From the third resolution, "to receive fixed stipends to be paid out of the National Treasury,” under consideration.
Judge Oliver Ellsworth (CN) preferred the states pay their representatives. The various states had different standards of compensation.
Hugh Williamson (NC) agreed for the reason that new states would likely be poor and would work against the interests of the existing states. Let them pay their own.
(There was a little known thread of apprehension on the part of many delegates toward new states. As time will tell, some would deny new States equality with the original thirteen. Why should backwoods ruffians be allowed to upset whatever balance of interests the Convention worked out?)
Nathaniel Gorham (MA) thought skinflint state governments would not adequately pay the reps. Keep the amount of compensation out of the Constitution, but let Congress determine the amount and pay salaries.
Governor Edmund Randolph cut to the nub. They should be paid out of the national treasury because the entire nation has an interest in their attendance and service.
Rufus King (MA) thought dependence on the states for salary would be dangerous. Set the amount in the Constitution.
Roger Sherman (CN) wished to leave the matter to the states.
James Wilson (PA) thought it important to pay them out of the national treasury so as to keep them as independent as possible.
James Madison (VA) still preferred payment set by the Constitution and out of the national treasury. He disagreed with Mr. Williamson. The reps from new, maybe poor states should be received as brethren.
Alexander Hamilton (NY): “Those who pay are the masters of those who are paid.”
James Madison (VA) once again aimed to head off corruption. He considered it indecent for the reps to determine their compensation.
Alexander Hamilton (NY) reiterated his opposition to state payment.
Judge Oliver Ellsworth (CN) perhaps had enough of Mr. Hamilton. He informed him that if his attitude were carried home to CN, the people would reject the Constitution.
The motion to remove “National Treasury” from the third resolution failed 4-5.
“Adequate compensation” v. “fixed stipends” was agreed to without opposition.
George Washington (VA) referred a point of order to the entire convention. I include this only because it was the first we heard from General Washington during the debates.
George Mason (VA) motioned 25 years as the minimum age of service.
James Wilson (PA) opposed a minimum age. Why dampen young, qualified spirits? He used Mr. Pitt and Lord Bolingbroke as examples.
Twenty five years minimum age passed 7-3.
Nathaniel Gorham (MA) wished to allow members of the House to serve as officers of the United States during and immediately after their elective terms.
Pierce Butler (SC) said such intrigue ruined the British government. Men apparently moved from elective to well paid appointed offices in side deals out of the public eye.
(This was another of example of our Framer’s acknowledgment of man’s natural tendency toward corruption and their efforts to minimize it.)
Rufus King (MA) thought such restrictions would discourage merit.
James Wilson (PA) also wished to remove restrictions. George Washington (VA) was a delegate to Congress in 1775 when appointed Commander in Chief. He would presumably have been ineligible under the Constitution.
George Mason (VA) strongly stated the need to fight such corruption and provided British examples. He also “alluded to the multiplicity of foreign Embassies by Congress.” I’m not positive what he means, but it certainly suggests treasonous activity in foreign affairs.
Alexander Hamilton (NY) so much as said such corruption was necessary.
The motion to allow elected representatives to simultaneously serve as appointed officers failed in a 4-4-3 tie.
Constitutional Convention Ping!
Of course he did. And of course guess who else did?:
Mr. HAMILTON ... He was strenuous agst. making the National Council dependent on the Legislative rewards of the States. Those who pay are the masters of those who are paid. "
Madison and Hamilton were united on this central idea: that a national government should be created with supremacy over the states. And Hamilton is quite right: He who pays the piper calls the tune. That is why he and Madison predictably argued for the nationals to pay themselves from their own treasury.
For good or ill, they clearly did not trust the league of states, and wanted a single, unified republic. The states would remain as subordinate agencies, and the nationals would possess supreme power, including a negative on all state constitutions and laws.
This house was to be a check on state power. It was designed to be a rival to the states (who would have their own house, to lend a confederate air to the centralizing project.)
Shall we read later who pays the Senators and where Messers Madison and Hamilton came down on that question? Anyone want to hazard a guess?