Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1825-07-23


| earnestly opposed to submitting the
right of suffrage to the proposed con.
| vention; and, though he denied, that
the vote on Mr.. Hunters amendment,
was evidence of the sentiment Of the
minority on the subject Of freehold ssf-
frage; and though he said che was not
opposed to any possible extension of the
right of suffrage" yetit is plain enough
to my understanding, that he did not
consider marriage, or a mechanic trade,
or the possession O bank stock, or fighting
the battles Of the country, such evidence
of permanent common interest inland
attachment to the community, as
should entitle the citizen to vote; for he
puts all those cases on the same foot
ing as the case of mere citizenship, which
he surely did not then think sufficient
qualification. The speech is not ex-
plicit, certainly; but | defy him to re-
concile it with the opinion he express
ed at the Fairfax election, "that every
man who pays tax ought to have a
right to vote;" or with another opinion
he is reported to have expressed on o.
Their occasions, "that every man who
has a musket and two spare flints,
should have the right to VOTE" or with
the language which, in the Alexandria
edition ofthe second Freeman Of 1925,
as "the present arbitrary and unjust
distribution of the right of suffrage"
For my own part, hold it an equal
ly injudicious and unfair course in le-
gislation, to pursue favorite end by
any manner of indirection. But, if Mr..
Mercer was really hostile to the prin-
ciple of the freehold qualification, and
yet strenuously opposed every PROPOSE
ton to subject that feature of the con-
stitution to revision and reform, and
this for the mere purpose of obviating
objections, that might be fatal to the
bill; he can have no right to complain
of those, whoever they were, who were
friendly to the principle of freehold
qualification, and yet voted to put it in
hazard, in order to embarrass and defeat
the bill.
In the speech which Mr.. Mercer
made on the general question, (repor-
ted by himself and published in the
Enquirer of the 3oth January 1919
the only objection he urged against the
constitution, was the inequality of the
representation. sFor myself, SIR he
(said) though member of the select
committee, stood aloof from its pro-
ceedings at the commencement of the
Session, and urged many of the most
active members of the House to bring
in bill to equalize the Senatorial rep
resentation.' I appeal to the member
from Norfolk, ifhe does not recollect
the call which made on him, TO bring
in bill for this purpose; call which
I subsequently, addressed to the mem
Der from Wythe on my left, to the
member from Henrico who is sitting
before me, and to the members from
Washington and Brooke, and to many
other honorable members ofthis house.
Sir, implored the gentleman from
Norfolk, to take upon him the task for
which he is so we'll fitted; but implo-
red in vain! Need say, that 1 am at
tached to our present constitution?
feel a vencration for the old tree, the
withered trunk of which yet stands, |
am told, BY my fathers house: its shade
sheltered from the Sun my boyish
sports, and his aged head, while he re-
garded his son with parental care. Can
l feel less for the constitution, which he
contributed to form? How often, sir,
have ,Ue together recorded our votes "a
gainst any change Of this constitution
This speech was addressed 10 Mr.. STAN
ard, the Speaker of the House.
During the progress Of this conven-
ton bill through the House of Dele
gates, Mr.. Blackburn had obtained
leave to bring in bill to equalize the
senatorial representation and the land
tax. This bill passed that House on
the 18th February, 1917. The Enqui-
rer of the 18th says, there was long
| and interesting debate upon it: Messrs.
Hay and Tucker being in opposition
| to the Bill; Mr.. Tazewell in favor Of it
Mr.. Mercer (of Loadon) made some
remarks on certain incidental points. /
wish they had been reported; for, as !
did not hear his speech in answer to
Mr.. Tazewell on the convention bill
(Which is reported, am very sure it
was on this occasion, that ! heard the
speech, Of which am going to give the
substance, which is well remembered
by others as well as mt. Mr.. Hay or
Mr.. Tucker had said, that che was op-
posed to the bill, becauseit would pre-
vent the final passage Of thecopvention
bilp (then in the Senate, Mr.. Mercer
expressed a very earnest desire that
the bill should pass, not only because
gives this particular article clear limitation;
but that limitation, if the amendment prevail,
cannot bind your new convention.
| -,