The Journal of Negro History, Volume 3, 1918

Mr. Randolph and Mr. Madison then moved the following resolution—"that the rights of suffrage in the national Legislature ought to be proportioned."

It was moved and 2ded to amend it by adding "and not according to the present system"—which was agreed to.

It was then moved and 2ded. to alter the resolution so as to read "that the rights of suffrage in the national Legislature ought not to be according to the present system."

It was then moved & 2ded. to postpone the Resolution moved by Mr. Randolph & Mr. Madison, which being agreed to;

Mr. Madison, moved, in order to get over the difficulties, the following resolution—"that the equality of suffrage established by the articles of Confederation ought not to prevail in the national Legislature, and that an equitable ratio of representation ought to be submitted" This was 2ded. by Mr. Govr. Morris, (and being generally relished, would have been agreed to when,)

Mr. Reed moved that the whole clause relating to the point of Representation be postponed; reminding the Come. that the deputies from Delaware were restrained by their commission from assenting to any change of the rule of suffrage, and in case a change should be fixed on, it might become their duty to retire from the Convention.

Mr. Govr. Morris observed that the valuable assistance of those members could not be lost without real concern, and that so early a proof of discord in the convention as a secession of a State, would add much to the regret; that the change proposed was however so fundamental an article in a national Govt. that it could not be dispensed with.

Mr. M(adison) observed that whatever reason might have existed for the equality of suffrage when the Union was a federal one among sovereign States, it must cease when a national Governt. should be put into the place. In the former case, the acts of Congs. depended so much for their efficacy on the cooperation of the States, that these had a weight both within & without Congress, nearly in proportion to their extent and importance. In the latter case, as the acts of the Genl. Govt. would take effect without the intervention of the State legislatures, a vote from a small State wd. have the same efficacy & importance as (a vote) from a large one, and there was the same reason for (different numbers) of representatives from different States, as from Counties of different extents within particular States. He suggested as an expedient for at once taking the sense of the members on this point and saving the Delaware deputies from embarrassment, that the question should be taken in Committee, and the clause on report to the House (be postponed without a question there). This however did not appear to satisfy Mr. Read.

By several it was observed that no just construction of the Act of Delaware, could require or justify a secession of her deputies, even if the resolution were to be carried thro' the House as well as the Committee. It was finally agreed however that the clause should be postponed: it being understood that in the event the proposed change of representation would certainly be agreed to, no objection or difficulty being started from any other quarter (than from Delaware).

The motion of Mr. Read to postpone being agreed to

The Committee then rose. The chairman reported progress, and the House having resolved to resume the subject in Committee tomorrow,[524 - Records of the Federal Convention, I, pp. 35-38.]

(Adjourned to 10 OClock)

The next question was on the following resolve:

In substance that the mode of the present representation was unjust—the suffrage ought to be in proportion to number or property.

To this Delaware objected, in consequence of the restrictions in their credentials, and moved to have the consideration thereof postponed, to which the house agreed.[525 - Ibid., I, pp. 39-40.]

McHenry records for the thirtieth of May that the Committee then proceeded to consider the second resolution in Mr. Randolph's paper.

That the rights of suffrage in the national legislature ought to be proportioned to the quotas of contribution or to the number of free inhabitants as the one or the other rule may seem best in different cases.

As this gave the large States the most absolute controul over the lesser ones it met with opposition which produced an adjournment without any determination.[526 - Records of the Federal Convention, I, p. 40.]

After frequent discussion and the failure to reach an agreement to safeguard the interests of the small States while giving due weight to the population of the large the effort to apportion representation in the national legislature assumed this form in the Committee of the Whole:

It was moved by Mr. King, seconded by Mr Rutledge to agree to the following resolution, namely:

Resolved that the right of suffrage in the first branch of the national Legislature ought not to be according to the rule established in the articles of confederation; but according to some equitable ratio of representation

And on the question to agree to the same

it passed in the affirmative (Ayes—7; noes—3; divided—1.)

It was then moved by Mr. Rutledge seconded by Mr Butler to add the following words to the last resolution

"namely, according to the quotas of contribution"

It was moved by Mr Wilson seconded by Mr C. Pinckney to postpone the consideration of the last motion in order to introduce the following words, after the words "equitable ratio of representation" namely.

