Newspaper Page Text
± Jit* Jo ** JkXOfS. W EBSssoAr, November 11. The Convention assemb!* d and « .< o «enen with praver by tin. Utv. .Mr. Hor ner. of the Roman Catholic Church—ami the Ptestd- irto .k »'e Ch.tr. On motion of Mr. I*. »’. Barbour, the Convention resolved into the Committee of the Whole on tho ConsUtutioa—Mr. lVwell in the Clieir. Mr. JOHNSON mldrc-svd tno Com mittee in o*t) tan*-,* as follows: 'Hie sub eel under eonsuioration has a! re idy occupied much time in discussion aiul will occupy much mw© during ibooe fiber it to is of tins Committee. Its great im »Oi lance, its extreme delicacy, entitled to all the aid we carvderive from talent, from temper, from torbe »r.ir. ©. from eon* Cilmtion, from that free interchange of o jvn.io i which the m* >t laborious investiga tion of the subject ca » affwd. Oi the one hand wo are encouraged vy tie m >st anx ious hopes and by wr* anticipated benefits to result from success. on the other hand we are alarmed bv the most anxious te.*r-; the whole country exhibits to most intense interest; convinced as they are that u;>>n your deliberations depends Saui-h«f wi 'll or wee. W e are cog igwd in a contest conceal * it os you wdl I r power—Disgui *e as it ;v* y«si may, call it by what name you choso call *t a discussion of the rights of man iu his natural or m h’s social sta’e still it is nothing n»or© nor l* ss than a contest for power, fin gme vourself. s:r. presiding over a school of philosophers, devising po litical si items for all relations of man, iretaphy steal, ab "ract svsieu s, 'or if you plea-e, systems if iraticul utility, but whether they ix* me physical reasoning or practn J rules. thev .ire -till tho arms em ployed to decide the contest whether “the sec lire s! .d ■>, from Jud ih or the law* I be! a peculiar interest on this occasion because with one party it is my present le -.de ice. it is th land of mv nativity, to mar >■ of whose citizens. I am bound bv ihe strong •.»-*-» of affinity and blood;— with tno other party is mv projwrty and constitu ents, to whom I am hound bv ev*»rv act of kin lee--*, and bv t eendearme s of friend ship—'bv tlie co.iti ence extended to me bet • ire I li id earned it, a >d which has been 6iuee continued, though I thought it well might have bee 11«>-t by my remov il. Un der these circurfl-taoces. h id I take-: cou i cil from prudence. I should have held a strict ueotrahtv;—bat, dir I have looked upon both fair tie*, as corn-»*n nt parts of the -mne et.miiiuiiit- —-ban g -ome minor in'^rt sla ml ev irflv in un »r dance, but ident > d b\ the -aiuegovern©* it—having the same le idi tg interests—-having one C 'rnmon object—»he integrity, the liuppi i. s, the glorv f common ci intry — I had indulge J*' jjl i-fT u * »•> rjuiei eww aiijfri tho t ointi . wf . i; itfitf I have not f ,il< d hope. 1 co’:1 tv at this muJcsti .g crisis of, fl ira. when wien direful disre’/inw were fedpod bv mun-* t this period w*ie » ever* thing in v v»« K«t b' oe .dig ncc. or even tfaii u w.c.rh mv constituents h»v# so confidently placed tn »n> integrity, winch tbev hadco • fidod to toe w thout pledge. and without instruction, when they have left ine u* gui ded, to follow the dictates of my own judg meut, and to shape my course with a ssm gtv eve to what I bebeve will couduce to tbe pul'iif good. 1 h . ve h* e.'ed toal that has been said, and milch has be n al>M - ad. 1 have con sidered it with candour, and am fully sat isfiel. that bv advocating the resolution of tl< * Committee and bv opposing the amend* p-cut. 1 shall best advance tlie interests of 1 whs no advoc tie fbi the- csll of a Con VI..It Ml i . vc lou^lit C present « ’in* ■tit»r on » .ippdwf in theory red defective in * ctice. I h.». thought that the iw 0 ution of liie Cu niii*' e is i ;'c Ided to t»*r year- i a member of that quality w<s * «.. gi nog -md hid an opporro it •-.-•rviug i - cfT-cis. I ren oftnc white in tion. Mvsvlf re »res - vtives of o-.c tntrd part of th»* w mg i'itqui)!|U, for I behold the inter sis of ests of the West. 1 had **n tha c nse qoences. had witnessed the he it and anger e igendered uy the ttgttafi •» >f tfit'se con lot to be a nieuialor t*tween bolo parties. 1 had seen t iese onteiitio is fomenting a ' incr<-ising the evils of the system, se ’! ig tirethr from brethren, and pni dMeord. sft*re in truth there t t 'hty (>t | <t> il »i, espe tb** i i?e, h •- always been one ' *j ’t o; reform, and the i:ie . has »*iv »ri »hlv been ne law of 17^2 rn v—;f adopted a stn i •"'"ch tiu .gi just at me t me ofils 'l* N »d s m'# beroui* ur> qn.J nod aifixmg * >? value 1 "*I ii-u ,••.