writers, foreigners and others, who had treated of the defects of our confederation, and proposed alterations, none had proposed an alteration in this purt of the system : And members of the convention, both in and out of congress, who advocated the equality of suffrage, called upon their opponents both in and out of congress, and challenged them to produce one single instance where a bad measure had been adopted, or a good measure had failed of adoption in consequence of the states having an equal vote; on the contrary, they urged, that all our evils flowed from the want of power in the federal head, and that let the right of suffrage in the states be altered in any manner whatever, if no greater powers were given to the government, the same inconveniencies would continue.

It was denied that the equality of suffrage was originally agreed to on principles of necessity or expediency, on the contrary, that it was adopted on the principles of the rights of men and the rights of states, which were then well known, and which then influenced our conduct although now they seem to be forgotten-For this the journals of congress were appealed to; it was from them shewn, that when the committee of congress reported to that body the articles of confederation, the very first article which became the subject of discussion, was that respecting equality of suffrage-That Virginia proposed divers modes of suffrage, all on the principle of inequality, which were almost unanimously rejected; that on the question for adopting the article, it passed, Virginia being the only state which voted in the negative-That after the articles of confederation, were submitted to the states by them to be ratified, almost every state proposed certain amendments, which they instructed their delegates to endeavor to obtain before ratification, and that among all the amendments proposed, not one state, not even Virginia, proposed an amendment of that article, securing the equality of suffrage-the most convincing proof it was

agreed to and adopted, not from necessity, but upon a full conviction, that according to the principles of free government, the states bad a right to that equality of suffrage.

But, sir, it was to no purpose that the futility of their objections were shewn-when driven from the pretence that the equality of suffrage had been originally agreed to on principles of expediency and necessity, the representatives of the large states persisting in a declaration, that they would never agree to admit the smaller states to an equality of suffrage-In answer to this, they were informed, and informed in terms the most strong and energetic that could possibly be used, that we never would agree to a system giving them the undue influence and superiority they proposed That we would risque every possible consequence-That from anarchy and confusion order might arise―That slavery was the worst that could ensue, and we considered the system proposed to be the most complete, most abject system of slavery that the wit of man ever devised, under the pretence of forming a government for free states-That we never would submit tamely and servilely to a present certain evil in dread of a future, which might be imaginary; that we were sensible the eyes of our country and the world were upon us-That we would not labor under the imputation of being unwilling to form a strong and energetic federal government; but we would publish the system which we approved, and also that which we opposed, and leave it to our country and the world at large to judge between us, who best understood the rights of free men and free states, and who best advocated them; and to the same tribunal we would submit, who ought to be answerable for all the consequences which might arise to the union from the convention breaking up, without proposing any system to their constituents.-During this debate we were threatened, that if we did not agree to the system proposed, we never should have an opportunity of meeting in convention

to deliberate on another, and this was frequently urgedIn answer, we called upon them to shew what was to prevent it, and from what quarter was our danger to proceed; was it from a foreign enemy? Our distance from Europe, and the political situation of that country, left us but little to fear: Was there any ambitious state or states, who in violation of every sacred obligation was preparing to enslave the other states, and raise itself to consequence on the ruin of the others? Or was there any such ambitious individual? We did not apprehend it to be the case but suppose it to be true, it rendered it the more necessary that we should sacredly guard against a system which might enable all those ambitious views to be carried into effect, even under the sanction of the constitution and government: In fixe, sir, all these threats were treated with contempt, and they were told that we apprehended but one reason to prevent the states meeting again in convention; that when they discovered the part this convention had acted, and how much its members were abusing the trust reposed in them, the states would never trust another convention. At length, sir, after every argument had been exhausted by the advocates of equality of representation, the question was called, when a majority decided in favor of the inequality. Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, NorthCarolina, South-Carolina and Georgia voting for itConnecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, and Delaware against it; Maryland divided. It may be thought surprising, sir, that Georgia, a state now small and comparatively trifling in the union, should advocate this system of unequal representation, giving up her present equality in the federal government, and sinking herself al most to total insignificance in the scale; but, sir, it must be considered that Georgia has the most extensive territory in the union, being larger than the whole island of Great Britain, and thirty times as large as Connecticut.

This system being designed to preserve to the states their whole territory unbroken, and to prevent the erection of new states within the territory of any of them: Georgia looked forward when her population being increased in some measure proportioned to her territory, she should rise in the scale and give law to the other states, and hence we found the delegation of Georgia warmly advocating the proposition of giving the states unequal representation. Next day the question came on with respect to the inequality of representation in the second branch, but little debate took place; the subject had been exhausted on the former question. On the votes being taken, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North-Carolina, and South-Carolina, voted for the inequality. Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Delaware and Maryland* were in the negative. Georgia had only two representatives on the floor, one of whom (not I believe because he was against the measure, but from a conviction that we would go home, and thereby dissolve the convention before we would give up the question) voted also in the negative, by which that state was divided. Thus, sir, on this great and important part of the system, the convention being equally divided, five states for the measure, five against, and one divided, there was a total stand, and we did not seem very likely to proceed any further. At length it was proposed, that a select committee should be ballotted for, composed of a member from each state, which committee should endeavor to devise some mode of conciliation or compromise; I had the honor to be on that committee; we met and discussed the subject of difference; the one side insisted on the inequality of suffrage in both branches, the

*On this question, Mr. Martin was the only delegate for Maryland present, which cir cumstance secured the state a negative. Immediately after the question had been taken, and the president had declared the votes, Mr. Jenifer came into the convention, when Mr. King, from Massachusetts, valuing himself on Mr. Jenifer to divide the state of Maryland on this question, as he had on the former, requested of the president that the question might be put again-however, the motion was too extraordinary its nature to meet with success.

other insisted on the equality in both; each party was tenacious of their sentiments, when it was found that nothing could induce us to yield the inequality in both branches; they at length proposed by way of compromise, if we would accede to their wishes as to the first branch, they would agree to the equal representation in the second. To this it was answered, that there was no merit in the proposal, it was only consenting, after they had struggled to put both their feet on our necks, to take one of them off, provided we would consent to let them keep the other on, when they knew at the same time, that they could not put one foot on our necks, unless we would consent to it, and that by being permitted to keep on that one foot, they should afterwards be able to place the other foot on whenever they pleased.

They were also called on to inform us what security they could give us should we agree to this compromise, that they would abide by the plan of government formed upon it, any longer than it suited their interests, or they found it expedient.—“The states have a right to an equality of representation. This is secured to us by our present articles of confederation, we are in possession of this right; it is now to be torn from us. What security can you give us, that, when you get the power the proposed system will give you, when you have men and money, that you will not force from the states that equality of suffrage in the second branch, which you now deny to be their right, and only give up from absolute necessity? Will you tell us we ought to trust you because you now enter into a solemn compact with us? This you have done before, and now treat with the utmost contempt. Will you now make an appeal to the Supreme Being, and call on him to guarantee your observance of this compact? The same you have formerly done for your observance of the articles of confederation, which you are now violating in the most wanton manner!

E