and I presume that every reasonable man will agree to it. The more this subject is explained, the more clear and convincing it will appear to every member of this body. The fundamental principle of the old confederation is defective we must totally eradicate and discard this principle before we can expect an efficient government. The gentlemen who have spoken to-day, have taken up the subject of the ancient confederacies; but their view of them has been extremely partial and erroneous. The fact is, the same false and impracticable principle ran through most of the ancient governments. The first of these governments that we read of, was the Amphictyonic confederacy. The council which managed the affairs of this league, possessed powers of a similar complexion to those of our present Congress. The same feeble mode of legislation in the head, and the same power of resistance in the members, prevailed. When a requisition was made, it rarely met a compliance; and a civil war was the consequence. Those which were attacked, called in foreign aid to protect them; and the ambitious Philip, under the mask of an ally to one, invaded the liberties of each, and finally subverted the whole. The operation of this principle appears in the same light in the Dutch republics. They have been obliged to levy taxes by an armed force. In this confederacy, one large province, by its superior wealth and influence, is commonly a match for all the rest; and when they do not comply, the province of Holland is obliged to compel them. It is observed, that the United Provinces have existed a long time; but they have been constantly the sport of their neighbors, and have been supported only by the external pressure of the surrounding powers. The policy of Europe, not the policy of their government, has saved them from dissolution. Besides, the powers of the Stadtholder have served to give an energy to the operations of this government, which is not to be found in ours. This prince has a vast personal influence: he has independent revenues: he commands an army of forty thousand men. the destruction of the government. But I think observations of this kind might have been spared. Had they not been entered into by others, I should not have taken up so much of the time of the committee. No inference can be drawn from these examples, that repub lics cannot exist: we only contend that they have hitherto been founded on false principles. We have shown how they have been conducted, and how they have been destroyed. Weakness in the head has produced resistance in the members: this has been the immediate parent of civil war: auxiliary force has been invited; and a foreign power has annihilated their liberties and their name. Thus Philip subverted the Amphictyonic, and Rome the Achæan republic. We shall do well, sir, not to deceive ourselves with the favorable events of the late war. Common danger prevented the operation of the ruinous principle, in its full extent: but, since the peace, we have experienced the evils; we have felt the poison of the system in its unmingled purity. Without dwelling any longer on this subject, I shall proceed to the question immediately before the committee. In order that the committee may understand clearly the principles on which the general convention acted, I think it necessary to explain some preliminary circumstances. Sir, the natural situation of this country seems to divide its interests into different classes. There are navigating and non-navigating States-the northern are properly the navigating States: the southern appear to possess neither the means nor the spirit of navigation. This difference of situation naturally produces a dissimilarity of interests and views respecting foreign commerce. It was the interest of the northern States, that there should be no restraints on their navigation, and that they should have full power, by a majority in Congress, to make commercial regulations in favor of their own, and in restraint of the navigation of foreigners. The southern States wished to impose a restraint on the northern, by requiring that two-thirds in Congress should be requisite, to pass an act in regulation of commerce: they were apprehensive that the restraints of a navigation law would discourage foreigners, and by obliging them to employ the shipping of the northern States, would probably enhance their freight. This being the case, they insisted strenuously on having this provision engrafted in the constitution; and the northern States were as anxious in opposing it. On the other The German confederacy has also been a perpetual source of wars. They have a diet, like our Congress, who have authority to call for supplies: these calls are never obeyed; and in time of war, the imperial army never takes the field till the enemy are returning from it. The emperor's Austrian dominions, in which he is an absolute prince, alone enable him to make head against the common foe. The members of this confederacy are ever divided and opposed to each other. The king of Prussia is a mem-hand, the small States, seeing themselves ember; yet he has been constantly in opposition to the emperor. Is this a desirable government? I might go more particularly into the discussion of examples, and show that, wherever this fatal principle has prevailed, even as far back as the Lycian and Achæan leagues, as well as the Amphictyonic confederacy, it has proved braced by the confederation upon equal terms, wished to retain the advantages which they already possessed: the large States, on the contrary, thought it improper that Rhode Island and Delaware should enjoy an equal suffrage with themselves: from these sources a delicate and difficult contest arose. It became necessary, therefore, to compromise; or the conven The rule we have been speaking of is a general rule, and applies