Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1829-12-01
Vol. Vino. 100.

Thereby prove is talacy the ,alnales inclu6n. one
halt OF The porua ion are dstranchieed of one fell
scope -'Hlnnes convlcs, pnnp'rs, Slaves. &C. which
together canpnsc large majority of every comn1
h,y aatken"e they argue, that oxr rule if ca rri-d
out to us extreme result viii not we'll thet
lnist he erroncous.-vfcr this argument have short
fansWeT- VIII net do to lest any rule by extreme
cases. presume cannot be necessary Tor me tn
assign reasof for tie exceptions In this the ge,,-
tieinan and myself would doubtless agAee lie has
= hunseif very happily assigned the rcason for exclud
ing females and could assign reasons as satisfactory
for the oher exceptions. Inthe foregoing exceptions
we are all agreed.I do rot understand anv of those
/ excepted classes rs now complaining, that any
member OF the committee wishes TO include them.
W NY then lug their claims into t-is 9saate;-g2t,
what purpose do the gentlamen so generously $: en-
forward TO their relief who seek no relief and FOR
Hfnin none is intended by either party.-I eau tel!
ven sSir the gonenen seek i,y IEsni 70 elevate
their rights, in order to dispara ors.-ZI object to
rms change OF Issue; the question is now between
ireehoder and aon-treehodeF--Lo which contest
these others are parrs-I insist upon a con,nari
son of our titles in this writ of right, if In,av
pc allowed to borrow figure fro..i that profession
OF which ALL 2n humble Hlo.ue:- LIZ MS form OF
aefloh and not as in eectment neither party can RELY
upon the weakness of his adyersarvs title provided
1t be better than his own--t is Simply as before ar
ted, a comparison of ttles-this 1 insist to he the
lazy OF this case.if the freeLoler and non freehol-
der have surpcd the rights of other css5es il is no
reason in the mouth of the treeholder against an
equal division OF the spoil have always heard that
honour was observed among thieves and robbers I
ma, thought it necessary say this much TO shew
that the exclusion III females &c had ot legitimate
iy the least connection with this quesllon.-If it be-
good argument, carried out to its results il woull
Justify any man TO make slave of his neiphbour:
provided that Neighbours happened to be the owner
OF siave-ihe argument OF the kidnapper would be
ths, to ms ensiaved captve--you SIR held fellow
creature in bondage because you thought Il expalien
TO dc so. have the same right to ehslave YOU and
think 1t eNpedent to do / Justify myself bv
your own example, II try you by your own rule-so
with the freeholders when they are challenged To
sheNR better ti.!e than The treoilod er-tRev re-
sort to the plea OF expediency-thlt it is expedent
| tney should have the power aud that Is females
&C. are exc!uced by mutual consent. ergo we the
ireeho,lc1s VII exclude The ats because
they concurrcd in the exclusion Of females minors
NC In What does Tie case Just supposed, differ from
tnlSr-So we ind that Neif arguments will not abide.
the test of being carried 10 their extreme resnlts
And this IS not the only argument of the gentlemen
obnoxious to the same criticism. In the discussion
OF the question OF Representations, they commended
Tor the mixed basis we replied that it was aanssi-
ble that IT WAS anti-repubican to give oEt o!tioal
power In proportion to the wealth OF the poer-ail
that II 1t was just to give one district weight in
proportion to lis wealth, was equally 20 ia divide
power among citizens fthe saiGs county in the gar
ratio, and SO 1t Is: but of this argument thev COM
planned as being unfar, End founded on enlreme.
winch they said was an unfair mode of treating their
prcposlt!on--Apd tins reminds lie Of liscrcpsnc,
between the first and last argument OF the qenieina,
from Chcsterhed.-in the argument OF the oues,ier
OF representation, we conended that the fears of The
east were untonnded for that all the country he
! tween the Allegheny and the sea-shore was slave
>, hotilng-tlat 1t therefore had common INTEREST
ana would always have the power, rs it now had
that although the Valley had not as many slaves =,
the east yet taking the ratio between the tyhables
and slave owners, 1T appeared that slave prop ery
Was more generally difised there, than nm tha
there were more s!Call slave-hoders-and thai tho
/ owner of one slave was as safe a depcsi,,r,, ~
power, as the owner of fo00n as ,uuch as the lax
on that one would be him, as the tax ON
the 1000 would be to their owner--a,d would ,,,J
HIM as Ylgiant to guard and protect that RIGHT h;s
argument .tnen from our side of the question was
wholly repudated, and if remember tightly bv the
gentleman from Chesterfeld--yet on yesterla,, Ie
used that very identical argument to prove that
Col. Adams poor neighbour owning but one sIave
was as safe political partner for the (,oonel ne
though he owned 1000 slaves and ASSIGNED the y,er
identical reasons heretofore assigned by the friends
OF the white basis. But other discrepencies exist IN
tue arguments whioh could not have escaped the at
tention OF tins commttee.-They complain that bv
| extending suffrage, you augment the power of the
ricil--a singua: complaint by the by coming from
the trends OF restricted suffrage and most general
y, II not always used by the rich themselves
They say that tenants to be trusted because
they will vote for their landlords or as thew d.
rect--the poor will vote for the rich or rs they direct
yet these very gentlemen claim power IN ranro
senatlon, tor he protection Of the property of Tie
rlch-They disguise the effect of the claim bv TEL
ing us, they claim IL not for individuals nor cou
ties but for sections OF country, dthat the effect of
U.s. to ascri6e power to the poor in right Of their
vicinity to wealth, for its protectionin Ojher words
to give them All equal portion of this surplus power
reserved on the score of wealth, in for the be-
neft OF their Ffh neighbours. If this be 80 wbv
should the gentleman from Chesterfield and bis as
sociatts, fear the subervcncy of the tenant 20 the
landlord, or OF the poor to the rich?if they hold
power for the benefit Of the landlord and the rich
they must either yield to tie views Of those persons
or set up for thenlselyes--if they set up for them
selves and disregard the wishes of the property hold
ers, they would prove unfaithful trustees and The
obleCt OF property representation would be defeated
IF on the contrary they should prove subservient
then only could the object of protection be ACCOMPLISH
cd by the of property rebrcsantatio1-a th.
gentleman should therefore, complain Of this effect
OF universal or extended surage.--But again: tie
gentleman on yesterday, objected to tenants being
voters because said he the landlord held tl,rn, bv
their very heart-strngs-co djstrain upon them
sell their last COW, and even the cradle on yghfyh
their infants reposed. if the gcnteman's argument
be good one, think it will prove too much [
think it will prove that his fayourite freehold -, w