Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1867-10-10

in glittering generalities, and the Decla-
ration of Independence was not the pas
sionate manifesto of Revolutionary war,
but the calm and simple statement Of q
new political philosophy and practice.
The rights which they declared to be
inalienable are indeed what are usually
called natural, as distinguished from po-
litical rights, bu. they are not limited by
sex. A woman has the same right to
her life, liberty and property that man
has, and she has consequently the same
right to an equality of protection that he
has; and this, as j understand 1t, Is what
is meant by the phrase, the right of suf-
frage. If have natural right to that
hand, I have an equal natural right
to everything that secures to me its
use, provided it does not harm the
equal right of another; and If 1 have a
natural right TO my life and liberty, /
have the same right to everything that
protects that life and liberty which any
other man enjoys. / should like my
honorable friend the Chairman of this
Committee, to show he any right which
God gave him which he also gave to me,
for which God gave him claim tn any
defence which he has not given to me-
And i ask the same question for every
woman in this State. Have they less
natural right to life, liberty and property
than my honorable friend the Chairman
of the Committeeman is it not, to quote
the words of his report, an extremely
"defensible theory, "that he cannotjustly
deprive the least of those women of any
protection of those rights which he
claims for himself? No, sir, the natural
or what we call civil right, and its poll
tical defence, go together. This was the
impregnable logic of the revolution
Lord Cover sneeredin in Parliament at the
American Colonists a century agoas Mr..
Robert Lowe sneef's at the English Re-
formers to-day: "Let the Americans talk
about their natural and divine rights.
/ am for enforcing these meas
ures." DIR. johnson beloved across the
Atlantic Taxation, no Tyranny" James
Otis spoke for America, for common
sense, and for eternal justice, in saying:
mo good reason, however, can be given
in any country, why every man of
sound mind should not have his vote in
the election of representative. If a
man has but little property toprotect and
defend, yet his life and liberty are things
of some Importance" And long before
James Otis, Lord Somers said to COM
mittee of the House of Commons, that
the possession of the vote is the only
true security which an Englishman has
for the possession of his life and property.
enual claim to nvarv kind of nrotactinn
of his natural rights which any other
person enjoys. The practical question,
therefore. ia how shall this nrotection he
best attained? and this is the question
Of government which, according to the
Declaration, is established for the secur-
ity of these rights. The British theory
was that they could better be secured by
and n.ssionste multituds Gojdsmith
expressed il in sjpginp;
"For inst e,n,r,enc. sbows II, evsrvso,, r,o,ln
That those WHO link must govern those who
But nahody deniss rhat i,epoyern-
ment of tie best is.tbe hest eoyernment.
the onlv question ia how tofint the best
and common sense replies:
"Tbe aood. tits true. are l,eaven,s pecu,i,r care
But who but heaven shall show Us who they
sref"
Our fathers answered the question of
the best and surest protection of natural
right by their famous phrase, "the con-
sent of the governed" That is to say,
since every man is born with equal nat
ural rights, he Is entitled to an equal
protection of them with oil other men
and since government is that protection,
right reason and experience alike de-
mand that every person shall have
voice in the government upon perfectly
equal and practicable terms-that is, up
on terms which are not necessarily and
absolutely insurmountable by any part
of the people.
Now these terms cannot rightfully be
arbitrary. But the argument of the hon
orable gentleman from Schenectady,
whose lucid and dignified discourse needs
no praise of mine, and the arguments of
others who have derived government
from society, seemed to assume that the
political people may exclude and include
at their pleasure; that they may estab-
lish purely arbitrary tests, snch as
height, or weight, or color, or sex. This
was substantially the sGuatter sovereign
ty of Mr.. Douglas, who held that the
male white majority of the settlers in a
territory might deprive colored minor
ity of all their rights whatever; and he
declared that they had the right to do it.
The same right that this Convention
has to hang me at this moment to that
chandelier, but no other right. Brute
force, sir, may do anything; but we are
speaking of rights, and of rights under
this government, and / deny that the
people of the State of New York can
rightfully, that is, according to right
reason and the DrincipIes of this govern