Richmond daily times. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1853, 1851-04-12
THE TINES TERMS.


PrecedentS Of the Federal Convention.
In the rather hurried review, which we yester-
day took of the opinions expressed by Hamilton,
Morris, Madison and Mason in the Federal Con-
vention, it was out ofour power, as it was beyond
our immediate purpose, to present any thing
like satisfactory summary of the authorities,
which are to be found in Mr.. Madson's report of
the proceedings of that memorable body of men,
and which might be probably REQUIRED to in
connection with the great question now under dis
cussion in the Convention of Virginia. After the
remarkable use made of those authorities by Mr.
Smith, of Kanawha, it will probably become the
task of some Eastern gentleman, to vindcate,
as Mr.. Benton says, the truth of history, and
show, with more pains and amplitude, than can
we'll be allowed in newspaper article, that the
doctrine, that representation should be based on
taxation, or the principle of what is now termed
the mixed basis, was fully sanctioned by the re-
publican statesmen who framed the federal con-
stituon, and, .h fact was the cornerstone of the
editice they constructed.
The attentive reader of the Debates, as report
ed by Mr.. Madison, cannot fail to perceive, that
no important political truth was more generally
conceded in the Convention, than this, that repre
sentation should be in direct proportion to taxa
tion and taxation to wealth. 1t is true there was
a serious effort on the part of some of the small
States to insist upon equal representation in both
branches of the national Legislature, which was
the rule in the Congress of the old Confederation
This difficulty, however, was met and overcome
in the very outset of the session. On the 3Oth O,
May, 1887, the first day on which the subject OF
representation in the Legislature came under con-
sideration Mr. Madison moved the following reso-
luton:
THAT the equality of suffrage established by the Ar
tces OF Confederation ought prevail in The Ma
tona Legislature; and that equitable ratio ought to
be substituted.
This, MIR. Madison says, was generally re-
fshed, and would have been agreed to-" but the
matter was, for the time postponed Substan-
tally the same proposition was put to the vote on
the It'll of June, and approved, ayes T. noes 3,
New York, New Jersey and Delaware, Ma
ryland divided. The resolution thus approved
was
That the right of suffrage in the first branch of the
National Legislature ought not be according to the
rule established in the Articles Reconsideration but &C.
eording to some equitable ratio of representation"
Mr.. Rutedge and Mr.. Butler, of South Caro-
lima, moved TO add to the resolution the words
"dccording to the quotas of contributions" bu,
waived their motion, in order to add
"ln proportion to the whole number of white and 9TH
er tree citzeLs and inhabitants of every age sex and
condition, including those bound servitude for term
OF years and three hs OF all other persons not COM
prehen ded in the foregoing description except Indians
not paying taxes, in each Stae;"-
This, says Mr.. Madison, 'being the rule in the act
Mt i'nrn h. r
Jag quotas OF revenue on the States, and requiring a
census only every five, seven or ten years."
On the question of adding the words to the re-
solution, and thus establishing the principle that
representation should be in proportion to taxation
or contribution, the vote was
Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York Pennsyva
MIA, Marylsnd, Virginia, North Carolina S. Carolina
Georgia, aye-9 New Jersey, Delawa are, no-2.
We ask attention to this vote, taken at so eary
period of the Conventions deliberations be.
cause it shows how nearly unanimous the dele.
gates were upon the broad proposition that repre-
sentation should be according to taxation. The
provision concerning the ratio of representation
underwent various notifications, but it finally
came back precisely to the point where it was
placed by this vote, and stands at this moment. in
the Constitution that binds these States together
1t is particularly worthy of reflection, that the
three-ffths basis, Or federal bass,'' as it is now
known, was, by consent, substituted for, because
practically tantamount to, the simple proposition
of Mr.. Rutledge and Mr.. Butler, that renresen.
tation should be according to quotas of contri-
button" This principle, of representation and
contribution going together was throughout con-
ceded to be sound, save by those members who de-
sired equality OF representation for all the States.
In the progress of the discussions the question
was raised by what rule population, or numbers.
could be made lust measure of wealth or
contributions but Gouverneur Morris. Rnfns
King, and others from the North, who were
strongly opposed to slavery,-oblected to
slave representation, and proposed the basis
of free inhabitants, instead of the ,hree-ffths
basis; but even they acknowledged that taxation
and representation ought to be correlative. Their
preludices against slaveholding caused them TO re-
sist the counting of slaves, forgetting it was on
ly proposed as fair measure of taxation. They
constituted the only party in the Convention
which ever thought of sanctioning the White Ba
sis. Whereas, the delegates from the South ad
hered steaonly 10 the basis of contribution and in
fixing the standard of contribution, were unapi-
nous for the representation of slaves, and only
differed upon the question whether all or three
fifths should be counted
1t is now maintained by the advocates OF the
mixed basis in Virginia that representation sheul6
be proportional, in part, to taxation and gentle.
men Of the West cry out against them as nm.
holding doctrine absolutely enormous. They
have, at least the satisfaction OF knowing that it
It Is sa netoned by the authority of all the early
republican statesmen of American, and is in truth
the principle upon which our glorious revolution
was achieved