the free white population of Virginia, in defending them from the only danger they have a right to apprehend to their property.

I have always thought, Mr. Chairman, that in a republican form of Government, so far from giving to wealth political power, the liberty of the citizen required that safe-guards should be provided, to prevent wealth from drawing to itself too great a portion of power. More than one successful conquerer has said, "give me money, and I will conquer the world."

But it is said, that Government is intended to protect property: this is certainly true. But where is this protection to be found? Is it to be found in parchment stipulations in the compact of Government? By giving to property, preponderating political power? By declaring that the minority of the people shall govern the majority, because of their wealth? By placing wealth in a hostile attitude to physical strength? Certainly not. This would truly be "a paper guarantee," which the eloquent gentleman described and rejected the other day, as visionary and delusive; and all his arguments, as to its inefficacy and futility, apply here with full

force.

Sir, the only effectual guarantee, against the abuse of power in a republic, is to bę found, and to be found only, in the virtue and intelligence of the people, in whom all power rests. While virtuous and intelligent, they will do no act of injustice or ra pine. And when they become vicious, and fit for violence and spoil, it is in vain to' attempt to restrain them by compact stipulations. When vice prevails, the republican form of Government cannot exist: it has, in itself, the elements of its dissolution.. Some other form of Government must be resorted to: under which, indeed, the many may be restrained from plundering the few, but where the many will be plundered by the few.

Mr. Chairman, one leading objection to the amendment, which operates powerfully on my mind, is, that we have been deputed here, under a hope, entertained by the ma jority of the people of Virginia, that the very principle recommended by the Committee, may be incorporated in the Constitution. If this hope is disappointed, you will have a lasting cause of discontent. Sir, they will not be satisfied. The Constitution you offer them will be rejected. I do not, indeed, believe, nay, I am confident, that the people of Virginia would not, in such an event, so far as I know them, rise in their majesty, and demand the object of their wishes. I do not believe that there would be any disorderly or revolutionary manifestations of their displeasure. God forbid there should.

If I am mistaken, I pledge myself with my best powers, to prevent or delay any such feelings. But, I am satisfied, they would unceasingly, year after year, crowd the table of this Hall with their memorials and petitions, complaining of their wrongs and demanding redress, until the call of another Convention would be extorted, under a state of fearful excitement. Every gentleman would deprecate such a result. Ought we, then, to infuse into the compact, any principle calculated to lead to such consequences, unless demanded by considerations in themselves irresistible. Let us, then, attentively examine the grounds on which the principle is supported. It is said, that the slave-holding portion of the community fear, that unless this amendment is adopted, their rights and interests in their slaves will be endangered, or abused; that the political power of the State, will, in the hands of the non-slave-holding portion of the community, be used to their oppression. These fears are either well, or ill founded. I think I have shewn, by the aid of the gentleman from Northampton, that if those fears are well founded, that no security is to be found in any paper stipulation on the subject, or by the adoption of the amendment; because these fears presuppose that the people are vicious, corrupt, and dishonest: and if such be the fact, no possible security can be formed, recognizing the right of self-government in the people. But, Sir, depend upon it, there is no ground of such fears, from any calculations I have been able to make. . But, is there not a perfect security to the rights of the slave-holders, if it be a fact, that they will still retain the political power of the State, even upon the basis recommended by the Committee? My friend and colleague in his arguments to this Committee, proved, beyond question, by statistical calculations and facts, that the adoption of the resolution by the Committee, would not transfer the controlling political power to the non-slave-holding portion of the community; but that a majority in the Legislative Department of the Government, would still be left to the slave-holders. If this be true, surely, no gentleman would apprehend, for a moment, that those holding the power, would exercise it to the sacrifice of their own interests. I pray the Committee, to look for a moment, to their statistical tables, and they will find the most conclusive evidence, that the majority of the Legislative body, if the principle of the white basis be adopted, would still remain in the slave-holding portion of the community. Keeping out of view the slave-holding interest, which exists to some extent, in the country beyond the Alleghany, and assuming the eastern base of the Blue Ridge, as the western boundary of the slave-holding population, there it will be found the slave-holding interest predominates. If to this you add the

