ruptcy of the treasury and the depreciation of the continental currency at the close of the war, when foreign sovereigns had no longer any incentive to continue loans originally made for use in crippling England, made some new measure of finance indispensable. On March 6th, 1783, the Committee on Revenue reported to Congress a series of resolutions which proposed that the States grant to Congress for the period of twenty-five years and for the purpose of paying "the debts which shall have been contracted on the faith of the United States for supporting the present war," the power to levy an impost or tariff of five per cent, upon all importations, with special rates on salt, liquors, tea and sugar. They further recommended:

11. That, as a more convenient and certain rule of ascertaining the proportions to be supplied by the states, respectively, to the common treasury, the following alteration, in the Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between these states, be, and the same is, hereby agreed to in Congress; and the several states are advised to authorize their respective delegates to subscribe and ratify the same,. as part of the said instrument of union, in the words following, to wit:

"So much of the eighth of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union between the thirteen states of America as is contained in the words following, to wit: "All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defence or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several states, in proportion to the value of all land within each state granted to, or surveyed for, any person, and such land, and the buildings and improvements thereon, shall be estimated according to such mode as the United States in Congress assembled shall, from time to time, direct and appoint," is hereby revoked and made void, and in place thereof it is declared and concluded, the same having been agreed to in a Congress of the United States, that all charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defence or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several states in proportion to the number of inhabitants, of every age, sex, and condition, except Indians not paying taxes in each state; which number shall be triennially taken and transmitted to the United States, in Congress assembled, in such mode as they shall direct and appoint; provided, always, that in such numeration no persons shall be included

who are bound to servitude for life, according to the laws of the state to which they belong, other than such as may be between the ages of years.'" 13

In the debate upon the resolutions recommended in the report, on Thursday, March 27th, 1783:

"Mr. Bland, in opposition, said, that the value of land was the best rule, and that, at any rate, no change should be attempted until its practicability should be tried.

"Mr. Madison thought the value of land could never be justly or satisfactorily obtained; that it would ever be a source of contentions among the states; and that, as a repetition of the valuation would be necessary within the course of twenty-five years, it would, unless exchanged for a more simple rule, mar the whole plan.

"Mr. Gorham was in favor of the paragraphs. He represented, in strong terms, the inequality and clamors produced by valuations of land in the state of Massachusetts and the probability of the evils being increased among the states themselves, which were less tied together, and more likely to be jealous of each other.

"Mr. Williamson was in favor of the paragraphs.

"Mr. Wilson was strenuous in their favor; said he was in Congress when the Articles of Confederation directing a valuation of land were agreed to; that it was the effect of the impossibility of compromising the different ideas of the Eastern and Southern States, as to the value of slaves compared with the whites, the alternative in question.

"Mr. Clark was in favor of them. He said, that he was also in Congress when this article was decided; that the Southern States would have agreed to numbers in preference to the value of land, if half their slaves only should be included; but that the Eastern States would not concur in that proposition.

"It was agreed, on all sides, that instead of fixing the proportion by ages, as the report proposed it, it would be best to fix the proportion in absolute numbers. With this view, and that the blank might be filled up, the clause was recommitted.

"Friday, March 28.

"The committee last mentioned reported that two blacks be rated as one freeman.

"Mr. Wolcott was for rating them as four to three.

Mr. Carroll as four to one.

13 Report of Debates in Congress of the Confederation, by Madison. Madi

son Papers, Elliot's Debates, 2d ed., vol. v, pp. 63-64.

"Mr. Williamson said, he was principled against slavery; and that he thought slaves an encumbrance to society, instead of increasing its ability to pay taxes.

"Mr. Higginson as four to three.

"Mr. Rutledge said, for the sake of the object, he would agree to rate slaves as two to one, but he sincerely thought three to one would be a juster proportion.

"Mr. Holten as four to three.

"Mr. Osgood said, he did not go beyond four to three.

"On a question for rating them as three to two, the votes were, New Hampshire, ay; Massachusetts, no; Rhode Island, divided; Connecticut, ay; New Jersey, ay; Pennsylvania, ay; Delaware, ay; Maryland, no; Virginia, no; North Carolina, no; South Carolina, no.

"The paragraph was then postponed, by general consent, some wishing for further time to deliberate on it, but it appearing to be the general opinion that no compromise would be agreed to.

"After some further discussions on the report, in which the necessity of some simple and practicable rule of apportionment came fully into view, Mr. Madison said, that in order to give a proof of the sincerity of his professions of liberality, he would propose that slaves should be rated as five to three. Mr. Rutledge seconded the motion. Mr. Wilson said, he would sacrifice his opinion on this compromise.