"in proportion to the whole number of white and other 'free Citizens' and inhabitants of every age, sex and condition, 'including those bound to servitude for a term of years', and three fifths of all other persons not comprehended in the foregoing description, except Indians, not paying taxes 'in each State.'"

On the question to postpone

it passed in the affirmative. (Ayes—10; noes—1.)

On the question to agree to Mr Wilson's motion

It passed in the affirmative (Ayes—9; noes—2.)

It was then moved by Mr Wilson seconded by Mr Hamilton to adopt the following resolution, namely,

"resolved that the right of suffrage in the second branch "of the national Legislature ought to be according to the rule "established for the first"

On the question to agree to the same it passed in the affirmative (Ayes—6; noes—5.)[527 - Records of the Federal Convention, I, pp. 152-153.]

In the Committee of the Whole on the eleventh of June:

It was then moved by Mr. Rutlidge 2ded. by Mr. Butler to add to the words "equitable ratio of representation" at the end of the motion just agreed to, the words "according to the quotas of Contribution. On motion of

Mr. Wilson seconded by Mr. C. Pinckney, this was postponed; in order to add, after, after the words "equitable ratio of representation" the words following "in proportion to the whole number of white & other free Citizens & inhabitants of every age sex & condition including those bound to servitude for a term of years and three fifths of all other persons not comprehended in the foregoing description, except Indians not paying taxes, in each State." this being the rule in the Act of Congress agreed to by eleven States, for apportioning quotas of revenue on the States, and requiring a census only every 5—7, or 10 years.

Mr. Gerry thought property not the rule of representation. Why then shd, the blacks, who were property in the South be in the rule of representation more than the cattle & horses of the North.

On the question.

Mass: Con: N. Y. Pen: Maryd. Virga. N. C. S. C. and Geo: were in the affirmative: N. J. & Del: in the negative. (Ayes—9; noes—2.) Mr. Sherman moved that a question be taken whether each State shall have (one) vote in the 2d. branch. Every thing he said depended on this. The smaller States would never agree to the plan on any other principle (than an equality of suffrage in this branch. Mr. Ellsworth seconded the motion.) On the question for allowing each State (one) vote in the 2d. branch.

Massts, no. Cont, ay. N. Y. ay. N. J. ay. Pa. no. Del. ay Md. ay. Va. no. N. C. no. S. C. no. Geo. no. (Ayes—5; noes—6.)

(Mr. Wilson & Mr. Hamilton moved that the right of suffrage in the 2d. branch ought to be according to the same rule as in the 1st. branch.)

On this question for making the ratio of representation the same in the 2d. as in the 1st. branch (it passed in the affirmative:) Massts. ay. Cont. no. N. Y. no. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. no. Md. no. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay. (Ayes—6; noes—5.)[528 - Ibid., I, pp. 200-202.]

On the same day

Mr. Wilson was of opinion, and therefore moved, that the mode of representation of each of the states ought to be from the number of its free inhabitants, and of every other description three fifths to one free inhabitant. He supposed that the impost will not be the only revenue—the post office he supposes would be another substantial source of revenue. He observed further, that this mode had already received the approbation of eleven states in their acquiescence to the quota made by congress. He admitted that this resolve would require further restrictions, for where numbers determined the representation a census at different periods of 5, 7 or 10 years, ought to be taken.

Mr. Gerry. The idea of property ought not to be the rule of representation. Blacks are property, and are used to the southward as horses and cattle to the northward; and why should their representation be increased to the southward on account of the number of slaves, than horses or oxen to the north?

Mr. Madison was of opinion at present, to fix the standard of representation, and let the detail be the business of a sub-committee.

Mr. Rutledge's motion was postponed.[529 - Records of the Federal Convention, I, pp. 205-206.]

Discussing whether the apportionment should be according to taxation or numbers, Wilson considered

Either Rule good—by Numbers best to ascertain the Right of Representn. this agreeably to the Sentiments of 11 States—Impost alone will not be sufficient to answer the national Exigencies—Revenues arising from Postage—The present Quota not a lasting Rule—People to be numbered at fixed Periods—A Rule arising from Property and Numbers—