slave-holding interest in the Valley, you give an overwhelming majority to the slaveholders. The fears of gentlemen must vanish before facts so conclusive, But, Mr. Chairman, we ask the high-minded honorable gentlemen of the east, to remember the charitable rule of judging others by ourselves. It is with unfeigned pleasure, that I bear testimony to the fact, that the slave-holding country of the east, have never done us injustice on the subject of taxation, though it has always been in their power to do so. They have most liberally contributed to the revenue of the State, by taxation on their slaves. Why, then, fear to trust the people of the west, if controlling political power, should devolve upon them? Have we less virtue and honesty? Are we made of different materials? We have not received injustice at your hands; why, then, should you apprehend it at ours?

It is said, that there is a diversity of interests in the different parts of the State, which must be harmonized by compromise. It is hardly possible to conceive a community in which there is not a diversity of interests.

Sir, diversity of interests is always to be protected by wise legislation; and there is no fear that every interest will not be fully and fairly represented in our Legislative body. If there be warring, and conflicting interests, the question would then be, could any Constitutional stipulations or provisions reconcile such interests? But it remains to be proved, that there are warring and conflicting interests within this Commonwealth. I do not admit the fact.

The gentleman from Northampton has asked us, whether we will consent to take all the political power, and bear all the pecuniary burdens? To this inquiry I indignantly answer no. The gentleman would reject such a proposal himself. We will neither buy nor sell political power; we regard it as the unalienable property of the people, which they have not a right to barter away or divest themselves of, either for theinselves, or their posterity.

The gentleman from Orange, has reprobated the idea of giving political power to property alone. I concur with him in his reprobation. But has the gentleman reflected, how far the amendment he advocates, in effect, leads to the same result? He must admit, that the minority of the people ought not to, and cannot, govern the majority; but he contends, that property connected with that minority, ought to govern. What, then, is it that constitutes this right to govern, upon his hypothesis? It is certainly property.

Mr. Chairman, I have done. I have presented my plain views, in my plain way. I am thankful to the Committee for their polite attention, whether it proceeded from courtesy to myself, or from respect to any thing that I have said.

Mr. MORRIS of Hanover, then rose, and addressed the Committee substantially as follows:

After the able discussion this question has undergone, I cannot flatter myselfwith the hope of throwing upon it much additional light. But, as my constituents feel themselves very deeply interested in its decision, I hope to be indulged, while I assign the reasons which will govern my vote upon it. I promise, in so doing, not to detain the Committee long.

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me, that the question, which the gentleman from Frederick (Mr. Powell) has just been discussing, is not the question now before us for consideration. The question we have to decide, is, whether representation in the Legislative branch of our Government, shall be based upon numbers only, or on a combined ratio of population and taxation: from some of the remarks which have fallen from the gentleman from Frederick, he seems to have considered the question to be whether it should be based on all who enjoy the elective franchise, or on all the fighting men in the community. These are not the matters which we are now considering. When they shall be presented to us, if they ever shall be presented, the proper time will arrive to attempt an answer to what he has advanced. The question now before us is a very short one. Shall representation be based on numbers only? Or upon population and taxation combined? The question is short, but in its decision is involv ed much of the happiness or misery of this our ancient Commonwealth. Before I examine it more minutely, let me be allowed to make a remark or two, in reply to some of the observations of gentlemen on the other side of this question.

As the end of all good Government is the protection of property as well as of persons, it is not enough for those gentlemen to prove that their personal rights will be endangered unless representation shall be based upon numbers alone. If they had proved this, which I humbly conceive they have not, still, if we are not assured that our rights of property will be secure under such an arrangement, their observations fall short of the mark; they do not cover the whole ground. Even, if it be true, that they will not be protected in their personal rights, without the introduction of the new clause in the Constitution, yet, if that clause, in its practical effect, goes to lay prostrate our property at their feet, they have not proved to us that the article ought to be inserted.

