per distinction between the free and slave por-
tions of our population.
It has been said that this rule has no applica-
tion to the internal affairs of oar State. The ob-
jection is unfounded. There are as many rea-
sons to recommend it in our system, as in the
Constitution of the United States. By the cen-
sus of 1840, there was in North Carolina one
slave to about one and three-fourths freemen. In
Arkansas, one to five freemen. In New Jersey,
one slave to about thirty freemen, and so on,
throughout all degrees of inequality. It was to
this variety in classes of population, and to the
double character of slaves as property and per-
sons, that the rule of federal numbers is owing.
With this interpretation, let us consider the case
presented by the counties and city of Baltimore.
Allegany has one slave to every thirty freemen.
Anne Arundel one to every two freemen. In
Calvert the classes are nearly equal. In Cecil
there is one slave to every twenty-two freemen.
in Prince George's the slaves are most numerous.
in Frederick they are as one to twelve. In Car-
roll about one to twenty. In Washington as one
to fifteen, in Somerset as one to three. In Baltimore
city as one to about seventy-five. It will
be at once seen, therefore, that all the questions
which agitated the Federal Congress, and the
Convention of 1787 are presented in this State.
in other States the principle of federal num-
bers has not been considered as applicable only
to our relations to the general government; but
has been adopted as a corrective to the irregu-
larities in the distribution of the slave population.
And the view is wisely taken. In the
Convention of 1787, the several States were persuaded
of the necessity of altering the rule of
equality under the old confederation, and of mak-
ing just allowance for difference in population in
one branch of the National Legislature. It seems
to me that the delegates from counties, which
are united by acommon bond, and are possessed
in a great degree of a common interest, ought
cheerfully to acquiesce in a rule adopted by
communities differing in climate, soil, locality,
and products, and in the whole character of their
population.
The analogy presented to the relative condition
of the slates of our whole confederacy is more
manifest when sections of the state are compared
with each other. The counties of Allegany,
Carroll, Washington, Cecil, Frederick and Caro-
line, with Baltimore city, have a slave popula-
tion of only 12,300, out of a gross population of
312,890, which is more than one half of the popu-
lation of the state. While the remaining coun-
ties have a slave population of 78,256, out of a
gross population of 270,126. If federal numbers
are not adopted, the counties first named acquire
an increase in their representative number of
4920 only, and the latter of 30,302; so, it will be
seen. that a computation of gross numbers, is
manifestly injurious to the interest of those sec-
tions which have a large free population
The abandonment of federal numbers also is
not only a departure from the compromise of
1836, but it is inconsistent with the previous |
opinions of the gentleman who has introduced
this proposition. In 1808, he was a member of
the House of Delegates, from the city of Balti-
more A bill had passed the House changing
the Constitution of the Senate. It was returned
with several amendments, among which was one
giving one delegate in the lower House, for every
five thousand "federal numbers" and the amend-
ment containing this feature, received the sup-
port of the gentleman from Anne Arundel. *
Then if federal numbers were acceptable to him
when the free population of the State bore a less
proportion than at present to the gross number,
I am at loss to know what process of reasoning
has altered his opinions.
It must he remembered also that the practice
of all the Southern States has reprobated the
idea of reckoning the slaves and free men as
standing upon an equality in any computation of
representative numbers. Nor is there any thing
in our situation which requires the introduction
of a theory so novel and injurious. Much indeed
has been said with reference to the unequal distribution
of slave property, and of the consequen-
ces properly following upon such a circumstance.
But other states, more southern in position, more
deeply interested in the institution itself—with
more unequal interests—have set us an example
which leaves no room for this species of argu-
ment.
The example of Virginia is a profitable study.
In the old Constitution, adopted in 1776, the le-
gislature was composed of a Senate and House
of Delegate. In the first, the counties were ar-
ranged in districts, and in the second, each coun-
ty had two delegates, and each city or borough
one. The plan for this lower House was inden-
tical with that fixed by the law of 1716 in this
state, with the difference only that it gave four to
each county, and two to each city, or borough,
then existing, or which should be created.
In 1829, the slave population east of the
Ridge, (which is the line of division between the
great interests of the State,) was 390,000, and
the white 362,745. West of the Ridge, the slave
population was 50 000 only, and the white 319,-
516. Eastern Virginia, however, paid three-
fourths of the taxation of the State. The forty
counties which lay west of the Ridge, drew from
the treasury, more than they paid into it, (Virg.
Deb. p. 113.) This immense disproportion was
of serious moment in the distribution of political
power. If the slaves of Eastern Virginia had
been reckoned in gross, it would have possessed
an aggregate representative population of 653 -
745, to oppose to an aggregate in Western Vir-
ginia of only 369 516. But If the white popula-
tion only where considered, the two districts
stood nearly upon an equality.
If population had remained in the position
which it occupied in 1829, the East, with a white
or federal basis, would have maintained the
* Proceed. H. of D. 19 Jan. 1808. The amend-
ment is printed in an appendix. The bill and
amendments were published by order of the
House of the date above. |
