Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1828-1831, 1829-11-14


uRless gentlemen the other sido OF this
question, are disposed to impose come unjus, res
trctions upon them. of which sm sure ara very
lar from suspectiug any member of this body.
we have been called upon to assign n reason why
1ufants under the nge of twenty years should be
excluded from share III The formation of the Gov
eminent. IT the principles for which have been
tending are correct. answer that it will be tinio
TO assign the reasons for it, when they claim
the right; nndas tis very CERTAIN they do not intend
tn make the demand ct present. we need not waste
our timo IN making improbable enquiries, into the
extent or nature of their rights The question asked
by the gentleman from Orange, (Mr Barbour} as to
our right TO exclude the free heroes from the rphts
OF clz enshp, is sufficiently cred BY saving that
we choose To exclude them for Reasons which must
be sufficiently obvious TO him, and therefore need not
DO assigned.
There has been Que other question asked, which
deserves most serious considerations II is this:
What right have VIC, If the principles asserted by
the Bill OF Rights are correct, to exclude paupers
fron taking any part in the formation amendment
Of the Constitution 1t is Important in the cor,-
slderaton of this question, to know precisely what
is meant by the term paupers. If this tenn is in
tended to embrace all the non-frecholders, as pre-
sumo is, .for is account of their poverty, and
the want of common interests with and att achment
TO the community, which is supposed to be conse-
quent upon their sate of poverty, that they en-
cluded there can be difficulty in making sui,
bic reply to The question. The reply which dis
pc 'ed to make, is his. These paupers nonfi chnd-
crs, being admitted to belong to the community, md
. acknowledged us parties to the compact of Gov
ment; and they having demanded permission to cx-
crcise their rights, as they have done, in language
net to be misunderstood disregarded; We have nc
right to exclude them from share the alteration
of the old and the new formation of a-Constution.
And Sir, If am not deceived by the language OF
their memorials now upon your table, they are de-
tcrmincd not to be prevented from exercising their
rights. When we come to consider the question, oil
who shall be permitted to vote in favor of the adop
tion or rejection of the new amended Constitution,
! | may perhaps cndeavor TO satisfy the committee
that every free white man above the age of twenty
years, will be entitled to vote upon that ques-
ton, inasmuch, as the people will then be engaged
IN the actual exercise of those equal rights secured
20 them by our Bill of Rights and to drnw the dis
nction between the natural rights, and the right of
suffrage, which is mere conventional right, and
only b. claimed exercised by those whom il
has been conferred by the majority which created
the Constitution. For the present, it is enough for
TO deny right to exclude them from voting for
or against the new Constitution.
The second section of the Bill Of Rights. asserts:
That all power is vested in, and consequently der-
we'd from the people, sc. To this proposition I'M
derstand TO objection has been made. shall there
fore pass TO the third section, which ASSERTS
That government. Is, ought to be, &c there the
third section of the Bill OF Rights read And
i; has been IN discussing this proposition that most
OF the questions have endcavourcd TO answer, la ve
been propounded but which have thought had more
immediate relation 10 the fret principle asserted by
the Bill of Rights.
the majority to govern which is here asserted, is
natural or Conventional right; and We have been
called upon TO prove that 1t is natural For my
own part, conceive IL to be wholly imnateral,
To the effect it is to have upon the division OF the
question: now betrc US, whether Is considered
a natural, or Conventional right. If it be not
a natural right, its existence must at least be &c.
before the social compact can be form
ed. For unquesonaby, 1t is essential, for any body
OF men, who may be about to form Constitution. to
determine in the first place how the questions which
may nrise shall be determined. II would perhaps
be impossible for me to furnish better illust ration
of my views upon this subject than that which is a
f1rded by reference to tue course which las been
pursued by this Convention itself: When we assem-
bled In this Hail the Representatives OF the poo
pie, VIC met upon terms of perfect equality, with
standing the great inequality which must exist among
so many individuals, both intellectual gunlifca
tions, and to physical power. motion made TO
appoint President, and the venerable gentleman
from Loudoun wa3 put in nomination by the vener-
able gentleman from Orange. 1t being understood
that majority of the members were in favor Of the
election of the gentleman from Loudoun be took his
seat as President. And if another person had been
put IN nomination and had received less than the
majority, and the member from Loudoun had obtain
ed but minority of one vote. still he would have
been entitled TO take his seat President: and any
man who would have questioned his right to do so,
would have been regarded as little better than
mailman.
We proceeded in tho next place to cloct n Clerk, a
sergeant AT AIMS, ana Two door keepers, and
cry continued 10 ballot, and over again
until it was ascertaincd who had the majority
Thus was the right Of the majority to rule, ackHow
lodged time after time by this Convention, without n
single dissenting voice. and oil this took place before
we had become organized as Convention.
So soon as we were organized, VIC again ncknowl-
edged the right Of tho majority to rule by every vote
which we gave upon the adoption ofhc rules by which
our deliberations arc regulated. And the only bind
ing authority which those rules have over us ut this
moment, is derived from the sanction given to them
by the vote of the majority. Is it then for US TO
question the right of the majority to rule after bav-
ing often acknowledged il, in case exactly in
point Surely it is not. 1t would be idle after this
to 70 into tho enquiry, as to the origin of the right
Of the majority TO rule. Nor need go into the en-.
quiry suggested by the gentleman from Northamp,
ton rs to the mode in which the majority 10 to be
certniucd, how the votes arc to be given, who would
appoint the tepcrs. IL the mejofi'yb be ascertaiDed
it is immaterial how it is uscertuincd, g. presume IL
wouldbe impossible TO form nny government in coun-
try where parties were equally balanced 10 re-
quire a count in order to ascertain the majority.
do not imagine TINT ancestors, when they dis