Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1851-04-01

out analogy but are totally dissimilar ,,.
Then come TO my friend from southa'Pt'u' WI
RlDLEY) He gave US special arSu,ne"' ~. IT,
reading of the third section OF the Dill VI i"''
clause as a whole is in these words
THAT government is or ought to be instituted iof Inc
common benefit protection and security VI INC people,
nation or community OF all the various i'ueS anu
government that is best which capaoie ol producing
the ereate. degree of happiness and safety and Is NEST
effectav secured against the danger OF maiadinistra-
ton and that when any government sii DC iouo III
adequate or contrary to these purposes majority Oh
the community hath indubaole unalenabe ana ilde
feasible right to reform alter OF aoosh Id suci a
ner as shall be Judged most conducive to the public
veal"
Upon the language of this section my friend from
SOUTHAMPTON argued that according to It's express
terms the failure Of the government IN some one OF the
respects indicated condition precedent to the right
asserted in il on behalf Of the majority of the commu
nty" To refom alter, abolish the government, DC
Consequently, that the majority, before proceeding to
exert that right are bound to show such flilurcare
bound to show the occurrence of this condition prcce-
dent, spoken OF 10y hun:
] Now will the gentleman tell me who is to decide
the question as 10 whether the contingency has arrived
er not2 Who is to say whether government has failed
in the rosscct indicated ia the third section of the bill OF
rights which failure, according to his showing is to
constitute this condition precedent: Why, surely, 1t
must be the majority. The idea of its resting with the
minority to decide would be Inconsistent with the right
asserted to exist in the majority to reform &c the eN-
listing government because any the minority by
not deciding ut all, deciding against the occurrence
of the condition precedent would render The rights oil
the majority entirely ugatnry This Is So obvious As to
exclude the necessity of argument. admit, however
that this right of the majority should not be exercised
recklcssly but only upon full and mature dclberation
when il shall be clear that the government has tcd In
some OF the great purposes oil It's creation and that II
should be reformed &c. Yet manlestly II there Is any
virtue in the principle laid down III this clause of this
hill If rubfs tha olona In nuup TO the
necessity for reform, &c. But it Is obvious, according
to this gentemans reading of the section that the pow
the part al the majority TO reform de- could only
be exercised ut the will, and III accordaicr win the
wishes of the minority But the minority, holding on to
power of course would yield their assent by de-
Gliding that the contingency had arrived upon which
alone according to the gentleman idea, The majority
would be entitled exercise the power of REFORM Ihis
the gentlenans argument necessarily arlbes to the
trainers of this sacred instrument the preparation OF
the. most idle Of all idle acts, viz that Of solenmly
serng principle which could never have any ractic;
operation whatever.
| have already noticed very briefly portion OF the
argument Of the gentleman from the city of Richmond
Nlr MEREpIrII) and come now notice, briefly,
another very striking feature of that argument 1t was
that in regard TO the alleged diversity OF interests said
BY him to exist in Virginia which made il necessary
for the protection of property to invest it with political
power He illustrated this idea by reference to the
existence in eastern Virginia of the commercial interest
How did he arrive at the conclusion that this CONNER
cial interest confined exclusively to eastern Nlrg
MIA He did so through the result of the tax
chants licenses as indicated BY the assessors books and
what the proof derived from that source: Simply
that this interest exists in greater degree east than
west of the Blue Ridge But does that show that there
any real diversity conflict of interest in this respect
between the sections Every question of this sort
whether particular interest needs for its safety
special protection is to be decided not By ascertaing
merely the relative proportions i'll which that interest
exists in different sections but by the fact whether it
is dused throughout the State pervades
it, To nllSt In It's support majority OF the members
Of the community who control the the legislative depart
meut OF the government Look the book in this
view and what does it show We find that this COM
mercal interest pervades every section OF the
wealth and that therefore it is peculiar to section
but must have its advocates in every section and that
those advocates far transcend what would be necessary
to constitute majority of those who will control legs
lation ia Virginia In every argument which has been
advanced here regard this question of diversity Of
interests gentlemen have looked merely to the prepon
Iteration section, OF particular interests and have
solely because such preponderance has been found
be the side of the eastern section concluded that
therefore there existed, between it and the west
section of the State diversity or Conflict OF inter
est This is great mistake The fact that one interest
exists to greater extent IN one section than IN another
does not necessarily show any incompatibty-an
dvsrsity-any conflict Of interest The smaller interest
which exists west of the mountain Is important TO
the less wealthy people of that region, the larger in
terest is to the wealthy who reside in this There
fore tax on that interest any encroacment upon It's
free enjoyment exercise and prosperity, would be as
sensby felt there it would be here and thus while
the exact value Of the interest might greatly preponde
rate here its advocates would be ready to defend it,
and would be there they could be here
therefore repeat that the question, in any, every
case of this Sort to whether special protection any
FORM is or not necessary to safety, turns exclusively
upon the inquiry, not whether the interest in question
does does not exist to greater less extent this
or that section but whether IL far pervdcs the
commonwealth nlis in its support majority Of
the community or body polite If it does. then
special protection any FORM necessary to its safety
Now with all respect, take leave to say, that my east
ern friends have not thus inquired and considered this
question of the alleged diversity of interests between
theirs and the western section of the State otherwise
their minds would have been conducted to different
conclusion from that to which they appear to have
had intended to pursue this question much further
than have DONE and to examine with special care, that
portion of the able argument of the gentleman from
pttsylyania Mr.. WHITLEY which relates to it, but
learn that he is absent from this city present and
addition l fluid that have already consumed perhaps,
more of the time Of this body than properly would fall
to my share
WILL therefore, pass on to the consideration of the
subject in the second respect IN which have proposed
to examine it, viz:
Whether, for the protection Of property, generally,
or any particular species Of property in Virginia it is
necessary invest it with political power! And, in
this connection, Will press tne inquiry Whetner, SO lar
from its being conducive TO the safety of property of
any sort, the incorporation Of such principle in the
organic law would not tend to leopard that of the Pc
culiar species which eastern gentlemen most desire to
protects will pursue the inquiry:
In regard TO property generally, and will again
state the principle upon which gentlemen claim 10
graft this provision upon this constitution The prnci-
pic is one which | concede without any qualification,
viz that it is the duty Of government to protect prop
| erty, and will say that any government which does
accomplish that object, fails attain one of its lc
gtimatc purposes and that then. indeed, no doubt
should exist of the of the condition pre-
| cedeDt" spoken of by my friend from Southampton,
the happening Of which would invoke the exercise of
the rghtful power of ga majority Of the community
| to reform, alter, or abolish it,
But while make this admission, | cannot concede
that order to protect property in Virginia. there is
any necessity to cothe it with political power Let us
briefly examine this point as ! must do so in
that style, to avoid undue consumption of time, 50
as to leave space for the consideration Of some other
topics.
l. Here will remark, and do so because il seems
called for by the Of debate on the other side vel
with reluctance, that, in my opinion this proposition
tenders between property and popular sovereignty an
issue of most fearful character and that it the de
liberate conviction of my mind this mode of protect
ing property and popular sovereignty cannot well CO.
exist Whenever that shall be clearly demonstrated