tives, for the security of the southern. No principle would justify the giving them a majority. They were brought as near an equality as was possible. He was not averse to giving them a still greater security, but did not see how it could be done.
Gen. PINCKNEY. The report before it was committed was more favorable to the Southern States than as it now stands. If they are to form so considerable a minority, and the regulation of trade is to be given to the general government, they will be nothing more than overseers for the Northern States. He did not expect the Southern States to be raised to a majority of representatives; but wished them to have something like an equality. At present, by the alterations of the committee in favor of the Northern States, they are removed farther from it than they were before. One member, indeed, had been added to Virginia, which he was glad of, as he considered her as a Southern State. He was glad also that the members of Georgia were increased.
Mr. WILLIAMSON was not for reducing New Hampshire from three to two, but for reducing some others. The southern interest must be extremely endangered by the present arrangement. The Northern States are to have a majority in the first instance, and the means of perpetuating it.
Mr. DAYTON observed, that the line between northern and southern interest had been improperly drawn; that Pennsylvania was the dividing state, there being six on each side of her.
Gen. PINCKNEY urged the reduction; dwelt on the superior wealth of the Southern States, and insisted on its having its due weight in the government.
Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS regretted the turn of the debate. The states, he found, had many representatives on the floor. Few, he feared, were to be deemed the representatives of America. He thought the Southern States have, by the report, more than their share of representation. Property ought to have its weight, but not all the weight. If the Southern States are to supply money, the Northern States are to spill their blood. Besides, the probable revenue to be expected from the Southern States has been greatly overrated. He was against reducing New Hampshire.
Mr. RANDOLPH was opposed to a reduction of New Hampshire, not because she had a full title to three members, but because it was in his contemplation, first, to make it the duty, instead of leaving it to the discretion, of the legislature, to regulate the representation by a periodical census; secondly, to require more than a bare majority of votes in the legislature, in certain cases, and particularly in commercial cases.
On the question for reducing New Hampshire from three to two representatives, it passed in the negative.
North Carolina, South Carolina, ay, 2; Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Georgia, no, 8. (In the printed Journal. North Carolina, no; Georgia, ay.)