*. j » ti*i ii' *t Class : lc‘ ' r *f yi*' >e < i ijalad to t< c ‘U* — u * second, exel d»ug he counties of Puliick and Henry, and including two large counties in the Valley iho average value was seven shillings; in ttie third it was fixed at five shillings and \pence, and in the fourth to three shil h.igs. I irs bill was reported by the Coni i;.;tec, ar. 1 the Legislature adopted it, • emiug it better to do this until a re-as-j es-ment could be made lor the uhole ■State. The operation of this law of course | was unequal, the trans-Allegheny and the i Valley districts paid too little, the others paid too much—m cottsequ nee of this, the people of tho West had constantly b'-eri jet red on account of their poverty & fur the want of contributing their just share to the discharge of the public bur'liens: — h-nce all reform has been impracticable, every attempt lms been defeated and con troversv alone has been the consequence. In this state of affair*, (some other caus os of excitement intervening,) in his discontent was siewd upon to inflame the public mind—anti the fruit yvas the Staunton Convention—it assembled under -'xcitement, additional alarm yvas created; but the people I represented was not yet excited—1 was depute I to this Convention thus assembled, not tc rouse to resentment I or stimulate to mischief,—not to excite a !u: m or agitate commotions but to endea vour to allay these feelings and t" restrain •»!! * scene, with this distinct understanding, that all yvr nvked fv yvas the means of cor j rertiiyi the inequality’ of representation, and inequality ’I taxation. i his. howev er, was not ail then asked for by the Staun ton Convention—I thought they asked for too muck, they desired a Convention with unlimited powers—we yvanted a limited Convention, to remedy these tyvo defects, yvitb a prnvisicn in the new Constitution, fur’ts future amendment, yvell guarded a irai»st abuse, o prevent greater miBcmei. ’I heir proceedngs were laid before tue Lc gi-Luire, amja bill was introduced to call a limited Convention, and expressly to e qmihze tax iti >n, and to extend the right ol suffrage. If vns afterwards amended and routined to tie two first objects omitting the extension of the right of suffrage, ami it was thought not wise to ask for the pro vision of future amendments. J hat bill p assed the House of Delegates, but met with obstacles in the Senate, it was soon followed bv a bill to equalize the Senatori al Disricts. The first was laid on the ta hie in the Seiafc to wait the arrival ol the other, and both were acted upon together. The Senatorial bill only provided a tempo r irv remedy the limited Convention bill a permanent one. I advocated the latter, but it was lest—the first was carried by a majority of oue only. Both bills were in common obnoxious to the people of the Ea«t. and they opposed them both;—but some preferred the Senatorial bill to the other—but when they found the Conven tion bill was loit. and the other would be passed, a proposition w’as made by one of those gentlemen frc*n the East, who defeat Jed the Convention biU, that if it could be r -considered, lie w< ul I now vote for it in 1 preference;—the motion accordingly made, but he who had promised to give tif vote, did net redeem tin- promise; the notion of course failed, and die Senatorial bill was then taken up and passed. l'ermit me to tell you bow that thing l»npi*ened:—the gentlen.an who made the promise, intended to have kept it—it was ► bargain, it was a promise made to him seiii—Itie passage of the Senatorial Bill was .now it to depend upon a single member I w bo was considered as doubtful—lus vote ' tad been counted upon by both sides—un I ier these circumstances, a gentleman Irom lie East, met a gentleman from the South —they had a conversation, in which the gentleman from the East, was asked it he k i>'\y what he was about, and w as told, by adhering t > his former vote, be might de feat both Bills—Accordingly when the vot*' was taken, he voted against the re consideration. I afterwards enquired to know why he had thus changed his deter initiation. lie told me tt reminded him how unfit he was for Legislation, for he had been served as he was formerly, in his clt onon to that body, for knowing that the 'di if «»f his own countv would vote toj hi'ii, uud the Sheriff of hi- adversary’s ■ tv would vote for hi* adversary, he ;vui oeea pursuaded by his opponent, to n :\e the requiring the .Sheriff ol lus own c iiptv. t > vote, under the expectation (hat tiie Sheriff**»f the other county would also, not be required to vote—but when thev t : *ie to the last county, the Sheriff voted lor us oppoi cut. 1 enquired if he had not ,r ni-ed th it »!ie Sheriff should not vote? Vt sf Do vo i now intend he shall vote? \ ■ J Then yon intend'd to ifocejva 't*e? tYrtainlv! And I now rail upon all the voters, to take notice tint 1 have taken von in; and I warn the people against e 1»*. i,ng von. tor if vou can thus be cheated n the s me w . y you will be che ilcd out of your vote* in the Semite. 