Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1851-05-09

esehtatlves says lie. in the legislative department
Tue government are elected by counties and districts
ana nor by general ticket and therefore the majority d,
not anu cannot govern That the assertion bu
"ee IS Tue proof Upon what evidence what state
OF acS does the gentleman arrive at the conclusion thai
the majority of the suffrasas do not and cannot
III ishl' because they elect their representatives BIZ
equities anu dlstrctSi Let suppose. for the ilu:
.roh OF this point that there are one hundred counte
!" gihia. each Containing one thousand vot"r- ana
.n'' nv one Oh These counties bv majority of one
vote IN each county should elect in favor
81 some measures and the remaining forty counio
" similar majority OF vote in each should ,l.c.
representatives. opposed that measure would NOT th
majority OF the voters of the State covernf Would no,
tile measure have the sanction of ncyl, tvo tbors,n
1eufitS OF the voters OF the Stata True the voter.
would not act directly upon the measure Rut ,o,or;
y vi 'Aem would have their wills reflected tbr9uI
thelr representatives And thus III. ,,,;or;t. VT
govern Is fully as if those representatives had hen
elec.c'l u general ticket The majority would Govern
IN each county, and then through those COMET ~,
ties the majority Of the people of the STATE wo1 n.
efh he majority of the voters in n majority of tLa
counties would necessariy carry majority Of th
OF the commonwealth. How then does ibo ;a.I,
arrive III III" conclusion that because representatives
c!eced by counties and districts the naioritv ~ fla
suiraSans o the State cannot govcm But the connt;c
ana districts OF this State do not contain conol
OF silrasans, and from that arises the imposh;l;
" OF the majority to govern. The existence ne tbn,
cause renders 1t almost impossible to calculate tho
Csc number OF the majority i'll any case But still
think in most cases. if not in ALL the majority Of thr
voters OF the State do If thereare one hundred
and nifty Counties in the commonwealth each contn;u
d!ierent number OF voters and representative y.r
10 specified number of voters then the result will ut
be charged The specified number in one county or dis
trct VIII constitute one representative and double that
NUMBER N another county or district will cnnsttut.
two representatives sc. And then the general rcel,
In the whole State will be- us have bc.r, shown j.,
the case supposed. Proof Of this NAV be fonI IN l
past elections of the State upon party politics to l;
snail refer only for illustration In presidential cleo
tons, when the vote of the State is coun.cd in t ,,
gregate the elections Indicate majority in favor t. tho
democratic party. and in other elections whore rho
votes OF The counties arc counted the same rc.ul, i
shown ny the election Of ma oriy of democratic mem
berS OF the Legislature. Thus proving that monritr
OF tic voters Ill the State do govern although they vote
ny counties and districts in which the number Of yotr
Is unequal SO, then, you may distrc; or divide coun.
ties rs YOU please, if YOU give certain number of r
personalities to specified number of sufrarap. TIC
majority OF the number Of the voters in the common
wealth must OF necessity govern in nine cases OF; OF ten
ihen what authority or what reason had the gentleman
Tor saying that the principle of the majority Of numbers
does not and cannot apply in Virginia when as is clear
the political opinions Of that majority is invariably re-
1ected through their representatives in tie General
Assembly And that too, notwithstanding those nle,.,-
bes are elected by counties and districts and not bv
tilhct his argument Il wholly
the facts.
i'u 1t was further arguedupon this point that in con.
