restrained in his liberty and chastised in his body, by the capricious will of another, the slave may appear to be degraded from the human rank, and classed with those irrational animals which fall under the legal denomination of property. In being protected on the other hand, in his life and in his limbs, against the violence of all others, even the master of his labor and his liberty; and in being punishable himself for all violence committed against others -the slave is no less evidently regarded by the law as a member of the society, not as a part of the irrational creation; as a moral person, not as a mere article of property. The federal Constitution, therefore, decides with great propriety on the case of our slaves, when it views them in the mixed character of persons and of property. This is in fact their true character. It is the character bestowed on them by the laws under which they live; and it will not be denied that these are the proper criterion; because it is only under the pretext that the laws have transformed the negroes into subjects of property that a place is disputed them in the computation of numbers; and it is admitted that, if the laws were to restore the rights which have been taken away, the negroes could no longer be refused an equal share of representation with the other inhabitants.

"This question may be placed in another light. It is agreed on all sides that numbers are the best scale of wealth and taxation, as they are the only proper scale of representation. Would the convention have been impartial or consistent, if they had rejected the slaves from the list of inhabitants when the shares of representation were to be calculated, and inserted them on the lists when the tariff of contributions was to be adjusted? Could it be reasonably expected that the Southern States would concur in a system which considered their slaves in some degree as men when burdens were to be imposed, but refused to consider them in the same light when advantages were to be conferred? Might not some surprise also be expressed that those who reproach the Southern States with the barbarous policy of considering as property a part of their human brethren, should themselves contend that the government to which all the States are to be parties ought to consider this unfortunate race more completely in the unnatural light of property than the very laws of which they complain?

"It may be replied, perhaps, that slaves are not included in the estimate of representatives in any of the States possessing them. They neither vote themselves nor increase the votes of their masters. Upon what principle, then, ought they to be taken into the

Hamilton (?) 1

THREE-FIFTHS APPORTIONMENT.

363

federal estimate of representation? In rejecting them altogether, the Constitution would, in this respect, have followed the very laws which have been appealed to as the proper guide.

“This objection is repelled by a single observation. It is a fundamental principle of the proposed Constitution that, as the aggregate number of representatives allotted to the several States is to be determined by a federal rule, founded on the aggregate number of inhabitants, so the right of choosing this allotted number in each State is to be exercised by such part of the inhabitants as the State itself may designate. The qualifications on which the right of suffrage depend are not, perhaps, the same in any two States. In some of the States the difference is very material. In every State a certain proportion of inhabitants are deprived of this right by the constitution of the State who will be included in the census by which the federal Constitution apportions the representatives. In this point of view the Southern States might retort the complaint, by insisting that the principle laid down by the convention required that no regard should be had to the policy of particular States toward their own inhabitants; and, consequently, that the slaves, as inhabitants, should have been admitted into the census according to their full number, in like manner with other inhabitants, who, by the policy of other States, are not admitted to all the rights of citizens. A rigorous adherence, however, to this principle is waived by those who would be gainers by it. All that they ask is that equal moderation be shown on the other side. Let the case of the slaves be considered, as it is in truth, a peculiar one. Let the compromising expedient of the Constitution be mutually adopted, which regards them as inhabitants, but as debased by servitude below the equal level of free inhabitants; which regards the slave as divested of two-fifths of the man.'

Since the freeing and admitting of the slave to citizenship, this twofifths idea has of course entirely disappeared, and the negro is counted as a full man. By the XIVth Amendment, any state depriving the freedman of his vote lost a corresponding degree of representation; the theory being that this would secure to the negro his rights of citizenship, because the southern states would not choose to forego the large loss of representation which his disfranchisement would involve. The south obtains the same result, however, first by the suppression of the negro vote, and more lately, with less completeness but with greater nominal fairness, by the introduction of educational restrictions which the election officers use to exclude the ballots of negroes. The whole history of the federal attempts to solve the negro problem for the south is a history of the folly of national attempts to destroy the home rule principle which is essentially the theory of American institutions. Far from achieving any good, such efforts have manifestly made the problem more difficult.-EDITOR.

After all, may not another ground be taken on which this article of the Constitution will admit of a still more ready defense? We have hitherto proceeded on the idea that representation related to persons only, and not at all to property. But is it a just idea? Government is instituted no less for protection of the property, than of the persons, of individuals. The one as well as the other, therefore, may be considered as represented by those who are charged with the government. Upon this principle it is that in several of the States, and particularly in the State of New York, one branch of the government is intended more especially to be the guardian of property, and is accordingly elected by that part of the society which is most interested in this object of government.' In the federal Constitution, this policy does not prevail. The rights of property are committed into the same hands with the personal rights. Some attention ought, therefore, to be paid to property in the choice of those hands.

