Some of the REASONS WHY THE Proposed Amendments to the Constitution of Georgia ought not to be ratified By Richmond ^ge ' *2, SOME OF THE . • '"mm asons, WHY THK V P11 OPOSvEI* A M END MENTIS, TO THE OOUSTITrTIOlT or Georgia, OUGHT NOT TO BE RATIFIED# Myw^Hiwiii^!M>!iamsaB3a| B¥ " RICIIJIOSD." ( THIRD EDITION: WITH THK ATJTHOR'a SUBSEQUENT NUMBERS, AMD AM ARTICLE FROM THK SOUTHERN RECORDER. gs gg AUGUSTA, Ga. FKINTKD AT THK CONSTITUTIONALIST OFFICE. 1833. ,Visu. The following remarks were addressed to the Georgia Courier., In reply W » s-.-ntn of communications in thai paper, under the signature of" One of the 19 to *u." Angnstt 1833. 2S0. 2. Fram the Georgia Courier, ©2 June 191&.* I intend, if circumstances permit, to offer, through your pa- -par, some of the reasons, which lead me to oppose the plaa of Reduction, proposed by the late Convention. And in do- ing so, 1 shall endeavor to address the understanding of your readers. " One of the People," in the Courier of the lOtk and 14ih ins?, has appeared in favor of the plan—and he has discovered, that no "argument" has yet been adduced against it. I do not know what that writer calls " argument." But I confess, that if the articles which have appeared in the Jour- rial and Recorder (not to speak of other papers) do not eon- tainargument," I do not understand the meaning of the word. Let me suggest, to "One of the People," that this encoring s'yle of sovereign contempt for an adversary, this short hand method of answering an argument, by denying that it is " argument," is in very bad taste. Some peopla may, peradventure, rend both sides, who are as capable of.ap- predating an " argument," as " One of the People"; and if they do, he an I his sweeping assertions must look rather small, in the only eyes to which he can wish to appear large. Mv intention is to answer this writer. I shall do it. respect- fully, for many reasons; but principally for two—I consider any writer, who enters the lists with one, whom he professes to despise, guil v, by bis own showing, of self-degradation : and, secon lly, " One of the People," though writing in what I must be excused for considering a very bad cause, does it i« a manner to shew that he is worthy of a better one. My objections to the proposed plan are— 1st. It does not answer the end, proposed, in calling tba Convention. 2nd. So far from removing existing evils, the proposed plan will increase theln. 3rd. In both Houses of the Legislature, under the propo- sed amendment, a minority of the People will elect a majority ♦f members. 4th. The taxes will be paid by one portion of the Slate, and their proceeds appropriated by another. (4) 5th. The federal basis ought to have been retained, in one house, at least; and, if it be rejected, a great and permanent injury, to the State, and to the South, will be unavoidable. I shall consider this last subject, first, because " One of the People" has, thus far, confined himself to it. But, before pro- ceeding to the discussion, I must be allowed to remark on two of this writer's preliminary observations—that the plan is the best, now to be obtained ; and that some of its defects, at least, are owing to the " exorbitant demands" of its oppo- nents ; the friends of the plan (and they only, according to the writer's inference) being " anxious to act for the good of the State, regardless of either party or local interest," and their good intentions being defeated, by the " unreasonable extravagance" of the other side. As to the first remark, I have only to say, that if the time has come, when a majority of the people cannot adopt a better plan of government, thaa to give all power to the minority, it is time to dissolve into our original elements, and begin again. The only reason why no better plan "could be obtained," in the Convention, was, that a combination of various local interests had fixed upon their plan, for their own purposes—and, being a majori- ty, voted down every alteration proposed, as a matter of course. But 1 am yet to learn, that a Convention, in which the small Counties may have their proper influence (instead of doubling it, as they did in the late one, by sending dele- gates in equal number to their entire representation in the Legislature) will be forced to come to such a " lame and im- potent conclusion," as the one before us. I submit to the wri- ter himself, whether the other remark is liberal, or just, or worthy of such a pen as his. It assumes that the friends of the proposed amendments were " anxious to act for the good of the State, regardless of local or party interest," the other side going for " local or party interest," exclusively ; when it is a well known fact, not merely that the amendments were carried by a combination of " local or party interests," but that that combination was openly avowed and boasted of, on the'floor of the Convention' It is well known, that every testing vote was a " local or party" vote, and the yeas and nays will show it. And shall we be told, in the face of this, that the majority were the impartial, unbiassed friends of" the State," " without regard to local or party interest," and that the "exorbitant demands," the "unreasonableex'ravagance" «f the other side, drove them to extremes? Whether these demands, in the first instance, really were " exorbitant," " unreasonable," or "extravagant," will, I trust, appear in the sequel of this discussion. But when it was found that the adoption, of what the minority thought right, was impossible^ ( 5 ) plan upon plan, for compromising the difficulty, was propos- ed in vain—and, at last, the plan of Mr. Hull, which was of- fered, only as a final effort at compromise, and with a view to mitigate an evil, which was found unavoidable, was reject- ed ; and now, we are told, forsooth, that this state-loving, par- ty-hating, local-interest-despising majority, were driven t» extremes, by the unreasonable, exorbitant, extravagant de- mands of a known and ascertained minority ! Really, this is not only insufferable, but ridiculous. As 1 am not one of that army, who " swore so terribly in Flanders," I shall not stop to discuss, further, the prelimina- ry remarks of " One of the People"—nor shall I trouble my- self with his remarks on the " Georgia Times." Mr. Slade must fight his own battles. I will proceed, therefore, to state why I consider the federal basis the proper one, for the Hous® of Representatives, instead of that of white population alone. And if" One of the People" finds that my remarks are " not arguments," why he will not have to answer them—tl at's all. To the point, then. The question is, ought any allowance to be made, in fixing the ratio of representation, for the num. ber of our slaves? The triumphant answer to this question is, that persons, and persons only, are entitled to representa- tion ; that slaves are only property ; and that, to allow them a place in the computation, is aristocratic, giving the rich pow- er over the poor, " and all that sort o' thing." Let me d» " One of the People" the justice to say, that he has had the good sense to treat this sort of slang, about aristocracy, &c. with the contempt it deserves. I shall not advocate, here, the propriety of giving slaves a representation, as property— Because, merely as property, I clo conceive the argument .goes to show that all other property should be computed too ; and though I am one of those, who believe such a plan to be correct, on principle, yet it is unnecessary to go into the sup- port of it, here, as the question has nothing to do with the purposes of my discussion, and the ground, necessary to be occupied, is broad enough without it. We are told, if we go back to first principles, persons only are to be represented- Be it so. If slaves are not persons, they have no existence. They are persons, in the strict, literal sense of the word. They live, and move, and act, and think, and speak, and are as much human beings, as " One of the People," or myself. Upon the strict abstract principle, then, for which our oppo- nents are such sticklers, without reference to the peculiar laics of this part of the country, slaves, poor and friendless as they may be, are entitled to be represented, not by three fifths of their numbers, but by the whole. It happens, how- aver, that the laws of this State make negroes " chattels per- ( 6 ) sonal, to all intents and purposes." Now this, it must be re- marked, is not the Constitution of the country, but only a sta- tute law, under the Constitution. And, in framing nfunda. mental law, I am yet to learn, how or wh v the people are to be held bound, by previous acts of their Legislature. It is, however, a part of the settled policy of the State; and though, if 1 were to follow the example of mv opponcn s, in insisting on first, principles, without any regard to existing circumstan. res, by which we must be governed, and which compel us, in this instance, to let these first principles give wav to.this ne- cessiry poliev, 1 should bring them to the necessity of con.