Their argument might, indeed, shew us, that it will be right to propose to the people of Virginia tico Constitutions instead of one; or else that some middle principle must be resorted to, which shall protect both persons and property; but if no mode can be found, of giving protection to both; if the incongruity between the two interests really be so great, that either one or the other must be sacrificed, I agree that the Convention should provide two different Constitutions. I earnestly hope, however, that no such necessity will be found to exist. I hope it will appear, that we may, at the same time, be able to secure to the west the enjoyment of their personal rights; and to the east, the safe possession of their property. I hope this, as a Virginian: for I feel my pride interested in keeping the lines of the State as they exist at present. Sorry should I be, to run a new line across the whole of our ancient territory; nor can I ever agree to such a measure, unless it shall be found necessary for the protection of the personal rights of one portion of the State, and the property of the other. I deprecate the existence of such a necessity. Whether gentlemen on the other side of the question, by the uncompromising perseverance with which they insist on carrying all the points they have in view, shall bring us to this necessity, I will not even allow myself to consider.

Let us see, Sir, whether there be any thing in representative Government, which so imperiously requires the insertion of this clause; whether it be indispensable for the preservation of a Republican Government, that representation in the Legislative Department shall be bottomed upon numbers only. If this principle be true, and our conflicting interests be, indeed, so irreconcileable, as some gentlemen seem to suppose, I know not, I confess, to what consequences it may lead. But whatever may be the basis, upon which representation is made to rest, I am satisfied that we must have a Republican Government. Our people are not only capable of enjoying that form of Government, and desire to have it, but we cannot make for them any other. Because there is another Government, of which we are also members, which has guaranteed to every State within its operation, a republican form.

But is it necessary that such a Government shall be based upon numbers only? When this debate commenced, it seemed that the principal source of argument was drawn from an inherent, independent, a priori right by which a numerical majority were entitled to govern: such a right was urged upon us with great earnestness at first; but since the able and convincing address of the gentleman from Northampton (Mr. Upshur) it appears to have been nearly, if not quite abandoned: and now the position we are left to combat, is, that this right of the majority is a Conventional right; that it exists by the agreement of our ancestors, and, therefore, ought to prevail. They derive the proof in support of this position from the Bill of Rights, and the general principles there laid down; and without paying the least regard to the specifications in the Constitution itself, they insist that the general positions in the Bill of Rights ought to be received as giving the universal rule for all free Governments. And really, Sir, were we to look at the language of that instrument and to look no further, there might seem to be much force in their argument. But it is an established rule of interpretation, that in order to get at the true meaning of any instrument, you are not to look at one of its parts only, separately and apart from the residue, but you are to take the whole record, and compare one part with another, and thus judge of the connected meaning of the whole. If that rule is pursued here, we shall be obliged to concede that the venerable men who were the authors, both of the Bill of Rights, and of the Constitution of the State, were in the former stating general principles only: they were laying the foundation, not building the superstructure; and when they did afterwards build it, built on no such interpretation of the first instrument as is now contended for. The reason gentlemen give for this, is a very strange one. They tell us that those illustrious men were too much hurried; the roar of hostile cannon was too audible, and their place of meeting was too near a ruthless enemy, to make their work what it would otherwise have been. They, therefore, could not carry out the principles they had laid down in the Bill of Rights, in the subsequent structure of the Constitution. It does not seem to have occurred to gentlemen, that if the near neighborhood of the enemy, and the roar of hostile cannon, and the dangers and alarms of a state of war, operated with so much force upon their minds, when they were drawing up the articles of the Constitution, the same circumstances may reasonably be supposed to have operated with equal force when they were drawing up the articles of the Bill of Rights. If they were in too great a hurry to carry out general principles in the Constitution, we may as well suppose they were in too great a hurry to limit those principles, when they laid them down in the Bill of Rights. If we must conclude, that they would have made the one of these instruments very different from what it is, if they had had more time for deliberation, why is it not as fair, to draw the same conclusion with respect to the other? But, Sir, is the fact so? was the Constitution drawn up in all this haste? Were those wise men, after laying the foundation of the house on one plan, obliged to build the house itself on another? I am sure the gentlemen believe what they have stated to be strictly true, but noth

