Читать книгу Democracy, Liberty, and Property - Группа авторов - Страница 18

6. The Basis of Representation ^*

After disposing of the suffrage question, the committee of the whole proceeded to take up Henry Dearborn’s resolution to change the basis of representation in the senate from property to persons. Dearborn spoke at length, but the Journal preserves only a brief abstract of his speech. The resolution passed. The convention voted to reconsider, and Dearborn explained his plan for a democratically based representation encompassing both chambers of the legislature. Levi Lincoln then introduced his plan, which he expounded on the floor the next day, December 13. Dearborn and Lincoln, the foremost democratic leaders in the convention, were both sons of Massachusetts Jeffersonians who had served in Jefferson’s cabinet. Dearborn, who represented Roxbury in Norfolk County, succeeded his father as Collector of the Port of Boston in 1812 and remained in that post until 1829. Lincoln, from Worcester, was a lawyer and, at intervals, an influential member of the legislature. He was later governor of the state for a solid decade, from 1825 to 1834. The speeches of Saltonstall and John Adams—his longest in the convention—briefly state the views of the two conservatives.

MR. DEARBORN… . He did not know whence the principle, by which the senate is apportioned by the present constitution, was derived. It was not to be found in the organization of any of the republics, ancient or modern. It did not exist in Greece, Rome, Venice or Genoa. It was found in the British House of Lords. The members of that house support the rights of the aristocracy, and are their own representatives. In the United States there is but one class of people. They are all freemen and have equal rights. The principle of a representation of property in our constitution was not derived from the neighboring states. New Hampshire was the only state whose constitution contained a similar provision. If the principle was a good one, it was remarkable that it had not been adopted in any other state. The only reason he had ever heard of to justify the principle was, that the taxes are paid in proportion to property, and that the principle of apportionment was designed for the protection of property. But this protection was not necessary. Property secures respect whenever it is not abused, and the influence of those who possess it is sufficient for its protection. He apprehended nothing at present from the representation of wealth. But the time might come when the accumulation of property within twenty miles of the capital would be sufficient to control the senate. At present the county of Berkshire, of about equal population with Suffolk, would have but a third part of the representation, and the man of large property in the former county would have but a third part of the influence through the senate which was enjoyed by a man of the same property in the latter county. This was not just, equitable nor proper. He appealed to the magnanimity of the rich to yield to the poor their equal proportion of rights. The principle might be adopted now, but the people would be dissatisfied with it, they would constantly protest against it, and it would be at some time or other necessarily yielded to their importunity… .

… MR. LINCOLN… . The question now under consideration was on what principle should the representation in the senate be founded? He agreed in the sentiment that a free government must be founded on a system of checks and balances—and it was on this principle that he supported the resolution offered by the gentleman from Roxbury. But he did not admit that to obtain this check it was necessary to assume the principle of a representation of property in either branch. It was attained by adopting a different mode of representation for the two branches as well as a different principle. The object of a check was equally attained by adopting different qualifications for electors, or different periods of election. If it was shown by argument, by experience, or by arithmetical calculation that any principle was unequal, that ought to be abandoned, and another adopted not susceptible of the objection. He should proceed to show the inequality and unjust operation of the old principle, and then endeavor to show that the effect contemplated from checks may be secured by another principle not liable to these objections. If it should be shown that representation according to valuation was not just, and that the object could be attained by letting the whole people vote for one branch, and freeholders only for the other—by choosing one for two years and the other for one, or in any other mode which is not unequal—this principle should be abandoned. He admitted that if senators were to be chosen from certain districts, and representatives from the same, and for the same period, according to the plan of the gentleman from Roxbury, there would be no check. But it was not so with the plan which he had proposed. He had proposed that the representatives in the other branch should be chosen by towns—and the system would then be analogous to that of the Congress of the United States, reversing the terms only, one representing the corporations of towns and the other the population. Was the principle of representation in the senate equal and just? Our government is one of the people, not a government of property. Representation is founded on the interests of the people. It is because they have rights that they have assumed the power of self government. Property is incompetent to sustain a free government. Intelligence alone can uphold any free government. In a government of free-men property is valuable only as the people are intelligent. Were it not for a government of the people, the people would be without property. But it is contended that this system is justified by another principle. Representation and taxation have been described as twin brothers. But this principle has not been fully understood. It does not follow that there shall be an unequal representation, that taxation may be represented. It is only necessary that all who are taxed should be represented, and not that they should be represented in proportion to their tax. Boston would be represented if it had but a single member. This was the principle which was contended for in the revolution, and that revolution would never have been effected if we had had a single representative in the British parliament. Secure the right of representation; but in the regulation of that right, you may restrict it to any proportion whatever. Whether you are represented by one or forty-five, it is utterly in vain to complain that you have no representation. But any other distribution of representation than according to population, is unequal and unjust. He alluded to the case mentioned yesterday by the gentleman from Roxbury of one senator for the county of Suffolk for every 7,500 inhabitants, while there was in the county of Berkshire but one for every 20,000, which he pronounced to be an instance of most gross and cruel inequality. He stated the case of an individual lately deceased whose property of 1,300,000 dollars alone, would have as much influence in the senate as 1300 independent farmers with a property of 1000 dollars each. This principle conferred upon a dangerous part of the community an undue and unwarrantable share in the representation. A man of 1,300,000 dollars property surrounded by 1299 others of no property, confers on them an influence equal to the same number of independent men worth 1000 each. He contended that if it was a sound principle that property should confer the right of representation, it ought not to be restricted, and Suffolk should have eight senators. Imposing the restriction was admitting that the principle was false and unjust. Taking population as the basis, no inequality would result. He protested against any misapprehension of his feelings and motives—he had no disposition to excite jealousies, nor to prevent the exercise of rights—if they were founded upon principle. He professed a great respect for the people of the metropolis—but he protested against their borrowing, through the respect entertained for the town, any influence that was not secured to every other part of the people… .

