صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

by citizens and burgesses, or others chosen by the citizens or burgesses, according to the qualifications prescribed by custom, or by the respective charters and by-laws of each borough, or city. In these, the right of voting is almost infinitely varied and modified.2 In the American colonies, under their charters and laws, no uniform rules in regard to the right of suffrage existed. In some of the colonies the course of the parent country was closely followed, so that freeholders alone were voters; in others a very near approach was made to universal suffrage among the males of competent age; and in others, again, a middle principle was adopted, which made taxation and voting dependent upon each other, or annexed to it the qualification of holding some personal estate, or the privilege of being a freeman, or the eldest son of a freeholder of the town or corporation. When the revolution brought about the separation of the colonies, and they formed themselves into independent states, a very striking diversity was observable in the original constitutions adopted by them; 5 and a like diversity has pervaded all the constitutions of the new states, which have since grown up, and all the revised constitutions of the old states, which have received the final ratification of the people. In some of the states the right of suffrage depends upon a certain length of residence, and payment of taxes; in others, upon mere citizenship and residence; in others, upon the possession of a freehold, or some estate of a particular value, or upon the payment of taxes, or performance of some public duty, such as service in the militia, or on the highways.1 In no two of these state constitutions will it be found, that the qualifications of the voters are settled upon the same uniform basis. So that we have the most abundant proofs, that among a free and enlightened people, convened for the purpose of establishing their own forms of government, and the rights of their own voters, the question, as to the due regulation of the qualifications, has been deemed a matter of mere state policy, and varied to meet the wants, to suit the prejudices, and to foster the interests of the majority. An absolute, indefeasible right to elect or be elected, seems never to have been asserted on one side, or denied on the other; but the subject has been freely canvassed, as one of mere civil polity, to be arranged upon such a basis, as the majority may deem expedient with reference to the moral, physical, and intellectual condition of the particular state.

1 1 Black. Comm. 172 to 175; 1 Tuck. Black. Comm. App. 209 to 212. See also Burke's Reflections on the French Revolution.

2 See Dr. Lieber's Encyclopædia Americana, art. Election; Great Britain, Constitution of.

3 See Jefferson's Notes on Virginia, 191; 1 Tucker's Black. Comm. App. 96 to 100.

4 See Charter of Rhode-Island, 1663, and Rhode-Island Laws, (edit. 1798,) p. 114. See also Connecticut Charter, 1662, and Massachusetts Charters, 1628 and 1692.

5 2 Wilson's Law Lect. 132 to 138; 2 Pitkin's Hist. ch. 19, p. 294 to 12 Wilson's Law Lect. 132 to 138. - Mr. Hume, in his Idea of a Perfect Commonwealth, proposes, that the representatives should be freeholders of 20l a year, and householders worth 500l. 1 Hume's Essays, Essay 16, p. 526.

§ 582. It was under this known diversity of constitutional provisions in regard to state elections, that the convention, which framed the constitution of the Union, was assembled. The definition of the right of suffrage is very justly regarded, as a fundamental article of a republican government. It was incumbent on the convention, therefore, to define and establish this right in the constitution. To have left it open for the occasional regulation of congress would have been improper, for the reason just mentioned. To have submitted it to the legislative discretion of the states, would have been improper, for the same reason; and for the additional reason, that it would have rendered too dependent on the state governments, that branch of the federal government, which ought to be dependent on the people alone.1 Two modes of providing for the right of suffrage in the choice of representatives were presented to the consideration of that body. One was to devise some plan, which should operate uniformly in all the states, on a common principle; the other was to conform to the existing diversities in the states, thus creating a mixed mode of representation. In favour of the former course, it might be urged, that all the states ought, upon the floor of the house of representatives, to be represented equally; that this could be accomplished only by the adoption of a uniform qualification of the voters, who would thus express the same public opinion of the same body of citizens throughout the Union; that if freeholders alone in one state chose the representatives; and in another all male citizens of competent age; and in another all freemen of particular towns or corporations; and in another all taxed inhabitants; it would be obvious, that different interests and classes would obtain exclusive representations in different states; and thus the great objects of the constitution, the promotion of the general welfare and common defence, might be unduly checked and obstructed; that a uniform principle would at least have this recommendation, that it could create no wellfounded jealousies among the different states, and would be most likely to satisfy the body of the people by its perfect fairness, its permanent equality of operation, and its entire independence of all local legislation, whether in the shape of state laws, or of amendments to state constitutions.

2 See The Federalist, No. 54; 2 Wilson's Law Lectures, 132 to 138; 2 Pitkin's Hist. 294 to 316.

3 Dr. Lieber's Encyclopædia Americana, art. Constitution of the United States. The Federalist, No. 52 to 54.

1 The Federalist, No. 52.

§ 583. On the other hand, it might be urged in favour of the latter course, that the reducing of the different qualifications, already existing in the different states, to one uniform rule, would have been a very difficult task, even to the convention itself, and would be dissatisfactory to the people of different states.1 It would not be very easy for the convention to frame any rule, which would satisfy the scruples, the prejudices, or the judgments of a majority of its own members. It would not be easy to induce Virginia to give up the exclusive right of freeholders to vote; or Rhode-Island, or Connecticut, the exclusive right of freemen to vote; or Massachusetts, the right of persons possessing a given value of personal property to vote; or other states, the right of persons paying taxes, or having a fixed residence, to vote. The subject itself was not susceptible of any very exact limitations upon any general reasoning. The circumstances of different states might create great diversities in the practical operation of any uniform system. And the natural attachments, which long habit and usage had sanctioned, in regard to the exercise of the right, would enlist all the feelings, and interests, and opinions of every state against any substantial change in its own institutions. A great embarrassment would be thus thrown in the way of the adoption of the constitution itself, which perhaps would be thus put at hazard, upon the mere ground of theoretical propriety.1

1 The Federalist, No. 52.

§ 584. Besides; it might be urged, that it is far from being clear, upon reasoning or experience, that uniformity in the composition of a representative body is either desirable or expedient, founded in sounder policy, or more promotive of the general good, than a mixed system, embracing, and representing, and combining distinct interests, classes, and opinions. In England the house of commons, as a representative body, is founded upon no uniform principle, either of numbers, or classes, or

2

1 Rawle on the Constitution, ch. 4, p. 40.

2 Mr. Burke manifestly thought, that no system of representative government could be safe without a large admixture of different persons and interests. "Nothing," says he, " is a due and adequate representatation of a state, that does not represent its ability, as well as its property. But as ability is a vigorous and active principle, and as property is sluggish, inert, and timid, it can never be safe from the invasion of ability, unless it be, out of all proportion, predominant in the representation." * In a subsequent page of his Reflections on the French Revolution, he discusses the then favorite theory of representation proposed for the constitution of France, upon the triple basis of territory, population, and taxation, and demonstrates, with great clearness, its inconvenience, inequality, and inconsistency. The representatives, too, were to be chosen indirectly, by electors appointed by electors, who were again chosen by other electors. "The member," says Mr. Burke, "who goes to the National Assembly, is not chosen by the people, nor accountable to them. There are three elections before he is chosen; two sets of magistrates intervene between him and the primary assembly, so as to render him, as I have said, an ambassador of a state, and not the representative of the people within a state." So much for mere theory in the hands of visionary and speculative statesmen.

* Burke's Reflections on the French Revolution. See also Paley's Moral Philosophy, B. 6,

« السابقةمتابعة »