The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1844-09-17

sentNton OF persons II was representa- en- Il pro-
periy
sentaton of property has been subject OF discus
sion for many yoars-and II Is very remarkable that
the Constitution Of ibis Commonw eslth had when II
was first made provision 10 this effect, for the rep
resentation OF property, which has been gradually
removed The convention which made the rignal
Constitution Of the State OF Massso husets prepared
an address to the people IN which this subject was
| mentioned, and the people were TO pronounce upon
II, whether II should be adopted or not In that adj
dress IL expressly stated that in the form of gov
ernment which they had made, the house Of repre-
senlatves was to represent the persons and the Sc.
nate were 10 represent the property. These are
points upon which there has been an amendment of
the Constitution recommended, this very year, by
the Supreme Magistracy. lie has actually recon-
mended that the last spara OF the principle Of the
representation OF property in the Legislature should
be extinguished. mean that Of requiring any tax
10 preoedo the right of suffrage. II IS somewhat ex
trsordinary, that while such has been the change Of
opinion IN the minds OF the people of tins Common
wealth. that even the representatives who had orig-
Daliy after deliberaton, inserted II part Of the
Constitution, have agreed to It's being expuDged and
thus that q representation IN both branches OF the
Legislature should now DC founded upon the princ-
pie of representation of persons alone, that still they
should submit TO the Constitution of the United
States, Wherein while II is expressly declared in the
very words Of the Constitution that both branches
should be representation Of persons, yet, that
under the name Of other persons, should be included
the representation Of chattes or property. Gap
pause.) And what property The owners of that
property as persons, are just as much represented
as we are, and yet properly 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, felow-ciiizens, that never was this
calculated upon by your Representatyes-how the
effect of is 10 be guarded against will not now
undertake to saybut call your attention to the ef
feet OF II upon you and your interests. You have
ten Representatives Of the persons in this Common
wealth, you have no representation of property
Your property what you have virtuousy and hon
esty 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 I The
owner of the slaves. He has vote then for him
SELL and three votes for every five OF the slaves Of
winch he Is the owner And, III considering this
SUI Ject IN It's effects and twelve
thousand millions Of dollars represented by ninety
memoers-where you have ten--sayery has ninety
members, and all these ninety are bound together
oy Ties OF such nature, they all the repr, senta
yves oil one person they the representatives OF
that property.
ask you, fellow citizens, to reflect upon this in
the hrs, place in point of principle. IL there be
Objection against property being represented how
srong must be that objection To property, Of such
II there be ropriety IN admitting re-
presentation OF property, upon what ground is II tina,
your house and land, your shop and merchandise,
should not be represented as well as slave property
III the Councils of the Nation
1t appears to us that Mr.. Adams is guilty of
solecsm, hardly excusable in quondam professor Of
rhetoric, in declaring that the provision of the Con-
stltution upon which he here dates, fraudulent
and yet admitting that there was no intention Of
fraud In framing or adopting it. The intent to de-
ceve IS generally supposed to constitute the essence
of fraud, as malice prepense does of murder
But The provision in question is not even uninten-
tionally deceptive. 1t was adopted after the ma
turest elaboration and freest discussion, and the OBJ
Jec and meaning Of il were as well known by those
who adopted the Constitution as by those who
framed it. No man who has right to take any in
terest IN the matterno citizen of the United States
OF ordinary intelgence-was ever led TO suppose by
the phraseol"gy of the provision that the slaves of
The south were represented apersons or entitled TO
vote or Representatives
The aPportionment of Representatives to slave
population was merely mode--the most obvious and
natural which suggested itself-of guarantying the
rights and property of the Southern People The
object IN view was TO guard the peculiar interests of
the South, as the object in the mode of constituting
The Senate to guard the reserved rights of the
respective States, and Mr. Adams objection applies
as iavornbly to the one as 10 the oher He thinks il
extraordinary that the People Of Massachusetts should
tolerate, IN the Constitution Of the Union, feature
which they have just struck out of their own Const
'uton-as If there were any analogy between the re-
a'ion IN which the People Of the Union, and of the
respective States, stand to the Federal Government
md that in which the People Of Massachusetts stand
10 their State Government. lie might as well have
expressed childish wonder that the People of Mas
'achusetts should submit to Constitution which al
lows their State no greater repre-. in the Sc
nate OF the Union than Rhode Island. lie might as
we'll have asked them with affected astonisbment
will you tolerate Constitution which gives Rhode
Island Representative in the Senate for every
'o,ooo inhabitants while Massachusetts, has only one
for 36O,0O0l
But Mr. Adams is neither ignorant nor childish.
The objection which he makes to that provision Of
he Constitution which may be called the keystone
d IT, IS presented in the most artfu and insidious
manner II IS urged as the representation Of proper
y, and property Of the most odiou- kind, while Nor.
Ihern property IS wholly excluded and the reason
md history Of the distinction are carefully kept out
81 sight. Mr.. Adams true objection to the Consttn
on IS, that It protects the Southern STAKEHOLDER in
The ownership Of his slaves and, II honest he would
IT once have asked his constituents will YOU submit,
10 Constitution which protects shareholders Bu,
The good sense OF his constituents might at once have
promped the answer, that shareholders would never
have assented to Constitution nor entered into an
union, which did not protect them He more Gun.
nngly demands Of them, Therefore, whether they will
submit to Constitution which protects the property
Of the South, and excludes that Of the North. thus
to their prejudices and se6shne.s. their
sordid aud sectional feelings.
Nothing could prove more conrlusiyely than M,