1 beg pardon for detaining the Commit tee w ■ a this anecdote.— The bill was pas s <1. It gave the people of the West their full share of representation.—It gave them nm Senators, when according to the cen sus at 1^1 (?, they would only have beer, en title ! to eight and a fraction. They al r >.i v had rheir shara \\ the House oi Del egates—;In*v then hid their full share of power and the new bill provided for the removal of the obj ection to the inequality of tue land tax Though I preferred the permanent to this temporary relief, yet l w .s then coa'ent rather than expose the wit tie Constitution to the danger of inuo \ t m -\:id ij iry. 1 thought our present tter suited to the trem n- i.td . 1 rracter of our people, better adap ted t » promote our lotcro^t* anJ protect nr r gips. -.u’i all d'e Constitutions of all it* other States of tins Union —I prefer -. I it to all, because of its antiquity—1 viadvated it because it was the work of our forefathers, and because it was the, child of the revolution.—1 ror.i ike unio when this great political inequality was removed, 1 have constantly opposed the rail of any Convention, general or limited, and have labored no little to prevent it. Step by step, side by side, 1 ha/e followed my noble friend from Chesterfield, (Mr. Leigh) in preserving the old Constitution, and he will bear me witness, taat I have (ought like a faithful soldier, and did not abandon my arms till victory was wrested from me—but fiorn the time the majority had decided in favor of it, m/ opposition ceased—from that time all wiso men agreed that the Convention should organized without delay, and all complaints speedily settled. 1 have detained you with tbs explana tion. because 1 thought it due to myself, my consistency, I neither expect nor de sire to recommend myself thereby to your I favorable acceptation. I submit my re j marks with the hope they will not be lost on ' the candour and intelligence of this Com-; mittee. My first duty is to tc know ledge the error 1 fell into in the early stage of these proceedings—the error of supposing that the order of debate ought not to have J been that proposed by the member from Norfolk, who now no longei hold a seat among us. 1 foolishly imagned that we Imd learned the rudiments at Igast of polit ical science before we came hen—that We •lid not now require to he taught our horn j hook, not to be schooled jn the elements of government, that the members of this bo- j dy had been selected for their wisdom, for j their knowledge in the science of govern ment, and for their experience; but I have j informed by all of my mistake; 1 have I been taught to acknowledge inv error, by the conclusions to wind) my adversaries have come, in tlicir arguments during this debate. It was the misfortune ot tiie gentleman from Frederick, (Mr. Cooke) t > suppose that there was settled principles declared by our liill of Rights, and to think that when he had shewn that any proposition was sustained by its principles, it was suf ficient, and that any proposition opposed to it should bo condemned. B it this vin unfortunate opinion has been made the ba sis of a most discussive inquiry into the natural rights of man; into a:i examination of all history, & to a period antecedent cv en to history itself; into an effort to un » gine unimaginable things, and t > cast odi um upon all principles and all political doctrines. The eloquent gentleman from Northampton, [Mr. Upsher] in order to prove how improper abstractions were, in dulged in a long tram of abstractions and metaphysical arguments, at last came to this hold conclusion that there were no prin ciples whatever in government. Well may 1 be supposed in error in imagining there ! are such principles, when the w it. the tal ent, the eloquence of the gentleman from Northampton asserts that there are no principles in government. No principles, S'r!—-The character of the gentleman is too well known, his talents too well un derstood to believe that he ready enter tains a belief in the truth of tins a sertion, but the nature of the warfire w-ged here against the doctrines behind which we en i trench ourselves, compels gentlemen to throw every thing into ridicule and conlu Sion —No principles! because every ques t»<*,j relating to government is a question of expediency?—-ecause every government should l»e made not with reference to any ! given standard, but with reference to the situation of the people fa* whom the gov J eminent is intended?—.ve ; nit the prem ises and deny the cowan .v— oes it fol low because government should be -adapt ed to the situation of the people, that there are no principles?