Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1826-09-01

O
DISTINGUISHED? Is it compatible with the protested
freedom of elections, that one vote should be poll
ucaly equal to two? Does il not result from restrc
ted suffrage and unequal representation combined,
That the people will be taxed, only without their
consent, but against heir consent? VIII not in
justice be constantly operating with unseen but
fatal influence! VIII not the des,inies of the State
be subjected TO the arbitrary control of a corrupt
minority! For, corruption is the natural and iney-
Hapie consequence, wherever minorities have the
ascendancy. Establish the doctrine that only the
treeholders are entitled TO VOTE and what follows
upon the principle proclaimed in the Bill OF Rights !:
III follows that they should pay al the taxes and
oesr all the burdens OF supporting the government
IN iact, II Is upon this very ground that they claim
the exclusive control of the State. But what is
the TACT! Are not all compelled to sustain the gov
eminent by their property and labour, while only
the owners OF the soil are allowed 10 exercise its
power, or TO have any thing 10 do with it, There
Is one TACT connected with this question Of freehold
suffrage that cannot be disregarded--it has been
decided by the highest judicial tribunal in the State
IN me case OF Gusts and Cane, that non resident
neehoiuefs arenot competent 10 vote; ii was then
ueciueu anu demonstrated too, that possession of
VIC 81" was not The best, nor even good evidence
OF attachment to the COMMUNICATED not then the
whoie rSu'nen', founded upon the idea that holding
the SOIL Is the best evidence of that attachment fall
tenor oil The arguments employed Coz cusively show
that RESIDENCES the only Legitimate foundation ,l.4,
'he right oil suffrage ever rest on. But on
hs SUBJECT we have no fixed constitutional rule at
al. ihe constitution ordans that the right OF
suffrage should remain as it was then exercised il
was then limited TO the owner of hundred acres OF
,and-yet In the face of this constitutional resula-
lon, we l.'d the legislature reducing the quantity
oil land 10 twenty-five acres Is there any imagi-
nablp ipla that.x
TO raise or reduce it any assignable limit: would
1t not equally comport with its constitutional pow
or 10 strike away the restriction entirely? Here
'Heh, we hnd tie sacred ano ines,mable right of
sun'fse dependent on The caFriciCus and mutable
dispositions OF an annual legislature We find that
'ne DIN or Rights proclaims certain crea, princi-
pies as essential TO the security OF the citizen and
.r,s' 'ne constitution violates those urinciples-
nese Instruments being equally sacred and equally
"uio naive, oasht, instead of conflicting as they
uhqueslionaoiy do, to correspond II is very OBJ
vious that in such system there cannon he .nv nj
the substance, and hardly the form of self qove,n
n'eh' mere Is no real contact between the peopIe
anu 'heir ruiers-the essential elements of popuIar
SoVcrhmen'-the evidences and emblems of oopu
lar sovereignty belong not to it. To remedy these
ons'i'uuonal grievances, 1t is necessary 10 recur
~ nfst princples-to appeal TO the people-to as
t e'"h "ieir VIII, and INK the constitution on the
M '"i'"oFcdoie foundation OF that will
men, Tor the empty shadow and delusive sem
dance OF freedom they now eniov. will he snhs,;-
tn ed The substantial prerogatve of popular sove-
feignty.
But 1t Is not in relation to The freehold RICH,
OF suffrage alone that l think the constitution de-
iec.ive. The unequal system OF representation
and the inefficient organization of the executive
are capital defects. l will, however, reserve the
discussion OF those subjects to a subsequent com
munication' particularly the essay that impelled
me 10 make this humble effort in behafof the great
cause OF political Improvement, did not touch 1non
them. Believing that the design of that ESSAY was
ueee and insidious, and its doctrines dangerous. I
nave ieit ii my duty to expose the one, and to pro-
test against the other. FOY