- ceding full representation to slaves; vet 1. f.el the necessity of a luii:ting that this literal argument will not do, in practice. The gentlemen on the other side wish to disregard circum- stances, an 1 rely on principle, just far enough m suit their own purpose. But when we carry out the principle of rep- resenting persons, tliev bring us back to the " oi roams ance," that, these persons are properly ! This strikes mo as being an unfiir mode of argument. Take circumsl men, from die he- ginning to the end. gentlemen, or let us have principle, throughout. Now I admit, that I do not think it either pro- per, or prudent, to revert m these principles, wltho it refer- enco to the state of fact?, to which they are to bo applied. What is the s ate of ficts? These people ar ■ a part of our population, and likely ever to remain so, of an infnr'o'* caste* We are oblige 1, in lepca lan* of all other consul mm ions, from regarlto our own safety and to theirs, to keep the n in sor- vitude, and to consider them as property. But th i-r cliarac- ter is no', exclusively, property, it is a mixed one. For certain purposes, i.hay are property alone, and fir other pur- posas they are only persons. " It is onlv under the pretext," says J v.vias Madisov, " that the laws have transform -d ne- groos into subjects of property, that a place is d >n;e 1 hem in the computation of numbers." If they are to be considered as persons, they become a part of the people, and are enti- tied to full representa'ion as such. So far, then, as their cha- racier of persons is merged in that of property, they are not to be computed. So far, as their charac.er of p rsons re- mains, they ought, on ev tv principle, to he computed. Mr. Madison, in the 54th No. of the Federalist,* from which I have quoted above, insists on this mixed character, as being the only true one. He tells us that, in being bought and sold, compelled to labor for his master, and liable to punish- ment at his master's caprice, the slave is property—but is a person, in being protected by law, against the violence eves of his master, and in being subject to punishment, for breach- 9 This Number is, in some editions, erroneously attributed to Mr. Jay. ( 7 ) •a of law. He is sold, and controlled, as property—is protect- ad and punished, as a person. So far, Mr. Madison. Now 1 ask " One of the People" to tell me, if a slave is only proper- ty, on what is founded the law for his personal protection? As property, the master only could claim the protection of law for him ; and yet, we find him protected, even against his master. Again—if a slave is not a person, on what is founded the law, making him amenable to the public, for breaches of law—establishing a respectable tribunal for his trial, and, for the higher offences, even giving him that most inestimable personal privilege, a trial ly jury? Is properly amenable to law? Can a beast be punished by law? I should like to see a jury empannelled, to try a mad dog for murder, and the defence of insanity set up in his favor. I do not know how this view of the subject will strike other minds. To mine, it is not only satisfactory, but conclusive; and 1 have the venerable name of James Madison to quote, as the author of the argument. If, then, this be correct; if the slave is of a mixed character, of person and property ; so far as his personal c haracter remains, he ought to be computed, in fix- ing the ratio of representation. The only difficulty, then, is to ascertain what proportion of his personality does remain. The Constitution of the United States, and that of Georgia, have fixed on three fifths ; the remaining two fifths of his cha- racter as a man, politically, being considered as merged in that of the slave. The precisely correct mathematical pro- portion, it would puzzle "One of the People," myself, or a greater man than either of us, to fix upon. We find the ra- tio of thr e fifths already fixed, in our existing Constitution ; and it seems to me, before that proportion is altered, some reason should be shown, for making it more, or less. Be- sides, we are not now disputing as to the proportion of slaves to be computed, but whether they ought to be computed at all. There is another important reason for retaining this basis of representation ; and much as it has been scouted at, it does not seem to me to have been answered. All will admit the extreme importance, not only to Georgia, but to the entire South, of retaining this basis, in the Federal Constitution. We are told, however, that rejecting it, in our own Constitu- tion, cannot affect that instrument, in any way. If it can and will affect it, 1 presume the advocates of the free w hite basis will be few. It seems to me there can remain none, if that tendency be made obvious, unless there be some politi. cians mad enough, to sacrifice the interests, not to say the in- dependence, of the South, to local or party views. Now, it is perfectly well known, that this feature in the Federal Con- stitution was the result of compromise, in the Federal Con. ( 8 ) vention ; that it excited strong opposition to the ratification of that Constitution, at the North; and that the ratification was greatly aided, to say the least, by the publication of the Fe- ieralist, the very work from which I have borrowed most of my argument. It is also well known, to all who know any thing about the matter, that., from the ratification-to this day, the northern people have complained of this basis, as unjust and unequal, and been anxious to get rid of it. 1 know this is denied. But many publications have I seen, from northern pens, against this basis ; many respectable northern men have I heard complain of it. It has been, again and again, com- plained of, in Congress—and, during the last Congress, by no less a man than John Quincy Adams. One of the proposi- tions of the Hartford Convention (which, whatever else it may have been, was certainly composed of the very first men in New England) was to amend this article of the Fede- ral Constitution ; and, finally, repeated amendments to this article have been formally proposed, by the Legislatures of Northern States. Now, really, in the face of all this, to de. ny that this feature of the Federal Constitution is obnoxious to the north, and one which they would change, if they could do it, peaceably and constitutionally, is perfectly ridiculous. I shall consider it, then, no longer a debateable matter, that they do desire to change this basis. And I ask the friends of our patent project, of amendment, how they will answer their northern brethren, when they say to them, in proposing this change, " You admit this basis to be wrong, on principle: You were the only Southern Stale, that incorporated it in your own Constitution : You have seen your error, and have stricken it out, as radically wrong; and we only ask you for what, you yourselves being judges, is mere, sheer jus- tiee." I suspect the Southern man, to whom this is addres- sed, will have to answer it, after the manner of" One of the People," "Verily, brother Jonathan, all this is no argtj- stent." " One of the People" says, indeed, that there is no analogy between the Federal and State Constitutions—that, in the Federal Constitution, this basis was adopted to protect those Stales, to whom this " species of property" was " pecu- liar" ; whereas, in this State, the " rights of slavery are the same, in all the Counties." This proves too much, or it proves nothing. If these rights be " the same in all the Coun- ties," then why object to this basis? It will operate equally, •very where. If they be not the same, then the analogy be- tween the Federal and State Constitutions remains in all its force, and " One of the People" must go back, in answering the northern mam to his favorite argument of" no argument." i.9> vt. iz. From the Courier, of June 21st. Having considered the rejection of the federal basis of rep- reservation, as a reason why the amendments to the Consti- tution, proposed by the late Convention, ought not to be rati- fled, I come now to treat my other objections, in their order. 