Imagens das páginas

that this might always be obtained, and was the best mode with one exception only. He observed that “negroes are property, and as such could not be distinguished from the lands or personalties held in those States where there are few slaves; that the surplus of profit which a northern farmer is able to lay by he invests in cattle, horses, &c., whereas a southern farmer lays out the same surplus in slaves; that there was no more reason, therefore, for taxing the Southern States on the farmer's head and on his slave's head, than the Northern ones on their farmers' heads and the heads of cattle; that the mode proposed would therefore tax the Southern States according to their numbers and their wealth conjunctly, while the Northern would be taxed on numbers only; that negroes in fact should not be considered as members of the State more than cattle, and that they have no more interest in it.” Fellow-citizens, please bear in mind that you have here, very fully stated, the slave-holding view of the relation of slaves to the State, showing, conclusively, that they are not represented, and form no part of the basis of an apportionment of representation, unless the basis adopted be property. It does not follow, however, that they are not, as property, just subjects of taxation. Mr. John Adams observed that the numbers of people were taken by the article as an index of the wealth of the State, and not as subjects of taxation; — that five hundred freemen produced no greater surplus for the payment of taxes than five hundred slaves; — therefore the State in which are the laborers called freemen should be taxed no more than that in which are those called slaves. Mr. Harrison proposed, as a compromise, that two slaves

[ocr errors]

should be counted as one freeman. He affirmed that slaves did
not do as much work as freemen, and doubted if two effected
more than one.
Mr. Wilson said that other kinds of property were pretty
equally distributed through all the Colonies; there were as
many cattle, horses, and sheep in the North as the South,
and South as the North, but not so as to slaves; that expe-
rience has shown that those Colonies have been always able
to pay most which have the most inhabitants, whether they
be black or white; and the practice of the Southern Colonies
has always been to make every farmer pay poll-taxes on his
laborers, whether they be black or white. He acknowledged
that freemen worked the most, but they consumed the most
also, and did not produce a greater surplus for taxation.
The slave was neither fed nor clothed so expensively as a
Dr. Witherspoon was of opinion that the value of lands
and houses was the best estimate of the wealth of a nation,
and that it was practicable to obtain such a valuation. He
said the cases stated by Mr. Wilson were not parallel; that
in the Southern Colonies slaves pervade the whole Colony;
but they do not pervade the whole continent; and that the
Original resolution of Congress to proportion the quotas ac-
cording to souls, was temporary only, and related to the
moneys before emitted; whereas they were then entering
into a new compact, and stood on original ground.
The amendment of Mr. Chase was rejected, five States
for, six against it, and one divided.
The rule suggested by Dr. Witherspoon was afterwards
substituted for that reported by the Committee, but the final
ratification of the articles did not take place until March,
1781. In the mean time, Congress apportioned various sums


to be raised by each State, with a proviso that the sums required should not be considered the proportion of any one State, but should be placed to their credit, and interest allowed until the quota should be finally adjusted by Congress, agreeably to the rule inserted in the articles of Confederation. This rule was found to be impracticable. In 1778 Congress required the States to make a return of the houses and lands. New Hampshire alone complied; and in 1783 Congress adopted a new article on the subject, to be proposed to the States, providing that the quotas of the several States should be supplied “in proportion to the whole number of white and other free citizens and inhabitants of every age, sex, and condition, including those bound to servitude for a term of years, and three fifths of all other persons not comprehended in the foregoing description, except Indians not paying taxes in each State.” Eleven States had assented to the change at the time of the formation of the Constitution, and we have here substantially the provision which was afterwards inserted in that instrument as the basis of representation, as well as of taxation. In an address to the States, recommending the adoption of this and other articles of amendment, it was said that the only material difficulty which attended the change of the rule, in the deliberation of Congress, was to fix the proper difference between the labor and industry of free inhabitants and all other inhabitants; and that the ratio ultimately agreed on was the effect of mutual concession. The concession seems to have been in rating the value of the labor of five slaves, the same as that of three freemen; not quite two to one, according to Mr. Harrison's proposition. The inquiry naturally arises, why three fifths of the slaves, which had been introduced into the basis of taxation because slaves were taken as an index of the wealth and ability of the masters to contribute and pay, should also be made the basis of a representation founded on population, when they are not represented, and have no part or lot in that matter? The answer is, that this was the result of another compromise, The mode to be adopted in voting under the Confederation was the subject of great debate in Congress. The article adopted was in these words: “In determining questions in the United States in Congress assembled, each State shall have one vote.” The larger States contended strenuOusly for a representation according to numbers. Mr. Wilson thought that taxation should be in proportion to wealth, but that representation should accord with the number of freemen; that government is a collection of the wills of all; that if any government could speak the will of all, it would be perfect; and that so far as it departs from this, it becomes imperfect. But the small States carried their point. In the Convention for the formation of the Constitution, the different subjects were first discussed on resolutions; afterwards on reports of Committees to which different propositions were referred; and then upon a draft of a Constitution reported by the Committee of Detail. In this mode, and in incidental discussions when other parts of the Constitution were under consideration, the subject of representation was many times before the Convention, and in different connections. The plan of a National Government introduced by Mr. Randolph of Virginia, with the concurrence of his colleagues, asserted that the right of suffrage ought to be proportioned to the quotas of contribution, or to the number of free inhabitants, as the one or the other rule might seem best in different cases. On taking it up for consideration in Committee, after propositions to amend so as to adopt the one or the other of those modes, Mr. Madison moved that an equitable ratio ought to be substituted for the equality established by the articles of Confederation; but the matter was postponed on the suggestion that the Deputies from Delaware were restrained by their commission from assenting to any change. It was feared “that the large States would crush the small ones whenever they stand in the way of their ambitious views.” It was suggested, in answer, that all the existing boundaries might be erased, and a new partition of the whole be made into thirteen equal parts. Mr. Sherman proposed, that the proportion of suffrage in the first branch should be according to the respective numbers of free inhabitants, and that in the second branch, or Senate, each State should have one vote. Dr. Franklin thought, that the numbers of representatives should bear some proportion to the represented, although he proposed proportionate supplies and an equal number of delegates from each State, the decisions to be by a majority of votes. Quotas of contribution and actual contributions of the States were proposed, and the debate was terminated at that time by the adoption in Committee of the proportion substantially as it stands at present in the Constitution; that “being the rule in the Act of Congress, agreed to by eleven States for apportioning quotas of revenue on the States.” Mr. Gerry thought property not the rule of representation. Why, then, should the blacks, who were property in the South, be

« AnteriorContinuar »