Year: 1862

In the Advertiser of this city, of the 18th
inst, is an article entitled "a Government of
Force" which closes with suggestions so Pc
culiar in their character, that they seem de-
serving of a passing notice. The editor of
that paper attempts to show the difference be-
tween government of force, and a govern
ment of popular consent, and then says, at
was in this spirit-the spirit of popular con-
sent'-that the Constitution of the United
States was framed and adopted" Then comes
the following language, which we ask our
readers to examine in the light of that com
mon democratic doctrine which has always
pretended to recognize the sovereignty of the
people, and to bow submissively to the fiat of
the popular will


Perhaps the most unfortunate feature in this
device of written constitution for the estab-
hshment of Government of Consent, is the
adopting of the majority rule as the concus-
i've and binding evidence Of such consent in
matters of legislation. For nation so ex-
tended in territory, so vast in its variety and
contraiiety Of interests, and so populous, as
ours has now proved in all these respects to be
already, with now clear certainty of its un-
definable future growth in them all. broader
basis than bare majority vote in matters of
national legislation would, perhaps, have been
far more just, polite, safer for each, and better
for the whole of the States. 1t might have
precluded the possibility of a combination of
sectional interests into majority, and thus
oppressin :, or seeming to Cypress, the section
al interests of minority. Were all the same
interests so equally ditiused through the indus
trial products, or acquired possessions of the
people in all the States, as that the same legis-
Lei HOS. ..lI,
cially affect those of one section precisely as
it would those of the other section, the major
ity rule would have worked safely, and secured
harmonious submission of all sections through


all time. But, as this is found to be physi-
cally impracticable, and forbidden by the nat
ural laws of climate, and of production, the
majority rule is beginning to prove a funda-
mental error of our constitutional government
as a nation, and it may have to be corrected
in order successfully to carry out that most
desirable of all governmental theories - the
theory of government iouuded and admins
tered upon the consent OF the people.


Nobody could perceive this defective work.
ing of our republican representative system
at the period of its inception and adoption.
For no human foresight could appreciate the
vastness of the growth OF the varied and di-
verse interests, and of population, and of ter
ritory, TO which We have alluded. The whole
essay was an experiment, having no precedent
In history or the experience of mankind, upon
the huge scale of seen and unseen, known and
unknown elements, that were destined to be
acted upon by it. 1t is wisdom, therefore as
fast aud whenever radical defect is found to
threaten the success and perpetuity of the
theory of government founded in the consent
of the governed, which our fathers aimed to
establish, aud which all their descendants have
been desirons of supporting, that those de-
scendants should join hands and hearts to cor
rect and amend it. and thereby avoid the utter
failure of system otherwise the most perfect
that the world has ever witnessed. Let a
t,co thirds rule be substituted for the majority
rule in all matters of legislative enactment,
and as the admitted basis of popular consent,
and the most serious of all sources of discon-
tent and discord oh the part of the people of
the several States towards the federal admin
istration will thereby be removed.


We have copied thus extensively, italics and
all, because we wish the reader to have full
and fair view of the propositions offered to an
intelligent people, by an editor who lays claims
to being the representative and exponent of
the best sentiment the soundest principles, and
the wisest system of political economy that
have been, or are likely to he, entertained by
the best minds among the American people
And what are the points made in the iorego-
ing, when divested of all circumlocution, and
needless drapery? They are these:


/. That the majority rule" incorporated
into the federal constitution, is most "unfor-
tunate feature"-"a radical defect" threaten
ing "the success and perpetuity of the the
ory of government founded in the consent of
the governed"


2. That this "radical defect" may be "cor-
rected and amended" by substituting "a t,co-
thirds-rule" "for the majority rule in all mat
ters Of Legislative enactment, and as the ad-
nitted basis Of popular consent"


3. This substitution is Necessary, because
"the industrial products and acquired posses
sions of the people Of all the states" are not
the same in interest, and the "salne interests"
are not equally diffused, and it is found "phy-
sically impracticable, and forbidden by the nat
ural laws of climate and production" to adopt
"the majority rule" which majority rule, un-
der these claws of climate and production
"ls beginning to prove fundamental error of
our constitutional government"


In these days, when life tenures are becom-
ing obsolete; when even judicial offices, like
executive and legislative, are becoming cleo
tive in most of abe states; when plurality
rules in elections are taking the placs of ma
jority rules, it sounds queer enough to hear
serious proposition made to go back towards
feudal age, and adopt rule which makes
the minority superior TO the majority. The
idea npon its face is SO abs urd that we scarcely
know how seriously to approach it with
an objection. "In all matters of legisla-
tion," it said, the two-thirds rule should
take the place of the majority rule, and
this is proposed as protection against
the possible despotism of populur majorities,
and to guard the rights of the minority. But
are there now no projections and safe guards
Does not the Senate-the arstocratic branch
of the government-have a check upon the
popular or democratic branch; and does not
the Executive, by his qualified veto, have a
check upon both, SO as TO defeat any action
that is not carried by a concurrent two-thirds
vote? And yet the luminous editor of the
Advertiser is not satisfied! But not only sin
all matters of legislation would he have the
two-thirds rule substituted for the majority
rule, but he would apply the same rule "as the
admitted basis Of popular consent"-that is,
there shall be nothing binding in even a Presi-
dental election, and no consent inferred, and
no authority recognized, unless such election
=