264

Further debate on equality

[1787

Delaware had not the weight of Pennsylvania. He repeated, that the real difference between the States was not between large and small, but between northern and southern, States. Slavery was the dividing line; there were five States south, and eight States north of it. Under proportional representation the northern States would outnumber the southern ; but every day would tend towards equalising them.

Wilson would agree to equality if the error were one that time would correct, but it was not; the error was mortal. He had considered the argument that equality was necessary to the preservation of the smaller States; but he believed it unsound. Was there any reason to suppose that if their preservation should depend mainly on the large States, the safety of the States against the general government would be lessened? Were the large States less attached to their existence than the small ones ?

Pinckney's motion was voted on shortly afterwards, and lost; four States voting for it and six against. Virginia and Pennsylvania were with the ayes, Massachusetts with the nays. On the next day the whole report of the special committee, amended in several respects, was adopted, with the provision for equal voting in the Senate; the vote standing five ayes to four nays. Pennsylvania and Virginia were among the nays; Massachusetts was divided. New York, which doubtless would have supported the affirmative, was not represented; Yates and Lansing had left the Convention on the ground that it was exceeding its powers; Hamilton was absent, and would hardly have cast the vote of New York had he been present.

The delegates from the larger States were still unwilling to accept the decision of the House; but in the actual state of things there was no use of further discussion. Randolph accordingly suggested adjournment for the day, that the larger States might decide what to do in the solemn crisis, and that the smaller might deliberate on means of conciliation. The suggestion prevailed; but adjournment failed to help matters. A meeting of members from the larger States, with several from the smaller, took place on the next morning, before the Convention came together, and informally considered the situation, but without arriving at any agreement. Those who opposed equality were divided among themselves in regard to the course to be pursued, with the result that the delegates from the smaller States were encouraged to hold to the point they had gained; which they did.

The decision in favour of equality therefore stood. A week later, individual voting among senators was agreed upon. The result was given accordingly to the committee of detail, and by that committee put into the draft Constitution of August 6. Thence the provision was without further difficulty inserted in the Constitution itself, as the first part of section 3, Article I.

Closely connected with the question of proportional representation

1787]

Basis of representation in the House

265

in the House of Representatives was the question of the basis of representation. What should the proportion rest upon? The Randolph resolution declared, as has been seen, that it should rest upon the quotas of contribution, or the number of free inhabitants, as might seem best in different cases. The substituted resolution of King and Wilson, referred to above, eliminating the Senate, provided for the House of Representatives "some equitable ratio of representation." The discussion of the resolution, running more or less on both lines, as a matter of fact in the first instance turned on the basis of proportion. That branch of the discussion will now be followed out.

Opening the debate, Dickinson urged that actual contributions by the States to the general government should be taken as the basis of representation. If duty were connected with interest, the States would not fail. King however pointed out that, as imposts were to be one source of the public revenue, the non-importing States would be in a bad situation; it might happen that they would have no representation. Franklin then proposed the plan already stated, of joint and equal supplies, with equality in the number of delegates. But nothing came of the proposal; and the committee, having already adopted the motion in favour of departing from the rule in the Confederation, now voted, nine States to two, for representation in proportion to the whole number of free inhabitants and three-fifths of all other persons, except Indians not taxed; adding the provision to the words "equitable ratio of representation" just adopted. So the committee reported to the Convention on June 13.

Later, on July 5, came the special conditional report before mentioned, giving to the first branch the origination of money bills. This report also proposed that representation in that branch should be on the scale of "one member for every forty thousand inhabitants of the description reported" by the committee of the whole as already stated. Gouverneur Morris objected to the scale. He thought that property ought to be taken into consideration, as well as the number of inhabiThe acquisition of property was the main object of society; he did not believe that life and liberty were of more value than property. Property ought then to be one measure of influence in the government. Further he looked to the admission of new States from the West. The Atlantic States ought to be secure of their power in the government; provision should be made to prevent their being outvoted.

tants.

Rutledge was of the same opinion; property was the chief object of society; and if numbers should be made the basis of representation, the Atlantic States would be overborne by the western. He accordingly moved that suffrage should be proportioned to the sums to be contributed by the inhabitants of the States respectively, with provision for a census at stated times. The motion was lost, South Carolina alone voting for it. A recommitment was now ordered, and a substitute

266

Population.

Property.

Slaves

[1787

report made three days later; which, after fixing the number of representatives in the first branch, for the present, at fifty-six, proposed that the national legislature should have authority, from time to time, to increase the number, and in case of division or union of States, or of the creation of new ones, to regulate representation upon the principles of wealth and population.

Gorham, a member of this special committee, said in explanation of the report that two objections had prevailed against the proposal of one member for every forty thousand inhabitants. The first was, that the representation would soon be too numerous; the second was, that the western States might, on that principle, outvote the Atlantic. Both objections were now removed. The total number fixed upon was small and could be kept so; and the Atlantic States, having the government in their own hands, could take care of their own interests, dealing out representation to the western States in safe proportions.

Patterson opposed the report ; an estimate according to the combined rule of numbers and wealth was too vague. Slaves were property only; like other property, they were entirely subject to the will of the master. Had a man in Virginia a number of votes in proportion to the number of his slaves? If then slaves were not represented in the States to which they belonged, why should they be represented in the general government? Did the slaves themselves vote? Why then should they be counted? The plan reported would also encourage the slave-trade.

