I have thus finished the examination of the political part of these commentaries,and this is the only object with which this review was commenced.There are,however,a few topics yet remaining,of great public concern,and which ought not to be omitted.Some of these,it seems to me,have been presented by the author in false and deceptive lights,and others of them,from their intrinsic importance,cannot be too often pressed upon public attention.I do not propose to examine them minutely,but simply to present them in a few of their strongest lights.
In his examination of the structure and functions of the House of Representatives,Judge Story has given his views of that clause of the Constitution which allows representation to three-fifths of the slaves.He considers the compromise upon this subject as unjust in principle,and decidedly injurious to the people of the non-slaveholding States.He admits that an equivalent for this supposed concession to the South was intended to be secured by another provision,which directs that "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States,according to their respective numbers";
but he considers this provision "more specious than solid;for while in the levy of taxes it apportions them on three-fifths of persons not free,it on the other hand,really exempts the other two-fifths from being taxed at all as property.Whereas,if direct taxes had been apportioned,as upon principle they ought to be,according to the real value of property within the State,the whole of the slaves would have been taxed as property.But a far more striking inequality has been disclosed by the practical operations of the government.The principle of representation is constant and uniform;
the levy of direct taxes is occasional and rare.In the course of forty years,no more than three direct taxes have been levied,and those only under very extraordinary and pressing circumstances.The ordinary expenditures of the government are,and always have been,derived from other sources.
Imposts upon foreign importations,have supplied,and will generally supply,all the common wants;and if these should not furnish an adequate revenue,excises are next resorted to,as the surest and most convenient mode of taxation.Direct taxes constitute the last resort;and,as might have been foreseen,would never be laid until other resources had failed."
This is a very imperfect,and,as it seems to me,not a very candid view of a grave and important subject.It would have been well to avoid it altogether,if it had been permitted;for the public mind needs no encouragement to dwell,with unpleasant reflections,upon the topics it suggests.In an examination of the Constitution of the United States,however,some notice of this peculiar feature of it was unavoidable;but we should not have expected the author to dismiss it with such criticism only as tends to show that it is unjust to his own peculiar part of the country.It is manifest to everyone that the arrangement rests upon no particular principle,but as a mere compromise between conflicting interests and opinions.It is much to be regretted that it is not on all hands acquiesced in and approved,upon that ground;for no public necessity requires that it should be discussed;
And it cannot now be changed without serious danger to the whole fabric.
The people of the slaveholding States themselves have never shown a disposition to agitate the question at all,but,on the contrary,have generally sought to avoid it.It has,however,always "been complained of as a grievance,"
By the non-slaveholding States,and that too in language which leaves little doubt that a wish is very generally entertained to change it.A grave author,like Judge Story,who tells the people,as it were ex cathedra ,that the thing is unjust in itself,will scarcely repress the dissatisfaction which such an announcement,falling in with preconceived opinions,will create,by a ****** recommendation to acquiesce in it as a compromise,tending upon the whole to good results.His remarks may render the public mind more unquiet than it now is they can scarcely tranquilize or reconcile it.For myself,I am very far from wishing to bring the subject into serious discussion,with any view to change;but I cannot agree that an arrangement,obviously injurious to the South,should be held up as giving her advantages of which the North has reason to complain.
