The select committee did not confine themselves to this single amendment, as reported from the Senate, but went back to the year 1789, when twelve amendments were proposed by Congress; for though they state eleven States out of fourteen had ratified ten of these amendments in the year 1791, yet they were of opinion that a doubt might arise whether eleven States ought to be considered as the three-fourths of fourteen; they therefore wished the President to be requested to make inquiry also from the non-ratifying States on the subject of these ten amendments.
Mr. Nicholas said, the resolution of itself was only exceptionable as it had connection with the statement which went before it, in which it was made a question whether the ten last amendments of the twelve proposed by Congress to the States in March, 1789, were ever made part of the constitution. He did not wish a doubt to be expressed on this subject. This doubt, in the opinion of the committee, it seemed, rested on a supposition that eleven were not three-fourths of fourteen. He could not conceive how any doubt could arise on this subject, since it must be acknowledged by every one that eleven was more than three-fourths of fourteen. If the objection arose from fourteen not being divisible in equal fourth parts, it was an objection to the constitution as originally made. It was formed by thirteen States, which was no more divisible into fourths than fourteen. On this ground, an amendment could never have been made to the constitution. He hoped the Chairman of the committee would give them some information on the subject.
Mr. Harper said, it was not of much importance whether the committee had doubts, or whether those doubts were well founded. The committee stated they had these doubts. He had them; not whether eleven was three-fourths of fourteen, according to arithmetical calculation—every school boy knew, that, in that view, eleven was more than three-fourths of fourteen; but it was, whether you could make a division of States. He believed it could not be done; he believed there must be twelve ratifying States to be three-fourths, as intended by the constitution, because that number would be three-fourths of sixteen, which was the nearest number to fourteen capable of four equal divisions. Whether this doubt was well founded or not, there could be no harm in directing the inquiry to be made; it would be made as soon for thirteen amendments as for one, and if any other State should have ratified the ten amendments in question, all doubt would be removed. Mr. H. noticed an error or two which had escaped the committee in their report.
Mr. Gallatin said, the resolution under consideration went to direct the President to apply to all those States, by whom, as far as can be known from the official documents heretofore transmitted, all or any of the amendments at any time proposed by Congress still remained to be ratified. There could be no occasion to make the inquiry with respect to all these amendments, unless it were taken for granted that none of them had yet been ratified. He was, therefore, of opinion, with the gentleman from Virginia, that such an application would be very improper, as bringing the ten last amendments into doubt, which he believed to be as much a part of the constitution as any other article in it; he also thought them a very valuable part, and not to be trifled with.
But, upon what ground, said Mr. G., do the advocates of this report prove that 11 is not three-fourths of 14? The idea was so novel that he could scarcely understand what principle they adopted in order to create a doubt on their minds on this subject. To him the position that 11 was more than three-fourths of fourteen appeared to be one of those self-evident axioms which hardly admit of a proof. The principle on which the doubt arose must be so very nice, so abstract, that he did not know whether he was capable of comprehending it. Anxious as he was to avoid saying any thing which might be construed as misstatement, he would, however, attempt to analyze what he conceived to be the ground of the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. Harper.)
It appeared to him that that gentleman thought three-fourths in itself was not a fraction of the unit, was not a number conveying to the mind the simple idea of a fraction; but that it was a compound of fractions, and that the only way by which the idea of three-fourths could be conceived was by a decomposition. Because the idea of three-fourths was by our numerical arithmetic expressed by the two figures 3/4, that gentleman was unable to conceive what it meant except by decomposition, by dividing the unit into four equal parts and multiplying the result by 3. And if that idea of three-fourths had happened to be expressed by the fraction nine-twelfths, (which was the same thing as three-fourths,) that gentleman could not have conceived it except by dividing in the first place the unit into twelve parts and then multiplying the result by nine. In fact he denied the existence of any number, part of a unit, except as it consisted of an aggregate of such parts as the unit could exactly be divided into.
Thus, when speaking of fourteen States, although he (Mr. Gallatin) could at once understand that three-fourths of fourteen was ten-and-a-half, and, therefore, (admitting, as he did together with that gentleman, that the vote of a State was indivisible) that eleven States were more than three-fourths of fourteen, the gentleman from South Carolina proceeded in a different way. The fourth part of fourteen being three-and-a-half, he says that, as a State cannot be divided, you must take four States instead of three-and-a-half for the fourth part of fourteen, and then multiplying these four States by three, in order to get the three-fourths, he concludes that twelve States are three-quarters of fourteen—that the twelve States out of fourteen are necessary to ratify the amendments. He believed the gentleman would allow that he had not misstated his opinion.
Let us now see, said Mr. G., how this doctrine will operate. It would go to prove, in some instances, that three-fourths of a number is greater than the whole. Suppose, for instance, the case of five States. One-fourth of five is 1-1/4; but as the vote of a State cannot be divided, you must call it two; or, as the gentleman expressed it, five not being divisible into four equal parts, you must take the nearest number to five capable of such division, that is to say 8, the fourth part of which is two; two, therefore, must be considered as the fourth part of five States, and as three multiplied by two is six, it follows, according to that gentleman's doctrine, that the three-fourths of five is six! Suppose that, in the constitution, instead of the expression three-fourths, it had been said that nine-twelfths were necessary. The number of States when the constitution was framed was thirteen. In that case one-twelfth of thirteen being one and one-twelfth, you must, the vote of a State being indivisible, call it two; so that in that way of reckoning, nine-twelfths (which is the same thing as three-fourths) of 13 is 18! Consequently, the consent of eighteen States would have been necessary in order to ratify any amendment to the constitution of a nation consisting only of 13 States.
Let us, said he, examine a little farther. The same part of the constitution which provides for amendments of the constitution, says, that an amendment shall be proposed by two-thirds of both Houses of Congress; but he supposed the vote of a man was no more divisible than that of a State. He wished to know, therefore, how the gentleman would, on his principle, calculate what were two-thirds of the members present when their whole number was not divisible by three?
In making treaties he wished to know what was meant by two-thirds of the members of the Senate present? If the number present happened not to be divisible by three, would that gentleman say, that, in that case, the next number above the number present must be taken, which would be divisible by three, and that if two-thirds of that number did not concur in the vote for the treaty, no treaty should be ratified? On that principle, in some instances, a greater proportion of the Senate would be necessary to ratify a treaty than had been usually understood, according to the generally received opinion of the sense of the constitution in this respect.