"Mr. Lee was against changing the rule, but gave it as his opinion that two slaves were not equal to one freeman.

"On the question for five to three, it passed in the affirmative; New Hampshire, ay; Massachusetts, divided; Rhode Island, no; Connecticut, no; New Jersey, ay; Pennsylvania, ay; Maryland, ay; Virginia, ay; North Carolina, ay; South Carolina, ay.

เ

"A motion was then made by Mr. Bland, seconded by Mr. Lee, to strike out the clause so amended, and, on the question, Shall it stand?' it passed in the negative; New Hampshire, ay; Massachusetts, no; Rhode Island, no; Connecticut, no; New Jersey, ay; Pennsylvania, ay; Delaware, no; Rhode Island, no; Connecticut, no; North Carolina, ay; South Carolina, no; so the clause was struck out.

"The arguments used by those who were for rating slaves high, were that the expenses of feeding and clothing them was far below that incident to freemen, as their industry and ingenuity were below those of freemen; and that the warm climate within which the states having slaves lay, compared with the rigorous climate and inferior fertility of the others, ought to have great weight in the case, and that the exports of the former states were greater than of the latter. On the other

side, it was said that slaves were not put to labor as young as the children of laboring families; that, having no interest in their labor, they did as little as possible, and omitted every exertion of thought requisite to facilitate and expedite it; that if the exports of the states having slaves exceeded those of the others, their imports were in proportion, slaves being employed wholly in agriculture, not in manufactures, and that, in fact, the balance of trade formerly was much more against the Southern States than the others.

"On the main question, New Hampshire, ay; Massachusetts, no; Rhode Island, no; Connecticut, no; New York (Mr. Floyd), ay; New Jersey, ay; Delaware, no; Maryland, ay; Virginia, ay; North Carolina, ay; South Carolina, no." 14

On April 18th, 1783, Congress by the vote of ten States, New York being divided, Georgia absent, and Rhode Island alone opposing, sent to the several States the recommendation of a grant of the power to levy the impost and of an amendment of the Eighth Article of Confederation so that the treasury should "be supplied by the several States 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; which number shall be triennially taken and transmitted to the United States in Congress assembled, in such mode as they shall direct and appoint."

"15

All of the States except New York, which imposed impracticable conditions,16 granted the impost; but only eleven ratified the proposed amendment. So the project failed.

The second of the resolutions proposed by the Virginia delegation, introduced by Randolph at the opening of the convention, was in these words:

that the right of suffrage in the national legislature ought to be proportioned to the quotas of contribution or to the number of free inhabitants, as the one or the other rule may seem best in different cases." 17

14 Elliot's Debates, 2d ed., vol. v, pp. 78-80.

15 Ibid., vol. i, p. 95.

16 The State did not wish to relinquish to the United States the

large revenues derived from the duties on imports at New York Harbor.

17 Madison Papers, Elliot's Debates, 2d ed., vol. v, p. 127.

The consideration of this was postponed till it had been determined by the committee of the whole, that a national government should be established with three departments; that the national legislature should consist of two branches; that the Senate should be elected by the State legislatures and the lower house by the people. It was then moved

"that the right of suffrage in the first branch," the lower house," of the national legislature, ought not to be according to the rule established by the Articles of Confederation, but according to some equitable ratio of representation." 18

Rutledge of South Carolina had just

"proposed, that the proportion of suffrage in the first branch should be according to the quotas of contribution. The justice of this rule, he said, could not be contested. Mr. Butler urged the same idea, adding that money was power; and that the States ought to have weight in the government in proportion to their wealth." 19

Rufus King had previously observed that a system founded upon the quotas of contribution

"would not answer; because, waiving every other view of the matter, the revenue might hereafter be so collected by the general government, that the sums respectively drawn from the States would not appear, and would besides be continually varying." 20

"On the question for agreeing to Mr. King and Mr. Wilson's motion, it passed in the affirmative. Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, ay, 7; New York, New Jersey, Delaware, no, 3; Maryland, divided.

6

"It was then moved by Mr. Rutledge, seconded by Mr. Butler, to add to the words 'equitable ratio of representation' at the end of the motion just agreed to, the words according to the quotas of contribution.' On motion of Mr. Wilson seconded by Mr. Pinckney this was postponed in order to add after the words 'equitable ratio of representation' the words following 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' this being

18 Madison Papers, Elliot's Debates, 2d ed., vol. v, p. 178.

20 Ibid., p. 134. See also his remarks, p. 178.

19 Ibid.