Minors also whose property is taxed, should be permitted to exercise
this franchise, at least by guardian or proxy. What then is the true
meaning of the maxim, that representation and taxation are inseparable?
Here all writers agree--it means that no community should be taxed by
the legislature unless that community is, or might have been represented
in such legislature.--Hence several towns in this State till lately,
were not represented in the General Assembly, and of course not taxed.--
Barkhempsted, Colebrook, and Winchester, it is believed, were of this
description.

This State and the other States understood this maxim precisely as now
explained, in their opposition to Great-Britain.--We complained that
the colonies should not be taxed because they were not represented in
parliament. In this view of the subject the maxim is wise and just.

Again, is not every town in Connecticut now represented in the
legislature, and of course each individual equally with every other? In
the representative of Hartford, for example, a representative of the
freemen of Hartford, or of the town of Hartford? The truth is, every
man, woman and child are represented.

But it is said that many persons are excluded from giving their
suffrages who have life, liberty and reputation to protect. On a close
attention to this fact it will be found that the number of those worthy
members of society who do not possess the legal qualification, is small,
and if men are to have an influence in elections according to the amount
of their taxes, why should not the man who pays fifty dollars, be
entitled to more than one vote? No one pleads for such a privilege, but
there are many who insist that the man without a cent of property shall
have the same direction in the choice of those who are charged with the