Mr. WILLIAMSON thought it would be necessary to return to the rule of numbers, but that the Western States stood on different footing. If their property should be rated as high as that of the Atlantic States, then their representation ought to hold a like proportion; otherwise, if their property was not to be equally rated.
Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS. The report is little more than a guess. Wealth was not altogether disregarded by the committee. Where it was apparently in favor of one state, whose numbers were superior to the numbers of another by a fraction only, a member extraordinary was allowed to the former, and so vice versa. The committee meant little more than to bring the matter to a point for the consideration of the House.
Mr. READ asked why Georgia was allowed two members, when her number of inhabitants had stood below that of Delaware.
Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS. Such is the rapidity of the population of that state, that, before the plan takes effect, it will probably be entitled to two representatives.
Mr. RANDOLPH disliked the report of the committee, but had been unwilling to object to it. He was apprehensive that, as the number was not to be changed till the national legislature should please, a pretext would never be wanting to postpone alterations, and keep the power in the hands of those possessed of it. He was in favor of the commitment to a member from each state.
Mr. PATTERSON considered the proposed estimate for the future, according to the combined rules of numbers and wealth, as too vague. For this reason New Jersey was against it. He could regard negro slaves in no light but as property. They are no free agents, have no personal liberty, no faculty of acquiring property, but on the contrary are themselves property, and, like other property, entirely at the will of the master. Has a man in Virginia a number of votes in proportion to the number of his slaves? and if negroes are not represented in the states to which they belong, why should they be represented in the general government? What is the true principle of representation? It is an expedient by which an assembly of certain individuals, chosen by the people, is substituted in place of the inconvenient meeting of the people themselves. If such a meeting of the people was actually to take place, would the slaves vote? They would not. Why then should they be represented? He was also against such an indirect encouragement of the slave trade, observing, that Congress, in their act relating to the change of the eighth article of Confederation, had been ashamed to use the term "slaves," and had substituted a description.
Mr. MADISON reminded Mr. Patterson that his doctrine of representation, which was, in its principle, the genuine one, must forever silence the pretensions of the small states to an equality of votes with the large ones. They ought to vote in the same proportion in which their citizens would do if the people of all the states were collectively met. He suggested, as a proper ground of compromise, that, in the
vol. v.3725