—The gentleman would tell us with equal truth, through every building should he constructed with intent to suit the business to bo transacted in it as well as the individual tenant, yet (liar there were no principles of architecture. Surely such reasoning would require no re futation.—I state this to shew that the gen tleman did not mean what lie said.—I sug gest that the real object of his argu [ inent is as little to be vindicated as the plain meaning of the proposition in its : broadest application.— If it was intended to discredit those principles we have been taught to venerate, which have been con secrated bv the love of our ancc-tors, which we have been taught to look to as the guides fur our political faith, it is as un wise as untrue, it has neither been the doctrine of ancient or modern times to in culcate such principles—it has not been the opinion of any writer deserving the least respect from the days of Plato, down to the last Southern Review. Tho.y aro the principles which have been recommen ded to us for our adoption; for our love— and is it wise that principles which eonsti tute a part of our government itself, ild be thrown into disrepute and sue* ■ v argument or proposition, whatever b.. •-< character? Thus much with respect to tins argument of no principles in govern ment. Mr. Chairman it becomes us iu ap proaching this question now under cori3id- j eration, to look with attention to the real principles—the true doctrines which lay at the foundation of our government. Much time has been bestowed upon the declara tion of rights, it will not be amiss to look at it again with further attention. This delaralion is said to be the basis upon which the Constitution itself was formed, the basis sir, with all just government, was intended to declare those doctrines upon winch the revolution was rounde l, it was intended and an examination will prove that the intention was executed, to embody the doctrines of Sidney and Locke. It had been the province of tliese distinguished men at the period which preceded aud fol lowed the revolution in England to main tain the rights of the people against the rights of the prince, and nj deny its legiti-; mate toundaticn in the will of the prince: < inspired by the principles oflibert/ which i the history of the English government nad < infused into the people, emboldend by t.ie i accession which the rights of the people had gained from the prince, they came .or ward to prove that all power resided m the people; they did not confine themselves to the governments, which had existed, nor to the 'experience of mankind under former fTovernments, hut they availed themselves of that experience and applied it to the na tural and uriwearned relation between the governors and the governed. These doc trines clearly illustrated we recorded as :he foundations of our government, and they never ought to be treated as abstrac tions, as visionary theories, but as solemn truths; as the articles of our political faith and the standard of our political conduct. To rccal men to original maxims is recall in" them to virtue—this is the language ol a great political writer—it is the language of truth, it is the language of our Bill of Rights in the Declaration, that no tree government can be sustained but by a rc currence of fundamental principles. I lie advocates of liberty, the friends of good government, in ancient times, thought it important to exhibit to the people, a stand ard of perfection, which, though they could not follow, they might at least strive to imitate. The Republic of Plato, was writ ten to exhibit the hi"h standard of perfec tion to which nv-n ought aim, though it was not reasonable to hope they would at tain it. The Republic of Cicero, was written to endeavor to recall the Roman ^ people to their ancient virtue—to impress it upon their hearts; and recall them from i their aberations into which they had fall and reform the degenerucy of the age— <t ! was written for valuable purposes, and bad it been practicable to reform the nation, reform would have been accomplished, and he would have attained Ins efforts. \V hen Edmund Burke, who was as much afraid of the excesses of the French >rmciples. .1 I A A L - .1_1- - as any repuuiicun ougm m" pointed out with eloquence, with prophetic talent, the errors of the French revolution, and its deleterious consequences; did he deny principles—when warning the peo ple of England against these evils; did he content * himself with ridiculing princi ples’ or did he refer to the word and spir it of the English Declaration of K.ghts? It was to this spirit he appealed, when warning igunst French excess; and it is to the wnr* and smri* of on. immortal Bill of Rights, th it 1 ' j - nt tj bind the af foe? 10 is fit cv( ijnrican Statesman. \re wet idonot.il - to render ours vene rated and sacred, or are wc to ridicule them m practice? Is this tho wisdom of our forefathers? We fire told that the educa tion of every people should be shaped ae cording to the circumstances in which they are placed—according to die principles simportc bv the petiole—we should then enquire what sort 01 Legislation is best cal culated to support those principle* We passed tip* law, docking entails—*as»i be cause of the injustice of the system—not because of any intrinsic impropriety in making die elder -on richer than the youn ger. hut because t w <s incompatible with the doctrines of our government.