The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1843-11-07

- fr,rdulant because under the name OF repre-
seniston Of persons, II was representation OF pre-
perry
latop OF property has been subject Of discussion Tor
| many years-and II is very remarkable that the Con
| stitu.ion of this Commonwealth had, when II was
first made, provision 10 this effect for the represen
| taton of property, which has been gradually TO,
| moved. The convention which made the original
Constitution OF the State of Massachusetts, prepared
an address TO the people, IN which TINS su'Jeo' va"
mentioned, and the people were 10 pronounce uPon y,
whether II should be adopted or not In tns' sou'e
was expressly stated that in the form oil govefnme"'
which they had made tie house OF representatives was
TO represent the persons and the Sehae were 10
sent the property These are points, upon winch 'ne'e
has been en- amendment of the Constitution recon-
| menJed this very year, by the Supreme MaSisifaey
He has actually recommended that the last spark oil
the principle of the representation OF property IN he
| Legislature should be exnguished. mean That oil
requiring any tax TO precede the right o. suhiase
is somewhat extraordinary, that while sucn has oeen
tho change OF opinion in the minds oil the people VI
| this Commonwealth, that even the representatives
who had originally after deliberation inserted IL As
part Of the Constitution, have agreed to It's beig
expunged, and thus that the representation IN ooth
branches Of the Legislature should now De i'unded
upon the principle Of representation OF persons alone
that still they should submit TO the Constitution OF
| the United States, wherein, while 1t IS expressly
declared in the very words OF the Constitution 'ha'
both branches should be representation oil persons
|
included the representation of chattels or property
| (Applause.l And what PrePerJ' The o"nere OF
that property, as persons are just as much repre-
sented as are, and yet property is excluded by The
| very letter Of the Constitution. Thus property IS al
once excluded, and admitted in the name OF other
| persons.
Now, say fellow citizens that never was this
| calculated upon by your Representatiyes--how the
| effect of il is TO be guarded against, will not now
undertake to say-but call your attention to the ell
feet of it upon you and your interests. You have
ten Represe natives of the persons in this Common
wealth, you have no representation oil properly
Your property, what you have yirtuously and hon.
estly acquired, is excluded, while the owner OF the
slave is not only represented, you are in his per-
son. but also in the persons of his slaves Does the
| slave give his vote No. Who gives the vote The
owner Of the slaves He has vote then for him
self, and three votes for every FIVE Of the slaves oil
| which he is the owner. And, in considering this
subject in its effects and consequences, see twelve
thousand millions Of dollars represented by ninety
members--where you have ten--savery has ninety
members and all these ninety bound together by
ties Of such nature, they all the representatives,
of one person they are the representatives OF that
property.
ask you fellow-citzens to reflect upon this; in
the first pace--in point of principle II there be an
objection against property being represented, how
strong must be that objection to property, of such
character. If there be propriety in admitting re-
presentation OF property, upon what ground It that
your house and land, your shop and merchandise,
should not be represented well as slave property
In the Councils Of the Nation
1t appears to US that Mr.. Adams is guilty of a
solecism, hardly excusable in quandam pro-
fessor of rhetoric, in declaring that the provision
of the Constitution, upon which he here dilates,
was fraudulent, and yet admitting that there
was no intention of fraud in framing or adopt
ing il. The intent 10 deceive is generally sup
IF and
malice prepense does Of murder.
But the provision in question is not even IN
Intentionally deceptive. Ii was adopted after
the maturest deliberalion and freest discussion,
and the object and meaning of it were as well
Known by those who adopted the Constitution,
az by those who framed it, No man who has
right TO take any interest in the mater-no
gence-was ever led 10 suppose by the phrase
ology Of the provision that the slaves of the
South were represented as persons, or entited
10 vote for Representatives.
The apportonment of Representatives to
slave population was merely mode-the most
obvious and natural which suggested itself
Of guarantying the rights and property of the
peOllts he OlJtCt III view was 10
guard the peculiar interests of the South, as the
object in the mode of constituting the Senate
was to guard the reserved rights Of The respcc-
tive States, and Mr. Adams objection applies
as favorably 10 the one as TO the other He
thinks it extraordinary that the people of Mas
sachusets should tolerate, in the Con ,lituion of
the Union, feature which they have just struck
Il n
any analogy between the relation in which the
People Of the Union, and Of the respective
States, stand 10 the Federal Government, and
that in which the people Of Massachusetts, stand
to their State Government He might as well
have expressed a child h wonder that the peo-
pie of Massachusetts should submit to Consti-
tuition which allows their Stale no greater re-
presentation in the Senate of the Union than
Rhode Island He might as well have asked
them with affected astonishment will you toe-
rate a Constitution which gives Rhode Island 4
Representative in the Senate for every $4,000
inhabitants while Massachusetts, has only one
for 360,0OO7
But Mr.. Adams is neither ignorant nor child
ish. The objection which he makes TO that
provision of the Constitution which may be
called the keystone of it, is presented in the
most arful and insdous manner. 1t i. urged
as the representation of property, and property
Of the most odlous kind, while Norlh,r n proper
,y is wholly excluded; and the reason and his
tory of the distinction are careful ly kept out Of
sight Mr.. Adams true objection to the Con
sttuton Is, that IT protects the Southern slave
holder in the ownership Of his slaves and, if
honest, he would at once have asked his con-
stituents will you submit to Constitution which
protects slave-hold,r,7 But The good sense Of
his commitments miuht at once have nrCmnied