The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1850-05-09
Forthe National bra.
DANIEL WEBSTER.
CHARGE OF INCONSISTENCY.

SOibSHuab ouTpTlScu lDlI iii tue trlenQs OF
Freedom Throughout. the land hav, so far mia
taken Daniel Webster as to charge him with in
consistency II may be true that the spirit Of
what he said in ls4s ems opposed to the spirit of
what he has said in 1850 but | trust it can be
shown that if he manifested the least favor to the
Proviso by what he said in lS4S he must have
been in that state described in Holy Writ, where
il is said, "Wine is a mocker, strong drink is
raging o-he was MOI himself
The people-many OF them. at least-have
mistaken Mr.. Webster. To suppose that his
opinions were ever on the side of Freedom-to
suppose that he ever drew one full inspiration Of
generous liberty-to suppose that his veins were
ever warmed by one pulsation Of conviction of
human equality-is to mistake the man. So far
from his being inconsistent his late speech fully
accords with the opinions with which he COM
menced his career Of craftsmanship, as avowed
on an important occasion, and at time when he
was entering into the prime of manhood
In 1890, Webster was, ! believe, twenty-eight
years Of age, and a member of the Constitutional
.1Sss,-1, sts "a {soscx - EayS2LJi 81 :
ton Of Massachusetts,. In that body the funda-
mental principles Of human liberty were discuss
ed such as
!. Universal suffrage.
2. The support of religion by taxation.
Whether Government is founded on Prop
CA'J w NiduHoOu
!. On the proposition to limit the exercise of
the right of suffrage to property holders, MIR
Webster said
g. shall object to giving up all pecunsry quail
ifcations, though | would be content with the
smallest tax. There is great difference between
this and universal suffrage
la this is betrayed Mr.. Webster's want Of
Faith in Man-his low appreciation of the vir-
tues and capabilities of his felows-and his fail
ure to recognise the great right of civil equality,
even among "white folks" This is perfectly
consistent with his late speech in the Senate.
2. AS to the support and propagation of reli-
gion by constitutional enforcement, the Constitu-
ton of Massachusetts,, of 1920, was an improve
ment upon that Of 1850. The old Constitution
provided for the support of the " Protestant re-
ligion by tax on all the property of the Com
monwealth, while that of 1890 substituted the
word Christian" for that Of " Protestant so as
to embrace Catholics After the Convention
had drawn such heavy draft upon human lib
erty, Mr. Webster thought they had gone quite
| far enough He said
1.-THE word Protestant has given place to the
word Christian and the clause enjoining at
tendance on public worship is struck out. What
more is requiredl Nothing but to make certain
the right of going from one society to another Of
sas ssns dsnomin ,tion There u no right Of con
Thus, MIR. Webster would bind the people by
a constitutional obligation to pay taxes to thu
support of religion, whether they believed in i
or not-whether they were opposed to giving
money for the propagation of doctrines they
deemed erroneous and pernicious or not "N'
right of conscience in the casew Deists hav,
rights Of conscience as other people and ye
Webster 80 little understood the nature of human
rights that he would compel deists to pay money
for preaching what they despised. Universalistt
were not recognised rs Christians n-ther efor,
| Webster would reenaot the old English law com
polling the people to pay tax to the regular
system of religion, and leave them TO maintain
their own creeds as best they could
g. Another proposition was, whether the repre-
sentatiyes should be apportioned among the sew
eral counties according 10 the amount Of property
| or according to the number Of inh ibitants in
other words whether Government was founded
| on property or on manhood.
John Adams, then eighty years of age, was a
member of this Convention and when he found
democracy to be in the ascendant, he rose, as he
said, "with fear and trembling" to warn the Con.
vention of the doom to which they were hasten
| ing, by placing so much power in the hands Of
propertyless people His gray locks quivered
with the terror which agiated his venerable sou,
in view of the wreck of the Government on the
quicksands Of civil equality. Give equal power
to the poor and rich and the poor, being the more
numerous, would vote US out Of our houses"
Webster seemed to agree with John Adams,
that property WAS the true and only source Of po-
litical power and its protection ought to be the
chief object Of Government, AS, Ia the absence Of
military force it is its chief support and defence
On this subject, MIR. Webster said
But, sir, take the principle to be well estab
lished by writers Of the greatest authority. In
he Cat ala HI ay BAD NJ al
law have maintained, as n principle Of that law
that far az the object Of society is the protec
ton Of something in which the members possess
unequal shares, 1t is just that the right of each
person, In the common councils, should bear
relation and proportion to his interest. Such is
the sentiment of Grotius, and he refers, in sup
port Of it, to several institutions among the an
cient States. Those authors who have written
more particularly on the subject Of political in
situations have, many Of them, maintained SINH.
lar sentimen,a Not, indeed, that every mans
power should be 10 sxaa proportion to his prop
erty, but that, in q general sense, and in gen.
eral form, property, as such, should have its
weight and influence in political arrangements.
Montesquieu speaks with appreciation Of the
early Roman regulation, made by Servius Tul-
Illus, by which the people were distributed into
classes, according TO their property, and the
public burdens apportioned to each individual
according to the degree Of power he possess
ed In the Government One Of the
most ingenious Of political writer's is Mr.. Har-
rington, an author not now read ms much rs he
deserves. IL Is his leading object ia his Oc>ana
TO prove that pomer naturally anfneeessary (oioms
uopertH He maintains that a Government
founded on property Is naturally and legitimately
founded and that a Government founded on
disregard Of property is founded In injustice,
and can only be maintained by military force
1t is strange, says MIR. Pope In one of his
con versations, that Harrington should be the first
man TO find out 80 evident and demonstrable
truth, as that Of property being the true basis
and measure Of power. In truth, be was not the
first The idea Is as old as political science itself
1t may be found 10 Aristotle Lord Bacon, Sir
Walter Raleigh, and other writer's Harrington,
however seems to he the first writer who has Illus
trsted and expounded the principle, and given to
It the effect and prominence which justly belong
10 IL. To this sentiment, siy, e'aUsfy dgree. IL
seems to me that In the absence Of military force,
political power naturally and n,eessardy goes into
the hands which hold tie propenyD
So much the more necessity, then, Of withhold
ing political power from property, and OF conhd-
ing 1t exclusively to the whole people, without
distinction of property. Property IL aggressive,
and the only mode Of gusrsntying the public
welfare 10 to give the people, poor AZ well as rich
the whole power. But this was thought danger
GUS; for, as Webster said, when the poor become
numerous, they grow clamorous, and look upon
property As their prey and plumber
After thus seeing what opinions Mr.. Webster
held in 1920, when in all his youthful freedom
and vigor, is It surprising that he should have
made his late speech Is not that speech In hAr-
mony with his views In is2Oi Has he not been
| consistent, snti.demccrat, Notwithstanding con-
] servativel Has he not alwaySsupported the aris-