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

tnelc any tnlnS IN nature Oh lahO 10 give It's
possessor the exclusive right of voting? But
does not the theory of republican government,
suppose that it is instituted for the common bene-
fit OF ALL and that all alike interested in its sup
| port! There is one argument urged against ex-
tending the right of suffrage, which would not de-
serve serious refutaiion if il were not generally
resorted tot is this: That suffrage is not, it
has been sometimes termed, a natural rght-and,
therefore, il ought not to be extended beyond
tain limits. But why is it called natural right
Men being naturally equal in respect TO their rights;
and it is the acknowledged object free govern
ments TO establish and extend that equality as far
circumstances would permit, it is contended thai
all who capable of voting, are upon principles
OF natural justice, entitled to exercise that right.
Of what material importance is it, whether this be
denomnated 4 natural, political, a civil
right? 1t is still right, and most important and
inestmatle one. In conformity with the maxims
of political Justice and enlightened policy, the only
limitation the right OF suffrage, really required,
are competent age, residence, and citizenship no
stronger evidence, of common interest WITH and
attachment TO, the state, is necessary. In placing
the right of voting upon this broad and obvious
basis, it be denied, that policy ana the best
interests OF society, require that the people should
not exercise this, any other right, unless they
can do it with intelligence. But, On this ques-
ton, no rational doubt be enter tanned. In the
present improved, and rapidly improving condi-
ton of society, when the freedom of speech and
OF the press is untrammelled; when property is
easy TO be acquired; and education is cheap; when
every Circumstance concurs in promoting the rapid
diffusion of knowledge, and the boundless expan-
sion Of liberal principles it would be humiliating
indeed, If they could not be trusted with the simple
right or selecting representatives. 1t is the most +,
In fact, the only important prerogative of sover-
eighty. that the people have retained. Withou,
the right of suffrage, the system Misrepresentation
is delusve mockery, and the principle of re-
sponsibility is absolutely imperative. Why not,
then, ditfuse i, widely the nature of thin IS
will admit? Upon what conceivable principle
of natural or moral justice; upon what fantastic
notion OF state expectancy is it, that half the free
men of the State DISTINGUISHED! Can that go
vernment claim to be democratic, which does not
give equal political rights to all It's citizens! There
is one consideration, in relation to this subject,
which it would be objectionable to disregard. The
non reeholdcrs, constituting very large portion of
the community, called on in time of war, TO
expose their lives in defence Of the country and
IN TACT, generally bear the great burden, and all
| the prva,ions Of The contest. Surely those who
are ready TO hazard all, and 10 sacrifice all,
in the cause of heir country, ought not 10 be de-
prived of just participation in the government Of
that country.
The freehold restriction upon voting, involves
the most complete contradiction with the theory
| oil republic, that be imagined. What is its
obvious tendency! Undoubtedly to throw all po-
lIical power into The hands OF the minority TO
vert the government into oligarchy. 1t is then
the part of wisdom 10 apply the correction of sa,
| lutary reform, before such consummaon can
take place. The time will pass, when the
genius of enthusiasm itself, can hope for any "a
mendment: When reform can be effected, but
revolution When no convention can be called
but camp. Let US then, while The time is pro-
pitous, and the crisis calls for il, fix the liberties
! OF the people the adamantne basis of well
form: ed organick laws. Let u give to the people
what we profess TO give them, and what we ought
TO give them, democratic constitution, democratic
IN theory and In practice; constitution that is de-
mocratic in lis spiit and democI attic in its opera
lion. This great and necessary reform, the all
creative voice OF the people, that originally spoke
| the government into existence, has audbly and
empha,ically demanded. II may be resisted by
the interested office-holders and tmd alarmsts of
the day. but resting the sacred principles of JUS
,ice and liberty, it must ultimately prevail But
this blessed freehold restriction, much lauded as
the most unequivocal indication OF the wisdom of
the trainers of the constitution, is in fact derived
| from'the British King. The convention of 'z6
found it in the colonial constitution, and adopted
it, and it is curious fac, in the history of tLj,
celebrated constitutional provision, that it was
once formally abolished by the colonial legislature
and afterwards restored expressly by the royal or
must have known it, would it not be violent
presumption to suppose, that the convention adopt
ed the freehold limitation on suffrage, from any
conviction OF its utility, its wisdom, its republi-
can tendency! But it is not at all wonderful, that
constitution framed by the illusirious men
OF that day, not exactly comfortable with the
strict principles of democracy Called together
for the purpose of forming system Of govern
ment at the most awful and porentous crisis HAT
occurred the destiny of 10
were forced 10 act upon the cautious principles OF
compromise and cancellations is it unreasonable
to suppose that considerations of this character in
duced them, Tor the purpose of propitiaing the un-
divided support of the freeholders at that perilous
crisis, TO yield to their prejudces and perpetuate
the restIlction? And VIXEN we advert to the fact
that many OF the most enlightened members of the
convention, were dissatisfied with this very proyi-
sion, the conclusion is inevitable that il was adop
ed IRON some other cause than its abstract wis
dom or eXptGiency. Whist is the foundation of
this new Agrsrian law which has been incorporate ed
into our constitution? is there not nonstrous
anomaly III the idea of making man, with all his
moral attributes and high destines, inferior in poll
teal consideration to the dust he treads on, is not
this making the land every thing, the man nothing;
w c are told, indeed, that land is stable that il il
indesiTuctible-that we derive support from it.
Would II not be just wise to make the right of
voting depend on possessing certain portion Of
one OF the other elements of nature for they are all
equally " indestructible," equally essential TO our
exis ence; without either ofthem we should perish
Governments, people, politicians and all, would
be speedily annihiIated. Without air, we could
not breathe without water, we should die of burn
ing thirst; and without fire. should be infallisly
frozen 10 death. Such IS the error and absurdify
we are inevitably led into, by assuming any other
principles as the basis Of free government than