sequence OF the inequality OF population in the varot:
Counties there would necessarily be fractions in nan
0! them But that does destroy the power of tie
majority rs think Is clearly shown by the instance
nave before gwen Of the votes upon party politics Those
fractions have existed heretofore and ~. we hay. seen
they did not destroy the powers of the majority it is
not reasonable then TO suppose that in the future that
thing accomplish what has never before been able
I" eitcet- destruction of the majority power W.. can
only Judge Of the future bv the past Like causes ,ro
duce like effects We can only provide for the difficulty
caused by these fractions that Will exist under any basil
we may adopt, by handing from the counties hay
ing fractions the ratio to those having fractions
under. In doing this. due regard must be had TO III,
similarity OF interests and principles of the dcrcn
counties between which the fractions are transferred
That is all we do under the difficulties of ph.sicu
causes and the impcrfections of finite human res >o
Perfection belongs not to The shortncss of 1mar
foresight. the inbecilitv of the human mind and ti
many difficulties By which man i surrounded rec;r
o HIM only the adoption or correct principle and il
adjusting the details Of tina: principle to approxhna,
perfection rs nearly as human imperecton will admit
And know OF No better wa Of doing this than );
giving the surplus OF county the e!ci; of aDuth
er having due regard in 81 such cases to the icnt
OF the piiHr pies and the interest Of the people o tn
counties But if vou adept the mixed basis or the ice
raj basis or any other the difficulty will exist
And adopt what basis We may, will be driven
amid the frailties of human nature the imperfect ION
human wisdom and the finite character Of :l, tn,
consequent mperecon Of Ill his works-o feel for III,
right path and 10 walk therein as closely as the atura
blindness OF our minds will admit.
But the most extraordinary argument upon this sub
iect OF the right of the ma ory to govern that have
! ever heard here or elsewhere, that Of the same
gentleman from Halifax (Mr EDMrxrs) 1t struck nj
peculiarly strange, coming rs it did from a Iea,ii
gentleman OF the democratic party His proposition
was that the majority rule erardc, in the
ganizaton of the Senate of the United States In tn
organization OF that body, said he, the little State o
Delaware, with her few thousand populations, has 4:
much representation the great State Of New Tors
! with her millions of inhabitants ia thai instance. hc
sid, total disregard of the right of the ma ority
exhibited In the organization OF the [ itcd State.
Senate rs the argument goes, the majority OF Numbers
Is d:rc.rdcd because the same representation il yri
70 4 State with but few inhabitants that is given to
State Containing millions Of people. have b.,
fore heard any doctrine advanced b.; any ore. Eat
vorcd strongly of consolidation as that n.yc
have and hope and trust | never will again But i
that proposition truc l. the government of the Unite,
States consolidated unit are the people of the dit
fercnt States represented in the Senate Of the Unite
| States numerically. Are the people rs such repre-
-ented in that body at all Z Is representation in In,
Senate Of the United States, based upon the population
OF Delaware, the population of New York and OF Er
gua and the other Suites of the concderacy: II So
then the government of the United States Is not con
federated Union, but consolidated unit And State
rights and State sovereignty gone. forever gone
And if that doctrine should be receives. as true il vii
not nc long before the States themseveS-Statc pryan
z,toa, and State constitutions and laws will be gon
too-swallowcd up in great central IcspotSa Il.
have holy horror OF such sentiments and rs 4. Stat
right democrat. | repudiatc them now and forever
Upon what is representation in the Senate of The Unite
States based had always thought, and still think
it was based upon State sovereignty, and upon III
people OF the different States nuinercaly IF So tho
the question may very naturally arise is the .nainr
rGc regarded or not: The little State ri De!aw"r'
with her few thousand population Possesses -: mus
State sovereignty, Presume. the great State ri W;
York with her millions OF inhabitants Where i: III
! difference II New York has more State soverciyn
than Delaware, because she Is larger. then | sup2os,
upon the same reasoning, large would hare NOR
natural sovereignty than small II the State so"t
regnty of each state is the then wherein i, I'll
;he Senate OF the Uuit.h Sta;eS: Each State has
representatives in that body; Delaware has two, Ncy
York two Virginia two and with all the othc: state
Tie :wo Senators from Delaware represent her sovt
reigntv; the two from New York represent her
I res.ntv and so witt; all the other States And in tia
I body majority OF those representatives decide 81
matters that come before them for their action. II
therefore totally unable TO how or wherein the
ory principle is srcarlcd in that body, either in it
organization or in its action under that organization
/, When upon this biect, the gentleman from
Halifax (lr EpxrSp- referred to the magma caarta
English liberty: and if understood him correctly, ia