Dr. WITHERSPOON was of opinion that the value of land and houses was the best estimate of the wealth of a nation, and that it was practicable to obtain such a valuation. This is the true barometer of wealth. The one now proposed was imperfect in itself, and unequal between the States. It has been objected

that negroes eat the food of freemen, and therefore should be taxed horses also eat the food of freemen; therefore, they also should be taxed. It had been said, too, that in carrying slaves. into the estimate of the taxes the State is to pay we do no more than those States themselves do, who always take slaves into the estimate of the taxes the individual is to pay. But the cases were not parallel. In the Southern colonies slaves pervade the whole colony; but they do not pervade the whole continent.

That as

to the original resolution of Congress to proportion the quotas according to the souls, it was temporary only, and related to the moneys heretofore omitted; whereas we are now entering into a new compact, and therefore stand on original ground.

The result of this interesting discussion was that on the 1st of August the proposed amendment was rejected, and the original Article adopted by the votes of New Hampshire, Massachusetts Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsyl vania, against those of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North and South Carolina. Georgia was divided. The arguments convinced none on either side, as the vote sufficiently proves. The Southern delegates, however, yielded gracefully to the desire of the majority; nor was there much further opposition offered to the Article on the part of the Southern legislators before whom the plan of confederation was afterwards laid for ratification or rejection. The other article was in these words :

"Art. XVII. In determining questions each colony shall have one vote.”

It was debated on July 30th and 31st, aud on the 1st of August.

Mr. CHASE observed that this article was more likely to divide the colonies than any other proposed in the draft then under consideration. That the larger colonies had threatened they would not confederate at all if their weight in Congress should not

be equal to the numbers of people they added to the Confederacy; while the smaller ones declared against a union if they did not retain an equal vote for the protection of their rights. That it was of the utmost consequence to bring the parties together; as, should we sever from each other, either no foreign power will ally with us at all, or the different States will form different alliances, and thus increase the horrors of those scenes of civil war and bloodshed which in such a state of separation and independence would render us a miserable people. That our importance, our interests, our peace, required that we should confederate, and that mutual sacrifices should be made to effect a compromise of this difficult question. He was of opinion the smaller colonies would lose their rights if they were not, in some instances, allowed an equal vote; and therefore, that a discrimination should take place among the questions which should come before Congress. That the smaller States should be secured in all questions concerning life or liberty, and the greater ones in all respecting property. He therefore proposed that in votes relating to money the voice of each colony should be proportioned to the number of its inhabitants.

Dr. FRANKLIN thought that the votes should be so proportioned in all cases. He took notice that the Delaware counties had bound up their delegates to disagree to this article. He thought

it very extraordinary language to be held by any State that they would not confederate with us unless we would let them dispose of our money. Certainly if we vote equally we ought to pay equally; but the smaller States will hardly purchase the privilege at this price. That had he lived in a State where the representation, originally equal, had become unequal by time and accident, he might have submitted rather than disturb government; but that we should be very wrong to set out in this practice when it is in our power to establish what is right. That at the time of the union between England and Scotland, the latter had made the objection which the smaller States now do; but experience had proved that no unfairness had ever been shown them; that their advocates had prognosticated that it would again happen as in times of old that the whale would swallow Jonah; but he thought the prediction reversed in event, and that Jonah had swallowed the

whale; for the Scotch had, in part, got possession of the government, and gave laws to the English. He reprobated the original agreement of Congress to vote by colonies, and therefore was for their voting in all cases according to the number of taxables.

Dr. WITHERSPOON opposed every alteration of the Article. All men admitted that a confederacy is necessary. Should the idea get abroad that there is likely to be no union among us, it will damp the minds of the people, diminish the glory of our struggle, and lessen its importance; because it will open to our view future prospects of war and dissension among ourselves. If an equal vote be refused, the smaller States will become vassals to the larger; and all experience has shown that the vassals and subjects of free states are the most enslaved. He instanced the helots of

