levied on imports and exports. The extent and fertility of
the western soil would for a long time give to agriculture
a preference over manufactures. Trials would be repeated
till some articles could be raised from it that would bear
a transportation to places where they could be exchanged
for imported manufactures. Whenever the Mississippi should
be opened to them, which would of necessity be the case, as
soon as their population would subject them to any con-
siderable share of the public burden, imposts on their trade
could be collected with less expence and greater certainty,
than on that of the Atlantic States. In the meantime, as
their supplies must pass thro' the Atlantic States, their
contributions would be levied in the same manner with those
of the Atlantic States. He could not agree that any sub-
stantial objection lay against fixing numbers for the perpetual
standard of Representation. It was said that Representation
and taxation were to go together; that taxation and wealth
ought to go together, that population and wealth were not
measures of each other. He admitted that in different
climates, under different forms of Government, id in different
stages of civilization, the inference was perfectly just He
would admit that in no situation numbers of inhabitants were
an accurate measure of wealth. He contended however that
in the United States it was sufficiently so for the object in
contemplation. Altho' their climate varied considerably, yet
as the governments, the laws, and the manners of all were
nearly the same, and the intercourse between different parts
perfectly free, population, industry, arts, d the v
le of
labour, would constantly tend to equalize themselve. The
value of labour might be considered as the incipal criterion
of wealth and ability to support taxes; and this would find
its level in different places where the intercourse should be
easy and free, with as much certainty as the value of money
or any other thing. Wherever labour would yield most
people would resort, till the competition should destroy the
inequality. Hence it is that the people are constantly
ing from the more to the less populous places-from
to America, from the northern and middle parts of the ited
States to the southern and western. They go where and is
cheaper, because there labour is dearer. If it be true that the
same quantity of produce raised on the banks of the Ohio
is of less value than on the Delaware, it is also true that the

in

rm

pe

same labor will raise twice or thrice the quantity in the former, that it will raise in the latter situation.

Col. MASON agreed with Mr. Gouverneur Morris that we ought to leave the interests of the people to the representa tives of the people: but the objection was that the Legislature would cease to be the representatives of the people. It would continue so no longer than the States now containing a majority of the people should retain that majority. As soon as the southern and western population should predominate, which must happen in a few years, the power would be in the hands of the minority, and would never be yielded to the majority, unless provided for by the Constitution.

On the question for postponing Mr. Williamson's motion, in order to consider that of Mr. Rutledge, it passed in the negative. Mass. ay. Cont. no. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. no. Va. no. N. C. no. S. C. ay. Geo. ay.

On the question on the first clause of Mr. Williamson's motion as to taking a census of the free inhabitants, it passed in the affirmatise. Mass, ay. Cont. ay. N. Jay, Pa. ay. Del. no Md. 1. Va. ay. Va. ay. N. C. ay. C. no. Geo, no

The next clause as to three-fifths of the negroes being considered; .

Mr. KING, being much opposed to fixing numbers as the rule of representation, was particularly so on account of the blacks. He thought the admission of them along with whites at all, would excite great discontents among the States having no slaves. He had never said as to any particular point flat he world in no event acquiesce in and support it ; but he would say that if in any case such a declaration was to be nrade by him, it would be in this. He remarked that in the temporary allotment of Representatives made by the committee, the southern States had received more than the number of their white and three-fifths of their black inhabitants entitled them to.

Mr. WILSON did not well see on what principle the admission of blacks in the proportion of three-fifths could be explained. Are they admitted as citizens? then why are they not admitted on an equality with white citizens? are they admitted as property? then why is not other property admitted into the computation? These were difficulties however which he thought must be overruled by the neces

sity of compromise. He had some apprehensions also from the tendency of the blending of the blacks with the whites, to give disgust to the people of Pennsylvania as had been intimated by his colleague. But he differed from him in thinking numbers of inhabitants so incorrect a measure of wealth. He had seen the western settlements of Pennsylvania, and on a comparison of them with the city of Philadelphia could discover little other difference, than that property was more unequally divided among individuals here than there. Taking the same number in the aggregate in the two situations he believed there would be little difference in their wealth and ability to contribute to the public wants.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS was compelled to declare himself reduced to the dilemma of doing injustice to the southern States or to human nature, and he must therefore do it to the former. For he could never agree to give such encouragement to the slave trade as would be given by allowing them a representation for their negroes, and he did not believe those States would ever confederate on terms that would deprive them of that trade.