to all the States. Now, you have a great number of people in your State which are not represented at all, and have no voice in your government; these will be included in the enumeration-not two-fifths nor the advantages of the plan are not confined to the southern States, but extend to other parts of the Union. tion must have dissolved without effecting any | thing. Would it have been wise and prudent in that body, in this critical situation, to have deserted their country? No. Every man who hears me every wise man in the United States, would have condemned them. The convention were obliged to appoint a committee for accom-three-fifths, but the whole. This proves that modation. In this committee the arrrangement was formed as it now stands; and their report was accepted. It was a delicate point; and it was necessary that all parties should be indulged. Gentlemen will see, that if there had not been unanimity, nothing could have been done for the convention had no power to establish, but only to recommend a government. Any other system would have been impracticaple. Let a convention be called to-morrow-power of Congress to reduce the number. I let them meet twenty times; nay, twenty thousand times they will have the same difficulties to encounter; the same clashing interests to reconcile. But, dismissing these reflections, let us consider how far the arrangement is in itself entitled to the approbation of this body. We will examine it upon its own merits. I now proceed to consider the objection with regard to the number of representatives, as it now stands; I am persuaded the system, in this respect, stands on a better footing than the gentlemen imagine. It has been asserted that it will be in the acknowledge that there are no direct words of prohibition. But I contend that the true and genuine construction of the clause gives Congress no power whatever to reduce the representation below the number, as it now stands. Although they may limit, they can never diminish the number. One representative for every thirty thousand inhabitants is fixed as The first thing objected to is that clause the standard of increase, till, by the natural which allows a representation for three-fifths course of population, it shall become necessary of the negroes. Much has been said of the im- to limit the ratio. Probably, at present, were propriety of representing men who have no will this standard to be immediately applied, the of their own. Whether this be reasoning or representation would considerably exceed sixtydeclamation I will not presume to say. It is five. In three years it would exceed one hunthe unfortunate situation of the southern States dred. If I understand the gentleman, they to have a great part of their population, as well contend that the number may be enlarged, or as property, in blacks. The regulation com- may not. I admit that this is in the discretion plained of was one result of the spirit of accom- of Congress, and I submit to the committee, modation which governed the convention, and whether it be not necessary and proper. Still, without this indulgence no union could possibly I insist that an immediate limitation is not have been formed. But, sir, considering some probable, nor was it in the contemplation of peculiar advantages which we derive from the convention. But, sir, who will presume to them, it is entirely just that they should be say to what precise point the representation gratified. The southern States possess certain ought to be increased? This is a matter of staples, tobacco, rice, indigo, &c., which must opinion, and opinions are vastly different upon be capital objects in treaties of commerce with the subject. A proof of this is drawn from the foreign nations, and the advantage which they representations in the State legislatures. In necessarily procure in these treaties will be Massachusetts the assembly consists of about felt throughout all the States. But the justice three hundred; in South Carolina, of nearly of this plan will appear in another view. The one hundred; in New York there are sixtybest writers on government have held that five. It is observed generally, that the number representation should be compounded of per- ought to be large; let the gentlemen produce sons and property. This rule has been adopted, their criterion. I confess it is difficult for me as far as it could be, in the constitution of New to say what number may be said to be suffiYork. It will, however, by no means be ad- ciently large. On one hand it ought to be conmitted, that the slaves are considered alto-sidered that a small number will act with more gether as property. They are men, though degraded to the condition of slavery. They are persons known to the municipal laws of the States which they inhabit, as well as to the laws of nature. But representation and taxation go together, and one uniform rule ought to apply to both. Would it be just to compute these slaves in the assessment of taxes, and discard them from the estimate in the apportionment of representatives? Would it be just to impose a singular burden without conferring some adequate advantage? Another circumstance ought to be considered. facility, system, and decision; on the other, that a large one may enhance the difficulty of corruption. The Congress is to consist, at first, of ninety-one members. This, to a reasonable man, may appear to be as near the proper medium as any number whatever; at least, for the present. There is one source of increase, also, which does not depend upon any constructions of the constitution; it is the creation oʻ new States. Vermont, Kentucky, and Frank lin will probably become independent: new members of the Union will also be formed from the unsettled tracts of western territory. These must be represented, and will all contribute to | swell the federal