Year: 1866

FROM the New ork journal OF Commerce.


There are great many people among us who
still imagine that our Government is a Govern,
mept Of majorities, and who think that the
only correct principle of popular government is
that of the majority rule The recent discus
s;on in the United States Senate on the case OF
MIR. Stockton, contributed to that idea, several
radical Senators talking deal of nonsense about.
the American principle of majorities govern
ing. The recent aspect Of affairs at Washing.
ton should be sufficient to show the most
tbouehtless of Americans that the theory of
onr Governments not based on the absolute
rule of the greater number of voters. The
President vetoes bill passed by both Houses
The power is admitted. His veto is lawful
Every one knows that the President may be,
and he has heretofore been, elected by a mi
nm goes back to the United States Senate. 1t
ia there question whether two thirds of the,
Senators will vote to pass the bill over the veto.
They vote and pass the bill. tisplain enough
that if two Senators from Rhode Island had,
in place of voting for the bill, voted to sustain
the veto, it would have been sustained Now
Eere is question Of vast importance, in which
it is possible that two Senators may determine
whether this shall be law or not. We see that
they had gubernator;al election in Rhode
Island few days ago, and the entire: vote IN
the State was about ten thousand voters only,
whose two Senators have determined one OF the
most important questions ever before Congress,
Can not the simplest mind perceive In this,
how wholly different is our government from
government Of mere majoritieS?


But is it right that these ten thousand men
in Rode Island should hold such an immense
proportion of power at Washington? Of
course it is right 1t is the noble feature in
our Constitution. The. trainers of that instru-
ment, the founders of our great Union, never
intended that the idea of mere majority rule
should be part of the system:


Nor is the idea of the right of a majority to
rule founded in reason or. in common sense.
To those men who believe in natural right of
suffrage"-an absurdity which has been aired
to some extent of late-it may seem necessa-
~ consequence Of their belief that a majority
Of votes should govern But such is neither
the teaching of nature, nor the law OF God,
nor the deduction from historical experience.
There is no reason or sense in arguing that five
weak men have the right to rule four strong
men, because there are more .of them. A
larger number does not imply more brains,
more experience, more wisdom, more judgment.


And looking at the vote in the Senate on
Friday last, the truth is apparent, that although
more than two-thirds of the Senators voted to
pass the bill over the veto, these Senators do
not represent even ore-half of the people Of
the United States. Taking these facts into
consideration, it is tolerably clear that we are
not governed on the majority principle.





In the present struggle, the Administration
will be sustained by the sympathies and the
support, of all friends of constitutional liberty
and of that cardinal principle on which the
federation Of the States was originally founded
the union of Slocal seHgovernment with ag
yregate strength" President Johnson's op-
posers proceed upon the opposite principle of
consolidation, to the destruction Of local self
government. This is Illustrated in the Civil
Rights Bill lately passed, and of which, the
veto message declares: [


1t interferes with the municipal legislation
Of the States, with the relations existing exclu
svely between State and it's citizens, or be-
tween inhabitants of the same State-an alb
sorption and assumption Of power by the gen.
eral government which, it acquiesceds TN, must
sap or destroy our federative system Of limited
powers, and break down the barriers which
preserve the rights of the State. 1t is another
step, or rather stride, toward Capitalization and
the concentration of all legislative powers in
the national Government.