And if the one be not entitled to representation,the other also should be denied that right.Whatever be the difference of their relations to the separate members of the community,in the eye of that community they are both people.Here,again,Mr.Adams shall speak for me;and our country has produced few men who could speak more wisely:"A slave may,indeed,from the custom of speech,be more properly called the wealth of his master,than the free laborer might be called the wealth of his employer;but as to the State,both are equally its wealth,and should therefore equally add to the quota of its tax."Yea;and,consequently,they should equally add to the quota of its representation.
Judge Story supposes that it is a great advantage to the slave-holding States that,while three-fifths of the slaves are entitled to representation,two-fifths are exempted from taxation.Why confine it to three-fifths?
Suppose that none of them were entitled to representation,the only consequence would be,that the State would have fewer representatives,and for that reason,would have a less amount of taxes to pay.In this case,all the slaves would be exempted from taxation;and,according to our author,the slaveholding States would have great reason to be content with so distinguishing an advantage.And,for the same reason,every other State would have cause to rejoice at the diminution of the number of people,for although its representation would thereby be decreased,its taxes would be decreased in the same proportion.This is the true mode of testing the author's position.
It will be found that every State values the right of representation at a price infinitely beyond the amount of direct taxes to which that right may subject it;and,of course,the southern States have little reason to be thankful that two-fifths of their slaves are exempted from taxation,since they lose,in consequence of it,the right of representation to the same extent.The author,however,seems to have forgotten this connection between representation and taxation;he looks only at the sources whence the Union may draw wealth from the South,without enquiring into the principles upon which her representation may be enlarged.He thinks that direct taxes ought to be apportioned,"according to the real value of property within the State;in which case "the whole of the slaves would have been taxable as property."I have already remarked that this is,indeed,the true rule but it is wholly impracticable.It would be alike impossible to fix a satisfactory standard of valuation,and to discover the taxable subjects.No approximation to the truth could be hoped for,without a host of officers,whose compensation would consume a large proportion of the tax,while,from the very nature of their duties,they would be forced into minute examinations,inconsistent with the ******* of our institutions,harassing and vexatious in their details,and leading inevitably to popular resistance and tumult.And this process must be gone through at every new tax;for the relative wealth of the States would be continually changing.Hence,population has been selected as the proper measure of the wealth of the States.But,upon our author's principle,the South would be,indeed,little better off than the lamb in the embrace of the wolf.The slaves are easily found;they can neither be buried under ground,nor hid in the secret drawers of a bureau.They are peculiar,too,to a particular region;and other regions,having none of them,would yet have a voice in fixing their value us subjects of taxation.That they would bear something more than their due share of this burthen,is just as certain as that man,under all circumstances,will act according to his nature.In the mean time,not being considered as people,they would have no right to be heard in their own defense,through their representatives in the federal councils.On the other hand,the non-slave-holding States would be represented in proportion to the whole numbers of their people,and would be taxed only according to that part of their wealth which they might choose to disclose,or which they could not conceal.And in the estimate of this wealth,their people would not be counted as taxable subjects,although they hold to their respective States precisely the same relation,as laborers and contributors to the common treasury,as is held by the slaves of the South to their respective States.The rule,which considers slaves only as property to be taxed,and not as people to be represented,is little else than a rule imposing on the southern.States almost the entire burthens of the government,and allowing to them only the shadow of influence in the measures of that government.
The truth is,the slave-holding States have always contributed more than their just proportion to the wealth and strength of the country,and not less than their just proportion to its intelligence and public virtue.