… MR. SALTONSTALL of Salem observed that this Convention exhibited a singular and most interesting scene. A free people by their delegates assembled to deliberate upon the constitution under which they have so long lived, inquiring into its operations, and whether there is any evil that requires amendment. It is a subject of gratitude that while the nations of the old world are obliged to submit to reforms, dictated by standing armies, we are witnessing this quiet scene. But there is also much cause of anxiety. A short time since we were all happy under the present constitution. There was no symptom of uneasiness, no project for a convention. Our government secured to us all the objects for which civil society was instituted. The separation of a part of the Commonwealth, rendered it expedient to propose to the people the question of a convention, and it was adopted by a very small vote,—a fact which shows conclusively that no evil was pressing on the people; that no grievance loudly demanded a remedy. But now, amidst constant professions of veneration for the instrument, every part of it is attacked, and we are called on to defend the elementary principles of government. First, we abolish one session of the Legislature, which has existed for two centuries; we then dispense with the necessity of a declaration which has existed from the beginning; we disown that the people ever enjoyed their rights in the election of counsellors. And now the foundation of a great branch of the government is attacked, as unjust and aristocratic. Is the constitution to be thrown by as an old-fashioned piece of furniture, that answered well enough in its day, but is now fit only to be stowed away in the lumber room with the portraits of our ancestors? Let us rather meet the objections, listen to the arguments, correct the evil, if one is shown to exist, and the constitution will come out of the fiery furnace unhurt, still more precious for the trial it has endured. Mr. S. then observed that he had not expected a serious attempt would be made to change the basis of the senate; that it had not been a cause of dissatisfaction; that nothing had been written or said against it until the separation of Maine; that there was occasionally some difficulty as to the fractions, and some irritation in the formation of districts, but no serious disaffection; and he believed no objection was ever made to it in the Legislature, as unjust or unequal. He had thought also that the constitution was endeared to the people from the circumstances under which it was made,—in the midst of war; our independence not yet secure; while our armies were yet in the field. At such a time the convention met, and deliberately discussed the great principles of government, and framed the present system of government. There were circumstances also calculated especially to endear this part of the constitution to us. When the convention assembled, a majority were opposed to two branches; they thought the people needed no check: like the gentleman from Worcester [Mr. Lincoln], they thought the people were capable of self-government. Its analogy to the old council had also a tendency to render it odious; it also savored a little of aristocracy, and the leaders of that day had been irritated under the influence of the old government; yet they listened to the sages who were with them, and adopted the principle. The present basis of the senate is perfectly defensible in theory. Some check on the popular branch is necessary; this is admitted by all. Mr. S. then referred to history,—the English parliament,—to the national assembly, &c., to show its necessity. There are times when popular ferments are excited, that would destroy everything fair and valuable in society, if unchecked. Mr. S. then remarked on the different systems proposed. That by Mr. Dearborn would be no check. Both branches will be chosen by the same people in the same districts. Both would be subject to the same influence; be under the same control; and the senate would have no more operation as a check, than the same men in the other branch. Another proposition is the novel, the fanciful, the fallacious one by the gentleman from Worcester, which would have the senate the popular branch, to be checked by the house! A popular branch of thirty-six to be checked by three hundred and fifty! But what is to check the house? That will be the popular branch, emanating from the people, warmed with all their passions. What are these corporate rights? There is nothing tangible in them, which can form a check. Mr. S. then went on to show that there was no analogy between this plan and the constitution of the United States, as had been argued by Mr. Lincoln. He thought the people would never adopt a system of cheeks, by making different tenures to office, or different qualifications to voters. What then remains but to preserve the present basis; to cling to that which has been so wise in theory, and so salutary in practice? It is an admirable provision,—the representation of a great interest, and yet not dangerous to any other. It is the result of a new modification which will give a spirit of independence to the senate, and make them indeed a check—not to thwart the other branch, but to watch, to cause deliberation. Property should be represented, because it is the greatest object of civil society; it is not mere inert matter, but a living principle, which keeps the great machine of society in motion. It is the universal stimulus. The principle of the senate is not unequal in its operation, but the same everywhere, in all places; not for Suffolk or Essex—Essex has nothing to gain, but may lose much, by this arrangement. It is not for the rich, but for the security of all men and all interests, as it will make an effectual check for the preservation of every right. If in theory this is wise, how much more valuable is it after forty years’ experience. Experiment is worth everything upon this subject. We should be unwilling to touch what is made venerable by age. We should cautiously advance any theory of our own, against a system that has been in operation half a century. The situation of Massachusetts is a proud one. She has braved the storm which has overwhelmed so many old governments. They that laughed us to scorn are now looking to us with admiration, and studying our systems… .