"For another reason, the votes allowed in the federal legislature to the people of each State ought to bear some proportion to the comparative wealth of the States. States have not, like individuals, an influence over each other arising from superior advantages of fortune. If the law allows an opulent citizen but a single vote in the choice of his representative, the respect and consequence which he derives from his fortunate situation very frequently guide the votes of others to the objects of his choice; and through this imperceptible channel the rights of property are conveyed into the public representation. A State possesses no such influence over other States. It is not probable that the richest State in the Confederacy will ever influence the choice of a single representative in any other State. Nor will the representatives of the larger and

1 The qualification of the members of the Senate of New York, by the constitution of 1777, was a freehold, and they were elected only by voters having a freehold of the value of £100 over and above all debts charged thereon.-EDITOR.

2 This is quite true, if we simply consider the states as states. But with the growth of great commercial and manufacturing centers there has come what is a little different. The collection of vast sums of money from such sections as New England and Pennsylvania, whenever a campaign involving a tariff issue is to the front, is not merely matter of public knowledge, but even of boast with the party leaders who are to disburse the corruption fund in the " doubtful" states. Into the same category fall the enormous amounts collected in 1896 from all the moneyed centers to fight the silver issue in the south and west, A more curious instance still was that of the funds collected in the east and south by the two great forces of abolition and slavery to carry on the struggle for supremacy in the days of bleeding Kansas."-EDITOR.

3 It was a brag of the extreme protective interest that by a liberal use

Hamilton (?)]

REPRESENTATIVES' VOTES EQUAL. 365

richer States possess any other advantage in the federal legislature, over the representatives of other States, than what may result from their superior number alone. As far, therefore, as their superior wealth and weight may justly entitle them to any advantage, it ought to be secured to them by a superior share of representation. The new Constitution is, in this respect, materially different from the existing Confederation, as well as from that of the United Netherlands and other similar confederacies. In each of the latter the efficacy of the federal resolutions depends on the subsequent and voluntary resolutions of the states composing the union. Hence the states, though possessing an equal vote in the public councils, have an unequal influence, corresponding with the unequal importance of these subsequent and voluntary resolutions. Under the proposed Constitution, the federal acts will take effect without the necessary intervention of the individual States. They will depend merely on the majority of votes in the federal legislature, and consequently each vote, whether proceeding from a larger or smaller State, or a State more or less wealthy or powerful, will have an equal weight and efficacy, in the same manner as the votes individually given in a State legislature, by the representatives of unequal counties or other districts, have each a precise equality of value and effect; or if there be any difference in the case, it proceeds from the difference in the personal character of the individual representative rather than from any regard to the extent of the district from which he comes."

Such is the reasoning which an advocate for the Southern interests might employ on this subject; and although it may appear to be a little strained in some points, yet, on the whole, I must confess that it fully reconciles me to the scale of representation which the convention have established.

In one respect, the establishment of a common measure for representation and taxation will have a very salutary effect. As the accuracy of the census to be obtained by the Congress will necessarily depend, in a considerable degree, on the disposition, if not on the co-operation, of the States, it is of great importance that the States should feel as little bias as possible to swell or to reduce the amount of their numbers. Were their share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail.1

of money they defeated the re-election of Wilson of West Virginia, because of his share in the Wilson tariff bill of 1894.-EDITOR.

'It was charged that the national census of 1890 materially underrated

By extending the rule to both objects the States will have opposite interests, which will control and balance each other and produce the requisite impartiality. PUBLIUS.

No. 55 [54]. (Independent Journal, February 13, 1788.) Hamilton (?) SIZE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Importance attached to this subject-Difficulty of determining the proper number-Small states require smaller ratios-Limited powers of Congress do not demand a numerous representation—Various objections considered and answered-Sources of danger considered.

To the People of the State of New York:

The number of which the House of Representatives is to consist forms another and a very interesting point of view, under which this branch of the federal legislature may be contemplated. Scarce any article, indeed, in the whole Constitution seems to be rendered more worthy of attention, by the weight of character and the apparent force of argument with which it has been assailed. The charges exhibited against it are, first, that so small a number of representatives will be an unsafe depositary of the public interests; secondly, that they will not possess a proper knowledge of the local circumstances of their numerous constituents; thirdly, that they will be taken from that class of citizens which will sympathize least with the feelings of the mass of the people, and be most likely to aim at a permanent elevation of the few on the depression of the many; fourthly, that defective as the number will be in the first instance, it will be more and more disproportionate by the increase of the people and the obstacles which will prevent a Correspondent increase of the representatives.

the population of New York city, thus reducing her quota of representatives in the House of Representatives. A police census taken immediately afterward seemed to prove the assertion. As the census was prepared under Republican auspices and New York city was strongly Democratic, the partisan object was obvious.--Editor.