« PreviousContinue »
oat pay, and we will have an honest and conservative branch.
Mr. Madison opposed the committee. It was discussed at length, and on the question, nine States voted Aye. New Jersey and Delaware voted No.
The committee was elected by ballot, and was composed of Messrs. Gerry, Ellsworth, Yates, Patterson, Dr. Franklin, Bedford, Martin, Mason, Davie, Rutledge and Baldwin. To give the committee time to deliberate, the Convention adjourned till Thursday the 5th.
July 5. Mr. Gerry, from the committee appointed on Monday last, made the following report:
1. That in the first branch each State shall be allowed one member for every forty thonsand inhabitants, counting all free persons and three-fifths of the slaves, and that all money bills, or bills fixing salaries of public officers, shall originate in the first branch, and shall not be altered or amended by the second branch.
2. That in the second branch each State shall have an equal vote.
[Note.--This report was considered as a compromise between the large and small States. The large States were apprehensive that by allowing the small ones an equal representation in the Senate, they might, by combination, vote undue burdens upon them in the way of appropriations of the public money. Hence, the arrangement that money bills shall originate in the House where the representation is in accordance with the ratio of inhabitants, thus protecting the large States in that branch, while the small States find their protection in the Senate, where they have an eqnal representation. How admirable the arrangement! How beautifully ordered by our fathers for the protection of the rights of the whole Union, is this model constitutionthe perfection of governmental excellence—the sum total of the wisdom of ages in the science of self-government! This report was founded on a motion made, in the committee, by Dr. Franklin.]
Mr. Madison did not consider the concession of the small States that the House should originate all money bills as of much moment. He said the senators could get the members of the House to adopt their notions by handing them amendments, and thus avoid the check that this clause was designed to afford. He thought we should form a government on just principles, and the small States would find it to their interest to adopt it.
A long debate ensued, participated in by Messrs. Morris, Bedford, Ellsworth, Mason, Rutledge and others, and without the question the Convention adjourned.
July 6. Mr. Morris moved to commit so much of the report as relates to one member to every forty thousand inhabitants to a committee of five, which was agreed to.
The clause relating to an equality of votes in the Senate being under consideration, it was postponed, and the clause relating to money bills taken up. After some discussion it was agreed to.
July 7. The clause allowing each State one vote in the Senate being up, after a long and zealons discussion, it was postponed until the committee of five, on the number of members in the first branch, should report.
July 9. Daniel Carroll, of Maryland, took his seat.
Mr. Morris, from the committee of five, reported that the House should at first consist of forty-six members. New Hampshire, two; Massachusetts, seven ; Rhode Island, one; Connecticut, four; New York, five; New Jersey, three ; Pennsylvania, eight; Delaware, one; Maryland, four; Virginia, nine; North Carolina, five; South Carolina, five; Georgia, two; and that Congress should alter the number from time to time, as it should think proper.
Mr. Patterson thought the proposed estimate for the future too vague. He could regard negro slaves in no
light but property. They were not represented in the State governments, and hence should not be in the national government.
Mr. Madison suggested as a compromise, that in the House the representation should be according to the namber of free inhabitants ; that the Senate was designed, in one respect, to be the guardian of property, and that branch should represent slaves and all. After some further discussion, the first clause of the report was referred to a committee of one from each State.
July 10. Mr. King, from the committee appointoyesterday, reported that the House should consist of sixtyfive members. After a long and animated discussion the report was adopted. South Carolina and Georgia alone voting No.
July 11. Mr. Randolph's motion, requiring a census to be taken in order to correct inequalities in representation, was taken up.
Mr. Butler and Gen. Pinckney insisted that blacks should have an equal representation with the whites, and therefore moved that “three-fifths” be struck out.
Mr. Gerry, and Mr. Gorbam, favored three-fifths.
Mr. Butler, said the labor of a slave in South Carolina, was as valuable as that of a freeman in Massachussets. Free negroes in the North, have an equal representation with the whites. So should the slaves of the South have.
Mr. Williamson, said that the Eastern States contended for the equality of blacks where taxation was in view, they ought then to be willing to allow an equal representation.
On the question, Mr. Butler's motion was lost, only Delaware, South Carolina, and Georgia, voting Aye.
Mr. Morris, said that if slaves were to be considered as inhabitants, not as wealth, then there would be no use for a census, so far as they were concerned ; if simply as wealth, then why not other wealth be included ?
Mr. Sherman, was in favor of leaving the whole matter to the discretion of the legislature.
Mr. Morris, said that the people of Pennsylvania would revolt at the idea of being placed on a level with slaves in representation. They would reject any plan in which slaves were included in the census.
On the question of taking a census of free inhabitants, it passed in the affirmative.
The next clause, as to three-fifths of the negroes, being considered, Mr. King opposed the clause. He thought the admission of blacks in the representation would excite great discontents among the people.
Mr. Gorham, of Massachusetts, favored the three-fifths rule.
Mr. Wilson, of Pennsylvania, said if negroes were property, why not represent other property ?—if they were citizens, why not let them be represented as such ?
Mr. Morris, thought that representation for blacks would encourage the slave trade.
On the question for including “three-fifths” of the blacks, it was lost. All the Northern States, except Connecticut, voted No.
July 12. Mr. Morris, moved "that taxation be in proportion to representation."
Dr. Johnson thought population the best measure of wealth, and therefore, would include the blacks equally with the whites.
Mr. Morris, thought the people of Pennsylvania could never agree to a representation of negroes.
Gen. Pinckney, desired that property in slaves should be protected and not left exposed to danger.
Mr. Ellsworth, moved that the rule of taxation shall be according to the whole number of white inhabitants and three-fifths of every other description, until some other rule, by which the wealth of the States can be ascertained, shall be adopted by the legislature.
Mr. Randolph opposed this amendment. He urged that express security ought to be provided for including slaves in representation. He lamented that such property existed; but as it did exist, the holders of it should require this security in the Constitution and not leave it to the caprice of the legislative body.
Mr. Wilson thought there would be less umbrage taken by the people by adopting the rule of representation according to taxation. The slaves would be taxed and thus indirectly represented.
Mr. Pinckney moved to amend so as to make blacks equal to whites in representation. He said the blacks would be all numbered in the representation of the North, and they were as productive in material resources to the country in the South as in the North. He thought this no more than justice.
On Mr. Pinckney's motion, only South Carolina and Georgia voted Aye.
On the question apportioning representation to direct tazation, to the whole of the white and three-fifths of the black population, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia voted Aye; New Jersey and Delaware voted No; Massachusetts and South Carolina divided.
July 14. From this date till the 17th, the Convention was engaged in an animated discussion on the equality of votes in the Senate from each State. On the 16th a motion was made to adjourn sine die, on the ground that the Convention could never agree to the exactions of the smaller States. An equality vote was, however, agreed to. North Carolina and Massachusetts divided ; 5 Ayes, 4 Noes.