Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1816-07-13


a rule, the man IN Frederick who :, worth
!, million, aud contributes largely to the
support or goysrnnent. Is given no more
l.sigit in chat government. thah the man
"a. Brooke, who Is AK worth the ~ eutieth
part Cf that san, ami ,,os as aiuch as the
c,tsen of Chesterfield ~ EearIco, who is
not worth the one fiitietn. Suppose al the
valuable part Of the county of Fiuvauna
TO be owDe;. ~ tea Individuals. and the ba-
lance To be occupied by 500 fire .holders
who are in INDECENT CircumstanceS-By
the operation Ut the foregoing rule, the
political weight OF the $40 INDECENT free
Auiders of Fiuvanna il increased, Eoc Gully
Nv the wealth, vi these ten inttividGa.s, b,..
bv the wealth ct die Whoie lower country.
Why, asx again, are those who pay, IA
consequence ct their wealth, large cuntri-
buttons to the S,,tS, thus made TO increase
the polticsl Influence of those who ere
poor--,and. cf course, contribute but small
sums TO the support OF government, if n-
6eed, It is wise and just to apporlion re-
presentation according to the amount of
taxation There is no reason in giving
20 fhe hoor. who happened to live in 4
qJe2ttity country, 9i0re 7csight in the gov
srament than ne rich. who live in that
pant Of the country, whose aggregate a.
q
preservation is right (Which accrues in
consequence attic m1:,S 7o|ich are haii.
lhave attempted to shew you. that it is
the peuple, AID not the territory of the
countrs, VINO are she Obec, Of representa-
non. a case las istcly ben decided iii
tle 4 sli Court IF Appeals. which will
put t,is subject forever 20 sleep. y esta-
ll.ishcs the proposition for which | contend,
beyond ali controversy. 1t was an action
brought Wy acitizen of the District of Col
umti., who he d a fre. hold in Y rgiaia, a
.,anst the Sheriff who refused permission
10 him to vote ut an election for members
Of the General Assembly. II was con-
tended for the Plaintiff, that re Il property
alone WAS represented OH til floor OF the
Legislature That the Plaintiff being the
Gwner of sufficient freehold Within the
Commonwealth, was entitled to suffrage,
under the 9Th Article of the Bill Of Rights,
as a p rson having sufficient evidence Of
permanent common interest with and at
,achnent to the comtBunity--and, there
fore, could not be taxed or deprived of his
property for public uses without his own
consent, CIR that of his representatives.
Residence, 1t was sad, was not necessary.
I he only requisite was, TIE possession Of a
freehold.
-1'e ~ a. iS-l<ai~h ~ liiio az, anu
laid down, in my opinion, the true repuhl-
Can docTne upon this subject. L. argu-
ment was afterwards sustained by the en-
iightened tribunal to which it was
addressed whose opinion wasp pronounced
in favor of the Defendant.
Mr.. Writ c0nten ed that it was the
psople, and nor tie iand, who were repre-
seated ON the floor of the Legislature. II
II was the land, the rule was most une--
quail one--tor 50.00D acres gave no more
votes than so. Persons, not A1nds, were
tae objects ct government. Fer their sakSS
society was formed aud governments insl-
tuted. In a staple democracy, the right of
voting en- all laws and trials, implies a con.
slant presence OF the voter. Representa-
rive government is confessediy only u,o-
Obligation Of the original dem0cracy--those
who have voted in person, now vote for
representatives. But as HsrSon7, 7oho had
nat me common interest, nligM int,1ide il
Ia elections, a badge Of Permanent resi-.
dence is required. Such is The origin of'lAe
bfays requiring The electors ~ be oIvneys At
.5TeehCM estates in lands. But, according
10 tie argument on the opposite side, the
evidence of permanent citizenship has
showed car the citizen himself, and taken
his place" The requisite then, Of free
hold, according to this accomplished orator
aad statesman, was intended merely as a
badge OF Permanent TeSidencc--to keep
out iihrudrrs from elections. vino had not
the common interest with the community.
This was the origin Of laws requiring pro-
perry in q freehold. Judse Roane deliver
ed the opinion Of the Court. IL the course
OF it, he makes the following r~mark -
" In some small deinocracies, the people
have exercised the legislative power in
person, and this principle is not lost sight
OF. when, owing to the extent Of the territory
or NUMBERS OF the people, they are ronpel-
led TO exercise that power by means of de-
PUties. This necessity ofaciing ty agents,
does not change the principle" Upon this
cass, enquire ofyou in the first place, il
ite the property which man las, and the
taxes which he pays upon ii, which gives
him the right to vote, Why was tae citizen
OF Colombia excluded from the enjoyment
If the right? He bears burdens under our
government, his property is subject 20 its
laws, end still he is denied (and with great
Justice III my opinion) the privilege of
choosing representatives. The Curt deCi-
ded in this cage, that no man could vWe
by representatives WHO would Ect have
right TO vote in person, provided it was q
simple democracy.
Upon what principle, then, is it that a
portion OF the slave population should be
Included in the appor;ionmcnt OF represen-
tations Are they regarded as citizens,
whose voice should be heard in our legisla-
tive councilss Coutd they vote in hersoa,
II oRr roUrTnment qUrS q simhie dcmorra.
cy2 You will not hesitate in apsweri' e
these nuestions in the negative. Do you
iaciude them because they are taxed So