He observed that foreign

Sparta and the provinces of Rome. powers discovering this blemish, would make it a handle for disengaging the smaller States from so unequal a confederacy. That the colonies should, in fact, be considered as individuals; that as such, in all disputes, they should have an equal vote; and that they are now collected as individuals making a bargain with each other, and of course had a right to vote as individuals. That in the East India Company they voted by persons, and not by their proportions of stock. That the Belgic Confederacy voted by provinces. That in questions of war the smaller States were as much interested as the larger, and therefore should vote equally; and indeed that the larger States were more likely to bring war on the Confederacy in proportion as their frontier was more extensive. He admitted that equality of representation was an excellent principle, but then it must be of things which are coördinate; that is, of things similar and of the same nature; that nothing relating to individuals could ever come before Congress; nothing but what would respect colonies. He distinguished between an incorporating and a federal union. The union of England and Scotland was an incorporating one; yet Scotland had suffered by that union; for that its inhabitants were drawn from it by the hopes of places and employments; nor was it an instance of equality of representation, because, while Scotland was allowed nearly a thirteenth of representation, they were to pay only one-fortieth of the land tax.

He

expressed his views that in the present enlightened state of men's minds we might expect a lasting confederacy, if it was founded on fair principles.

Mr. JOHN ADAMS advocated the voting in proportion to numbers. He said, that we stand here as the representatives of the people; that in some States the people are many, in others they are few; that therefore their vote here should be proportioned to the numbers from whom it comes. Reason, justice, and equity never had justice enough on the face of the earth to govern the councils of men. It is interest alone which does it, and it is interest alone which can be trusted; that therefore the interests within doors should be the mathematical representatives of the interests without doors.

Besides the fallacy of Mr. Adams' reasoning which assumed that members of the Continental Congress were representatives of the people at large instead of what they actually were, representatives of their respective States, he argued against the individuality of States themselves, and maintained that the object of confederation was to obliterate State lines and distinctions so as to incorporate all under one consolidated government.

He said that the individuality of the colonies is a mere sound. Does the individuality of a colony increase its wealth or numbers? If it does, pay equally. If it does not add weight in the scale of the confederacy, it cannot add to their rights nor weigh in argument. A has £50, B £500, C £1,000 in partnership. Is it just that they should equally dispose of the moneys of the partnership? It has been said we are independent individuals making a bargain together. The question is not what we are now, but what we ought to be when our bargain shall be made. The confederacy is to make us one individual only. It is to form us, like separate pieces of metal, into one common mass. We shall no longer, retain our separate individuality, but become a single individual as to all matters submitted to the confederacy. Therefore all reasons,

which prove the justice and expediency of equal representation in other assemblies, hold good here. It had been objected that a proportional vote would endanger the smaller States. He answered that an equal vote would endanger the larger. Virginia, Pennsyl

vania and Massachusetts were the three greater colonies. Consider their distance, their difference of products, of interest, and of manners, and it was apparent they can never have an interest or an inclination to combine for the oppression of the smaller; that the smaller would naturally divide on all questions with the larger; that Rhode Island, from its relation, similarity and intercourse, would generally pursue the same objects with Massachusetts; Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland, with Pennsylvania.

Mr. HOPKINS observed that there were four larger, four smaller and four middle sized colonies. That the four largest would contain more than half the inhabitants of the confederating States, and therefore would govern the others as they should please. That history affords no instance of such a thing as equal representation. The Germanic body vote by states; the Helvetic body does the same; and so does the Belgic Confederacy. That too little ist known of the ancient confederations to say what was their practice.

Mr. WILSON went beyond even Mr. Adams in his advocacy of consolidation, maintaining that the colonies, by the mere sending of delegates to Congress had already sacrificed their individuality. As to those matters, he said, which are referred to Congress, we are not so many States; we are one large State. We lay aside our individuality whenever we come here.

The views of Mr. Adams and Mr. Wilson did not meet the approbation of Congress, and the article as it stood was triumphantly adopted.

The draft of the Confederate Constitution was presented, as we have before observed, on the 12th of July, 1776, and debated from time to time until the 15th of November, 1777, when it was approved in Congress and ordered to be transmitted to the States for their consideration. On the 26th of June a form of ratification was adopted and engrossed on parchment for signature by the delegates acting by authority of their respective States. On subsequent examination, however, it was found that only New Hampshire, New York, Virginia, and North Carolina accepted the Articles as they stood, with a proviso on the part of New York that the same should not be binding on it until all the other States in the Union should have ratified them also. Massachusetts,