Minor Advocates of Mixed Government: George Read and Rufus King

George Read’s role was much smaller than Hamilton’s or Morris’s. He was, however, the only delegate to declare himself in favor of Hamilton’s plan and advocate adopting it (Morris was absent at the time).  It appears that it was the “mixed” nature of Hamilton’s plan as well as its extreme nationalism that appealed to Read.  Independently of Hamilton or Morris, he proposed that the Senate be appointed by the executive out of candidates nominated by state legislatures, a proposal he knew would be controversial.  He also favored a Senate for life and, when no one was interested, proposed nine years as the longest term that could be obtained.  He also favored an absolute executive veto and wanted the executive, not the legislature to appoint the treasurer.  He first favored and was later indifferent to limiting money bills to the House. He opposed “shackling” the legislature too much in requiring reapportionment (a proposal that, not coincidentally, would not favor Delaware).  He did favor one old democratic proposal, to double the size of the 65-member House.  He gave as reasons for enlarging the House that Delaware would only have one representative who might be absent and deprive that state of a vote, that 65 was too small a number to possess the people’s confidence, and that he hoped the national government would have greater objects of legislation and would therefore require a more numerous representation.

Rufus King (Massachusetts):  Rufus King did not go as far as these others in supporting mixed government, but he leaned in that direction.  This particularly applied to his ideas of executive power:

He [the executive] ought not to be impeachable unless he held his office during good behavior, a tenure which would be most agreeable to him; provided an independent and effectual forum could be devised 

The judiciary was impeachable because judges otherwise held their offices for life.  If the executive held power for only a limited term he should not be impeachable lest be too far subordinated to the legislature and become too weak.  If serving for a limited term, his good behavior would periodically be tested.  When the Convention debated the term of the executive if elected by the legislature, various delegates proposed long terms without reeligibility to ensure his independence.  King first spoke on behalf of reeligibility, then proposed, “Twenty years.  This is the medium life of princes.”  Madison believed that King was being ironic and mocking the other proposals, but given what he said on a previous occasion about an executive for life, he may well have been serious.  Certainly, he opposed too short a term.  He opposed joining the judiciary to the executive veto, saying that placing the veto in one man made him more “responsible” and opposed joining a counsel to the President for making appointments on similar grounds, although he apparently favored having the Senate concur in executive appointments.  On the other hand, he favored having the legislature, rather than the executive, appoint the Treasurer, mostly because people would resist executive appointment.

King also opposed making legislators ineligible to executive office as “refining” too much and giving the executive an excuse for bad appointments, since he could always say the best man for the job was a member of the legislature and therefore ineligible.  Besides, all the corrupt effects of eligibility would remain if friends and relatives of legislators could be appointed.  As an alternative, he proposed to make legislators ineligible to offices they create or increase in pay.  (This was the measure ultimately adopted).  He also opposed representation by population on the grounds that numbers were a poor measure of wealth and, even if they were at present a measure of wealth, they might not remain a good measure in the future.  Since property was “the primary object of Society,” it should be included in representation.  He did oppose using actual tax revenue as the basis for representation as unfair to non-importing states, certainly an honorable position for a delegate from Massachusetts and New York, two major importing states.

King appears to have been the only delegate who did not favor any old democratic principles.  He d voted for a three-year term for the House, the only New Englander to do so and a seven-year term for the Senate, one of only two New Englanders to do so.  We have already seen his views on executive power and ineligibility to office.  On only two points could he be said to have taken slightly old democratic positions, he favored legislative appointment of the treasurer and he favored reducing the maximum ratio of representation from 40,000:1 to 30,000:1.

He showed slightly more openness toward new democracy.  He favored popular election of the House of Representatives since state legislatures would choose men subservient to their own views.  He leaned toward popular election of the executive, largely to make him eligible for reelection, but also because “the people at large would chuse wisely.”  However, he doubted that there would be a majority for any candidate, so he preferred special electors.  He also joined with Gouverneur Morris in wanting the Senate, not the House, to break deadlocks in the Electoral College to ensure “high mounted” government.  He also opposed requiring land ownership as a requirement for office, not so much out of democratic principles as to protect the “monied” (merchant) interest.  As we have already seen, King favored representation by wealth instead of population.  He opposed admitting western states on an equal basis and believed it "impolitic" that Congress had already promised to admit much of the west on an equal basis.  Nor did he favor requiring periodic reapportionment of representatives.  He denied wanting to “retain any unjust advantage whatever in one part of the Republic,” but said the Congress could be trusted to reapportion, or the states being denied fair representation would threaten to separate.