:

ing is more certain than that they are entirely mistaken. Sir, there are men now living, I was almost ready to say, there are men here present, who could inform this Committee, that every article in that Constitution was duly and diligently considered; aye, Sir, was debated, inch by inch. But I will not appeal to the living. I will ap peal to the testimony of one of the most distinguished statesmen, whom this State or this country ever produced, but who is now no more. I could support by his testimony a multitude of facts on this subject, all going to verify the assertion I have made. I refer to Mr. Jefferson, who has left conclusive evidence to shew, that nothing like haste, nothing at all of the hurry supposed by gentlemen to have thrown the Constitution into its present form, had any existence. He says expressly, that that instrument was discussed, paragraph by paragraph, and disputed inch by inch: that the debate was protracted so as to produce weariness, and that in consequence of this weariness, a "projet" of his own, which he forwarded to a member of the Convention, was not submitted to its consideration, and, of course, not adopted, whilst its preamble was. I think, therefore, that those who are driven to contend, that while the Bill of Rights was drawn up with the utmost coolness and deliberation, the Constitution was hurried over amidst the roar of cannon, and from fear of the enemy, are mistaken in their facts: the evidence is all against them and I am persuaded that they themselves, if they consult again the history of that time, will acknowledge that they have been in error. Let the consideration have its due weight, that both these instruments were drawn up by the same men, and at the same time; and that, in the exercise of the same wisdom, and with the same deliberation and care, they laid down, first, the principles, and then the form of a Government for Virginia. Apply, then, to these two valuable legacies of our forefathers, the principles of interpretation I have before mentioned. Do not take up one half the instrument, and say it means thus, and thus; but put both the parts together: They were both fashioned by the same hand: let all the strings sound, and then, if I mistake not, we shall be led to a different conclusion. If the framers of these two instruments understood themselves, and if on comparing the one with the other, it shall appear that the meaning of the Bill of Rights is not such as, taken alone, it might seem to bear; we must give effect to the provisions of the whole, so far as we can. For example, take the language of the Bill of Rights on the subject of the right of suffrage. Then take up the Constitution, and ask what it has enacted on the same subject? and see if there be any thing like contradiction between them. The Bill of Rights declares, that all persons" having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community," shall be entitled to vote. The question to be settled is, what is the true meaning of this declaration? Some gentlemen reply, that the fact of having been born within the State, furnishes all the evidence required; others tell us that a residence of two years is sufficient evidence; others require a residence of five years; and almost every gentleman has some qualification of his own. But do the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights tell us any such thing? No, Sir; they say that the evidence they considered sufficient, is a FREEHOLD.

Do gentlemen tell me that here is a contradiction? Why, Sir, take the general principle in its abstract form; and you might argue from it till you bring us at length to universal suffrage. But take the naked principle, and view it in connection with the Constitution, and there you find, that freeholders, and freeholders only, were in the contemplation of those who laid down the principle. The one gives the interpretation of the other. The general principle, is in the Bill of Rights. The limitation is in the Constitution. The same remark is true, as applied to every other article. Let us apply the same mode of interpretation to the third article of the Bill of Rights.

The gentlemen say that all free white citizens in the State, are to be numbered, and that a majority of that number have the right to rescind, alter or new model the Constitution as they please; that they are to have the law-making power; in short, that they are to have all the power of the State: and we might have supposed that the framers of the Bill of Rights thought so too, had they not left on record a provision to the contrary. When they come to make the Constitution and ordain the law-making power, they limit the general principle laid down in the third article of the Bill of Rights, and confide that power, not to the free white people, but to the freeholders in the several counties.

Here, Sir, you find that they intended, not a majority of the free white male citizens merely, but a majority of citizens, capable of affording sufficient pledges that they would not abuse the authority entrusted to them. This is the majority to which they looked, and here is the limitation of the principle in the Bill of Rights. Let the gentlemen themselves say, if this comparison does not give the true interpre

tation.

It was said by the gentleman from Brooke, (Mr. Doddridge) that the Constitution has recognized no principle, by which slave-holders are to be protected.

[Here Mr. Doddridge explained. What he had said was, that the Constitution recognizes no such principle, as representation in virtue of property.]