1. My first was, that the plan of the Convention does not answer the end, proposed, in calling that body : which is shown, by considering what was the mischief to be remedied, and what would have been an effectual remedy. " One of the People" rests his defence of the Convention, mainly, on the ground, that their plan will save the State a large annual expenditure. If the saving of money were real- ly the object for which the Convention was called ; they have not done half enough., and the people ought not to be satisfied. Jfexpenso is.to be reuues I, without regard to any other prin- ciple, why not'reduce the Senate to twenty, and the house t» fifty, at. once? This would have saved the State some $50,000 per annum, instead of the $20,000, which, it is said, the proposed plan will save, and would have been economi- sing to some purpose; while the laws would, probably, have been as well made, as they will be now. Expense was, and ought to have been, one object. But, if the people of Georgia Siare really made up their minds, to sacrifice substantial and permanent political interests—rights, purchased by the toil, and consecrated by the blood of their fathers—to the paltry consideration of dollars and cents ; they deserve to be slaves, and most certainly will be : for, when men are in the market, they will always find purchasers. Public money is a thing to be husbanded, and with care too ; but when public men sacri- fi.ee principle, to preserve public money, they forget, their duty, ami betray their constituents, if the people sanction it, they betray themselves. Another object, which these gentlemen say they have at- taiucd, is the reduction of the house of representatives, from a disorderly assembly, to one of suitable size, for business and for decorum. To what extent is this true ? The house i* to consist of 144 members. Reject the amendment, and it will remain, as it now is, 175. The difference is 31. I sus- pect it will be found that these few odd members—about IS per cent, of the whole—will make little difference, in the or- der of the house, or the despatch of business. An assembly ®f 144 men, always under more or less political excitement, must be rather mobbifh ,• adding 31 more could make matter* ( 10) very little worse. To attain tlie object, proposed under this head, the reduction should have been still greater. These objects, then, have not been properly answered. But, if they had been, they were not the primary objects of calling the Convention. They had, it is true, their influence, but were only minor considerations. The chief and primary object was to equalize the representation, by giving each part of the State its proper proportion of power, and no more ; and to alter that iniquitous system, which gave, to more than forty eounties, a representation, whose annual pay fir exceeded the amount of taxes, paid by their respective counties to the Treasury. These were the evils, which a great majority of the people expected the Convention to remedy. And what would have been a proper remedy? Such a plan, surely, as would have made a majority of the Legislature elective by an actual majority of the people—a plan that would have given to the people weight, at the State House, in proportion to their weight at home. This would have been equalization. Has such a plan been offered to us? The answer will be found, in my second objection, that, 2. So far from removing existing evils, the plan proposed ,will increase them. What was the inequality before? In the Senate, the large and small Counties were precisely equal. In the House, every County had one representative; and, for the additional mera- bers, the ratio of increase was so large, as to give to the small Counties a most unreasonable advantage. Even upoa the white basis, this inequality was enormous. For example, Bryan, Wayne, Glynn and Randolph, having an average white population of less than seven hundred, were entitled to one representative each—that is, to one for every seven hun- dred inhabitants. Oglethorpe^Wilkes, Columbia, and Rich, mond, with an average white population of more than fve thousand, had but three members, each, or one to every one thousand six hundred and sixty six inhabitants. This gave the former Counties an advantage, of more than seven to one, in the Senate, and more than two to one, in the House. Anil this example is only one illustration of an inequality, that ran througti the whole State, between the large and small Coun- ties. Now, how does this beautiful Convention scheme reme- such a state of things? The Senate remains as it was, i» regard to the relative influence of the Counties; and, in the House, all the reduction is from the large Counties, the small- er still retaining their one member each. Thus, by way of another example, in the Counties above referred to, the pro- portion, in favor of the smaller ones, is still seven to one, it fhe Senate, while in the House, each of the large Counties (11) losing one member, the inequality is increased, to nearly four lo one! The effect is the same, throughout the State, though not, m every instance, so glaring ; so that the result of th«r scheme will be, to increase the relative power of the small, er Counties, which was, already, far too great. If, then, it be mathematically true, that addition is the converse of sub« traction, surely, such a plan must aggravate the evils, which the Convention was intended to remedy. 3. In loth Houses of the Legislature, under the proposed amendment, a minority of the people will elect a majority of members. This is a simple matter of fact, to be proved, not hy "ar- guinent,'- hut by figures. And, that my demonstration may be unanswerable, on the principles of " One of the People" himself, 1 s! all predicate my statements on ihe white lasts alone. I will remark, here, that I shall not attempt to ex. hibit tlie Senate, and the House, respectively, in their worst possible f ntures. By making one division of the State, a monstrous inequality will be discovered in the Senate ; by another, one, about as bad, will be found in the House. But, in order to treat the matter fairly—(we must give even the devil his due)—and to show that the same majority of the- people are in the minority, in both bouses, I shall make the same division-for Loth. 1 take the Senatorial districts pro. posed, from the 14th to the 30th inclusive, (see the annexed Table 1.) omitting ihe 22nd, which lies west of Flint River, and, if included, would make mv division too irregular, in its form. This gives me a compact body of Counties, com. prising the whole centre of the State, and containing a free white population of 103,176 persons. A!' ihe other Coun- ties of the State contain 146,659 free white persons. Of these two divisions, the majori y are io, elect sixteen Sena- tors, and sixty-seven Representatives ; the minori'v, twenty, nine Senators and seventy.seven Representatives. On this basis, then, Couniies, which are nearly 17,060 in the minori- ty-of the wdiole people, will have a majority of thireen in the Senate, of ten in the House, and of twenty.llin e oh joint ballot. It is also to be remarked, that this power of the minority must and will increase. For, by a glance at the map, il will be seen, that all new Coun'ies, hereafter to be formed, will unquestionably be laid out, in that region, not included in my division. It will be recollected that, ort the plan proposed by the Convention, every new County i» to have one representative; and that one is to betaken from the County, lowest in population, of those electing three. Now the five lowest Counties, having three representatives, •n the plan proposed, are Jasper, Elbert, Jones, Washing- ( 12 ) ton, and Houston—all of thern included in the majority dis- triet. Without allowing, therefore, for the probable increase of the Cherokee country, which, it is generally supposed, will, in a very few years, still farther curtail the consequence of the centre of the State ; every new County formed will take one member of the house from the majority, and add one to the minority ; thus increasing the relative power of the latter, two votes. If five new Counties are formed, then, the five last mentioned each losing one representative, the majority, in the house, of a minority of the people, will be increased to twenty, that identical minority already having a majority of thirteen, in the Senate ! And this, " God sav® the mark"!!