of
property, or tax-payers, in others, freeholders only, were voters. In
some, only the latter voted for the higher officers; in a few, suffrage
was almost universal. It was presumed that no state would object to its
own rule for electing the popular branch of its legislature. It is
proper that a representative should be chosen directly by those whose
wants he is to make known, and whose rights he is to guard.

Sec.3. A representative must, at the time of his election, "have attained
the age of twenty-five years; and have been seven years a citizen of the
United States;" and he must "be an inhabitant of the state in which he
is chosen." Few young men, on attaining the age of majority, have the
knowledge, or experience, or wisdom, which is requisite to qualify them
for the responsible duties of a representative. Nor is it to be presumed
that an alien, at the earliest period at which he may become a
naturalized citizen, would be sufficiently familiar with our
institutions and the wants of our people to be a competent
representative.

Sec.4. The next clause prescribes the rule of apportionment.
"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several
states, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined
by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to
service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed,
three-fifths of all other persons." To the younger class of readers,
this part of the clause needs explanation.

Sec.5. The convention found it very difficult to agree upon a rule of
apportionment. In the first place, the states, as will be recollected,
were entitled to an equal number of delegates in the old congress; and
each state had one vote. But as each member of the house of
representatives was to have a vote, the small states opposed a
representation according to numbers, while the large states as
strenuously insisted upon it.

Sec.6. In the next place, the slaveholding states claimed a representation
according to numbers including slaves; the non-slaveholding states
insisted on a representation according to the number of free persons. It
may here be observed, that slavery then existed in all the states except
Massachusetts; but as the slaves were so few in the northern states, in
which slavery has been since abolished, the latter are generally spoken
of as if they were at that time non-slaveholding states. The controversy
on this point rose so