Voted, That the following question be put to the Hon. E. Gerry, Esq., viz.: "Why, in the last requisition of Congress, the portion required of this State was thirteen times as much as of Georgia, and yet we have but eight representatives in the general government, and Georgia has three?" and that he be requested to put his answer in writing.

The further consideration of the said Constitution was postponed to the morning.

Adjourned to Saturday morning, 10 o'clock.

SATURDAY, January 19, 1788.

Met according to adjournment.

The Hon. E. Gerry, Esq., answered the question proposed to him yesterday, as follows, viz. :—

Saturday Morning, 19th January.

SIR-I have no documents in Boston, and am uncertain whether I have any at home, to assist me in answering the question, "Why, in the last requisition of Congress, the portion required of this State was thirteen times as much as of Georgia, and yet we have but eight representatives in the general government, and Georgia has three?" but if my memory serves me, the reason assigned by the committee who made the apportionment for giving such a number to Georgia, was, that that State had of late greatly increased its numbers by migration, and if not then, would soon be entitled to the proportion assigned her. I think it was also said, that the apportionment was made, not by any fixed principle, but by a compromise. These reasons not being satisfactory, a motion was made on the part of Massachusetts, for increasing her number of representatives, but it did not take effect.

I have the honor to be, Sir,

With the highest respect,

Your most obedient, and

Very humble servant,

E. GERRY.

Hon. Mr. CUSHING, Vice-President of the Convention.

The Convention proceeded in the consideration of the Constitution or Frame of Government reported by the Convention held at Philadelphia, and, after debate, a motion was made and seconded that the Hon. E. Gerry, Esq., be requested to give what information he may have in his mind respecting the Senate.

A motion was then made and seconded, that the Convention adjourn, and on the question for adjournment, it was determined in the affirmative.

Adjourned to Monday morning, 10 o'clock.

MONDAY, January 21, 1788.

Met according to adjournment.

On motion.

Resolved, as follows, viz. :-Whereas, there is a publication in the Boston Gazette and the Country Journal, of this day, as follows, viz. :

"BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION!!! The most diabolical plan is on foot to corrupt the members of the Convention who oppose the adoption of the new Constitution. Large sums of money have been brought from a neighboring State for that purpose, contributed by the wealthy; if so, is it not probable there may be collections for the same accursed purpose nearer home? CENTINEL."

Resolved, That this Convention will take measures for inquiring into the subject of the said publication, and for ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the suggestion therein contained.

Ordered, That the Messenger be directed to request the printers of the said Gazette to appear before this Convention forthwith, to give information respecting the said publication.

The Convention proceeded in the consideration of the Constitution or Frame of Government reported by the Convention held at Philadelphia, and having debated thereon, postponed the further consideration of the same to the afternoon.

Adjourned to 3 o'clock, P. M.

AFTERNOON.

Met according to adjournment.

The Messenger informed the Convention that he had acquainted the printers of the Boston Gazette, &c., of the Order of this morning, respecting them, and was answered that one of them would attend the Convention this afternoon.

The Convention proceeded in the consideration of the Constitution or Frame of Government reported by the Convention held at Philadelphia, and having debated thereon, postponed the further consideration of the same to the morning.

A letter from Benjamin Edes and Son, printers of the Boston Gazette, &c., relative to the publication entered this morning. Read, and committed to Mr. Parsons, Mr. Nasson, Mr. Gorham, Mr. Wedgery, Mr. Porter, Mr. Gore, and Mr. Thomas, of Plymouth.

Adjourned to Tuesday morning, 10 o'clock.

Met according to adjournment.

TUESDAY, January 22, 1788.

The Convention proceeded in the consideration of the Constitution or Frame of Government reported by the Convention held at Philadelphia, and, after debate, postponed the further consideration of the same to the afternoon.

A letter from the Hon. E. Gerry, Esq., referred to the after

noon.

Adjourned to 3 o'clock, P. M.

AFTERNOON.

Met according to adjournment.

18

A letter from the Hon. E. Gerry, Esq., with a state of facts

18 [The communication of Mr. Gerry, which we copy in this note, will be read with interest.

"CAMBRIDGE, 21st January, 1788.

SIR-It is with great reluctance that I trespass a moment on the time of the honorable Convention, employed as it is, on a subject of the highest im

relative to the construction of the Federal Senate.

after debate,

Read, and

Voted, That the further consideration of the said letter subside.

portance to this country, but I am under the necessity of stating some facts, and their consequences, as they relate to myself.