—is EQUALIZATION ! ! ! ! 4. The Taxes will be paid, by one portion of the State, and their proceeds appropriated by another. I do not, of course, mean by this, that all the taxes are paid by one portion of the State, and the whole power ofap- propriation vested in another : but that the portion, paying by far the larger amount of taxes, is in the minority in both houses. From the statement, made by the Comptroller Ge- Hera!, to the late Convention, it appears that the same six- teen Senatorial Districts, referred to under the last objec- lion, pay taxes, to the amount of $76,974, and all the rest of the State pays but $58,258.* A district of country, then, paying, in round numbers, $76,000, has thirteen less Sena- tors, and ten less Representatives, than a district paying but $56,000 : and on joint ballot, is in a minority of twenty- three. Be it remarked, a so, that, of this sum, paid by lha minority Counties, Chatham alone pays $13,474 ; and Chat, ham is to be deprived, under the new system, of one of her three representatives. The annexed Table I. taken from official documents, will •how my statements to be correct. The'result of my pre- ceding calculations is—a region of country, tying, in compact form, through the centre of the State, from the Savannah, to the Flint River, contains a majority of 17,000 of the free white population of Georgia ; pays, in taxes, $20,000 more than all the rest of the State, and is to be in a minority, in both Houses of the'Legislature—a fixed minority of thirteen, in the Senate, and a minority of ten, in the House, to which will be added two more, on the formation of every new county. This brings me to the conclusion of the objections, with which I began. Whether " One of the People" will be able to find " argument" in them, I cannot say : but one thing is * Let me remark, once for all, that, in my calculations in regard t® taxes, I have rejected all fractions of a doUar. It eaves much trou- hie, and does not alter the general result. ( 13 ) certain—so far as my objections rest on statements and cal- cuiations, they belong to that class of " chiels that winna ding, " And munna be disputed," called facts—things that may, sometimes, be evaded, but can never be denied. There is one more view of the subject, which I wish to take, before leaving it: and my object is, to show that, what, ever division may be made, the small Counties are to have a most decided, and most unreasonable advantage, on the adop- tion of the proposed amendments. I have already showa the relative weakness, in the Legislature, of the actual strength of the State, lying in one compact body. I now remark (and the annexed Table II. proves me correct) that the twenty-six most populous Counties, without reference to lo- cation, have a great majoriiy of the free white population of the State, and are in the minority, in both Houses. These Counties, as the Table shows, have a white population of 176,139, with but sixty-seven Representatives, and a weight in the Senate, equal to thirteen Senators. The remaining Counties, with a population of 133,696, having thirty-two Senators, and twenty-seven Representatives ; thus giving to Counties, which contain a minority of the people, by mor® than 40,009, a majority of ten in the House, and more than two thirds of the Senate ! ! ! If freemen will not listen to facts like these, of what use can it be to address them, at all 7 Has the spirit of party, like Aaron's rod, so swallowed up every other feeling, that no language is loud enough, no appeal strong enough, to break the wizard spell ? Has argument lost its force, or truth its omnipotence ? 1 will not say, in the language of a respectable and intelligent man, who represented an adjoin- ing county in the Convention, that, if these amendments pre- vail, we are " bound hand and foot, and delivered to our en- emiesbut I will say, and I do believe, that, by adopting them, we shall abandon, not only every true principle of Southern policy, but the only principle, on which a free go- vernment ever did, or ever can exist—the principle, that th* will op THE PEOPLE, is the law of the land. < 14 ) TABLE I. CbowiB? (he free white E'opuiatiun. and amount of Tax" es, in 16 of the proposed Senatorial Districts. 23. J ai.) so. Counties; Henry, Newton, Walton, Clark, O.'ilethorpe, Ell>ert, Greene, Taliaferro, Wilkes, Lincoln, Morgan, Putnam, Putts, Jasper, Pike, Upson, ('raw ford, Monroe, Bibb, Houston, Jones, Baldwin, Twiggs, Wilkinson, Warren, Hancock, Columbia, Richmond, Burke, Scriven, Washington, Jefferson, Remaining Counties, Total of the State, White Pop'tt. Taxes. JV». of Hep's. 8,387 1,566 3 - 8,101 1 565 3 7,078 1 793 3 5,134 2.419 2 5,313 2.776 2 6,38!) 1 854 3 4 865 2,589 o 3,105 1.070 1 5,210 3 219 2 2,785 1 258 1 5,093 2,357 2 5,294 2,257 O 3,367 817 I 6,531 2,658 3 4,713 1.148 2 3,921 1,361 2 2,764 1.040 1 9,723 3 250 3 4,475 8,271 2 5,601 1.304 3 6,196 2,654 3 3,123 2,397 1 4,548 1,618 2 4,785 964 2 5,043 1.987 2 5,023 2.364 2 4,317 2,806 2 5,558 10,666 2 5,193 2,738 2 2,216 1.093 1 5,812 J.375 3 3,514 1.710 2 163,176 $76,974 67 146,659 56.258 77 309,835 $133,232 144. ( 15 ) > minimi,hi wihmii ii i mi ii wwi—wwwm n r TABLE II. "Stowing the free white Population of the 26 most pulous Counties. JV«. Counties. Population, JVo. of Rps. 1. Hall, 11,177 3 a. Gwinnett, 10,721 3 3. Habersham, 10,262 3 4. Monroe, 9,723 3 5. De Kalb, 9,020 3 6. Henry, 8,387 3 7. Newton, 8,101 3 8. Fraiklin, 7,517 3 9. Walton, 7,078 3 10. Jackson, 6,734 3 11. Jasper, 6,531 3 12. Elbert, 6,389 3 13. Jones, 6,196 3 14. Washington, 5,812 3 15. Houston, 5,601 3 1G. Richmond, 5,558 2 17. Oglethorpe, 5,313 2 18, Putnam, 5,294 2 19. Wilkes, 5.210 2 20. Burke, 5,193 2 21. Clark, 5,134 2 22. Morgan, 5,093 2 23. Warren, 5,043 2 24. Troup, 5,026 2 25. Hancock, 5,022 2 26. Chatham, 5,004 2 176,139 67 Remaining Counties, 133,696 77 Total of the State, 309,835 144 < 16 ) HO. XZZ. From the Courier, of June 26th. I am glad to find that " One of the People,"' when he diss- loosed of all his opponents, at once, as having offered " no argument," had not read the various remarks, that had ap- peared in the Journal and Recorder. Let me assure him, they do contain argument—and so do others, which lie has not, probably, seen, in other papers. The Milledgeville pa- pers are so generally read here, and so much looked to, as. the semi-ojjicidls of their respective parties, that it was per- fectly natural for me to suppose " One of the People" had seen them ; and 1 put it to his own candor, (for he certainly has candor) whether I had not reason to infer, that he meant to include those papers, in his sweeping sneer. While on these preliminary matters, let me observe, that, if the "moderate party," small as this writer's last number makes it, had been, in reality, as far above " local or party interest," as he represents ; they would not, and could not have been driven, by the " irritation and excitement," rais- ed on the opposite side, to such extremes. They held the balance in their own hands. Why did they not do their du- tv, and keep both extremes steady ? Was the violence of one party (the existence of which 1 do not admit) an excuse to them, for " going the whole hog," with the other? On the question, between the white and the federal basis, there wa» a difference of but three votes. Where was the moderation of these "moderate" men, that not. even three of them could be rallied, " to the rescue" ? Where were they, th# next day, when a motion was made to reconsider, knowing, us they did, how nearly the house was.divided ? Where were they, on Mr. Hull's motion, when their votes would have produced harmony, and a conciliation of all parties ? If the plan of the violent party would have reduced more than half the extent of the State to a condition, " worse than coloni- zation is not more than half the population and wealth of ( ieorgia in as bad a predicament, under the plan proposed ? 