Mr. Morris resumed. He had not misunderstood the gentleman; but would now undertake to shew that he was mistaken. It is true, said he, that the word "slave," is not mentioned either in the Bill of Rights or in the Constitution: neither do we ask that it should be inserted now. But when, in 1776, Virginia gave the control of her Government to freeholders, she granted it to slave-holders: nor could she have given to the latter a more effectual guarantee. The freeholder was himself a slaveholder. Was it necessary, expressly to say, that this was done for the protection of property? Sir, we infer it from the act. Virginia by her act, granted the power of the State, to men who held the very property, we desire to secure. And now let the gentleman from Brooke, give to the slave-holders the same power which was confided to them by the Constitution of '76, and so far as this subject is concerned, I am willing to adopt his proposition immediately.

It was said by my friend from Chesterfield, that this principle of basing representation upon numbers alone, is new: and I concur with him in that sentiment. The principle is not to be found in the existing Constitution: that instrument confides the power, not to a majority of free whites, but to a majority of freeholders. My friend did not say, that no such claims as are now advanced, had ever been made before. He was well aware of the abortive efforts, of which the gentleman from Brooke, has favored the Committee with an account: he knew perfectly well, that this doctrine had been asserted at Staunton twelve or fifteen years ago; but he thought, as I do also, that the memorial from Staunton, and the abortive efforts in the Legislature, had not affixed this new principle to the Constitution; a principle so different from those laid down by our forefathers in 1776, and which are calculated to protect, not only personal rights, but the rights of property also. The principle of a majority of mere numbers, was not only, not the basis of the existing Constitution, but it had been expressly and most solemnly declared, on various occasions, that it is unsafe to lay the ba sis of representation in any such principle. Such a declaration was the ground of the provision in relation to slaves, which is contained in the Federal Constitution; a provision, not which we yielded, but on which we ourselves insisted. Virginia, before she entered the confederacy, insisted that her representation in that confederacy should not be according to the numbers of her white population alone. And who, Sir, were the men that thus contended in the memorable Convention which framed the Federal Constitution? Some of those very men who framed our own State Constitution, and drew up the Bill of Rights. Yes, Sir, the very men, who laid down the abstract principles, from which gentlemen attempt to maintain the doctrine of a white basis exclusively, insisted that our Federal representation should be compounded of property as well as numbers. We did not acquiesce in the principle: We demanded the principle. We demanded it as a protection for all this great southern country, which was then filled with slaves. Protection against whom? against enemies? dishonest and rapacious ? and who would be tempted by interest to depredation and rapine? No, Sir, against men, just as kind-hearted, just as upright, just as honorable, just as generous, as are our brethren now: Against men who had shed their blood in our common struggle for independence; men, who had lain with us side by side in the camp, and stood with us, side by side in the battle, not ten years before. And why, Sir? Why did we demand such a pledge? Because we held it necessary to our protection. Not that we suspected their motives; not that we imputed to them wickedness; but because we knew then, as all men know now, that unless property is protected, it will be invaded. Virginia stood in relation to the Union at that day, as we now stand towards our brethren of the west. And will our brethren deny, what our sister States of the Union granted? I do not deny, that other considerations entered into the Federal Compact, besides the mere distribution of power. Union was a most important object; so important, that almost any thing was to be sacrificed for the sake of attaining it: yet, notwithstanding the importance of union, and the earnest, anxious desire for it, which was felt by Virginia, she, nevertheless, insisted upon this point as a sine qua non : Unless that was inserted in the Federal Constitution, Virginia would not take that Constitution.

Sir, we are called upon now, when placed in like circumstances, to give up the great principle for which they thus contended; and can it be said that we have fewer motives to insist upon it than they had? If such is the fact, let it be shewn: but if not, as it is not, what apology can we make to posterity? Let Virginia give up this principle and what will be said? Will it not be said, that the great southern State, has given up the great southern doctrine for which she contended in 1789? And, when the decision of that question shall be agitated in the Federal Government, how shall we stand? "Virginia the great southern State, has given up the point. It is vain for the rest of the south, to attempt to maintain it." But, Sir, there is a necessity for our maintaining it. You have been told by the gentleman from Northampton, that one eleventh part of our power in the Federal Government, is derived from this princi