Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1838-01-30

their interests and most conducive 10 Tue freedom
and purity Of elections.
Mr. TUSsrALL after declaring his deep veneraon for
the institutions Of noble ancestry, and the almost holy
horror with which he contemplated the reckless passion
Of modern times for pulling down the ancient edce OF
our ancestors in order to build up more fra and mo.
dern building its ruins-proceeded to reply seatim
to the arguments urged in opposition TO his before ex
pressed opinions AS TO The argument advanced BY Mr.
Peyton that under the old law The right Of suffrage
could not be exercised 10 lis full extent, Mr. r. said
this was physical impossbility, and not the act Of
the law ITSELF Mr.. II. wished To know whether it was
usti6abe to deprive man Of the right of suffrage by
ndireclon IT, for example, the tax horses were to
be abolished, and many who voted that tax were
thereby TO be disqualified would that be to disfran-
chise them by indreclion The cases. Mr. T. contend
ed were snilar-and he would ask if it would not be
an indirect violation Of the Constitution? The appeal
made 10 give the law trial, appeared to him
thing like the argumen, used in The late pressure, when
the people told that if they would only wait little,
and try it little longer it would become quite easy 10
them To take the people from their homes court days,
and then two days after that TO call them again from
their homes 10 the elections, might, il appeared 10 Mr.
T. by the slightest calculation Of political economy, be
shewn to be an injurious course of procedure. Every
day lost much clear capital lost Now, 10 take Ave
hundred thousand from their homes is 10 ubrdge
by so much the labor and consequently the wealth and
resources of the Commonwealth. Mr. T. had not said
there was not solitary individual man, woman or child
in his county, who in favor OF this law but he had
snid only that in animated canvass he had not heard
n SIMPLE vOter advocate the law lie iIoNeEeE,
other objections which he would not at present enlarge
upon. Among other things, tappeared to him cacula-
ted 10 lessen the number Of votes. He WINS opposed 10
this and would 60 rather for every measure which tend
ed TO increase the number
Mr. PErTos conceived that the gentleman from Pittsy
vuuia (hr. T) attached too much importance to very
simple thing He as if were about to make
some dreadful innovation upon the Constitution, whereas
the question only to the mere change Of the day OF
election. If any one should hear him speak as he has
done, without knowing what gave rise to his remarks he
would never be able TO divine that the only proposition
in question the mere change of day. AS to this
law being an attack upon lhe elective franchise Mr. T.
would convince the gentleman from T. (hlr that he
wns totally mistaken. By the Constitution, citizen may
vote wherever he has freehods Now he admits that ma
nv votes were lost under the old law because it was
not possible to exercise the right in all cases-Ad'n
Ting therefore, this, it follows, according TO his own
nj, that the old law which he lauds so highly vio
lated the Constitutions But if he can approve OF me
old law with this disadvantage, why Gun he not approve
of the new law, which, with no greater disadvantage
brings an important benefit besldcs' The Constitution