Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1841-11-02
THE POWERS OF MAJORITiES AND THE
RIGHTS OF MINORITIES

to the State Sentinel also, that II had been
taught" the cardinal principles Of Democracy, if
we may Judge by this specimen of its knowledge,
by poor teacher. Perhaps, however, the fault
may be as much in the pupil as in the teacher he
is disposed to adopt the maxim of the Vndictive
Demagogue CLAY, as proclaimed in the L. s. Sen
ate IN favor OF the gag rule, without rejecting upon
the limitations and checks established by the Con-
stitution and upon the despotIc tendencies of the
doctrine when unrestrained by just consideration
oil the rights belonging minoritIes and to ndivid-
uals.
Democracy is coacsey defined to be Il govern
ment ~ the peopte-a government in which the
preme power Is lodged in the hands OF the people
collectively. IL is not government Of the majority
alone as the Journal seems 10 suppose; for the
rights and privileges of the minority are considered
as sacred as those of the majority If it were not
SO, 1t would no longer be Democracy, but an Ar
istocracy, or a Tyranny of majority, in which the
will of the majority to use the words of the Journal
would be q" oMNIPorExT."
Our government it is well un lcrstool , is a Rep
reseniaiire Democracy. In the Declaration of indie
pendcnce, it is laid down that governments derive
their just powers from the consent ofthe goreraed
and the preamble to the Constitution asserts that
cations Of all the States commence with we the
Delegates of the people" In adjusting these funda
mentals the voice of the ohoie people, and of
bare majority, consulted
The will of the majority should prevail under the
Constitution but not OVER ii. This is cardi-
nal principle which it seems the Journal has never
been - taught :" but one which it should make haste
to learn. If, it contends the will the majority
should IN all cases be omnipotent," that will
would itself become the Constitution. u is to avoid
this very evil that Constitutions are formed
In democracies the majority protect itself; it
is the minority for whose protection Constitutions
established. 1t requires no extraordinary acute
ness to that if in the construction of Constitu
tons, the views OF the majority at the moment
should be s omnipotcnt,' the minority would be
completely shorn of its rights, and be reduced to
the tyrannical code of a. Judge Lynch" Under such
n rule of construction, Constitutions would become
worthless mockeries.
For instance in our Constitution there is per-
manent restriction of the power of amendment, to
wit that State without its consent, shall be
deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate This
was introduced for the protection of the smaller
States, who might otherwise be deprived of this
equality by a constitutional majority of the States.
But according to the Journals idea of Democracy
the smaller States might at any moment be de-
prved of the rights thus guaranteed by the Con-
stituton, and reduced to the condition of mere pro-
vinces, instead of sovereign States This would be
the inevitable result of the revolutionary doctrines
avowed by the Journal, well as by .. III. Smith
and X. W. Thompson.
So in relation to the general power of amend
ha
sition We contend for the conservative doctrine
established by the Constitution itself; whereas the
Journal maintains that the Constitution should in
all cases be subordinate TO the Will of the existing
majority, and become subject at any moment to
destruction. We contend that the Constitution is
as binding upon the majority as the minority the
Journal asserts that the will of the majority is
peror to the Constitution. We maintain that the
Constitution can be altered amended only by n
power equivalent to that which established it the
Journal contends for the right of revolution by a
bare majority. We advocate the Democratic doc
trine that the rights of minorites as sacred as
those of mslorities the Journal, like consistent
wing, declares in favor of the Aristocratic dogma,
that the minority have inherent and nalienable
rights.
This question is touched upon by Mr.. RHErr,
Of S. c.. his letter TO the editors of the National
Intelligencer concerning their misrepresentation
i'm relation tn the effect of the gag rule adopted by
the House of Representatives a. the late Extra ses
sion. This abominable rule was not the hour rule,
with which it has been COMPOUNDED. 1t provided
that the privilege of debate in the Committee OF the
Whole. should at any time be annlhllated by the
vote of a bare majority, instead of a vote of two
thirds, II had always previously existed. by
this rule bills and amendments could be and were
forced through in silence the minority being en-
tirely deprived of the liberty of speech-a grosser
act of tyranny than ever before committed in
any legislative body in this country. to say the
least Mr. Clay in the Senate defended this tyr
amy of his friends in the House, the ground that
il is the right of the majority to rule the minority
unrestrictedly. Mr.. Rhett makes the following
observations -
Now should like Of these majority rulers, who
monarchists principle, to inform what right majority
has 10 rule minority Is it because they greater 10
numbers-have more power Well, II power gives the
right of dominion, suppose one man may weld II as well
a. MANY Why the monachs OF Europe, when form
ing their Holy Alliance put their thrones little wider
hass than this Even they admitted that they tus
ees in some sort people, and therefore derived in
some measure their authority to rule from their consent
Has the majority right TO rule the mnoy IRON their SUI
neror wisdom and virtue Look over the elementary
eases on Government and will find, that this Is the
very position which monarchies supposed 10 rest
Some man. with more intelligence and greater virtue, rises
amongst eople and assumes from hls superior attributes
the powers Of command and his superiority i the JUSTIN
cation of the assumption This would be capital doctrine
r some aspns the liberties Of the people,
some the ante-chamber OF Harem but
thought the of the Atlantic had not permitted
II n roach our shores Upon what other basis majority
have a right to rule a minority The truth Is, majority
has right rule minority than minority TO rule
majority Both have right 10 rule themselves but neither
has right u rule the other Liberty consists an Segor
eminent and the whole object of Constitution IN DEM
ocatic Government like ours TO accomplish this object
BY putting limitations The poers and discretion o. TIE
majority Whatever powers the majority IN such
Government they DO acquire them by any inherent rgh