Madison suggested what he had already referred to, that the States should be represented in the first branch according to the number of their free inhabitants, and in the second-which, he said, had for one of its first objects the protection of property - according to the whole number, including slaves.

King had always believed that as the southern States were the richest, they would not join the northern unless that fact was respected. If the North wished to be protected in their greater commercial interests, they must give something in return. Slaves were to be considered in apportioning taxes; and taxation and representation ought to go together.

The number fixed for present representation having been raised by the Convention to sixty-five, and apportioned among the States accordingly, an amendment to the rest of the special report was moved by Randolph to the effect that, to ascertain the changes in the population and wealth of the States, the legislature should be required to cause a census to be taken periodically, and should arrange the representation accordingly.

This was opposed by Gouverneur Morris and by Sherman, as fettering the legislature. Morris said that new States, in time of war or when war was imminent, might take advantage of the power to extort favours. Such provisions in the constitutions of the States had been found pernicious.

1787]

New States in the West

267

The new States from the West would preponderate in the scale; in time they would outnumber the Atlantic States in population. He would give power to the existing States to keep a majority of votes in their own hands.

Mason favoured the motion. There ought to be a revision from time to time. The apportionment of the sixty-five members properly gave a majority to the northern States; but the northern States ought not to outweigh the southern when the reason ceased. Those who had power would not give it up, unless compelled; if the southern States should have hereafter three-fourths of the people of America, the northern States would hold fast the majority of representatives; there would be no relief. The argument of danger from new States was selfishness. If the western States were to be admitted to the Union, they should be treated as equals.

Randolph's motion was now postponed for a substitute offered by Williamson, by which, to ascertain changes in population and wealth, a census should be taken periodically "of the free white inhabitants and three-fifths of those of other descriptions." Gouverneur Morris and Rutledge opposed the substitute on the ground that numbers were no just estimate of wealth; which Madison and Sherman contested. Morris would leave the regulation of representation to the legislature. He held the same opinion he had before expressed in regard to the western country. The West would not be able to furnish men equally enlightened in government with those from the Atlantic States; it was in the busy haunts of men, not in the remote wilderness, that political talents were schooled. If the western people should get power, they would ruin the Atlantic States. As for admitting the blacks into the census, the people of Pennsylvania would not be put upon the footing of slaves. He urged members from the South to put aside distrust; they need have no fear from leaving the adjustment of representation, from time to time, to the discretion of the legislature; duty, honour, and oath would govern. It was best to leave the interests of the people to the people's representatives.

Madison argued that population in America was a just measure of wealth; he would therefore fix the representation rather than leave the question to the legislature. Nor would he make any discrimination against the West. Imports and exports would be the chief source of revenue for the government; and as soon as the Mississippi river (controlled by Spain) was opened, which must happen when the West increased enough in population and ability to share the public burden, imposts on their trade could be collected at less expense and with greater certainty than on that of the Atlantic States. Meantime, as their supplies must pass through the Atlantic States, contributions from the West would be levied like those from the East. He would fix a perpetual standard of representation. It had been said that representation

268

Periodical census.

Slaves

[1787

and taxation were to go together; that taxation and wealth ought to go together; that population and wealth were no measure of each other. He admitted the last statement when applied to different climates with differing forms of government and differing stages of civilisation. He contended that the case was otherwise with the United States. Climate indeed varied; yet as government, laws, and manners were nearly the same, and intercourse was free, population, industry, arts, and labour would constantly tend to equalise themselves. The value of labour might be considered as the principal criterion of wealth and of ability to pay taxes, and would find its level in different places where intercourse was easy and free, with as much certainty as the value of money or anything else.

The Convention agreed to the part of the Williamson motion providing for a periodical census of free inhabitants, and went on to consider the provision for counting the slave population as three to five of the free. This was objected to by certain members from the North, on the ground already mentioned, that it would cause discontent among their people. In the further discussion of this part of the motion, Gorham said that estimates had been made in various towns of Massachusetts, and it had been found, even including Boston, that the most exact proportion prevailed between numbers and property. Wilson had observed a like relation in Pennsylvania; comparing the newer settlements even with Philadelphia, he could find little difference between numbers and wealth.

This part of Williamson's proposition was defeated; and finally the whole was rejected, no State voting for it as it then stood. The Convention was now thrown back upon the motion of Randolph, proposing a periodical census of wealth and population, to which was added a provision, agreed to by all, that "direct taxation ought to be proportioned to representation." Again it was chiefly a question of slavery; and members from the South spoke very plainly. Randolph urged that express security should be provided for including slaves in the representation. He regretted the existence of that kind of property; but it did exist, and the holders of it would require the security he asked for.

A motion to make the blacks equal to the whites in representation received the votes of only two States, South Carolina and Georgia. Finally the Convention adopted, entire, a proposal to apportion representation to direct taxation, the blacks to be as three-fifths of the whites in both particulars, and a census to be required within six years and within every ten years thereafter; six States voting for it, two against it, and two being divided. The South was now willing to strike out the word "wealth," and so moved. Gouverneur Morris, opposing, foresaw a transfer of power, in the plan as it stood, from the North to the South and the interior, in other words from the maritime to the landed interest; and the result would be that commerce would be oppressed.