… MR. LINCOLN rose to explain. He thought it disengenuous in gentlemen, to allude to a proposition which he had made, without any connection with any other. This question should depend on its own merits, and the Convention may reject or adopt the proposition which he had presented. He did not contend that it was just and equal in itself, but in connection with the representation in the senate, on the basis of valuation, it would form an effectual, and the only effectual check.

MR. LOCKE proceeded to compare the three systems of representation which had been proposed, and to argue in favor of the adoption of that reported by the committee. He said he understood, that some gentlemen approved of the plan proposed by the gentleman from Roxbury, for the senate, and that they thought it fair to couple it with the house of representatives, proposed in the system of the select committee. To him it appeared manifestly unjust to take this part of the system, without at the same time adopting the part relating to the senate. He observed, that some went on the principle, that the senate was founded on the basis of property. This was not true. The basis was taxation. The wealthy districts were allowed a greater proportion of representation in the senate, not with a view to the protection of property, but because they were made to contribute so much to the support of the public burdens. He concluded by giving his testimony to the fairness and liberality of the members of the committee from the large towns, and their readiness to yield everything that could be demanded in the spirit of fair and equal compromise.

MR. ADAMS of Quincy. I rise, with fear and trembling, to say a few words on this question. It is now forty years since I have intermingled in debate in any public assembly. My memory and strength of utterance fail me, so that it is utterly impossible for me to discuss the subject on the broad ground, on which gentlemen, who have spoken before me, have considered it. The constitution declares, that all men are born free and equal. But how are they born free and equal? Has the child of a North American Indian, when born, the same right which his father has, to his father’s bow and arrows? No—no man pretends that all are born with equal property, but with equal rights to acquire property. The great object is to render property secure. Without the security of property, neither arts, nor manufactures, nor commerce, nor literature, nor science can exist. It is the foundation upon which civilization rests. There would be no security for life and liberty even, if property were not secure. Society is a compact with every individual, that each may enjoy his right for the common good. In the state of nature the Indian has no defence for his little hut, or his venison, or anything that he acquires, but his own strength. Society furnishes the strength of the whole community, for the protection of the property of each individual… .

… The report of the select committee is a compromise, a mutual concession of various parts. The large towns have made quite as great concessions as any part of the country. Suffolk is to have but six senators; in proportion to its property it would have more. The eloquent gentleman from Roxbury [Mr. Dearborn], has alluded, with propriety, to the ancient republics of Athens and Rome. My memory is too defective to go into details, but I appeal to his fresher reading, whether in Athens there were not infinitely greater advantages given to property, than among us. Aris-tides ruined the constitution of Solon, by destroying the balance between property and numbers, and, in consequence, a torrent of popular commotion broke in and desolated the republic. Let us come to Rome; property was infinitely more regarded than here, and it was only while the balance was maintained, that the liberties of the people were preserved. Let us look at the subject in another point of view. How many persons are there, even in this country, who have no property? Some think there are more without it, than with it. If so, and it were left to mere numbers, those who have no property would vote us out of our houses. In France, at the time of the revolution, those who were without property, were in the proportion of fifty to one. It was by destroying the balance, that the revolution was produced. The French revolution furnished an experiment, perfect and complete in all its stages and branches, of the utility and excellence of universal suffrage. The revolutionary government began with the higher orders of society, as they were called, viz., dukes and peers, archbishops and cardinals, the greatest proprietors of land in the whole kingdom. Unfortunately, the first order, although very patriotic and sincere, adopted an opinion that the sovereign power should be in one assembly. They were soon succeeded and supplanted—banished and guillotined, by a second order, and these in their turn by a third, and these by a fourth, till the government got into the hands of peasants and stage-players, and from them descended to jacobins, and from them to sans-culottes… . And thus it has happened in all ages and countries in the world, where such principles have been adopted, and a similar course pursued. All writers agree, that there are twenty persons in Great Britain, who have no property, to one that has. If the radicals should succeed in obtaining universal suffrage, they will overturn the whole kingdom, and turn those who have property out of their houses. The people in England, in favor of universal suffrage, are ruining themselves. Our ancestors have made a pecuniary qualification necessary for office, and necessary for electors; and all the wise men of the world have agreed in the same thing… .