blies, will possess superior talents; will, by frequent reëlections, become members of long standing; will be thoroughly masters of the public business, and perhaps not unwilling to avail themselves of those advantages. The greater the proportion of new members, and the less. the information of the bulk of the members, the more apt will they be to fall into the snares that may be laid for them. This remark is no less applicable to the relation which will subsist between the House of Representatives and the Senate.

It is an inconvenience mingled with the advantages of our frequent elections, even in single States, where they are large, and hold but one Legislative session in a year, that spurious elections cannot be investigated and annulled in time for the decision to have its due effect. If a return can be obtained, no matter by what unlawful means, the irregular member, who takes his seat of course, is sure of holding it a sufficient time to answer his purposes. Hence, a very pernicious encouragement is given to the use of unlawful means, for obtaining irregular returns. Were elections for the Federal Legislature to be annual, this practice might become a very serious abuse, particularly in the more distant States. Each House is, as it necessarily must be, the judge of the elections, qualifications, and returns of its members; and whatever improvements may be suggested by experience, for simplifying and accelerating the process in disputed cases, so great a portion of a year would unavoidably elapse, before an illegitimate member could be dispossessed of his seat, that the prospect of such an event would be little check to unfair and illicit means of obtaining a seat.

All these considerations taken together warrant us in affirming, that biennial elections will be as useful to the affairs of the public, as we have seen that they will be safe to the liberty of the People.

PUBLIUS.

[From the New York Packet, Tuesday, February 12, 1788.]

THE FEDERALIST. No. LIII.

TO THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK:

THE

HE next view which I shall take of the House of Representatives, relates to the apportionment of its members to the several States, which is to be determined by the same rule with that of direct taxes.

It is not contended, that the number of People in each State ought not to be the standard for regulating the proportion of those who are to represent the People of each State. The establishment of the same rule for the apportionment of taxes will probably be as little contested; though the rule itself, in this case, is by no means founded on the same principle. In the former case, the rule is understood to refer to the personal rights of the People, with which it has a natural and universal connection. In the latter, it has reference to the proportion of wealth, of which it is in no case a precise measure, and in ordinary cases a very unfit one. But notwithstanding the imperfection of the rule as applied to the relative wealth and contributions of the States, it is evidently the least exceptionable among the prac ticable rules; and had too recently obtained the general sanction of America, not to have found a ready preference with the Convention.

All this is admitted, it will perhaps be said: but does it follow, from an admission of numbers for the measure of representation, or of slaves combined with free citizens as a ratio of taxation, that slaves ought to be included in the numerical rule of representation? Slaves are considered as property, not as persons. They ought, therefore, to be comprehended in estimates of taxation,

which are founded on property, and to be excluded from representation, which is regulated by a census of persons. This is the objection, as I understand it, stated in its full force. I shall be equally candid in stating the reasoning which may be offered on the opposite side. "We subscribe to the doctrine," might one of our Southern brethren observe, "that representation relates "more immediately to persons, and taxation more im"mediately to property, and we join in the application of "this distinction to the case of our slaves. But we must "deny the fact, that slaves are considered merely as "property, and in no respect whatever as persons. The "true state of the case is, that they partake of both "these qualities: being considered by our laws, in some "respects, as persons, and in other respects as property. "In being compelled to labor, not for himself, but for "a master; in being vendible by one master to another "master; and in being subject at all times to be re"strained 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 vio"lence 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 "Fœderal 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 compu"tation 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 con"sider 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?

66

"It may be replied, perhaps, that slaves are not includ"ed 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 Fœd"eral 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 Consti"tution, that as the aggregate number of Representatives "allotted to the several States is to be determined by "a Fœderal 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 Fœd"eral 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 towards 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 consid"ered, as it is in truth, a peculiar one. Let the com"promising 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.

"After all, may not another ground be taken on which "this Article of the Constitution will admit of a still