Edwardsville spectator. [volume] (Edwardsville, Ill.) 1819-1826, 1820-01-08

colony, opposed the importation O
slaves, and was the first state to prohibi
the same, by law passed for this pur.
pose in 1873, thirty years before the gen
eral prohibition enacted by congress IL
1908. The laws and customs of the
states in which slavery has existed fol
SO long period, must have had thell
influence on the opinions and habits o
the citizens, which ought not to be dis
regarded on the present occasion.
Omitting, therefore, the arguments
which might be urged, and which by all
of us might be deemed conc elusive, were
this an original question, the reasons
which shall be offered in favor of the in
terposition of the power of congress to
exclude slavery from Missouri, shall be
emily such as respect the common de-
fence, the general welfare, and that wise
administration of the government which
as far as possible may produce the inn
partial distribution of benefits and bur-
dens throughout the union.
BY the articles of confederation, the
common treasury was to be supplied by
the several states according to the value
of the lands, with the houses and inn
provements thereon, within the respec-
tive states. From the difficulty in ma
king this valuation, the old congress
were unable to apportion the acquisitions
for the supply of the general treasury,
and obliged the states to propose an al
teration of the articles of confederation,
by which the whole number of R'ee per-
sons, with three filths of the slaves, con-
tanned in the respective states, should
become the rule of such apportionment
of the taxes. A majority of the states
approved of this alteration, but some Of
them tisagreedto the same; and for want
of a practicable rule of apportionment,
the whole of the acquisitions of taxes
made by congress during the revolution
airy war, and afterwards, up to the estab-
lishment of the constitution ofthe United
States, were merely provisional, and sub
lect to revision and correction as soon as
such rules should be adopted. The
several states were credited for their
supplies, and charged for the advances
made to them by congress; but no set
Element of their accounts could be made,
for the want of rule Of pportionment,
until the establishment Of the constitu-
ton.
When the general convention that
formed the constitution took this subject
into their consideration, the whole ques-
ton was once more examined, and while
it was agreed that all contributions to
the common treasury should be made
according to the ability of the several
states to furnish the same, the old diff
Guilty REQUIRED i'll agreeing upon rule
such ability should be ascer-
tanned, there being no simple standard
by which the ability of individuals to pay
taxes can be ascertained A diversity
in the selection of taxes has been deem
ed requisite to their equalization. Be-
tween communities, this difficulty is less
considerable, and although the rule of
relative numbers would not accurately
measure the relative wealth of nations,
in states in the circumstances of the Uni
ted States, whose institutions, laws, and
are so much alike, the
rule of number is probably as nearly
equal, as any other simple and practical
BILE rule can be expected to be Though
between the old and new states its equity
is defective J these considerations added
to the appreciation which had already
been given to the rule by majority OF
the states, induced the convention to
agree that direct taxes should be appor-
toned among the states according to the
number Of free persons and three fifths
of the slaves, which they might respec-
lively contain.
The rule for apportionment of taxes,
is not necessarily the most equitable
rule for the apportionment of representa-
tives among the states; property must
not be disregarded in the composition of
the first rule, but is frequently overlook
ed in the establishment of the second;
a rule which might be approved in re-
spect to taxes, would be disapproved in
respect to representatives one individual
possessing twice as much property as
another, might be required to pay dou-
Bile the taxes of such other; but no man
has two votes to another's one; rich or
poor, each has but single vote in the
choice Of Representatives.
In the dispute between England and
the colonies, the latter denied the right
Of the former to tax them, because they
were not represented in the English
puliament. They commended that, &C
cording to the law of the land, taxation
and reDresentation were ioseparah,e