is a flat contradiction. In the speech he says expressly that the "plan will admit of important amendments"; that he does "not mean to offer it for the consideration of the House"; that he has "taken the liberty of mentioning it because it was his duty to do so." In the title to the pamphlet he says, "Plan of Government submitted to the Federal Convention in Philadelphia on the 28th of May 1787." It is plain that the speech and its title were written at different times and that in this the two are irreconcilable. It is also plain that Pinckney when he wrote a title for the printer in New York had forgotten the detail of the contents of the speech and did not take the trouble to examine it. We may therefore conclude that the two events were far apart, the one having taken place in Charleston before the assembling of the Convention and the other taking place in New York when the publication of the speech required that a title should be given to it.

Furthermore the title to the speech contains a significant error in saying that the plan of government was submitted to the Convention "on the 28th of May"; for the first days of the Convention were not days to be quickly forgotten.

The day fixed for the meeting of the delegates in Convention was Monday, May 14th 1787. Washington, notwithstanding his painful illness during the winter and the expected death of his mother was among the first who arrived in Philadelphia. On the 27th of April he had written to Knox, "Though so much afflicted with a Rheumatick complaint (of which I have not been entirely free for Six months) as to be under the necessity of carrying my arm in a Sling for the last ten days, I had fixed on Monday next for my departure, and had made every necessary arrangement for the purpose when (within this hour) I am called by an express, who assures me not a moment is to be lost, to see a mother and only sister (who are supposed to be in the agonies of Death) expire; and I am hastening to obey this Melancholy call, after having just buried a Brother who was the intimate companion of my youth, and the friend of my ripened age. This journey of mine then, 100 miles, in the disordered frame of my body, will, I am persuaded, unfit me for the intended trip to Philadelphia."

But Washington, though he knew it not, was then approaching the verge of his third cycle of illustrious service rendered to his country—"the country he assembled out of chaos."

Madison writing to Jefferson, then in Paris, on Tuesday, the 15th of May, happily recorded the fact that Washington, true to his life record, was on the ground when he should have been: "Monday last was the day for the meeting of the Convention. The number as yet assembled is but small. Among the few is General Washington who arrived on Sunday evening, amidst the acclamations of the people, as well as more sober marks of the affection and veneration which continue to be felt for his character."

But a quorum of lesser men did not appear until Friday May 25th. On that day nine States were represented by twenty-nine delegates among whom was Charles Pinckney on whose motion a committee was appointed, of which he was one, to prepare standing rules and orders. The only other business was the election of Washington as President and Major William Jackson as Secretary. On Monday May 28th the Convention next met when "Mr. Wythe, from the committee for preparing rules made a report which, employed the deliberations of this day." Tuesday May 29th was the great day when Randolph "opened the main business" and presented the Virginia resolutions, and Pinckney "laid before, the House the draught of a Federal Government." These were not days to be easily confounded. But between the presentation of the draught to the Convention and the writing of the title for the printer in New York four months had elapsed crowded with labor and excitement, and Pinckney had forgotten the date of the most eventful day of his life. The error of this date means a great deal.

In his letter to the Secretary of State covering the draught in the Department, Pinckney says that he has then four or five draughts of the Constitution in his possession. It is certain that the draught in the Department conforms much more closely to the draught which he presented to the Convention than to the draught which he describes in the Observations. If we consider the facts established (as we must) that the Observations were written before the assembling of the Convention, that they were written many months before their publication, that they were not examined or revised when they were published, it is easily within the range of possibilities, if not of probabilities, that the draught which formed the "text of the discourse" was one of the four or five which Pinckney had drawn at various times and was not the one which he finally submitted to the Convention.

If the Observations were what they pretend to be the text of a real speech actually spoken at the time when Pinckney was about to present his draught to the Convention they would be very good secondary evidence of the contents of the paper which he held in his hand and which he then and there presented, and thereby parted company with. But a speech which was never spoken to suppositional auditors who never heard it, is not a public declaration of the contents of another paper. The Observations are not a speech because they are cast in the form of a speech. They are simply a paper which may have been written in Charleston before the assembling of the Convention, or (possibly) in New York after the Convention had been dissolved, and whenever written Pinckney may have had before him another of the four or five constitutions which he had draughted. With the uncovering of the fact that this paper was not contemporaneous, and that it did not necessarily refer to the particular copy of the draught which Pinckney presented to the Convention on the 29th of May, the supposed value of the Observations as evidence to impeach the integrity of the draught in the State Department is blown to pieces.

If this were a suit between Madison and Pinckney it might be held that Pinckney would be estopped from questioning the veracity of the paper which he wrote and made public, or the actuality of the facts which it sets forth. But an estoppel which in the words of Coke, "concludeth a man to alleage the truth" does not extend to the student of Constitutional history. He is not a party to that record and is at liberty to use it for what it may be worth against Pinckney or for Pinckney, to overthrow the draught or to substantiate the draught—to use it in any way which will tend to clear the situation from error, and authenticate the true history of the Constitution.

Madison in his "Note to the Plan" regarded article VIII as "remarkable also for the circumstance that whilst it specifies the functions of the President, no provision is contained in the paper for the election of such an officer." The plain unquestionable purpose of Madison when so writing was to impress upon the American mind the improbability, the almost impossibility, of Pinckney's having neglected to provide for the election of the President while actually establishing the office and defining the functions of the officer; and hence that the paper which is so remarkable for the omission cannot be a true copy of the one presented to the Convention; and the inevitable inference from this is that the real draught, the one presented to the Convention on the 29th of May contained and must have contained, and could not have overlooked the needed provision declaring how the President should be chosen.

The choosing of the President by means of electoral colleges in which each State should have a proportionate power equal to its total representation in the two houses of Congress was one of the notable compromises between the large and small States; and what Madison says must excite the curiosity of the Constitutional student to know in what manner Pinckney provided in his draught for the choosing of the President and whether he attempted a compromise. The original draught is lost; but here Madison appears with the Observations which he fortunately saw in 1787 and which he fortunately remembered in 1831 and which, remembering, he brought to light and made an authority; and these Observations, according to Madison, presumptively set forth what the original draught contained so fully and accurately that upon the faith of them we can and must reject the copy of the draught which Pinckney produced and placed in the State Department. Therefore we may turn to the Observations with unusual interest to ascertain whether Pinckney provided, and in what manner he provided, for the choosing of the President.