Commentary

The records for this section of debate are extremely confused. The Journal record reads:

"[To commit the 2nd clause of the 7 sect. 6 art.

Ayes —4; noes — 7.

“nor to any other place than that at which the two Houses are sitting” 8 sect. 6 article Ayes — 10; noes — 1.] It was moved and seconded to alter the 8th sect. of the 6. article to read as follows, namely,

“The Legislature shall at their first assembling determine on a place at which their future Sessions shall be held: neither House shall afterwards, during the Session of the House of Representatives, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor shall they adjourn to any other place than such as shall have been fixed by law”

which passed in the negative

It was moved and seconded to prefix the following words to the 8 sect. of the 6 article, namely

“During the session of the Legislature”

and to strike out the last clause of the section

which passed in the affirmative

On the question to agree to the 8 sect. of the 6 article as amended.

it passed in the affirmative."

Madison's record reads:

"Art VI. sect. 8. taken up.

Mr. King remarked that the section authorized the 2 Houses to adjourn to a new place. He thought this inconvenient. The mutability of place had dishonored the federal Govt. and would require as strong a cure as we could devise. He thought a law at least should be made necessary to a removal of the Seat of Govt.

Mr Madison viewed the subject in the same light, and joined with Mr. King in a motion requiring a law.

Mr. Governr. Morris proposed the additional alteration by inserting the words “during the Session” &c”.

Mr. Spaight. this will fix the seat of Govt at N. Y. The present Congress will convene them there in the first instance, and they will never be able to remove; especially if the Presidt. should be Northern Man.

Mr Govr Morris. such a distrust is inconsistent with all Govt.

Mr. Madison supposed that a central place for the Seat of Govt. was so just and wd. be so much insisted on by the H. of Representatives, that though a law should be made requisite for the purpose, it could & would be attained. The necessity of a central residence of the Govt wd be much greater under the new than old Govt The members of the new Govt wd. be more numerous. They would be taken more from the interior parts of the States: they wd. not, like members of ye present Congs. come so often from the distant States by water. As the powers & objects of the new Govt. would be far greater yn. heretofore, more private individuals wd. have business calling them to the seat of it, and it was more necessary that the Govt should be in that position from which it could contemplate, with the most equal eye, and sympathize most equally with, every part of the nation. These considerations he supposed would extort a removal even if a law were made necessary. But in order to quiet suspicions both within & without doors, it might not be amiss to authorize the 2 Houses by a concurrent vote to adjourn at their first meeting to the most proper place, and to require thereafter, the sanction of a law to their removal. The motion was accordingly moulded into the following form: “the Legislature shall at their first assembling determine on a place at which their future sessions shall be held; neither House shall afterwards, during the session of the House of Reps. without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor shall they adjourn to any other place than such as shall have been fixt by law”

Mr. Gerry thought it would be wrong to let the Presidt check the will of the 2 Houses on this subject at all.

Mr Williamson supported the ideas of Mr. Spaight

Mr Carrol was actuated by the same apprehensions

Mr. Mercer. it will serve no purpose to require the two Houses at their first Meeting to fix on a place. They will never agree.

After some further expressions from others denoting an apprehension that the seat of Govt. might be continued at an improper place if a law should be made necessary to a removal, and the motion above stated with another for recommitting the section had been negatived, the Section was left in the shape it which it was reported, as to this point. The words “during the session of the legislature were prefixed to the 8th section — and the last sentence “But this regulation shall not extend to the Senate when it shall exercise the powers mentioned in the article” struck out. The 8th. section as amended was then agreed to."

Each source includes events not accounted for by the other. Still, the most troubling area is the square brackets at the very beginning of the Journal's account of this debate.

"[To commit the 2nd clause of the 7 sect. 6 art.

Ayes —4; noes — 7.

“nor to any other place than that at which the two Houses are sitting” 8 sect. 6 article Ayes — 10; noes — 1.] "

The first question, "to commit the 2nd clause", Farrand suggests should in fact refer to Article VI, section 8, not section 7: this is confirmed by Madison, who refers to "the motion above stated...for recommitting the section" much further down in his account of the debates.

The second question is even more confusing: it is not mentioned by Madison, and the Journal does not include any reference to what that vote is doing to the words "nor to any other place than that at which the two Houses are sitting", which were part of the section as reported.

The events as we have reconstructed them move away from the timeline suggested by the Journal. Using the two accounts in conjunction (McHenry's account, the only other extant for the day, is as good as useless), we suggest that events transpired as follows:

- The section was taken up.

- A debate ensued, in which various proposals for amendment were raised.

- An amendment was moved concerning a law to fix the seat of Congress.

- The amendment was rejected.

- The section was split into clauses.

- A question was put to commit the second clause, which was rejected.

- A vote (the mystery vote from the Journal) was taken on the first two clauses, which passed in the affirmative.

- A motion was put to amend the first part and strike out the second clause, which passed in the affirmative.

- The section as amended was agreed to.

This sequence of events represents one way of reconciling the two sources. Fortunately, regardless of the process, the text produced by the debate can be reconstructed with some certainty: both sources agree as to the amendments which were eventually agreed to.

Associated event

Report of the Committee of Detail [Resolutions] - Article VI: Section 8 was proposed on 11 August 1787