Constitutional Convention. Remarks on the Ineligibility of Members of the House of Representatives for Other Offices, [22 June 1787]
Constitutional Convention. Remarks on the
Ineligibility of Members of the House of Representatives
for Other Offices1
[Philadelphia, June 22, 1787]
Mr. Hamilton. In all general questions which become the subjects of discussion, there are always some truths mixed with falsehoods. I confess there is danger where men are capable of holding two offices.2 Take mankind in general, they are vicious—their passions may be operated upon. We have been taught to reprobate the danger of influence in the British government, without duly reflecting how far it was necessary to support a good government. We have taken up many ideas upon trust, and at last, pleased with our own opinions, establish them as undoubted truths. Hume’s opinion of the British constitution confirms the remark, that there is always a body of firm patriots, who often shake a corrupt administration. Take mankind as they are, and what are they governed by? Their passions. There may be in every government a few choice spirits, who may act from more worthy motives. One great error is that we suppose mankind more honest than they are. Our prevailing passions are ambition and interest; and it will ever be the duty of a wise government to avail itself of those passions, in order to make them subservient to the public good—for these ever induce us to action. Perhaps a few men in a state, may, from patriotic motives, or to display their talents, or to reap the advantage of public applause, step forward; but if we adopt the clause we destroy the motive. I am therefore against all exclusions and refinements, except only in this case; that when a member takes his seat, he should vacate every other office. It is difficult to put any exclusive regulation into effect. We must in some degree, submit to the inconvenience.
, 156–57.
1. Robert Yates’s version of H’s third speech on June 22 has been printed, for it is more detailed than that given by Madison.
Madison’s account of H’s remarks reads:
“There are inconveniences on both sides. We must take man as we find him, and if we expect him to serve the public must interest his passions in doing so. A reliance on pure patriotism had been the source of many of our errors. He thought the remark of Mr. Ghorum a just one. It was impossible to say what wd. be effect in G.B. of such a reform as had been urged. It was known that one of the ablest politicians (Mr. Hume) had pronounced all that influence on the side of the crown, which went under the name of corruption, an essential part of the weight which maintained the equilibrium of the Constitution.” (, 150.)
2. Among the motions relating to the organization of the lower branch of the legislature debated by the Convention on June 22 was a motion by Nathaniel Gorham, delegate from Massachusetts, proposing a change in the section of the Virginia Plan which provided that members of the first branch of the legislature be ineligible for other offices, not only during their term in the legislature but for one year after. Among the members of the Convention who spoke on Gorham’s motion was George Mason of Virginia who declared that he “was for shutting the door at all events agst. corruption. He enlarged on the venality and abuses in this particular in G. Britain: and alluded to the multiplicity of foreign Embassies by Congs. The disqualification he regarded as a corner stone in the fabric” (, 150). H’s remarks followed those by Mason.