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.[533]
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.[534]
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.)[535]
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.)[536]