Mr Sherman was in favor of the motion. He dwelt chiefly on the supposed expensiveness of having a new set of Courts, when the existing State Courts would answer the same purpose.
Mr Dickinson contended strongly that if there was to be a National Legislature, there ought to be a national Judiciary, and that the former ought to have authority to institute the latter.
On the question for Mr Rutlidge's motion to strike out "inferior tribunals"
Massts divided. Cont ay. N. Y. divd. N. J. ay. Pa no. Del. no. Md no. Va no. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay.
Mr Wilson & Mr Madison then moved, in pursuance of the idea expressed above by Mr. Dickinson, to add to the Resol: 9. the words following "that the National Legislature be empowered to institute inferior tribunals." They observed that there was a distinction between establishing such tribunals absolutely, and giving a discretion to the Legislature to establish or not establish them. They repeated the necessity of some such provision.
Mr Butler. The people will not bear such innovations. The States will revolt at such encroachments. Supposing such an establishment to be useful, we must not venture on it. We must follow the example of Solon who gave the Athenians not the best Govt he could devise, but the best they wd receive.
Mr King remarked as to the comparative expence, that the establishment of inferior tribunals wd cost infinitely less than the appeals that would be prevented by them.
On this question as moved by Mr W. & Mr M.
Mass. ay. Ct no. N. Y. divd. N. J.[67] ay. Pa ay. Del. ay. Md ay. Va ay. N. C. ay. S. C. no. Geo. ay.
[ [67] In printed Journals N. Jersey, no.—Madison's Note.