The weekly North-Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 186?-1869, 1866-07-18

| position is an offset to the other and we arr
driven back to the first principles of repre-
sentative republics, to decide any conflict
between these two counties There must be
supreme and controlling power in every
State, and in republic that controlling
pOweris, in cases of dispute, vested in the
majority. If you deny this, you destroy the
foundation on which the government rests.
/ Then why should the minority in Craven
govern the majority in Buncombe2 And in
disputed cases, why should not the majority
of Buncombe rule the minority of Craven =
Our government is based upon faith in ma
'orities-that the many are more apt to do
right than the few-that two heads are better
than one.
But it is urged, that those who contribute
the taxes should have the power of disburs-
ing them. That is conceded but the infer
ence they would draw from this proposition
by no means follows, that those who pay the
largest portion of taxes, should disburse. the
whole, their own and their poor neighbors.
All history and experience prove that $1O,-
600 is as dear to its owner as 100000 to its
owner, and that both would be actuated by
an equal anxiety to protect their property
and to enact just and impartial laws. When
money is paid into the public treasury for
the public benefit, if the minority who con-
tributed most had the power of its disburse-
ment, wretched would be the condition of
the toiling many who made an equal contri-
button according to their means. And has
not the majority in our State, in times past,
suffered from this unequal distribution of
power9
But it is objected, that the large tax-pay-
ing counties get no equivalent therefor, unless
in greater political power Is this true {?
Do they not have the protection of the laws
equal to their estates Are not the bodies
and lives of the 10000 in Bencombe devoted
to the defence and protection of the lives and
the property of the 5000 in Hartford ? Let
the history of the last five years forever silence
that objection.
1t is again objected that the Senate was
intended to be check upon the Commons.
If that were true it would by no means fol-
low, that the Senate itself should represent
only the minority and not the majority of
the people. l do not object to the Senate as
checking power, but to the composition of
the Senate itself, as anti-republican and not
rejecting the will and the majesty of the
people. The Senate should be so constituted
as not to defeat the will of the people, by
resting upon minority basis, or antagonistic
principles, but to effect the public will, by
cooperating with the Commons in giving
well-considered and deliberate form and sub
stance to legislation, for they are coordinate
parts, not OF different, but of the same branch
of government.
There is no analogy between the Senate of
the United States and the Senate of North
Carolina. Our Senate is based upon pro-
perty unequally distributed, theirs not upon
properly or wealth, but upon the sovereignty,
individuality and equality of States. The
diminutive State of Delaware, with its popu-
lation of 10000, is the equal of the power
ful State of New York with her 4, OOO,O 900 of
people and boundless wealth; and this not
upon the idea of a checking power of one
upon the other, but because the little or man.
Delaware, is a sovereign, and therefore the
equal of the great State or man, New York.
This contrast between the two govern
ments affords a strong argument for the in
dividual political equality of men, as basis
OF representation.
Upon what principle of the crudest form
OF a republican government is it, that twen-
ty-six senators represent white population
OF 10000, while twenty-four Senators repre-
sent population of 441OOOa Why is it
that 10000 elect one-half the Senators, while
270.O0O are not represented at all, and are
constitutionally disfranchised9
If the ordinance abolishing slavery should
have the effect claimed for it, of transferring
the taxable basis, westward, as it will to some
extent do, the injustice of the rule would
still remain. If it should ultimately remove
property and representation to the West and
leave the Eastern counties DISTINGUISHED as
the Western counties now are, it would only
make the natural and radical injustice of the
property basis the more apparent. There
would then be cry from another quarter .
for change of the basis, and with Justice.
For fifty years before the Convention of '35.
each county alike was represented by one
Senator and two members of the House of l
Commons. That inequality became such
grievance, that the Convention of 1885 was
called mainly to equalize it. Yet. that body
met with its hands tied to one remedy only.
that OF taxation as the basis of the Senate I
and federal population, of the House. Was
that remedy9 Is not the inequality great
er now than before the amendment of 1882
This Convention would approach nearer
political equality by undoing the work of
1885 and restoring to each county one Sena-
tor and two Commoners
The ground of complaint will never be re-
moved or harmony restored, but in one way,
and that is by making population the basis
Of representation in both houses. Establish |
that rule and let it work out its own results.
All will submit to it, because it recognizes
The equality of men; because it embodies
two great ideas of modern thought; the first.
that equality in representation, if attainable.
is matter of right, of justice, of humanity, of
Inc higher morals, and not of caprice or con-
only. And the second, that one
great view OF true reform, and real pro-
!ress, Is peacebly and gradually to remove
The artificial inequalities which history has
Produced; to cause the law ever to tend to-
wards the perfectly humane and the perfect
y just; and to bring political and civil |
lights nearer and nearer to the rights of ma
ure. The representation of land or money!
aid Sir james Mcintosh, echoing the senti-
nents of Edmund Burke, {" is monstrous.
ellc OF ancient prejudice; men only can be q
represented, and population alone, ought to
egulate the number of representatives which
my district delegates"s
What, then, is the proposed advantage of
property as basis, to population as basis
u representation The electors are the same
he qualifications of Senators are the same
he composition Of the body, itself, is sub.
tantially the same, whether viewed as a con-
ervative element, or checking power to
he coordinate branch-the House of Com |
nons-but the distribution of Senator'S is un-
quail and obnoxious.
Why, then, obstinately cling to this odious
nd useless relic of ancient prejudice? Why
ersist in thrusting into the faces of the peo-
lie this defiance to all the maxims of a re-
reSentatiYe renuhlc2 IF thu ciolop4 &c |