—- The same wisdom dictated our statute of des cents—that law which declared property should pass to all children equally, rather than to the first born son. Ate not these rules of reason, and ought not they to be countenanced? Let us enquire what these doctrines are, and wherefore tiiev are thus obnoxious, and wherefore we should not reverence them. The first provisio> of our Bill of Rights is piere lie read the 1st ir ticle ] The first hoc then is the language ! of Locke himself, with a very slight alt r j ation. Locke declares that all men are born equally free, equal and independent ; onr Bill of Rights, tb it all men nre l>v na ture equaly free and independent. Wo have "heard a rommentaay already upon this word born, and I shall not ex end it; but ♦his sentence has given rise to all ih.s de flation upon the natural rights of man Gentlemen have doubled whether any such rights could lie traced to a -t he of n .ture, or whether there co del he any st ite prece dent to civil society. I am rcudv to con cur in the opinion, that mao can no where be found except jn a -fate of society, that he can no where he found without the law incident to society; tin- state which p-e cedes nil society, never did exist, unle lndaod Robinson t 'rusoe bo an instance to the contrary, aud the instance given in Bi : hie history; and then it existed only dur ing that time “when roan the hermit sigh I ed,” and disappeared is soon “as woman . smiled/’ and termi-iati i this state of na lu e. It is as well a law of our u .tore that we shall be governed b\ rules appertaining to society, as that we shall “hve, arm move, and have our being;7’ lor men can ; not exist without some law governing their ! relations one to another—he is compelled to labor fur his subsistence—lit* is actuated by instinct to preserve his being and pro mote his comforts—that instinct that pro motes tint com lor t and preserves that he | mg. pr.mts at the same tune to tiie law! which authorizes him to repel the assailant ami punish the off-ndcr—whether written j or unwritten, implied nr expressed—.nd! vain is the enquiry into that state suppos ed to exist with man as an unsocial being W hen the Declaration of Rights tells o-.! that men arc by rabire equally free and in dependent, it tells us tint those laws give' to all equal freedom and independence. These doctrines were maintained and were i avowed, not for their simple truth, but to declare the more important law directly ap plicable to the doctrines of government, j which was reared upon tiiia foundation, j “all men are by nature equally free,” &c. j —This declaration which thank God we j have the authority of the highest tribunal j in the ?tatc, tor saying a part of the L'on-J «titiition, wac intended for tlic wise purpose j declaring the natural limit to ue placedupon all governments, which the government of laws intended for the protection of these rights, could not be made to destroy, You are to yield to the government only those things which are necessary to attain the legitimate ends of government; not toy»el<< every thing which government is intended to guard. Your liberty and your lives are not to be yielded, for no government in its legitimate sphere, undertake to claim life, liberty, and tho earnings of labor; toi thev are rightful and unalienable privileges of the individual citizen. I now give it to rescue the declaration of rights from the sneers and obliquy which have been thrown upon it. [Here the second article was iea>lr Johnson having read the second ar ticle of the Bill of Rights, declaring “that all power is vested in and consequently dc rived from the people,” &c. proceeded— This too, Sir, is nothing more than a re-affirmance ot the ancient doctrine of Sydney and Locke, which was itself but a denial of the doctrine of Sir Robe.t Fil mer, that the right of the king was ol di vine origin:—this second article contains a j proposition which no one will now dare toi controvert, and to which no one will now . refuse entire submssiou. t j Mr Johnson then read the third artic** in the Rfil of Rights, “that government/ is, or ought to be executed for tho com. man benefit, protection and security of the» I people, ,,ation or co,nn,u",t3r* ctc- ) i