Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1825-07-15


smay appear unlike the rogue Peter as possible:
would not, for an hundred pounds, carry the
least mark about me, that might give occasion TO
the neighbours Of suspecting that was related
to such a rascal And answer in the words of
Martin, and beg my brother, of all love, not to
damage his coat by any means; for he toW never
. get such another
have bestowed more care than intended, to
the refutation OF the transferable argument of
the Friend Of Reform; partly, because Of the
real esteem l bear the tcri.er; and, partly, be-
cause Mr.. Mercer has relied on it, to relieve him.
self from the duty of answering one of the most
important parts OF my own argument For myself,
nave no respect for political arithmetic. The
science OF numbers can rarely be applied the dis
cussion OF moral political topics, with any real
utility OK advantage: il can lead TO certainty Of re-
suits, only when it builds certainty OF data, but
the statesman must estimate uncertain quantities.
Almost all the political arithmetic have ever seen
works invariably by and the rule; and that
is the Rule If FoSitioi-or as il is vulgarly cali
Ell, the Rule Of False
Iapprehend, (though am not quite of it.)
that the Friend Of Reform has mistaken for the
expression OF my opinions, remarks, which
only traced the propositions / undertook refu;e,
totheir unavoidable consequences, for the purpose
oil correcting the erroneous premi<es which they
were founded. never said, that thought the
Senate a farer representative of the people, than
the House Of Delegates. My opinion is. and al
ways has been, that both Houses are as fair repre-
sentatves OF tie people, in fact and in practice, as
human wisdom, having regard TO Tie circumstances
of the commonwealth, contrive-I say, as
fair as can be contyired: do not mean that the,
are perfect and iniallible ! have no faith in he
periectibiity OF man, nor in government the work
Of his hands.
4, certainly, shall not deny the authority of The
Substitute, seeing that the .fmheyst reforme-s
have called II the standard Of orthodoxy; and if
can be convicted of maintaining any opinions in
consistent with those which are maintained in that
essay, shall willingly admit, that am wrong,
and The Substitute right. Let us examine the
aedged Inconsistency. The acthor Of The Sub
stitute was considering that scheme for cqualizng
the representation IN the House Of Delegates,
which proposed TO lay off the State into districts
of equal population, for the election OF delegates
and, after showing that Nicholas, Pendieton, and
Randolph, containing an aggregate population of
little more than ten thousand souls, spread over
vast extent OF territory, would probably form only
district, he said Is il conceivable that any
one man chosen from such district, would be
real representative of The people Off, for purposes
of state legislation? That he could represent their
local interests, their peculiar feelings, wants,
wishes! That those people would or ought to be
Satisfied with such representation? In the state
representation, II is essential that there should be
a close and intimate connexon between the re-
preventative and his constituents Whoever thinks
that the existing principle OF congressional repre-
'sentation, can be applied to the representation of
the people OF Virginia in the legislature for
gets The essential difference between the nature
and objects OF the two governments. Congress is
charged with the external relations, the general
concerns, of the naton in respect to which large
masses OF population and territory have the same
interest, and generally the sentiments: the
state government is charged with the domestic, in
ternai, local concerns OF the people presume,
never occurred 10 any one, that the author
TO contend, that man would be an adequate
representative of such district in the Senate
had supposed, that it was impossible to read the
passage, without perceiving, that the author intend
ed TO express the opinion, that single delegate
would not be an adequate representative OF such
district for purposes OF ordinary state legislation,
IN which the local interests, the peculiar feelings
wants and wishes of his constituents, ought 10 be
represented ard sustsined; while, at the same time
he admitted, that such repres entation would be
adequate Tor all matters oil general concernmeni
How, then, are any opinions that have express
ed, Inconsistent with those maintained in The Sub
sfitute! have referred 10 the Senate as fair re-
preventative OF the people, the great question of
convention convention. Is this a subject OF
ordinary state Legislation? Is it mere local in
terest? is it in the language Of The Substitute
aquestion OF general concern, in respect to which
large masses OF population and territory have the
same interest," and, generally the same sentiments?
But it surprises me, that the Friend of Reform
should qao.e The Substitute as authority Does
he assent 10 the doctrine be quotes, not If he
does, then would tain know what is the scheme
Of equaizing tie representation which has occurred
to his mind, since he must, OF course, abandon the
district system. II he does not then ask what is
the value OF the argument against me, which he
draws from The Substitute? Does he think tia,
may DC fairly refued by another error p
VIVA, is the idea attached to that word sophism %
d. L.a. r. l.. T -
truth, mere orgumentlna I'D homiRen, Designed
to refue nothing and to prove nothing, but only
to gain victory over his adversary personally? II
that his object, he has taken more pains TO ac
complish it, than Gas between him and mel il is
worth; and, if we alone were concerned, should
eoncede it 10 him with the calnest indifference
Such an object would be of some value TO Mr.
Mercer in bis present unhappy predicarnent. And,
by the way, this reminds of a covert aTgtlnaen-
tun al hominem Of that gentleman, In his first
Freeman of 1925. Did not (saysh sthe
General Assembly assert right to instruct the Sc
majors of the State in Congress who are not their
SERVANTS and will they deny the right of the peo-
pile whose servants those Senators are audibly and
distinctly TO appeal to themselves, by complain,
'and remembrance, if they please?' Now, admit
ling (for the argument sake) the monstrous pro-
position, that the General Assembly is the servant
OF the Stanton Convention (Which is essential 10
the purpose MIR. Mercer bad in view y beg leave
20 inquire, whether no, Mr.. Mercer does now
acknowledge the right of he people instruct their
immediee representatives? and If he do, let me
further inquire, which of his old opinions Il mean
such in which his tohite countrymen have any con-
cern) we to consider remaining unchanged |?
To what are we 10 refer TO ascertain the mans
moral and political identity?
The design is now distinctly avowed, TO equalize
and apportion the representation according to the
FEE Uhite population. The Friend Of Reform
refers US to the unanswerabIe argument of the