Columbian Herald:
Some time before a Convention of the United States was held, I mentioned in a paragraph
which was published in one of the Charlestown papers, that it would be acting wisely in
the formation of a constitution for a free government, to enact, that the electors should
recall their representatives when they thought proper, although they should be chosen for a
certain term of years; as a right to appoint (where the right of appointing originates with
the appointees) implies a right to recall. As the persons appointed are meant to act for the
benefit of the appointees, as well as themselves, they, if they mean to act for their mutual benefit,
can have no objection to a proposal of this kind....
The representation is insubstantial and ought to be increased. In matters where there is much room for
opinion, you will not expect me to establish my positions with mathematical certainty; you must only expect
my observations to be candid, and such as are well founded in the mind of the writer. I am in a field where doctors
disagree; and as to genuine representation, though no feature in government can be more important, perhaps, no one has
been less understood, and no one that has received so imperfect a consideration by political writers. The ephori in Sparta,
and the tribunes in Rome, were but the shadow; the representation in Great Britain is unequal and insecure. In America we have
done more in establishing this important branch on its true principles, than, perhaps, all the world besides. Yet even here, I
conceive, that very great improvements in representation may be made. In fixing this branch, the situation of the people must be
surveyed, and the number of representatives and forms of election....
|
|
"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States, which may be
included in this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding
to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and
excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons." What a strange and unnecessary
accumulation of words are here used to conceal from the public eye what might have been expressed in
the following concise manner: Representatives are to be proportioned among the States respectively,
according to the number of freemen and slaves inhabiting them, counting five slaves for three freemen....
. . . . Why in England have the revolutions always ended in stipulations in favor of general liberty, equal laws,
and the common rights of the people, and in most other countries in favor only of a few influential men? The
reasons, in my mind, are obvious. In England the people have been substantially represented in many respects; in
the other countries it has not been so. Perhaps a small degree of attention to a few simple facts will illustrate
this. In England, from the oppressions of the Norman Kings to the revolution in 1688, during which period of two or
three hundred years, the English liberties were ascertained and established, the aristocratic part of that nation was
substantially represented by a very large number of nobles, possessing similar interests and feelings with those they
represented. The body of the people, about four or five millions, then mostly a frugal landed people, were represented
by about five hundred representatives, taken not from the order of men whih formed the aristocracy....
  |
|