autobiography-第7部分

快捷操作: 按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页 按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页 按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！


ress　to　proportion　the　quotas　according　to　the　souls；　it　was　temporary　only；　&　related　to　the　monies　heretofore　emitted：　whereas　we　are　now　entering　into　a　new　compact；　and　therefore　stand　on　original　ground。

　　　　　　　　Aug　1。　The　question　being　put　the　amendment　proposed　was　rejected　by　the　votes　of　N。　Hampshire；　Massachusetts；　Rhode　island；　Connecticut；　N。　York；　N。　Jersey；　&　Pennsylvania；　against　those　of　Delaware；　Maryland；　Virginia；　North　&　South　Carolina。　　Georgia　was　divided。

　　　　　　　　The　other　article　was　in　these　words。　　〃Art。　XVII。　　In　determining　questions　each　colony　shall　have　one　vote。〃

　　　　　　　　　　July　30。　31。　Aug　1。　　Present　41。　members。　Mr。　Chase　observed　that　this　article　was　the　most　likely　to　divide　us　of　any　one　proposed　in　the　draught　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　&　independance　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　would　come　before　Congress。　That　the　smaller　states　should　be　secured　in　all　questions　concerning　life　or　liberty　&　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　a　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　&　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　Jonas；　but　he　thought　the　prediction　reversed　in　event　and　that　Jonas　had　swallowed　the　whale；　for　the　Scotch　had　in　fact　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　admit　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；　&　lessen　it's　importance；　because　it　will　open　to　our　view　future　prospects　of　war　&　dissension　among　ourselves。　　If　an　equal　vote　be　refused；　the　smaller　states　will　become　vassals　to　the　larger；　&　all　experience　has　shown　that　the　vassals　&　subjects　of　free　states　are　the　most　enslaved。　　He　instanced　the　Helots　of　Sparta　&　the　provinces　of　Rome。　He　observed　that　foreign　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；　and　that　as　such；　in　all　disputes　they　should　have　an　equal　vote；　that　they　are　now　collected　as　individuals　making　a　bargain　with　each　other；　&　of　course　had　a　right　to　vote　as　individuals。　　That　in　the　East　India　company　they　voted　by　persons；　&　not　by　their　proportion　of　stock。　　That　the　Belgic　confederacy　voted　by　provinces。　　That　in　questions　of　war　the　smaller　states　were　as　much　interested　as　the　larger；　&　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　coordinate；　that　is；　of　things　similar　&　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　&　a　federal　union。　　The　union　of　England　was　an　incorporating　one；　yet　Scotland　had　suffered　by　that　union：　for　that　it's　inhabitants　were　drawn　from　it　by　the　hopes　of　places　&　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　hopes　that　in　the　present　enlightened　state　of　men's　minds　we　might　expect　a　lasting　confederacy；　if　it　was　founded　on　fair　principles。

　　　　　　　　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；　&　equity　never　had　weight　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。　　That　the　individuality　of　the　colonies　is　a　mere　sound。　　Does　the　individuality　of　a　colony　increase　it's　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　pound　50。　B。　pound　500。　C。　pound　1000。　in　partnership。　　Is　it　just　they　should　equally　dispose　of　the　monies　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　parcels　of　metal；　into　one　common　mass。　　We　shall　no　longer　retain　our　separate　individuality；　but　become　a　single　individual　as　to　all　questions　submitted　to　the　confederacy。　　Therefore　all　those　reasons　which　prove　the　justice　&　expediency　of　equal　representation　in　other　assemblies；　hold　good　here。　　It　has　been　objected　that　a　proportional　vote　will　endanger　the　smaller　states。　　We　answer　that　an　equal　vote　will　endanger　the　larger。　　Virginia；　Pennsylvania；　&　Massachusetts　are　the　three　greater　colonies。　　Consider　their　distance；　their　difference　of　produce；　of　interests　&　of　manners；　&　it　is　apparent　they　can　never　have　an　interest　or　inclination　to　combine　for　the　oppression　of　the　smaller。　　That　the　smaller　will　naturally　divide　on　all　questions　with　the　larger。　　Rhode　isld；　from　it's　relation；　similarity　&　intercourse　will　generally　pursue　the　same　objects　with　Massachusetts；　Jersey；　Delaware　&　Maryland；　with　Pennsylvania。

　　　　　　　　Dr。　＇Benjamin＇　Rush　took　notice　that　the　decay　of　the　liberties　of　the　Dutch　republic　proceeded　from　three　causes。　　1。　The　perfect　unanimity　requisite　on　all　occasions。　　2。　Their　obligation　to　consult　their　constituents。　　3。　Their　voting　by　provinces。　　This　last　destroyed　the　equality　of　representation；　and　the　liberties　of　great　Britain　also　are　sinking　from　the　same　defect。　　That　a　part　of　our　rights　is　deposited　in　the　hands　of　our　legislatures。　　There　it　was　admitted　there　should　be　an　equality　of　representation。　　Another　part　of　our　rights　is　deposited　in　the　hands　of　Congress：　why　is　it　not　equally　necessary　there　should　be　an　equal　representation　there？　Were　it　possible　to　collect　the　whole　body　of　the　people　together；　they　would　determine　the　questions　submitted　to　them　by　their　majority。　　Why　should　not　the　same　majority　decide　when　voting　here　by　their　representatives？　　The　larger　colonies　are　so　providentially　divided　in　situation　as　to　render　every　fear　of　their　combining　visionary。　　Their　interests　are　different；　&　their　circumstances　dissimilar。　　It　is　more　probable　they　will　become　rivals　&　leave　it　in　the　power　of　the　smaller　states　to　give　preponderance　to　any　scale　they　please。　　The　voting　by　the　number　of　free　inhabitants　will　have　one　excellent　effect；　that　of　inducing　the　colonies　to　discourage　slavery　&　to　encourage　the　increase　of　their　free　inhabitants。

　　　　　　　　Mr。　＇Stephen＇　Hopkins　observed　there　were　4　larger；　4　smaller；　&　4　middle…sized　colonies。　　That　the　4　largest　would　contain　more　than　half　the　inhabitants　of　the　confederated　states；　&　therefore　would　govern　the　others　as　they　should　please。　　That　history　affords　no　instance　of　such　a　thing　as　equal　representation。　　The　Germanic　body　votes　by　states。　　The　Helvetic　body　does　the　same；　&　so　does　the　Belgic　confederacy。　　That　too　little　is　known　of　the　ancient　confederations　to　say　what　was　their　practice。

　　　　　　　　Mr。　Wilson　thought　that　taxation　should　be　in　proportion　to　wealth；　but　that　representation　should　accord　with　the　number　of　freemen。　　That　government　is　a　collection　or　result　of　the　wills　of　all。　　That　if　any　government　could　speak　the　will　of　all；　it　would　be　perfect；　and　that　so　far　as　it　departs　from　this　it　becomes　imperfect。　　It　has　been　said　that　Congress　is　a　representation　o