Daniel Carroll arrived today from Maryland. His credentials were read, and he took his seat with his fellow delegates, Luther Martin, and Daniel of St. Thomas Jennifer. We met Carroll briefly in this series [See May 27, 1787] as one of only two Roman Catholic delegates to the Convention.
When Carroll’s father died, Carroll inherited lands and fortune which were increased by his marriage to his cousin Eleanor. His entrance into public life took place in 1777 when he was elected to the Maryland State legislature. Like most other colonies, Catholics had been prohibited from holding public office since early colonial times. Once the Revolution was underway, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia instituted new constitutions which allowed Catholics to vote and hold office, paving the way for Carroll and his cousin Charles to participate in the civic life of Maryland. John Carroll, Daniel’s brother, is a Jesuit priest and will soon become first Catholic bishop and archbishop in the United States.
In 1781, Daniel Carroll was elected to the Continental Congress, signing the Articles of Confederation on behalf of Maryland, the last State to accede to the nascent union. Carroll remained in Congress until 1784. Three years later, cousin Charles, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, was asked to be a delegate to the constitutional convention. When he declined, the invitation fell to Daniel who reluctantly accepted. He will find today’s session disconcerting as unity continues to elude the Convention.
Today began with a report from the committee of five, delivered by Gouverneur Morris. The committee’s task was to re-consider the proposal that the ratio of representatives in the first branch should be one for every forty thousand inhabitants. In its place, Morris reported, the committee recommends fifty-six members for the first branch to be distributed in this manner: New Hampshire – 2; Massachusetts – 7; Connecticut – 4; New York – 5; New Jersey – 3; Pennsylvania – 8; Delaware – 1; Maryland – 4; Virginia – 9; North Carolina – 5; South Carolina – 5; and Georgia – 3. Although Rhode Island chose not to participate in the Convention, the committee recommended one delegate for that State.
Because the States will inevitably alter in wealth and number of inhabitants, the committee also recommended that the national legislature be authorized to increase the number of representatives. It may also augment the number to accommodate addition of new States.
Immediately, Roger Sherman rose, demanding to know “on what principles or calculations” were the recommendations made. “It did not appear to correspond to any rule of numbers or of any requisition hitherto adopted by Congress,” he declared.
Nathaniel Gorham, a member of the committee, responded. “The number of blacks and whites with some regard to supposed wealth was the general guide. The legislature is to make alterations from time to time as justice and propriety may require,” he explained. There are two objections to the rate of one member for every forty thousand inhabitants, he continued. The first is that representatives would soon be too numerous. The second is that the western States, when added to the union, may have different interests and if admitted on the basis of forty thousand, “would by degrees out-vote the Atlantic States.”
Morris and John Rutledge moved to postpone the proposition relating to the number of representatives and consider the second part of the committee’s report regarding authorizing the legislature “to alter the number from time to time according to wealth and inhabitants.” The motion passed 9 – 2, New York and New Jersey voting “no.”
Sherman then moved to refer apportioning of representatives to yet another committee, to be composed of one delegate from each State, sparking a lively debate. Morris admitted the numbers in the committee’s report “are little more than a guess. Wealth was not altogether disregarded by the committee…and the committee meant little more than to bring the matter to a point for the consideration of all.” Delaware’s George Read asked why Georgia was allotted two members when “her number of inhabitants stood below that of Delaware,” which was allotted only one representative. The response was simple, if not entirely satisfactory. The population of Georgia is growing rapidly, Morris said, and “before the plan takes effect, it will probably be entitled to two representatives.”
The “estimate for the future according to the combined rule of number and wealth is too vague,” asserted William Paterson. Including slaves in the count for representation is another problem. “If Negroes are not represented in the States to which they belong, why should they be represented in the general government?” he asked. “Has a man in Virginia a number of votes in proportion to the number of his slaves?” Paterson, an opponent of slavery, was not finished. The proposal before them is “an indirect encouragement of the slave trade,” he charged, reminding the delegates that the Continental Congress, in their act relating to the change of the eighth article of confederation, had been ashamed to use the term “slaves” and had substituted a description.” Why accept it here?
James Madison, a slave owner, interjected, attempting “ a proper ground of compromise; that in the first branch the States should be represented according to their number of free inhabitants; and in the second, which has for one of its primary objects the guardianship of property, according to the whole number, including slaves.” Pierce Butler “urged warmly the justice and necessity of regarding wealth in the apportionment of representatives.”
The last to speak was New York’s Rufus King. “Eleven of the thirteen States had agreed to consider slaves in the apportionment of taxation,” he said, “and taxation and representation ought to go together. On the question of creating a committee of a delegate from each State to consider the apportionment of representation passed 9 – 2, New York and South Carolina voting “no.” Committee members were appointed, and the Convention adjourned.