ers, for the most numerous branch of the state legislature; and the qualifications in different states are essentially different; and, indeed, are in no two states exactly alike. The constitution itself, therefore, lays down a principle, which requires, that no regard shall be had to the policy of particular states, towards their own inhabitants. Why should not the same principle apply to slaves, as to other persons, who were excluded as voters in the states?[1]
§ 637. Some part of this reasoning may not be very satisfactory; and especially the latter part of it. The distinction between a free person, who is not a voter, but who is, in no sense, property, and a slave, who is not a voter, and who is, in every practical sense, property, is, and for ever must form, a sound ground for discriminating between them in every constitution of government.
§ 638. It was added, that the idea was not entirely a just one, that representation relates to persons only, and not to property. Government is instituted no less for the protection of the property, than of the persons of individuals. The one, as well as the other, may, therefore, be considered as proper to be represented by those, who are charged with the government. And, in point of fact, this view of the subject constituted the basis of some of the representative departments in several of the state governments.[2]
§ 639. There was another reason urged, why the votes allowed in the federal legislature to the people of each state ought to bear some proportion to the comparative wealth of the states. It was, that states