1 ask " One of the People" to examine the calculations and tables, in my second number, and answer me. And then, 1 beg him to say which is worst—that a majority of the peo- pie should govern the greater extent of territory, or that the greater extent of territory should rule a majority of the people? I beg him, further, to recollect, that if the plan of the minority had succeeded, in Convention, the Senate would kave been organized, according to population ; but that the ( 17) thinly peopled counties would have had a very great advan. iage, in the house—nearly as great as they now have, and indeed, I think, greater. And then, I ask him to say, which of the two plans was most " unreasonable," " exorbitant," or " extravagant," and to which of the two would " mode- rate" men, really free from local or party interest," have most inclined ? The plan, which he hastily denounces as " exorbitant," &c. gave, to the majority of the people, the Senate, and to the minority, the House. This was YIO- LENCE. The plan, which his friends, the "moderate par- ty," were forced into, by this " violence," gives, most de- cidedly, both houses to the minority. This is MODERA- TION. " My kingdom for a—Dictionary"!!! " One of the People," in endeavoring to " entangle" me, with those who support the same side of the question, disco, vers that I use different arguments, and place the subject on u different footing, from them. Does a man of his intelli* gence suppose, that there can be but one mode of defending the right side ? Is it an argument against the soundness of a position, that it admits of a variety of illustrations? Because a dozen men give a dozen different good reasons, for the same opinion, does it follow that they are all wrong ? I have been taught no such rules of logic. The writer says my position is the " most unpopular of all"—(it may be so ; but that does not disprove it)—" and perhaps the most untenable." Perhaps it is. And yet, 5ucn minds as Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, and James Madison, held it unanswerable. " One of the Peo- pic," here, and here only, states my argument unfairly. I have never contended that slaves ought to be fully represent cd, " as persons." I only urged, that such must be the re- suit, if the abstract principle, of representing jwrsoris only, without reference to circumstances, were insisted on. J con- tended that slaves had a mixed character, of persons and of property ; and endeavored to add a little of my own, .tQ'Mr. Madison's argument. " One of the People" has certainly not answered this position—for he has not even noticed it. If the writer means that I wish to " smuggle a princi- pie into the Constitution, under a false name," without avow- tng its true merits, as " an oblique mode of representing val- uable and taxable property," he must himself admit, that he does me injustice. I expressly stated, that I held this latter principle to be correct; but considered-it,unnecessary to press it, for the purposes of my argument.' .• It had been urg- ed, by others. I wished to place the subject on another footing ; believing (as I am still stupid enough t& do, in spite ( 18 ) of the " entangling," into which this writer has brought me) that the more various the grounds that sustain a principle* the more certainly is that principle correct. One more remark, and I have done. " One of the Peo- pie" says, that to give slaves " representation as persons, they must be allowed to vote for representatives." This will be true, when it is found that in order to give free white women and children " representation as persons, they must be allowed to vote for representatives"—and not before. 2TO. IV. From the Courier, of July 3rd. " Our army" has again got to " swearing terribly in Flanders ;" and 1 must once more advise my friend " One of the People," that he has chosen a bad style of discussion. If he and I were limbs of the law, and competitors in a case before a jury, it might answer (though, even then, it is bad taste) for him to tell that body, how wofully he had demol- ished me and my argument. But,, in discussions through the press, if the public cannot find out thai a writer is " ex- hibiting the last agonies of defeat," it is not worth while for his rival to tell them so. It is too much after the manner of the painter, who had occasion to write over his picture, " This is a Horse." I thank " One of the People," for admitting the existence of a disposition, at the north, to strike the federal basis from the Federal Constitution. I might have expected such an admission from him, for I believe he knows something on the subject, and 1 have already said he has candor. But I sus- pect he also knows that fact to have been most roundly de- nied, in the Convention, and a member rather rudely at- tacked, for asserting it. My "proofs" were addressed to such men as held that language, there, and not to men of the intelligence and good sense of " One of the People." I will only add, that the strength of the argument of the northern man, suggested in my first number, rests, not on the neglect of the South to adopt this basis, but on its being ab- rogated, as unjust, when it has been once adopted. Not wishing to " pour water on a drowned mouse," I take leave of " One of the People," till he is " at leisure, to an swer and confute" my second number. Answering and con. futing, by the by, is a game at which two can play. (19) HTO. V. From the Courier, of July 12th. 000 " One of the People," in your paper of the 8th, has under, ttaken to fulfil his promise, to "answer and confute" my second number. He has certainly said more, fn favor of his side of the question, than 1 thought even he could say ; and has done it in a manner as creditable to himself, as such rea- soning, in such a cause, can be, to a man of his acknowleged talent. But has he "answered and confuted" my objections? As it is about three weeks since those objections first appear- ed, I ought, perhaps, to repeat them. They were, that the plan submitted— " 1st. Does not answer the end, proposed, in calling the Convention. "2d. So far from removing existing evils, the proposed plan will increase them. " 31. In both Houses of the Legislature, under the pro- posed amendment, a minority of the People wi'l elect a met- jority of members. "4th. The taxes will be paid by one portion of the State, and their proceeds appropriated by another. "5th. The Federal basis ought to have been retained, in «ne House, at leas1, and if it be rejected, a great and perma- nent injury, to the Stateandto the South, will be unavoidable." Tile last objection, " One of the People" had discussed, in his previous numbers ; but, while he admitted that my view ef the subject had its merits, he never even noticed my argu. rnent) dor has he yet done so. 1 rested my position on trio principle, laid down bv Mr. Madison, of the slave's " mixed character, of person and property." Why has not {Tie vvri- ter answered this ? Admitting, as he does, that my views are "entitled to respect,bo'h formatterandmanner,"and not even alluding to the main subject of my argument, does he mean his readers to infer, that my remarks are unanswerable ? But I have said, in former numbers, all 1 intend to say, on the federal basis. If was in answer to my other objections, that my friend—f have good reason to believe that term cor- rectiv applied—wrote this, his last, and far ablest pap< r. My first objection was, that " the end, proposed, in call, ing the Convention, had not been answered." "One of the People," and myself, it seems, are at issue, as to what that end was. I insist, that the great object was equalization ; and my proof is the fact, that the inequality of the old sys- t^ro has been the chief, and almost the only burden of all (20 ) the complaints, on this subject, with which the pres3 has teemed, for several years. I do not mean that Utopian equality, which would attempt giving to every man ,under all possible circumstances, a precisely equal degree of actual power. In arguing against the practicability of what every body knows to be physically impossible, my friend is "fight- ing windmills," as decidedly, as «id a celebrated redresser of grievances, in a former age. It is perfectly certain, that hu- man wisdom can devise no plan, which will not leave a phy. sical possibility of the minority's governing—as in the case of the ten counties, of 1,000 voters eacft, put by this writer. But when did, or when will, such a case ever oc- cur? Th ■ equalization, which we require, is a practical af- fair—that the majority of the people may have a majority, somewhere, in enacting laws- We have not asked that they should have a majority in both Houses. Let these persecu- ted "square miles" of pine barren, for which this writer "so feelingly raises the cry of supplication," have a majority in one House—not because it is right that they should have it, but because we are willing to concede far more than our op- ponents can, with any show even of decency, demand—but, if you please, let the people have a majority, in the other House. The evil complained of was, that these "square miles" had by far too much power ; and we wished to give that power to the inhabitants. Under the old system, the "square miles" had only a majority in the Senate. The thirty-two counties, in the first table annexed to my second number, sent eighty-five members to the last House of Rep- resentatives—a majority of four, of the whole House.