injustice to the city of Baltimore, yet there was
some thing in his course which convinced me
that he would vote for it, notwithstanding all he
had said; and if he did, what would become of
his argument? What would become of his theory
in relation to population? What would become
of the respect due, to the immense wealth of the
city of which the gentleman talks so much ? The
gentleman stood prepared to compromise them
at two-fifths of what he insisted, was their just
weight. Sir. his argument is worth nothing
when contradicted by his vote. But he designs
further agitation, no matter what may be done
here ! I commend that declaration to the notice
of the gentleman from Washington, and the gentleman
from the Eastern Shore, who are acting
with him on this question! Sir I repeat, the
gentlemen from Baltimore city—the Attorney
General—is the only consistent man on that side
of the question He dares to look his own theo-
ries in the face, and act them out,
Mr. President, I have been drawn off in a direction
I did not design to pursue. I return to
my friend from Allegany. I have another word
for him on the subject of wealth. He maintained
that wealth ought to be represented.
Mr. WEBER explained. He said he was for
representation based on white population and
wealth combined.
Mr. CRISFIELD. This idea of wealth being re-
presented, was rather a ticklish subject, and it
might lead gentlemen where they had not bar-
gained to go.
If Allegany, or Washington, or Frederick, by
reason of their greater wealth, were entitled to
more political power than Somerset, why not
carry the principle a step further, and say that
the man who had the most wealth, should have
the most votes?
Mr, WEBER explained. He had not proponed
to make property the basis of representation.
He had simply said, if the gentlemen chose to
take the South Carolina basis—white population
and taxation combined, he would have no objec-
tion The table he had presented, a copy of
which, he had furnished the gentleman, showed
that he had calculated both the direct and miscellaneous
taxes, the taxes upon business as well
as the taxes upon property.
Mr. CRISFIELD proceeded. I am sure that
the gentleman from Allegany did not think of
the consequences to which his theory leads. I
am quite sure he did not think his proposition
was so vulnerable and so likely to become odi-
ous. as it now seemed, or he never would have
presented it.
But the conclusions I have drawn from it are
natural, and in every way legitimate If coun-
ties are to have representation in proportion to
their wealth, why are not individuals? Can any
reason be assigned why the principle, if true, is
not as applicable to persons as to counties? No
reason can be assigned, it is a doctrine which
cannot be defended. Gentlemen must either
abandon it, or render themselves obnoxious to
the charge of a want of proper respect for pop-
ular rights.
Mr. President, I shall not occupy your time
15 |
with an examination of the statistics produced by
gentlemen, to show that Baltimore city and the
west, are superior to us in wealth. It would be
quite easy to show that those in relation to the
luxes apparently paid by the city are falacious.
it would not be at all difficult to demonstrate
that very many .of the indirect taxes, collected
in that city, and for which she now claims additional
inffuence, are in truth, paid by the people
of the rural districts, in the shape of increased
price on commodities purchased in that city.
But, will spare this body and myself the labor
of the investigation and admit that the city and
the west, are greatly our superiors in wealth and
population,
But does it thence follow, that we must submit
to their demands? Are these the only elements
to be regarded in the distribution of political
power?
The gentleman from Baltimore city, (Mr.
Gwinn,) cannot conceive on what principle rep-
resentation is to be based, if not on property and
population There is another principle, which
lies far deeper, which gentlemen seem to have
overlooked. Government is not an invention
simply to increase and preserve wealth, and to
concentrate the power of numbers. Its object
is to protect the governed—the whole from a
common enemy—the parts from each other.
Protection is us great end; and hence its powers
must be so apportioned, as that every class, eve-
ry interest and every part of the State may have
enough of power to delend itself from the as-
saults of hostile interests That government
which fails to place within the such of every
class of its subjects, power sufficiently strong to
secure it from the oppression of every other class
has not attained the object of its institution, and
is not entitled to be called free.
It is a great mistake to suppose that majorities
have any natural right to govern. It is true, that
from necessity, they may assume such powers as
self-preservation requires. But this is only in
cases of great and immediate danger, and the assumption
can be justified only as long as the peril
continues, and its safety cannot otherwise be preserved.
It becomes tyranny as soon as the extremity
had ceased to press. It is the same light
which every one possesses to preserve his own
life and liberty; it arises in similar necessity,
and must be exercised with similar limitation by
society. It never can justly become the foundation
of regular and systematic government. The
only rightful authority which belongs to majorities
arises from compact. In a state of nature,
one man has no right to control his fellow, or
one class or section of a community to con-
trol another class or section. Each is equally
free equally independent and possesses equal
rights. In forming governments each member
of society acts for himself; he surrenders such
powers as he can do without, and retains such
as are essential to his own prelect on. So with
different classes of society, and different sections
of the State. Each gives up to be administered
by the common authority, for the common bene-
fit such powers as promote that object; and re-
tains such, as from a view of the dangers to |