This section contains a manifest truth, a I clear and correct expositon of a standard, j by which the excellonce of your gover*. I ir.ent may be tested, and a rule by which I government itself is to be formed, astanf lid which is surely unexceptionable, a ruli I which should be invariable ond mvioU-; hie. The first sentence provides tie j -tandard and pointing to the object en ikiry j you to compare the standard with the »' ■. ject and ascertains whether it be c<r •* tan . • .» * 1 _11 t. tt* rect or not. '> hat is the standard? Jl, ill modes and forms of government that is j best which is capable of producing the gen • est degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against tho danpr of mal-administration, ect ” Surely this opinion is true, if government be instituted for the common benefit, that form is btot which produces the greatest share of pub lic good; this gives to gentleme the till benefit of their argument, for it admits t ie propo.sitton that practical utility is tie standard of all beneficial governments; tl is I intend to consider when examing the true rule by which the tandard should be appS ed. I state it here, that gentlemen may perceive that in facts there is no distine t on or difference between us, and will nov proceed to the last clause of this third at* tide: “that when uny government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these put-1 poses, a majority of the community liatn an indubitable, etc. right to reform, alter or abolish it, etc.” What is here declar ed? The right of the majority to reform the government, when a is •*<>♦ found to answer the end in view. No one consid ering this subject, can deny the truth of tins proposition, and there ought to lie no difference of opinion as to the method of applying it.—The people grunt the power —the people grant the authority to l>e ex ercised for their benefit—the people, the majority of the people, have the unaliena ble, indefeasible and indubitable right to abrogate the power, to deny the authority, and to reform or abolish the government as to tins majority shall seem right The people propose an alteration rufW—the />eo ple who granted the power originally—the people whose happiness is to he promoted seek this change, and shall they be asked bv what authority you seek this reform? Shall they be told by one who is opposed to reform, “1 can demonstrate that you suffer no inconvenience, you labor under no grievances, you are happy, and no oth • r form of government could procure you iiie same quantity of good”-—and then de ni nd of you why you would alter it? what answer would they not give? We ac knowledge your sincerity—-we know you believe what you say—hut you are argu ing to us a question about winch you must allow us to leel, to think, to understand f>r ourselves; how great soever may be your superiority of intellect, your superior ity of virtue, your wisdom and your fore sight; yet ^r-ou cannot feel more than our selves. \ou are proving to us by logic that we arc prosperous and happy; but we feel, we think, we know otherwise, and we care not for your logic. He may tell them, you know that the government has ot attained all possible, imaginable happi ie>s; but how can you teii how toe new out- will ojierate, how can you tell how it will compare with the old Constitution?— They will answer, ihe right is ours—ihe -take is ours—the loss is ours—Ihe gam is our —we feel, vve know that happiness lias not been secured to us—and it is our pro viuce to make tho hazard, our risk, and therefore our rigut to siboln h it. Who is to judge between them? the answer proves the principle laid down to bo perfectly cor* rect:—;he majority must judge! The ar •»dc was not intended to set forth vain and impossible things, for in the nature ofthings it must result in this, and tnc majority must judge, and that is tho unquestiona ble meaning. It is not my purpose to take up isolated passages ir, the Bill of Rights, or consider it independent of the Conititu ; non; for I ad nit that both were nude at ; sumo time, and each sheds a light upon j the other, tmd whatever light the Coustitu tion would throw u .on the construction of , die Bill of Rights, ought to be employed. But mere is nothing in tho Constitution it self, nor in the commentary, which the ?roat men of that day placed upon it, no thing in tho superstructure which deniei? that the majority have this right. Is there * iy tiling? Nothing. I shal allow oth ers the;: ?q cbnsider lUo two together, f»r J rlaitu tlic same right. I claim y I to consider them both, amihe], *”?'g'«rPff* •>«"* then is declared? 1 hat as gov» J made for the benefit ot the woy. j^^Bj,|! have the right, w hen it is to this intention to alter or abol^T® was tins Constitution to hertxeiT^B notone of those who could r 'iitcy sanction, or that wc ha\c any to doubt its validity. It was j< the people, not with the 15:11 coaled, but both together, opouh ly.