On the 14th of this month, the Convention passed a vote, requesting me to take a seat in the house, to answer any question of fact, from time to time, that the Convention may want to ask, respecting the passing of the Constitution.' This request was unexpected, and I complied with it, contrary to my inclination, not doubting in the least, that I should be treated with delicacy and candor.

Every gentleman who will reflect but a moment, must be sensible that my situation on the floor of the Convention was not eligible: that it was a humiliating condition, to which nothing could have produced my submission, but the respect I entertained for the honorable Convention, and the desire I had of complying with their wishes.

After having, on Saturday morning, stated an answer to the question proposed the preceding evening, I perceived that your honorable body were considering a paragraph which respected an equal representation of the States in the Senate, and one of my honorable colleagues observed, that this was agreed to by a committee consisting of a member from each State, and that I was one of the number. This was a partial narrative of facts, which I conceived placed my conduct in an unfavorable point of light, probably without any such intention on the part of my colleague.

I was thus reduced to the disagreeable alternative of addressing a letter to your honor, for correcting this error, or of sustaining the injuries resulting from its unfavorable impressions: not in the least suspecting, that when I had committed myself to the Convention without the right of speaking in my own defence, any gentleman would take an undue advantage from being a member of the house, to continue the misrepresentation, by suppressing every attempt on my part to state the facts. I accordingly informed your honor, that I was preparing a letter to throw light on the subject, and at my request you was so obliging as to make this communication to the house. My sole object was, to state the matter as it respected my conduct, but I soon perceived that it was misunderstood by the honorable Judge Dana, who rose with an appearance of party virulence which I did not expect, and followed one misrepresentation with another, by impressing the house with the idea that I was entering into their debates. I requested leave repeatedly to explain the matter, but he became more vehement, and I was subject to strictures from several parts of the house, till it adjourned, without being even permitted to declare that I disdained such an intention, and did not merit such unworthy treatment.

I confess to you, Sir, that the indelicacy and disingenuity of this procedure, distressed my feelings beyond any thing I had ever before experienced: for, had every member of the honorable house requested me by a vote to partake

The Convention proceeded in the consideration of the Constitution or Frame of Government reported by the Convention held at Philadelphia, and, after debate thereon, postponed the further consideration of the same to the morning.

Adjourned to Wednesday morning, 10 o'clock.

in their debates, I should have considered it as improper and unconstitutional, and from principles of decency and propriety, should have declined their request and Judge Dana has been too long in public life with me, not to know that it has never been my practice to attain objects by improper means. Indeed, Sir, so remote were my wishes from entering into your debates, that after having passed a judgment on the Constitution, in the Federal Convention, I would not have taken a seat in the State Convention, with the unanimous suffrages of the citizens of Massachusetts, because, in a matter of such important consequence, it was my wish that the final decision should be made by themselves. This was a fact early known to my particular friends, and I do not mention it to suggest an impropriety in accepting a seat in both conventions, but merely to show the injustice done me on this occasion.

If Judge Dana was apprehensive that the facts which I should state would eventually prejudice the cause he so ardently advocated, still, I conceive, he could not be justified in precluding those facts which were necessary to do me justice; for bad indeed must be that cause which will not bear the light of truth. Judge Dana took sanctuary under the rules of the house, but I never yet heard of a rule that was intended to prevent an injured person from addressing a letter to the body who should redress his wrongs, or from giving information of such an intention: and I conceive, Sir, that neither the honorable Convention, or any republican body on earth, who had requested an individual to attend them for the purpose of giving information, would have had any objection to granting him leave to speak, much less to address to them a letter, merely for the purpose of setting a matter right, which, in the progress of debates, had, by an erroneous statement, tended to his injury.

It is true, Sir, I differ in opinion from a number of respectable members of your honorable house, on the subject of the proposed Constitution, but, I flattered myself that not a member could be found so deficient in liberality as to bear animosity towards me on this account. The strong impressions which I felt, and which I still feel, that this system, without amendment, will destroy the liberties of America, inferred on me an indispensable obligation to give it my negative: and having done this, I feel the approbation of my own mind, which is infinitely preferable to universal applauses without it. If, nevertheless, my conduct in this instance has given offence; if there is at this time so little freedom in America, as that a person in discharging a most important public trust, cannot conduct according to the obligations of honor and dictates of his conscience, it appears to me of little consequence what form of government we adopt, for we are not far removed from a state of slavery.

I shall only add, Sir, that I have subjoined a state of facts, founded on doc