WEDNESDAY, May 30, 1787.

The following Resolution, being the second of those proposed by Mr. RANDOLPH, was taken up, viz.

“That the rights of suffrage in the National Legislature ought to be proportioned to the quotas of contribution, or to the number of free inhabitants, as the one or the other rule may seem best in different cases.”

Colonel HAMILTON moved to alter the resolution so as to read, “that the rights of suffrage in the National Legislature ought to be proportioned to the number of free inhabitants.”  Mr. SPAIGHT seconded the motion.—­p. 750.

WEDNESDAY, June 6, 1787.

Mr. MADISON.  We have seen the mere distinction of color made, in the most enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man.—­p. 806.

MONDAY, June 11, 1787.

Mr. SHERMAN proposed, that the proportion of suffrage in the first branch should be according to the respective numbers of free inhabitants;

Mr. RUTLEDGE proposed, that the proportion of suffrage in the first branch should be according to the quotas of contribution.

Mr. KING and Mr. WILSON, in order to bring the question to a point, moved, “that the right of suffrage in the first branch of the National Legislature ought not to be according to the rule established in the Articles of Confederation, but according to some equitable ratio of representation.”—­p. 836.

It was then moved by Mr. RUTLEDGE, seconded by Mr. BUTLER, to add to the words, “equitable ratio of representation,” at the end of the motion just agreed to, the words “according to the quotas of contribution.”  On motion of Mr. WILSON, seconded by Mr. PINCKNEY, this was postponed; in order to add, after the words, “equitable ratio of representation,” the words following:  “In proportion to the whole number of white and other free citizens and inhabitants of every age, sex and condition, including those bound to servitude for a term of years, and three-fifths of all other persons not comprehended in the foregoing description, except Indians not paying taxes, in each State”—­this being the rule in the act of Congress, agreed to by eleven States, for apportioning quotas of revenue on the States, and requiring a census only every five, seven, or ten years.

Mr. GERRY (of Massachusetts) thought property not the rule of representation.  Why, then, should the blacks, who were property in the South, be in the rule of representation more than the cattle and horses of the North?

On the question,—­Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, aye—­9; New Jersey, Delaware, no—­2.—­pp. 842-3.

TUESDAY, June 19, 1787.

Mr. MADISON.  Where slavery exists, the republican theory becomes still more fallacious.—­p. 899.

SATURDAY, June 30, 1787.