— They are now to send sixty-seven—a minority of ten. So that the "square miles" are now to govern both houses,. This, certainly, is very queer equalization. " One of the People" says, that to allow each county one representative, and, at the same time, to equalize and reduce, is impossible, So it is, in the lower House alone. But, on increasing the inequality in that House—which was inevitable—for" the Sake of reduction, was there any difficulty in changing the basis of the Senate, and thus restoring the balance ? And would not this have been done, if the Convention had had any regard for justice, or for principle? But we are told that the object was not to equalize, but only to reduce. And why reduce, without equalizing ? To save expense, and rid the State House of a mass of Legislators, who were only in each other's way. I did not misrepresent " One of the People," when 1 said he rested his defence of the Conven- tion, mainly, on the ground of saving expense. He says he " knows not" how I ascertained that. I gathered it from. (21 ) his own writings, which contained no ether reason. When I made that statement, only his two first numbers had appear- ed: and except his attempt to answer the objection, in regard to the Federal basis, those numbers contain no reason, in fa- vorof ratification, and allude to none, but that of economy. In fact, on the two grounds above stated, and on them alone, can the advocates of ratification relv, by way of positive ar- gument. All else that is said is only in attempting to " an- swer and confute" objections, that are unanswerable. I say, again, that enualization was as much more important an end, than these, as political principle is more important than mo- ney. What people, that deserved to be free, ever sa- crificed principle, to gold ? And what people ever did, or ever will, remain free, after making the sacrifice? And I say, therefore, it cannot be shewn, that the end proposed, in calling the Convention, has been answered. 2. " So far from removing existing evils, the proposed plan will increase them." If the aforesaid inequality be an evil; this cannot be deni- ed; for figures show it. But " One of the People" says it is wo evil; and what proves it none, is, that sundry of the large counties, who are to lose by the change, are the " very au- thors of the proposed plan of reduction." If this be indeed so; if the delegates of these large counties, in Convention, spoke the real wishes of their constituents ; it is not the first time, that men have given up their substantial interests, un- tier the maddening influence of political excitement, without, perhaps, being aware that they were making the sacrifice. One principal object, of my troubling the public, has been to show the real character of this sacrifice. Whether these large counties " will be very grateful to Richmond, for es- pousing their cause," is of little moment to one, who only " stands, the shadow of a name." But be it known to " One •fthe People," that the voice, I raise in their behalf, is not the " cry of supplication." 1 have sought favor/br none, nndo/*, none. 1 only call on those, who have the power, now, to use it, while they can, for their own preservation. My voice is that of one of the same majority with themselves; seeing a danger, perhaps unseen by them, and raising a note of alarm ; pointing to the precipice before them, and warning them to beware. The plunge is not yet made. But mark me, peo- pie of the middle country!—once made, it is made forever. And when you wake from your dream of party frenzy, and find yourselves in chains, what consolation will it be, that your own hands forged the fetters? Precisely that, I sus, peet, which the "struck eagle" felt, when, turning his expir- (i>2) Ing eye to the arrow that had wounded him, he saw it fea- thered from his own wing: "And the same p!umage, that had warmed his nest, " Drank the last iife-drop of his bleeding breast." 3. " In both houses of the Legislature, under the proposed amendment, a minority of the people will elect a majority of members." 4. "The taxes will be paid, by one portion of the Stater a,nd their proceeds appropriated by another." In relation to these two objections, unanswerable as they are, if true, 1 have only to say, that neither of them is denied*, nor any attempt made, to evade their force—a very prudent course, on the part of "One of the People;" for these' same- tables, which he thinks have blown me "sky high," piovo- them both, by the simple and satisfactory process of addition»- In my humble opinion. Lord Mansfield's advice, as to the itn.- prudence of giving reasons, does not apply to cases, where* those reasons amount to mathematical demonstration. I lave been taught, that such demonstration is not only safe* but the only sort of proof, which leaves no possible room for cavilling. Perhaps "One of the People" learnt his rub s of argument, from a higher source. Of these four objections,, then, this writer has directly at- tacked nei her; much less has lie "answered and confuted"' them. He has endeavored to evade them, anddlveit atu ntioit from them, by laying down certain propose ions of his own, which remain now to he considered. Some of these need only be s ated, to refute themselves. Thus, we are told, lhat it* all representative republics, the "execution of the will of the majority" " is not it principle cf primary .importance," but only " an important .principle, to be regarded." Tit; t is t<* to sax, the minority .are to have some Ult/e lespect, Ibr the' will of the majority, hut are not, as a matter of course, to sub- mit to it!! What sort of fatuity can have possessed such a man, as my friend "One of the People," to oiler, seriously* such a proposition, to an intelligent community? l'oos it need a reply? It sets even ridicule at defiance. But, let us see on what he does base his theory of repre- scntation—the will of the majorily having been so summarily disposed of.—His fiist proposition is, lhat "reprts< ntatives should be so distributed, as to bring, to the councils of th® ' country, a true knowledge of the wants, interests, feelings* and wishes, of the people of every portion of it." Be it so- Does it follow, that every portion, populous-or not, is to ba equally represented? Must every square mile of territory have the same weight in the government—a square mile, ii* the centre of Savannah, or Augusta, the same with a squara (23) wile in the centre of the Okefinocau swamp? O! no.— Some advantage" must be given to population. How much, we are not told. But, as the writer is defending the scheme proposed by the Convention, I suppose it will be safe, to let a majority of the people elect within ten of half of one House, and within thirteen of half the other. As they happen to be a majority, they shall have "some advantage," but not enough to balance the "square miles s" for that would not allow the " square miles" to govern, as they, of right, ought to do!— In short, territory must have the power, in both Houses ; the will of the majority of the people being only a "principle to ie regarded," but the rights of the "square miles" being of *'first importance." This writer says I do not oppose each county's having one member. I do not—because I believe, if we can ever place the Senate on a proper basis, it will be well to give each aounty one representative, as a matter of " concession." But, as a matter of right, upon no principle of free govern- ment, can a county, with 1000 inhabitants, claim one repre- sentative, unless you give ten, to a county with 10,000.