THE QUESTION OF TAXATION AND REPRESENTATION.

came necessary to decide whether the slaves should be counted as persons, and in the proportion of the threefifths in the census for the future apportionment

of representatives among the States. Massachusetts and Pennsylvania split with Virginia on this proposition, and it was decided to be unfair to place the slave in the same category with the freeman for purposes of representation when he had no voice in the appointment of the representative. This proposition was lost by a vote of six States (Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and South Carolina) to four (Connecticut, Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia), and so Williamson's whole substitute numerical representation in place of a combination of numbers and wealth was lost.*

In endeavoring to apply the combined rule of numbers and wealth, an old and important doctrine was brought into view that "taxation and representation ought to go together." Gouverneur Morris said that if the legislatures were empowered to vary the representation according to the principle of wealth and numbers, a proviso should be added that" taxation shall be in proportion to representation," + or in other words, if the South should in

stitutional History, vol. i., p. 410; Hunt, Madison's Journal, vol. i., p. 338.

* Curtis, Constitutional History, vol. i., p. 411; Hunt, Madison's Journal, vol. i., p. 340.

Hunt's ed. of Madison's Writings, vol. iii., p 409; Hunt, Madison's Journal, vol. i., p. 341.

471

sist upon counting in her slaves as a basis of representation because they created wealth, they should be willing to pay taxes accordingly. Mason, however, pointed out that customs duties and similar levies could not be proportioned thus and Congress might be compelled to resort to requisitions. The resolution was therefore changed so that it applied to direct taxation alone.* Davie of North Carolina then entered the lists with a threat that North Carolina would never enter the Union unless three-fifths of her slaves were counted.†

Wilson thereupon proposed an arrangement to compromise the matter, which consisted first in affirming that representation ought to be proportioned according to direct taxation; second, that a periodical census of the free inhabitants and three-fifths of all other other persons should be taken; and third, that this census should constitute the basis for direct taxation. This proposition was adopted, July 12, by a vote of six States (Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia) to two (New Jersey and Delaware) with Massachusetts and South Carolina divided. While Wilson accepted this result because

Elliot, Debates, vol. i., p. 202; Hunt's el. of
Madison's Writings, vol. iii., p. 411.

Hunt, Madison's Journal, vol. i., p. 342.
Ibid, p. 345.

|| Elliot, Debates, vol. i., pp. 202–203; Thorpe,
Story of the Constitution, pp. 131-132; Curtis,
Constitutional History, vol. i., pp. 416-418;
Hunt, Madison's Journal, vol. i., p. 347.

472

EQUAL REPRESENTATION IN SENATE; OTHER MATTERS.

of the "necessity of compromise," he said that if the slaves were admitted as citizens, why were they not admitted" on an equality with the white citizens? are they admitted as property? then why is not other property admitted into the computation?'**

Representation in the Senate (or the second branch) was then taken under consideration. Randolph, Madison, King, and Wilson opposed an equality of votes on the ground that the government was to act upon the people and not upon the States, and that therefore the people and not the States should be represented in every branch of the government. Despite their opposition, however, equality of votes in the Senate was adopted, July 16, by a majority of the States present, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and North Carolina (Mr. Straight no) voting in the affirmative, and Pennsylvania, Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia in the negative, while Massachusetts was divided (Gerry and Strong in the affirmative and King and Gorham in the negative).† The New York delegates were absent, Yates and Lansing having gone home, while Hamilton was absent on personal business. large State men were loath to admit defeat, and even the next morning after the vote had been taken, they held a caucus to determine whether

The

*Hunt's ed. of Madison's Writings, vol. iii., p. 407.

Hunt, Madison's Journal, vol. i., pp. 364–365.
Curtis, Constitutional History, vol. i., p. 418.

they should acquiesce in the verdict, or, relying on the justice of the cause, persist in opposing the measure and frame a constitution of their own. But no conclusion as to the proper course of action was reached at this meeting, and the work of the Convention went on as usual.*

The other matters contained in the report of the committee were now rapidly agreed upon. It was determined that the legislative acts and treaties of the United States should be the supreme law of the land and binding upon the judiciaries of the several States. It had already been determined that the executive should be a single person, chosen for seven years by the national legislature, ineligible for a second term; that he should have power to carry into execution the national laws, to appoint officers not otherwise provided for; that he should be removable on impeachment and should be paid by a fixed stipend out of the national treasury. A debate again sprang up regarding the manner of electing the President and his term of office, as it was felt that he might become the tool of the legislature if chosen by that body. It was originally proposed to limit him to one term‡ but this was seen to operate both ways,

* McLaughlin, The Confederation and the Constitution, p. 239; Curtis, Constitutional History, vol. i., pp. 418-419; Hunt, Madison's Journal, vol. i., pp. 369-370.

† Hunt, Madison's Journal, vol. i., pp. 108, 374375, vol. ii., p. 3.

THE PRESIDENT'S TERM AND MANNER OF ELECTION. 473

for if a good executive were elected,
the desire would be general to retain
him in office, whereas, on the other
hand, a bad executive could easily be
rejected. Ineligibility was then
stricken out. As the right of suffrage
was differently regulated in the dif-
ferent States, it was seen that a popu-
lar election would not do. Wilson
said: "he was almost unwilling to de-
clare the mode which he wished to
take place, being apprehensive that it
might appear chimerical. He would
say, however, at least, that in theory
he was for an election by the people.
Experience, particularly in New York
and Massachusetts, showed that an
election of the first magistrate by the
people at large was both a convenient
and successful mode. The objects of
choice in such cases must be persons
whose merits have general noto-
general noto-
riety."*
Sherman, Strong, Mason,
and Rutledge favored election by the
legislature, while Gouverneur Morris,
Gerry, Madison, and Wasnington dis-
approved of this. Mason said that
"to refer the choice of a proper char-
acter for the chief magistrate to the
people would be as unnatural as to
refer a trial of colors to a blind
man." On July 19 Gerry said: "If
the Executive is to be elected by the
Legislature, he certainly ought not to
be ineligible. This would make him
absolutely dependent." But he said
he was against popular elections.

* Ibid, pp. 53-54; also pp. 375-376.
Fiske, Critical Period, p. 279; Hunt, Madi-
son's Journal, vol. i., p. 377.

"The people are uninformed and would be misled by a few designing men. * * * The popular mode of electing the chief magistrate would certainly be the worst of all. If he should be so elected and should do his duty, he would be turned out for it like Governor Bowdoin in Massachusetts and President Sullivan in New Hampshire." * To obviate these difficulties it was then proposed by Ellsworth and King to appoint electors in each State who should vote for the President in accordance with the mandates of the people at popular elections, but it was said that the candidate might corrupt these electors, and on July 26, after much argument, the original term of seven years with ineligibility was decided upon and sent to the committee of detail.+ New Hampshire, Connecticut, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia voted in the affirmative and Pennsylvania and Delaware in the negative. Massachusetts was not on the floor and Virginia was divided, Blair and Mason voting in the affirmative, while Washington and Madison voted in the negative.

It was decided that "a republican form of government shall be guaranteed to each State and that each State shall be protected against foreign and domestic violence"; that in the na

Ibid, vol. ii., p. 7. See also his speech of July 25, in ibid, pp. 54-55.

Curtis, Constitutional History, vol. i., pp. 422-426; Hunt, Madison's Journal, vol. i., p. 378 et seq., vol. ii., pp. 8 et seq., 40, 47, 48-59, gives the votes on the various clauses.

ARTICLES REFERRED TO COMMITTEE OF DETAIL.

RESOLUTIONS REFERRED TO COMMITTEE.