Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1829-03-13


CONCLUDED.
Mr.. Speaker, said Mr.. D., beg leave to intro
duce and read to the Senate the forclble and persp
cuous reasoning of Mr.. Madison OH the the ratio of
representation, contained in the fifty fourth number
of the Federalis 1t is far superior to any thing
4 which have been able to advance, that am conf
dent itntroduction will relieve rather than opprcss
Hhe 1fdence ofthose who have politely attended to
t3pcourse OF my remarks. The argument of Mr..
<nadison is adduced for the sake of its own intrinsic
strength and not from any desire 10 create an extra
neous influence by the lustre Of name. ut is not
contended, says Mr.. Madison, ''tlat the number of
people in each state ought to be the standard for
regulating the proportion OF those who are to repre-
sent the people of each state. The establishment Of
the same rule for the apportonman of taxes, will pro-
badly be as little contested; though the rule ITSELF in
this case, IS by means founded the same princ
pie In the former the rule is understood to re-
fer to the personal rights of the people, with which it
nus natural and universal connection. In the latter
1t has reference to tho proportion of wealth. of which
1t Is IN no case precise measure and in ordinary
ses,a very unfit one. But notwithstanding the iu-
perfection of the rule as applied to the relative
wealth and contributions of the states it evidently
the least excepionable among the practical rules and
iIsd too recently obtained the general sanction Of
America not to have found ready preference with
the Convention All this IS admitted it will perhaps
be said; but does it follow from admission Of num-
oers FOR the measure of representation OF slaves
combined With free citizens ratio Of taxation,
that slaves ought to be included in the numerical
rule OF representation? Slaves are considered rs pro-
perry, not as persons. They ought therefore 10 be
comprehendcd in estimates OF taxation, which are
founded property, and to be excluded from rcpr-
sentaticn, which is regulated by census of persons
thls IS the objection, understand it. stated in its
ful force. shall be equally candid in stating the
reason which may be offered on the opposite side
we subscribe tothe doctrine, might one of our south
crn brethren observe, that representation relates
iaore immediately to persons, md taxation more i'm
medateiy to propeVty and VIC join in the application
OF this distinction to the Of our slaves But we
must deny the fact, that slaves considered merely
rs property and IN No respect whatever as persons
pe true state of the case is that they uaitake of
both those qualities; being considered by our laws in
some respects as PERSONS and in other resnccts as
property In being compelled to abour not for HIM
self, but for mastcr in being vcndible by one mas
ter to another master; and in being subject at all
times to be restrained III his liberty, and castised
IN his body, by tho capricious will of another; the
slave may appear to be degraded from the human
rank. and clased With those irrational animals which
tall under the legal denomination of property In
being protected on the other hand in his iif .
us mbs against the violence of all others even the
master OF hts ahour and his liberty; and being pu,a-
ishable himself for all violence committed against 9TH
ers tho slave is less evidently regarded BY thu,
law member of the Society, a part Of the
irrational creations moral person. not as mere
article OF property. The federal constitution there
fore decides With great proprcty the case o. our
slaves when It views them the mixed character of
persons and property. This is in fact their true
character 1t Is the character bestowed on
them BY the laws under which they lve and it vii!
not be denied, that these the proper criteriou he
Chase it is only under the pretex that the laws have
traiisa the Negroes into SUBJECTS ct property
that place disrssad them in the computation al
numbers and ii is adnteGthat If the laws 10
restore the rights which have been seken away, the
negroes could no longer be refused an equssare 81
representation With the other inhabtar lhis
question may be placed in another light II Is orrced
on all sides, that numbers are the best scale qwcalth
and taXation, as they the only proper scale OF
representation. Would the conYe..ion have been
impartial consistent, if they had rejected the slaves
from the list ofinhabitants, when the shares of rcn.
rcsentation TO be calculated and inserted them
on the lists waen the tariff OF contribution vas to b.
adjusted Gould it be reasonably expected THAI
the southern states would concur in q svstcn,
which considered their slaves ia sane 6a-rcc
as men, when burdens were 20 be imposed but
refused to consider them in the same Il :}.SsSrNer
advantages to be corfcrrcd' Might not soma
surprise be also Expressed, that those Hhn rcproac:i
the southern states with the burhar0u; policy Of con-
sidering asproperty part of their hunan 81 cthreu
should themselves contend that the government to
which all tho states are parties, ougi,t'to consider
this unfortunate race more completely in the uanatu
raj light OF property. than the very laws OF which
they complain? 1t may be r!p!cl p..hr3s thai
slaves not included in the estmptc OF Representa-
tvcs in any of the states possessing them. They rel
tier vote themselves increase The vu.c Gi their
masters. Upon what principle then, ought they 20
be taken into the federal estimate Of representation
In rejecting them altogether, the constitution would
Ii this respect, have followed the very laws which
have been appealed to the proper guide. This OBJ
lection is repealed by single observation. T. is
fundamental principle of tho proposed constitution
that as the aggregate number ofrepresonaiVcs allo,
ted to the several states is % he determined by fcle
ral rule founded on the aggregate number OF rhab-
tants the right of choosing this allotted number in
eash state, to be exercised by such part Of the in
habitants the state itself may designate. The
qualifications which the right of Suffrage depend
not perhaps the came in any two. states. IN
of the states, :o difference is very material In
every state. certain proportion Of inhabjtants nrc
deprived othis right by the coDs;tution-ftkc state
who Will be included in the census by which the fel
eral copstitution apportious the representatives IN
this point of view, the southern states might re; 3r
the complaint, by insisting that the principle laid
down by the convention required that no regard
should bo h4d to the policy Of particular states to-
wards their inhabitants; ana conscaucativ that
tho slaves as ifhabitans, sh4ad have 5aen admit Cd