— Such an arrangement, I know, would, in Georgia, make the House a mere mob. I am content to waive the strict right, as a matter of expediency, and compromise: but when the right is waived, and the small counties have taken double their proper weight, in the lower House ; they, very mod- estly, claim four times their proper weight, in the Senate— And " One of the People" says they ought to have it!! His second proposition is, thai "the proportion, between the people and their representatives, ought not to be the same, where the people are many, as where they are few." And "this shews," says he, "why Hail, Habersham and Gwinnett, have not, and ought not to have," the same proportion of members, as Wayne, Glynn, &c. Bv the bye, the writer, very discreetly, here takes to himself the advice of Lord Mansfield, which he has so kindly recommended to me ; and simply lays down his proposition, as a truism, without giving any reason for it. He shows, at least, "the better part ofva- ior;" for reasoning, till dooms-day, never could convince any man of common sense, that such a proposition can be true. It amounts to this—that the more sparse a population is, the greater weight should they have in the Legislature. The writer quotes the principle, but he does not give his author. And really, I am unwilling to believe, that he quoted it from the original text. For, if he did, he can hardly continue to claim that character, for candid argument, which I have al- ways .conceded to him. In the 55th number of the Federal- ( 24 ) ist,* Mr. MADISON applies this principle to the whole United States, as one community, for the purpose of showing that th* ratio of representation, in Congress, ought to depend on the entire number of people to be represented. But he no where even dreams of saying, that, in different parts of the country, at the same time, the ratio ought to vary, with the denseness of population. 1 believe no body ever thought of so under- standing him, except "One of the People," and another anony- mous writer, who treated this subject, some three or four years since, in the Chronicle; from whom, I presume, my friend took the quotation, without looking for it., in the book. Iiis third principle is, that "majorities of small bodies ar® likely to agree with majorities of larger bodies, of the sam® community." This is true, where their interests are the same. But where the larger and smaller bodies have several inter- es'ts, as the different sections of Georgia have, by this writer'# own admission, it would be worse than ridiculous, to'expect such agreement. This diversity of interest was insisted on, in Convention, as a reason for "protecting" the weaker court- ties. By a combination, between those weaker counties, and some of the stronger, in a particular part of the State, the proposed plan has been brought before the people: and that, with the avowed purpose, of taking power from the middle country, which contains a majority of the people. Now, does this writer expect, in such a state of things, that the " major- ity of the small body" will agree with the majority of the larger? Can ho. pretend to believe, that, in the "reformed" legislature, the wishes of that portion of Georgia, which con- tains far the greater part of her population, and pays much the larger part of her taxes, will prevail ? If so—if the ma- ' jority of the smaller portion, will always agree with the ma- jority of the larger, why represent the larger at all ? Refu- sing to represent them would "save a great deal of expense," and would make the two Houses of a very "convenient size, for doing business." We are told that a "very large concession is made to popu- lation," in the Senate. A '■'very large CONCESSION"— mark that word. It is matter of " concession,''' then, and not of right, that a majority of the people shall elect sixteen Sen* ators,out of forty-five! ! ' A "concession," to population, of what territory was rightfully entitled to!—-'The writer sun ly forgets himself. This is saying that "square miles," of right, should be precisely equal in the Senate, whether in* habited by white men, or by alligators. He himself refuse# to submit to such outrageous nonsense as this. No one, oi the "many respectable and talented advocates" of such a * A number erroneously attributed, in some editions, to Gen. Hamilton- (25 ) scheme, has, as yet, had the haidihood to maintain it, public- ly, except the other anonymous writer, before referred to, and a delegate elect to the late Convention, who, not attending, gave his views on the subject, in an address to his Constitu- ents. All that was said, in Convention, in favor of aterrito- rial Senate, when explained by votes, was shown to refer to the county principle, now proposed. "One of the People" has also discovered, that, by dividing the State into northern and southern sections, the former will have an "effective majority" in both Houses. The fairness «f this division I do not admit. Let me make another. That part of the State, not covered by the Okefinocau swamp, will have a very large majority, in both Houses. Does this prove any thing ? Does it disprove either of my objections? Does -it show, that the thirty-two counties, specified in my first ta- ble, are a minority of the people, or that they elect a majori- ty of either house? If this division be the correct one, and the argument proves any thing, it proves entirely too much. If the interests of this northern division be really one and in- ■divisible, as opposed to the rest of the State, why make their majority so extravagantly large, in the lower house ? Why not cut off all the loungers, get rid of all the "surplusage," at once? Reduce the House to ninety, which, allowing for the expected division of Murray, would be one for each coun- ty. This, if "One of the People's" calculations be correct, would give his " northern division" fifty-four members, leav- ing but thirty-six, for the southern—a pretty "effective ma- jority," I guess. If this be the true view of the subject, then, the Convention have not gone far enough. They might have saved us another $20,000 per annum ; and they ought to have done it, and to have reduced these insignificant populous counties, which Jack, in his seven leagued boots, might walk •ver, one at a stride, to their proper level, by the side of such magnificent "sovereignties,"* as Ware and Lowndes, con- taining five hundred pine trees to their one. I hope, with this writer, that, in voting on this question, the people will "look to their own interest." With him, too, I can truly say, " what effect ratification may have on party honor, I know not, and care not;" but I very well know, and so does he, what effect it is intended to have. Let the party, to which he belongs, and of which he is a chief ornament, take warning froru his words—"Any party ascendancy, pro- duced by conventional arrangement alone, must be merely temporary"—and let them remember, that if those amend- ments prevail, high as their avowed expectations were, at Mil- * uCounty Sovereigntyn was a theme of declamation, on the part of some orators, in the Convention, ( 26 ) iedgeville, of this " temporary ascendancy," the day of reck- oning may be nearer than they suppose, when they will be called to "give an account of their stewardship," to an insul- ted people, whose birthright they have bartered, " for a mess of pottage." NO. VI. From the Courier, of July 22nd. [The pamphlet edition of" One of the People," does not contain the article, to which this number was the reply.]* " One of the People" and myself, it seems, have closed our main argument, and have nothing left to do, but to skirmish. He intimates, in ihe Courier of the 19ih, that 1 have changed my mode of discussion, lecouse he had "ceased his labors," and given me personal notice to that effect. Does he recol- 3ect that, in the same conversation, as he expected to leaver town soon, 1 expressed a wish that he should remain, till the appearance of my last number, in order to answer it ? The Editor of the Courier remembers that, on banding him the manuscript, 1 expressed an anxiety to have it published, in time to be answered ; and that we both thought "One of the People" would answer it. I have not, therefore, changed my mode of address, under the idea that 1 was " in conclusion." He must surely have thought that he was in conclusion, when he stated that he had devoted a "large portion of sev- eral numbers," to my argument on the mixed character of the slave. 