legislature. If the whole number in the United States be, at present, three millions, as is commonly supposed, according to the ratio of one for thirty thousand, we shall have, on the first census, a hundred representatives. In ten years thirty more will be added, and in twenty-five years the number will double; then, sir, we shall have two hundred, if the increase goes on in the same proportion. The convention of Massachusetts, who made the same objection, have fixed upon this number as the point at which they chose to limit the representation. But can we pronounce with certainty that it will not be expedient to go beyond this number? We cannot. Experience alone must determine. This matter may, with more safety, be left to the discretion of the legislature, as it will be the interest of the large and increasing States of Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, &c., to augment the representation. Only Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware, and Maryland, can be interested in limiting it. We may, therefore, safely calculate upon a growing representation, according to the advance of population and the circumstances of the country. circumstances. It is impossible, in the first instance, to be precise and exact with regard to the number, and it is equally impossible to determine to what point it may be proper in fu ture to increase it. On this ground I am disposed to acquiesce. In my reasonings on the subject of government I rely more on the interests and opinions of men than on any speculative parchment provisions whatever. I have found that constitutions are more or less excellent as they are more or less agreeable to the natural operation of things. I am therefore disposed not to dwell long on curious speculations, or pay much attention to modes or forms, but to adopt a system whose principles have been sanctioned by experience, adapt it to the real state of our country, and depend on probable reasonings for its operation and result. I contend that sixty-five and twenty-six in two bodies afford perfect security in the present state of things, and that the regular progressive enlargement, which was in the contemplation of the general convention, will not leave an apprehension of danger in the most timid and suspicious mind. It will be the interest of the large States to increase the representation. This will be the standing instruction to their The State governments possess inherent ad- delegates. But, say the gentlemen, the memvantages which will ever give them an influence bers of Congress will be interested not to inand ascendency over the national government, crease the number, as it will diminish their and will for ever preclude the possibility of relative influence. In all their reasoning upon federal encroachments. That their liberties in- the subject, there seems to be this fallacy: they deed can be subverted by the federal head is suppose that the representative will have no repugnant to every rule of political calculation. motive of action on the one side, but a sense of Is not this arrangement then, sir, a most wise duty; or on the other, but corruption. They and prudent one? Is not the present repre- | do not reflect that he is to return to the comsentation fully adequate to our present exigen-munity; that he is dependent on the will of cies, and sufficient to answer all the purposes the people, and that it cannot be his interest to of the Union? I am persuaded that an examination of the objects of the federal government will afford a conclusive answer. Many other observations might be made on this subject, but I cannot now pursue them, for I feel myself not a little exhausted; I beg leave, therefore, to waive for the present the further discussion of the question. On the 21st Mr. Hamilton continued his remarks as follows: When I had the honor to address the committee yesterday, I gave a history of the circumstances which attended the convention, when forming the plan before you. I endeavored to point out to you the principles of accommodation on which this arrangement was made, and to show that the contending interests of the States led them to establish the representation as it now stands. In the second place, I attempted to prove, that in point of number, the representation would be perfectly secure. Sir, no man agrees more perfectly than myself to the main principle for which the gentlemen contend. I agree that there should be a broad Democratic branch in the national legislature. But this matter, sir, depends on oppose their wishes. Sir, the general sense of the people will regulate the conduct of their representatives. I admit that there are exceptions to this rule; there are certain conjunctures when it may be necessary and proper to disregard the opinions which the majority of the people have formed. But in the general course of things, the popular views, and even prejudices, will direct the actions of the rulers. In All governments, even the most despotic, depend, in a great degree, on opinion. In free republics, it is most peculiarly the case. these, the will of the people makes the essential principle of the government; and the laws which control the community, receive their tone and spirit from the public wishes. It is the fortunate situation of our country, that the minds of the people are exceedingly enlightened and refined. Here then we may expect the laws to be proportionably agreeable to the standard of perfect policy; and the wisdom of public measures to consist with the most intimate conformity between the views of the representative and his constituent. If the general voice of the people be for an increase, it undoubtedly must take place. They have it in their power to instruct their representatives; and the State legislatures, which appoint the senators, may enjoin it also upon them. Sir, if