On the question for agreeing to include three-fifths of the blacks :

Mass. no. Cont. ay.

J. no. Pa. no. Del. nó. Md. no.

Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. no) Geo. ay.1

(j) Qualifications for Suffrage.

2

7 August (Madison)

Art. iv, Sect. I was then taken up.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS moved to strike out the last member of the section beginning with the words 'qualifications of electors', in order that some other provision might be substituted which would restrain the right of suffrage to freeholders.

Mr. FITZSIMONS [Penn.] seconded the motion.
Mr. WILLIAMSON was opposed to it.

Mr. WILSON. This part of the report was well considered by the Committee, and he did not think it could be changed

1 But subsequently carried: see Constitution, art. i, s. ii, § 3. Of the report of the Committee of Detail. Equivalent to art. i, s. ii, § I of the Constitution.

for the better. It was difficult to form any uniform rule of qualifications for all the States. Unnecessary innovations he thought too should be avoided. It would be very hard and disagreeable for the same persons at the same time to vote for Representatives in the State Legislature and to be excluded from a vote for those in the National Legislature.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS. Such a hardship would be neither great nor novel. The people are accustomed to it and not dissatisfied with it in several of the States. In some the qualifications are different for the choice of the Governor and of the Representatives; in others for different houses of the Legislature. Another objection against the clause as it stands is that it makes the qualifications of the National. Legislature depend on the will of the States, which he thought not proper.

Mr. ELLSWORTH [Conn.] thought the qualifications of the electors stood on the most proper footing. The right of suffrage was a tender point, and strongly guarded by most of the State Constitutions. The people will not readily subscribe to the National Constitution if it should subject them to be disfranchised. The States are the best judges of the circumstances and temper of their own people.

Col. MASON. The force of habit is certainly not attended to by those gentlemen who wish for innovations on this point. Eight or nine States have extended the right of suffrage beyond the freeholders; what will the people there say if they should be disfranchised? A power to alter the qualifications would be a dangerous power in the hands of the Legislature.

Mr. BUTLER. There is no right of which the people are more jealous than that of suffrage. Abridgments of it tend to the same revolution as in Holland where they have at length thrown all power into the hands of the Senates, who fill up vacancies themselves, and form a rank aristocracy.

Mr. DICKINSON had a very different idea of the tendency of vesting the right of suffrage in the freeholders of the country. He considered them as the best guardians of liberty; and the restriction of the right to them as a necessary defence against the dangerous influence of those multitudes without property and without principle with which our country like all others, will in time abound. As to the unpopularity of the innovation, it was in his opinion chimerical. The great

mass of our citizens is composed at this time of freeholders, and will be pleased with it.

Mr. ELLSWORTH. How shall the freehold be defined ? Ought not every man who pays a tax, to vote for the representative who is to levy and dispose of his money? Shall the wealthy merchants and manufacturers, who will bear a full share of the public burdens, be not allowed a voice in the imposition of them? Taxation and representation ought to go together.

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS. He had long learned not to be the dupe of words. The sound of aristocracy, therefore, had no effect on him. It was the thing, not the name, to which he was opposed, and one of his principal objections to the Constitution as it is now before us, is that it threatens this country with an aristocracy. The aristocracy will grow out of the House of Representatives. Give the votes to people who have no property, and they will sell them to the rich who will be able to buy them. We should not confine our attention to the present moment. The time is not distant when this country will abound with mechanics and manufacturers who will receive their bread from their employers. Will such men be the secure and faithful guardians of liberty? Will they be the impregnable barrier against aristocracy? He was as little duped by the association of the words ' taxation and representation'. The man who does not give his vote freely is not represented. It is the man who dictates the vote. Children do not vote. Why? because they want prudence, because they have no will of their own. The ignorant and the dependent can be as little trusted with the public interest. He did not conceive the difficulty of defining freeholders to be insuperable. Still less, that the restriction could be unpopular. Nine-tenths of the people are at present freeholders, and these will certainly be pleased with it. As to merchants, etc., if they have wealth and value the right, they can acquire it. If not, they don't deserve it.

Col. MASON. We all feel too strongly the remains of antient prejudices, and view things too much through a British medium. A freehold is the qualification in England, and hence it is imagined to be the only proper one. The true idea in his opinion was that every man having evidence of attachment to and permanent common interest with the society ought to share in all its rights and privileges. Was this