Page:The History of Slavery and the Slave Trade.djvu/418

 of Pennsylvania; Johnson, Sherman, and Ellsworth, of Connecticut; Hamilton and Lansing, of New York; Charles Cotesworth Pinckney and Charles Pinckney, of South Carolina — the latter chosen governor of that State the next year; Patterson, of New Jersey; Martin, of Maryland; Dickinson, of Delaware; and Williamson, of North Carolina.

In settling a rule of apportionment, several questions were to be considered. What should be the number of representatives in the first branch of the legislature? Ought the number from each state to be fixed, or to increase with the increase of population? Ought population alone to be the basis of apportionment? or should property be taken into account? Whatever rule might be adopted, no apportionment founded upon population could be made until an enumeration of the inhabitants should have been taken. The number of representatives was, therefore, for the time being, fixed at sixty-five, and apportioned as directed by the constitution, Art. I. sec. 2.

In establishing a rule of future apportionment, great diversity of opinion was expressed. Although slavery then existed in all the states except Massachusetts, the great mass of the slave population was in the southern states. These states claimed a representation according to numbers, bond and free, while the northern states were in favor of a representation according to the number of free persons only. This rule was forcibly urged by several of the northern delegates. Mr. Patterson, of New Jersey, regarded slaves only as property. They were not represented in the states; why should they be in the general government? They were not allowed to vote; why should they be represented? It was an encouragement of the slave-trade. Said Mr. Wilson, of Pennsylvania: "Are they admitted as citizens? then why not on an equality with citizens? Are they admitted as property? then why is not other property admitted into the computation?" A large portion of the members of the convention, from both sections of the Union, aware that neither extreme could be carried, favored the proposition to count the whole number of free citizens and three-fifths of all others.

Prior to this discussion, a select committee, to whom this subject had been referred, had reported in favor of a distribution of the members on the basis of wealth and numbers, to be regulated by the legislature. Before the question was taken on this report, a proviso was moved and agreed to, that direct taxes should be in proportion to representation. Subsequently a proposition was moved for reckoning three-fifths of the slaves in estimating taxes, and making taxation the basis of representation, which was adopted; New Jersey and Delaware against it, Massachusetts and South Carolina divided; New York not represented, her three delegates being all absent.

To render the constitution acceptable to the southern states, which were the principal exporting states, the committee of detail had inserted a clause, providing that no duties should be laid on exports, or on slaves imported; and another, that no navigation act might be passed, except by a two-thirds vote. By depriving congress of the power of giving any preference to American over foreign shipping, it was designed to secure cheap transportation to southern