one great capitalist. In such a case would they deem such a provision as this of no consequence? At present it is of little importance. Prospectively of very great. As to the inconvenience resulting from the present provision, this was amply balanced by its effect as a moral means, and as an incentive to industry… .
… MR. AUSTIN of Boston said that gentlemen, who were unwilling to change the principles of the constitution, instead of striking out this qualification ought to increase the sum, on account of the change in the value of money; he thought, however, that it would be impossible for them to effect this, and experience had shown the impolicy of requiring the present qualification. He would not contend against the right of requiring it, though there were strong arguments on that side, but he considered it inexpedient. The provision could not be carried into effect; it was the cause of perjury and immorality—it did not prevent a fraudulent man from voting, who owed more than he was worth, but debarred an honest poor man who paid his debts—and it tended to throw suspicion of unfairness on the municipal authority. He asked, what will you do with your laboring men? They have no freehold—no property to the amount of two hundred dollars, but they support their families reputably with their daily earnings. What will you do with your sailors? Men who labor hard, and scatter with inconsiderateness the product of their toil, and who depend on the earnings of the next voyage. What will you do with your young men, who have spent all their money in acquiring an education? Must they buy their right to vote? Must they depend on their friends or parents to purchase it for them? Must they wait till they have turned their intelligence into stock? Shall all these classes of citizens be deprived of the rights of freemen for want of property? Regard for country, he said, did not depend upon property, but upon institutions, laws, habits and associations. This qualification was said to encourage industry;—it was better to depend on the principle of character and independence which a man feels in exercising the privilege of a freeman. If taking away this qualification would weaken the moral force in the community, as had been urged, he should be for retaining it; but that force depends on education, and the diffusion of intelligence. One gentleman (Mr. Quincy) had looked forward to our becoming a great manufacturing people. God forbid. If it should happen, however, it was not to be expected, that this modicum of property required would exclude the laborers in manufactories from voting. It was better to let them vote—they would otherwise become the Lazaroni of the country. By refusing this right to them, you array them against the laws; but give them the rights of citizens—mix them with the good part of society, and you disarm them… .
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.