— I'hc great men of that day. rious forefathers, told our a ( believe the government we S'VcyJf^Kor the best we can adapt to y.>ur Cl jj and when you believe it not so. SI i the right and can abolish it— it as long as you please, unt.lj -^R,r shall declare it no longer obi>g.vC^Bro was tho compact entered into and is it not the most solemn pacts? t 'an it he more distinrt!rw^^Ka edged. We look then not to nature, but to the compact nfS0Ct^^^E„ which declares expressly tho r^^Hy majority to reform, alter or pleasure. This proposition cd, doe* not lead to the cor.clit.^^B ji Imcan-o the majority have the r^M, .th form, that therefore, the mi,j.sTRyV»'«ki right to control tho Legislation trv: it does not prove tli«t the hB? $ may not confer upon the niinr^^Bjt. powers of Legislation; tint i- a however, of property: but tlw which it should ho earned. J'^tih^HH; considering those things u: tunte us in our dolibcr.iiu ns. TiBbV> joritv have the right to reform; have, they should at lets* be they should at least U« allowed to explain their ominous. mid shall give the law. If will ocrur '.K|r to you. nir. that the eousideratioo question, i* calculated to prod'ieft hB& tie delicacy in the d*diberatini»it^H| House; we came here to enqur* will ot this majority; how then s r^^B ascertained? The people are rented here in proportion to th.'ir therefore, what may he in fnttkiOK' the majority of the members otth< Lfll may not he tho will of « m4.|ontv cf^^B constituents.—tor what is uic^f • L^B majority?—livery instrument intj^EXf derstood with reference to the ter of which it treats.—we are uifnra^H another part of this instrument. wU 0 the parties to the compact. “Even^H having a permanent common and attachment to the community, t IB» right of Riiflragc”—the q unit fa! then. aro the parties—they htotho rwIBt mty. to a majority of w hich the rigtn^H form or alter the government the majority then of these qualified iflp give the rule; and the difficulty wMI^H gest, is, how is this majority to b* ed? Wo cannot declare, 'hat mirvon^B presenting a majority of tins h-><iv,f^H present a majority of the wh'fapey^M we moat vote however, and all q’gSf' must be decided bv our nvijnntei^H tlm lull knowledge tha' they e*ent majorities of the people. 'itviKfl however is entitled to i mi ought to have its weigh' in r°<nniiN^J forbearance, a spirit nfconcih ,h<M t/^B mg disposition, a feeing; of cession; it is entitled to weight aadl^B upon the subject of lean uisjoritien.it^B ten referred to by gentlemen h»:rr;5n^B lean majority decide against this tn^B tion, they will decide against n m the people; hut if a lean majon yi^M in favor of this proposition, diend^B cule in favor of a great m.i joriiv d^B constituents. These niatteis ted to ho weighed for a« much .1* tfryli worth, and they are entitled to nrr'^B wc are considering how the |>ro;A-<itaM ; dopted or rejected here, will rffaW ! people, or wdl he submitted to by Mr. J. repeated Ins decl rnnoo.ibf® j question was to be decided hr utility. But he contended that irifl was so well calculated to riii*lcad this doctrine of practical utility ort®' understood. It has been found al laws had proved useful or saltW*B| men. What is your test of moral ty? Is it any thing el»e but thu» utility? and this makes one fhiaf»H moral or that immoralWitho* >B would not our prejudices and iatere«t*^B stantly mislead us? Why is mHT&B, moral? not because the lo^s of . would be injurious to society; b'Jt it would be wrong to permit met10 of the taking away life. Whv is^B he re nee to contracts proper? It w *** j cause in any particular case, it be prodnctive of good to violate a c^Bj hut because the faith of contract# Rary to hind society together. " the parent love Ins child? Butb*J*B is essential to keep society tofletWj;! : Godwin’s morality has been n#rro# contracted—" lien he adyocated themj of the Abbe Bnrtholomi in pref^re* vour ow n father. It was not bu^B practical utility which was erroneo^B its application of it in a more view of consequences. i Mr. J. said, that tho people I--B them here to ascertain what refon1’ t necessary in the Constitution; ar-d^B g-slalivo Committee has proposed to r^I he representation cn the basis of *B population. The gentleman fror.if0<B | mr had proposed lo amend it, by ting the white basis. He proceeded amine both.—But it nras not tob®* | stood hy tho word “exclusively,- y J ry election District, wlacli has a -•entative iu tho House.ofDelegate*1 have an equal proportion ol white p tion—hut that, that population viS ^ the basis, without regard to prop*".*, what manner this power was to fibred aiuonjj the whiles, was a V?