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… .
7. Joseph Story on Representation *
Justice Story and Daniel Webster delivered the most memorable speeches in the convention. Both occurred on the representation question, Story’s on December 14, Webster’s the following day, and both defended the taxation basis of the senate in particular. They are interesting from the standpoint of political theory. The idiom and doctrine are conservative, even faintly European. Story’s speech, more than Webster’s, exhibits that calm, dispassionate, and deliberative appeal to men’s reason that had, in his opinion, “so powerful and wholesome an effect” upon the delegates. Story’s work in the convention added significantly to his already considerable reputation. For the past decade he had been a justice of the United States Supreme Court, to which he had been appointed by President Madison, and in that time he had shrugged off the Jeffersonian Republicanism of his youth. Only forty-one years of age in 1820, his remarkable career as a justice and legal scholar still lay ahead of him. Unlike Webster, Story was no orator. He prepared his speech, read it, and furnished a copy to the reporter of the debates.