[117] At this point (July 23) John Langdon and Nicholas Gilman took their seats as delegates from New Hampshire.
[118] See the letter of Messrs. Yates and Lansing to Governor Clinton, Elliot, I. 480.
[119] There seems to be a sound distinction between the two, which was pointed out by Mr. Madison. He said that "he considered the difference between a system founded on the legislatures only, and one founded on the people, to be the true difference between a _league_, or treaty, and a _constitution_. The former, in point of _moral obligation_, might be as inviolable as the latter. In point of _political operation_, there were two important distinctions in favor of the latter. First, a [State] law violating a treaty ratified by a pre-existing [State] law might be respected by the judges as a law, though an unwise or perfidious one. A [State] law violating a constitution established by the people themselves would be considered by the judges as null and void. Secondly, the doctrine laid down by the law of nations in the case of treaties was, that a breach of any one article by any of the parties freed the other parties from their engagements. In the case of a union of people under one constitution, the nature of the pact had always been understood to exclude such an interpretation." Elliot, V. 355, 356.
[120] Connecticut, Delaware, and Maryland voted for an amendment to the original resolution, which, if adopted, would have submitted the Constitution to the State legislatures. The resolution to refer it to assemblies chosen for the purpose by the people, was subsequently adopted, with the dissent of one State only, Delaware.
[121] For the history of the proceedings relating to the institution of the national Convention, see _Ante_, Vol. I. Book III. Chap. VI.
[124] As in the State of Massachusetts; where the sole money qualification required of a voter is the payment of an annual poll-tax of $1.25, or about five shillings _sterling_.
[125] Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Delaware.
[126] See the title "Qualifications" in the Index.
[127] The committee of detail, appointed July 24, consisted of Messrs. Rutledge, Randolph, Gorham, Ellsworth, and Wilson. Elliot, V. 357.
[128] By a security against an emancipation of slaves, General Pinckney meant some provision for their extradition in cases of escape into the free States. This is apparent from the history of the extradition clause; and it is upon the notice thus given by him, and the action had upon this clause, that the statement often made, which assumes that the Constitution could not have been established without some provision on this subject--as well as upon general reasoning from the circumstances of the case--rests for its proof. See as to the origin and history of the extradition clause, _post_, p. 450.