The weekly North-Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 186?-1869, 1866-06-20

j. M. MCCORKLE.
To Messrs. GRIssoM, LOGAN, HARRIS and
others. lfT
SPEECH.
MR.. PRESIDENT: heartily approve the
amendment offered by the Delegate from
Granville, (AIr. Grissom) believing it to be
step in the right direction. Before entering
upon the discussion of the subject. matter
before this body, permit me to say, that am
solely governed in the vote which l shall be
called upon to give, by what conceive to
be the best interests of the State. The dis
tihguished delegate from Wake CMr. Moore)
has expressed the wish, that the vote which
will be taken on the amendment proposed
by the delegate from Granville, (Mr. Girls
SOM shall be regarded as test of the sense
of this body upon all the property qualifca-
tons for every office requiring it under the
Constitution of North Carolina. Concurring
in the wish of my distinguished friend, that
the vote which will be given on the amend
ment now under consideration shall be re-
garded as indicated by him, shall not
contine myself to discussion of the subject
matter now Immediately before us, but my
remarks shall be directed to the enquiry,
whether property qualifications for any office
known to our Constitution are compatible
with the form of government under which
we live?
In the first place, Mr.. President, shall at
tempt to show how property qualification
for office first became engrafted upon the
Constitution of the State; and secondly, that
such qualification for Office has neither
here, nor under any other Government based
upon republican principles, had the effect of
promoting more wholesome legislation than
in those States where such qualification for
office is not required; and lastly, purpose
showing that such restrictions are inconsis-
tent in any Government founded upon the
popular will, with all ideas of political JUS
tice and equality If L succeed in establish
ing the last two propositions trust no dele
gate on this floor will insist upon its reten-
ton in our organic law for by reason of
property qualification for Office, as it has
heretofore existed in this State, the electors
are restricted in choosing members for the
House of Commons to one-fifth of its entire
voting population: This disproportion is
still greater for Senators and by far grea-
ter still for Governor. Such being the case,
the enquiry arises why this discrimination
upon what principle is it that four-ffths of
the entire voting population of the State, are
required, if they vote at all, to cast their
suffrages for persons belonging to one fifth
of the white male adults9 upon what prin-
cipal of political economy, is it that the cleo
tor has not the right to bestow his vote upon
any citizen of the State, who may be most
acceptable to him Surely the advocate for
retaining property qualification for office
will be able to assign some wise and Who'll
some reason, for this wholesale prescription
of at least four-ffths of the voters of the
State. With great Difference to the opinions
of delegates who advocate the retention of
property qualification for office, have yet to
hear the first satisfactory reason given why
North Carolina has always been so exclusive
in bestowing her fayors upon so small por-
ton of her children. Upon what principle of
political economy is it that she regards four
fifths of her citizens as unworthy, and inca
pable of having bestowed upon them her
executive and legislative offices I ask
delegates to point out what limitation ought
there to beupon requiring property qualifi-
cation for office If, as is the case with US,
four-fifths of the voters of the State are ex-
Guided from being eligible to Office, why can
not nine-tenths be also excluded If the
fifths of the white male adults from eligibi-
lily to office, what is there to exclude any
number they see proper, by requiring such
property qualification as will forever pro-
scribe every body from being eligible to
office, except few of the wealthiest voters OF
the State Icall the attention Of delegates to
the consideration of this view of the subject,
not that have any fear that such thing
will ever happen with US, but for the pur-
pose of controverting the idea, that any kind
of property qualification for Office can be
consistent with the theory that in a Repub-
ican government, restrictions can be placed
upon the majority of the people SO as to de-
bar them from participating in the admins
tration of the government. Any one must
see at glance that the admission of such
principle is wholly at variance with all our
ideas of the doctrine enunciated in our Bill OF
Rights, that all political power is vested in
and derived from the people only. How is
it, Mr. President, that property qualification
for office first became engrafted into our
State Constitution Ipurpose answering
this enquiry, and beg delegates to keep
steadily in view the great difference between
the form of government from whence we Dor
rowed the idea of property qualification for
Office and the principle upon which our own
government was founded.
At the time of the adoption of our State
Constitution in 1776, our ancestors derived
all their ideas of free government from
England; they had been reared under her
laws; she had been their only political pro-
tector. All of their sympathies had thereto
fore clustered around the British Constitu-
ton, and they believed that her system of
government was better calculated to protect
life, liberty and property than under any
other known political system. They were
fully imbued with the idea, that as
property qualification was prerequisite
for Office in England, it was absolutely
essential that it should likewise be adopted
here. In framing, then, form of govern
ment, based upon the grand idea that all
political power is vested in and derived
from the people only, they failed to draw
the distinction between the British govern
ment, and that which they proposed adopt
ing. The former was limited monarchy,
interviewer with all the constituents of an
aristocracy, Property and power were the
all-controlling elements governing the Eng
llsh form of government; the protection of
the subject, although well cared for, was
subordinate to the two other objects-that
OF protecting property and perpetuating
power.
Under the British government the masses of
the people are not only excluded from seats in
her legislative halls, but are likewise de-
priyed OF even the right of voting for mem