to take care of himself, whilst they looked out for themselves. We have, therefore, but little to say of their proceedings.

The following is nearly all we could glean, which was thought had reference to the subject under consideration; but what little we have collected, shows the negro was not forgotten; that he had here the sympathy of some. But, in general, the convention seemed to think the absolute necessity of the case, if they wanted the Union, required them to acquiesce in the proceedings of the national convention; but if they had been differently cireumstanced, they would not have given sanction to its proceedings with respect to the slave. While Mr. Hamilton took so decided a stand in favor of what had been done, the others gave way, without an attempt to remonstrate, saving a Mr. Treadwell, who, being absent, sent a communication on the subject, which was published at the end of their discussions. We should, however, judge there was not any very great talent displayed in this convention. A Mr. Smith attempted to make some general opposition; but one word from Mr. Hamilton silenced him, and he at once surrendered at discretion. The consequence was, all the cannon were spiked, and nothing but small arm were afterwards used; though these, we must admit, if properly directed, and made to bear on the right subject, may do as much execution as larger ones.

But, without further comment, we will introduce Mr. Robert R. Livingston. In speaking of

the powers conferred on congress, in distinction to those conferred on the Confederation, "He showed, in a strong point of view, the danger of applying these, and deduced from all his observations that the old Confederation was defective in its principles, and impeachable in its execution, as it operated upon States in their political capacity, and not upon individuals; and that it carried with it the seeds of domestic violence, and tended ultimately to its own dissolution.” 1

These observations, if true, should be particularly marked. The Confederation had nothing to do with the individual in the several States, while, by the Constitution, the congress of the United States. has. For it will be perceived, if this is so, it is bound to see that the individual, wherever situated, whether upon the banks of the Savannah, or upon the margin of the Kennebec, if he be unlawfully seized in his person or effects, or receives any punishment without due process of law, should be protected and preserved from such outrages.

"Mr. Smith objected to clause 3d, section 2d, article 1st. He could not see any rule by which slaves were to be included in the ratio of representation. The principle of a representation being that every free agent should be concerned in governing himself, it was absurd to give that power to a man who could not exercise it: slaves have no will of their own: the very operation of it was to give certain privileges to those people who were so wicked as to keep slaves. He knew it would be admitted that this rule was founded on unjust principles, but that it

'Elliot's Reports, vol. i. p. 193.

was the result of accommodation; which he supposed we should be under the necessity of admitting, if we meant to be in union with the Southern States, though utterly repugnant to his feelings."1

After speaking for some time on the subject of representation, and the fear that the spirit of liberty might become extinct that had carried them through the war of independence, from the feeling that had already manifested itself in the different parts of the country, he concluded, by proposing a resolution for the apportionment of the representatives, of which the following is a part:

"That there should be one representative for every twenty thousand inhabitants, until they amount to three hundred; after which they shall be apportioned among the States in proportion to the number of the inhabitants of the States respectively."

If this amendment had been adopted, it will be perceived that in the apportionment for representatives no regard would have been had to paupers, Indians, negroes, or slaves, but all would have been counted.

Hon. Mr. Hamilton said,

"The first thing objected to is the clause that allows a representation for three fifths of the negroes. Much has been said of the impropriety of representing men who have no will of their own whether this is reasoning, or declamation, I will not presume to say. It is the unfortunate situation of the Southern States to have a great part of their population, as well as property, in blacks. The regulation complained of was one result of the

spirit of accommodation which governed the convention; and without this indulgence no Union could have been formed. But, sir, considering some of the peculiar advantages which we derive from them, it is entirely just they should be gratified. The Southern States possess certain staples, tobacco, rice, indigo, &c.-which must be capital objects in treaties of commerce with foreign nations; and the advantages which they necessarily procure in these treaties will be felt throughout the United States. But the justice of this plan will appear in another view. The best writers on government have held that representation should be comprehended of persons and property. This rule has been adopted, as far as it could be, in the Constitution of New York. It will, however, be admitted that the slaves are not to be considered altogether as property. They are men, though degraded to the condition of slavery. They are persons known to the municipal laws of the States which they inhabit, as well as the laws of nature. representation and taxation go together, and one uniform law ought to apply to both. Would it be just to compute these men in the assessment of taxes, and discard them from the estimate in the apportionment of representatives? Would it be just to impose a singular burden, without conferring some adequate advantage?"

Mr. Melancthon Smith observed,

But

“He did not mean to alter the clause in apportioning the representatives as regards slaves. He thought they would have to give that up." 2

Mr. Harrison, speaking of the objection that had been made to the apportionment of the representatives, and the withdrawal of the objection by 2 Idem, vol. i. p. 218.

1 Elliot's Reports, vol. i. p. 213.

"I think the con

the who made it, said, person cession does honor to the gentleman who had stated the objection. He has candidly acknowledged that this apportionment was the result of accommodation, without which no union could have been formed;"1 and then went on, like the other debaters, considering the number that should be in the house of representatives that would be most likely to secure the liberties of the people.

Mr. Treadwell, a member of the convention, who was opposed to the adoption of the Constitution, on the ground it took away State rights, and, as he said, would produce a consolidated government, whereby the liberties of the people would ultimately be destroyed, in a speech, published as a supplement to the proceedings of the convention, though not delivered, remarked, among other strong objections,

"There is another clause in this Constitution, which, though there is no prospect of getting it amended, I think ought not to be passed over in silence, lest such a silence should be construed into a tacit approbation of it. I mean the clause which restricts the general government from putting a stop, for a number of years, to a commerce which is a stain to the commerce of any civilized nation, and has already blackened half of the plains of America with a race of wretches, made so by our cruel policy and avarice, and which appears to me to be repugnant to every principle of humanity, morality, religion, and good policy."

Further on he says,

'Elliot's Reports, vol. i. p. 241.