1 have just laid down his essays, after perusing the whole seri s again, for this very purpose: and I find not the slightest allgsion, in either of them, to this mixed charac. ter. He did, indeed, name Mr. Madison, and in not very res- pectfu! terms : but both that gentleman's argument and mine he let alone—very prudently," no doubt.—I ask him to quote the passage, where it is mentioned. But, he says, he has not only noticed this argument, but I have "noticed" his "notice." This is a greater mistake than the other—if one mistafement can be greater than ane- ther. If he wili refer to my reply to his third number, he will find that I there charge him with having omitted to " no- tice" my argument. And that is all the " notice" / have ta- ken, of his alleged "notice," till my last number reiterated the charge. Is this what.he calls " doing my best to reply to him 7" It is true, he did lay down certain propositions, ( 27 ) which he now says are inconsistent with this " mixed char- acter." But he never said so before : nor is that inconsis- tency, nor the truth of his propositions, proved by him, now. How "many" ]>ersons may have "thought he confuted my arguments," by these "incontrovertible propositions," I know not. Let me suggest to him, however, that statements of such "thoughts," on the part of others, would come, with a better grace, from any body, than himself. With the " appearance of a new colleague," 1 have nothing -to do. In commenting on his appearance, " One of the Peo- pie" commits the very fault, that, in the next preceding par- agraph, he had charged on me—-he "makes an old speech over again"—an I that, the very west speech he ever did make : for it insists that a principle cannot he sound, because different writers find-different, reasons for supponing it ! But he does worse than this. He directly charges me with say- ing the very reverse of what I expressly did say. I know him too well, to sup ose, for a moni-n', that this was inten ionah He had forgotton what I had said : and, as he has done be- fore, neglected, in quo'ing, to refer to l he original text. He *ays. in regard to the "right to represent property," " Rich- mood, in one of his numbers, says this is wrong." And he italicises these words. In my first number, I express'v suited this to he right: hut did not urge it, observing that "the question has nothing to do with the purposes of my discussion, and the ground, necessary to he occupied, is broad enough, without it."* He again misrepresent me, in saying that the giving of one represantafiv •, to a county wi.h but GOO inbnbi tan s, "Richmond admits to he right, or, at least consents to." Observe, these italics are his own. Now I admitted 110 such thing. I expressly denied the right of the smaller counties to a representative, each, unless the same number of people, in every large county, could also have one :f bur observed that, as a "concession"—and only as a concession—this one was yielded to them.' Now, really, with what grace, after such perversions as these, does he pronounce me "guilty of a fraud in garbling the quotation" of one of his principles? 1 did leave out a line of the proposition referred to. But it neither altered the sense, nor diminished the force of the sentence. It was done, deliberately; for, in making the quotation, it struck me, as possible, that I mi ;ht be charged wiih garbling* But, on attentive examination, it seemed to me that the words * See page 5, and the same thing again asserted, pasre 17. fin slating that this would make a House of 1,509, this writer is about as correct, as in most of his other positions. The entire white population of Georgia is 309,835. According to his arithmetic, this, divided by 667—the population of the smallest county—gives 1,500! "A Daniel come to judgment"! ( 28 ) omitted were 80 clearly surplusage, that the charge would b« ridiculous. Look at the original sentence: " The executioi of the will of the majority of electors is an important princi. pie, to be regarded, yet it is not a principle of primary impor. tance, to which all others must yield." These last words are those omitted. If I understand the meaning of language, a principle of "primary importance" is, of course, one "to which all others must yield." The very term imports it. ] say, again, then, that the above proposition, even with the words which I omitted (for they do not change it, at all) when laid down, as a fundamental rule for " representative repub. lies," does " set even ridicule, at defiance." " One of tha People" stiil insists that the principle of "local, or countv representation" is of greater importance—as he thinks the misquotation material, I suppose he would say more prijtarv importance—than "the execution of the will ofthe majority." In other words, that the rights of "square miles" are mora important than the rights of the people; which is the precise proposition that I treated as ridiculous. Let our readers judge. The writer says I admitted his illustration of this doctrine, and in the next breath denied the conclusion. Conclusions, by the bye, do not always follow from the premises assumed. I did admit the physical jwssihility of a minority's governing, under any system of representation. But I denied that tha case put by " One of the People" ever could occur, in actual experience-—I did not say it would " rarely occur"—That is another misquotation—and I did not, and never can, admit, that his illustration affords the slightest apology, for his cav. alier treatment of the will of the majority. I must admit that it behooves the friends of ratification, to think and speak, as lightly as possible, of "the will of the majority"—for they very well know that their favored scheme will, if adopted, put an eternal veto on that will, in Georgia: and the day that these amendments are ratified (if it ever comes) will be the last day, that " the will of the People is the law of the land." The writer intimates that I have, " from necessity," "giv- en the go by" to some of his propositions. Will he tell me what those propositions were? If I have not attempted todis- prove all his propositions, it has been only because, in three or four attentive readings of his articles, I have not had sense enough to discover them. Whether I have succeeded, i* "answering and confuting" any assertion of his, 1 leave for our readers to decide : a course, which, perhaps, he had bet* ter have followed, too—though it may he, that, but for histel- ( 29 ) ling us how completely he has annihilated my argument, no body would have ever found it out. He says, my only hope of safety lies in his essays not be- jng read!! Very modest, and unassuming, "pon honor!" Now, in a former number, he took occasion to say, that my remarks were "entitled to respect,not only for style, but for matter." What sort of papers, then, must he, in his own opinion, have written? His ideas of his own authorship a- mount to this—a writer, " respectable for style and matter," can only hope for safety, on the ground that my papers are rot read; for, if read, they demolish him! venif vidi!! VICI!!! I take this to be the plain meaning of the conclu- qq { allowance, $ i Warren and Hancock, 4,352 88 ( Wayne and Camden, 2,280 00 i Walton and Clark, 4,213 20 ( Bulloch and Emanuel, (uncertain,) say 600 00 ( 3*1 ) k Baldwin and Jones, 4,99^ 04 ) Mcintosh and Glynn, 3,515, 8»| i DeKalb and Fayette, 2,118 30 I Decatur and Thomas, 1,580 90 We have thus presented the subject, in a variety ofuspects, in either of which, the inequality, so far as regards the Dis- trict system, must strike with astonishment, the most careless observer. So much for this part of the proposed amendment of our Constitution. We have, in view of the above, only this question to ask—If this inequality, in the privileges of our fel- low-citizens, may be called an amendment of our system, would not the amendment be amended, on the same plan, by making the citizens of the large counties, ccnsHltiliotuitiy, the •laves of the smaller ones?