Mr Gerry moved that the Legislatures of the States should vote by ballot for the Executive in the same proportions as it had been proposed they should chuse electors; and that in case a majority of the votes should not centre on the same person, the 1st branch of the Natl Legislature should chuse two out of the 4 candidates having most votes, and out of these two, the 2d branch should chuse the Executive.
Mr King seconded the motion–and on the Question to postpone in order to take it into consideration. The noes were so predominant, that the States were not counted.
Question on Mr Houston's motion that the Executive be appd by the Nal Legislature.
N. H. ay. Mass. ay. Ct no. N. J. ay. Pa no. Del. ay. Md no. Va no. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay.
Mr L. Martin & Mr Gerry moved to re-instate the ineligibility of the Executive a 2d time.
Mr Elseworth. With many this appears a natural consequence of his being elected by the Legislature. It was not the case with him. The Executive he thought should be reelected if his conduct proved him worthy of it. And he will be more likely to render himself, worthy of it if he be rewardable with it. The most eminent characters also, will be more willing to accept the trust under this condition, than if they foresee a necessary degradation at a fixt period.
Mr Gerry. That the Executive shd be independent of the Legislature is a clear point. The longer the duration of his appointment the more will his dependence be diminished. It will be better then for him to continue 10. 15. or even 20. years and be ineligible afterwards.
Mr King was for making him re-eligible. This is too great an advantage to be given up for the small effect it will have on his dependence, if impeachments are to lie. He considered these as rendering the tenure during pleasure.
Mr L. Martin, suspending his motion as to the ineligibility, moved "that the appointmt of the Executive shall continue for Eleven years.
Mr Gerry suggested fifteen years.