On the question
N. H. no. Mas. no. Cont divd. Dr Johnson ay. Mr Sherman no. N. J. no. Pa ay. Del. no. Md no. Va ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. no.
Col: Mason, being sensible that an absolute prohibition of standing armies in time of peace might be unsafe, and wishing at the same time to insert something pointing out and guarding against the danger of them, moved to preface the clause (Art. 1 sect. 8) "To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia &c." with the words "And that the liberties of the people may be better secured against the danger of standing armies in time of peace." Mr Randolph 2ded the motion.
Mr Madison was in favor of it. It did not restrain Congress from establishing a military force in time of peace if found necessary; and as armies in time of peace are allowed on all hands to be an evil, it is well to discountenance them by the Constitution, as far as will consist with the essential power of the Govt on that head.
Mr Govr Morris opposed the motion as setting a dishonorable mark of distinction on the military class of Citizens.
Mr Pinkney & Mr Bedford concurred in the opposition.
On the question
N. H. no. Mas. no. Ct no. N. J. no. Pa no. Mard no. Va ay. N. C. no. S. C. no. Geo. ay.
Col: Mason moved to strike out from the clause (art. 1 sect 9.) "no bill of attainder nor any ex post facto law shall be passed" the words "nor any ex post facto law." He thought it not sufficiently clear that the prohibition meant by this phrase was limited to cases of a criminal nature, and no Legislature ever did or can altogether avoid them in Civil cases.
Mr Gerry 2ded the motion but with a view to extend the prohibition to "civil cases," which he thought ought to be done.