I believed that the number would remain at sixty-five, I confess I should give my vote for an amendment; though in a different form from the one proposed. The amendment proposes a ratio of one for twenty thousand. I would ask, by what rule or reasoning it is determined, that one man is a better representative for twenty than thirty thousand? At present we have three millions of people; in twenty-five years we shall have six millions; and in forty years, nine millions: and this is a short period, as it relates to the existence of States. Here, then, according to the ratio of one for thirty thousand, we shall have, in forty years, three hundred representatives. If this be true, and if this be a safe representation, why be dissatisfied? Why embarrass the constitution with amendments that are merely speculative and useless? I agree with the gentleman, that a very small number might give some color for suspicion: I acknowledge, that ten would be unsafe; on the other hand, a thousand would be too numerous. But I ask him, why will not ninety-one be an adequate and safe representation? This at present appears to be the proper medium. Besides, the President of the United States will be himself the representative of the people. From the competition that ever subsists between the branches of government, the President will be induced to protect their rights, whenever they are invaded by either branch. On whatever side we view this subject, we discover various and powerful checks to the encroachments of Congress. The true and permanent interests of the members are opposed to corruption: their number is vastly too large for easy combination: the rivalship between the houses will for ever prove an insuperable obstacle: the people have an obvious and powerful protection in their State governments. Should any thing dangerous be attempted, these bodies of perpetual observation will be capable of forming and conducting plans of regular opposition. Can we suppose the people's love of liberty will not, under the incitement of their legislative leaders, be roused into resistance, and the madness of tyranny be extinguished at a blow? Sir, the danger is too distant; it is beyond all rational calculation. It has been observed by an honorable gentleman, that a pure democracy, if it were practicable, would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved, that no position in politics is more false than this. The ancient democracies, in which the people themselves deliberated, never possessed one feature of good government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity. When they assembled, the field of debate presented an ungovernable mob, not only incapable of deliberation, but prepared for every enormity. In these assemblies, the enemies of the people brought forward their plans of ambition systematically. They were opposed by their enemies, of another | party; and it became a matter of contingency, whether the people subjected themselves to be led blindly by one tyrant or by another. It was remarked yesterday, that a numerous representation was necessary to obtain the confidence of the people. This is not generally true. The confidence of the people will easily be gained by a good administration. This is the true touchstone. I could illustrate the position by a variety of historical examples, both ancient and modern. In Sparta, the Ephori were a body of magistrates, instituted as a check upon the senate, and representing the people. They consisted of only five men; but they were able to protect their rights, and therefore enjoyed their confidence and attachment. In Rome, the people were represented by three Tribunes, who were afterwards increased to ten. Every one acquainted with the history of that republic, will recollect how powerful a check to the senatorial encroachments this small body proved; how unlimited a confidence was placed in them by the people whose guardians they were; and to what a conspicuous station in the government their influence at length elevated the plebeians. Massachusetts has three hundred representatives; New York has sixty-five. Have the people in this State less confidence in their representation than the people of that? Delaware has twenty-one: do the inhabitants of New York feel a higher confidence than those of Delaware? I have stated these examples, to prove that the gentleman's principle is not just. The popular confidence depends on eircumstances very distinct from considerations of number. Probably the public attachment is more strongly secured by a train of prosperous events, which are the result of wise deliberation and vigorous execution, and to which large bodies are much less competent than small ones. If the representative conducts with propriety, he will necessarily enjoy the good will of the constituent. It appears then, if my reasoning be just, that the clause is perfectly proper, upon the principles of the gentleman who contends for the amendment; as there is in it the greatest degree of present security, and a moral certainty of an increase equal to our utmost wishes. It has been further, by the gentlemen in opposition, observed, that a large representation is necessary to understand the interests of the people. This principle is by no means true, in the extent to which the gentlemen seem to carry it. I would ask, why may not a man understand the interests of thirty as well as of twenty? The position appears to be made upon the unfounded presumption, that all the interests of all parts of the community must be represented. No idea is more erroneous than this. Only such interests are proper to be represented as are involved in the powers of the general government. These interests come completely under the observation of one, or a few men; and the requisite information is Sir, if the people have it in their option