Page:The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 Volume 3.djvu/404

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

As the provision of the Constitution on this subject may be regarded as one of its greatest blemishes, it would be with reluctance that one could consent to its being extended to the Louisiana States; and provided any act of Congress or of the several states should be deemed requisite to give validity to the stipulation of the treaty on this subject, ought not an effort to be made to limit the Representation to the free inhabitants only? Had it been foreseen that we could raise revenue to the extent we have done, from indirect taxes, the Representation of Slaves wd. never have been admitted; but going upon the maxim that taxation and Representation are inseparable, and that the Genl. Govt. must resort to direct taxes, the States in which Slavery does not exist, were injudiciously led to concede to this unreasonable provision of the Constitution.


ⅭⅭⅩⅭⅨ. Pierce Butler in the United States Senate.[1]

November, 23, 1803.

It never was intended by the Constitution that the Vice President should have a vote in altering the Constitution.


ⅭⅭⅭ. Jonathan Dayton in the United States Senate.[2]

November 24, 1803.

Mr. Dayton believed it would come to this, that when the question came to be discussed, and the rights of the small States maintained, the large States would threaten us with their power. The same threats had been heard in the old Congress, but they were laughed at, for the votes of the States were equal; they were heard in the Convention, but they were spurned at, for the votes were equal there also; the large States must be cautious here, for in this body, too, the votes are equal. The gentleman had talked of a classification of States as a novelty, but he would ask if that gentleman pretended to be wiser than the Constitution? Look through that instrument from beginning to end, and you will not find an article which is not founded on the presumption of a clashing of interests. Was this fine process instituted for nothing? Was developing the election in particular circumstances in the House of Representatives intended for nothing? Was nothing meant by the provision of the Constitution, that no amendment should ever deprive the States of the equality of votes in this House? Yet, it was that jealous caution which foresaw the necessity of guarding against the encroachments of large States. The States, whatever was their relative magnitude,

  1. Annals of Congress, Eighth Congress, First Session, 82.
  2. Annals of Congress, Eighth Congress, First Session, 100–101.