right to exercise it in person-Where it cannot be done in person but for convenience, representatives are appointed to act for them, every person has a right to an equal vote, in choosing that representative who is entrusted to do for the whole, that which the whole, if they could assemble, might do in person, and in the transacting of which each would have an equal voice-That if we were to admit, because a man was more wise, more strong, or more wealthy, he should be entitled to more votes than another. it would be inconsistent with the freedom and liberty of that other, and would reduce him to slavery. Suppose, for instance, ten individuals in a state of nature, about to enter into government, nine of whom are equally wise, equally strong, and equally wealthy, the tenth is ten times as wise, ten times as strong, or ten times as rich; if for this reason he is to have ten votes for each vote of either of the others, the nine might as well have no vote at all, since though the whole nine might assent to a measure, yet the vote of the tenth would countervail, and set aside all their votes-If this tenth approved of what they wished to adopt, it would be well, but if he disapproved, he could prevent it, and in the same manner he could carry into execution any measure he wished, contrary to the opinion of all the others, he having ten votes, and the other altogether but nine-It is evident that on these principles, the nine would have no will nor discretion of their own, but must be totally dependent on the will and discretion of the tenth, to him they would be as absolutely slaves as any negro is to his master-If he did not attempt to carry into execution any measures injurious to the other nine, it could only be said that they had a good master, they would not be the less slaves, because they would be totally dependent on the will of another, and not on their own will-They might not feel their chains, but they would notwithstanding wear them. and whenever their master pleased he might draw them so tight as to gall

them to the bone. Hence it was urged, the inequality of representation, or giving to one man more votes than another on account of his wealth, &c. was altogether inconsistent with the principles of liberty, and in the same proportion as it should be adopted, in favor of one or more, in that proportion are the others enslaved-It was urged, that though every individual should have an equal voice in the government, yet, even the superior wealth, strength, or understanding, would give great and undue advantages to those who possessed them. That wealth attracts respect and attention; superior strength would cause the weaker and more feeble to be cautious how they offended, and to put up with small injuries rather than to engage in an unequal contest-In like manner superior understanding would give its possessor many opportunities of profiting at the expence of the more ignorant. Having thus established these principles with respect to the rights of individuals in a state of nature, and what is due to each on entering into government, principles established by every writer on liberty, they proceeded to show that states when once formed, are considered with respect to each other as individuals in a state of nature; that like individuals, each state is considered equally free and equally independent, the one having no right to exercise authority over the other, though, more strong, more wealthy, or abounding with more inhabitants-That when a number of states unite themselves under a federal government, the same principles apply to them as when a number of individual men unite themselves under a state governmentThat every argument which shews one man ought not to have more votes than another, because he is wiser, stronger or wealthier, proves that one state ought not to have more votes than another, because it is stronger, richer, or more populous-And that by giving one state, or one or two states more votes than the others, the others thereby are enslaved to such state or states, having the greater number of

D

votes, in the same manner as in the case before put of individuals when one has more votes than the others. That the reason why each individual man in forming a state government should have an equal vote is, because each individual before he enters into government is equally free and independent-So each state, when states enter into a federal government, are entitled to an equal vote, because before they entered into such federal government, each state was equally free and equally independent—That adequate representation of men formed into a state government, consists in each man having an equal voice, either personally, or if by representatives, that he should have an equal voice in choosing the representatives-So adequate representation of states in a federal government, consists in each state having an equal voice either in person or by its representative in every thing which relates to the federal government-That this adequacy of representation is more important in a federal, than in a state government, because the members of a state government, the district of which is not very large, have generally such a common interest, that laws can scarcely be made by one part oppressive to the others, without their suffering in common ; but the different states composing an extensive federal empire, widely distant one from the other, may have interests so totally distinct, that the one part might be greatly benefitted by what would be destructive to the other.

They were not satisfied by resting it on principles; they also appealed to history-They shewed that in the amphyctionic confederation of the Grecian cities, each eity however different in wealth, strength, and other circumstances, sent the same number of deputies, and had each an equal voice in every thing that related to the common concerns of Greece. It was shewn that in the seven provinces of the United Netherlands, and the confederated cantons of Switzerland, each canton and each province have an equal vote, although there are as great distinc

tions of wealth, strength, population, and extent of territory among those provinces and those cantons, as among these states. It was said, that the maxim that taxation and representation ought to go together, was true so far that no person ought to be taxed who is not represented, but not in the extent insisted upon, to wit, that the quantum of taxation and representation ought to be the same; on the contrary, the quantum of representation depends upon the quantum of freedom, and therefore all, whether individual states, or individual men, who are equally free, have a right to equal representation-That to those who insist that he who pays the greatest share of taxes, ought to have the greatest number of votes; it is a sufficient answer to say, that this rule would be destructive of the liberty of the others, and would render them slaves to the more rich and wealthy—That if one man pays more taxes than another, it is because he has more wealth to be protected by government, and he receives greater benefits from the government-So if one state pays more to the federal government, it is because as a state, she enjoys greater blessings from it; she has more wealth protected by it, or a greater number of inhabitants, whose rights are secured, and who share its advantages. It was urged that upon these principles the Pennsylvanian, or inhabitant of a large state, was of as much consequence as the inhabitant of Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, or any other state-That his consequence was to be decided by his situation in his own state; that if he was there as free, if he had as great share in the forming of his own government, and in the making and executing its laws, as the inhabitants of those other states, then was. he equally important and of equal consequence-Suppose a confederation of states had never been adopted, but every state had remained absolutely in its independent situation, no person could with propriety, say that the citizen of the large state was not as important as the citizen of

the smaller, the confederation of the states cannot alter the case. It was said, that in all transactions between state and state, the freedom, independence, importance and consequence, even the individuality of each citizen of the different states, might with propriety be said to be swallowed up, or concentrated in the independence, the freedom and the individuality of the state of which they are citizens-That the thirteen states are thirteen distinct political individual existences, as to each other; that the federal government is or ought to be a government over these thirteen political individual existences, which form the members of that government; and that as the largest state is only a single individual of this government, it ought to have only one vote; the smallest state also being one individual member of this government, ought also to have one voteTo those who urged that the states have equal suffrage, was contrary to the feelings of the human heart, it was answered, that it was admitted to be contrary to the feelings of pride and ambition ; but those were feelings which ought not to be gratified at the expence of freedom.

It was urged, that the position that great states would have great objects in view, in which they would not suffer the less states to thwart them, was one of the strongest reasons why inequality of representation ought not to be admitted. If those great objects were not inconsistent with the interest of the less states, they would readily concur in them, but if they were inconsistent with the interest of a majority of the states composing the government, in that case two or three states ought not to have it in their power to aggrandize themselves at the expence of all the rest-To those who alledged that equality of suffrage in our federal government, was the poisonous source from which all our misfortunes flowed, it was answered, that the allegation was not founded in fact-That equality of suffrage had never been complained of by the states as a defect in our federal system-That among the eminent