Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1851-02-18

5ZzL7AD71u015nD u 01I
did nretepd that the Constitution of 10 was adapted to
the principles declared BY ts trainers themselves While
they declared that all power was in the people nhe-
rentythat magistrates their agents and servants
and at all times anlenabe to them-did they adopt the
details of their government which they themselves de-
clareda How far from it. Did they not make the Gov.
eruor himself elected by the Legislature Did they
not thereby make him irresponsible to the peoplo-the
gvers of all power repeat, that they designed
ut the time to adapt the government to the principles
they had laid down. but they determined to enter upon
it and leave the developments OF time and experience
demonstrate the truth of the position they had laid
down. that all power in the hands of the people 1t
has been argued and pressed by every gentleman who
has advocated the subject Of restriction in this discus
son that they have the precedents OF the fathers for
that which they now urge-the precedents OF the Con-
ttution of TO and that of 90 and 80. Why, does it
not occur to every mind that by neither of these Const
buttons are they sustained in solitary step which they
to take The presidents of the fathers of this
Constitution What WAS that prscedentf They gave
the election of Governor to the Legislature, and the
stricton OF negiblty therefore not applied to the
soyeregns of all power but the restriction upon the
Legslaturetheir agents. No man has contended here
and no man will contend presume here that it is
competent improper to restrict the agents OF the peo
ple That understand to be the design of all gentle
men-thut L
utons-the imposition of restrictions upon the agents of
the people but not the people themselves. Our faith
ora bv the Constitutions of rs and g. lay this restriction
Of re eligibility not upon the people, but upon their
agents. the Legislature And here, permit to say,
that am ready go with gentlemen for all proper
stricon which may be proposed when they 60 for the
application of those restrictions upon the agents of the
people am ready and willing to restrict in the Legs
ature the executive and judicial branches of the govern
ment those who stand agents of the people but if you
saw restrict the people, in whom resides a sovereignty
must reply never never no. never understand
directly the reverse of the proposition contendcd for
that the object of constitutions is to restrict the people
regard the object of the Constitution to be- restrict
the agents and not the representatives of the people,
lay down the rules by which they to be governed III
their official acts; to prescribe the orbit in which they
are to move and to restrict tho people themselves
have already spoken longer than proposed to my
self but must beg the indulgence of the committee for
a few moments The argument urged on this sub
ect practical question-not altogether practical
but as practical question connected with the principle
is that the objection re-eligibity does grow
of want of capacity in the people, but rests the
,nan-that the officer himself is thereby corrupted
They acknowledge the capacity of the people They nj
once concede that the WISDOM the virtue, the inte
gcnce and the patriotism of the people adequate to
all political emergencies that can possibly arise III the
government They all concede this but urge that as
consequence Of this the officer himself is thereby cor
rupted Now, humbly think that these two PROPOSE
tons are the converse of each other and that each
destroys the other. Why the acknowledgment of the
capacity of man elect confesse necessarily his capa
CITY to Judge Of the manner in which the duties of the
office are to be performed and the details of the man
ner in which its functions have been performed. The
two are nseparable they go hand in hand and is i'm
possible to separate them If you acknowledge the capa
city to elect you must acknowledge tn ecapacy Judge
othe duties the office But stop here, and the effect and
consequences of the election is the corruption of the off
Ger himself Well if you admit that, what does it prove
II it proves thing does it not prove that all popular
elections corrupting in their endencyi The gen
tleman Mr.. TRRDwAY) shakes his head. But if man
ia man when he goes into Office and becomes dishonest
by having been elected does it not prove that the ten
ency of the election of the agents has corruptng in
uence Why the idea is that the man is an honest
in the first instance but becomes dishonest BY having been
passed in review by the people and appointed to the Office
by their voice II proves any thing it does prove that
popular elections have corruptng influence. should
be extremely happy if gentlemen will show me in the
subsequent part OF this argument that the proposition
for which they contend docs prove all popular cleo
tons to be corrupt should be glad to have it proved
to my mind. But what does it provei II this idea
proves any thing proves this that the people though
competent to decide upon the qualifications of officer
for any position though competent in the first instance
to decide whether he is honest or dishonest. capable
competent or incompetent though competent i'll the first
instance to decide to his qualifications yet they
incompetent to repass upon him. Ihey can decide in
comes corrupt he is dishonest plays into the bands Of
demagogues; ntrigies with political partzans and de
sends to unworthy means to secure the office In this
manner gentlemen argue his reelection Is obtained
Grant it. for the sake of the argument and what does
il prove Why that the people corrupt that they
Weld to the unholy influences brought to bear in favor
Of his reelection that they blind as to be de-
ceyed by them. II this proposition and this argument
can be reconced with the great principles of democra
cv-with the great principles OF popular government
"a. a L., Il
for do not mean IN Its present se1se IL can be made
10 harmonic with the principles declared By your fore
fathers in the Bill of Rights then confess that have
not the capacity to see it. But the very intelligent and
talented gentleman from the county Of Fauquer-I do
not see him in lis seat-very boldly and nnhesatngy
declared that pure representative democracy could not
exist Well our fathers declared that pure represen
tatiye democracy could exist Yes pure representa-
tive democracy-the gentleman first said pure denoc
racy and repeated pure representative democracy We
have no pure democracy. We do not stand in the con
dition in which they did in their democracy at Athens
where the people assembled in i'll the groves OF the
Academy to legislate in their primary capacity or to
legisate and Judge upon tho laws by them enacted
The representative feature brought into Consttu
ton and whereforei Does the representative element
exist in popular government from necessity NO. but
representation in popular government Is but conces
sion to necessity itself Where 10 the authority tor the
creation of the representative feature in the popular
government upon any other ground than that OF MAKING
Concessions the necessity that exists and which did not
exist in Athens Why does it exist here Because, the
extent of territory the mperfection OF our roads, and
scattered condition of people rendered extreme
ly announcement if not impossible, for them to assemble
in their primary capacity The representative feature
ia not based on merely the incapacty of the citizens
but it is concession 10 tho physical that rem
dered it impossible for them to perform these functions
Then because OF that necessity the representative fea
ture is Incorporated into Constitution But the rep
resentatve cannot step solitary inch beyond the
bounds Of that necessity for wheresoever the repesen
tative feature steps beyond the bounds of necessity
popular government pro taa' goes beyond its au-
tharity Here we find the hority for ecctnga Gov.
ernor TO execute the laws of Ae Commonwealth for fo
this physical necessity did exist the people could
it themselves, without the agency of the Governor
And now let me ask the question: if these causes did
not sxist-f the people Were to execute the lava by
themselves and not entrust that duty their agents
would or could you restrict them in the Of s
execution Would you or could you S say that or
somas should mott think not Then if you could
not restrict Them If you could not say who should
should not participate neither can you Say who shall or