ducements to confer these rights. His principal
object was to have the colony settled as fast as
possible—to induce immigration to his prov-
ince,
Having that end in view, he must of necessity,
by every consideration of prudential policy,
which was calculated to make the settlers satis-
fied with their situation, and induce others to
come, confer upon them such privileges, as
would enable them to minister as much as possi-
ble, in a legislative way, to their own wants and
necessities, which were at that time, identical
and uniform throughout the settlement. There
is therefore, no analogy of cases, between the
people then, who possessed these rights, byvir-
tue of a charter most graciously given by his
must gracious lordship, and the people now, the
"eternal people," as the gentleman calls them,
who hold these inherent and inalienable rights,
by virtue (if their sovereignty alone.
There was then, an identity and uniformity of
interests throughout the settlement, which was
confined to narrow limits; and every intelligent
settler had an opportunity of knowing the legisla-
tive wants of the whole people. There were
no conflicting local or sectional interests.
Such, sir, is not the case now. The conflicting
and peculiar local interests, which exist in the
different divisions of the State, are well known
to all if not properly appreciated. In view of
these facts, the legislative body should be so or-
ganised as to guarantee the presentation, enjoy-
ment and protection of these interests, wherever
they exist, whenever it is possible to do so, with-
out working injustice to other sections I will
endeavor, in the course of my remarks, to show
what these local interest are.
Again, I repeat, sir, there is no parallel of cases
in the example? of that day and the present, nor
any thing approximating to it; nor can the gen-
tleman legitimately deduce therefrom, an argu-
ment, or establish a fundamental truth, in sup-
port of his views on the subject of representation.
The doctrine of the ' right of the majority to
govern" has been descanted upon, at much length,
by gentlemen who advocate the protection of
representation according to population, and has
been regarded as an insuperable argument in fa-
vor of this proposition. It has generally been
spoken of as a truism—an uncontrovertible posi-
tion—a settled principle, against which, it would
be the veriest political heresy, that could be con-
ceived of, to utter one word of objection. With
all deference and respect for the opinions of
others, and with a full consciousness of the risk I
run, of being characterized as an innovator upon
the rights of the people, I beg leave to dissent from
this broad, and as I believe dangerous doctrine,
unqualified as it is, by any limits, or restrictions.
This doctrine as advocated here, as an absolute
principle, has I believe no practical existence in
extenso either in the Federal Government, or in
the State Governments. If we regard, it as an
absolute principle, (I use the word absolute, as
applied to power) where, I ask, shall we go to
find it developed in every branch and feature of |
of government? Not to the Federal Govern-
ment—for in neither branch has it such an exist-
ence. The Federal Executive may be elected by
a minority of voters. Those who represent the
majority in the National legislature may be defeated
by those representing the minority. The
judiciary and every office within the reach of
Executive patronage, may be appointed and
filled by a President elected by a minority. These
are facts known to all, and it would be a useless
expenditure of time, to enter into illustrations, for
the purpose of proving them. The doctrine as an
absolute principle of Government, does not there-
fore exist in the Federal Government.
It is true, the converse of these facts may and
does exist. But this will not prove the exist-
ence of the principle
If it be an absolute doctrine or principle, estab-
lished and recognised as the only basis or founda-
tion of our governmental organization, it could
not be subject to this accidental defeat. If it be
such a principle, it must be imperative, unlimited
and unfettered by any changes or circumstances
of chance, or accident;, it must exist as a unit—
as a whole, incapable of division or qualification.
I do not profess, Mr. President, to be very
conversant with the organization of the governments
of the different States of the Union, and
it would be tedious to examine them in detail.
But sir, I believe I hazzard nothing when I say,
that this principle has, in no government in this
Union, any existence other than that which may
be exercised, and is only operative within the
pale of certain checks and restrictions imposed
by the organic law of the State. It is true, that
the governments of some States verge nearer to a
pure democracy than others—circumstances,
such as an uniformity and identity of interests in
the different sections of the State, favoring such
a tendency. Hut when we come to examine
them, we are certain to find some checks, beyond
which the will of the majority can not step with-
out the exercise of illegal force, and the conse-
quent violation of organic law.
As there are two classes of monarchies—abso-
lute and limited or constitutional—so, also, are
there two classes of democracies, the one absolute,
having no law but the iron will of the ma-
jority—the other having all its laws framed with
a due regard to the will of the majority, within
the pale of certain wholesome checks and re-
strictions, prescribed and established by consti-
tutional law. It is to this latter class that our
governments belong. In this class alone can
liberty be perpetuated; diffusing its rich and in-
estimable blessings to all alike—guaranteeing
security to all and shielding all from oppression.
The farmer class is liable to all the objections
of an absolute monarchy. It is more vascilla-
ting and instable, but, at the same time, mure
powerful for weal or for wo, than an absolute
monarchy. And its despotism would be as much
to be dreaded as that of the most absolute mon-
arch that ever lived in the eastern hemisphere.
It was in this connexion that an intelligent and
observant French author, Mons. De Tocqueville,
who misconceived, somewhat, the nature and |
