Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1816-02-03

those which have been furnished in a reasonei
consideration OF the very subject itself. Sir, it
must be so /; government would defeat The pur.
poses OF ats own institution, and degenerate into
a VAN and IDLE solecism, il it were not So For
me nrst and permanent duty Of every community
must be, how to secure its own happiness. Eve
~ other political consideration should be subser
went to this.-The first question which am en-
iigateaed statesman should PROFOUND to himself
~ hot what is the innate or natural liberty OF
this or that man; not what are the abstract and
metaphysical rights of Solomon or jacob but
The question is, or should be, what are The means
oest Calculated TO advance and perpe,uaie the
freedom and happiness of the c)mmunitv OF
which heis member. If then a majority OF
me people deem it wise and proper to restrict
me right OF suffrage, they practice no political in
Justice When they do restrict it and since the
manifest expediency of any municipal law,
wnicN does not v'olate natural law, is sufficient
to justify it. and recommend it to the approba
ton OF the freest nation upon earth, let us quit
nose sosur' and metaphysical spsculations about
right and wrong, and place the right of suffrape
upon the basis OF public expeiiency--the basis
upon which il should be placed, and to which, \
snail now endeavor to confine the discussion
And as am free to admit, that what NAV be
r'Snt m theory, may be inexpedient in practice
shall further undertake to demons trate that the
obvious policy of restriction of the right ofsu
trage IS sufficient TO iortify and recommend it.
without the adyeatitlous aid of theoretical prin.
cipies AS the discussion progresses shall with
FAIRNESS and patience examine the argument
which my adversaries have relied on with the most
commence, and as most auxiliary TO their pnrpo
ses of form.
Iii commended that the part of the CONSTITUTE.
on which restraints the right of suffrage, has vi
olated that great aud fundamental prime pie in.
the Biii OF Rights, which declares "tl,at all men
having sufficient evidence of permanent com
mon interest with, and attachment to, the COM
munty, have the right of suffrage and cannot be
taxed ordeprived oftheir property rpublic uses,
without their own consent, or that of their repre-
sentatives so elected, nor bound by any law 10
winch they have not, in like manner assented for
tie public good" This is the position-ths
very platform upon which the Gentlemen who
have led the way in this crusade against the con
sttution have erected all their batteries but I
think It requires no extraordinary generaishp to
turn those batteries upon themselves, like rout
ed Elephants forced back upon their own troops
for the very words in the bill of rights, which
Gentlemen have quoted, recommend the proprie
~ OF Permanent interest in order to enttle one tn
exercise the right of suffrage. Nota ,ranstory
and doubtful interest, which may, or which NAV
not exist but real, fixed and ascertained inter-
est an interest which cannot be mistaken and
which must keep pace with the interest of the
community from whence it's drawn. Such is
the sort OF interest required by the Bill ofRights
as well as by the Constitution and the ONLY IN
terest winch completely answers this description;
is the interest created by the tenure of real es
tate; because that creates lien upon the good
conduct OF the constituent or his representative
when every thing else may prove insufficient for
the purpose. As to the other part of the section
OF the Bill of Rights, viz; that no mel, can be tar
ca or debrired Of their properly for Public uses
zDithonf their osv,i conSent, that ofthet, rebre,
fgfi1es SO elected nor bound by any la7v TO .vich
they hare NOT IN ike manner, Gssented far che pl5
Tic good it is manifest that those words cannot be
understood in their most extensive sense. but
must be understood in the sense affixed to them
by the Trainers of the Constitution ; otherwise
every man IN the community whether freehol-
der or not, might screen himself from the conse
quences of any law upon which his representa-
tive either omitted to vote, or against which
such representative actually did vote; nay, the
very representative himself might in either case
tree himself from the consequences of the law
For, says the strict and tera! phraseology of the
Bill OF Rights, "when neither the constituent
nor MS representative consents TO the enactment
OF q law, neither the one, nor the other, shall be
bound by that law :" and if there could be no far
and honestdeparture from the written letter Of
the -Bl of rights, the veFiest criminal that ever
appeared IN the presence of offended Justice
'iitS '''plu punishment merely be-
cause he did not consent TO The enactment ofthc
law by which his punishment wa pronounced -
which would be solecism in government so
monstrous, that language has no terms IN which
to express It. Suppose we were called upon 10
explain aud interpret that provision IN the Fede.
raj Constitution which declares that no sea r
shall pass any law mpa;rng the obligation of 4
contracts" could we interpret it in the most eS-
tensiye sense of the words IF we could, We
must be prepared to say, that therepresentat &c
wisdom and integrity of the state has been fire.
quently engaged inthe violation of The Const,t,,.
ton We must be prepared TO admit, that the
Legislature has long ago trenched upon the Fe
dersi Constitution by setting aside all those con.
tracts which have been entered into for gaming &
usurious considerations. Our laws say, that every
contract bottomeI upon gamingor usury is ,ln
dim pGctpi, or of avail for the wan tot an acie
1uate cons ideration. Nay, we must be prep red
to admit, that we ourselves, during the present
session Of the legislature have several times Vi
olated the Constitution by dissovng matrimoni.
al contracts which were fairly and legally soiem.
nized. Yet, has it ever been supposed that the
laws Ofths state which relate to gaming and IA.
sury, and the dissolution Of certain matrimonial
Contracts are infractions of the Federal Constitu
ton No, the most visionary sceptIc in political
affairs has never supposed it possible. And, so,
too, we must understand the bill of rights not
according to its strict and literal plraseology.
but according to the true spirit and intendmeno
OF its provisions Itwould be folly and madnes,
TO undertake To reduce those broad and general
principles of national policy to the strict and its
raj standard by which il has been attempted Il