John Rutledge held that the apportionment of representatives should be on a basis of wealth and population.[[513]] He favored a property qualification for the legislative, executive, and judicial departments;[[514]] and he thought that Senators should not be paid.[[515]] In fact, he was one of the most ardent champions of the rights of property in government in the Convention. He was strictly opposed to the introduction of sentimental considerations in politics, for, speaking on an aspect of slavery and the Constitution, he said: “Religion & humanity had nothing to do with this question—Interest alone is the governing principle with Nations—The true question at present is whether the Southn. States shall or shall not be parties to the Union. If the Northern States consult their interests they will not oppose the increase of Slaves which will increase the commodities of which they will become the carriers.”[[516]]
Roger Sherman believed in reducing the popular influence in the new government to the minimum. When it was proposed that the members of the first branch of the national legislature should be elected, Sherman said that he was “opposed to the election by the people, insisting that it ought to be by the state legislatures. The people, he said, immediately should have as little to do as may be about the government. They want information and are constantly liable to be misled.”[[517]]
Richard Dobbs Spaight does not seem to have made any very lengthy speeches in the Convention, but his occasional motions show that he was not among those who believed in “frequent recurrence to the people.” On September 6, he moved that the length of the President’s term be increased to seven years, and finding this lost he attempted to substitute six years for four.[[518]] Spaight was the one member of the Convention, however, who came out clearly and denounced judicial control;[[519]] but he nevertheless proved a stout champion of the Constitution in North Carolina—defending it warmly against charges to the effect that it was aristocratic in character.[[520]]
Caleb Strong carried into the Convention the old Massachusetts tradition in favor of frequent elections. He favored a one year term for representatives,[[521]] voted against a seven year term for President,[[522]] and also opposed a seven year term for Senators.[[523]] He supported the Constitution, however, in his native state, and was a member of the convention that ratified it.
George Washington’s part in the proceedings of the Convention was almost negligible, and it does not appear that in public document or private letter he ever set forth any coherent theory of government. When he had occasion to dwell upon the nature of the new system he indulged in the general language of the bench rather than that of the penetrating observer. For example, in his Farewell Address, which was written largely by Hamilton, he spoke of the government’s being “the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation, and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy.”[[524]] He feared, however, the type of politics represented by the Democratic Societies which sprang up during his administration, and looked upon criticism of the government as akin to sedition.[[525]] Like Jefferson, he also viewed with apprehension the growth of an urban population, for in a letter to La Fayette at the time of the French Revolution, he said, “The tumultuous populace of large cities are ever to be dreaded. Their indiscriminate violence prostrates for the time all public authority.”[[526]]
Hugh Williamson was against placing property qualifications on voters for members of Congress;[[527]] and he was opposed to the association of the judges with the executive in the exercise of the veto power.[[528]] He preferred to insert a provision requiring a two-thirds vote for every “effective act of the legislature.”[[529]] He was, however, an opponent of the paper money party in North Carolina[[530]] and in the Convention he supported a proposition forbidding the states to pass ex post facto laws, on the ground that “the judges can take hold of it.”[[531]]
James Wilson was among the philosophers of the period who had seriously pondered on politics in its historical and practical aspects. In the Convention he took a democratic view on several matters. He favored the annual election of representatives by the people,[[532]] he advocated the popular election of United States Senators,[[533]] and he believed also in the popular election of the President.[[534]] He furthermore opposed the proposition to place property qualifications on voters.[[535]] His check on popular legislation was to be found in judicial control, at first in the association of the judges with the executive in its exercise, and later in its simple, direct form.[[536]] In fact, Wilson shared the apprehensions of his colleagues as to the dangers of democratic legislatures, though he did not frankly advocate direct property checks.[[537]] He doubtless believed that judicial control would be sufficient.
George Wythe was a representative of the old school of lawyers in Virginia, and he was a profound student of historical jurisprudence, although he apparently made no attempt to apply his learning to any of the general political questions before the Convention. He was a warm advocate of the doctrine of judicial control and gave practical effect to principles while on the bench in Virginia.[[538]]
The conclusion seems warranted that the authors of The Federalist generalized the political doctrines of the members of the Convention with a high degree of precision, in spite of the great diversity of opinion which prevailed on many matters.