to elect their most meritorious men, is this to be considered as an objection? Shall the constitution oppose their wishes, and abridge their most invaluable privilege? While property continues to be pretty equally divided, and a considerable share of information pervades the community, the tendency of the people's suffrages will be to elevate merit even from obscurity. As riches increase and accumulate in few hands, as luxury prevails in society, virtue will be in a greater degree considered as only a graceful appendage of wealth, and the tendency of things will be to depart from the republican standard. This is the real disposition of human nature: it is what neither the honorable member nor myself can correct; it is a common misfortune, that awaits our State constitution, as well as all others. by no means augmented in proportion to the | I presume to say, is ridiculous. The image is increase of number. What are the objects of a phantom. Does the new government render the government? Commerce, taxation, &c. In a rich man more eligible than a poor one? No. order to comprehend the interests of commerce, It requires no such qualification. It is bottomis it necessary to know how wheat is raised, ed on the broad and equal principle of your and in what proportion it is produced in one State constitution. district and in another? By no means. Neither is this species of knowledge necessary in general calculations upon the subject of taxation. | The information necessary for these purposes, is that which is open to every intelligent inquirer; and of which five men may be as perfectly possessed as fifty. In royal governments there are usually particular men to whom the business of taxation is committed. These men have the forming of systems of finance, and the regulation of the revenue. I do not mean to commend this practice. It proves, however, this point; that a few individuals may be competent to these objects, and that large numbers are not necessary to perfection in the science of taxation. But granting for a moment, that this minute and local knowledge, the gentlemen contend for, is necessary, let us see, if under the new constitution, it will not probably be found in the representation. The natural and proper mode of holding elections, will be to divide the State into districts, in propor- | tion to the number to be elected. This State will consequently be divided, at first, into six. One man from each district will probably possess all the knowledge gentlemen can desire. Are the senators of this State more ignorant of the interests of the people than the assembly? Have they not ever enjoyed their confidence as much? Yet, instead of six districts, they are elected in four; and the chance of their being collected from the smaller divisions of the State consequently diminished. Their number is but twenty-four; and their powers are co-extensive with those of the assembly, and reach objects which are most dear to the people-life, liberty and property. Sir, we hear constantly a great deal, which is rather calculated to awake our passions, and create prejudices, than to conduct us to the truth, and teach us our real interests. I do not suppose this to be the design of the gentlemen. Why then are we told so often of an aristocra- | cy? For my part, I hardly know the meaning of this word as it is applied. If all we hear be true, this government is really a very bad But who are the aristocracy among us? Where do we find men, elevated to a perpetual rank above their fellow-citizens, and possessing powers entirely independent of them? The arguments of the gentlemen only go to prove that there are men who are rich, men who are poor; some who are wise, and others who are one. not. That indeed every distinguished man is an aristocrat. This reminds me of a description of the aristocrats I have seen in a late publication, styled the Federal Farmer. The author reckons in the aristocracy, all governors of States, members of Congress, chief magistrates, and all officers of the militia. This description, There is an advantage incident to large districts of election, which perhaps the gentlemen, amidst all their apprehensions of influence and bribery, have not adverted to. In large districts, the corruption of the electors is much more difficult. Combinations for the purposes of intrigue are less easily formed: factions and cabals are little known. In a small district, wealth will have a more complete influence; because the people in the vicinity of a great man, are more immediately his dependents, and because this influence has fewer objects to act upon. It has been remarked, that it would be disagreeable to the middle class of men to go to the seat of the new government. If this be so, the difficulty will be enhanced by the gentleman's proposal. If his argument be true, it proves that the larger the representation is, the less will be your choice of having it filled. But, it appears to me frivolous to bring forward such arguments as these. It has answered no other purpose than to induce me, by way of reply, to enter into discussions which I consider as useless, and not applicable to our subject. It is a harsh doctrine, that men grow wicked in proportion as they improve and enlighten their minds. Experience has by no means justified us in the supposition that there is more virtue in one class of men than in another. Look through the rich and the poor of the community; the learned and the ignorant. Where does virtue predominate? The difference indeed consists not in the quantity, but kind of vices, which are incident to various classes; and here the advantage of character belongs to the wealthy. Their vices are probably more favorable to the prosperity of the State than those of the indigent, and partake less of moral depravity. After all, sir, we must submit to this idea. |