Page:Cambridge Modern History Volume 7.djvu/297

 1787] Basis of representation in the House. 265 in the House of Representatives was the question of the basis of repre- sentation. What should the proportion rest upon ? The Randolph resolution declared, as has been seen, that it should rest upon the quotas of contribution, or the number of free inhabitants, as might seem best in different cases. The substituted resolution of King and Wilson, referred to above, eliminating the Senate, provided for the House of Representatives " some equitable ratio of representation/ 1 The dis- cussion of the resolution, running more or less on both lines, as a matter of fact in the first instance turned on the basis of proportion. That branch of the discussion will now be followed out. Opening the debate, Dickinson urged that actual contributions by the States to the general government should be taken as the basis of representation. If duty were connected with interest, the States would not fail. King however pointed out that, as imposts were to be one source of the public revenue, the non-importing States would be in a bad situation; it might happen that they would have no representation. Franklin then proposed the plan already stated, of joint and equal sup- plies, with equality in the number of delegates. But nothing came of the proposal; and the committee, having already adopted the motion in favour of departing from the rule in the Confederation, now voted, nine States to two, for representation in proportion to the whole number of free inhabitants and three-fifths of all other persons, except Indians not taxed; adding the provision to the words "equitable ratio of repre- sentation" just adopted. So the committee reported to the Convention on June 13. Later, on July 5, came the special conditional report before men- tioned, giving to the first branch the origination of money bills. This report also proposed that representation in that branch should be on the scale of "one member for every forty thousand inhabitants of the description reported " by the committee of the whole as already stated. Gouverneur Morris objected to the scale. He thought that property ought to be taken into consideration, as well as the number of inhabi- tants. The acquisition of property was the main object of society ; he did not believe that life and liberty were of more value than property. Property ought then to be one measure of influence in the government. Further he looked to the admission of new States from the West. The Atlantic States ought to be secure of their power in the government; provision should be made to prevent their being outvoted. Rutledge was of the same opinion ; property was the chief object of society ; and if numbers should be made the basis of representation, the Atlantic States would be overborne by the western. He accordingly moved that suffrage should be proportioned to the sums to be con- tributed by the inhabitants of the States respectively, with provision for a census at stated times. The motion was lost, South Carolina alone voting for it. A recommitment was now ordered, and a substitute OH. VIII.