Litchfield enquirer., 1869-03-18
SENATOR FERRY ON IMPARTIAL
 t... aa SUFFRAGE. -... ...+


 mocrat answer them :? '''''- -.@
 The radical difference between the an. cient and modern forms of civilization consists in the recognition by the latter oi certain rights appertaining to each and ev- cry man, for the sole reason that he IS a man. The Greek or the Roman knew nothing of these; his fundamental law was force; the strongest was always the most righteous. The Englishman or the Amer ican, on the other hand, professes to de
 termine the relations of men to each otli. CT in the social state according to certain laws of moral rectitude, whose origin is clearly traceable to the divine command, '' Thou shalt love thy neigbbor as myself. J
 In the American theory of society, indi- vidual freedom occupies the foremost posi- ltion among these fundamental rights. While may forfeit this freedom by crime, no man, or authority, so longtas l am in, nocent, may justly, deprive me of it, and all limitations upon 1t are only so far law full as they are made with my consent, ex- press or fairly implied. 4I It follows that in an association of individuals which is call ed the State, the men who exercise the functions of government, which is linni- tation of individual freedom, derive all their just powers from the consent of the governed. All men possessing by virtue of their manhood equal rights to the exer- else of political functions, government based upon natural right would necessarily be pure democracy; that is, so much of law as should be needful for the well-b ing of the community would be enacted by the unanimous consent of .all the indi- viduals composing that community, But here, from the imperfection of human na- ture and human capacities, two Limitations necessarily arise. viz: fg l. HH9 ,itrw 5u
 1. All the individuals of State will be unable to agree in the enactment of laws. But as law is necessary, and the opinion of either the greater or lesser number must prevail in its creation, the nearest approx imation to natural right will be for all to consent to devolve the law-naking power for the whole upon the majority of the whole. The right of the majority, the,e- fore, is based upon the previous universal consent to submit to the rule of the ma jority, expressed in the prescribed meth cd, which consent, in. our system, is em- bodied in written constitutions of govern n- ment. g ..,,..t......,. .s- .,., ............
 2. Another limitation, springing from the physical incapacities of the race, arises from the impossibility of gathering the whole people together in a single assem- ply. But as we have seen that the essence Of right government consists in the con- sent of the governed, expressed in pre- scribed modes through the majority, and as this consent may as readily be indicated through the, agency of others as by per sonal declaration, the representative sys- tenn is naturally evolved by this latter linn. ,kc%
 cy, finds it's ultimate basis in natural right, sis, may with sufficient propriety be desig- hated democracy. ;. ig s..5u.5ailoa 5dl d ,r We are now prepared to. answer the question, "is liberty to vote right of the individual, or a franchise conferred upon him?p If our reasoning hitherto has been sound, there would seem to be but one an limitation of individual freedom, if all just limitations of that freedom require the consent of the individual, If that consent is only capable of expression through the representative, then every individual man has right to participate in the choice of the representative,ii At'. 39ag@5 at !nolA
 We urge, therefore, the removal of the restriction of color as an imperative duty,
  So long as it is retained, the State is in ficting wrong upon those who suffer the deprivation, and every one who votes for it's retention is guilty of oppression, To conscientious men this consideration is conclusive. Issues of mere expediency, such as relate to the revenue, the curren- cy, or the like, may be decided either way without violating the obligations of moral 11s, k< A fx,:4 of rights fundamental in character does violate those obligations, and the nation or State which is deliberately guilty of such violation is sowing the wind to reap the whirlwind. We, surely, of all people, should have learned that in a question of this character there is but one safe course for society or the individual, and that course is, TO DO RIaRTs09 naqga Y a yd .Jil
 We are aware that there is class of cit izens who will deny our premises and in- to be regarded as an individual right, but as privilege conferred by the aggregate sovereignty. Meeting, now, this class of persons upon their own ground, we pro- ceed to discuss the question upon the con sideration of mere expediency, which the topic suggests. Ff''' <1o5oal saii bsfuHan
 It is obvious to the most casual student in history that the .deyelopement of the American idea of society has tended ire sistibly toward the equality and universal ity of political equalities.n | Alike in Con- necticut and in Virginia, the connection of church and State once prevailed. The law of primogeniture was universal out of New England. The restriction of the sui. frage to property holders was still more ex- tensive. The first. Congress grayely dis cussed the question by what title the Pres ident should be addressed, and the Senate Committee reported in favor of His High ness, lbe President- of Me United States Of America, and Protector of tseis 'Liberaes. D All these things have passed away, and, doubtless, there are eu men who, regret, the fact. But it. cannot be helped. We shall never go back to any of them unless through the paths of firevolution. IOurpro- gress is forward in one general direction. Every white man practically claims as his right absolute liberty of conscience, an equal share in his fathers estate, acapaci- ty to vote at the legal age, and freedom; to call the President plain MT. Johnson. Men may desire to alter this condition of things. but reHecting men know that such aitera- ton has become impossible. no hsjeniW
 But while all white men practically as- sert these rights for themselves, it is pro- posed to deny the most important of all of them, because that by which all the rest are secured, to one-seyenth pf, the nation, .A-:ooc l,orr opd brnd and hv roNonf